Comments on: Manolo the Columnist

By: furlagirl

furlagirl — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 20:58:40 +0000

Clarks is a venerable, very well-known brand in England which has recently improved its styling dramatically. Most British adults of my age wore Clark’s shoes when we were children because they had proper measuring and specialised in shoes for growing feet. I happened to have 15 minutes to kill this morning and was passing a Clarks and went in to have a look. A lot of their shoes are designed for comfort without being hideous. Manolos they ain’t but if comfort is your most important issue then they are a very good option.

By: Maria

Maria — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:53:32 +0000

What a relevant discussion! With all the flip-flop bashing that has been going on I have been at a loss for footwear that will see me through my daily commute, which taking into the worst possible scenarios, must meet the following conditions 1) be able to run for the bus, in the rain 2) walk at least a mile 3) stand for at least an hour on a moving train 4) be cute and open toed for the summer, and not look horrendous with a suit or dress 5) not break the bank .

Manolo, I’m sorry, but no matter how comfortable those Weitzmans are, they just won’t cut it for all of the above. I spent many precious hours of my weekend cruising virtually every shoe store in the area looking for something that would fit the bill, and finally came up with these http://www.zappos.com/n/p/dp/11041186/c/3.html from the Indigo by Clark’s line (Laura, you should check this line out! http://www.zappos.com/n/br/b/435.html). Although they are not totally superfantastic, they’re cute and there is some very supportive, cloudlike squishy sole action going on. They may look like heels, but there is truly very little rise when you take into account the platform. And to the delight of flipflop haters everywhere, I have foresaken my cute sparkly gold ones.

By: dani

dani — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:07:57 +0000

For people with bad feet, Manolo’s helps by pointing out the great styles, which we can then modify to our situation. To paraphrase Tolstoy- happy feet are all alike- every unhappy foot is unhappy in its own way.

The one good thing about “comfort” brands is that they really are made for people with bad feet, like Laura and me. I look at these lovely shoes, see they have no padding in the footbed, and say, “Ayyy! I see pain in the feets.” I look at the lovely little heel and say “Ayyy! I see pain in the ankles.” But the wedges- ankle pain solved! Now, I will go searching for something similar with a padded footbed, and probably a lower heel. I know they’re out there somewhere!

By: pbird

pbird — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 04:58:24 +0000

Heaven’s yes. No need to be horrible Kim. Some situations are flatout medical.

By: jenny

jenny — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 07:05:49 +0000

Bravo, Laura. Well spoken.

By: Patricia

Patricia — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:22:33 +0000

I love your words in this post!!!!! Fully agree.

By: laura

laura — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:29:18 +0000

Kim,

Don’t be a rude jerk.

It is possible to like looking at pretty shoes and reading amusing posts by Manolo without needing to be insulted about the kinds of shoes I can wear. Just like I can like looking at Vogue without being required to be told I’m fat and ugly because I don’t look like a model.

Ballet flats offer no support. I’m not necessarily writing about comfort, but the need for arch support for those of us with bad feet.

As I said above, some of us would rather wear Crocs thongs–which are no uglier than any other flipflop–or Birkenstock loafers–again, no uglier than any other loafer–and BE ABLE TO WALK WITHOUT PAIN than to wear prettier shoes and hurt every time we take a step.

It really shouldn’t be that hard to understand. Praise the pretty shoes, but don’t dis those of us who can’t wear them.

By: Please!

Please! — Sun, 25 Jun 2006 18:00:03 +0000

Manolo, I share your opinion of the crocs etc., but these are *not* comfortable shoes. For starters, kitten heels are horrible to wear if you actually have to be on your feet for any period of time (never mind walk across cobblestones without breaking your neck). How about chunky heel?

I agree with people about the Birkenstock shoe– it is butt ugly and unnecessary. But how about a pair of Born wedges? They are attractive, the heel is not overwhelming, and they are as cozy as bedroom slippers, trust me. For that matter, what’s wrong with ballet flats?

By: Kim

Kim — Sun, 25 Jun 2006 02:16:50 +0000

Laura,
Why would you be at a SHOE site, especially a SUPERFANTASTIC shoe site, like the Manolo’s and be peeved about those who decry Crocs and Birkenstocks?
Those shoes are ugly.
Shoes are not about ugly.
Also, they’re not about mocking you.
There’s always Payless.

By: jenny

jenny — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 08:58:33 +0000

Dang, Gina! These babies are expensive for elastic shoes! D’you know, there are so many similar shoes out there that are still graceful and comfortable, but which cost much less. Use the word “elasticated” as a search on a site like Zappos, or try brands like Stride Rite, Trotters, and Naturalizer.

Then again, if you’ve got the funds these babies are very summery and delicate, and about as far from “orthopedic oxford” as you can get while still staying comfy…