I was reminded recently of a phenomena I had forgotten about: Silly-sock girls.
You know who they are. These are girls / women who wear bright, multi-colored, clashing, and very often mismatched socks. They may also wear comparably silly shoes — brightly colored Converse being a classic example. The implication I’ve always read into this behavior is that the Silly-sock girls are deeply concerned about their feet and footwear as a form of self-expression but are intentionally resisting conventional expectations about female footwear.
As a result, in my mind, they are kindred — if temporarily opposed — spirits to the Shoe Ladies. These, of course, are the women who have hundreds of shoes of all styles, makes, and models — so long as they are cute, fun, sexy, or <insert adjective of choice here>. They often own shoes that do not fit, simply because they liked the look. They will often wear unwearable shoes in the most perverse of situations. For example, I saw a girl wearing 3 inch stilettos the other day when the streets and sidewalks were sheets of ice and the temperature faaaaar below zero. A few days early, I saw a girl wearing those ballerina slipper shoes with no socks in several feet of snow. For these women, buying and wearing shoes is not just an exercise in fun consumerism but a genuine contribution to and expression of their sense of self-worth.
Last but not least, there are, of course, the “women in comfortable shoes”. Now I imagine — although I have never met any — there are some women out there who wear comfortable, non-desrcript shoes, and socks on a regular basis because it is what they prefer and are not intending any kind of bold statement of personal identity or politics. In my experience, however, the comfortable shoe ladies are consciously taking some kind of stand. And even in those rare instances when they are not, everyone else assumes they are taking a stand and thereby they become the exception that proves the rule.
Now, I should say, I’ve been talking about “kinds of women,” but I am happy to accept that the phenomenon I am calling attention to may be more accurately described as feminine modes — that is, women at different times, depending on their mood, make a statement about their self-identity through their choice of footwear.
I mention all of this in the spirit of good-natured male confusion and because I think women might not realize how uniquely gendered this phenomenon is because it is such an essential part of their day to day existence. Sure, men care about their own shoes but only indirectly. I may appreciate wearing a nice pair of shoes, but, at the end of the day, the only reason I am at all concerned about the look of my shoes is because I know some potential female mate is going to assess me based on my footwear. Certainly, men can also be somewhat obsessed with women’s feet and shoes but the interest they have in their own feet and footwear is only really motivated by the fact that women so often judge people by their footwear.
So my question is, what’s with the female obsession with feet and footwear? Anyone have or know any good theories? Am I wrong / right to think the feet and footwear obsession is uniquely female?
For more post likes this, click here.
MOVEMENT 
As a shoe obsessed lady myself, I wish I had more insight. I truly don’t know what compels me toward shoes, and I’ve thought about it. I have some thoughts though. One possibility is the transformative possibilities of shoes – as per yesterday’s conversation. A short lady like me can become statuesque, so I guess shoes can be seen in this way, and fetishized, so to speak. The other possibility is that shoes offer a way to participate in societal conventions of female beauty that aren’t as tied to weight/size etc. Unlike jeans, you can always find a pair that fit, and that make you feel great.
But for me, it is kind of an emotional thing – I can’t explain it. The gut reaction I have to a beautiful pair of pumps is kind of like seeing an adorable puppy in a storefront – my heart melts, and I simply must take it home. (:
The first two points definitely seem important, PBP. I am also glad you mention the gut feeling because my last girlfriend who was definitely shoe obsessed seemed to have the same sort of physical reaction — which baffled me and she was also unable to explain it. Furthermore, based on my participant observations, I would also have characterized her reaction as the same sort of reaction she had to especially cute little things.
So, this makes me think: what symbolic function do shoes play for women? Is it the same for all women? Is it the same for men? If it is the same for men, maybe the key difference between guys and girls is that the symbolic function of footwear creates different physical responses — in the same way chocolate affect women much differently than men.
I think for many women, footwear fulfills an emblematic function (this may be moods, varying expressions of femininity or self). For these women, closets of shoes are undoubtedly required 🙂
For men (speaking in general terms), identity can still be expressed in their choice of footwear. The dude wearing cowboy boots is definitely making a statement about his identity, same with the kid in expensive running shoes. In my own case, the doc martins and converse were expressions of identity/self maybe even a mode of masculinity as well.
The key difference is the lack of variety or multiplicity of these expressions. The long haired kid in converse is unlikely to crack out a pair of cowboy boots on a Tuesday morning for example. I feel that men can be obsessed with footwear (even in an emblematic sense) but it is definitely nuanced differently.
I take your point Wayne, but I still think there is a substantial difference which your caveat highlights. I think the choice of footwear plays a secondary role and is less visceral when it comes to guys. It’s not like Mr. Cowboy is going to go out and buy a new pair of boots to make himself feel better — tho, as I write this I can’t help but think about the strange custom of the finance minister buying a new pair of shoes when the budget is tabled.
To further press the point — and you may already be alluding to this — this battle over shoes seems to cut across all social identities for women. The goth girl and the preppie girl are both caught up in the same game; whereas the Cowboy and the Alterno-boy are just choosing shoes that fit with their social identity. It’s not like the Cowboy or the Alterno-boy have 100s of varieties of their preferred shoe. Tho, now that I think of it some B-boys do collect shoes but it has always seemed to me more like collecting stamps than collecting little vessels of self-worth.
So I guess all points to the question: we agree there may be some difference, but the question is what that difference exactly amounts to?
It is definitely not the same for all women. Some women really are indifferent to shoes. Comfortable shoes aren’t always a statement. Some women just don’t get the big deal about shoes. I used to be one of them! But then, I didn’t used to care about my weight either – hmmmmm, a correlation???
ha ha, I just realized that every other post on my blog now has something or other to do with shoes! What’s wrong with me?
I’m trying to figure out where I land on your specturm because I find that I wear terribly sensible footwear during winter months and yet I have a closet filled with cute summer shoes.
From the perspective of a frequently fat girl, I would say that the shoe thing can stem from the fact that size is not an issue. Admittedly I have square feet so that limits my shoe choices but I would say, in general, shoes are much less limiting than clothing. A lot of clothing is designed to look good on a very limited body type that only about 10 – 20% of the population actually have.
And there is no concern about trying on shoes. most women, even the thin ones, will tell you that buying pants is one of the most painful processes. Pants never fit the same, you rarely wear the same size from store to store, and it’s generally a struggle to find the ones that make you look hot.
Shoes are much easier. They’re quicker to try on, you have more variety in one location, you generally wear the same size from store to store, and there’s way less squeezing and sucking and poking involved in the trying on process.
With shoes, you just put them on and start strutting. Instant gratification.
Thanks Amanda. That’s helpful. It almost sounds like shoes are the crack of the female fashion world. I wonder, do you have any thoughts on the nature of the gratification itself. Is it different then say finding a great blouse.
I love women’s foot wear one of the reason why I sell shoes
Michael, as a seller of shoes, you must have some insight on the thread. Do you think there is an important difference in the way woman and men appreciate footwear?
Wow. So for many women, at least the ones who are commenting on this blog, shoes are bought apparently compulsively for a physical pleasure. As Sterling says, shoes as a kind of fashion crack. I didn’t see that one coming.
oh man, the nature of gratification… that’s big. Finding great shoes, in my experience, is not the same as other articles of clothing.
The process of finding a fabulous pair of pants or top (I think only grandmas still call them blouses :)) is definitely different because the amount of effort expended is greater. Awesome pants are much harder to come by and thus more gratifying once found.
But I feel like really you’re asking about why the purchase of clothing is gratifying. Is that what you’re asking?? I hesitate to assume your meaning as I recognize that I’m speaking to someone who is not merely a reflection of myself.
Nice reference and good follow-up question. Yes, I am asking about the nature of the gratification of buying clothes. My theory — especially for shoes — is that it is different for women than men.
For example, when I buy a pair of shoes, it’s more like I’ve solved a problem than anything else. Shoe-buying is more akin to the satisfaction of washing dishes than writing a great song. And in my experience a lot of woman seem to experience something else when they buy shoes and clothing — something more connected to their sense of well-being.
I am also prepared to say this may not be a gender thing, but I’ve never met any guys who talk of clothing purchases in the same way the women I’ve known have.
Does this help clarify the question?
So I think it’s societal expectations and a sense of control.
For me, I suspect that purchasing goods allows me to have a sense of control over my world. My boss is an incompetent idiot who doesn’t have the skills required to manage me, I nearly got into a car accident because some asshole thinks my lane is inching along slightly faster than his lane, I am middle class and thus in very grave danger of losing my entire life savings at some point ensuring that I end my days in a dodgy retirement home where the staff steal from me and slap me around. But these shoes are awesome. I can imagine them paired with several different outfits. I know they will generate at least 3 compliments. And they are pretty. I will smile every time I see these shoes on my feet. And I’m middle class. So I can afford them. Guaranteed satisfaction.
As to why women care more for shoes than men, I suspect that may relate back to societal expectations for women. I would hypothesize that women are still evaluated on their physical presentation in a way that men are not. (For proof of this I offer up the business suit which is basically a standardized uniform with little room for personal customization. Or the ubiquitous corporate zipped fleecy.)
There is still a lot of pressure on women to be fashionable. Look at the media coverage of Michelle Obama post inauguration day. 95% of the coverage was on her outfits with a slim 5% talking about possible projects she may take on as First Lady. Michelle Obama simply can’t get away with only having 5 pairs of sensible shoes.
In that way buying shoes is almost a measure of success as a human being.
Thanks Amanda! What you say makes a lot of sense and is helpful!
I think that guy Michael wants us to buy some clogs.
I agree with Amanda’s last post, 100%. And agree, pants shopping sucks arse – every. damn. time.
One other thing about shoes is that they are more of a constant. Because they aren’t tied to size, they won’t let you down, like your pants will, by making you feel great one day and then crappy the next. They are unconditional!
Despite my cold and brutal disposition, I do generally like to give people the benefit of the doubt. If Michael’s post is genuine, I think he might have some useful insights. Even from a pure marketing perspective, he would be much more likely to generate meaningful traffic to his commercial site if he actually engaged in the discussions upon which he comments. Even so, there is a very real possibility that this post may be the work of a spam-bot and managed to sneak through WordPress’s top-notch comment filters.
When random strangers start using Sterling’s blog as a marketing platform, I think it’s safe to say that we have entered a new era. Sterling’s blog has officially come of age. Funny how it was the shoe post rather than the political philosophy that did it huh?
I like your optimism but we shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves. : ) When WordPress starts posting third party adverts on my site, then we know I’ve hit the big time.
I doubt anyone is still monitoring this thread but a thought about shoes occurred to me today – more specifically, comfortable, dowdy shoes and the women who wear them. I am almost ashamed to admit this but when I see a middle aged lady in dowdy/comfy/practical shoes, the reaction I have is one almost like anger, mixed with contempt. Like I said – I am very un-proud of this. But to me her shoes symbolize her oppression via domesticity. In my twisted thinking she is probably a women who spent every bit of free time attending to the needs of her family, and has very little time/energy to devote to her own pleasures and whims. She wears comfy shoes because she’s always schlepping after something/someone and these shoes work for her. Self-sacrifice upon the altar of domesticity has never struck me as a particularly admirable trait – in fact I clearly find it somewhat reprehensible, and that is what those dowdy shoes represent to me. The irony is of course that the pointy toe stiletos that to me represent independence and freedom from old-fashioned and patriarchal ideas of domesticity are also very much a reflection of a patriarchal vision of female allure – another cage/trap, if you will. In short, its a dilly of a pickle.
I’m still monitoring! 🙂 Plus, a very honest and useful observation to add to the thread!
Your comment reminds me of my friend Edythe’s view on shoes — who is older than middle-aged and wears only comfortable footwear. She sees high heels as a way to symbolically turn women into more accessible prey because tottering around in those heels a woman is less able to run away from a predator — which for humans is of course almost always other human males. Although, thinking from that perspective, heels could be a symbol of a woman’s safety. Perhaps, initially they were worn because it was a symbol the woman was so well-protected by her family/ partner she could risk tottering around on heels. So maybe now some women have internalized that idea by saying, look, I can wear heels and not worry about being vulnerable because I am so independent (i.e. can afford buy them, to drive, to take cabs, etc.)
At any rate, it points to at least one interesting question: Why were the vast majority of feminists against heels originally and what has changed such that a lot more feminists regard heels as empowering — or at least not problematic?
I wonder also if your reaction is caused by ye old domestic slave vs. courtesan slave dichotomy (mother or independent (wage slave) woman)? Are women still trapped in this either-or situation or is it relevant only to some woman from a specific generation?
Another thought: it could be that you are also caught up in the care of others vs. care of self dichotomy–that is, the thought that a person can only live a life of devotion to others or a life of self-cultivation. And I don’t see this as a specifically gendered issue but your experience of it obviously is. Moreover, I think it was the feminists who managed to convince me — as male — this dichotomy is false particularly when it come to family and child-rearing.
It also points to that other cautionary note: one has to be careful not to interpret other people’s behavior based on the assumption that person is much like oneself.
Thanks awesome follow-up comment!
As long as you comment on a thread it will never die 🙂
It sounds like you are falling into classic identity politics here. A whole lot of assumptions are being made about an individual based on footwear. We all fall into this behaviour to some degree (judging based on little concrete information) and your questioning of your own motives in this case, I think is useful (for yourself and others).
It’s a very interesting observation, as there was a time when wearing “feminine shoes” would have been seen as repressive (shoes worn to attract the male gaze). Dowdy shoes would have been seen as resisting this. This is probably why many of the girls of my generation also wore Doc Martins in the 90’s.
My advice: acknowledge the anger, understand where it’s coming from, and then let it go. Remind yourself that you don’t actually know the individual at all and the narrative you have constructed about the individual is your own creation. I’m trying to work on this myself. I am highly intuitive. Often my intuitions are correct and I refuse to disregard this mode of thinking as it has proven highly useful to me over my life; however, many times my intuitions are also way off. While I can’t stop “thin-slicing” with my intuition, I can and should be a little more suspicious of it and weight for more concrete information.
I understand your conflict and I share a similar struggle and it is a pickle. No easy way out. It will take work.
God, I wish I had an editing function. 🙂
That should read “wait”. I seem to make
a ton of errors in these posts. Oh well,
Live and let typo 🙂
You are both right that I should be careful not to read to much into the comfy shoe choices of other women. I know how irrational it sounds – in fact I am kind of taken aback how forcefully the little flash of anger/contempt sneaks up on me sometimes. I know how false my assumption might be.
Sterling I have highly suspicious (as you know) of the care-of-others framework. This is not just my experience/perception of it. I have seen far, far too many women used/damaged by a feeling of obligation to care more for others than themselves. It was not necessarily because they wanted to conduct their lives that way – it was the feeling that that was the way it had to be. And this is not a generational thing. I know plenty of women my own age who feel trapped by this obligation. It is highly problematic when one gender is more steered toward other-care than the other, especially when other care yields so little economic and social status.
It is great though that you can be honest about it. That’s crucial. Given your suspicions and the problematic nature of women’s carework right now, I guess this is the natural question for me: since, on my account of cultural history, it is the feminists who convinced me that a male can and should and will be better off if he leave the care of self vs care of others dichotomy behind, how have women managed to fall back into it / never escape it?
I should add that Sterling I don’t disagree with you in principle. I guess that it is just that this historical moment the issue of women’s carework is highly problematic. HIGHLY!
[…] Posted on May 15, 2009. Filed under: Fashion | Tags: archetype, external archetype, Fashion, grunge, men’s fashion, mod, Movement, personal identity, personality test, Sterling Lynch, uniform, uniforms, What does fashion mean, women’s fashion | The good ol’ PPBP put in a request for a fashion-focussed post and thoughtfully suggested the question: “What is your uniform?” I can’t say no to my biggest fan and she was even crafty enough to launch the request via Twitter, knowing that I am a social media junkie and would be compelled to encourage such behavior with positive reinforcement. At any rate, it is an awesome suggestion for a post because it nicely ties together a lot of topics of conversation we’ve had around here (Myers-Briggs, Internal Archetypes, Women’s Shoes). […]
I like shoes, but then I like clothes, and the nature of the feminine wardrobe is such that unless one wears either an actual or a self-created “uniform”, one needs something like “the right” shoes to make one’s outfit complete. (There might be some kind of digression to make here, about how women’s self-image is culturally more defined by others’ perception of us, and thus the creation of an image, through our costume, has more significance than it does for most men.)
I probably fall in some kind of overlap area among all your categories (including Silly Sock Girls), since I can be any or all of them on a given day. No matter what, though, my first priority is comfort – you might indeed see me in four-inch platforms, but only if I can actually walk in them. Shoes that fail the walk or blister test either don’t come home with me in the first place, or quickly move on. (And winter, as a Canadian, is a time for boots, and not heeled boots either.) I have many costumes.
PaperBag Princess, if you ever meet my mother, I wouldn’t recommend expounding your theory to her! She is German, and practical, and doesn’t think about her shoes or clothes EXCEPT in that she wants them untroubling enough that she doesn’t have to think about them.
But it isn’t all women who have shoe obsessions, by any means, although it does tend to confine itself to the more metrosexual groups of the male gender, in my experience. I’m sure in the 18th century, when men’s shoes could get as exciting as women’s, what with the diamond buckles and red Cordoban heels, men were far more “into” shoes than they are now, when a lavishly pointed toe on a Fluevog is edgy.
Katharine! Thanks for reading and your insightful response.
Your point about 18th century fashion is well made. It makes me wonder then what happened historically and culturally such that men — for a time — gave up on the concern for flashy shoes. Large scale war perhaps? One style of shoe / boot for all probably became the standard pretty quick, even for the aristocracy. Maybe, it is no accident that “the metrosexual” is arising at a time when far fewer men need to spend any time enlisted in the military.