Hi, my name is JoAnne, I am female, and I’m a shoe-a-holic. I love to shop for shoes. Shoe sales can stop me dead in my tracks. Whenever I travel, the joke in my family is “how many pairs of shoes did you bring?” This seems to be a common affliction with women. However, some of us seem to be more addicted than others. Just look at the reports of Condi Rice from the 2nd Sept edition of the Gawker: shopping for shoes (apparently costing thousands of dollars) at Ferragamo’s last week during her NYC vacation. Not that she had anything more pressing to attend to….
I sincerely hope the shoes were at least on sale.
September 7th, 2005 at 10:59 pm
Hi JoAnne. You say:
I have heard this said before. I have questions:
(1) Has anyone attempted an explanation/rationalization of this?
(2) Have there been data collected showing it…. perhaps there are some males out there with more than two (ok three) pairs of shoes, or who absolutely must go to shoe sales, who can write in and let us know? Women should write in too, with info either way….then we can get some numbers… You and I can then write a paper on this scientific study. Any sensible journal would jump at the chance to publish such important research – it’ll be a shoe-in! (Sorry.)
-cvj
September 7th, 2005 at 11:26 pm
Clifford, you write with unabashed lust about the skinny new iPod — and then consider a fondness for shoes to be an oddity worthy of anthropological study?
September 7th, 2005 at 11:40 pm
How insensitive.
Part of admitting you have a problem, and dealing with issues that were meant to come out of the closet, Sean is the “first step.”:)
September 8th, 2005 at 12:39 am
Hi Sean – Upon reading what I wrote, you’ll find that I did not say it was an oddity. I was actually asking for more evidence to support the rumour….. So I’m actually an agnostic. (Also, I was hoping to find that there might be some other guys out there with lots of shoes besides me!
)
Cheers,
-cvj
September 8th, 2005 at 12:44 am
Oh, Sean: You think that is me writing with unabashed lust? Good Lord….wait till you see me write about somethig I really like!
Cheers,
-cvj
September 8th, 2005 at 1:28 am
“Hi Sean – Upon reading what I wrote, you’ll find that I did not say it was an oddity. I was actually asking for more evidence to support the rumour….. So I’m actually an agnostic. (Also, I was hoping to find that there might be some other guys out there with lots of shoes besides me! )”
There are guys out there with lots of shoes. But they are rarer than women among people with *extreme* shoe-talent.
You may now fire me as president of Harvard.
September 8th, 2005 at 3:52 am
In response to Clifford’s question #1, I have a hypothesis which I hereby submit for evaluation by the esteemed cosmicvariance community:
Unlike men’s shoes, women’s shoes attempt to satisfy two incompatible conditions: to be comfortable AND to exalt the overall physical attraction of their wearer. The most obvious example of this conflict is tall heels: they make legs look longer, induce larger backbone curvature (making the wearer look “curvier”, i.e. more fertile) and force a constrained gait suggestive of helplessness and therefore appealing to all sorts of atavic protective/exploitive male instincts (compare the old Chinese practice of foot binding). Needless to say, neither this gait nor an artificially arched spine are particularly comfortable (not to mention the occasional sprained ankle).
The following general principle is easily seen to apply: the sexier the woman’s shoe, the more uncomfortable it is.
With this fundamental insight in hand, the common female fixation with shoes is little more than a corollary. Women are constantly bouncing around in the large multidimensional space of shoe designs, aching (literally) to find a better solution for each pair of shoes they buy, but ultimately always failing since they are looking for the simultaneous solution of two incompatible conditions. Corroborating to the problem, the relative weight attributed to the respective condition varies from day to day, as mood and situation change.
September 8th, 2005 at 6:16 am
My name is Mark. I am such a male. And it’s much harder to find men’s shoes on sale.
September 8th, 2005 at 7:42 am
Perhaps we should form a shoe-buying support group. And (getting back to the subject of the post), invite Condi to join us, since her addiction is serious enough to distract her from her job.
BTW, I have no comprehension of how anyone, male or female, could possibly walk in high-heeled shoes. You won’t find any in my closet!
September 8th, 2005 at 9:52 am
Dissident: You evidenty know absolutely nothing about women’s shoe design. Designers of beautiful shoes never think about comfort – it’s made utterly irrelevant by your general principle, with which I agree.
For the record, today I am wearing a pair of shoes which are actually a size too small, because they did not have my size in the shop when I was there, and I wanted them. Straightaway.
JoAnne: what is difficult about walking in high-heels? You just put one foot in front of the other, as you do in flat shoes. Though I admit running is more difficult, not impossible, but a little tricky. (Apologies for continuing with the trivialities, rather than getting back to the main point of your post. )
E
September 8th, 2005 at 10:06 am
Hmm… I thought that:
- womens clothing, makeup and accessoires inhabits a larger design space than that allowed for men (but why should they have all the fun?)
- women are socialised to change clothes often – as a man you can come away with identical looking clothes twice in a row (but they must be fresh!)
September 8th, 2005 at 10:42 am
About Dr. Rice buying the shoes: there is a certain familiar subtext here, concentrating amid the major screw-up of many manly man on the sole visible women, buying shoes…Suppose a male cabinet member (who is not in charge of any energency operations) had gone on an hunting vacation, would we be treated to all these overly intimate details? I doubt it.
September 8th, 2005 at 10:44 am
re: walking in high-heels
it’s not just a matter of putting one foot in front of the other (at least in my case). i have to balance all sorts of forces that want me to fall flat on my face (damn you gravity!), and often times there’s also some lateral forces that somehow make a torque on my leg, forcing me to twist my foot, thus making me fall on my side and end up with a big owie on my ankle… granted, this only happens with skinny heels and really tall ones — i seem to have mastered the physics of the short and stubby heels, as well as for height
September 8th, 2005 at 10:49 am
Dick Cheney was fishing in Wyoming for most of the week (he returned to Washington Thursday or Friday). I think there has been less attention to his conspicuous absence, simply because there are no *witnesses* to his goofing off while thousands were dying.
September 8th, 2005 at 11:54 am
I’ve pondered and researched the contraint problem of buying shoes that are comfortable as well as aesthetically pleasing.
OK. I’ve found the solution as far as sneakers go. Check out KangaROOS (available on zappos.com). They have shoes for men as well as for women although the ones for females tend to be a little more colorful.
Disclaimer: I’m in no way affiliated with the company.
September 8th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
Torbjorn Larsson, Dissident:
So this “higher dimensional design space” for women’s shoes and other things… Does it have non-trivial topology? Or is it trivial? Perhaps non-trivial topology is realized only after the constraints that Dissident mentioned are imposed?
Inquiring minds need to know.
-cvj
September 8th, 2005 at 12:29 pm
Well, Donald Rumsfeld found the time to take in a baseball game. For which, given his track record at organizing complicated operations, I think we can all be very grateful.
September 8th, 2005 at 12:52 pm
Not that I’m an apologist for W. and company but does taking a little personal time off a stressful day necessarily bespeak a cavalier or irresponsible attitude?
September 8th, 2005 at 1:52 pm
It surely doesn’t look good for a cabinet member to be shopping around and buying $2000 shoes, or to be spend the time fishing, when there is a major disaster going on in the south.
But on second thought, I can understand. Condi was spending her own dimes and nichols, so what’s wrong with that? She is now the top diplomat of this country, not a presidential security advisor any more, so it’s not her job to deal with natural disaster emergencies. Being a top diplomat it may be important for her to pay a little bit attention to her appearals so you really can’t blame her for spending her own money on a pair of expensive shoes. Besides, with the kind of salary she is paid, and she doesn’t need to support a family, doesn’t need to go grocery shopping, and doesn’t need to worry about paying expensive gas prices to commute to work every day, like most of us do. I am really worried for her how she can spend that extra money, other than buying expensive shoes and clothes. Besides, I guess any women being a virgin at that age has got to be a little bit more anxious about her attractiveness, and wants to spend some money on it. So of course that’s understandable
As for the vice president Dick Cheney. We know all the time that he is just a back up, a stove-away, you may want to say. Whenever anything happens, they put him away in hiding first, so god forbid if anything happens, we have a backup. So fishing in Wyoming may be just part of his job as a stove-away
Quantoken
September 8th, 2005 at 2:40 pm
“Besides, I guess any women being a virgin at that age has got to be a little bit more anxious about her attractiveness, and wants to spend some money on it. So of course that’s understandable ”
Quantoken, I realise you like to post inflammatory remarks whenever the opportunity arises, but I find this truly offensive, and putting a little smiley face after it does not excuse your comment one iota. There are a number of reasons for my offense, primary among them being (these are in no particular order):
1) You explicitly say “any woman”: why is a woman’s sexuality more note-worthy than a man’s?
2) Why does her appearance matter so much in this? She is a very successful woman, yet still you judge her according to what she looks like.
3) The presumption that she ought to be wanting a man, and doing her best *to look good* to attract one, is sickening.
This sort of misogyny abounds in all areas of life, being so prevalent that it goes almost unnoticed much of the time. I find it utterly appalling that you think these sort of comments are acceptable, and would appreciate it if you tried to treat women with a little more respect. They are people, not objects.
September 8th, 2005 at 3:03 pm
And Cheney is more important than Bush, because Cheney tells Bush what to do. Condi merely advises Bush. Anyway, I guess fishing is more serious business than shoe-shopping.
September 8th, 2005 at 3:15 pm
http://www.skirtman.org/washpost_1998_05_12.html
September 8th, 2005 at 3:41 pm
Well said erc! I endorse your remarks 100%!!
-cvj
September 8th, 2005 at 5:27 pm
Oh, gosh, I’m happy to pick on Rummy and Cheney as well. Risa already informed us about Bush’s schedule (recall the guitar photo op). Any info on the whereabouts of the other cabinet members last week?
Citrine, I’ve got nothing against our government officials taking a little personal time off now and then – we all need some time off to relieve stress. The point here is that these very high ranking officials were on vacation when the worst disaster to ever hit the US struck, and then *they stayed on vacation*. That was completely irresponsible, and in my view, they should be called on it.
Erc, you go girl! Thank you.
September 8th, 2005 at 6:59 pm
ERC:
I never meant no disrespect to any women and certainly not to Condi. I regret that too bad you take it personally. I am merely making an observation, on facts that I know:
1.Condi went to buy a pair of shoes. That is a fact that happened, and there is nothing unusual or insultive for pointing out that fact.
2.The shoes she bought was worth $2000. That’s a material fact, not an opinion.
3.It is unusual for any one to buy a pair of $2000 shoes. That’s a factual observation. Because most people do not buy things so expensive, men or women.
4.Condi has her own reason to spend that money and buy that shoes. And she is entitled to that. I am just trying to rationalize it, and try to give a good reason why some one needs a $2000 shoes, WITHOUT imposing any particular value judgement.
Quantoken
September 8th, 2005 at 7:07 pm
Quantoken, it is probably best to stay quiet and take your deserved beating bravely, saving further embarrasment.
You know that erc was not objecting to any of those particular things.
But of course, you won’t. Sigh.
-cvj
September 8th, 2005 at 7:27 pm
ERC:
You especially completely distorted me and insert your own judgements into my words. And I reject that attempt:
1) You explicitly say “any woman”: why is a woman’s sexuality more note-worthy than a man’s?
I never made any reference to sexuality whatsoever. So it must be your own illusion that I made that implication. I could care less what a woman wears and I do NOT think a pair of shoes has any effect on a woman’s sexuality whatsoever, positive or negative.
2) Why does her appearance matter so much in this? She is a very successful woman, yet still you judge her according to what she looks like.
I could care less what she wears and could even care less what I wear myself. I do not judge people by clothes at all. But it is a fact that this society do pay more attention to those trivial things than I do, whether you are a man or woman, especially when you are a diplomat. But looks like Condi herself cares, by the virtue of spending $2000 on a pair of shoes.
3) The presumption that she ought to be wanting a man, and doing her best *to look good* to attract one, is sickening.
No, I did NOT make that presumption. I did NOT assume anything at all. This is a free country and I could care less how any one lives his/her life. I have not, and will NOT impose any particular value judgement. And you, by making the presumption that when a woman improves her looking, she necessarily wants a man, instead of otherwise, I am sorry to say, you have imposed your own value judgement. I do NOT impose any value judgement, period.
September 8th, 2005 at 8:29 pm
Oh come on, give the woman a break she wants good shoes and has the salary to afford them. If you had to listen to Bush talk all day wouldn’t you want something nice for the body part that could get you away the quickest all the while looking damn good!!
We all know every girl needs a pair of Manolo Blahnik’s or Jimmy Choo’s!!!
September 8th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
Excellent point ljs!
-cvj
September 8th, 2005 at 9:08 pm
Randi Rhodes on Air America, talking about this – (paraphase) Women feel most powerful when they’re buying shoes.
September 8th, 2005 at 9:16 pm
****************************************************
Besides, I guess any women being a virgin at that age has got to be a little bit more anxious about her attractiveness, and wants to spend some money on it. So of course that’s understandable
*****************************************************
Quantoken, what makes you think that Condi is a virgin who is anxious about her attractiveness? It is sad to see even the calibre of person who comes to this forum indulge in diminishing a woman through her presumed sexuality. And the “I’m kidding” smiley face doesn’t excuse a sexist, demaning and baseless personal remark whatever you think of her politics.
September 8th, 2005 at 9:32 pm
citrine: I totally agree. We don’t like that sort of thing here so thanks for that comment!
-cvj
September 8th, 2005 at 9:50 pm
ljs – I’m with you all the way on this, but let’s be honest here: a pair of Manolo’s or Jimmy Choo’s is going to slow you down, not help you get away quickly. They are very cute though!
September 8th, 2005 at 10:59 pm
Heck, I won’t be able to stare at Condi in the face anymore….. thanks Jo-anne:)
September 9th, 2005 at 11:01 pm
Clifford: I don’t know, but perhaps Cosmic Variance could help.
I don’t think ‘design space’ is a well defined concept since one could think of several realisations. Dissident seems to adhere to what I think is more general design concepts.
One start with customer requirements (’achieve curved back by foot wear’) and somehow (it is apparently still an art) translates it to functional requirements (’high heels’). These are satisfied by design variables (heel length + sole thickness) which are further broken down in meaningful variables (heel and sole cast form depths + heel and sole cast material shrinkage) ad nauseam.
Incidentally there is a theory called Axiomatic design that tells you that designs should be broken down so that orthogonality is strived for. (But rarely achieved.) Dissident gives an example of why interdependence is bad.
If women has more requirements perhaps these types of design spaces are higher dimensional?
My thinking was more of the naive type. One has a basic shoe design with parts whose xyz lengths can go from 0 upwards. (For example a top part may be 0 area or larger.) Choose materials for each part. Add on an RGB color space and percieved colors (like brown). Add paraphernalia.
That type of space does not seem to be of different dimensions for men and women.
But note that I meant larger in volume and not dimension. Women may choose more forms (high heels), materials, color or paraphernalia without getting odd looks. Please explain how there could be anything remotely trivial about these design spaces.
What is the topology of mixed metric (physical and color spaces) and (perhaps) discrete (material and paraphernalia) dimensions?
My reference (Simmons ‘Introduction to Topology and Modern Analysis’) insists that metric spaces have the ‘usual’ topology; the class of all open subsets. It also defines the class of all subsets of any non-empty set as the discrete topology, and of course any space with discrete topology as a discrete space. But ‘trivial’ topolgy is apparently too trivial to discuss.
I find ‘trivial’ topology in Wikipedia instead, as a space where the only open sets are the empty set and the whole space. It seems it is not Kolmogorov nor discrete, so naively neither of the two types of design spaces should be trivial.
September 13th, 2005 at 5:20 pm
Briefly visisting old sins, I see that the vernicular ’space’ may not be appropriate for some of the dimensions of a design problem. And mixed were refering to a mix of different topologies on the dimensions.