Skip to main content

like a gauntlet thrown at my very feet


ok, we've all heard the jokes about women and shoes. it's one of the "girliest" vices a woman can have. long ago, around the time that my mother started calling me "imelda" in high school, i learned to shrug off the mockery. the argument seems to be that they're frivolous (unlike 50" television screens) or that they're a waste of money (unlike gambling or lotteries) or that there's no way they could all have a practical use (unlike, say, well, almost anything we consciously choose to do). i am a woman with a very large shoe collection and dammit, i'm proud.

i never suspected i was the only one who felt this, but i did think that i was one of the few who could come up with cogent arguments as to why the process of self-indulgence is important, that allowing oneself to have things that can be enjoyed on a purely sensual level is an important part of the brain's reward system and that suppressing this urge will pervert it and make it come out in other ways (like just about every other urge we try to suppress).

but it's been called to my attention that one woman is making a very practical case as to why she has so many shoes: because she wears them all.

and she's chosen to document this blog style on elie's shoes.

well gee, i never thought about doing a photo essay as justification. how ludicrously simple. disprove the argument that my little darlings are impractical by showing me making practical use of them.

now all of a sudden, my high-toned arguments sound a lot like that super-space aged pen that the americans developed, the one that could write upside down, so the astronauts could use it in zero gravity. after investing millions of dollars, they found out that the russians used a pencil.

Comments

Martin Rouge said…
Darling, the reason you need so many different shoes is that you need to accessorize the pedestals you need to stand on. If they dont get that, then they dont understand the concept of divinity :D

as long as you're here, why not read more?

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…