Iridescent satin retro tennis-shoes
My wife brought home a pair of these Ash satin tennis-shoes this week -- iridescent green, laced with a length of ribbon. They're just great -- makes me wish they had a men's version.
My wife brought home a pair of these Ash satin tennis-shoes this week -- iridescent green, laced with a length of ribbon. They're just great -- makes me wish they had a men's version.
the latest
latest episodes
Women's fashion annoys me. It's so interesting. I wish someone do something interesting with mens fashion.
Men's fashion is what annoys me -- especially shoes. Thankfully I have a size 10 foot, which is a size 12 women's. When I discovered that small fact, a world of cool shoes was opened up to me. If my wife brought those sneakers home, I'd be asking her to pick me a size 12 next time she's out. Men's clothing choices are just soooo limited.
Now how about glow-in-the-dark-shoes?
Why not just buy them regardless of gender?
Just look at the linked-to site as an example of how abysmal men's shoes are. There are 21 men's shoes, only 2 of which have any color. Yet there are 8 _categories_ of women's shoes. 116 shoes. Versus 21. Zappos is another good example -- the ratio of women's shoes to men's is 3.31.
Crisis?
What crisis?
Those are awesome, with the exception of the price. I think you could probably wear them even if you didn't have a vagina.
+1, Slida. I was about to post the same thing. Step out of your gender role, Cory! Step up to awesome shoes!
Those of us who buy these "retro" style of sneaker/tennis-shoe buy them because they are cheap as well as classic-looking (remember when Chuck Taylors were $20?), so spending 90 British pounds (ahem. . .that's $134 USD) on shoes seems contrary to me (even ignoring that they are likely as flimsy as their canvas cohorts). Of course I have a hard time justifying spending that much on hiking boots that do the very necessary job of preventing twisted ankles when I'm 30 miles from the nearest road, so call me a cheap bastid.
The problem is you have to go try them on, because women's apparel does not even pretend to use any standard of sizing. Men prefer to just buy stuff, which is why our clothes actually are the size they say on the label, and our shoes don't necessarily need trying on (unless they are Italian leather loafers, of course).
My wife says this is because most men don't have a problem walking up to a clerk and saying "give me a couple of those shirts in Extra Thin Bicep, a pair of shoes in size Gunboat, and some pants in size Fat Ass". She says women would rather search all day for the battleship-sized dress by Omar the Tentmaker that's marked "extra petite", so clothing makers have no incentive to use consistent sizing.
Great. Super cute, shiny tennis shoes. Thanks, Cory; now I'm going to badly WANT them.
The only rational thinking I can muster to not immediately buy them is that they look like they would get dirty and damaged very quickly if worn outside and for long periods (like I would end up doing). But they sure are gorgeous!
If a man can wear the F Troupe Canvas Lace Up, a man can wear anything.
Why not just buy them in your size?
Oh, why does everything have to remind me of the 80s anymore? (aka "You're Old") I had a pair of iridescent *purple* satin sneakers as a kid.
tuckels is right. Women's versions always have better color selections than the men's. It is unfair.
Aww, you poor men. You have it so hard. /s
Surely no sane man would buy shoes from a store named "Sniff."
I'm holding out for these. I've been holding out since 1975.
That site has some really nice shoes. Too bad one British pound is worth 0.384 New Zealand dollars. And with 30 pounds shipping, that's NZD312.50. A bit expensive for me.
This could be worn even by men. I remember wearing this kind of shoes in my school, my sister used to wear the same kind too.
@ Antinous ... They make those (or at least very similar ones). I own a pair. Nyah.
There's a sneaker revival subculture going on these days to rival the beginnings back in the early 90's with the Jordans, maybe even moreso now. Nike is the biggest proliferator of the movement, with lots of "limited edition" style sneakers.
Check out SneakerFreaker, KicksOnFire, or NiceKicks (all at their respective .coms). Where I live (St. Louis Delmar Loop area), there were almost as many people in line for the newly released Nike Air Yeezys ( http://is.gd/wCmN ) as there were for free comics. Srsly!
Men's shoe obsession obviously pales in comparison to women's, but it's growing... those complaining about not having a wide color selection, you have no excuse. The only question is whether you have the panache (or cojones) to wear some of them.
Lots of sneaker manufacturers are going in for interesting colors, patterns, and fabrics. Moving away from the complex structures of running shoes has freed up a lot of decorative surface.
If Converse didn't intend us to cross gender designations, they wouldn't have a chart on their site converting men's to women's shoe sizes.
I'm ticked at Converse for discontinuing their gorgeous hightop made of black rubber and olive-green brocade. I managed to track down one remaining pair, but the vendor's in Australia and won't ship to the US.
Woe.
@22 - crossing gender designations does seem (to me) to be a one-way street. Women can cross the aisle to wear anything labeled "Men's" and it is not only socially acceptable, but often desirable. For a man to cross the aisle and pick up something with a hint of style (especially if it has any feminine connotations, at all) would generally be considered socially unacceptable.
That said, for me, I will not deny myself a simple pleasure simply because a label reads 'W', and not 'M'. I will wear a cool pair of women's shoes, or flared jeans, or even (gasp!) a stylin' blouse if it fits and looks nice.
Interesting, what an interesting discussion can be provoked from a simple posting about a pair of sneakers!