Slight heel, matching stuff = LADY

[Roycroft]

I'd never read this person's blog before. She really has some issues, doesn't she? I agree with Jesus Fight Club; the self-hate is strong with this one.

And about heels, ladies, and all that rot: when I turned 30, I gave myself the gift of No More Heels, Ever. All my high-heeled shoes went to charity or in the trash. I used to be a competitive fencer, my ankles have been injured so many times I've lost count, and I definitely don't need any more injuries if I can avoid it. Also, I'm already tall enough, thank you. :) I don't feel less 'ladylike'; actually, I don't give much of a damn about being 'ladylike' at all. I'm a person, and my plumbing is irrelevant to most of what I do. If somebody else wants to get upset about my not toeing the 'lady' line, well, then that's just a person I probably will have little use for being around, anyhow. :)

Finally, I'd rather wear a nice fedora or my trusty Aussie cattleman's hat than that vision-obscuring thing she has on. it looks as though it would give a person a headache!

[thoughtful]

What do you think Kidist would say about this shirt?

Seems totally unlike her usual taste, doesn't it?

Ah, but Ann Romney wore it.

And a "spiteful blogger" from the evil liberal Washington Post didn't like it. Kidist quotes the blogger:

Ann Romney has been coming under fire for wearing a $990 Reed Krakoff t-shirt on the air recently. Never mind that Reed Krakoff sounds like a rejected Hunger Games character. This is a Serious National Issue.

My biggest objection to the shirt is that it looked like a disembodied fish-bird was squinting at you off Ann Romney’s right shoulder.

That is a nightmarish vision with which I would as soon not contend. That someone would pay this amount of money so that a disgruntled yellow creature could give TV audiences the stink-eye is the sort of thing that makes even the staunchest Reaganian rethink his stance on trickle-down economics.

Kidist's take:

Of course, this comment is directed at the "99%" who cannot afford $990 silk shirts. In the usual fascistic and dogmatic manner of liberals, everyone has to wear the $9 t-shirt that caters to the lowest common denominator. And all those who can afford to buy $990 t-shirts have to hand out their money to those who somehow got behind in buying designer shirts, and wear the $9 t-shirt uniform in solidarity. Never mind those 1% (i.e. the Romneys) who bought their shirts with their hard-earned money.

Hard-earned by other people, but, hey, that's a detail.

And, it turns out, the design is based on a John Jacob Audubon drawing, so it's all-American and historical and patriotic, so there!

So how "un-American" can Ann Romney be, with her instinctive ability to wear a shirt featuring an American illustrator's American bird, while accompanying her husband on a campaign interview at CBS This Morning a few days ago? Michelle Obama also likes to wear large prints, yet I have never found any of hers to have cultrual significance other than to promote "designers of color."

Kidist, you see cultural significance in the color of the soles of someone's shoes -- you just don't see good significance unless it's someone you like!

And I sort of doubt that Ann Romey's ability to choose a shirt is "instinctive." :roll:

I like the original painting, but don't like the shirt -- I see no cultural significance in that at all. :D

cameraluc.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-to-wear-990-t-shirt.html

[rock_girl]

Kidist is a 'designer of colour'. Does she not want Michelle to promote her work too?

The top is great on the hanger but Ann does not wear it well. Her frame is too... boxy, I think, to really make it work. To wear that top you need to be extremely slim and have a tiny ribcage. You also shouldn't be photographed hunched over.

So basically, while it's a great idea for a top, it really can only be worn by the 1%, just not necessarily the 1% Kidist is salivating over.

[CanadianMom]

How has no one here gone to check out the store she works at?! What is it, Reitmans? If the Eaton Centre wasn't so insane at this time of year, I might actually go!

[Jezebel]

I'd never read this person's blog before. She really has some issues, doesn't she? I agree with Jesus Fight Club; the self-hate is strong with this one.

And about heels, ladies, and all that rot: when I turned 30, I gave myself the gift of No More Heels, Ever. All my high-heeled shoes went to charity or in the trash.

I ditched heels for good the night of my grandparents' 50th anniversary party--maybe 20 years ago? I'd stopped wearing them after I quit taking office jobs, but had to buy a pair for the party because it was formal (and back then I still thought that obligated me to wear uncomfortable clothes and shoes). My feet were in absolute agony by the end of the night, so I took my shoes on my way out of the banquet hall, left them atop a retaining wall in the parking lot, and rode back to my mom's house in stocking feet.

I have a fondness for crazy, loud Western boots with different-colored inlays and fancy stitching, and a couple of pairs have higher heels--maybe 2-1/2". I'm fine with those because the boots fit securely on my feet and the heels are substantial--I don't totter in them. For dressier events these days, I have cute flats and sandals in velvets or metallic leather, and whenever I wear them half the women I talk to tell me they envy my flat shoes. If they're giving me a backhanded compliment with that, I could not give less of a fuck--after all, I'm not the one limping at the end of the night, or falling on my ass because drinking and stilettos don't mix. :lol:

[2xx1xy1JD]

How has no one here gone to check out the store she works at?! What is it, Reitmans? If the Eaton Centre wasn't so insane at this time of year, I might actually go!

I'll be downtown toward the end of the month.....

[wtylcf]

How has no one here gone to check out the store she works at?! What is it, Reitmans? If the Eaton Centre wasn't so insane at this time of year, I might actually go!

It's 'Laura,' but I doubt a real life encounter with kidist would yield any valuable insights.

[Miggy]

I am confused. I thought we females were suppose to do everything we could to prevent males noticing us and being defrauded. Now we have to wear slight heels so that men will notice our feminity? I'm not really into men, other than my hubby, noticing my feminity!

[PennySycamore]

There was a promo for the film Anatomy of a Murder this morning on TCM. It was directed by Otto Preminger who was noted for pushing the boundaries of the old Hays production code. This promo had several people talking about the film, specifcally film critic Molly Haskell and actress Lee Grant. Lee noted that the Lee Remick's character wore neither stockings or a girdle, and in the 50s, this meant SLUT! Molly Haskins also noted Remick's bareleggedness as signifying the character was loose and it was mentioned in the film, too. There was also some talk about Remick's panties.

All of this is to say: Does Kidlist think it's still the 50s and only brazen, loose women go barelegged?

[Closed Womb]

I am confused. I thought we females were suppose to do everything we could to prevent males noticing us and being defrauded. Now we have to wear slight heels so that men will notice our feminity? I'm not really into men, other than my hubby, noticing my feminity!

Looks like someone is trying logic. Won't work with the fundies.

I think that we are supposed to be generically feminine (pretty, thin feminine at that), but in no way individual. They can notice that we are women ladies bearers of uteruses, because we are useful to them for childbearing. Any further information beyond identifying gender (through skirt; long, loosely curly hair; slender body) is defrauding.

Makes me think, maybe the construction dude saw her holy countenance and wanted to marry Kidist? I mean, if this construction worker walks Kidist across the street two more times they will have pretty much gone through a fundie courtship. Maybe this is her way of bragging that she has a suitor?

[sparkles]

I don't know why exactly but Kidist reminds me of Blanche DuBois. She's just as delusional, spins her own reality, withdrawing more and more into her fantasy world as things unravel around her. The construction worker helping her, thanks to her slight-heeled boots with the gentle sheen? The kindness of strangers, of course. Service people standing silently by as she spews her racism? Why of course they're in total agreement with her! She can't allow comments on her blog because we're all Stanley Kowalskys to her--rude, ignorant brutes who don't understand her delicate, feminine ways. One day she's wake up and realize Belle Reve is gone, or never was, and she'll lose it completely.

She's a very sad woman.

[PennySycamore]

Ah, yes. Audrey Hepburn, so unfeminine.

Well, Audrey is unfeminine by fundie standards: flats, pants, and short hair.

To little ol' heathen me, Audrey is always classic.

[Marian the Librarian]

Well hush my mouth! Kidist does read here! She's just updated her blog, thusly:

I was a one time writer for American Thinker, with three published articles. The kind, but determined editors started to re-write my articles so that they veered far away from my original thoughts, and I haven't sent them any for a couple of years. Perhaps it is time to send in some more.

My articles published at the American Thinker, from my archived articles:

- "Australia: Whose Land is it Anyway?"

- "How Canada's Little Mosque on the Prairie is aiming to take over our souls"

- "Sarah Palin: Whose Family Values?"

[Terrie]

I can not wear most shoes in general. My feet are a 8 1/2 and a 9 1/2 narrow. I also have narrow heels in proportion to the width of the rest of my foot. So, if it doesn't have straps or laces, I can't wear it. I have been known to literally have shoes fall off my feet when trying to walk in them. Needless to say, I'm not a big fan of adding heels to that mix.

[thoughtful]

I don't know why exactly but Kidist reminds me of Blanche DuBois. She's just as delusional, spins her own reality, withdrawing more and more into her fantasy world as things unravel around her. The construction worker helping her, thanks to her slight-heeled boots with the gentle sheen? The kindness of strangers, of course. Service people standing silently by as she spews her racism? Why of course they're in total agreement with her! She can't allow comments on her blog because we're all Stanley Kowalskys to her--rude, ignorant brutes who don't understand her delicate, feminine ways. One day she's wake up and realize Belle Reve is gone, or never was, and she'll lose it completely.

She's a very sad woman.

I can just imagine her, overdone accent and all, saying "I have always depended on the kindness silence (which I misinterpret as agreement with my vicious bigotry) of strangers." :D