Wikipedia - High Heels

[sscotty727]

Interesting read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_heels

Excerpt:

Men and Heels

Except for cowboy boots, which continued to need a riding heel, men's shoes sported only low heels until a brief resurgence in the 1970s.

While high heels are marketed almost exclusively to women, a small percentage of men have worn, and continue to wear heels for various reasons, including personal preference, medical reasons, gender identity issues, and fetish roles. Although the idea of men wearing heels certainly isn't new, it is unusual in modern times, and as a result, some pockets of society consider it deviant. Whether it meets DSM-IV criteria for deviancy or not, however, depends entirely on one's reason behind wearing heels, and many people, including psychologists, don't consider it deviant at all, regardless of the reason, simply due to the fact that gender-specific clothing styles are rapidly disappearing anyway, as well as the fact that men invented heels, and wore them for more than 200 years before fashions changed, as they invariably do. Surprisingly enough, however, most men who wear masculine-styled heels in public not only encounter very little resistance, but are met with a surprising amount of appreciation and encouragement for their choice of fashion.

As an example, the last four decades of rock and roll have seen many performers wearing heels, both on and off the stage. Many men have worn high heels in secret over the last century, but a surprising number have worn heels in public, as well, usually in the form of high-heeled boots. Over the last decade, the Internet has brought together many men who consider the wear of heels, and even skirts, as merely the continuation of what men have been doing for hundreds of years in the case of heels, and tens of thousands of years in the case of wearing skirts. In fact, more than a third of all men worldwide still wear skirts on a regular basis, but this is largely lost on the somewhat insulated Western fashion culture. While the wear of heels by men in public is still rare, it's a continually growing phenomenon, one that appears to be accelerating.

The practice of men wearing heels continues to grow throughout Westernized countries including the US and Europe, and to a lesser extent in various pockets of Asia. This trend has not been lost on fashion designers, who have occasionally featured men wearing heels on the runways since the mid 1990s. Recent changes by shoe manufacturers, including marketing more masculine styles and heels with significantly larger sizes to accomodate men, appears to underscore this trend, and many of the more masculine high-heeled shoe and boot designs that were only available in sizes up to 11 just two years ago are now available in sizes up to 13.

[Dawn HH]

Sscotty727:-) That's a great article. It really tells it like it is. It is interesting that the article sites the fact that the men wearing heels movement is expanding. That's great, we are making progress. Cheers--- Dawn HH

[Dr. Shoe]

I have always found Wikipeadia the finest source of information anywhere.

[j-turbo2002]

I have always found Wikipeadia the finest source of information anywhere.

I would be careful if I were you. This is one of those "buyer beware" situations.

Wikipedia does not stand behind their product.

You can read more about it here in their General Disclaimer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer

They also have a Risk Disclaimer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Risk_disclaimer

[Dr. Shoe]

Of course they don't, they rely on contributions from the general public and would lay themselves open to all sorts if they didn't have a disclaimer. One good point is is the fact that it is self correcting, if a contributer wrote something incorrect, someone else would put it right.

[Shafted]

This of course also leaves it open that someone on this board could have written that part of the definition.

[j-turbo2002]

One good point is is the fact that it is self correcting, if a contributer wrote something incorrect, someone else would put it right.

No. Not really.

What would happen if that "someone else" was wrong?

[sscotty727]

I never said everything listed there is 100% correct. The interesting fact about that entry is that #1 Men in Heels is mentioned and #2 alot of people DO read the entries there. Whether it is the "authority" on topics or not is not what I am worried about as I would never take what is listed there as the final word on something I was seriously researching. All I said was the post had some interesting things in it. Scotty

[Firefox]

It's likely the article largely written by a internet savvy male heel or skirt wearer. Who else could be arsed to write an article on such a subject? It could therefore be a teeny bit biased although he has made some effort to make it appear unbiased. If anyone thinks it is wrong, then why not edit it yourself. As long as your edits are vaguely sensible they will probably stand.

[BlondeBimbo]

I agree. I must say I mistrust most things on the Internet, the problem being anyone just writes it - no checking at all! When one buys a book, the publisher has to ensure it's at least a bit accurate, that's not the case on the web. - as an example - I dive, yet I see so many references to us using Oxygen cylinders on the web - Oxygen is a toxin at depth (actually Wikipedia has it correct). The problem with this subject though is that it is not fact - but opinion! So no-one is really correct or wrong either Take "Surprisingly enough, however, most men who wear masculine-styled heels in public not only encounter very little resistance, but are met with a surprising amount of appreciation and encouragement for their choice of fashion. " That may be the case in hip areas of modern cosmopolitan cities, and fetish or other bars, but I guess that’s not the reaction you would get down some bible bashing areas, or other places where anything other than work boots for men would be acceptable! Perhaps people here see it as a good article because it supports the general view on this site? From our point of view it is a good entry. BB

[sscotty727]

Actually,

My dad and step-mom moved to North Carolina just before he died, and my brother who lives there now told me they are VERY VERY VERY bible-belt down there (he had his car trashed a few times because he likes to decorate them with rock band stickers, also my dad was Catholic and they looked down on anyone who wasn't southern baptist, etc). When he died this year and I went down for the funeral, I took my wedge boots with me and actually wore them the ENTIRE time there, even during the funeral (I didn't find out I was to be a paul barrier until the day OF the funeral or I might have worn a different pair of shoes). Anyway, not one person said a bad word or looked at me negative or anything and believe me, they would have.

Now they aren't stilletos or pumps, but they weren't flat either.

Actually, here is a picture of them.

Scotty

[Dr. Shoe]

No. Not really.

What would happen if that "someone else" was wrong?

Then someone else would correct it! :drinking:

[BlondeBimbo]

Then someone else would correct it! :drinking:

But what if that was wrong?

(Is there a pattern here?) :rofl:

[azraelle]

It's likely the article largely written by a internet savvy male heel or skirt wearer. Who else could be arsed to write an article on such a subject? It could therefore be a teeny bit biased although he has made some effort to make it appear unbiased.

If anyone thinks it is wrong, then why not edit it yourself. As long as your edits are vaguely sensible they will probably stand.

Actually I got the impression from an earlier post that genebujold wrote and submitted it to wikipedia, but I may be wrong. The writing "style" sure seems reminiscent of him, as well as the general tone of the information.

[sscotty727]

Actually I got the impression from an earlier post that genebujold wrote and submitted it to wikipedia

I thought the writing style looked familiar, perhaps the nodding off in the middle of the post should have been an indication.

Just kidding, but it does sound like his style.

[Firefox]

Quite likely it was Gene. The DSM whatsit pycho babble was a big clue. I could probably tell for certain from the ip's but I wouldn't bother to look, as we have a code of protecting people's privacy here, unless they abuse the board. I don't think Wikipedia should be biased towards a minority interest group. I think this article should be edited in a small way to make it more neutral.

[j-turbo2002]

I never said everything listed there is 100% correct. The interesting fact about that entry is that #1 Men in Heels is mentioned and #2 alot of people DO read the entries there. Whether it is the "authority" on topics or not is not what I am worried about as I would never take what is listed there as the final word on something I was seriously researching. All I said was the post had some interesting things in it.

Scotty

Yes! I know this. However, the credibility of the article was not my focus at all.

Dr. Shoe claimed that he had had always found Wikipedia the finest source of information anywhere. What I am trying to tell Dr. Shoe is that he had better be careful because Wikipedia does not stand behind their product. As Wikipedia states in their General Disclaimer, it is not peer reviewed by professionals in the subject matter. For example, Encyclopedia Britannica is a publication that is peer reviewed by professionals in the subject matter. Wikipedia goes on to state that most of the contributors who contribute to the site are mostly undergrads having a good time and they also state that there are those people who just like to “write stuff”.

Hence, this is why I said that this was one of those "buyer beware" situations.

[Dr. Shoe]

But what if that was wrong?

(Is there a pattern here?) :rofl:

Then the first one would have been right all along.

[Dr. Shoe]

Yes! I know this. However, the credibility of the article was not my focus at all.

Dr. Shoe claimed that he had had always found Wikipedia the finest source of information anywhere. What I am trying to tell Dr. Shoe is that he had better be careful because Wikipedia does not stand behind their product. As Wikipedia states in their General Disclaimer, it is not peer reviewed by professionals in the subject matter. For example, Encyclopedia Britannica is a publication that is peer reviewed by professionals in the subject matter. Wikipedia goes on to state that most of the contributors who contribute to the site are mostly undergrads having a good time and they also state that there are those people who just like to “write stuff”.

Hence, this is why I said that this was one of those "buyer beware" situations.

Oh absolutely. I never take anything I read on the internet as absolute truth. The only things I do accept as cold truth are things like cinema schedules.

[sscotty727]

It's best not to take anything on the net as absolute truth. As Mark Twain once said (I know, not exactly dealing with the web, but kinda fits anyway).... "Beware reading medical books. A misprint can kill you"

[micha]

Yes! I know this. However, the credibility of the article was not my focus at all.

Dr. Shoe claimed that he had had always found Wikipedia the finest source of information anywhere. What I am trying to tell Dr. Shoe is that he had better be careful because Wikipedia does not stand behind their product. As Wikipedia states in their General Disclaimer, it is not peer reviewed by professionals in the subject matter. For example, Encyclopedia Britannica is a publication that is peer reviewed by professionals in the subject matter. Wikipedia goes on to state that most of the contributors who contribute to the site are mostly undergrads having a good time and they also state that there are those people who just like to “write stuff”.

Hence, this is why I said that this was one of those "buyer beware" situations.

Wikipedia is a open community (similar like open software projects, i.e. the operation system Linux and this OS isn't bad - otherwise the most internet servers wouldn't run under open software). Everybody is allowed to engage himself and to write on an subject if he feels competent. For every topic there is a discussion board. Everybody in the wide world can say his opinion and is invited to make proposals how to explain or how to formulate it better.

I have the impression, that you misunderstood the "wikipedia project" completely. Wikipedia is definitely not a company offering a product to consumers. It's not a commercial product like the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Enclyclopedia Americana or the German Brockhaus! Hence there is no "Buyer beware" situation. It's free for everyone.

Naturally the informfations in Wikipedia aren't always reliable since not all writers are real experts. If you believe to know it better, start simply a discussion with the author of the article. Yesterday night I read the explanation of the "quantum mechanical double slit experiment" in german wikipedia. I felt that it was poor. Because this experiment is crucial for the understanding of quantum theory I'm ponderering about entering into the discussion.

But IMHO Dr.Shoe is right! The amount of information in Wikipedia is already comparable or more comprehensive than in commercial products like the Encyclopedia Britannica

micha (*very pleased to find a contribution on men in heels*)

[j-turbo2002]

micha,

Yes, I know that Wikipedia is an open community. I was not born yesterday. It is funny that you brought up the Linux operating system. Yes it has an open source code that everyone can utilize to improve upon. Hence this is the reason why the Linux operating system is a piece of junk that is really no better than Windows. Trust me here – I have utilized both systems to some extent. Also, I am not at all condemning the process of people expressing their own opinions. I am not sure where you received this misinterpretation.

I have not misunderstood the “Wikipedia Project”. The problem here is that you have read what I have written and you have assumed the wrong impression. I am just trying to point out that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. Yes, Wikipedia is free to everyone and Encyclopedia Britannica is a commercial product. However, guess what? A wise man once told me that the best things in life do not come for free. Also, when I use the phrase “Buyer Beware” I am talking about the individual who goes to Wikipedia and literally “Buys-in” (e.g., accepts the information as truth) to the information. I am not talking about someone trying to purchase (e.g., pay money) something from Wikipedia. Hence, the phrase “Buyer Beware” really and truly does apply.

Now, I agree with you that naturally, all of the information in Wikipedia is not always reliable since most of the authors are not real experts. I also agree with you that if I knew that something could be better I should start a discussion with the author of the article. However, when it comes to articles written in Wikipedia I would probably never do so because, since I do not take Wikipedia that seriously, I would be just another “goof ball” writing history as I see it.

But IMHO Dr.Shoe is right! The amount of information in Wikipedia is already comparable or more comprehensive than in commercial products like the Encyclopedia Britannica.

I would expect this kind of talk for the both of you.

[hoverfly]

Now, I agree with you that naturally, all of the information in Wikipedia is not always reliable since most of the authors are not real experts. I also agree with you that if I knew that something could be better I should start a discussion with the author of the article. However, when it comes to articles written in Wikipedia I would probably never do so because, since I do not take Wikipedia that seriously, I would be just another “goof ball” writing history as I see it.

HA!!! This from a Republican!! Actually what do you think what we have for a president right now? A goof ball....... :sleeping: and he is writing history!!.......... Hale Marry full of grace..... Our father who aren’t in heaven..... So why not just join in JT? Since one should not take the Wikipedia seriously, you should submit your opinions, it will just add additional toilet paper to the next addition when I buy it.

[jim]

Bloody well said HF.. jim

[flavio]

I don't think that political discussions or points of views are good in this forum, since not everybody is from USA. We know that you are in the campaign for the next president but the international TV covers it for everybody (sometimes it makes me feel sleepy too). Why not keep the discussion here about heels and related? If I'm wrong, please, let me know... Talking about wikipedia, I'm a big fan of the opensource world as a Linux and FreeBSD user and consultant here in Brazil. Most parts of opensource projects documentation are in the Wiki format where everybody can complete ideas or express some point. Obviously that the information can be untrue or not precise, but wikis can be the most complete source of information, and high heels are a GOOD example for me, specially that someone is saying about men in heels, wich is TRUE. Books can express the point of view of it's author; Companies can express their point of view in the largests encyclopedias; PEOPLE can express their point of view in the wiki pages... think about it! The most important thing is the OPINION of who is reading, be a book, a magazine, wikipedias, TV, radio, newspapers, etc... all of them can be true, false, leftist, centristic, manipulative... Heels for all! Flavio.

[sscotty727]

Ok, my views: First of all, it depends on what you are looking for and why you are looking for it. For example, if you just want some quick info on a topic or maybe some quick background, wikipedia is a good source. Case in point, this whole Valarie Plame story. I hadn't followed it closely over the last few years so I 1) wanted to see what she looked like and 2) just wanted to see a quick history of what all the fuse was about. This was a good resource. Now, if I was preparing a term paper or preparing for a debate, etc, on the same topic, then no, I would dig alot deeper into more reliable resources. Or say a friend said he had some medical condition and I had no clue to what he was talking about, again, wikipedia might be a good resource for quick information. If I or my kids had the same illness and I wanted to know everything about it, then again, no, I would dig alot deeper into other credible resources. J-Turbo has a good point, wikipedia is good for some interesting info, more like a trivial pursuit type info but NOT indepth full background and research if you needed that type of depth for anything. I believe that was ALL he was trying to say. Scotty

[hoverfly]

J-Turbo has a good point, wikipedia is good for some interesting info, more like a trivial pursuit type info but NOT indepth full background and research if you needed that type of depth for anything. I believe that was ALL he was trying to say.

Scotty

Yes, yes....I agree to that as well, But it was to tempting not to take a crack at JT's Republican armor again.

[hoverfly]

I don't think that political discussions or points of views are good in this forum, since not everybody is from USA. We know that you are in the campaign for the next president but the international TV covers it for everybody (sometimes it makes me feel sleepy too). Why not keep the discussion here about heels and related?

If I'm wrong, please, let me know...

Flavio.

Yep, you are. One thing JT is that unlike most others he does not loose his cool, he is politically correct about the way he does it not that we agree with every thing he says. Now as for some of us I bet there is some less than politically correct things that at some time people would like to say to him, but halved maintain a dignified discipline. Which gives great credit to the participants of this board.

[Dr. Shoe]

What I think I was trying to say in my cack-handed way was that if you want to look something up quickly then wikipaedia is fine but if you were going to deliver a paper on a particular subject then it would probably be wise to back it up with something rather more substantial. BTW Some of Tony Bliar's famous "Sexed Up WMD Dossier" came from wikipaedia!

[hoverfly]

BTW Some of Tony Bliar's famous "Sexed Up WMD Dossier" came from wikipaedia!

It should also say, look under missile tits!!