Clothing size works as an arbiter of the body ideal. The level of complexity required of clothing measurement systems centres on the problem that clothing must fit closely to the body, whereas manufactured products, like a chair, can be designed to suit a wide range of people, clothing has, by its very nature, less ability to be flexible. Clothing size systems should be developed after undertaking anthropometric surveys of the population and using statistical analysis to construct a set of reasonable standards. Here we argue that social factors in lifestyle, demographics and consumption have radically altered women's body size and shape. Yet, systems in Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom have measured only a tiny per cent of the female population that fall within a vanity-size shape, as reflected in the marketing of clothing by global brands and high fashion houses, resulting in the size zero debates. This review of the chequered history of women's clothing size systems has resulted in the inconsistent sizing in the marketplace, as well as a structural unsuitability for the women's bodies for whom the clothing was designed. Recently, the challenge to ad hoc or vanity-sizing systems appears in social media forums from women who pioneer as models wearing 'plus sized' or rather, 'right sized' fashionable garments. Social media offers a platform to represent larger women via online access, to purchase right sized fashion and to view themselves no longer as outliers, as this fresh perspective informs contemporary social images of the female body.

Wearing clothing from the past is all the rage now. Different styles and aesthetics of vintage and historical clothing, original or appropriated, are popular with fashion wearers and home sewers. Social media is rich with images of anachronistic clothing and the major pattern companies have a large range of historical sewing patterns available. Butterick McCall, for example, have a Making History range of patterns for sewers of clothing from a range of historical periods up to the 1950s. The 1950s styled fashion is particularly popular with pattern producers. Yet little research exists that explains why anachronistic clothing is all the rage.

An American First Lady, argues Karin Vasby Anderson, 'influences conceptions of American womanhood' and by 'virtue of their husband's elections[,] First Ladies become sites for the symbolic negotiation of female identity'. The process of negotiation in female identity appears in various forms after women assume political power, for example: Golda Meir in Israel, Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom, Indira Gandhi in India and most recently, Australia's first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard (2010–13). While the position of First Lady is unique to American politics, the ways in which Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama each rejected a 'suitably feminine' image provides an important lesson for all women in power. Therefore, we argue here that this analysis of two Democratic American First Ladies and their employment or disregard of fashion informs the gender-based and race-based issues affecting women in political leadership through their choices in dress. When 'dressing up' both Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama struggled with issues of individual identity, subjectivity and power, and negotiated their First Lady roles in their fashion.