coolshoes

True it is a wall of text, but this technologically challenged person spent 10 minutes trying to find an answer to how to you do a link and find also sorts of irrelevant answers in faq and elsewhere and finally gave up. I figured most folks would be too lazy to read the entire thing anyway.

Found this online and sorry for great length, but the British Men's Reform Clothing Party of the 1930s was on to something. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CLOTHES by J. C. Fluegel (Written 1930, Last Published 1966) Part of Chapter XIII INDIVIDUAL AND SEXUAL DIFFERENTIATION ………………..The capacity for rapid change which women's 'modish' dress possesses - that very capacity which man, in his greater sartorial stability had so long despised - has enabled woman suddenly to become reasonable in her costume, and to adopt clothes that are superior to man's in nearly every respect. So great is this difference that it is worth while to attempt a brief enumeration of the chief points in which women's clothes, as they are at the present moment, allow of greater satisfaction than do men's. (1) The use of a far greater variety of colour. (2) The use of a far greater variety of stuffs, including an almost exclusive right to artificial silk - that most useful and attractive sartorial invention of modem science - together with other materials that combine lightness with elegance and that allow some passage of the ultra-violet rays. (3) Much greater individual liberty as regards choice of materials, cut, and general style of dress. (4) Much lighter weight of clothes {according to recent measurements in America and Germany, men's summer clothes weigh from three to ten times as much as women's). (5) Much greater adaptability to varying seasons. Women can wear the lightest clothes in summer and thick fur coats in winter; men's clothes are admittedly much hotter in summer, and it is, in some countries at any rate, considered somewhat unmanly to wear fur coats in winter. (6) Much more rapid and efficient adaptability to the different temperatures of various environments. Women can adapt by wearing a thin layer of essential clothes, and then putting on other layers over this - jumper, coat, overcoat, etc. Modem convention dictates that man should always wear his coat as an essential outer garment. He sometimes makes surreptitious and inconvenient adjustments by taking off his waistcoat or putting on an extra one - obviously from all points of view an inferior method to that of women. (7) Greater freedom of movement. Except perhaps in high winds, trousers cause a slightly greater impediment to leg movement than do short skirts, while women's upper garments certainly allow of considerably freer arm and trunk movements than do men's coats. ( Much greater cleanliness. (9) An exclusive right to exposure of parts of the body other than the face and hands. (10) Greater convenience for putting on and off. (11) Absence of constriction in parts of the body where freedom is especially desirable for comfort and health (a free neck, whereas men are condemned to the collar-and-tie system, with its threefold, or more usually fourfold, bandage round the neck). [Don't forget tight trousers!] (12) Greater convenience for packing and transport. (13) An admittedly greater hygienic value in virtue of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ,8, 9, and 11 above. Truly a formidable list. And the sting of the whole matter lies in the last point. For recent changes in our ideas of hygiene have deprived men of what would formerly have been their very obvious retort, namely, that men's clothing was more healthy than women's, because it provided, in most circumstances, for a higher temperature of the air immediately surrounding the body. Up to a few years ago, when women appeared in décolleté dresses or 'pneumonia blouses', men might envy them their coolness, but could take comfort in the thought that they themselves were not courting disease and death as were their sisters. Now this consolation has been taken from them just as they most needed it. It is as if the reward of virtue, for which many sacrifices had been made, had been ruthlessly snatched away from the expectant prize-winners and given to those who had broken all the hitherto accepted rules of common sense and morals. It is not surprising then that men find the present situation galling. Discontent is rampant (as my own investigations, among others, amply show), and has in England crystallised in the formation of the Men's Dress Reform Party, which has issued a preliminary call to freedom. Nevertheless, it is clear that the forces that brought about man's 'great renunciation', as we have earlier called it, are still at work and make it difficult for him to strike out for his own rights. In the light of our previous considerations, it is fairly easy to describe the deeper psychological forces on either side of this conflict. On the side of the reformers, the principal factors are: (1) The Narcissistic tendencies, in revolt against the suppression to which they have been subject for the last 130 years or so. (2) The various homosexual and Eonist tendencies, in virtue of which men desire to dress as women (for, of course, as women's dress has nearly all the advantages, any reform of men's must inevitably mean an approximation to women's in certain respects). Since, as psycho-analysis has shown, there is a close developmental relation between Narcissism and homosexuality, there is a certain relation between these two factors. (3) The auto-erotic elements of skin and muscle eroticism which underlie the 'rebellious' type of clothes mentality. This last element is not necessarily connected with any homosexual tendency or lack of virility, except perhaps - (a) in so far as a relatively strong skin eroticism (relative, that is, to the genital eroticism) tends to produce a general distribution of libido resembling the more diffused sexuality of women; and ( that a relatively weak genital sexuality can provide the individual concerned with only a relatively small enjoyment of phallic symbolism to compensate for the loss of pleasure from cutaneous and muscular sources. (4) The fact that nonconformity in clothes tends naturally to express nonconformity in social and political thought. Correctness of male attire symbolises conservative principles (identification with, approval of, and obedience to, society as at present constituted), and there would seem to be a general correspondence between conventionality in dress and in politics. Thus, in London, the members of the Constitutional Club, the National Liberal Club, and the 1917 Club correspond on the average to three steps in the descending scale of sartorial correctness. Owing to this correlation, clothes reform tends to receive support from the generally rebellious, as a welcome symbolic expression of revolt. Among the forces hostile to reform, the following are probably the most significant: (1) Man's intense fear of appearing different from his fellows. Clothes reformers and women are wont to taunt man with his cowardice in this matter. They are amply justified, but it must be remembered that this cowardice is only the vice associated with the virtue of a greater social sensitiveness - a sensitiveness that has made man, rather than woman, the producer and developer of those wider social institutions which have rendered civilisation possible. If we were right in what we said about the origin of man's 'great renunciation' in matters of dress, this renunciation (tending as it did to abolish competition) had as its function the development of a further social cohesion. The social tendencies that produced this have established very powerful traditions against sartorial nonconformity among men, traditions which have not operated in the case of the less socialised, freer, and more individualistically competitive women. (2) Man's generally greater repression of Narcissism. Our whole social traditions allow a freer manifestation of Narcissism in women than in men, and this difference largely finds expression in their clothes. A masculine clothes reformer is thus, as it were, offending against one of the most fundamental principles of male morality; for even though his costume be of the simplest, he cannot avoid making himself' conspicuous, through the very fact of being differently attired. (3) Closely connected with this is the repression of male exhibitionism. In conformity with the ruling convention that woman is beautiful and man is not, there has grown up a very considerable intolerance of the male body; the characteristic signs of maleness, e.g. the greater hairiness, muscularity, and angularity, are in some ways much more apt to arouse embarrassment or repulsion than is the rounder and smoother (and of course much more familiar) female form. As previously suggested, this is perhaps due, at least in part, to a repression of phallicism; the worship of the phallus, so common at an earlier cultural level, has given place to an abhorrence of the male genitals, an abhorrence which has spread to some extent to the whole male body, and which demands that it be decently hid in thick garments, non-provocative in form and colour. (4) The repression of homosexual tendencies. As we have seen, homosexual tendencies are apt to be strongly represented in the reform movement. This produces a revulsion against it on the part of those who fear, of course unconsciously, to do anything that would gratify these tendencies in themselves. (5) The guilt attached to the idea of abandoning traditional male costume, owing to the moral symbolism associated with it. A man is apt to feel that if he dispensed with his thick coat and stiff, tight collar, he would be casting off the moral restraints that keep him to the narrow path of virtue and of duty. (6) Closely correlated with this is, as we have seen, the phallic value of the very clothes that symbolise morality; hence man feels that the clothes reformers are in effect asking him to perform an act of self-castration. Both these last motives are illustrated in the greater strictness and correctness of men, when in the presence of women, than when by themselves. Most men of the upper social classes experience a curious feeling of guilt and embarrassment if surprised by a woman without a collar and tie or in their shirt-sleeves. On analysis, this feeling seems to be composed of three principal elements: (a) a disagreeable suspicion of having been detected in a condition of moral relaxation; ( the feeling that the man is somehow insulting the woman by appearing without the panoply of chivalry; © a feeling of being sexually inadequate to the demands of a female presence - in other words, the feeling that the man is impotent or castrated. These more individual factors are supported by others of a more social nature, in particular: (1) The fact that here, as elsewhere, men punish those who dare to do what they themselves would like to do but dare not. The employer, though he admits he is not comfortable, feels that his 'position' does not allow him to take off his coat, and would be prepared to punish (by dismissal if necessary) any employee who dared himself to do so. (2) The fact that the long period during which men's dress has undergone very little change has induced a most thoroughgoing orthodoxy and conservatism throughout the makers and retailers of men's clothes. No one engaged in this trade has personally known, or has even been taught by anyone who has known, anything essentially different from the present system, and - in great contrast to the women's clothing trade - the whole circle of ideas in the world of tailors and of outfitters has become almost completely stereotyped. (3) It is often said that women are opposed to any change in male attire. I am inclined to think, however, that this is only true in a certain limited sense. Women are conscious, of course, of the disapproval and ridicule that other men pour on the isolated reformer (they feel especially, perhaps, the implied taunt that the reformer is lacking in virility, and to that extent dislike associating themselves with him. They also, perhaps, derive some satisfaction from the fact that the moral seriousness of male attire contrasts rather piquantly with the symbolic freedom and irresponsibility of their own. Furthermore, they enjoy the reversal of the rôles that recent conditions have brought about; in the place of men's previous contempt for women's fashions, men have now to admit that women's are superior to their own. It would, indeed, be more than human if women did not indulge in a little triumphant amusement at this situation, but on the whole this amusement in women is astonishingly small showing thereby their Narcissistic independence, alike of the past disapproval of men and of their present praise. Women are, moreover, aware that from the heterosexual point of view, they have lost much by men's drabness (as is shown by their much greater susceptibility to uniforms, if these are at all attractive), and that they stand very greatly to gain in this way from an abandonment of men's obsessive Puritanism. On the whole, then, it would seem that women cannot be reckoned as very serious opponents of men's dress reform. In all this we have been taking stock of moral forces rather than ourselves making an ethical evaluation. This short return to psychology has been worth while, however, as throwing fresh light upon the present dynamic aspect of certain problems that were discussed in more general terms in Chapter VII. Returning to the task of expressing our own attitude to the matters concerned, it seems clear that the ideal that we should have in view is the retention of the peculiar advantages enjoyed by both sexes and the abolition of the peculiar disadvantages suffered by both. In the light of what we have seen in this and previous chapters, our judgment of men's clothing is that it represents an ascetic reaction-formation, into which, however (as in the case of many similar mental manifestations), there have crept - or perhaps we should more correctly say, in which there have persisted - certain surreptitious libidinal elements. judged both by the satisfaction given and by its ability to adapt to real situations, men's clothing must be pronounced a failure; the wholesale inhibitions that underlie it are so severe that they cannot but cause much suffering and much loss of efficiency. Moreover, the unconscious alliance between the super-ego and the instincts is one that we have reason to believe is opposed to the ultimate interests of morality itself. Our sympathies must therefore be with the reformers; though we must ask them (even in their own interest) to take account of the psychological factors by which they are themselves impelled. In working for the ends they have in view, it is evident that they have two chief tasks before them: the overcoming of the 'moral' associations of men's conventional clothing, and the provision of alternative outlets for 'manliness'. Men have to be convinced that it is a sign of weakness rather than of strength to need the support of external symbols, and that the choking collar and the clogging coat can be abandoned without any very shocking result either to their respectability or their virility; that, in fact, the truest manliness can be achieved by freedom rather than by a slavish subservience to convention. This freedom can perhaps only be attained by a reduction in the present amount of the displacement of male libido from body to clothes. We must learn to tolerate the male body, and perhaps even to admire it - if only as a counterpart to the female body, which we already idolise. If we are to have faith in the results of modem psycho-therapy, we cannot believe that wholesale repression is ever a really satisfactory solution of a conflict. Sublimation is a better course, but sublimation can seldom be brought about suddenly, completely, or deliberately; to achieve sublimation we must first have the courage to allow freedom. The freedom required here is a more natural attitude of man towards his own body; and perhaps the easiest and at the same time the best way in which this can be done is for man to allow himself a little more latitude in making use of his bodily attractions for heterosexual purposes in making, in fact, a somewhat greater sexual appeal to women. Such a course seems both likely to meet with. smaller social resistances than, and to be socially preferable to, the other alternative - a greater Narcissism (and consequent tendency to homosexuality). The only serious objection that could be raised against such a course concerns the possibility of sacrificing the social advantages of men's present costume to which we drew attention in Chapter VII. Our reply to this objection must be twofold. In the first place, modern psychology has taught us that moral or social inhibitions, when they become excessive, are liable to produce fresh evils as great as those which they aimed at preventing - and in this matter the quasi-neurotic asceticism of men's dress seems to be a social counterpart of the excessive repressions so characteristic of individual neuroses. In the second place, it is undoubtedly possible to devise garments that would be comfortable, hygienic, and attractive without arousing an high degree of sexual jealousy or social emulation; indeed, a general change to looser and lighter clothes would be a democratic move, inasmuch as it would tend to diminish the social differentiation due to expert and expensive tailoring. The present 'suit' requires to be made by those possessing special skill if it is to look at all presentable.

My experience with NW is that they are consistent in their sizing. I take a 12M in round toes (pumps) and square toes (boots), but if it is a pointed toe I can forget about it because my right foot is a 12M, but my left foot is probably closer to a 12.5M. I also have narrow heels, as someone else noted about themselves, and that aids the NW fit I think. Generally I take a 44 EU. I haven't tried one on in a long time, but a Payless 12 was always a bit large on me, even on the left foot.

I was about six or seven and visiting my grandmother. Her sister, aunt Nettie, lived around the corner. She had tiny feet and a large collection of heels that she let me wear when I visited her. What fun!

I vote for number four, but then again that is because I would like a pair of them and just haven't gotten to a Payless store to see if they have them in stock.

New from Nine West

Hate to pop anyone's bubble, but one of the hot new trends for women is called menswear, i.e. male clothing with a feminine touch. More a sign of the freedom that women have in clothing than anything else.

Depending on the male shoe I have 10.5/11 men's feet, or at least I did fifteen years ago, which was about the last time I bought a pair, with fairly narrow feet for a male. Nine West 12's fit me fine. I don't buy pointed toes, just round and square, so I cannot testify to pointed toes. Always have a bit of room in terms of length, as you are suppose to. I prefer to think of Nine West, Sudini, and Franco Sarto 12's as being the regular size, rather than running large and other brands as running small.

Glad you found a job where you can be yourself and feel comfortable. But, a person taking hormone treatments and looking forward to breast implants, etc. is usually identified as transsexual, not gay. Being gay does not mean you want to be a woman; being transsexual does.

Sorry to have to point this out, but the male version of a tomboy is a sissy. It is back to the same old thing. Women appearing masculine is generally o.k., but going the other way men are sissies. And we all know that sissies are not to be tolerated in the manly man United States. Heck, they might even be queer and some among the citizens of the U.S. believe gays and the gay agenda, as they call it, are out to destroy the country and civilization. So, far many Americans Zach got just what he deserved, whether he has a decent voice or not. Don't you just love the freedom--

I bought a pair last week at my friendly Payless Store and also noticed the unreal price on eBay. There was an earlier pair that sold for about $60 or so. In fact, seeing them on eBay is what prompted me to go to the store to see if they had a pair. As much as I prefer leather, I just had to get a pair of these. I assume that the higher eBay price is the price you pay if you are not willing to go to the store, try them on and buy them.

The length of my feet is virtually identical to yours, but my feet are a 1/4" more narrow in each case. I also take a 44. In U.S. women's I need a 12M most of the time. But remember the sizes vary from one shoe to the next. Trying on is the only way to know for sure.

Welcome and a clerk at my local Ninewest store told me several months ago that size 12 was only available on the Ninewest website. So far I haven't ordered anything but I do look every now and then.

An average woman's brain (50 on the female side) in a male body--hmmm. But, I have been told by women that I am socialized like a woman; so, I guess the shoe fits!

Hate to disagree with the above posters, but--depending on the width of the shoe, I take a 10.5-11 US men's, 12-13 US women's, 10 UK, 44/45 European; so, I would say that you would take about a 14-15 women's US, a 12-13 UK, and a 46-47 Eu. Generally, a US woman's size is the U.S. men's plus 1.5 to 2 sizes, and the UK size is 2 less than the US woman's. But, as others will tell you the only way to know for sure is to try on the pair of shoes because the sizes vary.

Corsair-- Let me also welcome you. Small world--I have a pair of knee high boots with 3" heels that I bought at a Rack Room. Tried them on with customers milling around and paid for them with a male manager and his district, or some such, manager with him the entire time. Never an eye batted, just normal business. The only unique thing is that the boots were 11s, I normally have to have a 12, if not a 13. A wide toe box seems to make all the difference. Wore them while shopping the after Christmas bargins today. Even smaller world--I have a pair of ankle boots I bought at The Shoe Department (size 12), about 2 1/2" wide block heel. Same deal tried them on, paid, etc. The only noteworthy event, a woman with her young teenage daughter asked me if this was the women's boots section while I was trying on the boots I that I later bought. I said yes and she responded it was hard to tell if the boots were men's or women's.

Would that I wasn't a size 12 or Nine West would get some of my business in a store. Now that Nine West has size 12, but only on their website, I decided to ask if by chance they had any 12s in the closest store. I walked in and asked the clerk (the usual youngish women) if they had any 12s and without hesitating she told me that the size was available at ninewest.com; and then she said "We do have one pair of 12s. I don't know how they got here or why they are here. It won't take a second to get them." She went to the back and returned pulling the boots out for my approval. Unfortunately, they were not attractive (not quite Uggs, but headed that direction) and that was the end of that. I could just feel her leading up to "Do you want to try them on?", but my lack of interest stopped her. Oh well, just another day in the hard life of a size 12. I had on a pair of 3" heel shoes at the time, so there was no doubt as to who they were far.

After all the talk of women's jeans I decided to take the plunge and buy a pair. I love the look of heels and boot cut jeans that women wear all the time and with men's boot cut jeans it just doesn't quite come off the same. I wandered in stores and never got up the nerve to try any on and I was not going to buy without trying. I ended up buying them on EBay where I made a discovery--many of the sellers include the actual waist size, as well as inseam. Having looked at sizing charts, etc. I thought I would take a much larger size than it turned out. I guess because women expand a good deal more below the waist than men and with low rise jeans the actual waist size is not the same, but several inches larger. I searched my actual waist size and pulled up several different sizes with a actual waist size that would work on low rise jeans. Sorry to be so long; at any rate, the jeans arrived today and like everybody says they fit great. Time to go search so more--

Off Broadway is a nice shoe discount outlet. Unfortunately for me the sizes stop at 11 and I usually need a 12. They advertise having 50,000 pairs of shoes at a location and of those maybe 1 pair are 12s. They helpfully stick a green circle on the boxes of sizes 10 1/2 to 12, so it is easy to check the entire stock for size 12. They have increased the number of 11s they carry, so I guess there is hope that they will add more 12s. As far as I know they do not have a website. They are in most of the Mills centers in the U.S.

Guess I'll break the trend--I like square toes and blade heels. So, I really like them. Also, speaking as one who takes a 44, I am jealous because the largest size they show is a 41.

aquifer

Speedos

My solution to the sniping problem is to decide the maximum that I am willing to pay and enter that as a bid. Having done that the system automatically raises my bid in increments to keep it the highest until my maximum is reached. That way if someone bids more than I did, they paid more than I was willing to; and if no one wants to outbid me, I do not have to pay as much as I was willing to pay. Also, keeps me from over bidding in a competitive bidding war with other folks.

In doing research I have to read 16th and 17th century Dutch/Flemish, as well as modern Dutch. It is easier for me to read the 16th and 17th century Dutch (though I have to struggle all the time with it), than a contemporary newspaper, especially because of vocabulary. In reading older versions of languages, it helps if you do not know all the modern rules, which I do not when it comes to Dutch. One of the reasons 16th and 17th English is easier to read is because most published versions have been updated to modern spelling, etc. In the original version, they are much more difficult. I also teach U.S. university students who often have difficulty with the originals from the 16th and 17th century, as well as academic British English. On "The Office" winning a Gloden Globe award, remember that this award is given by the foreign press, not by Americans. BBC America is watched by very few Americans, as best I can tell, but I guess the foreign press watches. TV is yet another way that Americans see the rest of the world virtually only through America eyes.

Perhaps my reading skills are too highly refined in reading between the lines. WarrenB did write "Sorry, the BBC is far too biased." One would assume that the report was correct in its criticism of the BBC from that comment. Bubba wrote "...that the report was true...." So, again I would assume that he found the report worthy. For using the word "praise" perhaps I did go too far, but I still stand by my conclusion as stated. Also--as with you--I intend no offense to anyone. Just an observation on my part that seem of at least geographic interest. I have no idea as to the veracity of the Hutton report because I have not read it. But, Bush supporters do seem to think that it cleared both Blair and Bush in the matter of their interpretation of the risk to the world of WMD supposedly held by Saddam.