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?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

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 …