Whilst browsing through the Yoox.com sale earlier (which took me a whole hour) I came across the two types of footwear that I just can't stand (or
understand for that matter!) and decided that I needed to share my concerns about the sanity of the people who design them, and equally of those that buy them.
First, let me bring to your attention...
 |
Fabi $450 $360 - ankle straps; kankle alert! |
... not to be confused with 'boat shoes' which should only be worn by wealthy middle-aged women in the summer, and not by hipsters with rolled-up skinnies or jocks with chinos.
The person who first dreamt up the idea of boots-that-have-shoes-over-the-top (or are they shoes-that-have-boots-underneath?) was an idiot. Not to mention, in my opinion, has a terrible sense of style, I mean this particular footwear design concept makes as much sense as superheroes wearing underpants over their lycra onesies! Don't get me wrong the whole inner-wear as outer-wear trend is a great look but there's a reason why only superheroes have the guts to do it out in public; they're called superpowers and when you have them no one messes with you... they just laugh about you behind your back!
Unfortunately the combinations of different types of shoes and boots are endless. Here are a few of the ones that I found on Yoox.com:
 |
Amaya Arzuaga $260 $175 |
These boot-shoes start off (from the ground, up) fine with a perfectly acceptable black patent ankle boot, but as you move up you'll realise that they are a girl's worst nightmare because they will give even the luckiest girl with the most defined ankles (bitch), the dreaded
kankles. Dun dun dunnnnn. Not to mention they'll make your calves look big, baggy and all wrinkled up at the top because of the horrendous elastic finish.
 |
Salvatore Ferragamo $490 $345 |
Ok, so first off these have possibly, no I take that back, most definitely have the worst colour combination of colours in the history of... well, colours. And why is the shoe part nude and the fake leg bit sludgy green, not the other way around? I guess when they were designing them they realised they'd messed up on the the colour choices and thought 'Screw it! Let's go the whole hog and make the most repulsive shoes we possibly can.' Well congratulations; you succeeded.
 |
Marc by Marc Jacobs $295 $195 |
If you found these hanging from your mantelpiece this Christmas you could be forgiven for thinking they were odd-looking present-filled stockings. But they aren't. I hate to break it to you but if you received these boot-shoes for Christmas then you can be sure of one thing; the person who gave them to you doesn't like you and wants you to be ridiculed by everyone, including me.
Next I would like to bring your attention to...
 |
Givenchy $1025 $530 - who doesn't love straight-leg trousers? |
I just don't understand what you're supposed to wear them with? You can't wear them with trousers because that defeats the whole point. And you can't wear them with tights or bare legs because it would look like you had sprouted the bottom half of a pair of trousers from just below your knees. I am at a loss with these items of footwear/ lower-legwear.
Here are some more perplexing examples of the phenomenon that is the trouser-boot:
 |
Givenchy $1311 $830 |
Wow, where do I start? Beige, suede, pointed, baggy, wedge, buckle, elastic. What more could a want from a pair of shoes?!
 |
Pennyblack $190 $69 |
These give me flashbacks of the awkward kids at school who had growth spurts during puberty and who's parents didn't want to shell out extra money for longer trousers until they absolutely had to. Those poor kids had enough to deal with being nerds; they didn't need to give extra ammunition to the kids that bullied them. A pair of shoes should never make you fell sad every time you wear them.
I'll leave you with these two
gems:
 |
Alexander Wang $460 $275 Givenchy $1341 $445 |
So, should it be boot-shoes or trouser-boots that win the contest of being the worst footwear EVER?
I'm listening to: Rocket by Def Leppard
Images from: yoox.com
