January 4, 1965
The project is done! Finally! Now all I have to do is get it to school. I don’t know how I’ll make it! If I rode, it would be easy, but I don’t and it isn’t. I need some exercise. I’m getting flabby under the chin and around my waist and hips. All I have to is strengthen my tummy muscles, so I can hold it in and improve my posture. I wonder if I can take off ten lbs? I’d like to weigh 125 again. I think I will! (It’s not that easy.) Tomorrow’s another day! That was a bright statement!
January 4, 2023
I wish that I could have a serious talk with 1965 me. As a 5’9”, 135-pound teenager, I wore a Misses size 14. Usually. Pardon me while I put on my academic robes and quote myself, from Sex and Unisex (2015, Indiana University Press).
“Women’s clothing sizes are not now and never have been standardized in the United States, though not for lack of trying. There was an effort in the 1940s and 50s to develop a statistics-based sizing system that would be adopted by all manufacturers, but, as any woman who buys her own clothes knows, a size 10 from one manufacturer is not a size 10 from another. (Not to mention companies like Chico’s, who have invented their own sizing labels.) Catalog retailers and sewing pattern manufacturers were the most transparent, to avoid costly returns and exchanges. The sizing charts from the Sears catalogs in 1964 and 1966 reveal some interesting changes in size categories and measurements. Women’s fashions were organized in three main sections: Junior (odd numbers), Misses (even numbers, usually up to 18 or 20), Women’s (even sizes above the Misses range) and Half Sizes (even numbers with a 1/2 added, for example 14 1/2) . These were distinct proportions as well as measurements.
A woman of average height measuring 36-27-38 might be able to fit into either; the main difference in fit was size and location of the breasts. High, small bustline? Juniors. Full bust, lower on the torso? Misses. The real difference was in style; Junior sizes were for teenagers: high school-aged girls, or possibly just starting college or work. Misses designs were a bit more mature – not old-ladyish, but sophisticated and lady-like. In the 1960s and 70s, with a large, young population, the Junior department became the fashion department for most retailers. A young woman who wanted the latest trends looked there first; Misses fashions had longer hemlines and more conservative styling and were more covered-up. Given that dynamic, the changes in sizing is all the more interesting.
An observant regular Sears customer in the lower end of the Junior or Misses size ranges might notice that she dropped a size, but that was all. The waist measurements were all slightly smaller, in proportion to bust and hip including shorter skirts, lower, “hip-hugging” waistlines and more trousers and pants suits. Because the junior sizes topped out at about a 38-39 inch bust, women who were larger had to settle for Misses styles, possibly thinking they were overweight. There was more going on, beneath the surface.
In 1966, Vogue reported that the basic master patterns (called slopers) for the trendiest designers had also changed. Not only was “the look” slimly androgynous; so was the body for which it was designed. The new ideal body had a small, wide-set bosom and slender, almost pre-adolescent hips. The new patterns featured higher-cut armholes and higher bustlines. Sleeves were slimmer; pants and skirts were tighter at the hip. None of these changes would have shown in the size charts, but would be noticed in the dressing room mirror. Short skirts, sleeveless dresses and tight, hip-hugger pants demanded toned arms, knees and legs. The author of the Vogue article offered helpful exercise advice, to help readers achieve the required effect.”
Younger Jo, ignore the exercise advice you are reading in Seventeen. (I know that’s where you saw that!). You are fine. But your posture could use some work; listen to your mother and stand up straight. When you’re 73, you’ll wish you had.