Boots

[skirtyscot]

Not really a freestyle fashion thread, more just wondering over the internet.

How did boots become almost exclusively women's wear? Granted, there are plenty of men's boots in specific situations: steel toe-capped boots for builders, hiking boots, riding boots, wellies, etc. But, with the exception of cowboy boots, and they are rare enough in most places, you don't see men wearing boots as they go about their ordinary daily routine. Boots are generally for women. How did this happen? Boots were originally just practical footwear for people who needed it. Which meant men, mostly.

Women, of course, have a zillion different styles of boots. Look at http://www.duoboots.com/, for example. Women's boots, women's boots and more women's boots. They even have military style boots, FFS. But no men's boots. You can see the advantages of boots to the skirt wearer; warmth; protection from water and sharp, tights-laddering objects; stylishly covering that gap between your hem and your shoes. But women wear boots over their jeans as well. Why don't men do that?

This is just a bit of a rant. I wouldn't mind a pair of boots, but skirt + tights + boots = 3 fem signals, and that would be too much. (NB. I am fully aware I've said this sort of thing before and gone on to contradict myself several months later!) Besides, Mrs SS would go ballistic.

So, any theories?

[Nick]

This is something I have noticed too, it seems anything higher than the ankle for men these days is rare to find. I don't know why, but it seems women have claimed higher boots in a way, look around on the net and people have had some similar discussions, some even saying men shouldn't wear high boots.

[Sarongman]

Funnily enough, boots for men were "in" during the late 60s and into the 70s. I was handed down a pair in the early 70s from my (ex) brother in law in about 1969. These boots, in a very light tan soft leather, had high heels and zipped up the sides. I can't remember what subsequently happened to them but, if they were to end up in a charity shop now, they would inevitably be snapped up by a woman.

[crfriend]

I noticed today, with some disgust, that "go-go" boots seem to be making a comeback in the old US of A. Normally, if I see a single instance of something I don't think much of it, but I got two sightings within a half-hour today which tripped the attention. I had flashbacks to the late 60s and early 70s which were not particularly welcome.

One pair was worn with a much-too-short skirt and bare legs, the other with fishnet stockings and hot-pants. Both sightings were in an otherwise unremarkable exurb of Boston (closer to Worcester, actually). I think I'll avoid the place going forward, simply as part of the "Been there, done that" ethic.

Why can't "fashion" focus on the successes instead of the failures of the past. What's next? Codpieces for men? (I know that "It pays to advertise.", but still...)

I. Need. To. Purge. Brain.

[john62]

I have three pairs of high boots, but I tend to wear under pants or under a long skirt which means they are not seen and therefore miss the whole point, which of course means fear on my part!

John

[Caultron]

...Why can't "fashion" focus on the successes instead of the failures of the past...

1. Everything goes in cycles, especially fashion.

2. How were go-go boots a failure? I always thought they were pretty hot, the way they emphasized the thighs and butt.

3. Two sightings of go-go boots are enough to keep you out of a neighborhood? Really?

4. Fashion freedom...

[crfriend]

2. How were go-go boots a failure? I always thought they were pretty hot, the way they emphasized the thighs and butt.

3. Two sightings of go-go boots are enough to keep you out of a neighborhood? Really?

When dealing with matters of style and fashion, it must be recalled that an individual's own tastes are inextricably involved in the interpretation of what one is looking at, and I have certain tastes that are very strong indeed and, interestingly, have remained stable for several "go-rounds" of the carousel. I also freely admit that some of these are entirely arbitrary and irrational.

On boots in general, I understand the utility of them and appreciate their use for protection from the elements and environment; however, they're not a look that I've ever embraced for aesthetics alone and personally I detest anything much heavier than socks covering my ankles. Cavalry boots are fine -- if one is in the cavalry; I find they look out of place on the street.

Another pet peeve of mine is "leggings" or footless tights; I found those hideous back in the 1980s and am not particularly pleased that they're making a perhaps inevitable comeback now. However, this too, is down to personal taste, so your mileage will likely vary from mine.

As far as avoiding an area based on the sight of a (to my mind) fashion crime, I injected that as a point of humour. Things would have to be much more dire than that to make me back off from any particular spot.

4. Fashion freedom...

... is what allows somebody else to look like a prat in my eyes, or merely somebody to be pitied that they haven't discovered a style their own yet.

I'm sure I've offended more than a few sensibilities with my style.

[rick401r]

Back when I was teen I wore "Beatle" boots. They were pointy-toed, Cuban heeled things that zipped up the side. Now days the only boots I have are my work boots, a pair of knee high moccasins, and a pair of knee high women's boots I bought to wear for a men in heels charity walk.

[couyalair]

When I first returned from Morocco to continental Europe, I found winter almost unbearably cold. Boots for men were available and I gladly bought a pair and wore them for a while. Not for long; I found it so unpleasant to have my legs tightly encased, getting hot and sticky, that I soon gave up the boots except when out for a walk for a limited time. If I had to spend time in heated buildings, oh, no! Unbearable!

At the time, women were wearing quite short skirts, so it's not surprising they needed extra leg protection, whereas men were wearing ... wait for it ... long trousers! so, as already mentioned, the boots were hidden.

That's two reasons for men's boots to be forgotten.

Martin

[Caultron]

...As far as avoiding an area based on the sight of a (to my mind) fashion crime, I injected that as a point of humour...

Pfew, close one, there...

[Caultron]

I've considered knee-high boots for leg protection when kilt-hiking through rough country. But all I've found are punky fashion boots that don't look at all comfortable for long hikes. And they were kind of pricey to boot (sorry).

As to footless tights, I've never liked those either, except that when cycling, jogging, or hiking, you probably want to be wearing socks designed for that activity. So if you need tights for physical or thermal protection, footless ones permit the best of both.

I think at one time footless tights were seen more as non-feminine. But now women wear them too, eliminating the distinction.

[RichardA]

I like these
http://www.kilts-n-stuff.com/highland-f ... -lace.html

[Sarongman]

Cavalry boots? Don't forget the spurs, they'll make a kick in the shins far more effective

[Caultron]

I guess I'm too picky. The optimal design would be like a hiking boot -- good deep tread on the soles, firm structure for walking on rocky or irregular ground, tall enough for ankle support while still permitting movement, waterproof for hiking in mud or water -- but also knee high. The calf portion might be soft leather, but it could also be canvas or heavy noon. The suede boots are too soft and flat. Cavalry boots are made for riding, not hiking, and tend to have smooth soles and stiff ankles.

Then there's price. A good pair of ankle-high hiking boots can cost $150, so I suppose a knee-high version would cost $200 or $250. I'm not sure I want to spend that much own something I'd wear only a couplemofmtimes a year.

Recently in found some "mountaineering" socks that are knee-high and look heavy enough to provide some cushion and protection. I ordered a pair ($30) but they haven't come in yet. We'll see.

[skirtilator]

There are several manufacturers of Gothic boots who made boots from a clean to a rugged look. These Demonia Disorder series e.g. looks quite ranges quite nicely from above ankle to knee high. my favorite is the Demonia Disorder 302, manly and affordable. The 2 indicates some decoration.

I am keen on this old tanker buckle boots look offered by a pretty pricey Italian designer label. Lookalikes are availabled for about $99 but only for those cute little women feets, because good looking boots are occupied by the fashionitas. Remedy is offered by one of those aforementioned gothik labels.