I think a lot of women would not want their clothing labelled with their measurements. But I think it might be a good thing. I think even more important is the trend now in even moderately priced clothing to offer different "fits" and not just sizes.

Quite honestly, I don't care about the number so much as the fit (I have several sizes in my closet.) I like that pants come in a multitude of rises/styles now, but I really wish clothing manufacturers would make women's pants with different inseam lengths like men's pants and not just in short/regular/long.

I also wish button up shirts were sizes by bra size and waist measurement. I have the hardest time finding button up shirts.

I had heard about women who refused to wear anything larger than a certain size, but I hadn't (knowingly) met one, until I went shopping with my MIL for a dress for her wedding a couple months ago. She found a dress she absolutely LOVED, but the size 10 wasn't flattering as it was too tight across the abdomen. I told her I'd go look for a 12, and she told me she "would absolutely not wear a size 12." I have to admit I wasn't very sympathetic, as I told her "well, just cut the darned tag out, then." But nope, she wouldn't consider wearing a 12.

That I think is the part of the problem, women identifying with a size. "I am a size 10," MIL kept saying. No, she isn't a number, she's a woman, and different manufacturer's, with or without vanity sizing, are going to make clothes with different fits. It just seemed absolutely ridiculous to me that she passed up the dress she liked the most, because she was stressing over a number. Heck for clothing that was reasonably priced with a flattering fit, I wouldn't care if the tag said "you're a whale."

Quite honestly, this is the exact "excuse" my design department used to give me - our sizes change because the owner of the company is a size 10 no matter what - 6 weeks in Mexico with the associated drinking and dining - stil a size 10. They used to tell me that she said she had a closet full of size 10's from other mfgs that fit fine so we had to adjust our size scale accordingly. After Kathleen's informative post it makes more sense - but I still see it as part of the problem. I think more women would have that all important "aha" moment a lot sooner if they HAD to buy their jeans the same way men do.

The problem is one of body shape.

Most men have the same (or a very close to the same) waist/hip ratio. You can size men's pants by a waist size because there's not the variation between waist and hip from man to man that there is from woman to woman.

You and I could both have 26 inch waists, but depending on our builds, you could have an athletic slim build and 33 inch hips and I could have a voluptuous curvy build with 36 inch hips - so buying pants based on waist size would be equally frustrating as buying by some random size number.

For that reason, women's pants sizes aren't based on waist size, but on HIP size, and also on ratio from waist to hip. Even so, if pants were sold by an inch measurement, whether waist or hip, there would still be the issue of Brand A at 36" doesn't fit me and Brand B at 36" does ... because again, women all have different proportions in greater extremes than men do.

No matter how you size women's clothing, there's still going to be brand/style issues ... because of that whole hip/waist/boobs thing we've got going that men don't.

.