Shoe Shaming

Yesturday on Facebook I posted a comment that got 40 repsonses (some were me responding to responses) but this is more than any wacky kid posting that I have ever put on there.  What the hell !?!  What was it about? Shoes - Specifically the riding boots that are galloping across women's fashion.  I hate them.

I don't hate every knee high boot, in fact many of them can look very stylish to me.  Just not these g-damn riding boots.  I may have taken the wrong angle on Facebook, however, concentrating mostly on the fact that their functional purpose is for horse-back riding and that I only want to see them used for such.  Female facebook friends cried foul, with claims of loving their dear boots.  This I have no doubt is true, woman to love these things.  My sister-in-law attacked back pointing out that have a pair of clear "jellies" that I have hung on to through the years and my fashion sense must be waining due to birthing three males.  I also don't spell well, and if she has to put up with that, I have to put up with her boots.  I said fine, but if she wears them in my presence I whinny and neigh at her.  Then I left the house and went to Wegmans, where I saw a plethera of female equestrians doing their Thanksgiving grocery shopping.

This morning, I drove my mini-van taking James and Warren to school.  They go to two Catholic schools clear across our small city from each other.  As I did, I watched people on the sidewalks going to work and kids going to school, and I realized what my deep down problem with the riding boots is - I have politicized these boots.

Fashion can be artistic and handcrafted and thus labels can get expensive.  I get this.  I also enjoy that this type of art can be "knocked off" so that everyone can enjoy the artistic expression if not the craftmanship.  Riding boots (and Sperry's, which I also threw under the bus) are not artistic, they are functional and usually well crafted.  But what is their original function?  Horseback riding and sailing/yachting, two activities of the Leisure Class (Veblen).  These two types of footwear bother me because they mimmic participation in two activities of the (usually) wealthy.   There is nothing particularly stylish or artisic about them other than being styled after something some WASP would take off and leave in the mudroom before saying, "Harriet, I have finished with my riding lesson, please draw me a bath and later I will be having cocktails on the yacht with Muffy and Emmett."  So, just being wealthy is stylish? Ugh.  And the functional footwear of the upper-class's recreational activites is what every day women are going to choose to wear around as part of their personal style? I just won't be a part of it. 

You think I'm going too far with this?  Is it really that big of a deal?  Yes.  Just look at the hoopla around Michele Obama and Ann Romney's fashion choices for their husband's conventions.  I'm not a big fan of the President right now, as much as I wish I could be, but - Michele Obama takes great pains not to dress in something too expensive.  Why? Because buying couture is almost offensive to the everyday woman.  But really, why should she care when the everyday woman is running around in riding boots.