The High Heeled Ruminations Of Melrose Plant

[mlroseplant]

I actually wore my high heeled boots to the grocery store yesterday, knowing full well the potential to wind up on my backside once I hit the slick tile floor. Didn't happen. However, wow, am I out of practice. I felt like I should have warmed up or something before I headed out. I keep saying that I'm going to work to improve my ankle flexibility, but I never do.

As a complete aside, I wonder what shoes I will end up wearing to Vietnam? I really don't have any these days that aren't completely beat up.

[Bubba136]

1 hour ago, mlroseplant said:

I actually wore my high heeled boots to the grocery store yesterday, knowing full well the potential to wind up on my backside once I hit the slick tile floor. Didn't happen. However, wow, am I out of practice. I felt like I should have warmed up or something before I headed out. I keep saying that I'm going to work to improve my ankle flexibility, but I never do.

As a complete aside, I wonder what shoes I will end up wearing to Vietnam? I really don't have any these days that aren't completely beat up.

I recently solved a similar problem by buying a couple of pair of low heel shoes from the women’s side that look unisex.  A pair of penny loafers and a pair of ankle boots that pass for men’s style.  Wore the boots to church last Sunday and the loafers to a funeral on Wednesday.  Only I knew they were women’s shoes.   And, there is always the buying of tennis shoes from the women’s side.  They would also be comfortable for traveling.

[Shyheels]

I have several pair of low-heeled knee and OTK boots for when heels are inappropriate for whatever reason. A couple of them are feminine in styling, but the others are old-fashioned motorcycle or engineering boots. I’m not that fussed about which side of the shop my boots come from. I’d buy trainers from the women’s aisle if the colours exerted a strong appeal but I would not make a special point of shopping there

[Cali]

I only buy women's shoes now. Men's shoes don't fit my foot type and therefore caused years of injuries before I switched.

[mlroseplant]

It's not that I don't have or can't get shoes, I just don't want to bother with something I'll wear for 2 weeks, and then never again. Perhaps I need to dig out what I wore 5 years ago to see if they're at all serviceable and somewhat attractive.

[Puffer]

On 1/21/2024 at 1:09 PM, Bubba136 said:

I recently solved a similar problem by buying a couple of pair of low heel shoes from the women’s side that look unisex.  A pair of penny loafers and a pair of ankle boots that pass for men’s style.  Wore the boots to church last Sunday and the loafers to a funeral on Wednesday.  Only I knew they were women’s shoes.   And, there is always the buying of tennis shoes from the women’s side.  They would also be comfortable for traveling.

If the new footwear looks unisex and passes for men's style, why did you buy from the women's side rather than the men's equivalents?   Is it because they fit or look better, or simply because you want to wear 'women's' footwear exclusively?

[pebblesf]

14 hours ago, mlroseplant said:

It's not that I don't have or can't get shoes, I just don't want to bother with something I'll wear for 2 weeks, and then never again. Perhaps I need to dig out what I wore 5 years ago to see if they're at all serviceable and somewhat attractive.

It's always great to rediscover heels/boots you haven't seen in awhile...

[Shyheels]

1 minute ago, pebblesf said:

It's always great to rediscover heels/boots you haven't seen in awhile...

Yes! I’m just rediscovering a pair of lovely dark grey suede OTK boots with 3-inch blocky heels that had been in the back of my wardrobe - and wondering why I’ve not been wearing them lots 

[Mr. X]

2 hours ago, pebblesf said:

It's always great to rediscover heels/boots you haven't seen in awhile...

Most of mine are stored in bins, so I rediscover all the time.  I find stuff I forgot I even  purchased.

Edited January 23 by Mr. X

[Bubba136]

4 hours ago, Puffer said:

If the new footwear looks unisex and passes for men's style, why did you buy from the women's side rather than the men's equivalents?   Is it because they fit or look better, or simply because you want to wear 'women's' footwear exclusively?

It’s my desire to wear only women’s shoes.  I don’t own any men shoes.  Women’s shoe lasts fit my feet better.  Besides there are events where a man wearing high heels would be inappropriate.  And I am not a person that would want to call attention towards myself while attending such events.

Female fashions have appropriated many characteristics of men’s clothing in the past few years making it difficult to tell if that particular shirt, blue jeans or jacket is meant for male or female wear.  There is enough similarities between male and female outer clothing that blend gender styles together to a point that the individual wearing the particular garment doesn’t raise any eyebrows.

[Shyheels]

It never ceases to amaze me the stubbornness and implacability of marketers who insist on gendering every  conceivable thing that might be worn / even mens and women’s daypacks and laptop bags! The only difference is colour, bit if some marketer has put a women’s label on it, marking something as feminine, no man will go near it … weird 

[Puffer]

What Bubba136 and Shyheels say about gender-specific or unisex clothing makes perfect sense; too much regard is paid to labels and not nearly enough to style, fit and choice.

Bubba rightly reminds us of the many 'male' items of clothing that have been 'borrowed' (and in some cases adapted) for female wear.   Loafers are a prime example: originally a casual men's shoe, copied and widely worn by women and which can have a heel ranging from nearly flat to a high slim stack, and sometimes with a platform too.   A timeless so-called women's style that is eminently suitable for men to take back and wear with confidence.   The pics below show just two examples - variations are almost endless:

[mlroseplant]

12 hours ago, Puffer said:

If the new footwear looks unisex and passes for men's style, why did you buy from the women's side rather than the men's equivalents?   Is it because they fit or look better, or simply because you want to wear 'women's' footwear exclusively?

If it's unisex looking, I don't care whether it's labeled for men or for women, or neither. I can tell you that I haven't bought men's shoes for a decade, simply because I have a short and narrow foot. Therefore, the exact same style works better for me in USW 9B than it does in USM 7D. Technically, I'm a B-and-a-half width.

I did dig out the Eastland loafer-esque sort of casual shoes that I wore to Vietnam the last time. With a little TLC, they should be quite adequate for the job. They are technically "women's" shoes, but my wife has never mentioned anything about them, so  they must pass well. On the other hand, I bought these Nike "cheer" shoes on a whim, simply because I didn't have any decent looking sports shoes, and I thought these were kind of edgy in my own way. My wife thinks they're absolutely great! I don't think she has the foggiest clue as to what they're actually for.

In case anybody is interested, the cheerleader shoes look like they have a split sole with no shank--the idea of which kind of intrigued me when I bought them. However, this is a mere aesthetic feature--the sole is stiff all the way down the foot.

[Bubba136]

2 hours ago, mlroseplant said:

If it's unisex looking, I don't care whether it's labeled for men or for women, or neither. I can tell you that I haven't bought men's shoes for a decade, simply because I have a short and narrow foot. Therefore, the exact same style works better for me in USW 9B than it does in USM 7D. Technically, I'm a B-and-a-half width.

I did dig out the Eastland loafer-esque sort of casual shoes that I wore to Vietnam the last time. With a little TLC, they should be quite adequate for the job. They are technically "women's" shoes, but my wife has never mentioned anything about them, so  they must pass well. On the other hand, I bought these Nike "cheer" shoes on a whim, simply because I didn't have any decent looking sports shoes, and I thought these were kind of edgy in my own way. My wife thinks they're absolutely great! I don't think she has the foggiest clue as to what they're actually for.

In case anybody is interested, the cheerleader shoes look like they have a split sole with no shank--the idea of which kind of intrigued me when I bought them. However, this is a mere aesthetic feature--the sole is stiff all the way down the foot.

The examples shown by both Puffer and Mlroseplant successfully illustrate my point.  The loafers shown by Puffer would never be considered as men’s shoes because of the height of the heels and crinkle appearance of the leather on the pair with the lower heels.  The examples offered by Mlrose,on the other hand, while purchased from the women’s side, could also be considered as male footwear.  Thanks guys.

[bluejay]

7 hours ago, Puffer said:

What Bubba136 and Shyheels say about gender-specific or unisex clothing makes perfect sense; too much regard is paid to labels and not nearly enough to style, fit and choice.

Bubba rightly reminds us of the many 'male' items of clothing that have been 'borrowed' (and in some cases adapted) for female wear.   Loafers are a prime example: originally a casual men's shoe, copied and widely worn by women and which can have a heel ranging from nearly flat to a high slim stack, and sometimes with a platform too.   A timeless so-called women's style that is eminently suitable for men to take back and wear with confidence.   The pics below show just two examples - variations are almost endless:

 

These are styes that I regularly wear. I like the loafer look and since they are heels, all well and good.

Happy Heeling,

bluejay

 

[HappyinHeels]

I read with interest the points made about the recalcitrance of manufacturers to deviate from gender labels. I think it has a lot to with how efficiently the internet searches things. What many of us see if how women appropriate items from the men for their own use and the world just accepts it. Since women are 75% of clothing and shoe sales across North America , USA, Canada + Mexico, their influence is enormous. It makes whatever men are doing much less noticeable. There has been a blending of men’s and women’s fashion in practice but many companies still stick to their traditional labels I think because of the internet. HinH

[Shyheels]

Cycling has been one area where colours at least are not at all gendered. Pink has long been a popular colour in cycling - often paired with black - in both men and women’s clothing. I’ve seen floral cycling jerseys lately - from high end companies - and been pleasantly surprised to see them marketed to men as well as women, with no distinction whatever - the sole difference being subtleties in tailoring.

I’ve no interest in wearing women’s clothing, but I do like the broad range of colours, especially pastels, that are available to them and the stubborn unwillingness of manufacturers to make these more interesting shades and colours available to men is what annoys me.  

 

[mlroseplant]

I think I'm back! We'll see how I feel by next Monday, but the sinus pain I've endured for the last three weeks appears to be gone.

I had a committee meeting at the church last night, and I got a message from the chair during the day, asking if I'd mind climbing on a ladder in order to take the Christmas trees that are (were) in the sanctuary down, as part of our activities. As a result, I hemmed and hawed around, and finally decided to wear flat boots to the meeting. Not completely flat, but essentially flat. I mentioned this when it ended up that I didn't have to step one foot on a ladder. I don't think that fellow appreciated how grumpy I was having worn flats when it wasn't necessary.

[Shyheels]

Yes, but had you worn heels you can bet you’d have had to go up that ladder!

[mlroseplant]

Speaking of boots, I actually got some new ones yesterday, the details of which are listed in the "New Boots" thread. Of course, now that I have shearling lined boots, no snow is predicted at all for the next ten days.

[Shyheels]

I really like those - just my style and shearling lined would be a big plus. We don’t get the super cold temperatures you do, but it’s raw and damp and those look perfect - and stylish 

[mlroseplant]

I actually did the "chick" thing yesterday, and wore sandals with a heavy coat to the grocery store yesterday. Evidently, I am not the only one who has warm feet. I am feeling much better the last couple of days. I might actually survive my outside assignment at work in the coming week.

[Shyheels]

Having become used to warm ankles and calves since I’ve taken to wear knee and OTK boots, I hardly ever wear anything else 

[Mr. X]

On 1/23/2024 at 12:37 AM, Shyheels said:

It never ceases to amaze me the stubbornness and implacability of marketers who insist on gendering every  conceivable thing that might be worn / even mens and women’s daypacks and laptop bags! The only difference is colour, bit if some marketer has put a women’s label on it, marking something as feminine, no man will go near it … weird 

And the stupid thing is.  The women's equivilent is usually cheaper!

[Shyheels]

Yes, very often it is.

My big peeve about it all is the range of interesting shades and colours that are offered to women, especially in outdoor gear, while my tastes, as a man, are assumed to be stunted, limited to black, dark blue, pine green or brick red. 

[Cali]

2 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Yes, very often it is.

My big peeve about it all is the range of interesting shades and colours that are offered to women, especially in outdoor gear, while my tastes, as a man, are assumed to be stunted, limited to black, dark blue, pine green or brick red. 

What's stopping you?

[Shyheels]

5 minutes ago, Cali said:

What's stopping you?

Nothing. Other than the sizing on occasion. I buy the colours I like. It just offends me that there is this sweeping assumption that as a man my aesthetic is so limited. 

[Puffer]

6 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Yes, very often it is.

My big peeve about it all is the range of interesting shades and colours that are offered to women, especially in outdoor gear, while my tastes, as a man, are assumed to be stunted, limited to black, dark blue, pine green or brick red. 

What a joy it is when something in brown or grey comes along!   😍 

[mlroseplant]

I had the weirdest shoe failure I've ever experienced in my life yesterday. As you can see below, my heel snapped clean in half while out for my Sunday morning constitutional. There was no precipitating event, no stumble, no trip, no step in a hole, it just broke suddenly. Naturally, it broke when I was every bit of a mile away from home. I came this close to calling my wife, but I chose to tiptoe all the way back home. I'm sure I looked a bit strange, as I was unable to keep a completely natural gait. Of course, the sun had risen by that time, so I was quite easy to spot from a distance. However, the broken heel only slowed me down by three minute for the last mile home. I was very surprised. It felt like it was taking forever to make it home. The GPS said otherwise.

As many of you might recall, these are my most durable shoes, and I just spent 50 bucks getting them reheeled and resoled. I believe I said it out loud, which probably jinxed it, "You watch. Now that I've had these things refurbished, they will break on me somehow." They made it 196.1 miles in total, 195 of which were quite wonderful. I shall miss them.

[Shyheels]

That’s a really weird break. And rotten luck.