I always feel a little uncomfortable complaining about the differences between men's and women's clothes. On the one hand, "fashion" or design esthetics not withstanding, the quality, cleanability, and practicalities tend to be much lower than comparable articles for men, and stich for stitch and seam for seam they prices tend to be higher. On the other hand it doesn't seem to be true that women lack agency in their purchasing decisions, nor probable that women's actual buying habits have no correlation with the products designers, manufacturers, and retailers make available.

But when I go shopping with my 11-year-old daughter, compared to what was available for my son three years ago when he was 11 (he's now 14), I... gotta chafe about it. A lot.

Case in point, both my kids have ipod-sized hand-me-down smart phones. These fit effortlessly into the front pockets of my son's jeans. The same size phone sticks out of my daughter's jeans pockets because for some incredibly baroque reason girl-jeans pockets are only about three inches deep.

Anyway, since I don't feel comfortable about carping about it stand-alone I'm really, really happy to endorse the following post by Suzanne Reisman , who says

Dear Women’s Athletic Apparel Manufacturers:

I appreciate that you understand that women should be active and earn your livings by producing clothing to enable us ladies to engage in physical fitness. However, what is wrong with you? Most of you seem to produce clothing for men and women, and of course, the men’s gear is a jillion times better.

First off, almost all shorts made for men have pockets. You seem to understand that men carry shit with them – like keys and ID and money and music machines and maybe even inhalers or tissues – when they run. Guess what? Women need those items too! Especially asthmatic ones! Those little “key pockets” are nice for a key, but otherwise they are fucking bullshit. I need to carry my inhaler with me, just in case. Where shall I put it in your pocketless shorts?

This brings us to the length of shorts. Men’s shorts come in a variety of lengths, from the short running kind to straight legs that extend to their knees. Women’s shorts, on the other hand, come in two sizes: short and even shorter.

Source: Cuss and Other Rants

I know, I know, the theory is that it's just a waste of time putting pockets in women's slacks because everyone knows All Ladies Carry Purses Anyway. Except, you know, when they run or do sports. So WTF is the deal with women's athletic shorts then?

Photo by Flickr user Katie Stein. Used under a Creative Commons license.

So last weekend I wound up not only out of the house in the late evening but on my way to a restaurant in a trendy part of downtown. While cruising for parking we saw a number of majorly decked-out pedestrians heading towards one of the popular nightclubs. Maybe it’s because it’s been unseasonably warm for the usually chilly Pacific Northwest, or maybe it’s just because I don’t get out enough, but I noticed many of the women were wearing very short skirts and extremely high high-heeled shoes.

Call me a fuddy-duddy, or an incompletely reconstructed ex-hippie, or maybe just a prudish libertine but…

I know the idea behind high heels is they’re supposed to be sexy. But my very strong impression is that those things are pretty much impossible to walk around in without a kind of weird bent-knee gait that’s… actually a little more alarming than sexy to watch. Update: I ought to add that by “alarming” I don’t necessarily mean “oh those poor dears might fall over at any moment. “ Because obviously with just a little practice let alone longtime use even high heels are perfectly navigable. Nor am I referring to various reports of bunions, shortened tendons, and other potential medical complications. The people I usually see wearing high heels are capable, intelligent, coordinated adults who are perfectly aware of what they’re doing and why. I just mean I’m alarmed to be so evidently out of touch that walking on bent legs with your arms waiving around for balance just seems gawky and uncoordinated to me. Instead of cool, svelte, and drop-dead alluring.

And yeah, I know and appreciate the argument* that on many, many levels the way fashion is supposed to work is for the benefit of the wearer, and that the opinions of onlookers are supposed to be somewhere between irrelevant and intrusive. But…

I don’t know. I’m more of a fan of things that make knees weak and feet point and toes curl naturally. None of which, outside of certain branches of BDSM, involve trying to stay upright while crossing broken pavement.

That’s totally my personal, maybe even idiosyncratic opinion. There’s plenty of room in comments for opposing views. I’ll happily stand corrected.

* See Phoebe Maltz of What Would Phoebe Do for a far more nuanced take on who fashion is and isn’t for.

A few years ago I remember reading that the average dress size for American woman is now 12 or 14 (can't remember) and the average bra size is now D.

It's rather well-established that the fashion industry very shabbily serves the fashion interests of average size, let alone above-average sizes. It's less well-established that the industry also shabbily serves adult women who are undersized.

Back when my blog was more about the ins and outs of sex than the cultural influences and consequences of it I was online friends with a number of women bloggers who were highly fashion-conscious but very small breasted. Small-breasted in the specific sense that the "foundation garment" industry didn't produce bras, slips, camisoles, or lingerie in general that simultaneously a) looked sexy but also b) fit them.

While surfing to see who was referring to my site this morning I ran across vintage erotica collector Silent Porn Star. I'd lost track of her years ago but as of March 2010 she seems to be back.) Anyway, while catching up with posts (she's interested in everything from naughty embroidery to cheesie "nudist camp" jigsaw puzzles to scholarly analysisPaul Klee and sexual fluidity) I noticed she kept referencing the author of the vintage lingerie blog Slip of a Girl.

And to get back to the original point of this post, I ran across Slip of a Girl's post Smaller Busted Or Know Someone Who Is? An Exclusive Interview With Lula Lu Petite Lingerie Designer Ellen Shing! Shing owns what Slip of a Girl says is the only retail shop in the U.S. and Canada that caters to small-busted women of all heights and sizes.

[SoaG] As a larger busted woman, and indeed a larger woman in general (actually, I am average size, but you know how fashion goes!), I've often been frustrated with way sizes are created. If I'm unhappy with the poor fit of the ill-conceived "just add a few inches all over," I imagine the problems are similar with "just shrink it all over." How does Lula Lu actually address the proper lingerie sizing for petite women?

[Shing] We don't start with a 34B, like many bra companies do for the fit of our bras as it makes no sense as we haven't even really added B cups to our collection! We start with AA cups and work our way up a little to an A cup and down a little to a AAA cup to keep things accurate. We keep the range of our sizes focused and test the size samples on actual women of each size to make sure they fit well. Having said that, no bra can ever fit everyone perfectly in a particular size because everyone's built differently and thus the bras will wear differently on women's bodies (and you also have to account for everyone's different tastes on how they would like to appear in a bra).<

...

[SoaG] Do you feel that the American obsession with big breasts (and implants) have negatively impacted not only the smaller-busted, perhaps, with self-esteem issues, but lingerie companies and retailers too — resulting in offering less options for those women with petite bustlines?

[Shing] Most of my customers are happy with their body type and bust size and they just feel defeated by the actual bra shopping experience when they realize that they cannot find anything that fits them or are told to go to the children's department. I think the biggest misconception about women with small busts is that the all want to appear like they have a big bust. It's not true and a lot of my customers like their shape and just want some bras that fit well. Read the whole interview here.

A lot of my old blogging friends have moved on, their sites are now dark, and I don't know how many of them still read me. And if they do I'm sure they'll be tickled that I'd stick with the issues of sizing lingerie instead of, oh, maybe what Shing's products actually look like and whether I think they're sexy (they look nice, I think they're sexy.)

Not everyone cares about fashion, but some people do. And like most people in general, most of those who do care about fashion don't have the standard 34B body industry seems to insist on designing for. There's been more activism lately to get industry to begin accommodating actual average bodies. But it's nice that someone's taking the interests of "minus" sized women, most of whom also aren't model shaped seriously.

Not sure why this popped into my head on the way back to my hotel this evening — San Francisco residence being generally stylishly understated dressers and all — but…

While it’s mostly women who get judged by their appearance (sometimes literally judged!) the dominant complaint leveled against men is http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Toolbag”>looking like a toolbag. (Or, less politely, like “douchebags,” as in the website Hot Chicks with Douchebags.) Or, I think, more accurately, like losers!

The cocky men’s fashion site Magnificent Bastard lists the Top 10 Ways to Look Like a Total Toolbag, with the winners including backwards ball caps, bluetooth ear pieces, gold necklaces, Crocks shoes, and reading National Review magazine in public.

All well and good, I guess. But… surely it’s not only men who have no fashion sense to lack. But you really don’t see that many women singled out for looking like toolbags, douchebags, or losers. “Bimbos,” sluts, or “loose,” yes. So last year, yes. The closest I think you’re going to get (though of course please correct me) might be accusations of having a suburban PTA meeting look (a cell phone clipped to the belt would surely complete that ensemble, no?)

But for women the closer one gets to the equivalent of the male toolbag look the more half-hearted and ineffective criticism tends to get. Half-hearted, incidentally, in the same way criticism of men who try to dress sexily (see criticism of figure skater Johnny Weir, for intance) becomes attenuated and ineffective. Possibly because, maybe, I think, both the nerdy woman and the flamboyant man look fit the “that makes them look gay/lesbian” stereotypes.

A woman who “dresses like a hooker,” or a man dressed like Spanky from “Our Gang,” aren’t dressing to fit the stereotyped expectations and/or demands of heterosexuality. And inside heterosexuality if women look desiring of men instead of merely desirable to them, say, or men look wealthy or capable but not worthy they are doing it wrong.

Thoughts?