FOR all the flak Imelda Marcos has gotten over her shoe collection, the truth is she was just being Pinoy. This is, after all, the land where people seem to think they are centipedes and so buy footwear by the dozen. Which has, of course, done wonders to the cash registers of the likes of ShoeMart. Okay, so Henry Sy’s formidable business acumen had a lot to do with SM’s rise from a tiny store in downtown Manila to the mall giant it is today. But had he chosen to start with selling, say, kitchenware, he may not have turned out as big a tycoon as he is today.
And so we open our November series on addictions with a look at the obsession with shoes. The piece by perennial Palanca winners Nikki and Dean Francis Alfar actually tackles the fetish from a global and historical point of view, so Pinoys may rest assured they are not alone in their love affair with footwear. In fact, the Alfars take us to a trip not only around the world, but even inside storybooks, where princesses and villains alike had memorable incidents involving shoes.
The journey shows that whether they are worn by real people or by characters in fairy tales, shoes are clearly not just for protecting the feet. “To a greater or lesser extent,” write the Alfars, “the shoes you wear express the kind of person you are — or the kind of person you’d like to be perceived as.”
Read on at pcij.org.
2 Responses to Shoe me
naykika
November 8th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
I myself is not fond of shoes, the most I have is perhaps five pairs at a time, a good running (walking) shoes, preferably New Balance, a dress shoes of Clark and Rockport and one all terrain shoe also of new balance and winter boots and hunting boots. But my sisters, four of them may have both hundreds or thousands of pairs of any kind, from the cheapest on sale to the classics as Imeldas, but as fast as they bought them, the ended up donated to Salvation Army for resale on their thrift stores. Actually the other day, I have to haul another two bags of them. I purchased all through the years hundred of pairs for all the bros and nephews and nieces and they all want brand names and the latest. My niece will give me big pout if I’ll quote her the cheap style. teenagers are the hardest and most expensive to shop for shoes. Me, get a good pair and usually will last a year or two.
freewheel
November 12th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
Strong opinions on shoes, haven’t got any. Save for gunning down a big bike on group tours, which requires medium to heavy boots, I usually go for light ones to carry my beefy legs in periodic long trips, yet sturdy enough to withstand the heat and other unwanted elements.
When leathers with cork innings and light rubber soles were made available to the public, they were welcomed as reliable, friendly tools for my feet and considered more than good enough. Of course, on this day when you can now afford to have any that matches your preferences, choice range becomes longer and broader.
When still was in school, as a self-financed student, and learnt of Imelda’s 3,000 pairs, I was not in any way impressed eventhough the only
affordable choices for myself were limited to either canvass sneakers and yes, the ubiquitous tsinelas. Successfully restrained myself from begging relatives based- abroad for branded shoes. This is partly due to personal associations with laborers, who might entertain funny ideas of somebody within the ranks suddenly wearing a Birks or a Doc M’s., and in greater part, the thing called shame.
No, its not a matter of religion. I just thought then, and now, people is better off when they live within their means. Later however, the issue why ordinary wage workers cannot afford safe and comfortable pairs when their counterpart abroad could, rubs interest and hounds my imagination doggedly to this day.
When a neighbor next door, struts along the streets displaying an air of confidence, does the branded pair on his feet got something to do with it or a result of it, in any way? Does the bearing meant to inspire others to acquire the same? Or is it a statement, look down guys, can you afford this? Or is it bits of all the above?
Imelda’s pairs, enough to fill a modest aparment created so much furor for it bring out questions on the propriety of an obstentious display of wealth when vast majority people could hardly complete three square meals in a day’s time, is often the criticism leveled against her.
My take is different. Why does a former first lady qualify and defend an obvious form of fetishness and fixation on shoes? Maybe, if she took refuge in a white lie and declared that the shoes were intended as giveaways to palace loyalists, never mind if the shoe size were all identical, the fuss created would have been milder.
Shoes as an extension of the person’s personality? As a fashion statement? Or, as a mode of expressing an individual’s search for the cliche` rightful place under the sun?
Tell that to my friends who toil at least eight hours a day running those machines in the factories, and sometimes seen marching in the streets for a fairer exchange of labor, am positive, they have a more practical, and clearer reason for wanting a nice pair during those marches —- to be able to run and duck those bullets once a tyrant’s armed goons begin firing at their direction.
And still be able to partake the family’s modest dinner later, and yes, again run the machines the following day, or during some bad times, attend a wake of those who were felled, unable to dodge the previous day’s sizzling hot pieces of metal aimed at them.