Monday, June 25, 2007
How does the women's clothing industry justify charging the exact same amount of money for my size 2's as they do for larger sizes? In some cases, my things use half the amount of fabric and, one assumes, take less time to assemble, so seamstresses can, theoretically, run up several in the time it takes to complete one larger one. It's not fair. Whatever happened to the concept of getting what you pay for?
It isn't easy to find acceptable clothing in small sizes either. I am not an ice cream cone, nor a big fan of ruffles that make their wearer resemble a lampshade.
On top of that, I have to shell out for alterations, while men do not. Their trousers actually come with a raw edge for hemming. It is expected that they will be hemmed to the right length at no extra charge, while I have to pay quite a lot on top of the already inflated purchase prices to avoid tripping. Since the clever makers of women's clothing believe that all women are of my exact weight but 19 feet tall, everything I buy has to be shortened. It's also wasteful. All those two-foot tubes of cut-off denim from the legs of my jeans, stretched end to end, would probably reach from here to the New York garment district, but are utterly useless, good only for lining a hamster cage. If I had a hamster.
I am sure that this accounts for women's adoration of shoes. Shoes do not need to be altered. If you select them out of vanity rather than practicality, they will alter your feet, but shoes do not have to be shortened, taken in, or otherwise adjusted. They are instant gratification attire. You put your feet in and go. And that is what I'm going to do. I'm putting on my shoes and going to New York on Wednesday. I'll be gone for ten days. I don't know if I'll be checking blogs or posting in that time, but I'll try. It beats the hell out of shopping.
Posted by heartinsanfrancisco at 5:32 PM