I would have one word, but since there is a minimum length for posts, I’ll say more to say this one word:

Barbie

The first person I met who wore the shape-up shoes was an older conservative man looking to lose a few pounds.

They can cram their market research up their ass. This was never about fitness, this was about selling product to what they perceived as easy marks.

Any kind of campaign that genders exercise aimed at CHILDREN is bound to be a total pro-patriarchy fest. Thank you Sketchers for proving this point. Movement and healthy eating are not GENDERED activities, they are HUMAN activities. The faux girl-power of these campaigns also serves to generate anxious masculinity concerns for boys, who have been told over and over by advertisers and sit-com writers that real men are overweight buffoons (if they aren’t the quarterback). Plus, I have a feeling that if these ankle/knee/hip nightmares were designed and targeted toward men, the health and safety concerns would be front and center as soon as they came to the public’s attention.

Thealogian—YES—and let’s face it, it’s a lot more acceptable for a woman to have a gym membership than a man, because women are expected to want to do aerobics and pilates and zumba and spend an hour on the stairmaster, but men at the gym? A lot of people slice it one of two ways. Either you’re
1) A grunting muscle-head who’s dedicated his life to being able to lift small cars over his head or
2) gaaaayyyyyyy.

So the market for “casual while you do your normal shit workout” would optimally be the men who don’t see themselves in either category but who want to maintain some base level of fitness without resorting to eating emasculating vegetables or having their virility called into question by taking a spinning class.

I mean, it’s not like this is the first thing about the patriarchy that doesn’t logically add up, but worth pointing out.

I will add that presenting little girls with unachievable ideals of beauty is contrary to real-world fitness goals. It encourages eating disorders in some, but also causes others to despair. A person who is in despair because they’ll never be perfect isn’t someone who is motivated to go to the gym to be well.

The point of feminine ideals isn’t for women to actually achieve them. It’s to give women a 24/7 reminder that they’re failing at being a good woman so who are they to turn me down for sex anyway I mean they should grateful that I want to fuck them at all.

Does anyone else see a similarity between Reebok’s cop-out (“whole message behind Shape-ups is to get people moving, exercising, and getting fit”) and the standard defense of pundits who make indefensible statements (that the point was to encourage rigorous debate)? A prime example of the latter comes from none other than Ben Cochran: “my primary goal is to generate informed discussion. To that end, I intentionally try to be provocative.” (http://bit.ly/pamTyY)

Athletic shoes are simply marketed differently to men.  Rather than “if you wear this, you’ll look like a hottie,” shoes are marketed using athletes, to demonstrate how wearing Nike’s—or Converse, or Reebok—will help you play ball like LeBron James.  That, too, is an almost impossible standard to meet—even LeBron James in person can’t seem to play as well as the reputation of LeBron James—but it’s a different one.

Right—athletic gear is marketed to men as helping them be stronger and faster, not as helping them look good.  For women, it’s a mixed bag.  (I still kick myself for not buying a Nike t-shirt several years ago that read on the front: “Weaker Sex,” and on the back “Assume Neither.”)  Sometimes, they are shown to help women be stronger and faster, other times, it’s about looking good.  It feels to me that this is a moment of transition—there are a growing number of serious female athletes, and they are marketed to much like men, I think, with some goofy doses of girl power.  But whereas women a couple of decades ago might have been expected to keep a trim figure, they were not expected to be “toned” or “firm” or look like they worked out.  Now, women are expected to be skinny and toned (but not too muscled).  You have a sort of general anxiety where women are supposed to look like they work out, and voila! A market for crap like these shoes.

@Comment #4: Mighty Ponygirl—

I’m not sure where you’re getting that it’s more socially acceptable for a woman to have a gym membership than a man.  I live in DC, and my gym is about 50/50.  Guys lift weights, but they also use the cardio equipment.  Frankly, most of the guys I know, both as friends and in the workplace, go to the gym.  There are certainly gyms that have a reputations as gay gyms, but going to the gym itself doesn’t carry any stereotypes.  Perhaps this is different in different places.

Cities tend to be more image-conscious, so men will get gym memberships as well. In the midwest? In places where men aren’t expected to look amazing in an Armani suit 5 days a week? Not so much.

Kit-Kat wrote:

Right—athletic gear is marketed to men as helping them be stronger and faster, not as helping them look good.

I’d say that it goes along with it, the assumption you are supposed to take being that if you are stronger and faster, you will automatically look better, and get all the hot girls.

Sometimes—but it’s not made overt in the ads, unlike many fitness-related ads for women.

I would alter Dana’s point a bit: If you are stronger and faster, you’ll be the alpha male in the pack and get not only all the hot girls, but fawning admiration from all your buddies. And, therefore your erections will be awesome to behold. And even if you’re old, you’ll still be able to whip the boys at their games. And thus, more erections.

Off-topic, I’m pleased to see athletic shoes called ‘sneakers.’ ‘Tennis shoes’ is hugely inadequate as a substitute. There. I said it.

Off topic: I have now clicked over to this page twice and both times read “Sneaker Companies” as “Slanket Companies.” Which would probably also work as an article.

benvolio, after you’ve kicked their butts (goodnaturedly, of course) in basketball or a pickup game of football, and then sat down with them for beer afterward, of course you’re going to get the babelicous girls—the ones entranced by your just barely sweat-sheened muscles—and when your buddies (the ones you already whipped in ball) see you leaving with one (or two) of these babes, your stock just goes through the freaking roof!  Dude, you have just won!

As it should be.

benvolio wrote:

And even if you’re old, you’ll still be able to whip the boys at their games. And thus, more erections.

Toby Keith explains it for you.

Hey, women have been telling me my whole life how good my butt looks. I might well be swayed into buying butt-enhancing shoes, to maintain my edge.

But skechers are not prestigious. I mean, you can buy them at Kohl’s.

2 comments: 1st these shoes that work by trying to effect the posture of your leg muscles can have very long term effects. Back in the 70’s I bought into Earth shoes that used a lower heal than sole for that purpose to wear while working as a waiter and ended up with shin problems for 20 years. 2nd I live in Albuquerque (home of Breaking Bad) and can attest to 50-50 gym membership here also. Women tend to dominate the aerobic classes but the lap pool and aerobic equipment is about 50-50 and the weights tend to be more men.

Dana, the disgusting meme fed to men that achievement means getting laid vs more disgusting meme that one is an object to look for mens’ consumption fed to female persons and women are not equal things.

Whining about the shit problems men made for themselves in comparison to the shit men made for others as oppressions for non-male people and non-man gendered just debases yourself.

Dana, the disgusting meme fed to men that achievement means getting laid

How is that disgusting? If you want to be desired, make yourself more desirable.

I am seeing a banner add for some sketchers. They promise to tone; I may look into this. ha!

Men are supposed to work out and look good so they’ll get laid, which will directly benefit men. Women are supposed to work out and look good because it’s their duty to be attractive and provide men with eye candy and willing sex partners, which will directly benefit men.

Because, obviously, women getting laid doesn’t benefit women at all.

The weird thing is that the Skechers shoes are just a ripoff of those Masai Barefoot scam shoes. (It’s so scammy that the US website doesn’t even use the full original name anymore.) But those are for both sexes, and don’t do any more for you than the Skechers ones.

How is that disgusting? If you want to be desired, make yourself more desirable.

In RT’s mind that’s probably rape or something.

Not long ago in the chiropractor’s office, another patient was carrying on about wanting to get those horrid shoes.  And the chiro said “What did your poor knees ever do to you, that you want to abuse them like that?”  Between the chiro and the massage therapist, I think she was talked out of them, but she argued pretty hard.  It was very distressing to see someone so thoroughly buying into the marketing bullshit that she was willing to ignore her healthcare professionals and risk injury.

Because, obviously, women getting laid doesn’t benefit women at all.

Exactly.  If pop culture has taught me anything, it’s that women find sex either completely unenjoyable or painful.  I don’t see how I could’ve possibly been misled on this.

The most sexist commercial I’ve seen in the last couple years, including all the horrid Super Bowl commercials, is the Warrior “Chillax” one that ran on Every Single Commercial Break during lacrosse games (NCAA and pro) this year.  They literally said, “Be a feminot.”  Pissed me off enough to write angry letters to both ESPN and Warrior.  Apparently, Warrior has completely forgotten that they are also a major manufacturer of women’s lacrosse gear.  I flat out told them that the commercial annoyed me enough that I will never, ever buy anything but vintage gear from them on eBay, and then only with major reservation, because of their current practises, even though they make $0 from those transactions.  It’s way easier to talk women who’t don’t care squat about lacrosse into watching a random game than men, purely for the eye-candy of guys with awesome legs running around in shorts (female gaze, what is that?), but they’re willing to completely alienate everyone w/a fem identity, even though it is HALF THEIR PRODUCT LINE?  WTF?  They’ve gotten progressively worse and worse every season since New Balance bought them out.  The commercial in question is not easily findable on a quick Google search, which is bad from a wanting to point out the horrid sexism to those who wouldn’t normally see the ad in question, but good from a “thank goodness no one thinks this is worthy of posterity on YouTube” standpoint.  Grr.  The other commercial that ran every break, of a doggie that ran in happy circle by it’s (female-coded) owner lacing up her running shoes left me with major relief, even though the repetition would otherwise have been annoying as anything, as at least it wasn’t THAT commercial.  Cheezy, happy doggie commercial is infinitely preferable to one that insults 51% of the population, and half your customer base.  Gag.

What’s scammy about barefoot-style shoes?  They’re useful if you need your toes.  People who climb cliffs don’t do it in steel-toed boots.

And what do chiropractics know about shoes?  Hardly someone I’d ask.  They don’t even use eidence-based medicine.

Well, among other things, the Masai don’t usually go barefoot; from what I understand, they tend to be partial to sandals made from recycled truck tires. So their claims about the invention of the shoes are demonstrably fanciful.

Also, another thing occurs to me: using the hyper-curvy Kim Kardashian as a fitness model? I mean, she may be in great shape, but she’s kind of an outlier on the curves scale if she is… if anything, it’s even more dishonest than the “play like your favorite basketballer” commercials.

I was involved with the Lifecycle at an early stage, and at one point it was suggested by the guy funding us that we ought to market it as the Health Cycle to men and the Beauty Cycle to women, based on market research about fitness goals. This was around 1980, and things may have changed in the meantime; back then it was not uncommon for guys to die of heart disease in their 50’s.

I also remember Earth Shoes. My brother had a pair. I thought they were excruciating. I had about the same reaction to my one pair of Birkenstocks.

The Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too.  This doesn’t change the fact that Dana is not particularly capable of caring about how The Patriarchy hurts women.

Off-topic, I’m pleased to see athletic shoes called ‘sneakers.’ ‘Tennis shoes’ is hugely inadequate as a substitute. There. I said it.

In the UK, we call them “trainers”.  Feel free to use.

Crissa,

I don’t think Brian X was talking about Vibrams or the like (which I really want to try) but a brand of shoes that had “barefoot” in the name but looks just like the Sketchers in question.

Kit-Kat

I think part of shift and consequential narrowing of what is acceptable might also come from the fact that a non-zero number of women who play sports or work out discover that, regardless of the reason they started doing so, they really enjoy the feeling of becoming faster, stronger, etc.  Which tends to create a conflict between this desire and the pressure to perform as an object.  But it also helps to develop a relationship with one’s body that exists outside of it’s use by other people, which can make it easier to resist a certain amount of the pressure to be an object.  But resisting and dismantling are not the same thing, so the ideal gets not demolished but only shifted slightly closer to what is considered it’s opposite, but that makes women even more afraid of straying too far from the ideal as the boundary has now become thinner.

RT wrote:

Dana, the disgusting meme fed to men that achievement means getting laid vs more disgusting meme that one is an object to look for mens’ consumption fed to female persons and women are not equal things.

Whining about the shit problems men made for themselves in comparison to the shit men made for others as oppressions for non-male people and non-man gendered just debases yourself.

I had thought that the sarcasm I employed would have been obvious, but perhaps I was wrong on that.

Both sexes want to be seen as attractive to the other, and both sexes want to have sex; if that wasn’t the case, we’d have died out, long ago.  The fact that advertisers market the same products differently to men and women isn’t some sort of “See?  They’re doing it worse to women!” game, but simply an acknowledgment of what works for advertisers.  If paying athletes to sell shoes didn’t work, the shoe companies would have stopped; if using nearly impossible images to sell things to women didn’t work, advertisers would have stopped already.

But these things do work, which means that a substantial portion of the targeted groups are responding to them, at least as well as the advertisers can measure the results, so they’ll keep up with it for as long as it continues to work.

@Dana

The trite “advertisers are just responding to what they objectively observe about their target demographics” line that attempts to mansplain away sexism in advertising doesn’t change the fact that sexism in advertising - no matter what it indicates about the advertisers themselves - is definitely indicative of sexist attitudes in the culture at large. But you’re Dana so I know this is going to go in one ear and out the other, as it were.

Not to mention that advertisers are not only reflecting attitudes, but shaping them as well.  Often, they have to sell the need as well as the product that satisfies that need.  It’s not a one-way street, but a sort of continuous feedback loop.

lcallen—I had a back injury 6 years ago and have had severe pain while walking or standing ever since. The treatments I’ve been given help for a couple weeks, max, surgery only has a 50/50 shot at a fix, and I couldn’t tolerate the drugs, so I had just been living with it.

My orthopod suggested I try Earth shoes due to their “negative heel”  last January; I was skeptical, but found them on sale and I am amazed at how diminished the pain is. Now I have a dress pair as well and my non-earth shoes have found new homes.

I have a pair of winter boots by Earth, and OMG I now wear nothing else when the sidewalks are slippery. The center of gravity shift from the negative heel is a stunning improvement for my balance in wintry conditions. I’m a woman, though; center of gravity shifts may not be as dramatic in men.

Coincidentally, I’m wearing a pair of Vibrams right now! My knees thank me for days afterward. (I feel like I’ve got gorilla feet, but that’s become amusing rather than embarrassing.)

These anecdata brought to you by benvolio.

The reason we do not have a Shape-Ups line at this time for boys is simply a matter of how our company’s research and development works for Shape-ups. The Shape-ups line was first created for women and, once it became clear they were popular and there was a demand, the line for men was developed and marketed. The same is true for the kids’ lines. Shape-Ups for Girls were rolled out first. The success of this line and the need in the market will guide us in deciding if we will create a line for boys. Other lines may start with Men’s.

But *why* were the sneakers first created for women? And why do they have to be a success with women (girls) before you market it to men (boys)? Why does your r&d “work” that way?  You need to unpack that a little bit, you weasels.

I have to say, toe shoes make me laugh.

A question for both sides of the debate:  The the advertising reflect sexism in society or does the advertising cause sexism in society?

Both/and

Advertising does not exist in a vacuum.  Advertising is pervasive.  The walls in your house reflect your lights, but if the walls were not so reflective, it would not be so bright in your house.

rain asked:

But *why* were the sneakers first created for women? And why do they have to be a success with women (girls) before you market it to men (boys)? Why does your r&d “work” that way?  You need to unpack that a little bit, you weasels.

Actually, it makes perfect sense: if the sneakers were a commercial failure with women, then they’ve made only half of the investment that they would have made had they been manufacturing them for men at the same time, so their potential losses are cut in half.

James asked:

A question for both sides of the debate:  The the advertising reflect sexism in society or does the advertising cause sexism in society?

It reflects sexism, and it may reinforce it, but it probably doesn’t actually create it; to create it, you would have to assume that there was no sexism in society in the first place.

Actually, it makes perfect sense: if the sneakers were a commercial failure with women, then they’ve made only half of the investment that they would have made had they been manufacturing them for men at the same time, so their potential losses are cut in half.

No Dana.  That perhaps explains why they were marketed to one gender rather than the other (although that assumes that to market to both men and women would involve twice as much investment - perhaps it would involve the same amount of investment but split between men and women).  It does not however explain why the sneakers were first created for women.

Shoes aren’t actually different shapes between men and women.  The only difference is the curve of sizes and labeling.  I wear both mens and women’s shoes, as appropriate.  I generally choose women’s shoes for their selection of color - but I generally can’t find women’s shoes because my shoe size is 13.  So most of my shoes are men’s.

Smaller product means less money per product.  Which is probably why there are more small sizes than large in stores.

@Dana

I’ve encountered your observations of marketing towards men as serious arguments in the same contexts when the discussion is about social ideals marketed towards women too many times to let it go as sarcasm. Your comments read the same as every entitled, ignorant man who has argued in earnest for the equivalence of their issues or the dismissal of women’s and non-mens’ issues.

So maybe there are bad times to be sarcastic.

@ Alex Weaver

While I realize that there are many under oppression who become the enforcers of their oppression, I do not think it’s my place to lay even partial blame to them when the group they belong to are oppressed by another group.

It looked for all the world like the post I quoted had slipped back into the mindset of men-as-actor, women-as-passive-target-of-action mindset.  It’s amazing to me how persistent that framing is even in some feminist rhetoric. :/
Comment #49: Alex Weaver on 10/07 at 02:28 PM

When explaining why a particular approach is used in advertising, it’s not off-base to use the commonly accepted (but wrong) model of the world rather than reality.

Women who “eat this shit up” are usually making the best of a system they didn’t make and may not realize is totally bogus.

I was initially confused by people calling shoes with separate toes “Vibram.”  It isn’t actually just a particular style—Vibram is a material that soles are made from.  I have a few pairs of shoes with them. 

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

Like Crissa I wear both men’s and women’s shoes depending on what I need from them.  My feet are wide, so men’s shoes are more often available in the size I need, but they don’t seem to stock gold platform sandals in the men’s department.

I almost bought a pair of shoes that had the big toe separate from the rest.  If nothing else I could claim I needed them for my cloven hoofs.

The “Barefoot” shoes (aka Vibram Fivefingers) are the best thing when I’m training and lifting weights. They keep me mindful of my balance rather than relying on the shoes to do the work for me.
They are NOT great for rowing and running on pavement though.

Dana @ 47:
Snort!
Those were rhetorical questions, which is why I followed it up with,  “You need to unpack that a little bit, you weasels.”

Huh, I cannot wear men’s shoes—my feet are too narrow and I have wicked high arches.  I assumed they were actually structured differently, since it would not surprise me that men and women’s feet are structured slightly differently (what with different hips and whathot).

Yah think?

Knowledge of foot shape is important to design shoes which fit properly. Although many shoes for women are simply scaled down versions of the same shoe for men (Frey, C., 2000), previous studies describe differences between genders particularly at the arch, the lateral side of the foot, the first toe and the ball of the foot. Men have longer and broader feet than women for a given stature (Wunderlich, R.E.; Cavanagh, P.R., 2000), whereby women tend to have a narrower heel in relation to
the forefoot and have narrower feet than men in general relative to length (Frey, C., 2000). Besides differences between genders, ethnic origin can also influence foot shape (Hawes, M.R.; Sovak, D. et al., 1994)

New methods provide the opportunity to measure the three-dimensional shape of the foot, which may help analyze the difference between genders more precisely. Moreover it is also an economical method, even for measuring large populations.

Katherine wrote:

No Dana.  That perhaps explains why they were marketed to one gender rather than the other (although that assumes that to market to both men and women would involve twice as much investment - perhaps it would involve the same amount of investment but split between men and women).  It does not however explain why the sneakers were first created for women.

Because someone decided that their more probable market success would be with women.  But not every new product put on the market is a success; it’s still someone’s best guess.

I’d also point out that, at least anecdotally, it seems as though there are a lot more advertisements for women’s shoes in general, and women’s clothing in general, than there are for men’s.

The Dark Avenger quoted:

New methods provide the opportunity to measure the three-dimensional shape of the foot, which may help analyze the difference between genders more precisely. Moreover it is also an economical method, even for measuring large populations.

At Fort Jackson, SC, an Army basic training base, recruits have their feet measured by computer, and then the Army issues them the best fitted, most appropriate style physical training shoe for their feet.

Dana, in shoe stores that catered to the well-to-do in England, it was very common for shoe forms based on the measurements of individual ‘clients’ to be made and then kept for later use whenever a client wanted a new pair of shoes.

Because someone decided that their more probable market success would be with women. 

Or that they could create a demand where none existed before.

Thanks for demonstrating the wisdom of J. S. Mill, Dana, as always.  :-D

Actually, it makes perfect sense: if the sneakers were a commercial failure with women, then they’ve made only half of the investment that they would have made had they been manufacturing them for men at the same time, so their potential losses are cut in half.

Dana, are you an idiot? I mean that in a serious sense—like do you frequently find yourself consistently in situations where people just give you this “look” after you stop talking that is something along the lines of, “WTF was that all about?” Because you’re doing that now.

Because the alternative to you being an idiot is that you’re a condescending prick. Everyone knows that they rolled it out for women first and that this is obviously cheaper than doing both at the same time. The question is WHY and WHAT in their market research determined that they would go this route, and Sketchers did not answer that question. You’re just acting as the stand-in for Sketchers, giving the same non-answers but presenting them as insight, either because you’re simply too much of an idiot to understand that this isn’t an answer or because you’re a condescending ass who thinks his pontifications are insight to the proles you address here.

either because you’re simply too much of an idiot to understand that this isn’t an answer or because you’re a condescending ass who thinks his pontifications are insight to the proles you address here.

This is an and/or blog, so I vote for both of them.

Because someone decided that their more probable market success would be with women.

Yes yes, Dana.  Very good.  You’ve got to the next obvious question - which would be - why?

Mighty Ponygirl:
I’m with Kit-Kat on this one.  There are easily twice the number of men as women in the general area of the gym after work.  The numbers get skewed the other way during school hours, though not that heavily.  This was not true when construction was really slow; enough contractors hung out there to skew the numbers back to male dominated even during the day.  They didn’t just hang out, but also lifted a lot and ran, rowed and cycled some.  The women number advantage during the day is a cyclic effect and will tick back down again during the winter.  Most of these guys aren’t suit wearers as a daily thing.
The aerobics and other organized classes do tend to be nearly all women though, balancing the after work total numbers to about 50-50.

Katherine:
Sneakers are a sort of generic term left over from the 60s or 70s applied to exercise shoes because they were quieter than typical shoes (as one would wear to school/work/church) and let you sneak.  There are ones called runners, joggers, climbers, etc.  Runners are usually lighter, joggers have more cushioning, slimers flex more, etc.
I think I like trainers, myself, as a generic term, but don’t know as it will catch on as trainers typically refer to the shortened version of cross-trainers.  I don’t see what makes them specific rather than generic as a type though, so maybe.

DAGCM - the tendencies of men’s feet vs womens feet are real, however, most athletic shoes, and virtually all of the cheap ones, are identical now that they have stopped automatically making the men’s better as they used to do. 
I just bought a pair of boys shoes to replacy my worn out gym cross trainers.  They fit better, were in a better color (not limited to pink, lavendar and/or white) and looked to be slightly better made (for $2 less) than the almost identical women’s shoe I tried on.

DAGCM - the tendencies of men’s feet vs womens feet are real

Yes, helen, that’s why I linked to and excerpted from a scientific study that demonstrates that.

The other thing is that the proportions differ from ethnic group to ethnic group, which can be useful if you’re an anthropologist and/or a forensic investigator dealing with a body where only the feet are available for measurement. 

As the paper pointed out, foot size and relative proportions are a good way to survey a population, past or present as all you need to do is have a tape measure and the living subjects willing to take their shoes off in the name of science. 

Sneakers are a sort of generic term left over from the 60s or 70s applied to exercise shoes

A fellow I worked with grew up calling them “tennie runners.”

Yep, seen that one, too.  Shortened from tennis-running shoes.  That may be a regional one as it seemed to be in the US SW and CA.  I haven’t heard it in ages, and not that I recall in the midwest or new england.