Some Small Sense

Size Matters - Featured on Leonard Lopate Show

2007-07-03T01:36:00.000-04:00

While I have been pretty busy and haven't been posting lately, I thought that readers may be interested in listening to a particular radio segment on New York's public radio station, WNYC. For those of you that love public radio as much as I do (or are just interested in the segment), Leonard Lopate will be speaking with Stephen S. Hall today about his book, Size Matters: How Height Affects the Health, Happiness, and Success of Boys — and the Men They Become.

Hall is a science writer that has written a book that gives a historical overview as to how height has been understood over the years, and why it has changed. He also explores the causes and effects of the culture of size bias. The author himself is 5'5 3/4" and includes examples and antecdotes from his own life. (It's interesting to note that he makes a point to emphasize his height accurately down to the quarter inch. Fighting for every last bit or trying to deliberately not pass as 5'6"?)

I will definitely be tuning in to listen to the interview and picking up a copy of his book soon. Those interested in a more detailed review can read the NY Times review.

The Leonard Lopate Show will be airing this segment live on July 3, 2007 at noon on 93.9 FM in the NY metro area. You will also be able to call in to ask questions or make comments during the live segment at 212-433-WNYC (212-433-9692). Those that are unable to tune in directly can stream it, or download the segment later free from iTunes or off the show's page. (Please note that there is a slight delay with the streamed content.)

***correction***
The segment is actually a replay of a previous interview.

Massachusetts Height & Weight Anti-Discrimination Laws

2007-05-22T23:37:00.000-04:00

As reported by the Associated Press last Friday by Ken Maguire, Boston Representitive Byron Rushing is sponsoring a bill to add height and weight to the anti-discrimination laws. This would provide legal protection for individuals in the workplace as well as while undergoing real estate transactions. According to Rushing (who is black, slim and of average height), he proposed this out of a desire to defend civil rights.

While I'm perfectly clear about that I see that this discrimination occurs, it's equally clear most people don't really believe that the issue is anything serious. Some choice comments from the BostonChannel.com forums prove enlightening on public opinion:

I'm so sick of people using 'discrimination' as a tool to demand special services. The airlines have seats in the planes, there is NO discrimination, you're welcome to sit in it. IF you don't fit, who's fault is that? Discrimination is so abused. Everyone has the right to work, to be all that they can be and there is no finer country, but stop complaining, stop using excuses and stop looking outward, look inward and figure out ways to succeed, just the way our parents and grandparents all did. If you are too short to fly a jet plane, then get a different job don't expect a jet plane to be specially configured just for you....that's discrimination. You're getting something that no one else is.
So I looked up the exact definition of Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. So would the 'group' that these people belong to be over-weight people? I believe the real reason discrimination acts were brought into effect were to protect sex, race and religious beliefs. Not to protect people who chow on fast food a little too much. If you're overweight and you think people treat you differently, go on a diet!
Except for the most extreme situations you are never going to stop discrimination with a law. People looking for work or housing are discriminated against every day because they are the wrong color, religion, sex, handicapped, fat, tall and you name it....Its a way of life and human nature so better get used to it.

Mixed in with the comments of denial, trivialization, and outright viciousness (check out the more vitriolic ones at the posting) are a few posts defending the proposal. What is interesting is that a lot of people feel that it's perfectly acceptable to punish people using employment opportunities for traits that have absolutely nothing to do with their work performance (or credit-worthiness in the case of real estate). Or it's also fine to pass moral judgements about their character (Napoleonic complex anyone?). Some individuals even try to better define the understanding of what constitutes acceptable levels of discrimination for "overweight," as if a more nuanced bit of discrimination would then be okay.

There is no justification for this. Unless a job requires some physical characteristic in order to perform the duties of the job (i.e., jockeys, models, etc.), there really is no reasonable justification to penalize an individual based on how he looks. All candidates should be given equal opportunity for employment or living accommodations. The reason that certain categories are protected under law, such as race or gender, is that they've been shown to be systematically treated at a disadvantage. Time and time again, it's been shown that the short are economically penalized for their height, all else being equal.

For race, this problem has even been shown to produce disadvantages that are generational because the effects (and wealth, or lack thereof) add up over time and are passed along to offspring. Arguably, height and weight could be considered genetically passed along as well. Could height and weight characteristics be another example?

I applaud Representative Rushing for his proposal. Can't Massachusetts do at least as well as Ontario, Michigan, San Francisco, Victoria (Australia), and Santa Cruz to protect our rights?

While most of the heated commenting has been in regards to weight, how do people feel about the proposed legislation?

Belting Up

2007-05-08T16:50:00.000-04:00

My brother typically pokes fun at me when I complain that I can't find any belts my size. 'What do you need a belt for? You're a girl, and you don't have to wear one!'

Ok, ok, fine, I'm not going to be frowned upon by the fashion police if I don't wear one when tucking in my dress shirt (you poor men), but what if I wanted to?? And what if, god forbid, I actually needed them to keep my trousers up (the original reason for a belt)? I would have a distinct problem!

I have trouble finding stuff that fits in most stores - so I wouldn't expect to have too much luck with a belt there either. But it just doesn't make sense that I have just as much trouble in stores that are (sort of) supposed to cater to my size! So, apologies to Banana Republic for picking on it, but think of it as a loving critique from a captivated (and captive) audience member. My other steady, Ann Taylor, has the same problem (but its store is father away...).

Because these stores are trying to get customers to purchase an entire Outfit Ensemble, it would make sense for them to make sure all their accessories and clothes can match up with each other in all sizes. Now, the smallest sized belt they carry is XS. Not XSP or XXP or XXSP. How frustrating!

With this in mind, I snagged a few XS belts from Banana Republic for a test drive. I already knew that I was never going to keep these, as they were too big. But that's precisely why I wanted to get a few shots up anyway!

First up - a black silver ring belt with no prong or holes. As you can see, it's rather loose around my waist and cannot be physically tightened any further. At the smallest, it's 28" - but clearly, it's meant to be looser, as the tongue of the belt is ridiculously long.

The three-strand woven belt was my next selection - and that proved to be equally problematic! At my natural waist, I can't even punch in more holes, because the metal prong is already in the woven leather (which, FYI, isn't dense enough to keep it there). When using the narrowest circumference, it's already 32"!

The densely woven belt seems to be the type of thing that actually goes around your real waist (not your hips) because it's so wide (2 1/2"). Here's the picture of me with it at 26 1/2" wide around my waist (measured from the end of the metal prong to where it enters the leather). It looks completely silly because the tongue just flops around without any means of securing it!

Now that Banana Republic and Ann Taylor have both dipped into the 00 and even XXS game, they should really increase the sizes for their belt selections too! I bet even those women that are size 0 or 2 could use the help!

With all this trouble in finding a (quasi-)functional belt, it's no big surprise that I never quite figured out how to use a belt to accessorize! (By the way, I'm wearing the jeans that I wrote about in my post regarding gaining weight for my pants!)

I Spy a Height Site

2007-05-02T23:52:00.000-04:00

I'm basically not a fan of these compilation sites, as they aren't really guides so much as nicely edited advertising pages with little to zero original content. (Perhaps I'm just annoyed I didn't think of this super minimal effort money-making scheme first....) But I admit that got a kick out of the fact that this guide to tallness was listed in the Google ad's sidebar "Related Pages" section, right next to my emailed conversations about being really short in the Netherlands. Way to go Google! Completely the opposite topic, but I guess you got me (and everyone else reading this) to click anyway, right?

The main site generally focuses on the typical 'helpful websites' that point towards clothing, tall advice, dating, etc. The short subsection, cheerfully reached by clicking on this snazzy graph, is mostly a somberer collection of support sites (sans clothing sites), advice, and dating tips. I guess it's a nice after-thought, but couldn't you guys have picked a better graphic???

Petite Salvation (of a sort) - the Rise of the Tween Shopper

2007-04-27T14:19:00.000-04:00

I read this NY Times article, Tweens 'R' Shoppers, with a bizarre mix of pleasure/horror. Like every other business sector (computing/electronic companies probably realized this first), the apparel industry has realized that younger and younger children are having a greater influence over how their parents decide to spend their money. Armed with ready cash or credit card, kids are much more sophisticated and independent shoppers than in years past.

There has been an explosion of attention towards the growing tween market - older than little kids, younger than true teenagers; anywhere from age 8 to 12, depending on the definition. Part of it is caused by parents wanting to dress up their kids, part of it is kids wanting to dress like the fashion spreads. Either way, it's pushing down more choice and range into this demographic. One in which I'm essentially a member due to size.

I'm closer in shape to a tween than to an adult woman. You know the shape - less curve, but not no curve, and more straight lines than the average "fully developed" woman. It's often easier to find better fitting clothing shopping in the 10-12 year old middle school girls section - where I have found myself to be shorter than most of the 10 year olds.

At first blush, the increased selection just sounds like a fabulous windfall. How convenient! I, and every other sub 5'0" petite woman should just swoop into the nearest Abercrombie and call it a day. It'd even be cheaper than shopping in the more young adult audienced Abercrombie & Fitch! How cute we'd all look, how positively easier it'd be to shop, and how dressed to kill we'd be for that next middle school party!

So, of course, that's the catch: The clothes may fit better than everything else out there, but style-wise, it's doubtful that most of the garments could be used in more grown-up settings. Let's face facts: we're really just grateful freeloaders in this youthful age and size range. While we'll certainly get a wider variety of casual and basic clothing (you and your daughter can be twins!), the particular work apparel items that are most sensitive to fit problems (and difficult to find) will never exist for tweens.

But hey! At least it's something - right?

Short Male Reporter Gets Publicly Ridiculed

2007-04-26T21:38:00.000-04:00

Thank you to Alex for letting me know about this!

BBC reporter Steve Rosenberg (5'6") was sent to interview German MP Silvana Koch-Mehrin (6'4" in heels). Having trouble getting both of them in the shot (supposedly), Rosenberg was asked to stand on an equipment box.

Someone snatched a shot and sold it to Bild, Germany's biggest-selling daily newspaper, where it was mocked under the headline: 'Little Brit Questions Big Woman Politician'.

The situation is clearly ridiculous to people either because he's standing on a scruffy box and/or because he's short.

What's interesting to me is:

Was this actually physically necessary or just something to tip over the edge to require a "fix"?
Are female field reporters afforded the same luxury? And if not, is it because they're typically tall anyway? (and thin and attractive...)
I'm assuming there's some level of national rivalry that made this worth it for the paper. (i.e., it's ok to make fun of him because he's British)
If the gender situation was reverse, it's clear that this wouldn't have been quite as amusing to everyone.
Is there some journalistic rule that they can't just both sit in chairs? It's not exactly a war zone or security issue here.

I feel rather sorry for Rosenberg because he was obviously just trying to do his job. With the box, he's either vain or insecure. Without it, he appears weak to people because he's so short. It's a lose-lose situation, and clearly unfair. Publishing the photo was undeniably mean-spirited of Bild for any number of reasons.

For you those versed in German, here's the actual article and picture:

Growing Trend Towards Larger Shoes

2007-04-19T12:29:00.000-04:00

do you ever shop for shoes at lord and taylor? the smallest pumps i can find on their website is a size 6. some come no smaller than a 7. i notice this is also true for nordstrom and ann taylor loft. have you ever done a blog posting about the sudden unavailablility of sizes smaller than a 6? whats going on? it seems that overnight average became something like a 9 and anything smaller than a 6 has become a rarity. have you found the same thing to be true?

- Gail W.

Hi Gail! Thanks for writing me. The shift towards larger sizes and the disappearance of smaller ones is frankly no surprise. As people get larger and taller, their foot size grows too. According to a Slate article published a few years ago (ironically centered around the problems of finding large sizes), "at the beginning of the 20th century, the average American woman wore a 3.5 or a 4; by the 1940s she was strapping on a 5.5." In 2004, it was an 8.5. And the decision whether to stock a size is a function of following the trend - it's simply not economically sound to waste shelf space on all those small shoes when fewer and fewer people are going to buy them.

It's curious that you specifically mention online shoe sources - which are usually better stocked than bricks-and-mortar stores. Of the many reasons I buy online, shoe size selection is definitely high on the list. Someone else had recently informed me about Ann Taylor Loft's decision to get rid of their smaller shoe sizes. To be honest, I've also never shopped at Lord & Taylor. However, I haven't noticed many other retailers cutting smaller sizes yet for their online selection - but it's only a matter of time.

Certainly, it makes sense that physical stores don't carry smaller sizes - it's not worth it to the store to waste shelf space on the shrinking percentage of the population who still wear these sizes. There are notable exceptions as well - I was lucky enough a few months ago to find a bargain at Kenneth Cole because the smaller sizes were both in stock and on sale. Most stores only carry down to a size 6 - but haven't yet cut their online availability (thank goodness!).

If you're looking for particularly small shoes (less than size 5), Short Persons Support, has a listing of specialty sources. I freely admit that I haven't used any of these sources, since I'm luckily still able to find shoes at most retailers. Any readers out there who have?

Nordstrom's in particular is known for carrying small sizes in stores. Have you also tried the outlets? I've definitely seen smaller than size 5's in DSW and department store outlets. Lastly, let's not forget the children's department - for casual shoes anyway!

Good luck - it only gets harder as the years pass!

Don't Fit Your Pants? Gain Weight!

2007-04-16T20:15:00.000-04:00

I've never worn tight jeans in my life. I mean, the kind that mostly fit and aren't too short or too long in the rise. Even for the petites department, I find that my rise (distance from crotch to natural waist) is too short relative to the rise that's designed for the pants offered. I have a rather shallow hip. It isn't even much - half an inch or an inch at most, but it actually makes a big difference. For most of the pants I buy off the rack the waistband is too loose on me if the crotch hits in the right place. If I pull the waistband down to where its snug, then the seat and crotch are too low. That, plus my butt isn't exactly filled out. Imagine the Ryan cut pants actually hitting where the Martin pants should...with too much slack at the waistband. With that in mind, I have never worn the tight jeans that most women seem to favor when they go out. (I know, I know...I'm avoiding the 'perfect jeans' search.) For dress slacks, I always get them altered.

So it was a bit of a shock when I randomly tried Banana Republic's low rise boot cuts in 00P this past weekend - and they fit almost perfectly. In fact, they were actually snug on me - in the way that I assume jeans are supposed to fit? To be honest, it was a little uncomfortable adjusting as they stretched to fit over the course of the weekend. Since they were new AND tight, I definitely felt a little hampered in my freedom of movement! I guess I'm just used to a looser fit.

The sad thing is that I realized that it was because I had put on fat around my waist (and probably had a bit of water retention) - and only at my waist. I essentially "padded" my lower waist a bit to fill up the empty space. (In fact, they were just slightly too tight in the waist compared to the rest of the hip area.) So my pants fit better - even though I was wheezing my way up staircases. A bit disconcerting, don't you think? With this added new information to digest, it seems like my current choices are:

A) get winded while doing slightly strenuous activity because I'm losing muscle mass and gaining fat - BUT gain the ability to wear pants off the rack;
B) get back into shape so I don't keel over from sprinting a block - BUT be unable to wear off the rack clothes well anymore;
C) become a crazy gym rat that packs down protein shakes to build up muscle in my posterior to make my hip circumference bigger AND be in shape

Hmm. This is really crazy, because most women exercise to slim down. Not too many people I know actually try to gain body fat to fit into their clothes. And I have to admit, C is definitely not happening (nor have I been able to gain much muscle either).

Unfortunately, my recent good fortune has been dashed. I tend to easily fluctuate a pound or two with exercise, but am unable to actually gain much more mass than that - even with muscle building exercises and protein shakes. I estimate that I was up to about 90 when I bought the pants on Thursday, and am now down to 88. Very annoying as it's ONLY at my waist. I somehow lost the difference from dancing for hours on Saturday night.

So, I'm back to slightly loose jeans again - but it was fun while it lasted! My advice to all those that have a similar problem? Let yourself gain a little extra weight and see if it works for you. I'm not exactly sure if the trade-off is worth it, but it's certainly worth a try!

(I'll post a picture of how things fit when I'm feeling a bit more "full", as I lost the opportunity to do so this weekend.)

Prince Charming?

2007-04-08T21:23:00.000-04:00

While reading this week's The New Yorker, Sasha Frere-Jones's profile of Prince, in Dorian Purple, amazed me. In her review of his new Las Vegas show, she brought up his height, only to toss it aside as a point of non-relevance. "Though he's just over five feet, lithe and pixieish, he never seems dwarfed by others onstage, and he is absolutely at ease guiding his ten-piece band. His backup dancers....were energetic and effectively underclad, but Prince was still the most seductive presence onstage."

What startled me is that she brought up his 5'2.5" height precisely because no one cared - it was brought up only to point out the lack of influence it had on anything in his professional life (or clearly, his romantic). His height had no bearing upon his musical skill, leadership, or sheer presence. And I couldn't help but think that, perhaps, Prince and his fans managed to do something that the rest of us with any short-person hang-ups are always reaching for - a complete attitude of height indifference.

Indeed, it's his continued status as a sex symbol at age 48 that is simply the most astonishing thing of all. Certainly, there are many talented short individuals respected for their work - actor Danny DeVito (5'0"), musician Paul Simon (5'3"), and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich (4'10") come to mind. But it's not like most short famous men are noted for their sex appeal (even when they were younger). It's the most resistant area of change for the short man. The current cultural climate points out that short guys, particularly middle-aged ones, just can't be seriously seen as potential mates. Kudos to Prince, for managing to skirt the system!

Thank you Ms. Frere-Jones, for treating the height subject with such respect.

Head Over to Heels in the Netherlands?

2007-03-21T23:57:00.000-04:00

As you probably know, average female height in America is about 5'4". Obviously, I'd feel only slightly short compared to the local population in China or Japan (5'0" - for the older population anyway), but what happens if I went to the Netherlands (5'7")?

I recently was invited to join an email group that discussed this very issue! Read some of our discussion below and let us know how you'd feel in the Netherlands! For those of you that may be interested in checking out where you should be flying to on your next vacation to get your new wardrobe, please check out Wikipedia's Human Height page to get each country 's average height.

***

Amanda: amy, we had a discussion not long before you joined about an article rachel read about average height for women in the netherlands recently rising to 5ft8. she pointed out that since women on average there are 4 inches taller than women are here, that if we were to go there we would feel like we shrunk 4 inches.... the point of this discussion was this: even though none of us list "to be taller" as one of our top 2 or 3 reasons for wearing high heels, do we think that would change if we were transplanted to the netherlands? the 6 of us were split right down the middle on this. i for one said, yes, if i needed to wear 4 inch heels while there just to feel as tall as i feel usually feel at home, then i'd probably wear heels, at least sometimes, specifically so that i wouldn't feel so short in a world of amazons. care to weigh in on where you stand (no pun intended!) on this?

Amy: Actually, you'd probably feel even shorter than that, because practically speaking, you're even more on the fringes of normal height there. Because of the fact that I can't wear whatever I want off the rack, I tend to be a rather practical dresser. So even here, when I can probably inch into the realm of average-short height with 4" heels on, I don't really do it to try to make up for my shortness. I'm not going to hobble around on 4" heels just to be taller! I'll do it because I think it makes me look hotter :) I'm a bit of a contrarian so I would probably make a point to go out of my way to wear flats in the Netherlands. Sorry ladies, there's no way we can be tall there. Even with stilts, you'll look...really short still. Would you wear flats to blend in in a place that has women at 4'6" on average?

Elaine: i do see your point amy, but what i think might bother me a bit is that even women of average height there in 4 inch heels would 6ft tall. and i think the quote was something like 1 out of every 20 women there is 6ft or taller. and if they're wearing heels on top of that am i'm not..... i don't know. i guess maybe i could take the opposite viewpoint and make it a game. try to see just how much i can be towered over by or something. is that the kind of thing you're talking about?

Amy: More like, they'll tower over me anyway...why make things hard for myself by wearing shoes that will probably hurt my feet? I can understand if you're within the realm of average...but we're completely not. As I've said to my friends, I'm not fooling anyone - I'm really really short. Really tall shoes will still not make me tall.

***

So maybe you won't be surrounded by tall Dutch women anytime soon, but how would you handle the situation readers? Are you a "fight for every inch you can" kinda gal/guy? Or are you more like me, the "I'm too wussy/lazy to deal with the pain of high heels" type?

CNN Features Segment on Short Discrimination

2007-03-20T14:28:00.000-04:00

CNN's Dan Lothian released a short video segment online today entitled, "Small World" that highlights a few of the problems that short individuals face every day. Thank you to my friend Farid, who sent me a link. It's a short four-minute video, so watch it!

It's an interesting feature that tries to give the topic a fair shake. He notes that being short can have real world repercussions - particularly for men in dating and "some say" in workforce pay parity. This latter was probably the only point that I found a little disingenuous - pay inequality (along with access to promotions, etc.) has long been documented in the workforce.

He speaks with a few prominent individuals that have been fighting against short discrimination:

Matthew Campisi, president of the National Organization of Short Statured Adults (NOSSA), speaks with Lothian about his experiences with height discrimination.

Ellen Frankel has written and talked about the problems of short stature in her book, "Beyond Measure."

Please take a look at their work!

Tall = Basketball Player, Short = Hobbit?

2007-03-18T17:47:00.000-04:00

A few weeks ago, I went out to dinner at Poke, this great sushi place on the UES. This place is always super crowded and as we were leaving, I noticed a very tall guy squeezed in the corner right by the door. I shamelessly admit that I always check out all the super tall and super short people around me (Hey! I just mean their stature people!), so I definitely was paying attention when it happened.

As we were walking out, a woman walking in looked up in surprise at Tall Guy and said, "Wow, you're really tall. You must be a basketball player!"

The look on Tall Guy's face was priceless. He was probably in his early 30s, probably at least 6'5"(?), and had a slight bit of a beer belly from sitting way too long at the law firm/investment bank. He didn't have a couch potato look, but there was no way this guy was a pro or semi-pro like she seemed to be implying. Hungry and crowded into the corner, I could tell he was trying really really hard to come up with some response that wasn't rude or too self-deprecating. Maybe this woman was doing a piss poor job at flirting? Eventually, he settled on a polite, "no, but I used to play a little bit when I was in school."

I think I may have made it out of the door before I started laughing uncontrollably and commenting really loudly about the hilarity of the situation. I couldn't help but think of the grocery store incident a few months ago. I forget sometimes that tall people get as much abuse about their height as short people. Perhaps Restaurant Lady was trying to be flattering? Maybe it's just everyone Pavlovian response to assume 'basketball player' to the stimulus of a Very Tall Person - and she just didn't happen to have a better verbal filter?

All I know was that I actually felt really badly for this poor guy! I mean, how could he take it as a compliment either? I'm sure several things could have flitted through his head at that moment, including: 'I actually suck at basketball. Don't you actually have eyes woman?? I'm so out of shape that I have a gut. Do I have to hear this again???'

This of course, gets me thinking of all the common and outrageous assumptions about people based solely on height. I confess that I too have the basketball = tall connection wired in my brain somewhere (but have a better filter than she did). Tall thin women usually make me think 'model.'

The obvious snide and rather unlikely connections with short people I can think of are typically:

dwarves
hobbits (wait, you mean that they don't really exist?)
jockeys
circus people

Of course, I think '12-year old' usually is the top of the real list.

What are things you automatically associate with very tall/short people yourselves?

Post Away....

2007-03-18T16:45:00.000-04:00

Addendum:

Annoymous #1 and #2, I have to admit you're correct. Nothing like being reminded that heated opinions always attract more attention. Thanks for also reminding me that this sort of thing isn't always bad!

Sorry to be a buzz kill when I posted this earlier. 70 posts into my blog, and you'd think I'd learn it by now right? Readers, please bear with me while I live and learn! Please be sure to knock me upside the head if I ever try committing blog suicide again!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Silly me, I somehow wasn't expecting the sheer number of comments that Nancy's letter generated throughout my blog. I'm definitely glad that everyone's being so responsive. While I'm certainly not surprised at how heated people got, I want to state flat out that I don't always agree with everyone's comments. So I'll stop posting replies just to clarify that. Also, I realize that I am (and so is everyone else!) a hypocrite, as personal reflections aren't always flattering or "fair," and have to be read in context.

I publish everyone's comments and approve them only to avoid 'bots spamming my site. Keep posting, but try to be nice, ok?

Japan Will Solve Everything!

2007-03-15T13:39:00.000-04:00

I've been receiving a slew of letters lately and I'm loving it! Definitely keep them coming!

Amy,

I stumbled upon your blog today through a series of links, and I knew I had to send you an email. I'm almost exactly your size (an inch taller!) and I've had all the same clothing frustrations you're having. Currently, though, I'm living in Japan teaching English, and I wanted to tell you that in Asia clothes are actually EASY to find. I read your post on Uniqlo, and you should know that Uniqlo in Japan stocks sizes that fit the "petite" set in America. Their size S fits me perfectly, and I've been stocking up on their basic pants and shirts to bring home. I can walk into almost any store and find my size (I'm still the smallest size, but not so small that it has to be special ordered or altered). Many of my friends have gone to Thailand and have had suits custom made for $100. You expressed some hesitation about going to Asia and not being able to find stuff that fits. Bite the bullet. Buy the ticket.

I got into making my own clothes before coming to Japan, and will probably go back to doing that once I move back to the States. It's something I like to do, but it sure is nice to have the option here of going out and finding a new shirt on the weekend. Even the GAP sizes here are much, much smaller. I've worn Banana Republic Petite 00 pants and shirts in the past, and while they usually work fine, they break my budget just a little bit. I went into a thrift store here, and for the first time in years found clothes that fit off the rack.

I've always dreamed of coming to New York to go to all the little Soho stores, but now I'm re-directing that desire to Thailand or India where I have hope of finding my size. It's just too depressing to find cute things I can never wear. If you ever get into sewing and want to know how to alter patterns for the petite set, I can be of service.

Long live the petite woman!

- Kendra at Kyushu Chronicles

Hey Kendra!

Thanks for writing, and thanks for linking here! I totally know I have to suck it up and take a trip to Asia. I worked for a sizing/shape consulting company for a little bit and was told that I am actually shaped very much like the average Japanese female! Believe me, when I can slap together enough to take a trip over there, I'll be beaming over in a jiffy. Maybe you can even be my guide?

I also have a Japan Uniqlo shirt in Small that fits perfectly (thanks B!). You have no idea how frustrating it was to walk into the giant new Uniqlo downtown and find that everything I wanted (hello cheap well made cashmere sweaters...) was way too big! I'm completely unsurprised that the American brands there are Japanese sized. There are plenty of European brands (and obviously Asian) that size way up for Americans here - it's just catering to your market.

Unfortunately, your fabulous alteration advice will fall on my deaf ears (but perhaps my readers will find it useful?). I have NO sewing experience whatsoever. It's a miracle I passed home economics in high school (not my choice - it was required for both genders) since I couldn't figure out how to properly thread a sewing machine!

Don't feel so badly about missing out in SoHo. It's fun for ideas, and besides, think of all the money you'd be saving! Thanks again for writing Kendra. Definitely keep us posted on what brands may be good buys in Japan!

Amazonians in the Subway?

2007-03-14T14:40:00.000-04:00

hey there. i came across your blog and have been reading it all day! keep up the good work. i'm enjoying it! i'm 4ft10 also, and about 95lbs. i live in ny too, on the upper east side. and while i agree with all the things you say about the fashion industry, the one thing i want to get off my chest to someone who can relate is what is going on with all these 6ft plus tall women, and why are they all wearing heels? i know they say average height is 5ft4, but to go by my neighborhood i would swear it's more like 5ft8. every time i ride the subway in flats i feel like i'm in the land of the amazons. it seems like a few times per day i see women have to duck their heads down to enter or exit the subway car. crazy. is it just me or have you noticed the same kind of thing as well?

nancy

Hey Nancy, thanks for reading my blog and writing me! I totally agree that it seems like everyone on the subway in much taller than me - but I wonder if it's because we are particularly sensitive to it? I also live on the UES, and I would posit that my impression is about 5'6" for women on average - but as you point out, everyone seems to be wearing heels anyway. I also suspect that the shorter riders in your subway car do what I do - try to find a seat ASAP so they don't get smothered by the giants around them!

Women wear heels for a variety of reasons - and I would say that gaining height is NOT the first on that list for most people. It's not for me either! I personally wear heels because they make me feel more dressed up and sexier. Certainly, there are height advantages, but I've stopped believing that anyone is fooled into thinking I'm really 5'4" by wearing 6" heels (I don't). The tall women you see probably feel similarly - flats won't make anyone think they're shorter, so why shouldn't they just wear their heels and feel good too?

Also, I want to just point out that the UES isn't exactly a fair sample of what is average in the city, much less the country! I suspect if you go out to the outer boroughs, you'll notice that people are a bit more diverse (in every way).

Cheap, Fast, and Painless Way to Grow 12 Inches!

2007-02-23T23:34:00.000-05:00

No, it's not some warped XXX ad or some crazy growth hormone.... Unlike either of those, this one is proven to work!

I love to make homemade soups and stocks, so I bought this pot a while ago. Cheap too at around $100 - pasta and steamer basket included. Disclaimer: cracker box is only used to demonstrate size. Buyer is solely responsible for producing edible items.

But since I live in a tiny Manhattan apartment, I ran out of places to store it. No sweat though, as I wound up just leaving it out - and I'm glad I did! Most of my storage space is way above my head, and I'd been meaning to get a step stool. But I soon realized I didn't need to - I already had one built in! This lovely multi-purpose household aid added a full foot to my height. Suddenly, even the cabinets above the fridge were easy to reach! It was also pretty helpful in giving me a boost to standing on my miniscule kitchen counter (for those hard to reach top shelves).

While I certainly will say don't try this at home, you do have to wonder for yourself - just exactly how strong is stainless steel? I haven't a clue, but is anyone out there able to calculate what weight limit this pot can support?

At 5'3" Even Professional Critical Shoppers Have Trouble

2007-02-20T23:40:00.000-05:00

Zarah Crawford begins her NY Times Critical Shopper piece, Vintage Clothes With an Eye on Tomorrow, noting that "at just under 5-foot-3, with a body my mother describes as 'well covered,' I often find my love of high fashion to be a sadly one-sided affair." This statement, posted in an article just after NY Fashion Week concluded, highlights one of the problems that non-standard shaped people have with high fashion. If the shoe doesn't fit, my dear fellow Stepsister, you're just not Cinderella in Designerland.

What's worthy of note is that 5'3" is just an inch under average height for a woman in the United States. I personally have already written off designer wear because I'd have to perform radical and expensive surgery on the already expensive garments for things to fit - and potentially destroying the elements and proportions that make it notable to begin with. I mean, what can you do when the waist of the garment is at your hip bone? The very fact that a woman of average height and probably higher budget has the same problems makes it even more troubling. I mean I hate to ask again, but how tall do designers expect their clients to be to wear this stuff? 5'7"? 5'9"?

Crawford's review of Frock, seems generous and hopefully, particularly for a shorty like me. She starts by uttering the statement that I've become fond of when entering unknown stores: Do you have anything to fit me? The answer for her is yes! So it's no surprise that I'm anxious to try this place out.

The knowledgeable owners helped her find a few things that worked, and Crawford even purchased something that "fitted like it was made for [her]." At a full 5" height disadvantage to Crawford, I still intend to hit Frock up sometime this week to get my own impressions. Hopefully, the owners are as knowledgeable as she claims them to be. And after all, vintage is one of the suggested options for smaller and shorter people. And you know what? It's good that some benefit can come from our parents' and grandparents' nutritional woes!

How I Got Inside the Tents, or How I Hope I Won't Get Denied Next Time Around Because I Wrote This

2007-02-15T23:39:00.000-05:00

People are probably wondering how in the world I got past the security checkpoints at Bryant Park last week. While I'd love to say that it was because of the slew of invitations, my killer wardrobe, or my ability to sneak through several layers of security every day, I actually got in the old-fashioned way: through press credentials. I have to say, I was surprised how easily I managed to get access, but apparently, blogging is now an acceptable 'in' for the shows. (Silly me, for not realizing they realized it sooner!)

Certainly, at this point in time, there's no possible way for bloggers to NOT have access to the shows. Maybe not to the extent that Courtorture managed to last season (see the article below). But it's a guarantee that someone in the guest list blogs and will be posting. Obviously, traditional outlets (and publicists) just can't control the flow of information like they used to. Ignore the blogger at your peril.

Sheryl B., a fashion stylist I met at the tents the first night, was kind enough to send me Bloggers in Tents: Fashion Warms to New Media, posted at MediaBistro.com. According to the article, the show organizers decided to officially open up the shows because "these are credible journalists, and if that's the way news is being distributed, then we want to be a part of it." And yes, the 221 official shows were underattended by the "important people" (i.e., buyers, celebrities, traditional media editors), so I guess we were acceptable filler.

Ok, so all this may be true, but they don't officially tell you a few things. Certainly, it's a means of damage control. Woo those bloggers with access and maybe you'll win them over to the merits of your brand (Hey, there's a reason why brands bother with these shows. They're more impressive in person than from a computer, paging through Style.com). It's also a means of officially keeping a sense of exclusivity at these events while maintaining audience membership. Joe Schmo still can't waltz right in through the front door and get a seat (even if half the shows are not so well attended by the invited guests).

As you can see from my pass, it allows lobby access only, not guaranteed entry to the shows. The organizers for each particular label's show control their lists - not the Fashion Week organizers. I certainly wasn't on the show lists. To be fair, my experience is marred by the fact that I signed up last minute, so there wasn't time to invite me even if they wanted to. But I suspect most bloggers who signed up way in advance still didn't get invitations into the show unless they're big. The Sartorialist being a good example. (Scott, did I actually see you in the front row for Anna Sui?) I definitely met quite a few other bloggers, in the waitlist line for each of the shows I attended. What was interesting was that the waitlist also had plenty of invitation holding guests as well. Yup, you read correctly. Even if you RSVP, you still don't get guaranteed anything unless you're important to the designers. You're there to fill in the empty seats if the editor/buyer/celeb doesn't show up. Just like me.

The other thing they don't tell you is that press access isn't free. Anyone wearing one of the dangly passes above paid to play. Depending on when you registered, each pass granted costs $50-$100. And I highly doubt the NY Times and Vogue writers needed to pay (they got invitations to each of the shows). Only the little guys (and gals) like me did. As someone in the press access line ahead of me told me, our registrations got held up because to a certain extent, we don't actually matter to them.

While I'm certainly grateful to get my foot in the tent without a huge hassle (even with the fee), I definitely maintain my skepticism that the sudden inclusiveness is ushering a new era of press democratization. Maybe you'll get an invite next time around if something you say is particularly noteworthy by the designer. But don't forget that even the NY Times can be revoked for a bad review too (and the designers can be likewise publicly punished for doing so). Actually, maybe the waitlist and the standing room aren't so bad. You can't exactly be slapped by an uninvite unless you were allowed at the party in the first place. And after all, I still maintain that the best viewing spots (trumped only by the front row) are actually in the standing room areas.

Or maybe it's because I'm too short to otherwise see.

Designers for Darfur

2007-02-13T14:15:00.000-05:00

Lest anyone think that NY Fashion Week is just an 8-day self-absorbed commercial event, the last runway show I went to was a charity and awareness event organized by Designers For Darfur on February 9th at the Roseland Ballroom. I was invited to the event last minute, but I was happy to tag along to see how it would turn out. The organization was recently founded to help bring international attention and donations to Africa's Darfur region, and this was their first event. Guests were encouraged to commit donation pledges after watching a video, highlighting the effects that the genocide has had upon the region, and the show. I don't think anyone in the entire room was unaware of what was going on in Darfur prior to the video, but it definitely served as a sobering reminder.

40+ well-known designers each donated a look for the show - a very impressive feat organized by DFD founders Malcolm Harris, a designer for Mal Sirrah, and Lydia Hearst, heiress and model. Designers were from Heatherette, Chado Ralph Rucci, Malandrino, Donna Karan, Carmen Marc Valvo, Baby Phat, etc. - a wide cross-section of styles and customer bases. All of the runway looks are actually for auction on eBay, with all proceeds given to charity (find better shots by clicking on the photo above).

A lot of effort was put into the front-end of the show - the designers were obviously top-notch and so were the models. The Roseland isn't a minor venue either. I have no doubt that the organizers really believed in this event and pushed as hard as they could, hoping for a greater media splash. Unfortunately, it didn't really come to fruition. It was not actually covered as anything other than another show in most media outlets (if it wasn't ignored completely, which was most of the time). Perhaps everyone was tired by the full week of 200+ shows already given. The other charity event, the Red Dress Collection, to raise national awareness for heart disease in women, actually snagged a First Lady and plenty of press power by kick-starting the week on the first day of shows, in the tents. Obviously, timing didn't exactly explain everything either.

Even the event's own sponsors didn't really push it. Looking through sponsor websites, only Fashion Television actually posted any information about the event. Yet, the nagging truth is that of course, no one had to bother participating at all. Say what you will about their reasons for helping out, it's commendable that at the very least, they made an effort and a commitment.

You can learn more at the Save Darfur Coalition.

The High-Heeled Take a Fall - Off the Runway

2007-02-09T00:35:00.000-05:00

I have definitely not been dressing to impress at the tents. Jeans, flat shoes, and maybe a dressy jacket on a good day. Slap on some makeup, and I'm good to go. I was dressed to be comfortable standing around for a few hours. Looking around, it was clear that most of the women (and some of the men), were not taking practicality into account. Not surprising, given the event!

Honestly, I felt like I was the only girl in the place not wearing towering heels, except for the working crew (most of them, anyway). Obviously, my runway view while standing would have been slightly better had I been wearing heels - but is 5'2" going to be much better than 4'10" anyway?

I was in the waitlist/standing line a lot of the time, and every so often, I'd hear a resigned variation of the "my feet hurt" refrain. Unsurprising, given the huge numbers of wedges, pumps, and boots around me. I do wonder, however, if their footwear choice would have been slightly different had they realized how booby-trapped the tents are!

Most of the uncarpeted lobby is cobblestoned - which is difficult enough to manage when it's well-lit, you're sober, and not tired! Right before the shows start letting people in, it's often incredibly crowded in the lobby, so it's easy to lose your footing as well.

But once you get past security to enter the show corridor (past the security guard in the 3rd picture), you need to navigate up the stairs. So, going up is no big deal really, but I've already seen, firsthand, three young women go tumbling down the flight while coming out of the show, into the lobby. Twice, a security guard caught them, midflight. Once, the woman actually landed, but luckily didn't hurt herself. I wonder if the vast number of security guards are really there to protect us from ourselves more than to prevent disorderly conduct!

During shows, all eyes are on the runway, and model wipe outs become something of a shocking and tragically memorable mishap. But come on, these girls are actually professionals! The shoes are super-strapped to their feet (see my commentary here on dressing them). Not only are the runways flat and the women practiced, but most of the shows put a plastic sheet over them to protect the surface from any dirt or loose pebbles that could lead to disaster. The sheet comes off moments before the start. If anyone should be worrying about a spill, it's the audience!

House lights are usually not so illuminating, and the seats are jammed right into each other. Narrow risers and stairs are almost unavoidable. Electrical lines, tripod legs, and taped signs on the floor give plenty of snaggable opportunities. Believe me, I've been in the stand room sections a lot - all the way up in the nosebleed section. It's pretty damn steep and you don't want to fall down the stairs!

If you're lucky and are cool enough to get a seat by invitation (or fast enough to snag one when they need to fill up the house), you have 15 minutes of seated bliss. The standing room section is not kind to those that can't keep their balance. When the lights are off, and everyone's shifting around to get a good look, it sometimes feels like the subway during rush hour.

Once the show's over, the mad surge by the entire audience to the lobby is another source of consternation. Good luck with the stairs, wires, impatient people, and everything else in your way! You're won the game if you make it outside onto the sidewalk without any mishaps.

I tell you, looking fabulously fashionable isn't easy! You're freezing in your skimpy outfit (or boiling with your fur coat inside), your bag's huge and heavy, your feet hurt like hell, and your shoes just might get you killed. But really, if you aren't suffering, you aren't trying hard enough! How else will you get in that shot, taken by an intrepid photographer? Well, you definitely won't be seeing me in any fashion spreads this week. I'll pass on the photo-op and aim for practical (and less costly) comfort!

The Photographers' Pit - Tighter Than Moshing!

2007-02-07T23:43:00.000-05:00

I enjoy paying attention to things that other people aren't covering. Particularly, what happens behind the stage - all the unglamorous work that goes into these productions. Today, I managed to snag a few photos of the photographers in action.

I seem to have this weird fascination with the photographers' pit - I really can't explain it. Definitely some admiration mixed in, as these guys allow the fashion sites, blogs, and papers to plaster their pages with money shots. They aren't the TV crews in the lobby or on the floor doing celebrity interviews or 'spot the fashionista.' If you stand or sit near the pit during the shows, you can actually hear the constant staccato 'click click click' throughout the show - even with the music blasting.

It's amazing how quickly they can get in and out with all their stuff. Certainly, they're pros, but nonetheless, they have their heavy duty camera, a stand, a laptop, and sometimes a step ladder to get better angles.

As far as I can tell, their days are pretty simply mapped out. The professional photographers get passes that allow them to get in and out of shows before the general public. Typically, they seem to head into shows about half an hour before seating opens up to set up their equipment and guard their spots. As soon as the last model walks off the stage and the designer does his/her walk out from backstage to receive the applause, they're packing and getting out of the room quickly. If they have a show right after another, they pack up and are crossing over to the next tent room. Wherever I wind up stationed in the room, when I pass by the pit leaving, most of the photographers are gone. When I'm being herding out to the lobby, I often hear the security guards guiding them over to the next entrance and telling them to line up outside the doors.

Some of the more enterprising photographers snag an empty seat or stand way in the back to get a differently angled shot than the crowd in the pit. The second picture shows a model being photographed by both the pit and a photographer sitting near me.

When they're done for the day, they wind up sending their photographs via laptop and wireless to their editors and call it a day. Typically, you see a ton of them hanging around, having a drink, and maybe even taking some shots of the audience. The MAC and IMG lounges in the lobby were particular favorites of theirs, as they offered plenty of space and seating.

Anyway, here goes a synopsis of the photos. The first is the set up for the Michon Schur show in the Salon tonight. If you look above the photographers, you can see the set up for the lights before they start megawatting the runway. The second photo is during the Dragana Ognjenovic show, another smaller designer, in the Showroom. The model is at the foot of the runway, just about to pause in her pose. Third shot - going back to Michon Schur, this is the pit in action, with the lights up and cameras aimed. It's not surprising that most of the models can't see a thing when they step out.

I've been meaning to get the fourth photo all week, but never managed to till today because of the crowds. The more reputable or important photographers get their own taped off 'box' in the pit. I'm more than positive that watching the pit during a shoot would be incredibly interesting. Just in case you were wondering, the photographers do get some help as they do have a set of steps inside.

The last shot is during the Anna Sui show in the huge Tent room. This show was packed, hot, and crazy. The pit was a sardine tin! I swear, when the models were at the foot of the runway, there was almost a surge forward by the cameras.

Although I have to offer a disclaimer - the next few days of posts won't have anything to do with petite fashion - I hope that readers will find the coverage interesting and informative anyway!

Big Girl, You Are Beautiful to Max Azria

2007-02-06T17:15:00.000-05:00

When the music started playing and the models walking out, I started laughing hysterically. For at least half the show, and all of the finale, Max Azria had Mika's Big Girl (You Are Beautiful) pumping in the background. I was far from the only one noticing the choice of music, although most of the comments I heard were in regards to how fun it was (it is indeed, a happy bouncing tune, perfectly energetic for the runway), or just remarking about the song at all.

How ironic that this song was used, as the Council of Fashion Designers of America just met that morning to talk about what they're going to do about the issue of skinny models (in WWD.com). Style.com tactfully decided to interpret the music choice as that "to hammer home the point that the three-season-old Max Azria line is more grown-up than its sibling, BCBG Max Azria."

Yeah, um, sure. I never heard the song before last night and was highly amused during the entire show (from SweetLyrics):

Big girl you are beautiful

Walks in to the room
Feels like a big balloon
I said hey girl you are beautiful
Diet coke and a pizza please
Diet coke im on my knees
Screaming, big girl you are beautiful

You take your skinny girl
I feel like im gonna die
Coz a real woman needs a (real man has why)
You take your girl and multiply about four
Now a whole lot of woman needs a whole lot more
...
Curves in the right places

The NY Times's article today about the dilemma of unhealthy models, Looking Beyond the Runway For Answers on Underweight Models, hits upon most of the complications of the recent discussions. Yes, it is complicated, and the other activities mentioned that put a strong emphasis on weight gain or loss show this (dancing, wrestling, jockeying, etc).

Regardless, whether as a protest against artist limitation or as a jab to the hysteria, the song and show definitely stuck in my head! (And sorry, Max Azria didn't back the song up with appropriately large ladies - the models were still typically thin, athough I guess according to the Times, not quite as thin or as young as last season's go around.)

Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week New York Fall 2007

2007-02-05T20:50:00.000-05:00

When I told one of my friends I was trying to decide what time to visit Bryant Park last Saturday, he advised me to avoid the area entirely for the next week. After all, that crazy fashion week thing tends to cause a big snarl up with activity - the skating rink even had to close early! When I told him that the shows were the reason I was going, he was a little incredulous that I was seriously willing to submit myself to the crowds. Heck, I was a bit surprised myself!

I have incredibly mixed feelings about going this week. Certainly, I can say that I wanted to experience how things were as a regular (waitlist) show attendee from the front stage. No dressing models this time around. Instead, I walked through the front doors and just watched a lot of shows. The only show that I can even pretend was related to petite clothing was the Ellen Tracy show I just came from tonight - and none of the stuff coming down the runway was likely to be the final petite selection anyway (no, no petite models, don't be silly!). But honestly, despite my somewhat ruthless and unsentimental view about the shows (i.e., the week long clothing commerical), I confess that I still am a bit caught up in the whole hoopla and glamour. As a woman, I think it's probably near impossible to avoid it.

Anyway, I'll try to post a bit about my experience and upload some non-standard photos. Like my previous posts on fashion week, I'm probably not going to bother posting the usual stock photos since there are hundreds of lovelier ones elsewhere - check out Style.com and NY Magazine's coverage. Since this is my first experience with the shows from this end, I'll try to share that experience with you, rather than give any post-show analysis. I know I'll be fixated by the camera pit again, so I apologize in advance!

This shot is actually of the center lobby space, right around the fountain. The waitlist line wraps around it, and generally, it's set up for you to admire the accessories. Note the screens - they play through the previous shows so that you have something to watch while waiting for your late-starting show.

New Blog - Petite Fashionista

2007-01-15T01:16:00.000-05:00

While romping through the webpages of the new and fabulous, I came across Christa Jean's blog, Petite Fashionista. Christa's living in Toronto and gives a variety of petite and general clothing advice. Of particular interest to those who may be interested in celebrity news, Christa often features a specific petite celebrity and discusses what she's wearing in the shot.

Swing by Christa's blog and say hi! I'm glad that more petite women are getting out there and posting information and advice!

Yesterday's Purchases at Banana

2007-01-08T20:40:00.000-05:00

I'm having a bit of a problem with uploading photos to Blogger so bear with me! I managed to get these in before uploading stopped working....

My favorite purchase of all was this black velvet pinstriped blazer in 00P that I picked up for $59.99. I should probably stop buying all this black clothing as it's pretty hard to photograph in my apartment! (The weird washed out one was my attempt to capture the details using a flash....) I've been eyeing it since the early winter because it just fits so well on me. I don't need a single alteration!

Shoulder seam to seam: 13.5"
Top of shoulder seam to cuff: 21.5"
Top of neck seam to waist: 13"
Waist: 28"
Under arm circumference: 31"

The two pairs of pants I got were definitely a "settle because of the low price" deal. I have a sneaking suspicion that the seat size is getting larger and larger for the 00P as time passes. All the jeans I tried on were huge!

These cargo pants actually fit me pretty well - particularly because they didn't stretch. They were a ridiculously low $11.99. I almost can't bear to hem them, since the alterations will cost almost as much as the pants themselves!

Ryan cut slim cargos

Waist: 28"
Hip: 36"
Front Rise: 7"
Back Rise: 12"
Inseam: 31.5"
Thigh circumference (widest): 20"

The cords were actually a bit loose on me but they practically fit and were so comfortable! As you can see, they do nothing to particularly flatter my posterior, but well, I guess I can't blame the pants! For $25.99, not something to complain about it. They're loose because they're stretch cords, but don't stretch on me. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that they'll shrink in the wash.

5-pocket skinny cordorouys

Waist: 28"
Hip: 36"
Front Rise: 7.5"
Back Rise: 12.5"
Inseam: 30"
Thigh: 20"

Banana Republic 00P and 0P on Sale at UES Location!

2007-01-06T19:22:00.000-05:00

Banana Republic
1136 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10028
212-570-2465

Now that I've already cleared through and bought everything I wanted, I guess it's fair game to the rest of you guys that haven't stopped in yet! I popped into this Upper East Side location while passing through a few hours ago. This has always been one of my favorite BR locations because it has a great petite's selection, and the foot traffic isn't insane (like in Rockafeller or at Lexington/59th).

If you're a size 00P, 0P, or even 2P, you're in fabulous luck! I think they decided to ship out all the tiny sizes to this particular location, as I saw a TON of pants, jeans, jackets, and dresses in those sizes for really low prices. What do you expect? It's the 2nd after-Christmas cut and they need to clear this stuff out NOW!

My stash:
* Ryan cut cargo pants for $11.99
* Ryan cut skinny cordorouys for $25.99
* Velvet jacket for $59.99 (really $99, they misticketed it but let me have it anyway)
* Strapless dress for $48.99

I'm debating on a bunch of other items, but I'm super picky. I brought a ton of pants into the dressing room, but alas, my butt is a touch too flat to wear them. There were jeans there for $10.99 or $12.99, and the rest were below $40.

If you're anywhere near this store tomorrow morning, my advice to you is to hit this place up! Normally, all the 00P and 0P online are all sold out or really ugly, so here's a chance to get everything and try it all on in one trip!

Only downside is that there are no size 5 or 5 1/2 shoes in the entire store. But I think the clothing is good enough of a reason to come in!

(I'll post photos of what I got tomorrow)

Shopping Spree Help Requested From a Reader

2006-12-29T00:30:00.000-05:00

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...

2006-12-25T22:31:00.000-05:00

From Dinosaur Comics, November 12th, 2006.

Happy Holidays!

It's a Compliment - Really

2006-12-22T18:10:00.000-05:00

"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

2006-11-13T22:54:00.000-05:00

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

2006-10-17T22:18:00.000-04:00

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!

2006-10-12T21:41:00.000-04:00

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

2006-10-10T23:39:00.000-04:00

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

2006-10-05T22:59:00.000-04:00

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

2006-10-04T11:55:00.000-04:00

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

2006-09-26T23:46:00.000-04:00

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

2006-09-21T23:50:00.000-04:00

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!

2006-09-18T20:39:00.000-04:00

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!

2006-09-17T23:58:00.000-04:00

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

2006-09-14T13:43:00.001-04:00

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

2006-09-11T02:10:00.000-04:00

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?!

2006-09-07T01:04:00.000-04:00

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?

2006-09-05T21:02:00.000-04:00

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

2006-08-31T11:04:00.000-04:00

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

2006-08-25T23:51:00.000-04:00

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?

2006-08-17T14:06:00.000-04:00

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

2006-08-14T23:58:00.000-04:00

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

2006-08-10T15:00:00.000-04:00

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

2006-08-08T23:25:00.000-04:00

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!

2006-08-08T11:28:00.000-04:00

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

2006-08-06T23:18:00.000-04:00

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?

2006-08-05T00:19:00.000-04:00

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?

Size 5 Feet - Sometimes It Pays to Be Small

2006-08-03T15:37:00.000-04:00

I almost never walk into a Kenneth Cole because the prices are just high - even on sale. But I promised to meet a friend at Grand Central this past weekend and needed to kill some time before he arrived. Actually, I took a wrong turn (sorry, I'm not a Grand Central navigation pro yet!) and thought I was going into the Banana Republic, but stuck around in Kenneth Cole when I noticed that there was a 70% off the sale prices sale.

Well! That makes a huge difference. I went through the clothes for a few minutes but realized that nothing would fit me. If you're a normal sized person, those items were downright inexpensive, so you should give it a shot! As an example, I picked up 2 men's button down shirts for a friend for $18 each instead of the full price of $79.50.

For me, what I really noticed was the shoe section. Most of the shoes were the random assortment of large sizes or left over ugly shoes. But more importantly, I realized that Kenneth Cole actually carries size 5 and 5 1/2 shoes in its retail store! If you have small feet like me, you realize that finding a pair of shoes smaller than a 6 is a nightmare, as a lot of stores only carry the smaller sizes online.

Lately, I've stuck to the Zenswa style that Reebok makes, with a split sole. They're very light and very comfortable - but the outer toe area tends to wear out quickly. I've been meaning to replace them for a while, and finally found my opportunity here. I found a whole stack of size 5 sneakers called Sneak a Boo II that were rather nice and I tried them on. Talk about a sweet deal - they were originally $125, but I paid $24. When I left the store, I had 2 pairs of shoes and 2 men's dress shirts. The total bill? $83.98.

For the small footed, it seems crazy is that stores no longer typically carry size 5's or 5 1/2's - even though they're still in the standard non-specialty size range. In places like Manhattan you'd think that they'd sell well, but I guess that's the way it goes. I've always had an issue with the seemingly unfathomable size allocations for stores (how many of what size is carried on a location to location basis), but there's not much I can do about that.

Now, for those of you out there that live in suburbia, be thankful that stores still stock rather inefficiently because if you're in the upper or lower ranges of sizing, sale days are fabulous. I should know - I'm from Long Island! (No jokes, please - or at least make it original!) Roosevelt Field Mall, the 10th largest in the country, was (and probably still is) this pristine field of too many size 0P's and size 5 shoes during sale season. So for all you guys and gals out there that are too small - try hitting up the nearest suburbs for a great deal!

00P and Petite XXS at Ann Taylor and LOFT!

2006-07-31T19:50:00.000-04:00

FINALLY! I can only assume that Ann Taylor realized that (1) its sizing runs insanely large, and (2) Banana Republic's 00(P) offerings were briskly selling. I happily also realized that not only was the company creating smaller sizes for regular and petites, it was also expanding its larger sizes up to 18 regular and 16P (XXL and PXL for sweaters) - in both Ann Taylor and Ann Taylor LOFT. Now, that's something that we in the "special sizes" category (hah!) can appreciate!

Perhaps the recent expansion was due to Ann Taylor Stores Corp. doing well during the last few months - tighter control of merchandise and a more focused direction with LOFT helped enormously with profit margins. Flush with increased sales, maybe the company saw an opportunity to capture more of the market by expanding the sizes offered?

What excites me most is the smaller sizing of the sweaters and knits. Admittedly, you technically can get some sweaters altered - but it really strikes me as a bad idea. It's just possibly impossible - and when it isn't, shudderingly expensive. So, what you see in the store is what you're stuck with. Hence, my previous whining about J.Crew's limited sweater options.

I haven't yet stopped by any Ann Taylor stores to see the new sizing in the flesh yet (I'm not even sure if they offer it in stores at all), but I just placed an order for a suit, dress, blouse, and sweaters to see if my pleasure is to be long lasting or just short-lived. Hopefully, its not just another disappointing bout of size inflation! I'll be sure to do a little write up as soon as everything arrives.

From now till August 27, you get 15% or 20% off everything (you get 20% when you order $175+) and free shipping with coupon code 44200002. With that in mind, give it a whirl! Oh, and for you picky shoppers out there (just like me, are you?), the discount is pro-rated for the items you keep when you return just about everything else in your order. So why not order more than $175 and give yourself the extra 5% discount....

Gap Kids Store Review - Have I Shrunk Again?

2006-07-26T20:45:00.000-04:00

Gap Kids
1535 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10128
212-423-0033

I popped in a few weeks ago when my brother suggested I check out the store again. Of course, now I remember why I never shop in here! Most of the clothes are of decent quality and cut for the prices (sales come and go all the time here). So it's only the insistence of the Gap Kids designers to make everything so, well, childish that makes me refrain from buying most anything.

I know, at this point, most of you are thinking, 'what do you expect? It IS a children's store!' But my God, does everything have to have a little embossed (or gigantic printed) cutsie palm tree/sailboat/heart/rainbow on it?! Poor teenagers - I don't get the impression that 13+ year old girls or boys want to be dressed like this. Then again, it's been over a decade since I was that young, so maybe I'm wrong here? It gives me the impression that the only parents that shop here for their 14 year olds are desperately trying to tampen down their children's hormones. Can you possibly get more wholesome (at this price anyway) than this?

Anyway, despite my grumbling, I did wind up checking out the jeans -and a random dress, for kicks. It's been several years since I tried on a pair of jeans here, and I was surprised to find that either I've lost weight and a few inches off the top, or the pants are sized differently. About 7 years ago, I fit into a size 16 slim. The 16 slim fit in the waist, were just a little longer than my heels, and a little baggy in the thigh/leg area. Imagine my surprise when I slipped on a 14 slim and found that they were slightly longer than the old pair (which, alas, I no longer own), and tighter in the leg. I actually recall that I probably bought the size 16s back then because the legs were too short. I guess Gap realized teenage girls want to wear high heels or something, as I highly doubt they've gotten more willowy over the years.

The pants were not baby dolled up except for a tiny rainbow tag on the right back pocket. Easy enough to snip it off if you so desired. Quite a few of the other jeans did not have any of the girlie adornments on them, so if you can find a pair that's good here, it's a good deal cheaper (these were $29.50...about $20 cheaper than the ones in adult Gap). It also has some 'distress' marks on the inner thighs for stylistic purposes. They measure 26 1/2" around the waist, and have a 28" inseam.

The big shock came when I suspiciously looked at this dress. It came in the entire Gap Kids range of sizes. It's actually unbelievable to be wearing something like this past the age of 12, but I was stunned to find it available in larger sizes! The belief in the age appropriateness of baby bunnies and huge colorful flowers on clothing for 16 year olds by the designers is to be...commended.

Ok, honestly the thing that really threw me is that the sizes for some of the clothing seems be really off. The dress I tried on did come in size 14 and 16 too, but I was wearing one sized for an 8 year old! How embarrassing! Not only was the item a size 8, but it was slightly too big for me, well, everywhere except the shoulder straps.

So I have a relatively big bottom and small top? Hmm. I'm not really sure about that one either. Another item I own is a denim skirt that I bought about 3 years ago that I absolutely love...in a size 8, with a 24" waist. Oh well, I guess this isn't something to fuss about - after all, the adult clothing is the same way!

Gap Kids does not carry dress up clothing except for a button down shirt or two, in either gendered section. If you're willing (or deliberately looking) to put up with the cutsie stuff, then the place does carry quite a good selection of decent polo shirts, pants, jeans, and outer wear - with a definite imbalance towards pink and pastels for the girls, and blues and yellows for the boys.

Otherwise, you can do what I do, and hit 'em up for a lone skirt or shirt that doesn't make your short self look like you're supposed to be shopping here! If you're looking for great quality however, I'd suggest somewhere else, as most of the stuff isn't made to last terribly long in great condition.

If anyone else has any other suggestions for children's stores, be my guest and let me know!

J.Crew Phone & Online ordering review

2006-07-24T23:57:00.000-04:00

In my last post, I did a mini-review of J.Crew's retail store, to get a peek at all the stuff short people can't buy in store. Because of a complete lack of petites in store, I decided to chronicle my experience with J.Crew's mail order service.

It's possible to order J.Crew's merchandise through its catalog, online, or over the phone at 800-562-0258. However, all 3 of these methods require you to pay extra for shipping. Now, I don't know about you, but I get annoyed whenever I have to pay extra to purchase something I may not even wind up buying (incidentally, there is free shipping with code NFS-100 until August 4th with some restrictions...but this is very rare!). Since most of the special sizing selection is only available through the mail, I don't consider free shipping a perk anymore. It's bad enough that stores don't stock my size or enough items in my size - stores should definitely comp for the shipping and extra annoyance!

One little know fact is that if you can actually get free shipping to your home if you order on the red phone in any J.Crew store, as long as at least one item is full price. If you don't want anything, you can return everything in store as well. It's a pretty straight forward process; the only annoyance is that size 0P clothing disappears quickly (not one dress was available), and the sales associate on the phone with you can't filter by size - only by style number. If you're cheap like me, my suggestion is to browse online, and jot down all the style numbers you're interested in. After purchasing 2 sets of suits and a blouse, I waited for my order to arrive.

My order arrived in less than a week to my apartment. I was very impressed with the packaging job. As you can see, everything was on an individual hanger and then plastic wrapped. The hangers were good quality - the pants hangers even had a rubberized elastic that held my slacks in place. I typically order from Ann Taylor or Banana Republic, and J.Crew definitely did a better job with wrapping its mail ordered items.

Unfortunately, I didn't wind up liking the clothing very much. Everything was huge on me. This short-sleeve French Oxford Shirt was a size 0P, and needed to be taken in a lot! Even so, I thought that it was a a pretty good quality shirt and not terribly expensive at $58.

I wasn't particularly impressed with the wool twill suiting or the wool gabardine suiting I got either. Besides the fit issue (when is it even not an issue for me? - just look at the photo at left), I didn't particularly care for the fabric itself. On the plus side, while I was returning everything, I learned that all J.Crew button cuff jackets are actually functional - so you can 'roll' up your jacket sleeves a bit. Price wise, they weren't that bad, at $228/$198 for the jackets, $128/$118 for the pants, and $98 for the skirt. But without any subsudies for alterations, J.Crew suits are a costly option for me.

Sizing is just obsurd - the pants in particular were just falling off of me! In fact, a nice strong tug would have them swimming at my ankles. I literally would need to have them taken in 4 1/4" to fit correctly. They measured 30" around - completely unfixable unless I were to get them taken in through the back (the seat was too big as well) and through both side seams. On a particularly outraged note, the size charts for J.Crew indicate that a size 0P should have a 23" waist and 33" hips. In reality - according to its size chart, the true measurements indicate that the pants should accurately be sized as a 6P.

All in all, aside from the sizing, I found this crop of suits from J.Crew a little disappointing, but not terribly so. The suits were, after all, well constructed and shapely. I wasn't fond of the fabric choice, but I am admittedly a fabric snob. When the Super 110's come out again, I'll be pawing at the suits again. It's just a shame that I'm really too small to wear them.

If you're a bit longer limbed than me, J.Crew might be a good option for you. Fit really is everything, so if it works for you, its not a bad price for the quality. If all you need is a hem, then this is a great bet. Otherwise, I would suggest a trip to Brooks Brothers, where old-school suits come with cheaper alteration options. Finally, it is again worth noting that J.Crew doesn't carry any petite sweaters, which is truly a shame. I'm glad I made the effort of looking at its items - but for me, J.Crew just won't cut it unless it makes its business attire smaller. Hopefully, J.Crew will be willing to create a size 00P like Banana Republic did last year!

J.Crew - A Quick Store Visit

2006-07-20T23:54:00.000-04:00

J.Crew
347 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10017
212-949-0570

As I noted in a revision to my previous post, Finding Petite Stores - Where Can I Go?, J.Crew does not in fact, stock petites in any of its retail locations. They do, however, have a petite selection that can be ordered either online or over the phone. I decided to take a closer look at the large J.Crew on Madison to check out the quality of some of the items in person.

This store is one of J.Crew's largest in Manhattan. It's really close to several other traditional suiting stores due to its Midtown location near Grand Central. Brooks Brothers, Paul Stuart, and Ann Taylor are literally across the street. The store is laid out all on one floor and includes both men's and women's selections. I found the staff there to be extremely nice and helpful. Yet again, I discovered another thin salesperson to commiserate with - she also has to get 0's taken in! She was very good about explaining the alterations policy to me.

Alas, J.Crew is rather miserly and won't pay for any alterations on non-full priced items. And even for the full priced merchandise, only basic hems are free! Hmph! But I did walk out of there with the card for the store's tailor. Not only does he do all the alterations for this store, he also has accounts with other retailers so I'm pretty sure he's good. J.Crew and he have an arrangement so that if anything happens to mess up the garment, it's handled so you won't get screwed. I'll have to give him a try some time on some stuff I have already.

Right now, they're running a summer sale, but the only things I actually took a fancy to were the cheap ribbon belts and the men's bowties (yes, you read it correctly). I never got the impression that the 'J.Crew Man' wore bowties - but I guess that's why they're on sale. I snagged a ribbon belt for myself, and two bowties - one as a gift and one for me as a gag. Yes, I do know how to tie one!

I poked around the non-sale items but wasn't particularly impressed there either. Ok, I fully admit that I really don't like J.Crew merchandise in general - but its traditional suiting and work wear is definitely classic and wearable. A few seasons ago, I was taken with the quality and pricing on the Super 110 suits they had. If only more of its corporate stuff fit!

Searching a bit, I latched onto a J.Crew's cashmere sweater. I honestly thought they were better than Ann Taylor's or Banana's. And they're about the same price (this one's $138), if not cheaper. Pity, as it seems a cruel joke that none of the sweaters in any fabric or style are made for petites. So, this woefully huge XS cashmere sweater (at least on me) is as close as it gets for me in J.Crew. In the picture, you might be able to tell that I'm trying to extend my fingers as far as possible. Yeah, sleeves are way too long (19" from armpit to cuff) and wide, along with everything else!

I promise! The review for my petite phone order at the J.Crew store will be up very shortly!

Capri Pants??

2006-07-13T18:36:00.000-04:00

Summer in New York (especially Manhattan) always kills me - the concrete jungle we live in becomes incredibly hazy and well, disgusting. I'm all for shedding more layers and getting some circulation, but one article of clothing just boggles my mind - capris. Especially for shorter people! I admit that I'm a bit biased as I've never found the look to be particularly attractive on anyone - even tall women. But I just don't understand why a short woman would want to wear something that makes her look even more short.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why people wear them for practical reasons. Sure, they're a bit cooler and show a lot more than a modest full pant leg does, but I find them aesthetically challenging. The shortness of the hem never fails to make me think that it merely chops up a woman's legs, and the blocky effect makes short people look even shorter and stouter. Some would argue that they don't mind looking short, but I don't think 'a little teapot' is exactly what any of us are going for.

I know, the pants in the picture aren't great on me as they're a little too big in the waist/hip area (they're from Banana Republic in 00P). But check out the first picture...I look silly don't I? I feel like I'm borrowing someone's Lederhosen from the Heidelberg restaurant nearby and should start belting out a drinking song!

So instead of looking like a happy, hearty Bavarian, try going for hems that are short or, alternatively, at least ankle length. The idea is to elongate your figure. If you don't break up your leg line, it will give you a longer and sleeker look. That's good no?

Petite Confusion - What Does 'Petite' Mean?

2006-07-10T23:54:00.000-04:00

(Sorry for taking so long to finally post again! I got a little sidetracked, but I promise to try to stick to the 'at least twice a week' posting schedule.)

There's a lot of confusion about what is meant by the term 'petite' when used for clothing. Part of that is because the word isn't well defined, and different stores mean different things when an item is labeled 'petite.' Not surprisingly, most of the guys that I talk to about this (Yes, I know, don't you feel sorry for them, being stuck in a conversation about women's clothes?) are very confused, and usually think 'Oh, it just means very small right?'

Well, yes. Sometimes. Certainly that's what people mean when they talk about someone being 'petite' coloquially. For clothing though, that's not always true. Two definitions seem to be most prevelant in the industry:

Proportion: Some labels actually carry a separate petite line or sizing which strictly refers to a shorter proportion. Brands like Banana Republic, Brooks Brothers, Ann Taylor, Liz Claiborne, Ellen Tracy, and others size their clothing down for rises, inseams, and sleeve lengths (among a multitude of other things). The standard is usually defined as 5'4" and under - although certainly some tall women are better off with petite garments, just as some shorter women fit better into regular sized clothing. While an item labeled 4P is smaller waisted/busted than a regular size 4, it is incorrect to assume that 'petite' for these brands means 'made for a slighter woman' - it only means shorter. You may now thank the fashion industry for lumping the entire range of 0P-12P+ under the euphamistic umbrella of 'petite'. I guess 'petite' is better than being called 'short', and if you're in the higher range of size, it implies a slenderness that most women seem to want. 'Plus sized petite' clothing is definitely available as well, which seems contradictory until the term is parsed.

Slenderness: The second definition agrees a bit more with the venacular sense - smaller than XS; tiny. While the brands escape me right now, I recall encountering quite a few of them in my earlier shopping days (anyone recall any labels that do this?). The size tag usually indicates a lonely 'P' all by itself. They are not sized proportionally for shorter people - they are just tighter and made to fit a more slender person.

Lastly, there're those weird oddball cases - like the Armani Exchange '0P REG' pants I own. Let's try to dicipher that shall we? A|X doesn't make any other 'P' labeled size - no '0P Short, no '4P REG' either. In fact, this pair has the same length as the '0 REG' pants, albeit a little bit tighter in fit, and with a slightly shorter rise. And yes, every other size can be purchased in with short, regular, and long inseams. Crazy no?

Who knows where A|X's particular schema came from, but it only proves the point that women's clothing sizing is arbitrary. The only reliable guarantee is that brands use sizing as a tool to charm women into liking how the label's clothes make them feel about themselves. So next time you go shopping, realize that the sizing is just a game to make you purchase - and that applies if you're a 2P or a 14 regular. No tricks here - just get what makes you look good, even if you'd like to be a smaller or larger size. No one's gonna be checking your label's size anyway. And if all else fails, you can do what I do and bring your trusty tape measure along (like me!) for a spot check between brands.

Brooks Brothers store review - FREE or cheap alterations!

2006-06-28T21:02:00.000-04:00

Brooks Brothers
346 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10017
212-682-8800

Considering the number of times that I've dropped into this chain, you'd think I'd know all the in and outs by now. Known for it's uber old-school country club/corporate attire image, it's definitely as upscale as you can get before you get into designer labels.

I decided to try out the Madison flagship location, which is also their main corporate office. Although the bulk of their business is in menswear, they have a decent women's and even boy's section. I have always found their clothing to be expensive, but very well made. Some of my favorite slacks, with massive alterations, have come from Brooks Brothers. This is definitely not the place to pick up anything that even conjures up a whiff of sex appeal. It's perfect for a particular type of female corporate image, but a truly horrible place for date clothing.

The staff was extremely courteous - much more so than some of their other locations. Much to my surprise, the saleswoman stated flat out, "you're going to need alterations" and went to fetch the tailor without asking me. Armed with a tape measure, I entered the dressing room with a jacket and matching slacks, not realizing that I'd forget to do any sort of measurement at all in my later excitement.

I stepped out of the very swanky dressing room and braced myself for some major pinning. The waist, the seat, and the sides were taken in - a ton of altering was required. Since this was an exploratory, I wasn't going to be too fazed by the cost. Well, I was just not prepared to be totally knocked off my feet. Almost aplogetically, she explained that the waist and seat would be free, but they'd have to charge me an extra $15 to do the sides. Oh, and the hemming's free too. Hello?! The pants would have cost about $80 on sale, and had I gotten them altered elsewhere, the hems alone would have been at least $15 (they were lined). The only exception to this generous offer is that redlined clearance items will not get free alterations. Heck, with these prices, if you need alterations, you'd be better off NOT getting something on sale!

The suit jacket, alas, was not alterable because, as a matter of policy, she would not take in the shoulders. For you ladies and gents that only need to nip the waist a bit, the cost is $25. I also discovered, much to my dismay, that they flatly refuse to alter most of their shirts. Brooks Brothers shirts are usually non-iron, and the thread (plain old thread I guess) used to put in new seams might pucker the garment. I've definitely had a tailor elsewhere put in darts, and I can vouch that puckering wasn't really a problem.

If those pants weren't a perfectly pastel blue (I won't EVER wear dress slacks in that color....) I'd have gone the whole way with them. I kinda wonder how Brooks Brothers can afford all these alteration costs - after all, someone has to pay those experienced tailors. But hey, not my problem. I'm just gonna take advantage of it while I can! If anyone's looking for conservative corporate clothing, this is really the right mix of service, quality, and price. I very highly recommend it - especially at this location.

I feel a little stupid now for not previously taking advantage of the alterations, but I've come out armed with this extra tasty tidbit. Now, I finally have a source for dress pants that fit!!! Of course, I'm just wondering how many other clothing companies have the same alteration policies. Somehow, I don't think they'll be quite so generous. But for once, I'm really hoping that I'll feel dumb more often.

Banana Republic Sale - Stock Up on Socks

2006-06-26T16:28:00.000-04:00

I went on a bit of a shopping spree at Banana Republic this weekend since they have a sale running. As much as the store's stuff isn't quite right for me, it's the best I can find right now. BR offers free shipping for any petite stuff (coupon code 'PETITE').

Of course, even though all the clothing's on sale, the only things I wound up buying are...socks! Weird right? But I have bony and small sized 5 or 5 1/2 feet. Despite what every sock label says, one size does NOT fit all. I frequently find socks swim on me and that their heels often hang out with my ankles. Heck, this is sorta similar to the problem of baggy underwear! I know, I probably went a little overboard in getting 14 sets - then again, maybe not?

These anklet socks were smaller than the others that were offered. Is it a coincidence that they were made in Korea? At $4/pair, not 'cheap' but a mighty discount from a ridiculous $8! They're not cotton, which surprised me from their texture, but rayon/nylon. The seamless mini socks are 2 pairs for $4.

I picked up some other socks from Banana Republic today to compare...and the salesperson jokingly mentioned, "came in to pick up some more socks?" Well, yes, but I'm going to return them after I nip a picture. I couldn't believe he remembered me!

Sorry girls, you're gonna have to schlep to a store and buy out its sock stock like I did since they aren't available online. And be prepared to be considered the "sock lady" by the sales staff.

Figleaves followup - nice try but no cigar

2006-06-26T13:34:00.000-04:00

In a rant a few posts ago about underwear, I mentioned that I was trying out a few new sources for bras. Well, I ordered a few bras from Figleaves with high hopes that I'd find something suitable in my impossible 28AA/30AA sizing. The order came last week and I was impressed with the packaging and quality of the items. I was also impressed with its customer service when I called to inform them that my order was accidentally doubled. Not only was I greeted by a live British-accented voice (it's a UK company - no outsourcing quite yet), but she refunded me the extra shipping cost immediately without any hassles. Here's a review of what I got. Sorry, no pictures of me modeling them - there's no way I'm doing that myself!

This was my highest hopeful, as it came in 28AA. Ok, ok, it's incredibly girlie and candy pink (and even called Candy), but as everyone keeps telling me, if it fits, just buy it. The 30AA and the 28AA "fit", but they weren't particularly helpful in boosting my bust. I was also under the impression that they were underwire, but turned out to be just cotton and elastic. Well, not actually all that surprising as they really seem to be training bras.

The After Eden bra was a big disappointment - the cups actually gapped a bit from my chest, which may have something to do with the "maximizing" qualities. The material used for the elastic around the chestband is very very flimsy - it just stretches and stretches. Not something I'd want to keep for $37. Between this and the Wacoal ones I've tried in store in a 30AA, the Wacoal seems to be of better quality (and cheaper at $36).

Finally, the last piece was very nice - but too big in 32AA. I realized this when I bought it, but it was a black strapless underwire bra. As for most of the things I try to buy, I was hoping against hope that it'd be running too small. Ironically, the Panache Atlantis in 32AA fit better than the After Eden 30AA because the chestband wasn't flimsy - note the shiny elastic, as it's meant to be used as a strapless. Obviously, the cups were a little too big, but the quality was heads above the After Eden one. It's a real pity that they don't make it in 30AA. It's pricier at $46, but I can't find a black strapless anywhere close to my size.

Anyway, this all goes back today as soon as I fill in all the return info (free returns) and drop it at the post office. While I couldn't find anything appropriate for me at Figleaves, I do recommend them for anyone else who may not be quite so small. At least no one can say I didn't try....

Saks Wakes Up and Expands its Petite Department

2006-06-20T17:30:00.000-04:00

There is a somewhat happy ending to report from yesterday's NY Times, in reaction to the news last month regarding Petite section disappearance at Saks, Neiman Marcus, Bloomingdales. Michael Barbaro's follow up piece, Saks Restores Petite Sizes After Outcry, details that Saks will reinstate and even expand its petite department after receiving so many complaints from its former (and soon to be again) clients. Too bad that the other two giant department stores haven't decided to do the same.

It's not often that a high profile and high end department store admits fault and corrects itself. And even though I've never really stepped into Saks on a regular basis, I gotta give the managers at Saks my admiration for listening to its customers and doing right by them. I only feel sort of bad for not personally writing the company myself. Maybe it's time for me to start taking a look around Saks more regularly. With the added publicity from the whole debacle, perhaps Saks can start pulling its petite sales out of the red.

What's a little scary is how much the triple whammy of Saks, Neiman, and Bloomingdales can really influenced designers and suppliers. Designers send a lot of their mechandise to department stores, where they can benefit from the additional exposure, marketing, and volume sales. The shockwave of three major chains pulling the plug on petite sizing meant that staying in petites was a shaky proposition for any label. Ellen Tracy, in fact, announced that it would no longer carry petites - and also reversed its decision immediately after Saks did.

Can designers survive without department store support? Maybe, but it's sure harder without their help. Department stores like Saks have a huge influence on what gets made, what's in, and can try to force trends themselves.

And so its up to the department store to be more proactive with their designer relationships. I cannot help but heap blame again on the stores themselves for cultivating the 'dowdy' image that they hold of petites. As they have such a huge influence on designers on whether to even bother making a line, they surely can insist that the stuff better fit in (and fit better!) with the fashionable image they want to cultivate. Saks is taking a great lead and insists that when the petite section reimerges in the fall, it will inject more energy and variety into the section instead of just focusing on classic workwear. It realized it wasn't doing a good job addressing the lifestyle needs of its petite customer.

I wish Saks good luck - and I can't wait to check out the new section!

It's All Above My Head!

2006-06-18T23:57:00.000-04:00

Ok, the typical scenario. I'm out shopping and I see something I kinda like hanging on one of the mannequins. Doing a room scan, I see a rack of them across the room...hanging overhead way out of my reach. How annoying! Everyone that shops here is 5'4" or under - what were they thinking to put stuff so high up???

Well, in a word, wall space. As much complaining about it might be fun, the reality is, stores need to shelve or rack their inventory somewhere. Yeah, they know it's a hassle, but ceilings aren't going to be dropping in height anytime soon. Anyone else thinking of the 13 1/2 floor from Being John Malkovich?

At this point, several options are available to you:

Forget about it. This usually involves justifying it to yourself with weak rationalizations. Oh, it's probably more than I want to pay. It's probably not as nice as I think it is. It's probably not gonna look good on me anyway.
Ask a taller, and hopefully sympathetic, fellow shopper to reach up and help. This usually involves some chit chat about the garment, your height, or both.
Ask a taller, and hopefully sympathetic, salesperson to help you. This usually involves hearing a few more suggestions for other items from a helpful staff member (along with 'can I set up a room for you?') or an almost rude interaction from a disgruntled worker.
Strain mightily on tiptoe at first, and finish with a mighty leap. First, extend a few more inches to peer up and search through the rack for you size. Once the prize has been spotted, lower yourself, bend your knees and jump. Extra points for a successful landing. As items are usually arranged smallest in the front, advanced practitioners of this technique may also become quite adept at guesstimating sizes and skip the first step.
Carry a foot stool or robo-arm around and use it. Learn to stop paying attention to funny looks and outright laughter.

Fine, I'm a big fan of #4 because I usually like to do things myself - and because it's kinda fun to do something sort of undignified once in a while.

However, I also think stores, particularly those that know they have a shorter clientele, should be a little more accomodating. After all, if customers choose #1 most of the time, stores will wind up selling a little less. Requests to the stores:

Use more of the higher wall space for displaying apparel or accessories instead of hanging racks of clothes. This hopefully promotes greater sales for the merchandise up there, as it's easier for customers to notice it and like it.
A few small steps (that match the decor) could also be set against walls so that customers can easily reach higher items. Steps would also be helpful for staff to put new items up, and can be moveable so that wall setups can be changed.
Piles of clothing should have the smallest items shelved lower. This is most applicable for non-petite stores, where height and size are more closely coorelated. I like to help myself rather than be forced to ask staff for help, but even so, doesn't the salesperson get tired of constantly pulling down size 0 jeans for shorties like me?

I figure #3 is painless (after rearrangement) as floorspace is not sacrificed. For the first two, there's no reason that a small amount of space can't be given up. After all, mirrors are on the floor and they take away from the merchandise space - but they help push sales too. And if that doesn't help, think of the number of customers that won't be hurting themselves after attempting arial manuvers like me.

Spontaneous commiseration at Talbots

2006-06-15T19:50:00.000-04:00

"You know, someone really needs to do something about this. There's nothing available for petite women in their 40s - especially if this keeps up!"

Susan, a 40-something shopper, told me this while we were commiserating about our shopping woes in Talbots a few days ago. I had struck up a conversation with her after the salesperson had informed me that Talbots has never made size 0P clothing, and suggested that I check some of the department stores, as Ann Taylor had stopped selling petites - untrue! Susan chimed in at this point because she was worried about what she'd heard. I reassured Susan that no, it hadn't stopped selling petites, but filled her in with what the Times had mentioned about the disappearing petite sections in department stores.

Even though she was fuller than me (she told me she was about a size 8P), she has the same exact problems I do because she is also quite short - 4'11". Nothing fits her correctly - the armholes are too big, the rise too long, and jackets are made for someone longer in the torso. In short, the proportions were all wrong for our height. She mentioned that she often shopped in Lord & Taylor, as they also had a petites department. I replied that I don't really shop in department stores as they usually start at sizes too big for me - and I didn't like the styles. When I mentioned that the bulk of my clothing came from from Banana Republic, she was astonished - she never knew they had a petite line! She promised to check it out.

We wished each other luck with our shopping trips as I left. Well, I thought, the Talbots trip was a disaster for me, but at least I was able to point someone else in the right direction!

It really is hard for older short women to find appropriate clothing (well, I guess that's true for any sized older woman too). At least 20 or 30 somethings can still get away with shopping in teen stores! What do you do when you can't spend a fortune to look tasteful for your age? Have any thoughts? Susan and I would love to know.

Short Discrimination is Alive and Well

2006-06-14T19:30:00.000-04:00

While it is commonly acknowledged that short people often get the short end of the stick in regards to jobs, respect, dating, and other parts of life, it is not generally acknowledged that this type of discrimination constitutes a real problem that needs to be addressed. It is most definitely acknowledged as an inconvience, but it somehow falls into a zone of inattention and apathy amongst the population at large.

It is discriminatory to use a handicap, age, or marital status against individuals with regard to employment or opportunities. These categories are protected by law because it is generally acknowledged and understood that a negative bias is used against them. Even discrimination against overweight individuals has been acknowledged (most notably against several airlines for firing heavier flight attendants), as these lawsuits illustrate. These traits have nothing to do with a person's qualifications for most jobs - and neither does height. While discrimination against height is allowed in most locations, a few jurisdictions officially have anti-heightism laws - Ontario, Michigan, San Francisco, Victoria (Australia), and Santa Cruz.

The glass ceiling is real, and not just for women and minorities. Is it a coincidence that most corporate executives and public officials are taller than average? A full 30% of men are 5'7" or under but only represent 3% of the executives at Fortune 500 companies. Short people also earn about $800/inch less per year than taller workers and fare poorer for job interviews. (sources here)

The media outlets contribute to the problem of heightism with nary a thought. For example, as I was reading through The New Yorker this week (June 19, 2006), Hilton Als offers both a generous tribute to Gregg Toland and a non sequitur shout-out to Toland's height in The Cameraman. "A wispy, laconic man of five feet one, Toland was born in...." There is no other mention of this anywhere else, no any explanation offered for what relevance it has to the topic at all. Was it difficult being shorter as a cameraman? How does this relate to Toland's work or life? We are left in the dark, with only a budding suspicion that the author was surprised to find that a short person could actually contribute something of worth to the evolution of filmcraft.

There are definitely practical and understandable difficulties that crop up from being short, just like for lefties (Yes, I am that too), that does not constitute discrimination. To reach some of my cabinets that are above my head, I often climb onto my kitchen counter (think nothing of the terror of almost falling sometimes). Chairs are often too deep and are too tall for me to comfortably sit in. Clothes are obviously a pain. Luggage and shopping bags are too big or long and drag or bang painfully into my legs. I am at armpit level on the subway or large crowds, and have even once seriously feared suffication at a crowded college party. At a parade, gathering, or meeting, I often can't see anything because anyone in front of me is in my line of vision. These are understandable and somewhat immutable problems that aren't a product of discrimination so much as a regression towards the average (taller) height.

As a female, I've been shielded from some of the indignities that short men must suffer through. I've never been stuffed in a locker or mocked by potential dates. For men, height is much more the measure of his worth and success, and the degree of respect he is given is most definitely dependant on it.

Still don't buy it? Ask women whether their gender contributed to being passed up for raises or promotions. Ask minorities if they're looked at funny or queried if they know English. When I balk at the derogatory short comments, I'm ridiculed for being "overly sensitive" or "ridiculous." Let's stop pretending heightism doesn't exist and realize that it is a problem that should be discussed with sincerity instead of snickering.

Talbots Store Review: A Short Disappointment

2006-06-13T17:28:00.000-04:00

Talbots
525 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
212-838-8811

I have to admit that I very reluctantly entered the store today - mostly to give it a fair shake with a fresh look. As soon as I entered the door, I was already confused. The store was several floors, and as usual, the petite's section was not on ground level. I consulted the floor directory and my eye immediately latched onto "Talbots Woman" on the 3rd floor. Maybe it was from walking into several department stores recently, but somehow "petite" became instantly knocked out of my brain. I'm a woman, I thought (duh). This must be my section.

Entering the elevator, I was soon confronted with the truth. Indeed, the phrase "Talbots Woman" wasn't really an indication of brand loyalty and gender, but a euphamism for "large Tablots Woman." Not only was I wrong about my section for sizing, but it wasn't even for petites! Another woman in the elevator confided that she had gotten confused too.

When I stepped out on the 4th floor, I kicked into browse mode. Ok, some of the stuff was definitely wearable. I started leafing through a rack of skirts (hung woefully high, I might add!), looking for a 0P. I could have sworn that they carried this stuff. Well, after going through several different styles, I confronted the sales staff. Excuse me, I asked, what is the smallest size here?

The answer shocked me because I swear that they used to carry 0P. Maybe it's a function of wishful thinking or turbo-advanced old age (yeah I know, I'm only 20-something), but I was wrong. NO 0P stuff at all!!!! The smallest size in the store was a 2P. And yes, I tried stuff on that totally didn't fit me (what a surprise). With that, I became fully despaired. Some of the stuff shows promise, even if it is a little, eh, old. The website even helpfully gives inseams for pants! (A cause for some confusion as a pair of pants I brought up had the unfathomable measurements of 32" for misses, 29 1/2" for petites, 31" for woman, and 28" for petite woman. I guess heavier older women are pressumed to not wear heels?)

Talbots has completely abandoned all attempts at capturing the young (maybe fashionable) audience! Ok, sure, you have to admit they're not strong on the fashionable side of the equation, but there are certainly enough young, not too picky women that'd like a fair selection too, at a reasonable price. Overall, their prices weren't that much lower than for the lower end stuff at Banana Republic or Ann Taylor (though my complaint about crappy fiber content is still valid - check out the amout of polyester being used!). Heck, label us as unfashionable, but don't cut us short and skinny people out completely!

Short Male Clothing Tips - Live from the Today Show

2006-06-12T23:56:00.000-04:00

In a previous post, I had mentioned that Jimmy Au's Menswear was doing a feature on NBC's Today Show to advise shorter guys how to look taller. Alan Au (he's 5'6"), Client Relations Manager, was there live in Rockefeller Plaza this morning to give tips and oversee a mini-fashion show. The full list of tips and the video of the show are here.

I had spoken with Alan on the phone last week, and he was encouraged me to come to see the live taping. So this morning, I hiked down to the plaza and watched the feature live and got a chance to meet Alan. I've included a few of the shots I got from my side angle. Definitely watch the clip to get a better images - plus the other 3 models.

They started with a few video clips of some short men bashing footage, including the notorious Sex and the City short guy episode. Moving on, Alan mentions that there is a proliferation of stores catering to the big and tall segment, but only about 10 stores for short males.

The main theme brought up is to always keep things proportional - you're already short, so don't look stubby! This is true for both men and women. And realize that sportswear such as sweaters, which are incredibly difficult and expensive to alter, can be hard to find for shorter people.

For suits, 3-button, single-breasted jackets (only 1 row of buttons) elongate and slim your frame.
Pinstripes are great for lengthening.
Short people should avoid horizontal patterned shirts.
Slim cut shirts are best, as they cut down on fabric. (I find that slim cut shirts are particularly necessary for thin people; not just short ones. Some people may need the regular fit if they're stouter.)
Pants should be low rise, meaning shorter distance between waist and crotch, to avoid bagginess.
Lighter colors tend to make you look bigger, darker ones for a slimmer look.
Avoid contrasting colors for the top and bottom, as they break your line.
A shorter (lower) collar can help elongate your neck.
If the tie is too long, shorten it from the longer end.

I was particularly impressed by the fit of the casual beach-type clothes on a 5'2" model. The shirt doesn't hang too low, the short sleeves aren't too long, and the shorts are the right length. Typically, when you see a shorter guy walking down the street, everything tends to look too long, or too baggy.

The ideal presentation would have had an extra model of roughly the same proportions for each of the guys he did bring - to model standard clothing that's currently available in menswear (with only hemming so that pants don't drag). It's the subtle, or even drastic, direct contrast that makes people realize what a difference an alteration can make.

Uncovering Underwear!

2006-06-11T18:21:00.000-04:00

I have trouble finding underwear. No, I'm not joking! It sounds weird right? But for both panties and bras, it's a pain in the butt to find stuff in stores. Ok, I admit, I have a rather boyish (read: flat and straight) body type, so it is harder to find *grownup* underwear that fits well and looks, well, sexy. Most panties I find are too baggy in the back and aren't exactly the sort of things you want to wear when you have tight pants on. And as for bras, I know I don't need one for the support the same way fuller women do - it's more for the shape and, eh, extra volume.

The easy and *painful* thing for me to do is to shop in teen stores. But then the problem becomes a selection limitation. I'd have my choice of training bras or sports bras that aren't really doing the job that I want them to - mainly to maximize what nature didn't give me (and no, I'm not going for elective breast implants). And the panties are still to baggy (or other implants for that matter either). My goodness, where are all those skinny 10-12 year olds girls shopping??? Besides, I'm almost afraid to find the perfect underwear at these places. I'm sure you'd be as equally disturbed by the idea of 10-12 year old girls wearing naughty little things for their...boyfriends? I'll stick to the adult stores, thanks.

Panties

This side of the equation is only moderately annoying. From a purely practical standpoint, I look for durability (will my washing machine eat these in one wash?), comfort, and fit for plain "I'll wear this everyday" kind of underwear. And that's only because I'm generally cheap and don't want to buy the more upscale "sexy" silk/satin/super fancy expensive stuff. I can definitely find items, but it's only in a few select places. Flat out, I'm unwilling to spend more than $20 (more like, under $10) per piece. And I've stuck to the usual "I hate the department store experience because nothing fits" attitude (I admit, I am biased). So I've only really sampled stand alone stores. Basically, it's just an annoying affair to shop for this item, as you can't just say "hey, I like that style", and then grab and go.

What Works -

Victoria's Secret PINK collection: It's obviously for the younger, pre-baby crowd. Colors are more fun and flirty, but it fits. My personal favorites are the string types, as there's less fabric to (not) stretch on me for less bag in the back. I find the place funny and infuriating to shop in as VS seems to sexualize women more than the pages of nuddie magazines (Ok, not quite true, but it's women shopping here for the most part!)...and because they don't carry a bra in my size. Their signature panty collection tends to have more issues in the wash, and is too full cut/baggy for me.
Banana Republic: Intimate apparel seems to be an on again/off again affair, but when I find something I like (that's on sale usually), it works well for me.
Thongs and G-Strings: For some reason, these fit better, I guess since no matter how much you weigh or where the weight is distributed, it's not gonna affect the fit all that much. Fit is merely a matter of your rise and waist size, not hip. But who wants to wear these around all the time??

What Baggified my Bottom - (obviously not a complete list)
Express, Delia's, Gap, Brooks Brothers, most other Victoria's Secret lines, etc. If you've got a bony butt like me, don't go for more coverage, as there's not much to cover here. It'll just wind up being extra fabric you don't want.

Bras

Now comes the unbearable part. I wear a 30AA but probably should be a 28AA. I can't find bras in stores. At all. Except for...Limited Too (and just remember, the catch phrase is "Fun fashion for tweens!"), which, as I check, seems to no longer carry anything I remotely want to wear. Great for me! Two years ago, I bought two styles of strapless bras from them. I snatched them up as they were actually functional - I was tired of having only crappy unlined training bra type stuff that did nothing. They only came in 30A, so I stuffed them with half shoulder pads I got from a crafts store. Ok, there, I admit it - I stuff. Just to acknowledge a general enlarging trend, I came across a rare find when Victoria's Secret was dumping their entire 30AA stock about 4 or 5 years ago. They've never had them since. I bought probably 2 dozen then - you can still find some floating around on eBay.

Most American stores don't carry anything less than a 32A, and if they do, it's a 32/34/36AA. I've even looked in department stores with mammoth intimate selections. The amusingly labeled "petite" sections - where it's clear that this is the only body area that women are wanting more rather than less, seemed to stock 32AA as the lowest they go. What gives? I guess there are a ton of very small chested but broader women out there. Searching online for 'adult style' bras proved enlightening. Since I'm only familiar with American sizing, I am perhaps hampered a bit, but what I've discovered is that most companies that carry 28 or 30 sized bras are across the ocean! Marks & Spencer manufacturers smaller sizes, but currently doesn't deliver to the US. AA Lingerie does deliver across the ocean, but charges about 6 pounds to do it. I've obviously not delved into other parts of Europe or the gigantic Asia continent. More on that when I figure out their sizing system, or go for a visit!

Rooting around for something closer, I've discovered Figleaves.com, which does stock items as low as 28AA! I rooted around online for coupons, and found one for $10 off. Since they offer free returns, I figured it'd be ok to spend a little on shipping ($4.50). I'll be waiting to see what turns up. Lula Lu also seems to stock a few items in smaller sizes and has an actual store in San Mateo, CA.

If anyone knows of anywhere else, definitely keep me posted!

Finding Petite Stores - Where Can I Go?

2006-06-09T15:41:00.000-04:00

Finding a good petite selection can be a difficult task - especially when you don't live near dense metropolitan areas. Certainly, online selections are much better at giving a broader range of goods - but nothing beats the positive aspects of in-store shopping. Although many department stores carry petite clothing, the selection is highly variable depending on location, and sizing usually begins at 4P for most items. I'll also admit that eBay has been a source that I look to more often than not.

Here's a compiled list, along with short descriptions, of the more accessible stand alones, sans department stores. I'll be adding to this as I find (or remember) more:

Ann Taylor - The tried and true for corporate and casual wear. Think classic rather than trendy. For the dressy stuff, it's sophisticated and safe, not sexy. The casual stuff is definitely geared towards a more matronly audience, but when you need a suit, you can't go wrong here. I have tended to stop shopping here as everything needs to be taken in for me - but if you're slightly bigger than me, you're all set. (link is for expanded petite selection)

Banana Republic - Mainstream trendy and fashionable, their petite selection is pretty good, but certainly not as wide as the regular sizes. It definitely caters to a younger audience - the non-corporate stuff would be appropriate from late teens to thirties up. I am annoyed that their 00P selection is only available online, but they offer free shipping for petites to make up for it. I tend to think their pricing has raced ahead of their quality and/or style.

Brooks Brothers - Definitely corporate and old school classic. Quality is definitely a high point here - and the price reflects it. If you fuss over fabric quality/feel, BB doesn't disappoint. If you don't mind the country club-like image, it's a great place to pick up really nice stuff. It's more pretentious than AT, but hey, you're just looking for stuff to wear. I find that the price point to quality ratio is better than most of the other petite stores. The shirts seem more billowy than fitted - even the ones that claim to be fitted. For online, you have to pay for shipping unless there's a promotion.

J.Crew **- Ok, I have to admit that this is not one of my favorites, as it screams "Prep" to me. Color choices are also a little more outrageous - but a bold color might work well for you. They seem to have fewer petite carrying stores, which makes it a little more difficult. I find that their suiting is of much better quality (relatively speaking) than you'd expect from some of their casual wear - it's comparable or even better than BR. You have to pay for shipping for online orders.

Talbots - The best I can say about this place is that you get a decent value. This is definitely geared toward a matronly set. It caters to the audience that upscale department stores don't like, as noted here. The store is actually cheaper than the others, and when they have sales, prices drop down very, very far. Fit and cut are generous, and the style is frumpy (if you're being very nice about it, conservative). Fashionable, it is not, but it's great when you just need something to fill an essential in your wardroble gap. The thing that turns me off most is that most of the stuff is made from synthetic mixes that are obviously geared towards slashing costs, instead of blending for particular qualities (like stretch or wrinkle-resistance).

Togs Soho store review - typical random, pricey boutique

2006-06-08T23:32:00.000-04:00

Togs Soho
68 Spring Street
New York, NY 10012
917-237-1882

Inside, looking at just the clothes offered, Togs seems no different than the hundreds of tiny clothing boutiques scattered across the city. You can usually find them in swank areas like SoHo, Midtown, and the Upper East Side. It always surprises me that these places stay in business - but I guess they scrape by somehow. The stores are usually filled with sexy, slightly trashy garb perfectly suitable to go out clubbing in. There's also a tiny dressing room with no mirror - both for saving space and for forcing you to go out under the eyes of the sales staff to use the one outside.

I guess the saving grace of all stores like these, is location, location, location. The 6 line's Spring Street stop is very close - you can practically trip over this store (and just as easily walk past it too) when you get off. What made me stay in was the Russian model/saleswoman that was as thin as me, but almost 6' tall! I definitely wanted to ask her where she got clothes herself. As typical of the waiters and boutique workers in New York, she was obviously working there to cover expenses while she tried a hand at modeling. Talking with her was very amusing as we shared complaints about finding stuff that fit.

It's pretty funny when the sales staff can't actually wear the clothing that is being sold there - even if they're the correct gender and share the same style. It was pretty late in the day when I walked in, so it was just me and her. I've gotten pretty upfront in shopping at this point - so I asked point blank whether anything Togs had would fit me. She looked me up and down and then confessed that not many of the things even fit her!

At this point, she hurridly snagged me two tops before I could leave. Ok, sure, why not? The t-shirt fit perfectly and was made of some stretch cotton with gold snakes. I walked out to take a look in the mirror and she declared it looked fabulous on me (as if she'd say anything else, really!), but I didn't think it was anything special. "It looks expensive," she said. Well, I beg to differ, but even so, it certainly cost $88! I definitely shimmied out of that one quick.

The other top was way way way too low for me in the front. I'm pretty much hopelessly boob-less, and this top would require me to wear it bra-less, as it dipped below my sternum (you know, that bony bit where your ribs connect in front). Uh-uh. No way. It'd be falling off of me! I was wearing my padded strapless bra, and even then, it was too big. And the cost for the little slip of silk? $108.

As I was leaving, I figured I might as well ask. What do you do for pants? She leaned in and conspiratorially mentioned that she was in love with Buffalo jeans in size 23. They were slightly too short for her and they be too long for me but a cuff or hem wouldn't kill me. I've never heard of them before, but I promised to check them out.

Overall, pricey and typical of such stores; it's all about convienence, convienence, convienence. The nice part for me was that even though the help couldn't help me in store, she gave me a hint or two for elsewhere!

Jimmy Au's Menswear - For you short guys, formal wear, finally!

2006-06-08T14:49:00.000-04:00

Jimmy Au's For Men 5'8" and Under
9408 Brighton Way
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
310-888-8708

Out of sympathy for my brother and short guy friends, I've kept an eye out for 'petite menswear' - and I came across this in my usual web sweep of all things short. Jimmy Au's specializes in tailored clothing for men under 5'5", with particular emphasis on "proportion and perception". They've been around for 30 years or so, which means they definitely have a customer base.

Unfortunately, they don't seem to do any business online yet - but after I called Jimmy directly (yes, he actually picked up himself!), they may be doing online sales in the near future. If anyone's going out to LA area, check it out and let me know! Their price point was described to me as Saks level - but for ready-to-wear small sized mens stuff, I'd think it's probably worth it.

There's going to be a short men's designer fashion show on the NBC's Today Show on June 12th. I am currently TV-less so I'm going to try to swing by and watch the show there. This should be fascinating! Anyone willing to record for me? I have no TV!

Mexx store review - Euro urban style

2006-06-05T15:52:00.000-04:00

Mexx Soho
500 Broadway
New York, NY 10012
212-343-7954

With a sprawling international presence (would you believe 2 stores in Afghanistan?), Mexx has barely touched the American market with only 4 stores in the NYC and DC area, and no way to buy online right now. This is certainly a shame for anyone elsewhere, as I found the brand to be quite a good value.

Style-wise, I admit that I can't distinguish between the different Euro labels very well. I associate stores like H&M and Armani Exchange with a sleek and slim style, cooler color scheme shying away from loud colors, and open almost sterile store environments. However, it was Mexx's mix of style, quality, and price that makes me recommend it. Unlike H&M, its clothing (and clientele) tends to be more upscale and is of better quality - at a higher price of course. It lacks A|X's slightly snobbish appeal and is noticeably less expensive.

Mexx doesn't have a petite section, but the sizing was suprisingly better than I expected. I picked up a few size 0 items and found them to be comparable to petite's sizing in stores like Banana Republic and much slimmer than Ann Taylor. Definitely, the sleeves and hems are a bit longer than traditional petite's, but the body fit is more snug. Given a choice, it's much cheaper and easier to fix sleeves and hems than taking in at the body. Here's a rundown of some of the items I picked up to try.

This long blue cotton skirt is great. The waist is only 27", smaller than this BR skirt in size 00P I tried on. I appreciate the quality of the zipper and it's interior button reinforcement. All the stitching is well done - the seams all lie flush and there's no puckering anywhere. I always want a lining for skirts and dress pants, so the full length cotton lining was very appreciated. The designers were even thoughful enough to think to have the lining stitched so that the "outside" side is facing your legs so that everything is smooth. All the hems are finished so there's no snagging or shredding. The price? $79.

The button down fits me almost perfectly. For this shirt, I should have a slightly longer torso, and be slightly fuller. Ideally, I would want to be 13.5" or 14" from the bottom of the collar to my natural natural waist - the shirt measures 14.5". However, I'd be happy to wear this as is. It's made from a thin, filmy cotton that tends to wrinkle, so it's not my personal preferred cotton weight, but very good for hot weather. The lines emphasize a feminine cut and hourglass-like figure, which helps me, since I'm so flat and straight. $44 full price is perfectly reasonable.

As you can see from the pictures (please ignore the horrendous matching job!), this linen jacket is too big for me - particularly in the shoulders. But otherwise, it's a good fit. It's cut for a bigger busted woman, but the waist size is perfect for me (although slightly lower than ideal) at 25" for a jacket. As for the skirt, it's a big looser than the other one at 28", and I'm not too thrilled with the decorative extra fabric at the waist - it makes me look like I have a puffy butt! Costwise, the jacket was $119 and the printed skirt was $59.

I'll definitely be keeping Mexx on the list of stores to stop in regularly!

Zoolook store review - Fancy Dresses to Fit

2006-06-02T18:11:00.000-04:00

Zoolook
399 West Broadway
New York, NY 10012
212-431-9431

So I gotta rave, because it's not often I find a shop that is so willing to be accomodating. I walked into Zoolook on West Broadway after an interview around the corner a few weeks back and was immediately surprised.

It's got that art studio splashed paint thing going on and is pretty open and airy. A wonder, the place actually has its own skylight. The store had a bunch of stuff on sale and I was looking through, just for kicks. The owner, Shine, came over to help me and she suggested a few items on sale that were "small." I was doubtful, but figured, sure why not?

If girlie dresses aren't your thing, this is not the place for you. The dress I tried on was definitely too big, and when I came around to check it out in the mirror, I told Shine. Who, wonder of wonders, proceeded to pin in the dress so that it didn't just look like a sack on me.

So it turns out that Shine is the designer of all the dresses in the place. Huh. Now that I'm looking at myself pinned in, it suddenly fits. And I wanted it. I really wanted it. Designers, are you listening? When it fits, it totally increases a customer's desire to buy it! Needless to say, I gave in and have already worn it twice since the end of April. Price? Well, sans alterations, it was less than $300. Ok, not cheap at all, but where the heck are you gonna find a handmade dress for that price? Plus, everything is silk lined, which feels fabulous.

Shine had to take it in and move the boning and straps. A heck of a lot of work, but in the end the dress, originally a "4", fit me perfectly. I totally will be checking out her sales rack in the future. In fact, see pictures of a yellow size "2" dress ($150 I think). It was too long for me (and I don't think I dare wear this color), but if you're slightly longer in the torso and above 5'0" naturally, it'd fit.

I can't be the only person terrified that a tailor is going to screw up that big ticket dress/coat/skirt/etc. So for once in my life, I was completely sure that she wasn't going to ruin it. Cause it was her baby.

Quality, fit, price, and a personal touch. Things that are often hard to find for smaller clothing - but I definitely found it here! I asked her if she would be making other clothing - but alas, she doesn't have the time. Sigh. The search continues....

FitMe Please!

2006-05-31T18:09:00.000-04:00

I stumbled across this fabulous find the other day. Remember my posts here and here (and, well, basically this entire blog) where I fumed about sizing inaccuracy? Perhaps this is a thing of the past (but I doubt it).

The company FitMe developed a tool they call Size Genie that allows you to figure out what size you are based on your real measurements for various labels. It's a fabulous idea, but unfortunately completely unhelpful for me. As you can see from the screenshot, I am not really the right size for any standard issue clothes.

You basically plug in your actual measurements and the tool spits out what size you are for a particular brand. I haven't tested this for more normal sizes, but I'm curious how other people find it. I'll definitely be doing a run to the stores and checking out how things compare. I'm a little suspicious that the numbers that FitMe reports back are according to the inaccurate sizing charts that the stores provide, but I'll have to do an update later.

The sizing tool interface could use some definite improvement, as it is slightly awkward to use. It'd be great if you'd be able to get back a list of brands and associated sizes instead of being forced to pick through them every single time, and for each particular category of clothes (pants, dresses, shirts, etc). All in all, not bad though, awkward as it may be. Hmm. Perhaps I'll get in touch with them.

So ladies, give it a whirl and let me know if it actually works for you! Sorry guys, it's just for women's clothes. Although I guess it wouldn't be terrible to wear a plain woman's shirt if it fits right? Hey, I wonder if any guys received that suggestion when shopping...is it better than having the boys section mentioned?

Petite Vindication in the NY Times!

2006-05-29T10:46:00.000-04:00

A monumentous thing happened while I was in far away Providence land. A news story of particular interest to me hit the 'Most Emailed' list (and, as of this moment, is still #1) for the New York Times on Saturday. "Where's the Petite Department? Going the Way of the Petticoat" details the fazing out of petite clothing lines from high-end department stores. It was one of those "HAH! I told you so" moments when the article came sailing into my consciousness. I mean, if the New York Times is covering this particular snippet of fashion/business news, it's not exactly a tiny trend here. (find the full text here if above link doesn't work)

High-end department stores blame petite women for having such an "older, unfashionable and undesirable" image. And yet, it's hardly the fault of the short consumer to resign herself to this stuff if it's the only game in town. I've totally checked out the goods myself and find them...old, unfashionable, and undesireable. Hell, I'm sure even the older women that they're trying to target with such frumpy goods are going for the look either. Petite women who dress themselves from the petite selection can't help it - they don't really have alternatives besides going into the juniors department or spending horrendous amounts getting everything altered.

In Bloomingdale's at 59th and Lexington, I was in fact, directed to check out the selection in Tahari (definitely pricey, and definitely too long/tall). I guess they thought a young woman should know better than to be shopping in Petite's for God's sake! When I mentioned that things there were too long/tall/big/etc, the salespeople just kinda gave a shrug and said I can just get things altered. Just. As if it was completely beneath them to consider the hassle, cost, and general aggravation such a procedure would entail. Before moving to NYC, I figured that I'll find plenty of stuff that fits me in these expensive shops. Surely, if the clientele is most clearly willing to pay, they'd have stuff, I thought.

Wrong. Designer's in fact, do not "care about the little people." They want them, and apparently their fat wallets, to go to a land far far away. My brother (who is 5'5") and I (a stately 4'10") used to half-joke constantly about height discrimination. Being male, he certainly has it worse. Sure, everyone knows that Presidents and C-level executives are "supposed" to be tall and imposing. Ok, you can even posit that there's some slight edge to being taller there, but other components are also weighed in, so it's not completely about height. But it's a whole other thing when we're talking about selling clothes.

It's nothing short of discrimination (no, the pun was completely unintended). The most obvious sign is that the decision to slash the smaller sized departments is completely based on faulty irrational train of thought. The sales figures are in. Petite sales are growing, and high-end stores like Bloomingdale's do not want to service them! They do not want us rushing to their registers with willing dollars in hand. They do not want to revamp the 'image issue' that they themselves helped to create. They do not want us gushing to our friends and give them free advertising and loyalty just because they made us feel like everyone else. No, they don't want any of these things because in their minds, the decision has already been made. Because what good is our tenacious loyalty (albeit, we make up a smaller share) when customers like us make them cringe?

That's right, these stores have concluded that all petite women are old, frumpy and have no taste. Yes, disregard that petite just means short, for any age, income level, or any other socioeconomic index. Yes, disregard the fact that we're willing to pay more for the same thing if it fits because we know it's going to be produced in smaller batches and it's a pain in the ass to carry. Yes, disregard that you are educating your stores to redirect them to the "fashionable" sections of the store that they spend dollars in (and at their tailors). This judgement is hardly fair, as their sense of what we are is completely based on the clothing that they themselves decided to carry in the first place! And because they need to maintain a stylish and youthful image, these short rejects must be swiftly ejected from their stores before their presence taints the stores' name irredeemably.

These stores certainly have the clout and the volume to go back to their designers and distibutors and tell them to get their act together and to supply nicer and stylish clothes for the shorter set. It's certainly not a problem with short clients' unwillingness to spend. They've more than proven that since they are willing to shell out probably 20-50% more to get the regular-sized stuff altered. But, in the mind's of the decision makers, the decision has already been made.

At a very basic level, clothing is meant to make you feel safe and comfortable - both physically and emotionally. The trend-setters of the clothing industry has been doing a very shoddy job at both of these functions. I myself know that I would pay a lot more and be incredibly devoted to a company that would make me feel good about how I dress and how I shop. Instead, I quietly (well, not so quietly) suffer the indignities forced upon me by the way things are done. I am directed to children's departments. I am given the "sorry, but we really don't have a thing for you at all" talk from salespeople who are most definitely not sorry about it. I am told that I can pay a lot more to have the hems taken up, the seat yoke taken in, the darting move up, and the sleeves shortened for a shirt that will probably still look unflattering on me when it's done being dissected.

Indeed, the issue is not about indulgence or even convenience. It is completely about parity.

X-Girl and Uniqlo store reviews - trying my SoHo luck

2006-05-25T16:34:00.000-04:00

X-Girl New York
265 Lafayette Street
New York, NY 10012
212-343-2457

Uniqlo
76 Greene Street
New York, NY 10012
877-486-4756

SoHo and NoLita in New York are flooded with little boutiques and independent designer shops. The area is quite a great place to shop if you're looking for something different from the mainstream bunch; a few stores also serve as launching pads for up and coming designers. But buyers be warned: it's also too easy to drop several hundred without even trying.

I stepped out of the subway at Spring armed with the names of a couple of stores that a friend had given me. Both stores were Asian brands/imports. East Asians as a general rule are smaller than their counterparts in America, so it wouldn't be a bad place to start.

My first stop was X-Girl, on Lafayette. I stepped into the store finding a casual-trendy mix of urban chic Japanese designed goods. Not the sort of style anyone would normally associate with me, but I figured it would be a nice shot. I talked to the salesperson and asked if she could suggest any items that may fit me. I walked into the dressing curtain and tried them out, a little doubtful as some of the things looked a little big.

I was a little surprised at the dressing 'room' situation. If you look carefully at the storefront picture, you'll see a pinkish curtain behind the mannequin. Yup. That was where I was shucking off my clothes. Since there was no mirror to use to take a picture, I was a little bad and adjusted the curtain so sunlight came into the booth. I sure hope no one was looking a little too closely at X-Girl's window!

So I tried the stuff on. I was also disappointed and surprised that everything was too big! Their sizing is XS, S, M, L, or 1, 2, 3. Huh. Taking that small numbering system even further than I would have imagined. And as I thought, it wasn't cheap to shop there - the 'sweetheart shirt' was $106 for a frilly cotton button down! I left after learning that the sizing was supposedly the same in Japan. Huh. Well, moving on....

Next stop - Uniqlo on Greene. I knew that this particular store was a Japanese retailer, and my friend mentioned that they were in Japanese sizes. So as I stepped in, I got excited. The place kinda reminded me of a slightly funkier GAP - "casual wear that can be worn by anyone, any day." The stuff was certainly a good price; t-shirts were on sale for $9.99.

But alas, I was informed that their sizing followed US standards! Er...ok. Does it run small for American sizing, I tried to casually ask an employee. No, it actually runs large, he replies. WHAT??!?!? I was a little annoyed now. They might import the Japanese goods soon, but right now, it's American. Somehow, I thought that physical proximity to Chinatown would make a difference for sizing of their clientele. Silly me right?

Industry Sizing Standards

2006-05-21T13:07:00.000-04:00

Well, it comes as no surprise, but the sizing standards for women's clothing is completely all over the place - both within and between brands. In menswear, their system of sizing is, for the most part, based on real measurements - neck, arm length, waist, inseam, etc. For menswear, there's not that much playing around with the numbers for the consumer's vanity. Men get standardization. Women don't. What gives?

Women have no idea how to describe their clothing size to other people. It usually comes down to "I'm a size 2 in Banana Republic, size 0 in Ann Taylor, size 6 in ...." You have to admit, this is a little weird, not to mention completely annoying and inconvenient. I long suspected that the reason for why it's done is twofold.

First, women's shapes are so different, that standardization is hard for manufacturers. Not only are there differences in height and weight, but that weight is distributed very differently for everyone. Someone can be slender or curvy. She can have a large chest but not have wide hips, or any other combination. To be fair, there have been efforts to push standardization upon clothing manufacturers. SizeUSA is an ongoing study and standardization project jointly sponsored by the clothing industry and the U.S. Department of Commerce (Unfortunately, I'm not quite willing to pay several hundred dollars to get a report). The American Society for Testing and Materials has done the same for a variety of categories. So if some standards have been recently set, what gives?

This is the second, harder half of the answer. But basically, it's because women have shown that they like it better and therefore, don't demand a more sensible system. Women as a whole don't like admitting personal numbers, particularly weight, size, and age. And for all these things, is it a coincidence that lower seems better? The entire 0,2,4, etc. sizing scheme is a deliberate effort to add a layer of abstraction to sizing clothing. The focus is no longer on the real measurements anymore, but, again, on this floating scale of nice low numbers. It is certainly not a lack of information that prevents clothing companies from clearly indicating the actual measurements. After all, they specified the actual measurements in the first place! But rather, it's a consumer bias towards the fake scale. There is definitely a social attitude, healthy or not, that 'skinnier means better' for women. Somehow, being a size 8 sounds much more appealing than having a 28" waist. And if a size 8 sounds better, why not size 4 for the same actual waist size? If making the shopper feel slightly better about her size can tip the scale towards a purchase, why should manufacturers change the way things are done?

"Oh my God! I can't believe that I can still wear a size 6!" a woman in the dressing room next to mine exclaimed. It used to surprise me how excited and happy than woman sounded. But over the years, I've heard similar refrains so many times in dressing rooms that it's undeniable. Deep down, everyone knows if they've been gaining or losing weight, so no one's really fooled - but the women in the dressing room would prefer to keep her illusion even though she really knows differently.

Size inflation (when a label for a particular size is placed on a garment that was considered larger than that size in the past) has been rampant during the past few years. I find it particularly painful because I have, for the most part, been completely sized out of the major brands. I've noticed that Banana Republic has shifted 2 "sizes" already for skirts in the span of less than a decade, which was noted here in the cons section (stores claim that if you sort of fit a regular 4, you'd go up one size in petites). Americans have been getting bigger over the years - both taller and wider. It makes sense that clothing has shifted towards bigger people. J.Crew, for example, has special sizing to account for the trend. They carry clothes for tall people and size 16. They've also expanded their swim wear for D cups, longer torsos, and "slimming" suits. Good for them! I'm all for this. Why shouldn't taller or bigger people get things to fit? But what particularly bugs me is that A) actual small sized clothing is disappearing, to be replaced by similarly labeled clothing a lot bigger, and B) it's a real effort to figure ways of dealing with it.

The partial solution is to get women to stop buying into the current sizing system and demand standardization. According to TC2, the consulting firm that performed the SizeUSA study, companies have already readjusted the fit so that more people can purchase from their new standards, which in turn, leads to a more loyal and satisfied customer base. However, I hope that this will also lead manufacturers to adopt a universal industry standard for sizing. Or if I had my way, just tag every article with every real measurement that matters.

So how does this help me? Well, it's clear that the size demographic that I fit into is tiny (no pun intended). So I'm screwed anyway. But it's cruel that manufacturers right now give me a glimmer of hope by posting their outrageously incorrect sizing charts and by producing sizes like 00 that seem like they should work. Hey, if something's not going to fit, just let me know. It's ok - just stop lying about your sizes and I'll appreciate that I won't have to waste my time looking.

Tube Top Fun!

2006-05-19T18:20:00.000-04:00

The tube top that I ordered from Banana Republic in a petite xs fits and is actually wearable. And I thought I'd just be complaining that it was too big. It has one of those shelf-bra things which don't really help anyone (I still wear a padded bra for 'volume' as opposed to support). So I put it on and realized that it was a bit longer than I liked, and it was practically a dress!

And then it hit me. Hey, I could wear this thing as a dress! By pulling the inner shelf-bra out and using it as the bodice part and the real outer upper part of the tank top to cover my middle, I noticed that I could unfold it and wear the top as a pretty scandalous dress:

Not to say that I'd actually go wearing this around...but honestly, I probably could without looking too slutty. I have a pretty non-existent chest, which in this case, is an asset. Hey, in the right light, it might even actually pass for classy. With a jacket, it wouldn't even be that bad. But it only works because it's super stretchy nylon/spandex and I'm freakishly short (4'10").

This was totally one of those 'airplane seat' moments - for once, being tiny is actually an advantage! (Well, I guess in this case it's sort of questionable in terms of taste....) At $28 full price, it's not a bad buy for a night of clubbing. Heck, for $28, it's cheap as a disposable dress, even for a tightwad like me!

Online Shopping Rocks because....

2006-05-17T16:45:00.000-04:00

Like a lot of non-standard sized people, I tend to shop online out of sheer desperation. And yet, there are certainly a bunch of benefits to this, aside from not going crazy in the store with the unsympathetic salesperson.

Fun in-store shopping experiences and quirks:

poorly trained/unhelpful salespeople who are more inclined to gossiping with each other rather than actually helping you
pretty much zero selection in my size since either they don't even make anything that small for the ever expanding American population - or all the ones in store have been snatched up by equally desperate (but willing to blow more money) tiny people like me
long lines for the dressing room that are reminiscent of women's bathrooms and as equally enjoyable at the end of the ride
extra-flattering (but completely unrealistic) lighting and mirrors in the dressing room to bring out the real you
yappy spoiled annoying women and their pet baby puppy in Gucci handbags. No, I won't coo over your stupid dog that's wearing a matching outfit. Why the hell did you bring that thing into the store anyway? What do you think it is, your kid/boyfriend/therapist? (see NYT article here) Find a day boyfriend if your permanent boyfriend/husband/sextoy isn't around to take you shopping to spend his money. If you live anywhere but New York, I think this one is mostly avoidable (I mean the dog, not the girl)
Muzak playing that firstly makes you wonder what the target audience of this store is, and secondly to think, 'dear God, am I really this boring a person that I've fallen into the Adult Smooth Jazz/Soft Pop Remix category'?

Avoiding the children's section and teenybopper stores: Believe me, I've done this lots of times. I've gotten sort of immune to it at this point, but it really does still suck when the realization hits you again. No, it's not perfectly respectable for a grown woman (or man) to be going through GAP Kids for their evening or work attire. No one has to know that you're trying on a size 10 or 12 (as in age of kid) sweater at home. You don't even need to give the lame excuse of, "it's for my kid."
Wider online selection: Most retailers have better selection online since they don't have to display their wares in any physical space - they just need to keep it in some gigantic warehouse, ready to be shipped out. Most notable are that women's shoes in size 5 or 5 1/2 are almost never carried in stores anymore, and that petites or size 00 are available online (yes, that farce of a size does actually exist - more on that one later). If you're smaller than a 5 in shoes - suck. If you're smaller than a 00, cozy up to a good tailor.
You can be lazy: No need to actually carry all that stuff home with you - it gets shipped straight to your door.
You potentially save money: Online shopping is a good economical approach. You're seldom tempted to buy something by sheer emotional want when you can't touch it or try it on. Of course, only 5% of women's clothes should even be considered on such a basis anyway, but hey, you tried to save a buck.

Ok, to be fair, check here for the crappy aspects.

Online Shopping Sucks because....

2006-05-17T16:17:00.000-04:00

As essential as online shopping has become for me, there are quite a few problems I find with online shopping, as much as it is great. Here are my person favorites:

Touching is believing: I still want to touch/try on/look at closely the thing I'm purchasing. Texture, drape, and quality of the garment are incredibly important to me. If I'm in the store, I can reject in about 10 seconds something that is overpriced for quality, ugliness, the wrong color, etc. Sure, I have to lug it home, but there's less of it to lug.
I want a normal shopping experience too: Who the hell wants to feel completely left out of the shopping loop? It completely sucks to walk into a store and realize you really like their clothes, but everything, and I mean everything, is way too big. As one oh so helpful salesman at a Brooks Brothers snarkily told me, "you should be grateful that we even carry petites, even though it's a little big on you. Frankly, our stores lose money because we don't make enough of a profit from people your size."
No instant gratification: I need something now. Or tomorrow. For now, I just can't wait to have the thing sent. For tomorrow, no, I don't realy want to pay an extra $30 for rushed (and sometimes not guaranteed) overnight delivery. If that's even possible.
Sizing charts online lie: They lie a lot. Especially for small sizes. Check out the chart below from Banana Republic. On a super thin day, I maybe have a 23 1/2" waist, 28 1/2" around the bony bits of my hip. So, according to this chart, I'd fit a 0P reasonably well. Wrong. BR offers a size 00P, which is still too big for me. The skirt I ordered from them is also below, in a 00P. It hits a tiny bit past my hip bone, which I guess I can wear, but I really don't like to. Measured straight across the waistband, it's exactly 28". I still have a silk skirt I bought from them in '99 that is exactly 24" in the waistband, and it was a regular (not petite) size 0. What the heck? This size chart is about 7+ years out of whack.

Unavoidable Returns: You gotta lug all that stuff you just mail ordered back to the physical store or post office. Because they lied about the size. Or because it's uglier than you thought possible.
Environmental anguish: You just killed 1/100 of a tree for the shipping materials and probably a gallon of gas having this stuff shipped from their distribution warehouse in Ohio. This is a very similiar feeling to the horror I felt when one of my friends, who shall remain nameless, told me he regularly orders Q-Tips online because Amazon offered free priority delivery if you pay a flat rate for the year.
Overbuying is easy: You forget how much you got because you don't have to carry it around to the cashier. So you return it or you wind up paying a lot more than you wanted to. You often buy multiple sizes of the same thing because you aren't sure about fit - which is a return guarantee.
Online Selection still sucks: I still can't really find things that look good on me and/or fit online. My friends know that I keep talking about going to Asia to go on a crazy shopping trip. Completely not practical unless you're willing to blow a lot of money for a very very long plane ride. With no guarantee of anything once you get there.

For a fair shake for the other side, please read here.

Online Clothing Shopping for the Short Folk 101

2006-05-17T15:19:00.000-04:00

I just got a shipment of stuff from Banana Republic this evening. Luckily, I was home so that I didn't get another UPS sticky note attached to the front door of my building - I just moved to a doorman-free building so I keep forgetting that I actually have to be home to pick up my stuff. I have a pretty love/hate relationship with mail order shopping. I started doing it when retailers began offering free shipping and returns a few years ago.

Basically, it still comes down to some semblance of convenience. It’s just completely inefficient to go shopping in most retail stores for me, even though for most people, it’s the best way to find new stuff. I can usually find a better sizing selection online and I get to avoid the ton of annoyances that come with in-store shopping.

But still, I wish there was somewhere I can shop where I don’t feel freakishly small. I mean, think of all the things you give up when the brown UPS truck becomes synonymous with high fashion.

In the end, I still hate shopping online because the conclusion usually sucks. Here's the damage: After having ordered 8 different pairs of shoes in various sizes, I have decided to keep one pair of sandals. I'll be bringing back the other 7 pairs, a dress that's too big, and the skirt that's too big. To keep: a string bikini set in XS that went on sale that fits perfectly except that the bottom is made for someone with a slightly fuller bottom (the usual resigned – “it's good enough”), a tank top in PXS, and the shoes that I'll finally resign myself to paying full price for. Nothing like a little exercise with 7 shoe boxes and other paraphernalia.

A Petite Mission

2006-05-16T19:24:00.000-04:00

I live in New York - one of the most diversely populated cities in the world. People of all sizes, shapes, ethnicities, and tastes live here. In this city, you should be able to find anything and everything. So, something as simple as clothing that fits me should be a cinch, right? I mean, for goodness sake, it's Manhattan! The Big Apple! Fashion Capital of the World (or at least, the States)! Really, I can't be that small!

Wrong. I have decided that Fifth Avenue has abandoned me and everyone else outside the average sizing categories. I've been to the H&Ms, the Banana Republics, and even the Bergdorf Goodmans. The trendy indy boutiques in downtown are also not helping me. Fans of Project Runway, I've even stepped into Emmett McCarthy's store EMc2. "My, you're tiny, aren't you?" he asks me, and then proceeds to let me down by telling me nothing in his collection will fit me. (He was very nice about it.)

Clothes should make you feel good about yourself. The right suit will make you more confident for important meetings. That sexy dress will certainly help turn heads. But wait, that's not for people like me. How comfortable do you really feel if that jacket is too big in the shoulders and waist? Still just trying on your mom's clothes? How seductive do you feel when every dress you try on is baggy and saggy? Doing the little dance in the dressing room to pinch and pin down all the parts that need a little nip, tuck, or hem lift (and hoping that tailor will actually do a good job)? I find it insulting that I regularly make it a habit to check the children's section since the "grown up clothes" don't work for me. Sound familiar?

This abnormally short, skinny girl must figure something else out. With no steady dealer of product, I have decided to finally step into the blogosphere and share with the world what I know best about fashion:

The trials and tribulations of the chronically undersized female shopper.

And maybe I'll pick up a hint or two from the rest of you out there.