Modern Women's Footwear Sucks

Coming from a man, the above title may seem a bit...strange. But having now suffered the visual and aural assault of the latest (and once believed unprecedented, foolish me) round of women's shoes for almost a year, it's time to vent.

Specifically, I'm speaking of the shoe style that lacks a backstrap. At least that's my name for it. Those more technically astute should feel free to post a clarification. It's the part of the shoe that covers or otherwise anchors the shoe to the heel. For those of you who are not foot fetishists, just think "slipper".

Removing the backstrap admittedly produces a very sleek and minimalist shoe -- two traits admirable in most anything purchased for looks. But let's not forget the trade-off in function and aesthetics to the part of the body the shoe is designed to serve -- the foot.

One thing I've noticed with the "slippers" is that more women have uglier heels and Achilles' tendons than originally believed. Some are just plain fat, and usually come with an equally repugnant set of fat toes; but these women cannot be helped, as they'll always strut around in something way too skimpy for their bodies anyway.

Others seem to suffer from the problem that I have with my heel area -- heavy lines and splotchy, strangely colored skin. I assume it's my age that causes the lines, and my British Isles ancestry that produces the splotchy, pink-and-white-with-red-cracks skin around the heel that reminds one of a red-faced Swede after a night of bar-crawling.

But we of the fair skin are by no means alone in transgression. I fear that until it becomes fashionable to reveal two or more skin colors on the same body (other than freckles -- and even that has some limitations), exposing the melanin-poor parts of the foot will always draw stares of the clinical kind. Sisters of the world, take note.

About the only women who seem immune from the visual problems are Asians and others with light skin coloring. Halle Berry would probably look OK.

But my larger peeve is with the sound made by "slippers" -- did everyone forget what the word "flip-flop" means? It's means the Clydesdale "clop-clop" with the duck's "splish-splash" -- and it's exactly the sound produced when the shoe slaps the sole of the foot.

FLIPFLOP. FLIPFLOPFLIPFLOP. FLIPFLOPFLIPFLOPFLIPFLOP. And so on.

(Note: Cut-and-paste really takes the joy out of filling several pages with "FLIPFLOP"s -- it's just too easy.)

(Note: By the way, when did it become fashionable to wear two-inch think flip-flops? I mean literally -- not the "slippers" mentioned in this article.)

And it's everywhere. In the office and on the street. It's unbearable.

Some Good From All This...

Besides its' sleekness, the "slipper" is easier to dangle from one's toes, which I do find sexy on sexy feet.

At one time I thought the only true defense of the "slipper" is that it was at least novel -- uh-uh. This weekend Spike TV was playing "Dr. No" and guess what? The girl in the Chemin de Fer scene (in every movie, it's where we first meet Bond -- and it's always somewhere swank and/or dangerous) is wearing a pair of "slippers" in a later scene. There truly is nothing new under the sun.

What Goes Through My Head When I'm Not Campaigning

Who really cares if I get on the ballot?

It just occured to me that it's likely no one besides myself and a few friends would actually care if I made it on the ballot. Sad, because if it had more gravity and structure it would make a good story.

A good story would have a proper set-up, about how I got into running for State House and why I'm still trying.

Let's say I meet a girl at some political function, and we're sitting next to each other, sharing politics and maybe more. She wants to know what's going on with my signature drive.

Next it's me walking through some neighborhood, while neighbors give me guff about signing petitions, the state of the world, whatever --

Them: "I don't know you."
Me: "Do you know my opponent?"
Silence.

More later.