Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Sisterhood of the not-so-differing-pants.

With all the crap going on in the world today and me having to spend a fair chunk of my time chasing three little kiddos around, you'd think that an article in one of the major Vancouver papers about jeans wouldn't make me bat an eyelid. But it did. For the first time in a long time I actually got to sit down yesterday morning and have a nice hot cup of coffee (the kids slept in). And I read the article about the "Sisterhood of the Differing Pants".

This article was about finding jeans to suit "most body types". They had selected three "real women" as models to show how various jeans would look on different sizes and shapes. Great idea. Except for the fact that all of the women shown were tiny. And when I say "tiny" I mean size wise, not one of them was a size bigger than the number of fingers I have ON ONE HAND. I can't believe I got as ticked as I did.

I am not a big girl, but I am certainly into double digits size wise (those damned childbearing hips and flabby tummy). To find a pair of jeans that make me look fab would be great. Hard to imagine though when all you saw with this particular article were women who were a size three, and yet all the jeans shown say they suit most body types. One woman said that she ranges in size from zero to four (four on a bad day). She takes her girlfriends to the mall so that she is assured that she doesn't look fat in her jeans. Comical, considering that if she turned sideways she'd disappear.

A few years ago I went shopping at a mall in a suburb of Vancouver, and when I walked in one of the salespeople asked me if I was shopping for myself. I said that I was, and she proceeded to tell me that they didn't have anything in the store that would fit someone of my size. They didn't carry anything over a size eight, and with my height (I am 5'10") everything would be too short. I wasn't offended at all, in fact I was happy that I was saved the aggravation of trying to find something that clearly wouldn't fit. I think what bothered me about the article in the paper was that they kept going on about body type and size, and yet didn't even have an example of someone who is a size eight or even a size 10, never mind a bit bigger, which I'd venture to guess would be closer to the average size of someone you'd find walking down the street.

I just needed to get that off my chest - and yeah, that is flabby too.

2 comments:

Krista said...

Did you write to the editor of the paper? Do they have a sound-off section? I'm sure you're not the only woman who found that article a tad bit off.

Anna said...

I did write, but I don't expect to have my letter published (and in fact, I don't really care, I felt much better after I hit the send button on the e-mail!). I think if they had used real models I wouldnt' have been as ticked, but if they are going to have a representation of real women, then throw in one that isn't a beanpole.