Men's and women's sneakers are the same

[Swordgleam]

I was in a shoe store today, and all the women's sneakers in my size had obnoxious amounts of pink in the design. So I wandered over to the men's sneakers, and lo and behold, I'm the exact same size and they fit exactly the same.

This is just a PSA to let everyone know of my discovery, so the next time you're in a shoe store and they don't have anything decent in your size, your selection will be doubled.

What useful facts about the world have you discovered lately?

[Perenelle]

I do the same thing. :smallbiggrin:
I can never find decent women's soccer cleats. I've been wearing men's for about four years now and I love them. There's so much more of a selection and different sizes.

[DraPrime]

They are the same? That....shatters my view of reality. Totally. My mind is blown.


Ok, well it isn't that shocking, but I am surprised.

[Serpentine]

Guy's shoes always look chunkier than women's to me. But other than that, I don't doubt you. But more importantly: All the women's shoes were pink?! :eek:

[Swordgleam]

Usually only some of them were pink, but this place did not have a single non-pink NewBalance shoe. And these were tough sneakers, not flipflops or anything. I'm still baffled.

[Alarra]

I didn't think they were the same size. I seem to recall that when I bought men's shoes (which I often do because their selection is better) I was a 5 1/2 or 6. I usually wear an 8 or 8 1/2 in women's.

[Coidzor]

Well, the same size of shoe has a different size number, but that's because you all have dinky little girly feet for the most part and clothing and footwear are *ahem* borked.

[Swordgleam]

Maybe it's just a NewBalance thing - they do seem saner about their sizing system than most other brands, and I'm an 8 in both men's and women's for them.

[Jack Squat]

I think it might vary depending on brand (as I know my shoe size does). I was under the impression that in general women's shoe sizes were about 1-2 sizes behind men's.

I know my mom generally picks out men's gym shoes because of the lack of pink, and in her opinion they're more comfortable. Dunno what the difference in shoe size for her is, but I could probably check.

[FoE]

Ugh, pink. The ugliest colour of them all.

[kpenguin]

I can believe it.

A couple years back, my (male) best friend was wearing women's sneakers, after he just picked the pair out randomly, tried them on, and found them comfortable. He didn't find out that they were women's sneakers until he went back to get another pair.

[Mando Knight]

Maybe it's just a NewBalance thing - they do seem saner about their sizing system than most other brands, and I'm an 8 in both men's and women's for them.

Is it so IN AMERICA (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Eagleland)? I think it might be some kind of sacred cow the shoemakers hold dear over here if it's not...

If it is, then I say: 'bout time we started standardizing things like clothing size.

[Gaelbert]

I'm pretty sure the arch support in men's and women's shoes are different. Other than that, they may be pretty similar.
Now with me, I can't get either gender's shoes to fit me. I gave up on getting a good fit years ago and now I solely go on looks and price alone, pretty much.

[Swordgleam]

Is it so IN AMERICA (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Eagleland)? I think it might be some kind of sacred cow the shoemakers hold dear over here if it's not...

If it is, then I say: 'bout time we started standardizing things like clothing size.

Yup, I'm in RI right now and that's where the shoe store was.

I wouldn't count on standardized women's clothing any time soon - there's too much money in semi-random sizes.

[Coplantor]

Ooh, I was bored the other day and realized that the sum of an odd amount of consecutive numbers equals the number in the middle of the sequence multiplied by the amount of numbers in the sequence.

[xPANCAKEx]

apparently there ARE anatomical differences between the genders feet

http://www.southernlimits.com/articles/researchers_study_womens_feet_rf.htm

however - whether these differences are incorporated are another matter

best people to speak to would not be sneaker manufacturers but climbing shoe makers - the shoes are generally a lot more exacting, due to neccessity

[Player_Zero]

What useful facts about the world have you discovered lately?

...I'm not sure how much use you could get out of your knowledge of shoes.

[randman22222]

Very often I find women's pants that I like more than men's pants. Never tried any of them on, though. The waist fit would be wrong on a man, wouldn't it? :smallconfused:

[Coidzor]

Very often I find women's pants that I like more than men's pants. Never tried any of them on, though. The waist fit would be wrong on a man, wouldn't it? :smallconfused:

Try the crotch fit and hips. :smalltongue:

waist size is just a matter of figuring out the conversions.


Ugh, pink. The ugliest colour of them all.

Well, y'know what they say, we're all a little bit pink on the inside.

[Swordgleam]

best people to speak to would not be sneaker manufacturers but climbing shoe makers - the shoes are generally a lot more exacting, due to neccessity

I've climbed at a lot of gyms, and I don't think any of them have had different men's and women's shoes. Maybe I just didn't notice, though.



...I'm not sure how much use you could get out of your knowledge of shoes.

Are you kidding? Doubling the effectiveness of every shoe-shopping trip I take from now on is going to save me hours of time over the course of several years. And I hate shoe shopping.

[randman22222]

Try the crotch fit and hips. :smalltongue:

waist size is just a matter of figuring out the conversions.

That's what I was actually referring to. >.>

[Thajocoth]

My shoe selection is exceedingly limited. You'd think there'd be more size 11 4e shoes out there. Most wides are only 2e. And to find room for the arch supports... Whenever my sneakers start cutting my feet (the sign that I need a new pair), I always expect to visit at least 5 shoe stores looking for a comfortable pair.

[randman22222]

Shoes for me are hard to find even in the men's sizes. :smallannoyed:
*Grumbles about size 14s being impossible to find.*

[Pika...]

I was in a shoe store today, and all the women's sneakers in my size had obnoxious amounts of pink in the design. So I wandered over to the men's sneakers, and lo and behold, I'm the exact same size and they fit exactly the same.

This is just a PSA to let everyone know of my discovery, so the next time you're in a shoe store and they don't have anything decent in your size, your selection will be doubled.

What useful facts about the world have you discovered lately?

OK, I now know what my next pair of sneakers will be. :smallbiggrin:

[Pika...]

Shoes for me are hard to find even in the men's sizes. :smallannoyed:
*Grumbles about size 14s being impossible to find.*

:smalleek:


Shaq, can I get an autograph?

[Elder Tsofu]

Isn't New-Balance's thing that they make shoes in different widths?
The thing I've heard is that men have broader feet than women - so they might just have brought in thin men's shoes and broad women's as standard? (or something)

Well, congratulations to your find regardless. :smallsmile:

[Holy_Knight]

I wouldn't count on standardized women's clothing any time soon - there's too much money in semi-random sizes.
Bah! Women's clothing sizes are an affront to all reason and decency. With men's clothes the numbers actually mean something, i.e. a 30x30 pair of pants has a 30-inch waist and is 30 inches long. None of this "size 5", "size 12", etc. nonsense. (And come on, a size zero? That's just stupid.)

Rant aside, as a counter to your point--do you think that if a company started using size numbers that actually correspond to something for women's clothes, that women might reward them with more business? I'd like to think so. It certainly sounds a lot easier than constantly having to wonder what size you are in this brand. :smalltongue:

[Mystic Muse]

My shoe selection is exceedingly limited. You'd think there'd be more size 11 4e shoes out there. Most wides are only 2e. And to find room for the arch supports... Whenever my sneakers start cutting my feet (the sign that I need a new pair), I always expect to visit at least 5 shoe stores looking for a comfortable pair.

.........where do you find 4th edition and second edition D&D shoes?:smallconfused::smalltongue:

@Pika. my cousin has size sixteen feet.

[Thajocoth]

.........where do you find 4th edition and second edition D&D shoes?:smallconfused::smalltongue:

ROFL

I'm surprised I hadn't noticed that when typing it. It's a measurement of width though, if there was any actual confusion. This makes snowboarding boots nearly impossible, as wide widths don't exist... I was lucky to find a pair of DCs that fit snugly on my feet. (DCs tend to be wider.)

[Coidzor]

Shoes for me are hard to find even in the men's sizes. :smallannoyed:
*Grumbles about size 14s being impossible to find.*

Those aren't shoes! Those are boats! *has a brother who is size 15 or so, and our father still buys any pair of shoes he comes into contact with that is the right size out of habit from the general rarity of them*

[xPANCAKEx]

I've climbed at a lot of gyms, and I don't think any of them have had different men's and women's shoes. Maybe I just didn't notice, though.


most places that carry in house shoes are usually entry-level shoes in a variety of sizes, but a bit generic so probably don't have too much gender ergonomics factored in

[Boo]

Well, women of the past liked to feel thinner, and their numerical sizes were miniaturized so women would feel better about their bodies. It's a self-confidence number more than anything.

Tell me how many women would feel awful about their waist size or foot size if it were all converted to typical inches? Size 2 to size 30 dresses?

Granted I'm only guessing about all of this.

[randman22222]

Well, women of the past liked to feel thinner, and their numerical sizes were miniaturized so women would feel better about their bodies. It's a self-confidence number more than anything.

Tell me how many women would feel awful about their waist size or foot size if it were all converted to typical inches? Size 2 to size 30 dresses?

Granted I'm only guessing about all of this.

Well, I have heard the same. I don't entirely remember where, but it's likely, to be honest.

[Mary Leathert]

Well, in Finland the sizing (I think for both sexes, but at least for women) goes so that a number 40 clothing isn't anything unusual. I think I'm wearing either number 40 or 38 pants at the moment. There's always this one number gap, so 36/38/40/42 is quite normal range. Or they use those S/M/L/XL things, but not usually with pants.

With shoes, I think the numbers are actually quite similar, but with no gaps. I have 38 feet, which is quite normal for a woman.

I would quite gladly buy my clothes from the mens'/boys' section, but my mother, who is usually with me when I get new clothes, because it's her who thinks I need them, tells me that they wouldn't fit because I have different bodyshape. Well, that's probably true, but I do like baggy clothing. Anyway, she is usually the one paying, so I try to accommodate.

[Decoy Lockbox]

Well, women of the past liked to feel thinner, and their numerical sizes were miniaturized so women would feel better about their bodies. It's a self-confidence number more than anything.

Tell me how many women would feel awful about their waist size or foot size if it were all converted to typical inches? Size 2 to size 30 dresses?

Granted I'm only guessing about all of this.

I'd hate to meet a size 2 woman in this scenario.

[Quincunx]

You'd be amazed what they can do with premature babies these days.

*****

There is at least one difference between a male and female last. The arch placement in a man's shoe of the correct size feels wrong under my feminine foot, always too far forward. On a cheap sneaker without an arch, they might be identical--my toes don't stick forward far enough to encounter the toe box.

*****

Those clothing companies which have a standard and predictable size chart are rewarded with more business, but it hasn't made the labeling of same any more logical. In fact, some which cater to a specific body shape have left off numbers altogether and moved onto colors and symbols to designate size and suitability. (Skittle-AA? Vase-ZZ? Blue band, G? Purple band, J?)

[Mando Knight]

.........where do you find 4th edition and second edition D&D shoes?:smallconfused::smalltongue:

Dunno about AD&D, but you can find some WotC-licensed shoes here (http://wizards.ryzwear.com/collections/dungeons-and-dragons)...

[Ikialev]

Women don't buy 48-sized sneakers. Therefore, not ALL are the same.

[skywalker]

Guy's shoes always look chunkier than women's to me. But other than that, I don't doubt you. But more importantly: All the women's shoes were pink?! :eek:

Pink is really hot for women (and less so for everyone) in America right now, especially among the fitness community. Some sort of independence/feminism/breast-cancer-awareness thing all rolled up into one. I don't really really get it either.


Is it so IN AMERICA (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Eagleland)? I think it might be some kind of sacred cow the shoemakers hold dear over here if it's not...

If it is, then I say: 'bout time we started standardizing things like clothing size.

Did the US just get help up as a pinnacle of useful standardization? Eh?


My shoe selection is exceedingly limited. You'd think there'd be more size 11 4e shoes out there. Most wides are only 2e. And to find room for the arch supports... Whenever my sneakers start cutting my feet (the sign that I need a new pair), I always expect to visit at least 5 shoe stores looking for a comfortable pair.

Supposedly New Balance puts out wides and narrows up to 4e... At least, I've seen a few 4e's in the past. I'm a mere d when it comes to width and even so, some popular brands (glares at Nike, Puma) fail to fit me...

[Mando Knight]

Did the US just get help up as a pinnacle of useful standardization? Eh?

No, I'm saying it's about time that the consumer industry does something about it. I mean, if we just start using a simple system like SI for everything...

[snoopy13a]

Bah! Women's clothing sizes are an affront to all reason and decency. With men's clothes the numbers actually mean something, i.e. a 30x30 pair of pants has a 30-inch waist and is 30 inches long. None of this "size 5", "size 12", etc. nonsense. (And come on, a size zero? That's just stupid.)

Rant aside, as a counter to your point--do you think that if a company started using size numbers that actually correspond to something for women's clothes, that women might reward them with more business? I'd like to think so. It certainly sounds a lot easier than constantly having to wonder what size you are in this brand. :smalltongue:

I've heard that the waist for men is starting to become inaccurate as lower numbers make people feel better about themselves). For example, a 34 waist from 10 years ago is a 32 waist today for some makers.

Size zero in women comes from the same system and is much more pronounced. Today's size 6 was yesterday's size 10. The problem is that today's size 2 is too big for women who were size 2 ten years ago and are the same size. Hence, they are now size 0 (or lower like 00).

At the extreme, I've heard that very petite women often have to shop in the girls section for clothes.

[Quincunx]

It would've been better if the women's size numbering was extended from 0-30 to allow for expanding bodies (both in weight and to a lesser extent height--try wedging a fit, over 6' tall woman into the normal cut of what her measurements say is her size), but instead they just started dropping the most petite sizes to keep a range of 20 in the normal stock. We're overdue for another massive measurement of women across all social scales and recalibration of the 0-20 scale, but have no excuse to collect them for other reasons, so no one wants to shoulder the cost.

I'm still baffled as to how the system originated in the first place. In the beginning of standardized sizes, size 14 was an "average" 14-year-old with 32" bust (think catalog clothing model or store mannequin), 16 a 16-year-old, and so on, with allowances for age and gravity in the changing sizes. My 1930s pattern block allows for bust sizes 24" to 50"--they had allowance for such a broad range of sizes back then, so when did standard sizes bottleneck to exclude half of these?

[Swordgleam]

Rant aside, as a counter to your point--do you think that if a company started using size numbers that actually correspond to something for women's clothes, that women might reward them with more business? I'd like to think so. It certainly sounds a lot easier than constantly having to wonder what size you are in this brand. :smalltongue:

No way. Then women would have to talk and/or think about their actual waist size, and that would be terrible. It's way harder to lie to yourself with real math than it is with arbitrary numbers.

Maybe I'll feel less snarky about it when I get older and stop staying the same weight no matter what I eat, but I doubt it.

[CarolMyers]

It happens sometimes.

[Icewraith]

:smalleek:


Shaq, can I get an autograph?

Shaq is a size 22.

Men's shoes can vary based on the cut and manufacturer, and dress shoes and boots seem to run a full size or larger than other types. I wear a US 13 shoe (and have been buying the same style for years when the old pair wears out), and fit size 11.5 work boots. My shoes have four different regional size measurements on them, and I think they're all different numbers.

You know what's great? Men's dress shirts and suits. They have independant neck diameter and arm length measurements among other things, and everything is in length units controlled by a standard (even if it isn't metric). In the meantime my wife returns 80% of the clothes she orders on the internet because the sizing is always too large or too small.

My clothing issue is I'm a beanpole, but I'm a couple inches too short to find clothes at Big& Tall stores- also they're Big AND Tall stores, not Big OR Tall. Normal stores always have my waist and leg measurements, but rarely have both on the same pair of pants.

edit: ><

[Grinner]

Sometimes, I wander into a thread, and I see so many new faces. I get to wondering "How come I've never seen these people around before?", and then it hits me...

..."Holy mother of thread necromancy!!".

[FinnLassie]

Well, in Finland the sizing (I think for both sexes, but at least for women) goes so that a number 40 clothing isn't anything unusual. I think I'm wearing either number 40 or 38 pants at the moment. There's always this one number gap, so 36/38/40/42 is quite normal range. Or they use those S/M/L/XL things, but not usually with pants.

With shoes, I think the numbers are actually quite similar, but with no gaps. I have 38 feet, which is quite normal for a woman.

Honestly, women's clothing sizes are like... they're like a living creature. They can be so, so different depending on the brand, there's absolutely no standardation to them. And all the clothes are made to fit one type of a woman, to which a lot of fellow Finn ladies I know don't exactly fit... you know, long backed, wide hipped, short legged women. :smallsigh: based on my waist I could use a pair of 42 jeans, but thanks to everything else I have to get sizes like 48 or even 50 yet still the waist doesn't fit perfectly. As I also have a rather prominent bottom, usually only either my thighs fit the jeans or my butt does, but never both. Lee Cooper's used to be perfect, but their quality's gone to the crapper now. I used to be able to buy a pair and it would last me three years, but I just got three pairs of jeans and they've all lasted for just some weeks. Bye bye my lovely euros.

And you know what's horrible about shoes? 38/39 being the pretty much most common shoe size for women here, it's nearly impossible to actually find shoes in that size. :smallannoyed: Especially on sale. I've given up on finding a pair of 39 shoes when there's a sale... :smallsigh:

[SaintRidley]

Bah! Women's clothing sizes are an affront to all reason and decency. With men's clothes the numbers actually mean something, i.e. a 30x30 pair of pants has a 30-inch waist and is 30 inches long. None of this "size 5", "size 12", etc. nonsense. (And come on, a size zero? That's just stupid.)


The existence of Size 00 is even stupider. And apparently size 000 (http://www.aeropostale.com/shop/index.jsp?categoryId=4017269) exists.

Aww, crap, just noticed the thread was undead. Damn.