Illustration by Seamus Gallagher
Anna: Boy, I’m tired, Haley! Ask me why I’m so tired.
Haley: Why are you so tired, Anna?
Anna: WELL. I was up late the other night watching a pretty exciting filibuster. Then I was on my feet all day working. I have a day job in retail–I’m not just the beautiful writer you see before you. When you’re on your feet, you’ve gotta have some good footwear, and…I’m really tired, I’m just trying to come up with a good transition.
Haley: Good transition!
Anna: Thank you.
Haley: And see, now we’re talking about sneakers and filibusters! So. What I liked about the fact that Wendy Davis came to the floor of the Texas Senate wearing sneakers, was that it was one of those moments where the choice of clothing highlighted her intentions.
Anna: Right.
Haley: She came prepared to do what had to get done, you know?
Anna: Mm-hmm.
Haley: It was a very prominent symbol. A woman in politics wouldn’t usually pair her nice, tasteful blazer and matching skirt with sneakers.
Anna: I just loved the way it looked. I loved seeing the way she styled it, from that formal suit to these bright pink beautiful shoes. It had me thinking about the way women’s business wear is designed, and I think about–to be fair, it’s not like men show up to work in sweats and whatnot, but they have nothing that really matches the discomfort of heels. And I love high heels, and I am a high heel apologist, but they’re not really suitable for standing on your feet for long periods of time. Heels, man!
Haley: Yeah! The patriarchy! And speaking of patriarchy–in this instance specifically, but obviously I always love talking about the patriarchy–there was so much conversation, as soon as Wendy started talking, that connected to her sneakers. And that’s something I did love, because it was an example of people thinking critically about shoes beyond, “Oh well, these are just something you use to cover your feet.” These sneakers meant something. They meant that she was there for business and not stupid shitty normal politics business. She was standing on her feet, no matter what, to defeat this bill.
Anna: I think it’s a question of how we approach talking about the sneakers, so we’re not discussing what a woman who happens to be a public figure wore at the expense of what she said. Hillary Clinton has said that if she wants to make the front page of the news, she just has to change her hairstyle. If Senator Davis wants to make the cover of the New York Times, she has to wear pink sneakers. But the sneakers she was wearing were nice, new, and they were hot pink, and wearing them was such a conscious decision.
Obviously she was aware she was going to be looked at, and I think that was such a powerful decision to make, to be unapologetically feminine about it. Because she is a woman in a room filled with men, she is a woman trying to take power back from men, she is a woman telling the stories of other women, spending thirteen hours talking to stop the bill, and she’s doing it in bright pink shoes, which is kind of awesome. I’m trying to think of a better word.
Haley: I think awesome is exactly right. I want to talk about how sneakers themselves are funny, because sneakers are a kind of nothing item. Sneakers and jeans and t-shirts, they’re default clothing items. But in this instance, they really stood out as unusual. Sneakers, to me, have always seemed like the type of item that really depend on their context, like jeans, which can be just blue cotton and can also retail for $400.
I feel like I tend to think of sneakers as something you wear when you’re commuting on the subway and, say, carrying your heels in your purse to your office job. Thats what sneakers are intended for, I think, if you’re a certain type of working woman. They’re for working out and other practical things. But on the flip side, the last time I was in SoHo, I was going to go to the Nike store just to look around and I couldn’t even get in. There was a line of people around the block waiting for the release of some premium sneaker, you know, for the status of it. There is a long-documented history of sneaker culture and sneakers as status symbols. I just love the way all these different parallels can exist in this one kind of shoe, and I also love how that would have been lost if Senator Davis had just worn a pair of loafers instead.
Anna: Right.
Haley: Which would have been equally comfortable, maybe, but wouldn’t have had the same significance.
Anna: Up until a couple of years ago, I didn’t even have a pair of sneakers. My casual shoes were just flats or boots. But when I was waitressing, I finally went out and bought a pair of black Pumas. My current retail job is at a two-story bookstore, and I have to carry a lot of heavy boxes of books. I wear cute dresses to work, but I’ll usually wear my Pumas with them. Last month, when I went on this first date with this guy, I wanted to look cool but I was coming straight from work. I had this new skirt, I had my makeup done and this cute shirt on, and I wore it with my sneakers. Just one of those things where I was thinking, “I am a busy business woman who works several jobs to support my creative endeavors, so I’m going to wear these shoes even when I go out.” They’re not hot pink, but they’re necessary to get my job done. Buying those sneakers was the first time in a long time that I bought clothes for purely practical reasons.
Haley: But it automatically became a fashion item for you, because you’re just a fashion person.
Anna: Yes! Because I needed something to wear to a date downtown, but now they’re also something I regularly wear to WORN–my fashion magazine job–on the days I’m not at my retail job.
Haley: Similarly, when you wear a pair of sneakers, on you they’re never going to look like a straightforward, utilitarian decision. It’s always going to be something that you make into something fashionable. Wendy Davis, wasn’t just going to dress like a businesswoman wearing sneakers on her way into the office. It was always going to be a symbol of political power because she has achieved an incredible level of political power right now. The shoes became intrinsically tied to that, I think.
Anna: In the eighth issue of WORN–the shoe issue–there’s an article about the sneaker. Here’s a brief history, so we’re all caught up: introduced in the 30s and 40s as a basketball shoe, commodified in the 1970s as a huge part of hip-hop culture, with sneaker collecting beginning at the same time. Collecting would go to secondhand stores, trying to find sneakers that no one else had. Nike and Adidas caught on, and they started to market more and more sneakers that were less about practical use, like for playing basketball, and more about something purely stylish. There’s a whole exhibition about the history of the sneaker at The Bata Shoe Museum in Toronto right now.
There was a turning point in the late 1980s and the early 1990s, when Spike Lee and Michael Jordan did Nike commercials. You had these two iconic figures, Michael Jordan at the peak of his career, and Spike Lee on his way up, and then these commercials created an association between sneakers and these two specific prominent figures: the most famous athlete in the world, and a filmmaker who was also an outspoken activist about the marginalization of black people in America. Nike knew this, and knew how to capitalize on their association with hip-hop and basketball. They would intentionally market their shoes as a status symbol.
So I’m thinking, what does it mean that Senator Davis is wearing designer sneakers to talk about women’s right to make their own choices in 2013? The sneakers are meant to support her, to show that she means business, to show that she’s ready to abuse her body, to stand and talk for eleven hours without rest, a kind of torture, in order to help women all over Texas control their own bodies–
Haley: But she made this one concession with her feet, right?
Anna: Right.
Haley: Like, she was not going to put her physical body through hell on top of what she was already professionally committing to, but she was going to take necessary precautions to protect her feet.
Sometimes I think about this very sad reality in politics, which also applies to fashion, which is that the smallest, most basic signs of progress are often not even progress, just trying to hold things as they are. But it’s those steps that are most analyzed, the most debated. So I don’t want to dismiss what she wore as something that just “doesn’t matter” because our clothing choices always matter. When you’re a woman in politics, there is only so much creativity you’re allowed in your outfits. So even when she was bending the rules she still had to be business on top.
Anna: And its just so interesting to me that the way dressing respectable today usually means dressing in suits. A lot of the ideal “professional” outfits tend to look like what a rich, white male would wear to the office. I mean, Wendy was dressed in a feminine way, she was dressed professionally, but even her sneakers were pink. This is something women in power struggle with all the time. To be taken seriously; but they get criticized for being too feminine or not being feminine enough, which is another reason the pink sneakers are so powerful.
I was also thinking the other big rock star of that night, Senator Leticia Van de Putte, who had everyone applauding and cheering, this really wonderful moment. But then I had this moment where I was like, well, what was she wearing then? I had posted a photo of her on the Rookie Tumblr, this photo of her talking, and then realized it was from another event. I couldn’t even remember what Wendy was wearing the night of the filibuster, beyond her footwear. The only thing I remember that anyone was wearing last night, male or female, were the pink sneakers. That’s partly because I was listening to what was being said, but it’s also because Wendy was the only one who departed from the traditional political attire. I also think clothes are such a revealing aspect of character and narrative. There’s that Seamus Gallagher illustration on Tumblr that Fiona posted in her article, that has become a symbol for the whole event. Like, when the inevitable Oscar-Bait-y “Stand With Wendy” movie starring Hillary Swank comes out five years from now, that could be the poster.
Haley: Yeah. I do think if we were to ask Senator Davis why she wore those sneakers she would just say, “Oh I wasn’t even really thinking about it, I just knew I was going to be on my feet all day, so I picked the shoes that made the most sense.” But you and I and other Wornettes know there’s almost always a thought process there, that those kinds of clothing choices don’t just happen.
When you are a woman, and especially a woman in the public eye, there is a relationship between item you’ve chosen and the response of the people looking at what you chose, and sometimes those two separate things don’t add up. I mean, if she had been wearing heels, would anyone have remarked on her shoes? If she had been wearing standard-issue politician’s heels, would the story have been “She stood for eleven hours in heels”? No, because that’s seen as the standard attire for women. That’s the default attire. She moved away from the default attire and that is why the shoes are news.
Obviously I recognize why when it comes to women in politics is it so often about their bodies and their clothes. It’s a way of dismissing what they’re saying. So much of the conversation became, “Oh, it’s funny that she’s in pink sneakers!” Like that New York Times piece referring to Davis as “a petite blonde,” not even naming her. I cannot remember the last time I read “a tall, balding man in loafers took the stand today.” That just doesn’t happen. A man’s appearance, particularly a white man in power, is rarely up for questioning.
Anna: It’s funny that heels are the default when sneakers are just way more practical. Heels would have been a ridiculous choice for her to wear. She was literally dressed for the job yesterday, but it became a statement. I do hope that by discussing Senator Davis’ clothing we can talk about the role clothing plays, the significance of particular items and how loaded they can be as a symbol, without dismissing her role as a politician. That is such a dangerous game to play, because focusing on clothing so often marginalizes female politicians, instead of recognizing the political power inherent to clothing choices.
Haley: And right now Wendy Davis has some real power, and her sneakers are a symbol of that power. So, like, suck on that, patriarchy.
Anna: Yes, let’s kick patriarchal ass. With our sneakers. With our hot pink sneakers
Haley Mlotek is the publisher of WORN Fashion Journal. Her writing has appeared in WORN (obviously), as well as Hazlitt and The Hairpin. She believes in reading, writing, and red lipstick.
Anna Fitzpatrick is a Toronto writer and bookseller. Her work has appeared in WORN (obviously), Rookie Mag, The Hairpin, The Toronto Standard, and too many middle school diaries that she is trying to forget about.
Tags: anna fitzpatrick, fashion, feminism, haley mlotek, loose threads, wendy davis, worn fashion journal
The fixation on Wendy’s shoes by the media, in addition to the newer headlines of “omg she dyes her hair, she’s not a real blonde, she’s somehow less legit” (Slate highlighted it yesterday) just highlight how hard it is to get taken seriously as a woman. The quote from Hilary Clinton about just having to change her hairstyle if she wants to make the news (never mind making extremely difficult decisions in extremely high positions of power) just highlights it further.
Ughhhh, society.
The squawking about how she dyed her hair and that makes her…I don’t even know. Less REAL WOMAN? Less authentic? Less of a feminist because feminists don’t care about how they look? What even is this? It’s infuriating. In order to be taken seriously, women should be conventionally attractive BUT NOT TOO ATTRACTIVE because then you’re vain and/or superficial and/or a slut but you should also definitely NOT BE UGLY because ew, who wants to listen to a woman who doesn’t try to make herself look sexy for everyone who ever looks at her?
The only time men are mentioned with regards to style and fashion choices is if they are eccentric (signature bow ties or whatever) or extremely vain by any standard (John Edward’s haircuts/general ego.)
Yeah, feminists don’t care how they look, and if you dress like a feminist you will be all sloppy and wearing out of date, non-businessy-professional clothes, which just goes to show how, feminists don’t belong in government, amirite?
No, but really. That association of feminism with, I dunno, broomstick skirts and Birkenstocks or whatever goes a long way to delegitimizing feminists who dress like a stereotype of a feminist as professionals. It does the same to feminists who dress like a stereotype of a lady-Texas State Senator.
Because why not get them coming AND going?
And remember, if you don’t look that way NATURALLY then it doesn’t count. You have to be born that way or doing things to change the way you look is “fake.”
And yet, I had a problem with Hillary during the election campaign, because I’d look at her and KNOW just how long it took to look that way, when she was all coiffed, and wearing false eyelashes and everything. I was like, she’s not really gonna do all that when she’d president, is she? And then, after she’d been Secretary of State for a while, she found other ways to look more naturally beautiful. I loved her in her glasses and that green suit, for example. That look I could relate to. That look made her “one of us.” The camera-ready look was impossible to relate to.
I look at her now and yes, the way she makes herself up and dresses and coiffs herself does mean something to me as a woman. It says, “I don’t have to spend hours primping in order to be respected: my work is what gets me respect. Because my work is good, I can be myself, look like myself, and not pander to anyone’s unreasonable expectations regarding how “perfect”‘ I should look.” This is the luxury that men have, almost all the time, in almost all domains except fashion or TV.
Is it weird that I kind of want those sneakers now, even though they are not my style AT ALL? I feel like Nike needs to capitalize on this – like, a discount on that color or something.
Also, I very much enjoyed this in-depth discussion – I think it’s really interesting and I like the analysis of something that could be seen as unimportant.
A (male, of course) friend of a Texan FB friend made a comment re his post about HB2: “I wish people would get excited on issues that really matter like transportation and water.”
“issues that really matter”
Right? Because women’s bodily autonomy is just so much fluff.
Ugh, seriously? Those matters are important of course, but so are women’s rights! We’re half the population!
And you know what? If people stopped being forced to carry out unwanted pregnancies, there would be less pollution in the water and fewer people driving cars. 😉
Well obviously you can’t care about women AND water AND transportation! What do those things even have in common?!
LOL WE’RE LESS IMPORTANT THAN WATER NOW
This kind of goes along with the sentiment of “I wish people weren’t single issue voters” w/r/t abortion rights, and I always think “uh, forcing a woman to give birth is a pretty big fucking deal!”
Well, it’s not “forcing” because all of us ladies WANT to shoot babies out of our vaginas, 24 hours a day, 8 days a week. I guess you didn’t get the memo.
Godddddddddddd, this country, what even.
I’m from Texas and my FB feed has been overflowing with posts by Texans in support of Wendy Davis; it’s so encouraging to see so many people, inside and outside Texas, taking an interest in this.
Also, I think this summarizes the issue with the abortion debate: http://stfuconservatives.tumblr.com/post/54478473….
WON’T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE TRANSPORTATION/children
Donate all proceeds from that shoe to the fight for women’s bodily autonomy.
I think they’re actually Mizunos? But yeah, I guarantee you won’t be able to find them for love or money soon, they’ll sell out immediately.
Official brand statement: “We are fortunate to have benefitted from this conversation and do appreciate Ms. Davis selecting our quality athletic footwear for her “endurance” event; however we do not have a corporate position related to the topic she presented.”
EEEESH.
http://www.mizunousa.com/running/blog/article/miz…
They’re Mizuno, not Nikes. Nike probably doesn’t mind the incorrect association, but since I wear Mizunos for running (mine are bright purple and orange, because that matters) somehow I feel the need to stick up for the brand. Or something.
Anyway. I am not a candy pink shoe person either, but I would love seeing these have a little moment, kind of like the I Believe Anita Hill buttons a lot of girls in my high school were wearing during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings way back when. Except I guess with marketing and profit.
Oops! Don’t know why I thought they were Nikes, probably just any running shoe is a Nike in my mind. The Mizunos are growing on me, to be honest!
You can check out their official brand statement, which left me really disappointed but frankly not surprised: http://www.mizunousa.com/running/blog/article/miz…
yeah it would have been nice for them to be brave and *ahem* Stand With Wendy, but it’s unsurprising. At least they didn’t dis her.
The official statement distances itself from Wendy Davis so they can cash in on the exposure even though their republican CEO donated to the Romney campaign fyi
Footwear and filibustering! Talking about the whole men/women business footwear thing reminds me of Rand Paul’s filibuster recently, when he said that he “would’ve worn different shoes” if he had to do it over. Men’s dress shoes may be more comfy than heels but they still don’t do jack when you’re standing for 12 hours.
“they have nothing that really matches the discomfort of heels”
So true, and it’s maddening. My boyfriend is a photographer, and when he does a wedding he has to spend as much as 12 hours on his feet, but he still has to look professional. I convinced his to get a pair of these because they’re really comfortable and well-made, and they really don’t look bad with a suit.
But if I wore the women’s version of that shoe with a dress it would look ridiculous and frumpy. Even if I wore them with pants I don’t know that they would garner the same acceptance as they do on him.
No way! I love how loafers look with a dress!!!
They look fine on some people, but I’ve got short, thick legs with thick ankles and they look pretty terrible on me. And besides, the only time I really wear dresses are to weddings, and I think that’s too fancy for loafers. Casual dresses, yes, but I never wear those.
try cole haans w/nike air tech (still for dudes unfortch, not ladies, although I believe some of their heels do have it, which might help a bit)
Holy shit, they’re expensive! I couldn’t wear them anyway though, because they’re all too pointy for me. My feet are wide and square like Fred Flintstone. I’ve resigned myself to the fact that finding comfortable shoes that look “cute” or good with dresses is impossible. So…pants.
ahh I forgot that not everyone has a staff discount connection at a fancy shoe store, sorry!
I wish I did! I do have a connection at Nordstrom (my old shoe store boss), but he can’t give me his discount. 🙁
I tried Cole Haan with air tech, and they weren’t comfy at all. A high heel is a high heel. I have had more success with retro fits, like the heels that have a platform in the front. But the ones that are comfortable are actually vintage shoes, made well, much better than stuff that’s being made now, which have no support. Paul Green, which is also very expensive, sometimes makes some similar shoes, a half inch platform in the front, a three inch heel.
But I can’t wear those every day. I now wear a 1.5 to 2″ heel when I need to look half-decent. It’s actually more comfortable than flats, and I find it really is good enough for any human being not wearing a ballgown.
For work, I wear Doc Marten or Fluevog oxfords under pants, and Clark’s sandals or flats with skirts. Uncomfortable shoes can miss me, no matter how cute they may be.
Fluevogs!! Given tons and tons of money, I would buy their whole stock.
Heehee, you said “under pants.”
I’m totally with you. I have a pair of Merrell sandals that I’ve been wearing pretty much every day this summer, and they smell horrible when my feet sweat but I don’t care because they’re the only shoes in which my feet are happy.
I’m sure you’ve thought about flats, but is the issue that they don’t come with enough support?
Yeah, the issue is support and cushion, but the biggest issue is the shape. No matter how well-made and supportive a shoe is, if it forces me to cram my feet into an unnatural (for me) shape it’s not going to work. Even a wider men’s shoe is usually not adequate. Damn peasant feet!
Those sneakers signified she meant fucking business, even if she had to stand all night. Don’t let the pink fool you!
The nice thing about this is that it’s a good reminder that, in fact, pink can mean fucking business too. Society has gendered these colors (with obnoxious gender-essentialist traits, to boot) to the point that pink=girly=bad, when there’s nothing about pink that inherently = girly, and that there’s nothing about girly that inherently = bad.
I’ve never liked pink, but pink as a political statement has become very interesting for me. Also, have you ever seen some of these lovely much older ladies in hot pink saris? They wear hot pink saris and (any color) sneakers, with their gray hair pulled back in a bun. I LOVE this look. It’s like saying that hot pink is not just for “babes.” This is mainly what piqued my interest in hot pink as a sort of feminist anti-agist statement. I may have to have a hot pink sari made for me for my 50th birthday, either that or wear a hot pink crazy puffy quincañera dress. Yeah, suddenly hot pink has its attractions.
This seems like the ideal place for my “knocking out the patriarchy” gif:
“when the inevitable Oscar-Bait-y “Stand With Wendy” movie starring Hillary Swank comes out five years from now…”
I would like to mention that when I searched “Hilary Swank punching gifs” the 1st result was a link to “Sexy Hilary Swank Photos” on ranked.com.
When I searched “million dollar baby gifs” I got the intended top result?
*sigh*
Still holding out for an article (just one!) about Wendy Davis/the filibuster that DOESN’T mention her shoes.
http://www.nameitchangeit.org/blog/entry/Name-It-…
I actually really enjoyed this piece, it just comes after a long line of shoe journalism which is a bit exhausting.
Someone, somewhere in Wendy Davis’ office got a high-five for those sneakers. It went something like this:
Wendy Davis: I’m not going to try to filibuster in heels. It’s ridiculous. I’m going to wear comfortable shoes.
Staffer: Like loafers or something?
Wendy Davis: No, like sneakers. I want arch support.
Staffer: But then you’re going to look like Working Girl. They’re going to make fun of you for not being professional and looking shlubby while you filibuster an important issue.
BRILLIANT MESSAGE SPINNER: What if she wore bright colored, new looking sneakers? Then it’s clearly an intentional choice, and it’s so brazenly Fuck You that it can’t be spun as “Wendy Davis doesn’t care enough about this issue to wear nice shoes.”
Wendy Davis: Can they be pink? I like pink.
Intense debate ensues over whether pink is too stereotypical a “girl” color, and whether wearing such color would create accusations of being anti, rather than pro-feminist. Debate comes to abrupt end when Wendy Davis points out she is filibustering on behalf of abortion rights, which is a little difficult to see as “girly”. There is much uncomfortable throat-clearing and murmured assent.
An intern is sent hustling to Zappos.com to find the most comfortable pink shoes in Wendy Davis’ size. Three are ordered. Two are sent back. Davis wears the chosen pair, is a BAMF, high-fives Message Spinner when the headlines go live the next morning.
WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE TRANSPORTATION/children
Well, it's not "forcing" because all of us ladies WANT to shoot babies out of our vaginas, 24 hours a day, 8 days a week. I guess you didn't get the memo.
Godddddddddddd, this country, what even.
I read this article, written by a woman, today. It’s about how it’s not sexist to talk about women politicians’ clothes. It tried to claim that there’s just some conspiracy by the women’s lobby to pretend that it’s harmful or something and it actually doesn’t hurt anyone. Then I read the comments for some reason, and then I had to take a break from the internet for the rest of the day.