uwMike.com

I'm in Waterloo at the moment, and next available to work in September 2008.

Fitting Rooms and Shorts

May 31st, 2005

A Liberal MPP in Ontario wants to make it illegal to charge differently for products and services, dependent on gender. I first saw this in the Western Standard, but since their archives are subscriber-only, I’ve linked to the CTV coverage.

As the weather got warmer here in Waterloo, I wandered aimlessly about town, seeking to upgrade from Pants to Shorts for the more moderate months. The store I found was a super-exclusive sporting-goods boutique which sought to sell me a single pair for more than $150. This of course, was absurd, and eventually I ended up at a Winners store.

Most places, like Wal-mart and Zellers and so-on, put their stuff in big piles by brand. So there’s a big rack or table of Levi’s, and I’ve got to pick through them, looking for the 34″ waist and eye-balling the inseam.

It’s a time-consuming process! For each style of garment I intend to purchase, I need to establish all the different subcategories and brands that are liable to be arbitrarily grouped, and then go fishing through every pile on its own, seeking my size!

The Winners approach, to me, seems much more oriented toward a pragmatic shopper. They simply put every single pair of Men’s Pants on the same rack together, with the biggest ones at one end, and the smallest ones at the other. Jeans, khakis, army-pants, whatever, it’s all there together. Once I’ve found something that fits, I can grab the two on either side of it, and there’s a decent chance that they’ll fit as well.

The Fitting Room

What’s the trick to this whole process? It’s finding that first one that fits. I’m terrible about measuring myself, so I just grab three or four and head for the fitting area to try ‘em on.

This is fine the first time, but they always give me a funny look the second or third time. I think the fitting rooms are primarily in place for twelve-year-old girls to try on dresses and shoes they can’t afford, not for eighteen-year-old guys to try on five or six pairs of bare-distinguishable khaki shorts.

Shorts are a difficult business, though. You can’t go too tight or too short, because that’s just gross. But you can’t go too big or too long, or you might as well be wearing a skirt. It’s got to come right to the knees, and sit on the hips without a belt.

Even if I did have measurements for myself beyond the ~34″ waist, I’m highly doubtful that I’d be able to just go ahead and pick up a pile of clothing based on numbers alone.

I’d rather face a glaring fitting-room attendent than a returns-desk attendent.

But is better treatment at the fitting-room built-in to the higher price of women’s clothing, or do they simply resist the probing look of disappointed salespeople?

Mike

Discussion

  1. > It’s got to come right to the knees

    Yeah, like that’s ever going to happen with me. You try finding shorts when you’re 1.96 metres tall.

    Posted at 11:40 pm on June 3rd by Another UW Mike.

  2. At that point, you pretty well just want to wear pants intended for a real short guy…

    Posted at 10:09 am on June 7th by Mike Purvis.

  3. Distinctive treatment based on gender? Um … isn’t that another way of saying “gender discrimination”? Wow. Down here, south of the 48th, we wouldn’t automatically consider that to be small-L “liberal.”

    Posted at 3:25 pm on June 7th by Br. Osric.

  4. Hmm… I should think that a law that interferes with market pricing would be generally considered more of liberal thing.

    To me, it just seems sort of scary how such a broad piece of legislation could be enforced. For example, it’s genuinely more complicated to dry clean a fitted woman’s blouse than a man’s dress shirt. However, this law would make it illegal to chare differently for the two services.

    In the case of hairdressing, I think it’s justified to charge a woman more because she demands a higher level of quality. A haircut for me is just that, a hair cut. A removal of hair. There’s little to no styling going on.

    And there’s a smattering of cases, such as the one I describe above, where I feel discriminated against as a guy. (Of course, I wasn’t actually charged anything extra, I just felt like I wasn’t welcome in the fitting room after the first visit, causing me to purchase garments in not-quite-the-right size.)

    Posted at 8:30 pm on June 7th by Mike Purvis.

  5. You’re correct, of course, and I was reading that first sentence too quickly, making it say the opposite of what you wrote. So much for “insight.” Mea maxima culpa.

    As for the differing nature of products for the two sexes, it’s been a while since I did a survey of shoe prices. The last time I looked, the men’s were generally costlier; but then, we tended to buy less often and demanded little variety, so we’d wear the same pair more frequently and they’d therefore have to be far more durable.

    Although the last time I accompanied my wife while she looked at shoes, I looked at some of the brands and nearly had a stroke. Ain’t the free market grand?*

    *http://www.sff.net/people/michael-spence/#a2005_04_18 resulted from that and other adventures.

    Posted at 4:51 pm on June 10th by Br. Osric.

Leave a Reply

You can use Markdown for style. I love hearing from readers, but please don’t hijack the discussion, use offensive language, or try to sell anything.

© 2004-2008, Mike Purvis, some rights reserved. I'm running Wordpress, and I have an RSS feed.