CNN has a “Health for Her” segment. “Health for Her” is represented by one of those Venus female symbols in the background, to differentiate it from regular health.
Today’s women’s health segment isn’t about boring old breast cancer or vaginas or about how generally unhealthy it is to be female on this planet, though. It’s about high heels.
Women sure love shoes, says CNN.
CNN reveal no secrets when they aver that, according to their women’s experts, “most” women — by which is always meant heterosexual Western women — buy shoes for style (by which is meant “pornulation”) rather than for comfort (by which is meant “humorless hairy ugly unfuckable”). Strippers, for example, or Beauty2K-Compliant women in the media, don’t wear Clark’s Comfort Walkers. Lady detectives on TV cop shows don’t chase down perps in Uggs.
But newsflash! High heels can cause health problems, warns CNN. The report claims that “most” women have no idea that their foot pain, bunions, broken ankles, osteoarthritis, and back aches are related to their sexay Manolos. Women are just that dumb. CNN, though, they got women’s backs. They interview one of the dumb women, for the edification of all.
“They hurt, but I wear’em anyway,” says the interviewee, chuckling at the hilarity inherent in her personal pain and disfigurement.
I am the only honky alive who thinks a human foot looks really fucking asinine stuffed into a pointy-toed shoe with a 5-inch stiletto heel.
58 comments
Mel
August 15, 2009 at 3:52 pm (UTC -6)
Actually, no. This honky thinks the same.
Someone
August 15, 2009 at 4:08 pm (UTC -6)
Yeah…several times a year this old chestnut is tossed into the circulation as “news.” And it does its usual job of encouraging women to dress like sluts while berating us for it at the same time.
What I never hear in these hackneyed features is how you actually CAN get extremely attractive comfortable shoes. Guess what, I have 2 sexay pairs of…Aerosoles. One is a strappy silver metallic heeled sandal and it ain’t no flat hippie ol’lady shoe. Neither is the black leather heeled slide. No foot pain, back pain, or hammer toes here.
leah
August 15, 2009 at 4:32 pm (UTC -6)
Oh teh stoopid wimmenz, always doing things to endanger their own health because they’re too stupid to know any better, like wearing high heels or tanning or daring to exist in a female body in the presence of oversexed overviolent men. All because they just don’t know any better! And golly gee, I bet the whole reason that men don’t wear high heels is because they’re so smart and know they’re bad, right? Right, CNN? Tell me, CNN, it must have not a whit to do with gender expectations, right?
Also- and I realize this is a bit incidental to the topic- but (as someone with some expertise in such matters) I cringe to see Uggs compared to Clark’s in terms of being good for you. Uggs are horrible for your feet, knees and back, almost as bad as most heels. They have zero support. There’s a misconception that flat (or even “comfy”) = healthy but support is much more important than height and lots of people are destroying their bones & ligaments based on that misconception. Actually, about a half inch is the best incline in terms of bone health (most athletic shoes – and the clark’s model mentioned- have this built in so they look flat but they aren’t). And arch support! The single most important feature in a shoe! OK back to blaming.
leah
August 15, 2009 at 4:34 pm (UTC -6)
OK I reread the post. Strike that second paragraph. I fail reading comprehension for today.
Alex Catgirl
August 15, 2009 at 4:40 pm (UTC -6)
Jaysus peat everyone and their brother, sister,aunt, etc is bitching about my freaken shoes today…. and I know why!
http://tinyurl.com/28j5rq
I’d be cranky too! but that’s no reason to take it out on my poor, not-so-innocent Christian Louboutin suicide shoes :D
D.
August 15, 2009 at 5:46 pm (UTC -6)
Can I agree with the last statement without having to wear clown shoes? Because I’m not a honky.
The best trend in shoes ever was pioneered by New York women during the subway strike in 1980: sneakers for street wear and, y’know, actual walking. Briefly revived in 2001 by women who’d had to flee a multiple story building fast, the sneaker rebellion was drowned by marketing drones screaming about “femininity” after a respectful interval.
I have big feet and plantar fasciitis, so comfort got important really fast. I’m not the Little Mermaid; walking on broken glass is not going to happen.
And don’t get me started on “porn shoes.”
Flash
August 15, 2009 at 5:49 pm (UTC -6)
Knowing how you love the Daily Mail, Twisty, I thought you’d like to know they’ve got the high heels issue covered too.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204645/Why-womens-heels-high-union-bosses-agenda.html
Comrade PhysioProf
August 15, 2009 at 6:05 pm (UTC -6)
Danskos.
http://scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey/2009/05/comrade_physioprofs_shoe_of_th.php
Sexxay *and* comfortable.
Jill
August 15, 2009 at 7:16 pm (UTC -6)
In the fugly clog department I go with chef-wear, on accounta my restaurant background. Yep, they’re Birkenstocks, but you can put’em in the dishwasher!
wiggles
August 15, 2009 at 7:26 pm (UTC -6)
Even if one is inclined, for whatever reason, toward some level of femininity in her clothing choices, or if one has a job that requires it, it’s really not easy to find dressy women’s shoes that aren’t ridiculously pointy-toed and/or high-heeled. At the shoe store, you’ll see a promisingly non-pinchy toe, pull out the box and there’s the big spiky heel. See a heel that you won’t break your ankles teetering on, pull out the box and the front of the shoe looks like it’s been run through a pencil sharpener. So you go for the loafers and the oxfords and then it’s no skirts, because most skirts look weird with oxfords and loafers. So then you’re wearing the oxfords and the pants all the time and it turns out you’re femininity-non-compliant. Which is great but you’ll get as big a raft of shit for your non-compliance as you would for warping your feet in the crazy shoes. At least you’ll be comfortable.
Jill
August 15, 2009 at 7:29 pm (UTC -6)
This idea that women think they have to compete with men in the height department totally chaps my hide. Along with the “sexy heels at the office is my personal choice” argument. Being sexually manipulative is not the equivalent of empowerfulment, sexy stiletto girls!
Lesley
August 15, 2009 at 7:36 pm (UTC -6)
High heels = pain. I’ve worn running shoes to work for about ten years now; so far nobody’s said anything to me about it (to my face anyhow).
slythwolf
August 15, 2009 at 7:51 pm (UTC -6)
Sure, women are supposed to wear high heels so they can be closer to men’s height unless those women are actually already tall. If you’re over 5’10″, you had goddamn better wear flats (and they have to be those stupid little “ballet flats” that are basically a leather sock for the foot), because if you’re taller than some dude, he won’t want to fuck you.
Someone
August 15, 2009 at 8:52 pm (UTC -6)
@ Wiggles…ya know, it’s not true that you can’t have comfort and pretty at once. The myth that you can’t is just another one of those annoying false dilemmas of the binary thinking kind the patriarchy loves to tell us we can’t escape, just like the myth that you can’t have a beautiful and interesting man who’s not a complete asshole of some sort. I have achieved both combinations and it wasn’t that hard.
Comrade PhysioProf
August 15, 2009 at 10:16 pm (UTC -6)
Sorry, but those birkenshits are a fucking nightmare. Danskos.
nails
August 15, 2009 at 10:28 pm (UTC -6)
I am sure guys who dress in drag for whatever reason are interested in this too. It is weird how shoes and feet (which are not inherently gendered) have been put into the category of womens health.
JB
August 15, 2009 at 10:38 pm (UTC -6)
Well, good for Someone above, attributing a “binary thinking” definition to patriarchy so that the novice blamer and fledgling feminist might mistakenly believe that the male-defined social requirement for a woman to be “pretty” can somehow be liberating to her if coupled with “comfort.”
Fool yourself, too, if you want, about men under patriarchy being “beautiful and interesting,” and trustworthy to women in the long term.
Anybody still willing to be fooled just hasn’t lived long enough.
Shoe culture, certainly, torture, kink and pointed toe. Who needs patriarchal culture? Every woman can figure out her bare minimum of what she can get away with doing to “fit in” to patriarchy if she has to make her living there. Stilettos aren’t part of the necessary compromise. Other options exist, at least for today. It’s the available “fun” within patriarchy to figure out your own compromises and choose to keep your own counsel about it.
Who needs to know that any woman’s stopped painting her toenails and that’s why she makes summer shoe choices that do not include high-heeled sandals? Patriarchs don’t really care about any of women’s reasons for anything — the info given by women to patriarchs (males and their patriarchal token females) is only stored away for whatever use it might later be to men, not because men care anything about women except what women can do for men.
Amazing how much better you feel, how much energy you can have, when you stop kidding yourself about who and what’s out there. Why else but misogyny would shoes for women be so hurtful and hateful?
Why else but misogyny in the press to spin “reports” about hurtful, hateful shoes for women as if women who are fashionistas want them? Really? Or they’re somehow good for women, really, or hell, if all else fails, shoe manufacturers could stop making much but stilettos, so there, goddammit, shut up bitches and walk with asses up and steps mincing because of the high-heeled shoes male-dominant business provides the bitches to buy for men’s sadistic viewing pleasure.
The questions are rhetorical. No debate invited. You’re entitled to your own opinion, no matter what I think of it.
yttik
August 15, 2009 at 10:48 pm (UTC -6)
“….women have no idea that their foot pain, bunions, broken ankles, osteoarthritis, and back aches are related to their sexay Manolos. Women are just that dumb.”
Women are certainly not dumb, but you know, many of them are so conditioned, so brainwashed, that they just can’t make the connection between their shoes and their backaches or their knee problems. It’s like they have to block out the reality of what they are doing to themselves. I’ve spent most of my life on my feet in ‘ugly’ shoes, trying desperately to explain to young girls that you can’t work on your feet 10 hrs a day in heels without crippling yourself. They genuinely seem baffled by their shoe related health problems. And absolutely horrified at the thought of wearing a pair of “ugly’ shoes.
Laughingrat
August 15, 2009 at 10:50 pm (UTC -6)
Aw yes, the sweet sweet blame. Bring it, Jill!
Comrade PhysioProf–your position on Danskos is noted, but let it be said that every time I wear mine, I turn an ankle. They’re just too high. They are really nice for when I have to stand in one place a lot with moderate, frequently-interrupted walking, such as being at the reference desk or visiting a museum.
Since you’re no doubt all panting to know my personal shoe choice, I will tell you: Doc Marten mary janes. They show off my handknitted socks.
Squiggy
August 15, 2009 at 11:30 pm (UTC -6)
Flat boots go with everything. Everything. Every occasion. Confident. In yo’ face! (the patriarchy’s face) Word.
Absotively
August 15, 2009 at 11:50 pm (UTC -6)
While there are shoes which are both comfortable and femininity compliant, they tend to be expensive. It’s damn near impossible to find cheap shoes that have arch support and are not sneakers. So if you want to minimize your oppression (in the area of shoes & femininity-compliance), you need to have some privilege (in the area of money). Which is par for the course.
Of course, women who are buying genuine Manalos could certainly afford less painful shoes, but I’m not convinced that they represent the majority of the high heel–buying population.
alicepaul
August 16, 2009 at 12:15 am (UTC -6)
But how is wearing high heels “being sexually manipulative”? Isn’t it just another survival skill for women? To me, the term “manipulative” implies a level of power that I’m not sure women have.
nails
August 16, 2009 at 12:58 am (UTC -6)
yttik- I would bet that women with those problems probably discuss it with other women who have the same problems and conclude that it is normal. I have seen this multiple times when a girl I know is dating a total asshole; other women say their boyfriends are assholes too and normalize the whole affair.
birkwearingblamer
August 16, 2009 at 1:23 am (UTC -6)
You can’t kick ass if you can’t walk in your shoes–that’s why I’m a Birk wearing blamer. I also wear Danskos. Fuck the pornolicious high heels.
lim
August 16, 2009 at 2:22 am (UTC -6)
The answer is orthotics! Or, one answer. I wear ballet flats (you can get kevlar soled pumps off ebay) and a cheapo orthotic insert from the chemist.
But yeah, everyone’s feet hurt. I remember my aunties walking around on their tiptoes in bare feet because their hamstrings were so foreshortened from heels. My mate can barely walk at all but she won’t give up her shoes. It’s depressing, but…I take some messed up medications to suppress my abnormal presentation, so, you know, I get it.
speedbudget
August 16, 2009 at 5:37 am (UTC -6)
My sister is an orthopedic surgeon who specializes in foot and ankle surgery. I went to her when I was having unexplained pain in my feet to the point where I could barely walk. Turns out, it was from the joint pain caused by hyperthyroidism. Who knew? But I digress.
Anyway, sis absolutely recommends the Danskos. She says they are the best-designed shoes for feet, and she definitely says you should wear the ones with the heel box on them to keep your foot properly positioned.
speedbudget
August 16, 2009 at 5:42 am (UTC -6)
Also, high heels are just mobile prisons for the Patriarchy.
Jill
August 16, 2009 at 6:51 am (UTC -6)
Wooden soles? Are you mad? What is this, 17th century Holland?
Jill
August 16, 2009 at 7:04 am (UTC -6)
By “sexually manipulative,” I mean a conscious effort to trade sex for privilege. It is not empowering because it reinforces the Global Conventions Governing the Fair Use of the Sex Class, preserving the myth that women = sex. Observe an excerpt from the article — which reports on the backlash over efforts by a UK labor group to ban stilettos as demeaning and injurious — in which a Beauty2K-Compliant interviewee has clearly drunk the KoolAid.
Of course, the UK labor (or should I say “labour”?) group is predominately dudely, so who knows what their actual motives are.
virago
August 16, 2009 at 9:06 am (UTC -6)
I hate high heels. I have big feet with long toes, and heels with pointy toes are torture. Not to mention that they make my feet look even bigger. I wear tennis shoes most of the time, but I work in healthcare, so I can get away with this. Anyway, the few times I have to dress up, finding appropriate footwear is hard. I just wear loafers with dress pants. I gave up on dresses a long time ago.
yttik
August 16, 2009 at 9:38 am (UTC -6)
“I mean a conscious effort to trade sex for privilege. ”
I not sure it’s even a “conscious” effort for the majority of women. If it’s what you are taught from day one, it simply becomes a part of your being. Besides, it’s very difficult to trade much of anything else for privilege. “Privilege” being I need to work so I can eat. “Empowering” meaning, if I wear the correct footwear and look the way they want, I have a chance of earning a living.
She talks about heels boosting your confidence. It’s usually like that, boosting your confidence requires doing something to appeal more to the patriarchy. “Confidence” in this situation has nothing to do with self esteem, it has to do with not having the door slammed in your face, not being ridiculed or mocked.
Privilege is about not giving a crap about what they think and being able to function in society in comfortable shoes. A lot of women don’t have that luxury yet, because they aren’t even aware there’s a choice involved. It’s so ingrained, there are some girls who have been convinced that you exist to be appealing to men and if you fail in that, there’s no reason for you to exist at all.
JB
August 16, 2009 at 9:41 am (UTC -6)
Fortuitously to this discussion about shoes, the multi-plex corroborates the role of stilettos in enslaving our minds along with hurting our feet.
Last night a dude gave me a movie ticket to 8/10 of the GI Joe movie(he had starting feeling unwell and already paid, and I was the only person coming out of the restroom) after I’d seen Julie & Julia (which at least is named for women, despite the starring role husbands actually play as fictionalized in the Nora Ephron screenplay).
The point (literally) about pointed stilettos and female subordination on point to males in GI Joe, as follows:
A turncoat, black-leather-legging-and-stiletto-wearing adversary of the “Joes” (who is later converted by the main hunky soldier Joe back to Joe-ness in general) goes one-on-one against other women in fight scenes — Hollywood dudes like Bollywood dudes like Vancouver dudes couldn’t show women bonding in what’s playing at the multi-plex, now could they, and still be part of dude moviedom?
One of these women-against-woman scenes ends with the stilletto-wearer’s line in passing to the other woman, “love your shoes.” Or words to that effect.
The viewers were set up to laugh by the disconnect between the fight and the shoe comment. At a deeper level (according to a gestalt from old-school communications research) the viewers got the point that what is supposed to bond women is limited to a shared female-class subservience to male-inventions of foot fashion which — by being uncomfortable, unsafe (especially if a woman is pursued by a predatory man) and a time waster (labor and monetary costs) to procure — are debilitating emotionally and physically to women.
In other words, the movie media message to women is to engage in self-destructive behavior (laughing all the way) in order to be accepted by the culture men have made and enforce by global violence. The messages of male supremacy (“make me, make me your baby,” etc.) abound on radio, while shopping and hearing piped-in music, in movies, on billboards, on internet popups, on blogs, on TV, in news reports and newspapers, in magazines, and — because of the saturation of the programming — in our minds.
Two girls (about 9 and 11) were sitting one seat distant from me for last night’s GI Joe mind-bending female subordination programming, with their dad, probably his weekend post-divorce — and his ex-wife who knows what a misogynistic jerk he is and can do nothing about it because the legal system is, always has been and always will be run by men for men with an occasional tokenism diversion thrown in to divert women onto the path of seeking an equality never possible in patriarchy.
At least the two girls heard my rip-roaring mocking laughter whenever the Joes on screen stated their supposed good-dude-ness with the usual hypocrisy of the patriarchy.
By definition, patriarchy’s script is always about men’s lives “as men,” and women’s lives “for men.” If you need to be convinced, cop a free ticket to GI Joe and watch through an advanced patriarchy blamer’s frame. It’s enough to make any girl’s feet hurt.
jezebella
August 16, 2009 at 11:03 am (UTC -6)
I’m impressed you managed to stay conscious enough for blamey critique. I found GI Joe to be mind-numbingly boring. I did notice Anna’s heels sinking into the snow, and rolled my eyes audibly.
Comrade PhysioProf
August 16, 2009 at 11:11 am (UTC -6)
Yeah, it is true that they do not have great lateral stability.
I force my trainees to clog dance for me every Thursday afternoon, and then we eat herring and onions.
wiggles
August 16, 2009 at 11:13 am (UTC -6)
@Someone – I’ve been to the shoe store. Looked at every shoe. I know there are some femininity-compliant shoes that aren’t pointy spiky torture devices, but they’re such an elusive rarity I may as well spend my time and energy hunting for jackalopes.
JB
August 16, 2009 at 12:06 pm (UTC -6)
Ah, Jezebella, the dilemma of loving film in the abstract and hating what dudes have done to the offerings. I sense you are a kindred soul. Anna in the Joe movie, such a figment of dude fantasy (also boring) at every level, yes, indeed, down to the heels in snow you noticed with audible eye-roll (you’re funny).
At least in the movie Hancock with Charlize Theron, for all her character’s other silly compromises to patriarchy and the ending heart carved into the moon (ick, creepy anti-nature crap as romantic marketing), she was strong and smart and more of a hero than Hancock as her male counterpart.
Men have made the barriers to woman-centered film so high for a reason — the big-screen “hot versus cold” medium powerfully programs those who sit in the seats. I wore thick media-crafted blinders for decades as a result. But once you see through it, there’s no going back.
These comments, so reaching (never preaching) to those who already know.
katrina
August 16, 2009 at 12:20 pm (UTC -6)
Oh! Oh! A doubt that I can resolve!
It’s the Labour party in the UK. And the Labor party in Australia.
Jill
August 16, 2009 at 12:37 pm (UTC -6)
Well, it’s not the actual Labour party to which I allude, but a union called The Trade Union Congress. But thanks.
Someone
August 16, 2009 at 12:52 pm (UTC -6)
@JB: whut?
“the novice blamer and fledgling feminist might mistakenly believe that the male-defined social requirement for a woman to be “pretty” can somehow be liberating to her if coupled with “comfort.”
— I didn’t say anything about the-requirement-for-pretty to be liberating. I said that you can have shoes that are both attractive and comfortable. The ones I mentioned aren’t 5 inch stilettos. I wouldn’t wear such silliness. There is a continuum of heelosity. *I* like the way they look, so whatever.
“Fool yourself, too, if you want, about men under patriarchy being ‘beautiful and interesting,’ and trustworthy to women in the long term.
‘Anybody still willing to be fooled just hasn’t lived long enough.”
— Umm, whatever. This is rather discriminatory don’t you think? You’re stereotyping beautiful men as they do to us (beautiful or not). Well, maybe at 45 I just haven’t lived long enough…or since the husband is 32, maybe it’s *he* who hasn’t lived long enough.
Surprising, really, that anyone would presume to tell me how wrong I am to report that success is possible where many believe it is not. Isn’t that what we want? For things to work the way we want them to?
Someone
August 16, 2009 at 12:56 pm (UTC -6)
@laughingrat: Heyyy, I know you…nice to “see” ya here. Haven’t seen you IRL in a bit, I’m still knittin’…
Kristyn
August 16, 2009 at 1:22 pm (UTC -6)
“Isn’t that what we want? For things to work the way we want them to?”
Yes, probably psychologically –
but pragmatically, after what cost to ourselves do we say enough is enough?
We each decide for ourselves what are limits are, and ultimately, I suppose I can be crass enough to say, how low our standards are.
Also because of this, ‘Not-My Nigeling’ doesn’t get very far. There are exceptions to every rule, yeah. But what I feel is an exception, may still be a rule to someone else, and vice versa.
It all depends on your standards, and how low the patriarchy has ground them down.
Shopstewardess
August 16, 2009 at 2:20 pm (UTC -6)
The Trade Union Congress is the umbrella organisation for nearly all trades unions in the UK, and it’s dudely, but less dudely than the employers’ part of the patriarchy. The TUC press release on the high heels report is here http://www.tuc.org.uk/newsroom/tuc-15188-f0.cfm and the full report here http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/footwear.pdf. It’s actually perfectly common sense advice (very little of which is about high heels), and as there is a considerable fear (amounting to the status of urban myth) about the powers of the “Health and Safety” in this country, there’s just a chance that word of a woman’s right not to have to wear high heels at work, particularly if she has to stand or lift, may enter the national consciousness. I can live in hope.
katrina
August 16, 2009 at 2:23 pm (UTC -6)
Sorry, Jill, for hitting the blame button before reading properly. I feel appropriately foolish now.
Nolabelfits
August 16, 2009 at 2:23 pm (UTC -6)
It all depends on your standards, and how low the patriarchy has ground them down.
I love this line! So true.
Serenity
August 16, 2009 at 2:26 pm (UTC -6)
It’s quite telling that it’s almost *required* for women to wear uncmfortable high-heeled shoes on formal occasions. I myself agree with the commenter who said that flat boots go with everything (or sensible flat loafers, when I worked in an office) If I’d be looked at in horror for not wearing high heels somewhere – I’m not going.
I’d also like to take a moment to complain about shoes – even flat soes – with *pointy toes* Nobody’s feet are that shape! They pinch your toes and hurt. I was actually advised to buy some for my dance class. The instructor sells them. I took one look and had to make some excuse as to why I didn’t want to buy. My blaming skills aren’t quite advanced enough for me to be comfortable explaining why without sounding as if I was putting down women who do wear these uncomfortable shoes.
Because it’s not them. It’s the culture that demands that women suffer to be ‘beautiful’ and participate in their own objectification, even to the point of health problems. Gah. IBTP.
JB
August 16, 2009 at 3:16 pm (UTC -6)
It just isn’t a fit for me to engage in commentary dialoging with women I’ve never met, will never see, know nothing about (as to whether or not they’re fabricating or telling their own truth or somebody else’s or some version of the truth they wish would be, on and on, the point is, this commenting process is like sending words into a void) — so once again, “never mind.”
I don’t know now why I thought it made sense to even come here and try to do this as a commenter. Bye y’all.
Purple Pooka
August 16, 2009 at 4:06 pm (UTC -6)
“Well, it’s not the actual Labour party to which I allude, but a union called The Trade Union Congress. But thanks.”
The TUC isn’t a union exactly – it’s the organisation that keeps all the unions in line and makes sure they’re concentrating on pointlessly framed debates on high heels that will go nowhere instead of, you know, supporting striking workers and prosecuting sexual harassment cases and inconsequential things like that.
Hmm…the “choice” to conform vs. enshrined laws on The Height Heels Should Be At Work – that’s going to be a constructive debate. You can guarantee it won’t contain a mention of patriarchy, internalised or otherwise, and won’t recognise any form of pressure on women that doesn’t relate directly to pay and contractual working conditions. It’s very telling that their argument for even having the debate is about working days “lost through sickness as a result of lower limb disorders”. Mega-theo-corporateocracy pop quiz: This issue has been framed in useful terms for a) Your average shop worker who has to stand around all day smiling in full beauty-compliance because she’s contractually obliged to “present a good image” or b) Her employer who wants to get maximum contractual “good image” from female staff for minimum risk of having to give out sick pay.
Jill
August 16, 2009 at 4:12 pm (UTC -6)
When I first started this blog I had no idea how much I would learn about British politics. First, I find out that Prince Charles was unfaithful to Di. Next, I discover the husband of a high-ranking official is using government money to rent porn. Now I learn what the TUC is. Thanks, British blamers!
Someone
August 16, 2009 at 5:48 pm (UTC -6)
@JB – Wowwww….I come in here to basically say “wait, there IS hope…” and am suspected a liar! Umm…maybe you’re just wrong. No, not maybe. You ARE wrong. And you’ve got a nerve deciding that not only do you know better than any of us how the world works, you tell us we don’t.
But probably you are right about one thing – doesn’t sound like you’re ready for conversation on the internets.
Mortisha
August 16, 2009 at 9:20 pm (UTC -6)
Living in outback Australia I was born & raised in steel cap Rossi boots – still can’t find anything better. I have their riding boots, motorcycle boots and clogs. Some are heat rated 300degrees Celsius, which is handy in bush fire season. http://www.rossiboots.com.au/home/home.htm
Can’t put them in the dishwasher though – damn that would be handy.
Orange
August 16, 2009 at 9:44 pm (UTC -6)
A blogger friend of mine fell off her Danskos. She was grateful for my recommendation of the Merrell Primo Chill slide (since discontinued) for comfy, warm, un-fall-offable footwear.
In summertime, I live in my Naot sandals. These Israeli imports are crazy comfy, and the sandals I have feature an adjustable strap over the forefoot as well as an adjustable around-the-ankle strap. Velcro = customizable fit. If Birkenstocks are uncomfortable for you, try Naots. The footbeds look similar, but the fit and feel are totally different.
Purple Pooka
August 17, 2009 at 4:51 am (UTC -6)
Another pop fact for you – the TUC counts amongst its member unions the IUSW, that sex workers’ union that lets the “managers” join.
speedbudget
August 17, 2009 at 6:00 am (UTC -6)
Mortisha: Not to rain on your shoe parade, but did you notice that ad from the Rossi website? It’s all men. There are two women featured in the shoes. One is sitting passively on a car in a dress. The other is sitting with her seems-to-be significant other in a vineyard. Neither were working, while all the men in the ad were actively pursuing a career or some chicas.
Interesting.
speedbudget
August 17, 2009 at 6:01 am (UTC -6)
I mean, even the little pre-teen BOY was working, but his counterpart was sitting on the car. Probably waiting for him.
Sophie
August 17, 2009 at 7:06 am (UTC -6)
I work on a university campus and I’ve noticed that the dominant (ubiquitous, in fact) footwear fashion for the female students is Ugg boots – a quick straw poll reveals that women think them comfortable, warm and cute-looking, while men deem them to be ‘ugly and unflattering’. The fact that something men find unattractive is nonetheless the shoe of choice for the next generation of women gives me some small hope. I wish someone would make a vegan pair because they do look nice and cosy.
As for the TUC/high heels article, I’d have thought by now that the blametariat would have learned not to believe anything in the Daily Fail. It seemed to me that the TUC’s point was to draw attention to the issue of women being told they HAD to wear heels, in which case I agree that dress codes that include not being allowed to wear comfortable shoes are unacceptable.
Antoinette Niebieszczanski
August 17, 2009 at 9:48 am (UTC -6)
My father tried to teach me a whole bunch a crap that never stuck. But one thing did: never wear uncomfortable shoes. That way lies madness and lifelong foot problems.
I learned for myself that attractiveness and comfort are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I’m wearing a nifty pair of green brocade sneakers that have great arch support and a spacious toe box.
Purple Pooka
August 17, 2009 at 12:52 pm (UTC -6)
I trust neither the Daily Mail nor the TUC, nor anyone else who gives me patronising advice while profiting from my oppression. Indirectly in this particular case – I’ve always worn DMs at work, and most other places.
Cath the Canberra Cook
August 30, 2009 at 12:06 am (UTC -6)
I’m with you also,
signed,
a honky who does proper ladylike blogging. (I write about teh fuds, which is women’s work, right?)