Comments on: In Which the Author Crabs About Patriarchal Control of Female Feet

By: shoefreak

shoefreak — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 20:21:23 +0000

Awwwww, that’s just sleep deprivation talkin.’ I remember those days! As soon as the angel genius is self-maintaining you’ll be lusting again, for shoes and . . . well, other things, too! ;-) Your tastes might change though, so it’s just as well that you got rid of your old ones, makes more room for the new ones, LOL . . .

My ex used to call me Imelda too . . .

By: Kerri aka Imelda

Kerri aka Imelda — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:48:11 +0000

I have recently freed myself of my shoe fetish. Shrinking my shoe collection to 10 pairs of shoes. What brought about this tranformation? Pregancy and motherhood. While pregnant the only shoes I could wear comfortably were Birkenstocks and when those became unbearable I switched to scuffs or for those of the southern persuasion “House shoes”.
After birth of “Especially gifted angel genius”, I could not generate any interest in shoes which could not be worn with a 40 lb pack on your back.
I blame the patriarchy.

By: Ledasmom

Ledasmom — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:14:10 +0000

I don’t think the stainless heels are nearly as disturbing as the woman in the non-metal shoe section who is apparently having sex with a motorcycle.

By: Twisty

Twisty — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:43:14 +0000

Yipes. Stainless steel 7″ heels are nearly the pinnacle of sartorial violence. One wonders why they neglected to include razor blades on the insole.

By: Miranda

Miranda — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 04:28:15 +0000

A fellow patriarchy-blamer sent me this link with some of the most bizarre footwear I have ever seen. I, being rather unclever, am speechless. You and the many other way more erudite posters here could better do this foot nighmare justice.

By: Rana

Rana — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 22:48:04 +0000

zuzu — the worst thing about my mother’s feet is how horribly self-conscious she is about them. I didn’t think much about them one way or the other when I was a kid (though I now deeply regret the times my brother and I teased her about her “ugly” (comfortable) shoes). Now, I look at them and I feel pity and tenderness and rage — they are my mother’s feet, they have been hurt and continue to hurt her, and this upsets me.

By: Chris Clarke

Chris Clarke — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 18:12:47 +0000

Arch support probably wouldnâ€™t be necessary if we allowed our feet to develop naturally by never wearing shoes.

Because every naturally occurring process or condition is not only benign but incapable of being augmented by technology. Which is why menstrual cramps don’t exist. Or at least they wouldn’t exist if y’all would stop taking Midol. And that so-called “corrective lenses” industry? Superstition-peddling quacks. Free yourself of those contact lenses and get out on that freeway!

By: zuzu

zuzu — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:05:45 +0000

Arch support probably wouldn’t be necessary if we allowed our feet to develop naturally by never wearing shoes.

By: innocentbystander

innocentbystander — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 16:57:16 +0000

Not just shoes and other accessories that show, but what about underwear? Not bras especially but underpants, “panties” their manufacture and sale?
Why are women’s underpants flimsy, lacy, tiny, often see-through, cheaply made to fall apart faster than men’s but often costing lots more? If women are wearing high heels for men who are they wearing theri underpants for? That is, assuming they are wearing some.
Check prices of men and women’s underwear and tee shirts, etc. in catalogs and both price and materials are better in the men’s section. Why?
This is not the stiletto heel, garter belt, lacy-wacy stuff of the Victoria’s Secret crowd. But for those already wearing comfortable, not-all-that-stylish shoes, what about the patriarchal nature of underpants?

By: larkspur

larkspur — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:36:15 +0000

I am totally and exclusively about comfort in regard to my own feet. That means, primarily, no pointy toes. I mean, OW. I wouldn’t rule out a lowish heel, but I’d never do stilettos or super high heels. (Because I currently have NO MONEY, I am spared any shopping dilemmas. Yay me.)

However, I have some good friends who like their girl-shoes, and they’ve ’splained to me that a carefully chosen pointy-toe shoe *can* be comfy if it’s built right. And I used to know a woman who worked at Nordstrom as a personal shopper. She always brought at least three pairs of shoes to work with her, each with a different heel height. She’d switch off throughout the day, and she said that most of the time she was comfortable.

As for cultural significance, I think there’s some truth to what all of the commenters have said. Another component of high-heel-wearing is similar to make-up wearing (not to mention other grooming rituals): it says “Okay, here’s what I’m willing to do for the patriarchy. Here’s the evidence of my willingness to spend time and money, and to endure discomfort and inconvenience, in order to be an acceptable feminine-type woman.”

Obviously, that’s not all it says, and obviously even though it *can* say that, it doesn’t follow that a woman must not wear cosmetics and must disavow girl-shoes if she wants to be a Genuine Woman-Identified Woman. Feh. I don’t want to substitute a different orthodoxy. I just want the same old thing we all want – the right to choose.

Usually I choose running shoes, a little eye-shadow (because my eyelids look weirdly bald otherwise) and strategically applied concealer. I have 1,000,000 tubes of lipstick in a big woven basket on my dresser, and not one single shade looks good on me. (Some, if not most, are probably rancid now – see above re No Money: these are old lipsticks – but I can’t bring myself to toss them. I want to make them into some kind of bandolier, or possibly a chandelier.)