haha maaaan, if there's one thing that can totally alienate me from something being "feminine" it's shoes. I HATE shoes. Hate them. You know why? Because shoes, and shoe designers hate me.

I wear a womens' size ten wide.

Do you know how small the selection is for wide feet? It's not nonexistant, but it's pretty limiting. Even if I wanted to, I couldn't wear most strappy sandals because they're so thin it kills my feet. I also can't wear those god-forsaken ballet-style flats that have been in style (please please let them go away soon) because they don't come high enough on the top of my foot, and I'm stuck clinging with my toes and killing my arches so they don't come off. And like all fashions, evidently, the industry can't seem to fathom that some people want things that are not currently in style. Last year I was looking for a pair of nice shoes that would be appropriate at a nice party with people dressed up, and I could find NOTHING that came up high enough on my foot because the toe-revealing thing was in style.

I hate shoes so much. Any advertising that assumes I must love them has no business of mine.

/just-woke-up rant in first comment

I really don't care much about shoes either. I'm in Samantha C's boat of wearing a size 11, probably wide, though I can get away with regular. Most "dressy" shoes are just out of bounds for my feet. I stick to flops, sneakers, and my recent discovery of Crocs.

PLUS, I have issue with the whole "women should be obsessed with shoes and purses" thing because certain shoe styles (especially "sexy" heels) are damaging to back health. I've talked to women before who say they wear heels so often that they can't wear flat shoes anymore, I'm reminded of the poor women of ancient China who had their feet bound so that they were terribly mutilated.

Anyway, the point is, the above advertisements are ridiculous. The "healthy" vitamin water paired with obsessive focus on shoes and particularly the pairing with the sexy heel just reminds me too much of how obsessiveness with weight and image = sexy to so much of women's marketing.

I hate that stereotype. To me, shoes are something to keep my feet dry and let me run without injury. And purses? I tend to carry one for as long as it will hold up. I guess I better hand in my femininity card!

Between moving to a place where it snows and entering the business casual/business formal job world, I've had to get a lot more shoes. But when I was younger and lived in a place with great weather, I just had a pair of sneakers, a pair of dress shoes, and a pair of older sneakers for the gym.

No offense to anyone, but I've never understood the idea of loving shoes (except as a fetish). Why would you want way more shoes than you actually need? Plus, the most stylish shoes are very uncomfortable and bad for your feet.

This and my preference for beer over white wine may well suggest that I'm a repressed transman ;)

To derail the usual direction of these comments - I actually do like shoes. I kind of like purses too. However, that doesn't change the fact that these ads make me too want to hurl. Perhaps it's because I don't buy the expensive ones, but I doubt it. But really, "Everything a woman wants"? "Shopping takes concentration" (in pink no less)? Have these advertiser ever met a woman? I don't know a single person who would be attracted by these slogans.

Wow.

I LOOOOOOVE cute shoes. I have more than a few. I like dressing up and makeup and all that stuff.

But I'm still offended. Just because I like shoes doesn't mean I'm an idiot or don't have other interests/desires.

Obligatory TV Tropes link.

For my part, I only wear heels when it's a social obligation because of knee problems. Otherwise I rock biker boots, converse/vans/vintage style Chinese cloth sneakers and thong sandals in summer.

I'm a heterosexual male who cares more about this stuff than most women. Where's my denigration, damn it!

I hate stereotypes and stupid gender expectations, especially when exploited by advertising and media. I'm not a girly girl and I don't enjoy shopping...it's a loathsome chore I do under duress (wedding, funeral, formal event, interview to prepare for). I buy staples (jeans and casual clothes) online or from Target/Old Navy and thank goodness I work in a geeky uber-casual profession where I can dress down every day. I do have a bunch of running shoes and a few pairs of favorite high heels for going out, but I do NOT swoon over shoe shopping. And I know there are a lot of women with similar sentiments.

However, I do see that shoes and purses may be so popular as women's fashion items because they can be worn/used in many outfits or in different ways (vs one dress or a pair of pants in a cut that may not stay in style for a decade) AND because these items do not depend as much on body type and weight as does clothing. Women of any size or shape can go try on shoes without the whole host of body shame that comes with trying on clothes in a poorly lit dressing room or not being able to find something that fits remotely right.

am i the only person who saw that first photo and thought this was going to be an article about subliminal phalli in advertising?

I have a couple of stipulations on shoes: will they cripple me? and can i escape from a burning building in them? What more do I need to think about? Really??? I mean, beyond that, why should I even begin to care? It's a SHOE.

I love shoes, but I find shopping exhausting fairly quickly. But I don't think vitamin water would be enough to keep me going. I think it would take like... 2 coffees and a couple of shots.

I LOVE shoes though. I love purses too. Sometimes I feel like I am a bad feminist for being super stereotypically female, though.

I have a spreadsheet open in another window comparing the price, attractiveness, versatility, etc. of fall clothing items I'm interested in from various online stores, and it includes a section on suede lace-up ankle boots. However, that has more to do with spreadsheet obsession than shoe obsession, I think.

It's problematic when the assumption is that every women loves shoes, but I suspect there is a significant population of women that loves shoes. It makes sense to play to the audience at a show store, but you have to wonder about vitamin water.

There's also a stigma of shallowness attached to it. There are lots of people who drool over material items. (I think of male coworkers discussing HDTVs and cars.) But women tend to get branded as shallow.

I can't believe that in 40+ comments no one has pointed this out. Shouldn't it be "there are" not "they're"?

Shoes hate everyone.

http://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/

I really don't understand why feminists try and dichotomize between this type of "femininity" and a strong, intelligent and capable woman? Great that you're not into shoes or purses, but is a woman who is- a negative thing by default?

While that Vitamin Water ad makes me feel tired, you know what else I'm tired of? The idea that being interested in fashion makes you automatically vapid. I like shoes AND purses! Big freakin' deal. I like impractical footwear.

Some thoughts I had while reading the article and comments ...

I think a lot of the comments here are taking a pretty simplistic view of advertising: that it is *only* (or primarily) designed to create and shape desires and expectations. It does do that, no doubt about it, and I can understand why some might emphasize that aspect of it since this site is (if I understand it correctly) trying to deconstruct and subvert images from our culture and society. However, advertising is also an attempt at trying to reach markets that already exist and satisfy consumer desires that already exist. Does this advertising exist to create desire for purses and shoes in women or does it exist because there is a sizable market of women who already desire purses and shoes? It's impossible to untangle because the two forces are locked into a kind of feedback loop. Aesthetic interest in woman's footwear and clothes existed *long* before advertising was as prevalent or as scientific a discipline as it is today, however, so whatever the root of this desire is it lies much deeper.

It seems to me that something else that is going on here is that people are angry that manufacturers and marketers are focusing on the average consumer in the market they're targeting and not taking outliers into account. I'm referring to the complaints that shoe manufacturers don't make enough wide sizes or that, while many women may be attracted to traditionally feminine products, not all are.

I think part of the answer to this is simply a question of resources. Manufacturers are trying to make a profit and catering to smaller niches of customers doesn't always make financial sense. As the cost of manufacturing goods has come down (through technological advancement and via outsourcing/globalization) we have seen wider ranges of products, niche products, companies that cater to smaller markets, etc. emerge and we will probably see more in the future. Beyond that, however, I'm curious about what people envision as an alternative. Should retailers refrain from using any gender-specific language in their ads? If 95% of a purse retailer's customers (or the end-users of their products) are women should that retailer refrain (either voluntarily or involuntarily) from marketing their product towards women because there is a % of women out there who don't like purses or who don't appreciate the gendered associations being made by the ad?

It seems to me there is an assumption being made in some of the comments that women are only interested in purses/shoes and other "traditionally feminine" products because of advertising, patriarchal social structures, social expectations, etc. and therefore these desires and interests are invalid or inauthentic somehow. This seems to be the case to me because almost all of the comments assumed that the retailers are trying to shape the desires/expectations of women and no one saw the ads as a genuine response to the desires of women and recognition, on the part of the retailer, of the importance and influence that female consumers have in their industry. I don't personally think this assumption (that women are only interested in "traditionally feminine" products because of social manipulation ... and those desires would evaporate in a truly gender-egalitarian society) is true. Yes, many men find high heels sexy. But it seems to me that 'Sex and the City' and 'Mad Men' and the fashion industry (much of which is made up of women and gay men) have done just as much as 'Maxim' or 'Playboy' to create these desires. Also, as women have become more financially independent, they have not, as a whole, retreated from these consumer products and social expectations.

@ Meg

"The root of the problem is the same whichever way it goes"

No, it isn't. The kyriarchy as it stands now is a system of power. The powerful have gained their power through the people beneath them in the heirachy. 'Reverse' sexism/racism etc. is a hit back, it is not a hit at someone whose subordination allows you profit. I get a lot of 'PC' accusations because I don't agree we 'have all been there'. I will never go up to a group of people of, for example, another race and tell them what their de facto rights should be, what is and isn't racist, what their movement should be defined as. That's no ally.

Feminism =/= sneering at fashion, (and the women who enjoy it).

Yes, choosing clothes is a challenging procedure; I have firsthand experience with this when we were shopping for a suitable outfit for his wife. It's challenging to find garments in a variety of colors and styles that are both fashionable and affordable. As a result, I decided to read https://ericdress.pissedconsumer.com/customer-service.html and learn more about it. Such reviews are needed now more than ever to help people make decisions.