Shopping Spree Help Requested From a Reader

December 22nd, 2006

Hi Amy,

I like your blog I stumbled upon it while looking for a gift for my wife. I need some advice and was hoping that you could help. I am looking to give my wife a mini shopping spree in New York for the holidays, and I was hoping you could tell me where the best shops/boutiques for petites are in the city.

She has such a hard time finding things that fit, I thought this would be a nice gift. Any assistance you could provide would be great.

Thanks,
Zach

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi Zach -

Thanks for taking the time to read my blog. I've been very bad about updating it lately, but hopefully, I'll be a little more prolific soon. Thanks for reaching out to me for advice!

As far as what your wife might like, it really does depend on what kind of price range you're willing to spend, what sort of items she likes wearing, and whether she's able to fit into regular missy clothing (with alterations). A word to the wise - NYC has a better selection, but it's still not a shopping mecca for petites. There's always a lot of give and take in regards to the style/fit/price that taller women won't have. Also, as you might have noticed, I personally tend towards the more practical side than fashionable (due to my size/price restrictions), but I'll try to give you some help.

My main suggestion is that if you can afford it and she's not short waisted, to go to a department store and get missy clothing altered. If it's a spree, it really is a luxury to get all her pieces to
actually fit well. Obviously, it's annoying not to walk straight out with something nice, but that's the way it goes for the petite. Actually, regardless of where she winds up shopping, try to persuade her to get alterations if things don't fit perfectly. It makes a huge difference. The associates at the high end stores do get a lot of customers that are short and thin, so they know if things can be altered properly, and which brands might be a better match. A personal shopper would be really helpful to help your wife out in selecting things and making sure they're a good fit physically and aesthetically.

Saks has reinstated its petite section on the 9th floor - although I honestly haven't had a chance to really check it out yet. Bloomingdales does have a petites section, but they've definitely cut
back on it, and it's not great (then again, most places don't have a petite's section at all). I happen to like Bergdorf Goodman because of their service and atmosphere, but they don't carry petites clothing (only thinner clothing) and neither does Barney's. Again, if she's
taller and can pull it off, that's my suggestion.

If she's really short proportioned, then it's going to be more difficult. Since it's going to be a special trip for her, I hesitate to suggest the usual Banana Republic/Ann Taylor/Brooks Brothers thing, but it does work, since they are better proportioned for shorter women. Make sure to visit the flagships to get the best service. You mentioned that she has trouble finding things that fit - but she wears clothes from somewhere! Conservatively, a shopping spree for that brand would also work out (but again, a shopping spree is a good opportunity to find some other brands other than the tried and true....)

If your wife is a little more sure of her fashion sensibility and doesn't particularly like department store environments, a trip to SoHo would be fun. I can't offer you any particular advice on where to go since I don't know your wife's style - but many of the places
there are owned and operated by the designers themselves. I went to Calvin Tran's store and he was walking around the store helping people out. Similarly, Zoolook was able to specially alter dresses for me and do custom work as well (and the owner is the designer). I can't personally afford it, but if cost isn't so much an issue, and she can't find her size, your wife can
probably talk these designers into making something specifically for her shape.

Finally, if she's not looking for designer wear, she can get things custom tailored instead. I know Dara Lamb on Park does do full bespoke for women. They charge an arm and a leg, but I don't know too many other notable places that do full custom for women. Admittedly, I have not used them, but they produce quality items.

Good luck with the shopping spree planning! The main thing for a successful trip is to council patience with trying things on and being honest about whether things fit. If you'd like more specific guidance, let me know what her shape and style is like, and I'll try my best.

Don't forget, a slightly larger spree/vacation to Asia is always an option! Labor is cheap and sizing is smaller....

All the best and happy holidays,
Amy

It is a problem that the very tall face when confronted with the very tiny...

From Dinosaur Comics, November 12th, 2006.

Happy Holidays!

It's a Compliment - Really

"You look twelve," said an older woman. At the time, I was currently spacing out, clutching my oranges, waiting to pay. I whipped around to see who was speaking to me. Lo and behold, I was not the 'lucky' recipient of such a comment. Instead, it was a young mother waiting in line behind the older speaker.

Mommy didn't actually say anything to the comment, and the older woman must have realized that she overstepped somewhere. "It's a compliment," she backpedaled. She helpfully offered it up as an explanation - since Mommy was obviously too dense to 'get it'. I mean, doesn't every self-respecting mom want to look pre-legal? No comment from Mommy still. Older lady made a beeline to the exit.

I glanced over and noticed the kid. Now, I'm not exactly as accurate as say, most people, in guessing children's ages. The height throws me off (middle and even elementary school children are sometimes taller than me). But he had to be at least 5, but younger than 10. The kid was way closer to 12 than his mommy. I couldn't help but wonder, how exactly was she supposed to take that as a compliment? That she looks like a pre-teen mother? Or a little girl? No offense, but except for her height, there's no way this woman was less than 25, even sans kid as proof.

Awkwardly, I offered my sympathy by telling her, "I get that all the time" as she left. Not exactly comforting, but hey, what can you possibly say?

Word to the wise. It's never complimentary to tell a woman that she looks like she's 12 year old. Definitely don't try that at the bar guys.

Brooks Brothers, You Broke My Heart

Yes, dear readers, I know I suck for not posting in a timely fashion. But I just got a new job recently, and then I somehow got a little too caught up watching political commercials on YouTube of the midterm elections. Come on, I know you were watching something on YouTube too. I get an ounce of leeway, right?

I have committed myself to finding a decent charcoal grey or navy blue suit for fall/winter. Somehow, even though I own 3 suits that I use, only one of them can be considered nondiscript (read: wearable more than once a week). So when Brooks Brothers had their twice a year 25% off for people with BB cards sale last week, I made a beeline for the 346 Madison Avenue store. After my last experience, which I reviewed here, I figured I should give it a try and land me a suit with expert (and cheap) alterations.

Alas! Tragedy struck when all the suits available either were ugly (what were they thinking????) or very large on me. Try as I might to plead with and beg the tailor, he refused to take in the pants (sides, seat, and waist) and the jacket (through the shoulders and shorten the sleeves) as much as I wanted and needed him to, because he was concerned with the structural integrity of the garment. That, or he was afraid to screw up a harder alteration....

I made an effort to try on some other things, and again, discovered that they were just too unmanageable by the tailor. They apparently daren't do anything that requires more than an inch, or even half an inch, of adjusting in the harder to fix areas (seat, waist, leg, shoulders, etc). They also seem to not want to screw around taking in women's jackets through the shoulders. I think, for most people, they'd do just fine in Brooks Brothers. Definitely, I still stand by their generous alteration policy and their merchandise quality. Most of you aren't so freakishly small.

After exhausting the poor sales woman to find me things that would be the right size and color, I wound up trying on a skirt to see if perhaps the genre would fit me better. As you can see, I probably need to have it nipped in about 4" also around to fit me like it's supposed to. At Brooks Brothers pricing, it's not particularly worth it to buy an expensive skirt when the suit jacket will never fit me without serious financial costs. Ah well, back to Banana Republic and Ann Taylor!

But wait....

On my way down from the women's department, I figured, why not, it can't hurt. I stopped by the boy's section. Yes, you heard me correctly. The fact that I felt ridiculous in there didn't help. Nor did the fact that I was still in the men's dressing room when the sales man walked through calling out that the store was closing. Guess who had a sheepish expression on when paying for her purchases? Straight up, I never admitted to the sales staff that I was buying the items for myself. Clearly though, I was. I mean, who else would I be buying this for? And why else would I be in the dressing room?

I discovered that all the boys pants are completely inappropriate for me because they're all pleated. And most of the button down shirts have button-down collars (too male for me). I also disturbingly discovered that I am apparently the same or lesser width as a 6-8 year old boy (size S) - according to Brooks Brothers. Isn't that pre-puberty by a more than a few years? Heck, it's pre-growth spurt prior to puberty! But through it all, I found that some of the items weren't half bad.

This button down shirt was quite nice, but of course, had the button down collar. Maybe I can get away with it.... Anyway, it fit me very well except for the fact that the sleeves were definitely too short for me when buttoned. So of course, I rolled them up. $34ish isn't so bad. Just wait for the sales to kick in.

The vest was a bit baggier than I liked, being for a, well honestly, flat chested boy. Of approximately 6-8 years of age. But it was a beautiful color and 100% lambswool for $37. Definitely cheaper than an equivalent in the women's department. The wool isn't scratchy either - it almost feels like merino.

I have to say, I've been mulling over my purchases for a few days now. The only reason to buy the shirt is to wear it to work, and I honestly can't pull that off without looking silly for noticeably wearing boys clothing. Even if it's practical and fits. I recall someone at a conference noticing a woman wearing men's pants immediately (don't ask me why he was looking at her pants!) and remarking on the strangeness of it.
I think I may keep the sweater. What do you think? (If you see a small Asian female running around Manhattan in this sweater, come up and say hi!)

But Brooks Brothers, I still feel like a jilted lover! The romance has ended, and of course, I should have known it was too good to be true! (for me anyway)

(I'll post the measurements soon...I need to get another measuring tape!)

Almost Locked in the Dressing Room

I consider myself at least a semi-pro at the whole changing room thing. With so much practice, I can shuck out and regarb in pretty much record time. Screens, sliding latches, hook latches, hanging pieces of cloth, you name it and I've seen it as a door...or at least I thought.

Today, I made a quick stop in Armani Exchange to browse through the sale items, as I was passing the store on Fifth Avenue anyway. I collected quite a few items to try on and a sales woman led me to the fitting room. I guess it's been a while since I've been in the store, as I got really confused when I couldn't figure out why there was no catch, doorknob, latch, or any other means of securing the door behind me. And the door was definitely didn't have some sort of neutral closed position that 'clicked' into place. Maybe this wasn't a real changing room?

Er...no. I was so weirded out (I wasn't going to undress with the whole darn world breezing by while I was changing!) that I walked out to find another room. The sales woman must have known I would be confused and kindly mentioned that I didn't latch the door. Really, no kidding? At this point, she gestured to the mysterious latch...that was at the very, very top of the door!

I shuffled back into the room, then suddenly found the door shut behind me and the latch latched. She told me her name as she walked away, in case I needed something. I jokingly mentioned that I might need her to unlock me from the room - but didn't realize that this wasn't far from the truth! I was luckily wearing my 2" heels or else I could have been a little foolish, jumping up and all to try to snag the latch. Seriously, this latch was 74 inches from the floor and I could barely reach it! (You should all know by now that I carry a measuring tape with me for these critical and embarrassing moments)

Ok, I know. I am really short, and heck, they probably assume that everyone shopping there has a little more altitude than me. But come on, check out the picture - there's no way that this latch is expected to be seen by the average Joe! (or Jane) It blends right in, and you have to be 6'4" to have it at eye level!

As for the items I tried on, nothing quite worked out. They also seem to have a new bizarre extension to their already strange sizing system, which I previously mentioned here. Some of the pants I tried on were a P0 regular, and some were this new oddity of a P0 petite. Unfortunately, I was in too much of a rush to properly measure anything or take a picture, but I seriously couldn't tell if there was actually a distinction. I'll have to follow up on that at a later point.

Man, I didn't realize these stores were made to booby-trap small children! Maybe it's to help babysit the kids while the parents are shopping? An indoor pet/child fence if you will....

Link in the Wikipedia!

Thank you to the lovely reader who was kind enough to include my post as a link in the Wikipedia entry on Height and Intelligence. Thanks to everyone else who's stuck with me on this crazy journey!

While I certainly blog for my own amusement, it really is great to know that other people find my essays worth reading. I really try to focus my entries and give a detailed analysis - whether a shopping trip, a noteworthy bit of news, or just a general commentary.

So, just out of curiosity, what do readers find to be the most interesting (or boring or just too long-winded) of my entries? The store reviews? The essays on news items? This started off as just a shopping documentary blog, but has definitely expanded (and possibly moved away) to include quite a few other things. I'm intrigued to know what people think about it.

Oh, and I promised two writers posted reviews of their short-related books, so stay tuned. I'm way behind, but as you realize by now, I try to do everything thoroughly. I am indeed, insanely pedantic about some things, so I refuse to just re-release the press releases without reading them first!

Zero - the Next New Size

Today's Women's Wear Daily (WWD), the fashion trade publication, finally made note of this phenomenon in today's article, Those Zeros Keep Adding Up, by Rosemary Feitelberg. My friends know I've been talking about toying with the idea of starting a petite low-sized clothing line for months. I've even been contacted by an early reader about this idea! (Alas, the funding issue was the real problem with bringing my idea from concept to well...reality.) Everyone is now finally paying attention to the expanding and undertapped fuller-figured market...but that leaves us small people in a real lurch! But the article notes how certain designers are really cashing in on the slender framed.

"Robert Duffy, president and vice chairman of Marc Jacobs International, recently said Marc Jacobs sells more zeros than any other size in its collection and, truth be told, he has never seen a cutting order for a size 14." Lela Rose started offering zeroes because her clientele was swimming in her size twos. Nicole Miller is even planning to introduce a subzero size next season! (It was bad enough trying to explain what a size double-zero is...am I going to have to explain that I am wearing a negative two now???) What is funny is that this "sub-zero" is going to be based off of a 23.5" waist and 35" lower hip...which is what most retailers claimed their inflated zeroes to approximately be.

The article offers several explanations for the rise of the zero, including the fault of the media for focusing on the "never-too-thin mindset." The booming popularity of the zero is claimed to be a result of the overexposure of the infamous overly-skinny women of the runway. Ed Bucciarelli, CEO of Henri Bendel agrees and mentioned that "we live in a very celebrity-conscious world...[where] some are trying to emulate the girls they see on the covers." I certainly agree with Feitelberg on the unhealthy obsession of the American public on thinner and thinner models, movie stars, and socialites. (there is some counter push as well - like Madrid fashion's model ban) Regular readers know my feelings about this from my Fashion Week New York posts here and here.

What is interesting about this particular analysis is that it completely focuses on the high-end, expensive designers and the high-end fabulously wealthy patrons who can regularly afford such fare. It is crystal clear that the designers mentioned don't want anything to do with larger half of the female population. They are not catering to the masses - and the masses are generally heavier. It is not just an accident that Marc Jacobs doesn't sell to the average sized or higher woman. Marc Jacobs is notorious for micro-picking his sales staff for acceptable stylishness and attractiveness. No kidding that nothing was cut in a size 14...there's no such woman in the Marc Jacobs (or insert most any other high end label) universe!

Feitelberg offers several other possibilities that dovetail with the too-thin idea. Vanity sizing, the system in which a garment label indicates a numerial size smaller than what the same garment would have been in earlier seasons, is a major cause of consternation among the thin. "Some might be all too familiar with what a shopping challenge zero-ness poses.... Even that isn't small enough [for some people]." The thin are literally being sized out of existance by the clothing industry - or at least, for the mid-priced and lower ranges.

I am amused that Feitelberg mistakenly equates zeroness with petiteness, by completely misreferencing the Saks incident. She sees some designers expanding their sizes downward as a means to capture the underserved petites market. "The news caused such an uproar the retailer has since said the department will be reinstated. As things stand, zero is 'one of the sizes that sells out pretty quickly' at Saks, a company spokeswoman said. Theory, which also offers items in a double zero, and Alice + Olivia are among the popular labels with size-zero customers, she said." Both Feitelberg's (and possibly the high-end designers') reasoning is faulty, as the reason for the backlash (and subsequent mia culpa by Saks) had nothing to do with the lack of small options. Instead, the problem was that the petite customers were alternately deemed fat and tasteless, or expected to put up with designer labels that created smaller sized clothing (but not shorter statured). Petite does not mean thin!

The informative parts of the article actually touch upon the mass market segment of the industry. Feiltelberg highlights Jennifer Hoppe, a zero-sized, 110-pound woman living in NY (interestingly, her height is not mentioned - but I suspect she is taller than 5'4"). This interview actually highlights most of the problems that petite and/or thin people face. "She often finds herself shopping at Gap, Banana Republic and Old Navy - sometimes in the children's department - to try to find clothes." She spends hundreds annually to alter her garments because the standard sizes just are too big. She actually mentions her dream of opening a store for small people "even though [she] knows it's so politically incorrect."

Hoppe also touched upon a topic that I've mentioned in the past before too - size discrimination. She wrote an article about the "reverse descrimination she faces" in For Me, where she is the lifestyle editor (the magazine is closing, as of the Oct 2006 issue). "People often think it's perfectly OK to comment about how I'm really small and the fact of the matter is they would never say that to an overweight person." Mentioning the lack of clothing options also gathers backhanded non-sympathy from sales staff. "They'll say, 'Isn't that a great problem to have?'"

I've been arguing that there's profit to be made by means of a contrarian strategy. How can you possibly get a great return on investment if everyone's jumping in on the craze along with you? (Do we need reminders of the dot-com era as an extreme example?) Early designers (or investors) have an extremely high advantage. I have long been trying to convince people that creating a tightly focused thin petite line, particularly for professional wear, would almost guarantee loyal customers. Of course, this always bumps into the problem of production costs for smaller batches. But there's no denying that if a decently designed line was offered that fit this sub-market, it would be loyally followed. Even Kristi Yamaguchi mentions that "if I find something I kind of like, I feel pressured to get it. I know if I wait, it will be gone. Stores need to carry more small sizes." The article mentions that thin shoppers therefore must buy full-priced items, before all the goods are gone. Considering the potential savings if I calculate the value of my time, I probably should do the same instead of scoping out deals.

Under-served markets, like petites or problem sizes, are generally a captive audience. You can pretty much sell them anything and they'll buy it. (look at all the people that still bemoan the original Petite Sophisticate line...uber frumpy!) Mid-priced labels like Banana Republic and Ann Taylor are just wisely cashing in on the petite opportunity. Someone should definitely get a major jump on the under-served super-short and/or small - WWD has already started wising up to it!

Keyboards for Small Hands

Michelle B. was kind enough to inform me of a post on American Inventor Spot about smaller computer keyboards. While the three keyboards and reviews are definitely geared towards children, adults that have smaller than average hands may find them useful as well. And considering that many smaller people already stock their closets with kid's sized clothing, there's no reason to discriminate against other kid-centric items if they help!

While I personally will not be making the switch-over to a mini-keyboard (I luckily don't have very small hands - years of stretched and strengthened my hands from classical piano have also helped), anyone who feels the strain while typing should probably give one a try. And if you have kids, it's even more efficient since they can use the keyboard too!

Besides, who wouldn't want to have one as a colorful conversation piece?

Petite Choices in Charlotte, NC

Steve Swain was kind enough to send me a link to Popular Shopping Resources For Petite Clothing in the Charlotte Observer. Crystal Dempsey was doing a series about different clothing resources for women with "different body types" (i.e., "deviants" like plus sized, tall, and petite women). Ironically, as I've been finding, paying more to live in a big city gives more choices - except when you're looking for petite clothes. I frankly don't see that much more selection in NYC than in Charlotte, NC.

It was definitely interesting to read the comments and suggestions that Dempsey received. Now, Charlotte isn't a tiny backwoods hick town (despite whatever Southern jokes people may crack), but it isn't exactly known for its cutting edge fashion either. Charlotte is somewhere you'd expect people to be a little more conservative in dress, and a few seasons behind on the latest trends.

New Yorkers will delightfully tear Talbots to shreds. (and then embarrassingly walk in because, hey, there's still occasionally stuff that works!) Perhaps North Carolineans (?) are more forgiving? Maybe not. Beth Johnston mentioned that Talbots clothing was "guaranteed to fit and sort of stylish. The better stuff doesn't look too much like my mother...." Ouch. Well Talbots, be glad that your clients are settling for stuff that isn't too terrible! J. Jill is said to be the "same as Banana Republic, only not trendy." It's not only the sharp-tongued urbanites grousing about frumpy wares!

Interestingly, while stores like Banana Republic and J. Jill were mentioned, the only department store mentioned was Macy's - specifically its International Concepts, I.N.C., line. "You will not find the typical polyester, flowered 'grandma' type styles." Isn't it strange that no one mentioned the Nordstrom in town? Perhaps they don't stock petites in this particular location? Just another reminder that retailers do take regional variances into account (too few petites probably).

Unsurprisingly, great customer service is a big plus no matter where you live. Cinch was recommended despite the lack of petite sizes because "the ladies are terrific at finding what works on the vertically challenged." If only we had great customer service up here (that didn't cost a million bucks)!

The bottom line, though, is that mail ordering is the bread and butter of the petite woman's closet. And although I personally wouldn't buy anything from Lands' End or L.L. Bean (both unstylish and way too big for me), they certainly do supply quite a few petites with the garments they need.

Petite Sophisticate Is Back

A surprise for me, Retail Brand Alliance didn't just send Petite Sophisticate to the chop shop last January. According to the Chicago Sun-Times here, Charming Shoppes, owner of Lane Bryant stores, bought the brand instead and is going to be opening 43 Petite Sophisticate Outlet stores this Friday, September 29th. (They have a nice placeholder at their website for the new line, but no information is available there yet!)

The stores will carry career and casual clothing in sizes 0 to 14. Prior to the closing of the stores under RBA (which currently owns Brooks Brothers), half of the customers were shopping for career apparel. "We are looking at a broader strategy," Gayle Coolick, director of investor relations at Charming Shoppes, said Monday. "[Petite Sophisticate] is a fabulous brand name with lots of loyal customers. We'd like to look at expansion."

I hate to say it, but I hope the brand is ready to fight to regain its turf with more fashion foward offerings. The clothing sold by the old Petite Sophisticate was...fuddy duddy, but servicable. Let's face it - it's not like there's a lot of choice out there, and a girl's gotta find professional clothing that fits, even if it's not exactly stylish. Gap, Banana Republic, Ann Taylor, Ann Taylor Loft, and other stores have definitely stepped it up to fill in the petite gap, despite moves by department stores to the contrary.

Unfortunately, since I'm car free and far from any outlet malls, I won't be able to visit the new locations to check them out myself. Definitely give me an update if you manage to stop by on Friday!

NY Fashion Week - the Skinny on the News

This entry isn't going to be a style commentary - admittedly, my taste is pretty mainstream, not edgy or progressive. Honestly, it's mostly going to be a rant. If you want the "official" coverage, check out Style.com. Instead, here are some of my personal impressions of being a part and attendee of Olympus Fasion Week for the Spring 2007 collections. Sorry, we were asked to not take pictures while working, so you'll have to satisfy yourself with my prose for the most part. Working at fashion week opened my eyes to a lot of things. I never bought into the razzle-dazzle of the "beautiful people", so I approached it fully as a learning experience. And boy, did I learn a lot. My more mundane (but practical) understandings were posted a few days ago here, but I wanted to cover some of my emotional impressions too.

Working backstage as a dresser, I had a lot of down time. We came early and didn't really need to - except for the shows that had complicated looks or multiple/confusing costume changes. We didn't cost anything, so why not have the reassurance of everyone being ready? (And yes, the shows partially depend on the sweat of free or highly underpaid labor. No doubt about it.) Most of my prep work involved a lot of waiting around, with a few moments of frantic dressing a few minutes before they step onto the runway (less chance to muss the clothes), or quick undressing/dressing if a model was to wear more than one outfit. The stylists had a lot more to handle and tended to be mostly and noticeably short women. I guess some of them just want to be close to the action, since they can't be on stage.

A lot of my impressions came down to two things: hunger and efficiency. Hunger in all respects were clearly visible - the competitiveness of the photographers in the pits (I was perpetually waiting for an avalanche of equipment and photographers to go tumbling down - never happened), the actual aching and obvious surpressed hunger of the models, and the hunger of the emerging designers to make it this season. The efficiency and routinization of the events was also a thing to behold. Events always started late, but once they started, they were as precise as clockwork. Audiences rushed out of the door so fast that the halls were almost empty a minute after the designer stepped out to say goodbye. Tiny armies were backstage making sure that the troops were fed, models done up, clothing stored, and interviews given and conducted.

A lot of hard and frantic work goes on behind stage to pull off the shows. An enormous amount of money is also put into the event. At it's best, the efficiency of the hair and makeup artists is phenominal - seeing about 5 makeup, hair, and clothing people crowd around a model to get her back on stage with a completely new look in under 2 minutes is amazing. A lot of the efficiency, though, involves dehumanizing the model. Sadly, that part appears to be unpreventable. The model is already dressed but there's little bits of lint all over her chest - so you run the lint brush over her, just as if it weren't on a real human, but a clothes hanger. You don't have time to feel badly that you're practically ripping off her high heeled shoes to undress her between looks. Neither the nail artist or the model has time to wait for a stripping solution to disolve the nail glue, and so the fake nails must painfully be ripped off - both of the are already late for their next shows. The designer moves the model around like a mannequin because he's so focused on last minute touches to his clothes and how it's fitting a human being - while ignoring the person inside his clothes. The models are indeed, walking clothes hangers, both on and behind stage.

Hunger has been a topic of great concern lately. The last week or so has been touched by the news of Madrid's fashion show. They decided that any woman walking the shows must be above a certain weight. "Organizers say they want to project an image of beauty and health, rather than a waif-like, or heroin chic look." The New York Fashion shows didn't follow suit. The NY Times of course followed up post haste with a full blown article - When Is Thin Too Thin? by Eric Wilson today. "Linda Wells, the editor of the beauty magazine Allure, said there were moments during the shows when she could hear gasps in the audience at their appearance. 'What becomes alarming is when you see bones and start counting ribs,' Ms. Wells said."

While I applaud Mr. Wilson's reporting, I don't particularly believe that he supports the sentiment. Perhaps I am too cynical, but I was actually sitting not 5 feet away from him and some of the other writers from the NY Times at one of the shows. They weren't particularly dismayed by the women walking in the show. No gasps were heard from them - they were in fact, seemingly bored with the whole affair. I should, perhaps, give them the benefit of the doubt and say, perhaps they've been too numbed by the experience to notice. Or perhaps, it was only the newbies like me who were gasping - those who haven't yet become desensitized to image of skin covered bones walking down the aisles and runways.

Maybe I should have sat next to them during the Rosa Cha bathing suit show. This was the first one I saw from the audience. I was in the standing room section at the back of the hall, and even there, I was aghast when the models emerged from behind stage. Very tiny bathing suits were worn, so there wasn't much to hide the ribs, hip bones, and knobby joints of the women parading down the stage. I was quite mistaken in believing that the swimsuit models might be a bit curvier - after all, these were supposed to be sexy suits no? Frankly, they were so uncurvaceous, that they could have been men without their naughty bits. It looked like bandaids and tiny little bikini bottoms. Like toy soldiers for the final bow out, they were all the same exact height and looked almost exactly the same impersonal type. I also came to suspect that the models at this show weren't any less thin than anywhere else.

It was somewhat surprising to see that when offstage, many of the models seemed awkward and uncomfortable about their lankiness and their height. They almost all wore flats and had an almost dowager hunched look about their shoulders. These women didn't actually seem all that comfortable in their own skin off stage. I guess it's hard being a tall woman, no matter how idolized. It's shocking to realize that you can be used to seeing anything - like lots of bony ribs and hips, and thinking that it's just plain normal.

So, after barely a week of looking at towering stick figure models up close and personal, the feelings of years of built up "I'm too skinny-ick" thoughts have somewhat abated. While certainly a personal hurrah for me (well, we all have our personal body issues don't we?), this still strikes me as a rather perverse thing. Great, I have a better self image. But that's only because I started out thinking that I'm too thin. It's a little shocking, that somehow, less than a week around a ton of incredibly skinny tall women has shaken a view I've held for at least a decade. I can only imagine the influence this experience would have on woman with actual curves - you know, one with real hips and a full chest.

Modeling agencies cried foul when Madrid's show cut out the super thin - they didn't believe it was the industry's fault or responsibility that generations of women had body issues or eating disorders. How ridiculous, I snorted when I read this. Of course it is their doing! And it is ours too for romanticizing and fetishization these models. When observed closely from a few inches away undressed, these girls were freakily skinny and awkward looking. They are compared to gazelle, but the first thing that came to mind when I saw them up close was newborn horses. Seeing some of them practically stumble around backstage, I don't know how they managed to keep upright and strut once they were on stage. From a model card, I read the following measurements: 5'10", size 2, size 10 shoes, 33" chest, 22" waist, 34" hips. (Hell, I don't even have a 22" waist, and I'm a foot shorter!) This cannot be natural slenderness but some sort of combination eating disorder/drug use/smoking habit/overexercise. But somehow, we as the audience are only dazzled by their height, their slenderness, their fabulous and glamorous image.

Some of the other women working backstage were practically sighing and oogling the models. I heard more than one utter something like 'oh, I love watching the models get ready. I wish I was able to be a model!' Apprently, what's not to like? It's practically the lifestyle of the stereotypical kept woman. They had their hair, nails, makeup, and clothing attended to by people like me. But looked at it another way, these girls don't really own the bodies they have. Everything was free to be touched, massaged into place, primped. Another image crossed my mind - a groomer attending to a much loved pet poodle. Am I souring your impression yet?

Modeling Scam Verified!

A few weeks ago, I had mentioned an ad in Craigslist for a petite model casting call. I wrote about about my experiences here, and it turns out I was indeed correct! Below is the post I found about it, again on Craigslist:

744 BROAD ST. NEWARK, NJ MODEL SCAM

---

Reply to: gigs-208378682@craigslist.org
Date: 2006-09-17, 1:42AM EDT


The woman that keeps advertising here for Petite Fashion Show for Bloomingdales, also Gitano Jeans, and other designer names is a scam. She wants you to come to the above address and then tries to con you out of money for pics. I actually called Bloomingdales, NYC today and the director of fashion called me back immediately when she was told what this was about.
She said they are not even doing a Petite Fashion Show and that they never use an agency in Newark. In fact they hold their OWN auditions.

So all you young ladies that are asked to go to Newark, BroadStreet for anything, don't do it.

Dressers, Stand By Your Racks!

I wouldn't have bothered attending at all had I not been given an opportunity to work backstage as a dresser for a few runway shows. Unless you're invited, it's really hard to attend otherwise. My first and last ones were both in the tents at Bryant Park, and the rest were scattered around in art galleries or other open spaces. As a volunteer, I was to help a model get into the designer's ensemble without mishap, which includes clothing, jewelry, shoes, and other accessories. Since the clothing pieces were actually prototypes, it was important to make sure that everything got returned. When the show ended, I was responsible for making sure everything the model wore was accounted for and packed up.

The first show was a sudden shock for me when I stepped in backstage, an hour and a half before the official start time. After checking in just inside the back entrance, I was directed to the prep area. It was surprisingly sparse but frantic with activity. The makeup and hair areas were filled with long tables and chairs. Clip lights were mounted and floor length mirrors were precariously propped against tent poles horizontally. It literally felt primitive and tent-like, as all the "pretty stuff" was reserved for the front house or on the models themselves. A high profile show, the designer's crew had ordered food from Balthazar and there were even tiny bottles of champagne (which were popped and tossed back with enthusiasm way before the show even started) mixed in with the soda cans. Most of the models hadn't even shown up yet at this point. I learned afterward that most shows start late and the models usually were scurrying in from another venue's runway. Shows started late either because they were waiting for key audience members (buyers, press, celebrities) or for models.

The backstage experiences blended together for the most part. It is always busy backstage. Make-up, hair, and nail artists had to prep the "girls" and sometimes men as soon as they walked in. Dressers were usually fussing with the loose threads, but mostly lounging about till "first look" was called a few minutes before the show started. Shoes were tried on and were sometimes switched up or shared. Photographers with backstage passes stalked about, snapping up shots left and right, usually getting in the way of the preppers. If the press or non-preppers were preventing us from doing our jobs, we were given permission to practically shove them out of the way, as the timing for these events don't allow much flexibility once the show starts. The designer(s) alternatively hurried about with last minute tweaks and fittings, chatted it up with friends or staff, or was giving full blown interviews to TV crews.

When the clothing arrived and was hung on wheeled clothing racks, everything was still bagged and needed to be inspected and unwrapped. "Looks" were tagged separately and were numbered in the order that they were to appear on the runway. An oak tag sign was included with each look, listing the clothing, jewelry, shoes, and other details that were part of each ensemble. A photo of the full outfit was included so we knew how to dress the models, and the first name (if necessary, last initial) and a picture of the runway model was attached to the tag. We delinted and unbuttoned/unzipped at this point so that clothing could be slipped on as quickly as possible. Once we were assigned an outfit or outfits, we were reminded to stay by our rack and be available to the models whenever they needed to get dressed.

I was always assigned to pretty easy outfits - most of them were just one piece dresses with few accessories. The other dressers, mostly women, were usually from FIT. Some of them were also new, but others had been doing this for years. Most of them also seemed to be interested in becoming stylists. They usually came prepared with a delinter roller, tiny scissors, and other tools. I came empty-handed but usually borrowed if I needed to.

The models were usually prepped by hair, makeup, and nail artists before they changed. Models remained dressed in street clothes until they are asked to change into their first look. This is to minimize damage or creasing of the clothing. Linen was probably the worst in this regard. Shirts had to be carefully slipped off as hair and possible hairpieces and hats needed to remain undamaged. Sometimes, this wasn't possible as they sometimes showed up with tight necked shirts - you'd think that they'd make sure to wear button-downs or wide necked items! Women did not wear bras under any of the outfits on the runway, and always came wearing a nude thong. Men showed up in whatever standard clothing they had - which was sometimes problematic.

Male models didn't really need our help, as they practically dressed themselves. Pretty much our only responsibility with them was to make sure their clothing got back on the hangers after the show. Zippers, hook and eye closures, ties, buttons, shoes, and jewelry were more plentiful amongst the women's outfits. Most models wanted their high heeled shoes strapped on as tightly as possible so that they could walk securely during their aggressive runway struts.

Most of the shows I did had very few models that had to walk down the runway with more than one outfit - except for the very last show. This was a blessing, as otherwise she literally would have a minute or two to strip and reclothe in the new outfit, change shoes, and possibly have hair and makeup retouched. Probably the most problematic items were women's shoes, as they often had to be wrestled on and were sometimes difficult to latch, tie, or otherwise manage. And even though shoes usually stayed the same between looks for a model, shoes needed to be off so that the first outfit could be removed. The clothing for the second outfit was slipped on quickly, and as zippers buzzed and buttons were buttoned, shoes were again strapped on. A few models had to change into three different outfits!

Once every model is in his/her first outfit, they are lined up in order and the music starts pumping. The crazy period is very short and is concentrated to those ten or more minutes that the show is actually running. If a model has to change, there is a mad rush of makeup artists, hair stylists, and dressers towards the model as soon as she steps off the stage to get her prepped for the next look. For the last show, I was responsible for helping with the shoes for changing models. Because of the onslaught of so many bodies, it's actually hard to try to, say, get her shoe off when she's hopping around on one foot to get the tight pants off and the makeup artist and other dressers are pressed close and are in the way. Somehow, I managed and she's sent out again in the lineup.

Once every look is presented, most shows end with a finale - but not always. If they do it, every model is again paraded onstage for a sweep before the designer goes out and greets the audience. Because of this, it was important for the models not to step out of the clothing before the end of the show. Backstage helpers join in with the audience by clapping and congratulating the designer on a successful show.

At this point, the show is over and it becomes very crowded behind stage. Tons of people from the audience pour in. Interviews are being conducted and the noise gets rather loud. The makeup, hair, and nail artists pack up and leave as soon as possible if they don't have to do anything else with the models. The models toss off their last outfits as quickly as humanly possible so they can hop over to their next gig. Dressers must rehang each garment and account for each accessory. Looks are rebagged and condensed onto as few racks as possible. Everything accounted for, we are thanked and dismissed, and usually wander into the front of the now eerily empty house and make a beeline for the tent lobby, which allowed entry into all the tent venues (it's one giant tent that is compartmentalized). Trade publications are stacked up, ready to be grabbed, and it's now time to snag a complimentary drink and relax!

And that's the whole crazy process, more or less. Pretty straight forward but insane! My next entry will be about my impressions and feelings about the experience, so check back soon!

Olympus Fashion Week - Spring 2007

Sorry if my posts have been a little less focused recently - I've been volunteering part of the time at the shows in and out of Bryant Park the last few days. This was my first Fashion Week experience, and I'll be writing about my impressions about it as a novice shortly.

While it certainly isn't a place to check out the latest petite fashions, I saw it as a good opportunity to see how the designer ready-to-wear collections are presented to buyers, press, and fashionistas around the world. Much like sausages and legislation, the actual process of putting on a show is a lot more messy than the end production lets on. Since very few people outside of the industry get to see the guts of the process, my next post will be an account of my experiences as someone looking in from outside.

The first picture is of the familiar entrance to the tent - and about as close as most non-ticketholders can get to the action. The second is a shot of the inside display in the lobby. For those of you that would like to get a look at some of the models and designers, you can stalk to your heart's content near the back entrances (last picture). You'll be sure to see someone famous flitting in or out - and if it's right after a show finishes, you'll see a flood of models walking out.

A Question of Semantics - Our Favorite Dwarf Planet

Slightly behind the news cycle, this week's New York Times On Language essay by William Safire recapped the revocation of Pluto's planetary status because of its irregularity.

Pluto is now officially downgraded to a new category called dwarf planet, and all textbooks in all languages are ordered to refer to it with that adjectival derogation....The interest of language mavens in this astronomical rejiggering is the connotation of the words dwarf.... Dwarf, as both noun and adjective, means “shorter than the average for the species,” sometimes “malformed or disproportionate.” Because of cruel folklore portraying those affected by dwarfism as ugly Rumpelstiltskins, many with that genetic abnormality prefer to be called “little people” or “of short stature.” Midget, though well proportioned, is used to describe objects like tiny cars and submarines, and many little people take offense when the word is applied to them.

While he is certainly at least slightly tongue in cheek about the whole thing, Safire is nevertheless one of the few (maybe only?) well known writers that is actually taking notice of the incorrect and disparaging use of these terms in the public arena.

For a nation that is almost squeamishly politically correct on certain topics in both language and concept, America (and, mostly everywhere else too) remains quite blissfully ignorant of the problems of heightism and sizism. Writers don't question the inclusion of size (or lack thereof) as a point of either unflattering or irrelevant discussion.

Under the new rules, a planet must meet three criteria: it must orbit the Sun, it must be big enough for gravity to squash it into a round ball, and it must have cleared other things out of the way in its orbital neighborhood. The last of these criteria knocks out Pluto and Xena, which orbit among the icy wrecks of the Kuiper Belt, and Ceres, which is in the asteroid belt. Dwarf planets, on the other hand, need only orbit the Sun and be round. (emphasis added)

Taken from the NY Times again, the quote above neatly points out a not insignificant problem with the literal designation of a planet as a 'dwarf'. From this definition, it is clear as day that Pluto's problem isn't really size at all, but an entirely different requirement. Could it be that usage of the term 'dwarf' stems from a more insidious figurative implication?

Perhaps it comes from the assumption that the smallest humans are not supposed to have the force of will to forge ahead and clear out our own earthly paths. We need only gravitate towards, or just plain avoid, our larger and superior neighbors for survival. Our astronomers have seen fit to let us know that 'dwarf' refers not to a smaller body, but really, to a weaker spirit.

Stone Soup Comic Relief - Double Zero?!

Thanks to my brother Gene for pointing me to Tuesday's Stone Soup. Similar to the comments made by most of my male friends, Val's confusion expresses the sentiment exactly!

So ladies, how do you feel about wearing basically size nothing?

Model Casting Scam?

A few weeks ago, I mentioned a petite modeling ad I found in Craigslist. I've been somewhat embarrassed and reluctant to admit that I went, but I figured - where else could I air out my most embarrassing moments to a bunch of complete strangers, if not here? Also, I figure some of you may be able to comment on whether my bizarre experience was unique or typical. Somewhat against my own judgment, I stopped by the model agency anyway to have a look - I figured I'd meet some other petite women at the very least, and maybe learn a bit about the industry.

The first thing that was odd was that the office was in Newark, NJ. When I got out, I was surprised at how economically depressed the area seemed for a location of a modeling agency - 99 cent type stores were all over the place. When I got to 744 Broad Street in downtown Newark, the whole situation struck me as...sketchy. The company, supposedly called Models and Talent (or something like that), seemed to be renting a temporary tiny office in another company's office. Aside from one other petite woman who was not conducive to conversation, it was empty of visitors. I guess not many aspiring models go running to New Jersey to get a gig! No surprises there.

The agent came out to 'greet' me. She was probably in her mid-forties and had the look of a more modestly dressed hooker. I'm not kidding here - super tight clothes, too much make-up, and a voice that obviously croaked out 'smoker'. She didn't bother with any pleasantries, but got straight to the point. Somehow, I expected to be visually skewered, but she barely glanced at me.

Pretty much the first thing out of her mouth was that my small hands would be good for cigarette (ugh) and jewelry ads. Ah yes, bigger is, of course, always better. Apparently, small hands make cigarettes and bling look more impressive. Immediately, I wondered why they didn't just use children - but I guess that sort of thing can't really fly. (Just picture it - 'diamonds are forever' ads with gorgeous 30 year old men proposing to...14 year old girls, or Joe Camel lighting up with a horde of giggly, but scantily clad, teenagers.)

She asked me if I had photos. I told her that I didn't. She gave me the "are you an idiot or what" look, and I hastily mentioned that the woman I spoke to on the phone mentioned that it'd be ok - they were looking for new talent after all. At this point, she decided to mention that the company was actually a photo agency that contracts out its models. Kinda like a brothel, I guess. When I hesitantly inquired what companies used its services, the shrew of a woman snapped back that of course she can't disclose the list of clients...ever! Er...ok, sorry to ask where my winsome face (or I guess, hands) will be plastered. Clients are shown a photo set of 'girls' and if I have what it takes, the client will hire me through the agency. How fabulous!!!

I was given the marvelous privilege of plunking down $300 for shots by the agency's photographer. Who happened to be in Manhattan. It was implicitly understood that had I brought photos, I would have to do the same thing anyway. At this point, I was just completely incredulous about the whole thing. I mean, was this a joke? I was given no contract to sign, no paperwork, no nothing. At this point, enough was enough. I asked for a business card, but she had none with her. (Strange and convenient, wasn't it?)

So, this entire thing seemed to be a scam. But maybe I'm wrong about that. If this is how models are treated all the time, what a horrible way to work! I knew that the modeling industry isn't kind, but this was just outright crazy. I can see plenty of young naive girls not asking any questions, and putting down the dough, never to hear from anyone connected to the agency again.

When I told her that I wasn't ready to put down the cash, I could see the moment she wrote me off. Mentioning that they were only doing open calls for another day, she brusquely escorted me out of the office and gestured for the petite blond woman that was waiting. I wonder if blondie had $300 cash on her, ready to be dropped down the rabbit hole.

Club Monaco - Bargain Sales Rack

Club Monaco
1111 3rd Avenue
New York, NY 10021
212-355-2949

This retail chain is my favorite basic tops store - I LOVE the sales rack! For me, even though this chain is actually Canadian, it mushes into the same Euro mold as the Mexx, Zara, and Armani Exchange types. The look is long, lean and minimal, with not too many prints and mostly monocrome shades. Club Monaco is pretty reasonable in price - cheaper than A|X, and about on par with Banana Republic full priced. However, unlike either of them, CM discounts sales items quite agressively so there's quite a decent selection of styles and sizes on the rack. The sales clothes are not just the Bad Ideas and come in more than just extra huge or extra tiny.

While Club Monaco doesn't have a petite's section, I have no size problems with the extra small knit shirts. I love the t-shirts, and I stock up on them when the sales are going on. Curiously, like H&M, I find that the tops seem to be proportionally smaller than the bottoms for the same numerical size. This should be particularly weird coming from me, as I'm pretty sure I'm smaller on top. While the tops are a bit longer than I ideally would like, they're still a real steal at this price and quality! I typically pay around $9, and sometimes $5, for a plain 100% cotton T-shirt that's well made and isn't baggy on me.

In trying out pants or skirts, everything is huge on me (and too long!). Unlike the shirts, these Ursula pants in size 0 are just way too big and long. While some people like very, very low rise pants, I don't - especially when I get a baggy butt since they're not meant to be that low! Like the shirts, the pants are quite a decent price on sale at $49, but originally $119. But these pants are a lost cause for me even with alterations - the back pockets would be so close together after getting the waist and seat taken in that I'll just have one weird looking pocket hanging out behind me!

Club Monaco helpfully mentions that alterations are free in the fitting room - but is it only hems? Unfortunately, yes. When I asked, I learned that the alterations policy was typical - free hems only if you buy the items full price. If you need more work done, tough, as the tailor won't do it - and if you buy it on sale, you'll have to pay about $10 for the hem. Still, if all you need is a hem (which, is never the case for me), my general policy is let them do it - even if you pay. Since it's the store's merchandise, if the tailor screws up, you won't be paying a dime for any of it.

All in all, I do like the merchandise and plan to visit the store's sales rack often when I need new shirts. As generally the case, if you're going for a better sales selection, hit any location that isn't as well trafficked.

Measurements:
Ribbed Tank: 7" strap to strap, 21" underarm, 30" waist, 13" to waist from shoulder.
Plain T-Shirt: 13" shoulders, 29" underarm, 25" waist, 13" to waist from shoulder.
Ursula pants in size 0: 34" inseam, 29" waist, 36" hips, 7.5" front rise, 13" back rise.

Princeton Study Coorelates Height and Intelligence

Stature and Status: Height, Ability, and Labor Market Outcomes
Anne Case and Christina Paxson

Two Princeton economists recently produced a study that examines the correlation between height and intellectual capacity. It is commonly acknowledged that taller people hold jobs of higher status and usually make more than their shorter coworkers. Most previous studies conclude that discrimination, self esteem, and social dominance are the factors that contribute to the very real differences in outcome. The 52-page paper instead offers another hypothesis: "On average, taller people earn more because they are smarter....As adults, taller individuals are more likely to select into higher paying occupations that require more advanced verbal and numerical skills and greater intelligence, for which they earn handsome returns."

And as unsavory as this paper's conclusion may seem, it is not as brutally simplistic as it sounds. True, Case and Paxson do actually posit that height and intelligence are correlated. But more importantly, (and very easily ignored) it also stated that factors that affect adult height, such as malnutrition and in utero substance exposure, prevent, for lack of a better expression, full actualization of a person's potential. In short (no pun intended!), people associate taller people with less physical and psychological deprivation during childhood - deprivations that are empirically known to detrimentally affect a person's abilities. They also take pains to remove other variables from affecting their conclusions:

One possible explanation for these correlations is that taller children are provided with greater levels of cognitive stimulation at school. Teachers may pay more attention to taller children, or taller children may be more likely to be enrolled in school earlier than shorter children of the same age. However, evidence from other surveys indicates that the association between height and cognitive outcomes begins too early for this hypothesis to be plausible. For example, Rose (1994) finds that the length of 5- to 12-month-old infants is associated with measures of information processing speed.

The authors move on to explain that smarter adults tend to gravitate towards higher status fields that place more value on intelligence - which means prestigious professionals were advantaged developmentally, and are likely to be taller. They also briefly mention a study that tried to understand the perception of height in relation to status:

In another experiment, groups of college students were introduced to the same person...whose status was described differently to each group. On average, students perceived the confederate to be taller when he was introduced as a lecturer than as a fellow student, and even taller when introduced as a senior lecturer, and taller still when thought to be a professor (Wilson 1968). But this difference in perceived height reflects the reality that more successful academics are on average taller (Henley 1993), which may have led the students to statistically discriminate when judging the height of a ‘professor.’ Asked to identify “great” US Presidents and those who were “failures,” Americans single out significantly taller presidents as “great” relative to those mentioned as “failures” (Young and French 1996). Although the authors argue that this supports the self esteem hypothesis, it could also be that presidents who were identified as “great” were both tall and of superior intelligence, and that it is the latter to which their greatness is attributable.

Impressive and interesting as the study may be, I am disappointed that the two authors made no pains give us as readers many suggestions or cautionary notes in interpreting their study. Surely, if this was a study on the correlation of race and crime (with associated causal relations of socioeconomic factors), great efforts would be made to clearly state that determining potential criminality in an individual should not be affected by his race. Actually, even if it wasn't, we're well trained to immediately understand this (although, interestingly enough, not actually touched upon at all in this study). Sexism is also understood; the study does note that even controlling for height, women still make 17% less than their male counterparts. But heightism?

It's actually almost casually brushed aside. Case and Paxson mention that other studies hypothesize heightism (noted as "discrimination" in the paper) as a major factor in discrepancies in pay, but barely touch upon it themselves. They also mention that, when given the opportunity to do so, deprived children almost, but not completely, catch up with their taller peers in both physical and cognitive development. But what if the individual never has the opportunity to jump ahead cognitively? That is, after all, the reason that the college admissions process takes into account an individual's socioeconomic status and current potential opportunities when evaluating candidates.

Height bias is just not considered something worth quibbling with - and when you actually do, it's scoffed at and ignored. It's like a bad joke - surely you're kidding right? The reality is, short people do experience discrimination. The lack of public acknowledgement that it even exists only makes experiencing it worse. It's like the doctor telling you there's nothing wrong with you - it's all in your head. I would postulate that plenty of taller people would find the existence of sites like Short Persons Support to be completely ridiculous. After all, we're just overly sensitive right?

The release of a report like this without disclaimers is really a grave oversight - and dare I say, ethically questionable? The seriousness of the situation is clearly ignored. Kai Ryssdal even made it a joke about how he should be better paid because of his height - and this was the signoff to the popular NPR radio show Marketplace!

A couple of weeks ago, we told you about an interesting study we found. It said college-educated, left-handed men earn more than righties. I thought that was nice to hear, since I'm a lefty myself. Now, another piece of research in the same vein. Economists have long known that tall people make more than short people. The standard theory was that it had to do with social discrimination. But some economists at Princeton argue taller people . . . well, they're just smarter. So, they make more. Four inches in height gets them about 10 percent more in pay. Let's see. My boss is about 5-10 . . . I'm 6-1 . . . Yeah, I'm definitely asking for a raise.

I cringe at the interpretations of this study. Blogs have already picked up the sound bite. I will give Case and Paxson the benefit of the doubt - perhaps this study was not meant to surface to the light of day (and impatient media handlers). I doubt most of the bloggers have even read more than the Reuters piece (and not even all of it). I already see blogs like the Huffington Post ignoring the more detailed aspects of the study. As this blog states already, "Princeton economists say findings justify better pay for more height." Here's another off MySpace that has already spawned ridiculous comments along the lines of "I guess this means I'm stupid...." (yes, yes you are if you agree that this study makes you stupid)

I'll just be waiting for an enterprising short Princeton student to hang a mockery of a banner off the economics building screaming "Short people are dumber! Princeton professors inside say so!"

Petite Model Casting Call - Is 5'7" Petite?

Tangentially following up on Kathleen's post regarding the use of petite models, I found this ad in Craigslist today:

---

Reply to: see below
Date: 2006-08-17, 10:17AM EDT


Petite models needed ASAP .
We are loooking to hire new faces
NO EXPERIENCE REQUIRED
Women 5'0"-5'7"
Ages 18-29

Competitive day rate is set at $1500 a day
NOW CASTING FOR CATALOG , TV , PRINT AND COMMERCIALS

---

Guess who called? Obviously, I was very curious, but didn't manage to get much information. I shouldn't have been as startled as I was when the woman on the other end asked me how tall I was, and what shoe size I wore. After all, she were probably getting hundreds of calls today for the same thing and was running on auto-pilot. But what really surprised me was that she didn't just hang up on me. The woman was rather nice - brushed off my concern about my shorter-than-five-feet height and reassured me it that would be just fine.

So, she asked, when can I come in? Well, er, I have no photos. That's fine. Or experience. That's ok. Or a clue. (ok, I didn't actually say that) What should I wear? Something appropriate. (What the heck is appropriate????) Finally, she asked if I belonged to a union, or would have any restrictions against joining one. Um...no? (Ok, I am completely out of my depth here....) She gave me the directions for the agency's office and told me to come in tomorrow.

Ok, I admit that for a split second, I was actually tempted to go over there, since never in my life could I ever imagine observing (hah! participating!) in something like this. (Don't worry, reality set in and I'm back to normal.) Now I'm just stuck with overwhelming curiosity. Who in the world is hiring these models? When I first saw the ad, I figured that they were just looking for women that were closer to the more realistic heights of the average American woman (which is 5'4"). But what if they are actually searching for shorter women??? Women that, dare I say, are as short as me? Not only that, but they seemed quite generous with the age range...up to 29! Now I'm just very very curious about what is going on here!

Well, maybe I can stop by. Just for a little peek.

Zafu Followup - Loyalty from Honesty

Earlier last week, I posted about Zafu, an online women's jeans shopping guide. Surprisingly, my review managed to get a nod from Frank Pillar at Mass Customization & Open Innovation News. He highlighted a particular point that I think too few retailers realize. Consumers, particularly those that have highly specific needs and have a hard time shopping, really appreciate and have a positive regard for merchants that don't waste their time and resources in a run around. In turn, retailers gain the trust and therefore loyalty of the consumer - something that's not so easy to come by.

I, for one, value honesty when working with a retailer's staff. If you don't have something that fits, tell me, and I'll have a positive feeling about the whole experience. Maybe I'll come back, maybe I'll recommend the store to someone else. I certainly did with Zafu. Waste my time, and I'll walk out annoyed. The trust issue is one of the reasons why I really hate it when clothing companies are purposefully deceitful in their sizing chart claims.

I had also emailed a followup to Zafu's team regarding their size constraints, and received a quick and, to my surprise, somewhat personal reply:

Hi Amy,

Thanks for your email and the wonderful review on your blog (we would like
to include it in our press section if that's ok with you). We've been
working on zafu for fifteen months now and it's just great to be getting so
many responses.

We totally understand your questions and will be dealing with them very
shortly by expanding our size coverage. When we launched zafu we realized
that we had to focus somewhere and decided upon the current offering. Our
code is to start small, do a great job and then expand steadily. I guess
it's the whole walk before you run mantra.

Over the coming weeks and months we'll be adding new products and further
expanding the range of people we can help. By the way, you may be
interested to know that if you create an account we will send you an
occasional email telling you about new jeans that will fit you.

Again, many thanks for writing to us,

the zafu team

We'll just have to wait and see if Zafu really does pan out in the coming months!

Sitting Is So Hard

I think it's fair to say that I hate most chairs. I feel like I'm in some horrible medieval torture device. Cruel and unusual punishment indeed! Not only are there issues with the chairs themselves, but in conjunction with a table or desk, it's hard to say whether standing is a better option than squirming uncomfortably for 8+ hours in a typical office. To be fair, anyone sitting in a position for that long is bound to be uncomfortable. And that's for people that are starting from an ideal ergonomic arrangement (all good except for the desk height). There's no way that my way of sitting in modern office furniture (or, heck, any furniture) can ever be misconstrued as ideal or ergonomic.

Chairs are usually too deep and too tall for me. Ideally, I want a chair depth to be 13" or less and for the seat height to be 13" or less (length of my heel to back of my knee). That way, I can get back support and also have my feet (and the weight of my legs) resting on the floor. Now, since most people pass through, or never leave, the IKEA stage of furniture, I look a sample of 8 chairs from that store. The listings thoughtfully listed important measurements, and I determined that the average depth and seat height are 15 4/5" and 17 3/4", respectively.

With the addition of a desk, the problem multiplies. The average desk is anywhere from 28" to 30" high. You can't usually raise or lower office furniture. And since I don't want to be working at chin level at my desk, that means I have to always raise my chair to compensate. Hence, the leg dangling that often occurs. Work is probably the worst place for me to be, comfort-wise, since I don't really have a choice in furniture.

When I'm in the office, it's hard. Since bigger is apparently always better, the office chairs could eat the IKEA ones for breakfast. So, when I'm in the office, if I wear 6" heels and use a big pillow behind my back, I'm all set. But of course, that's ridiculous. So is the fact that I have to make so many changes to make myself even remotely comfortable because someone thought the huge furniture looks more imposing. I use a footrest to prop up my feet, but it usually isn't enough. Which leads me to my solution - sitting cross-legged, or curled up, in the chair, with my shoes kicked under the desk. While this is okay when I go to a movie theatre (well, maybe it isn't, but it's dark, so no one can see anyway), it's not particularly professional or proper in the office environment.

Luckily, we don't live at the office (well, hopefully not anyway). If you're buying stuff your yourself, find the furniture that's best for you. Certainly, most short people aren't as short as me. But adjustable furniture is always a good bet. Furniture stores do sell adjustable tables and desks, such as this one, albeit not that many. As for an office chair, find one that has a footrest to brace your feet on, like this one. For regular chairs, this may be a little more difficult. Some have a cross-brace in front; again making the height issue irrelevant. Otherwise, an ottoman anyone?

The funniest thing about the chair problem is that I often find it easier to sit when I'm wearing heels. Yes, I know that sounds like an oxymoron - why in the world would you wear a pair of 3" heels when no one can see you?? But it's true. That's why I sometimes play piano in high heels. It's all for greater leverage and all that. Honest!

I Am Indeed Provably Short and Petite

Kathleen Fasanella, writer of The Entrepreneur's Guide to Sewn Product Manufacturing, keeps the very highly detailed site Fashion-Incubator. Full of information regarding the practical aspects of clothing design and construction, it also has articles and commentary on industry trends. If you actually want to know more about the nitty-gritty side of clothing, this is the place to start. She was kind enough to post a short snippet about me here, in which she describes where I want to be taking this blog in the future. Thanks Kathleen!

What I found particularly amusing was that Kathleen couldn't tell how small I was from my shots. "From her photos, she doesn't look petite at all. Cameras lie." Eek! I guess I didn't leave anything to compare myself against. Well, just so there's no confusion, I'm offering concrete evidence (well, close enough anyway) that I am indeed, very short. It was hard enough juggling the tape measure and camera to get a full body shot, but close enough I think?

National Underwear Day!

An amusing tidbit has come to my attention, which may spark the attention of all you voyeuristic Manhattanites. Titillating but true, Freshpair is staging National Underwear Day in Manhattan tomorrow. It's supposedly an event to promote the idea that "underwear deserves a lot more recognition than it gets." Yeah sure, ok. I just read "publicity stunt" - but I'm not going to deny that I'll try to stop by to check out the goods.

"More than just eye candy, our models conducted various surveys on undergarment choices and asked people to sign a petition which urges official recognition of this underwear-honoring day." In an effort to tie up even more pedestrian traffic, the models will be wandering around areas like Penn Station and Times Square. And, er, 'free samples' will be handed out by those models you'll be ogling. Try explaining the new lacy thong you'll be carrying back to your co-workers.

It will be interesting to see how badly this event is going to gridlock already crowded parts of the city. Even without this, Times Square is probably one of the busiest areas in Manhattan. Since I'm already at armpit level, I'll try to avoid the heat and crowds by going to Penn Station to gawk at the gawkers.

Pity that the advertising is completely useless on me. I won't be spending a dime with Freshpair, as the only thing it has in my size is already something I know is too big. And as for recognizing the status of our unmentionables, I don't need any help realizing how important underwear is!

XXSP Sweaters at anntaylor.com - A Follow-up

I have struck gold! I have finally found sweaters that actually fit me almost perfectly (note: I don't really ever expect to find anything that fits me perfectly). I am in shock!!! Last week, I discovered that Ann Taylor was offering clothing in 00P and XXSP online. Obviously, I immediately ordered a mixed set to get a general sense of what the label meant by 00 Petite and XXS Petite. Apparently, they meant what I've been hoping they'd mean!

All the items was wrapped up very nicely when the box arrived. Everything was individually wrapped, sometimes with tissue. The jacket was also on a hanger. Yay - a nice new hanger for me. I unwrapped everything and took a look at what I'd ordered.

This is the first time in my life that a twin set has actually fit me. Ever. The shell is usually the problem - but as you can see, if I had a slightly larger bust, it'd be perfect. Someone bigger than me would be fine too - the sweater does stretch, after all, since it's made from silk/nylon. I'm not too enthralled with the cardigan, since the sleeves are too long, but it'll do in a pinch. Luckily, I'm not in a bind, so I'll just wait and see what else they produce before laying down the dough. I'm VERY happy they started producing these XXSP's though - when they finally come up with something I like, I'll be there in a flash.

The silk/cotton ivory shell I got fit decently, although I wouldn't want to actually buy it. Like I said, this was a totally research purpose only batch! I didn't really like the quality of it - maybe I just dislike cotton sweaters? Probably. I got some sort of fiber content issues. That sounds crazy doesn't it? What I mean to say is that I generally hate cotton sweaters and suits.

But crisp cotton shirts are definitely ok. Oops. I realized I forgot to order one somehow, but I got this silk one instead in 00P. Which fit exactly like a silk shirt is supposed to on me (ok, fine, yes, maybe it could be a little tighter since the designer assumes that the buyer has a chest, unlike me). Silk shirts should be worn looser than a cotton shirt. Or rather, if you're the more modest type, a silk button down shouldn't stretch. Yeah, yeah, I know, you can totally see the fold marks. I avoid ironing like the plague because it's all or nothing for me - which means a long ironing session for each piece. And once the iron's hot, I might as well do everything, right?

Thanks to my incredibly detailed-oriented self (shall we say, anal?), all the measurements are below. I'm not a tailor but they seem to do the job of figuring out what would work. I'll be getting to the suit, dress, and skirt soon enough.


Measurements:
Twinset shell: 9" shoulder strap to strap (from the center of the strap), 7" from the shoulder to bottom of the armhole, 27" widest circumference under the arms, 25" waist, 13" from shoulder to waist.
Twinset cardigan: 16" shoulder seam to seam, 30" widest circumference under the arms, 27" waist, 21.5" sleeve length from above, 17.5" sleeve length from armpit.
Cotton shell: 8" shoulder strap to shoulder, 4" from the shoulder to armhole bottom (stretchy straps), 26" widest around arms, 23" waist, 13" shoulder to waist.
Silk shirt: 14.5" shoulder seam to seam, 32" circumference under the arms, 28" waist, 13" from shoulder to waist.

Zafu - A New Approach to Jean Shopping?

Zafu is an interactive website that helps to "match jeans to you" for women. It literally launched this past Tuesday and is a novel approach to the problem of finding the perfect pair of jeans. By answering questions about how current jeans fit, your stats, and what you'd like your jeans to do for you (such as make your "butt look perky"), it makes suggestions about what brands of jeans would be the best for your needs.

This is a fabulous concept - but in my unhappy extreme case (see third picture), I'm out of bounds for a great many things (weight, jean size, and, heck, the other questions too!) that have an effect upon suggestion accuracy. Alas, while I'm sure that had anything really been available in my size Zafu would have eagerly dished out recommendations, I already know that the smallest offerings are too big.

But for the rest of you, it may prove to be a great shopping tool. While most of the jeans are designer or specialty brands - like 7 For All Mankind or Diesel, it also offers cheaper or more modest selections such as Chadwick's or Old Navy. I've noticed that the trend level tends to be mostly based on rise height (what a surprise right?). Any age group is welcome to use the tool (although everyone over 46 is lumped into one category!), although it assumes you are of a normal adult size.


When you're done with the survey, a detailed list of specific brands and models is given. What is incredibly wonderful about this is that specific reasons are given about why the recommendations have been given.

Zafu profits through a commission based model for every purchase made through its referral. I can see an online service-based model a little harder to manage than in person. High end stores can generate off (but can't guarantee) loyalty through personal attention and because goods are literally in your hand rather than in the proverbial bush. The good things about a product are much more upfront and personal, and sales pressure is much higher. Online shopping is much more analytical and price focused, since an extra 5 minutes of hunting might get you a much better deal.

All in all, I really like this site, even though I can't use it! (Hey, that must mean something right???) Users have an opportunity to save their information, both as a boon to the customer (if they are happy with the advice of the site) and to the company (for repeat customers). The comments and suggestions that Zafu gives are based off actual user studies, so it's not just force-fed marketing by the brands themselves. I'd love to see them add children's sizes - some designer labels definitely cater to the teenage crowd. Zafu should definitely do this, as the 'tween' segment is growing rapidly. And who doesn't believe that status and body conscious teenagers (and us poor souls who never grew out of that size range) wouldn't want to have these tools available too?