Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Numbers are just symbols

So I haven't been blogging at all for a very long time - my almost 6 months baby girl is the reason.

So, last Friday, I broke down and went shopping for pants. Nice pants - the kind I could easily wear to work and yet, still be comfy in.

Off to the store I went. I carried three sizes of the same kind of two different style of pants into the dressing room. My little man waited outside. My baby girl was asleep in her sling. I carefully managed to try on all the pants without setting my little girl down (a major fete to be sure!)

Anyway, I ended up with the largest of the sizes of one style. The middle one was a bit too snug for comfort.

Needless to say, Ed (my eating disorder voice) grew very loud in my ear.
"That is a HUGE size! You should buy the smaller size and squeeze yourself into it until you've tightened your grip on your food and fit in them!"

Luckily, I don't have much time for Ed these days - what with a baby girl and a growing boy to raise.

But all this got me thinking... why are there numbers on sizes? Why can't a store just come up with an arbitrary symbol instead? I'm an "apple" at this store and a "foozle" at that one?

Wouldn't that be an amazing experience? To go into a store and not feel that any one size was better (or worse) than another? I'd be just as happy as a "foozle" than a "doodle," wouldn't you?

So next time we go into a store, maybe we should give the numbers our own arbitrary symbol? Because after all, aren't numbers just an arbitrary symbol that someone many many years ago dreamed up to make a standard point of reference?


Mango said...

I think you should design your own clothing line with symbols or words instead of numbers for sizes! I love that idea. I have avoided going clothes shopping since I started recovery (I'm using old clothes and hand-me-downs), and I'm scared to do so. It'd be so much easier if there were symbols instead of sizes!

Crimson Wife said...

There was an interesting blurb on the history of women's clothing sizes in one of my sewing books. Apparently a "14" was originally the size of an average 14 year old woman at the time and a "16" the size of an average 16 y.o. Makes sense, huh?

But with vanity sizing the age connection has been lost, so might as well just come up with some arbitrary system like colors.

Brigid said...

Maybe we could just try to disengage ourselves from the amount of CARING we have for what the size says. I mean, the actual amount of fabric used to cover us comfortably remains the same, regardless of the number or symbol attached to it. If we can consciously choose to stop caring about the number, wouldn't that have the same overall effect?

Congrats on the baby girl! The first year (before they get mouthy haha) is so much fun!

Jeanne said...

Mango - if there were more hours in the day, I'd love to design my own line! When you do venture out for new clothes, remember that you are more than a number!

Crimson Wife - that used to be true with kids clothing, but my daughter who is 6 months old wears clothing marked 0-3 months, 3-6 months, and 6-9 months... All depending on the manufacter. Crazy!!

Brigid - it would be great to not give numbers power. I'm working on it (getting better everyday), unfortunately, ED loves his numbers... And somehow he hasn't shut up completely for me yet. Someday though ...
Thanks - so far, I've loved every age with my son (he'll be nine in November). I'm really cherishing my baby girl though, knowing that she will be my last baby.

Thanks for reading everyone!