All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Today
  2. I'm delighted. Bring it on!
  3. Well, the deed is done. Brexit has begun, and there is no turning back now. (Apparently.)
  4. Yes, she has come good in the top job Here she is meeting the Queen in otk boots: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/03/04/2648E28300000578-2978868-A_creak_of_leather_as_the_Home_Secretary_dips_her_knees_to_curts-a-41_1425465495993.jpg
  5. I can assure you, a couple of years ago my interest in TM on a scale of 1 to 10, would had a minus sign in front of it. Her previous record, was not good. Talked much, but delivered little (as is often the case with politicians) even as Home Secretary. However, if she only ever does one thing, it's done and I'm happy for her to be where she is because she got it done. And unlike previous PM's, when Sturgeon came calling looking for further inducements (money) to stop whining on about "independence", Sturgeon was sent away with nothing. Made good reading.
  6. She does indeed look smarter than her contemporaries - which no doubt has a lot to do with why she was in American Vogue. She has style and does not let her age interfere with it, but at the same time doesn't pretend she's a thirty-something. Humour and a light touch is a good thing - just not on the front page and for such a serious story. Save it for inside the book.
  7. I too have been very pleasantly surprised by Theresa May. My initial dismay at seeing her made the prime minister has given way to admiration for the way she has taken the reins and is going about delivering - intelligently - what the populace voted for, even though it mightn't have been her first choice. I think we are lucky to have her there. She famously wore otk boots to meet the queen a couple of years ago - something that got a lot of press, but which she carried off with some style.
  8. I do agree that the prominence of the 'legs' item in the DM was ill-judged, given the significance of the occasion. But, in difficult times - Brexit, Westminster - a tongue-in-cheek diversion can help to retain the public's sense of proportion and help us all to 'keep calm and carry on'. TM stands out as much for her height and slightly gawky gait as for her clothing choices. She makes an effort and generally looks smarter than many of her contemporaries.
  9. I was unaware TM owned OTK boots. Fair play, though I didn't much like the shape of the heel 'as photographed'. She is still a very plain looking woman with a taste for the avant garde in clothing style. She would seldom be hard to find in a crowd. I'm not really interested in her dress sense, although I would consider it novel. What I'm more concerned about, is her delivering what the general populace want. So far, she seems to be moving toward doing just that. Much to my surprise, I'm glad to say. As with millions of others, I am expecting news today, I never really thought would arrive. Interesting times.
  10. The Daily mail headline was crass because it was crass - because it reduced the lead story of the day to an adolescent guffaw at a silly word play and to the shoes and legs of the women in the photo, not the important constitutional issues which they were discussing. As far as what they were wearing being worthy of comment - sure. An inside column noting their respective styles and body language would have been worthwhile, but that's not the lead story, nor should it be the front page headline, still less expressed in such a sophomoric way. On the side of the Daily Mail, it is worth noting the vast number of column inches the self-righteous writers of Guardian devoted to Theresa May's leather trousers not too many weeks ago, and their disapproving coverage of her recent appearance in American Vogue magazine. I suppose the Guardian writers believe it is all right when they do it because they are, after all, the Guardian and so by definition it would be impossible for them to do anything sexist or non-PC. I would also add that for all the umbrage expressed by certain female columnists and politicians, and the idea that men would never be subjected to that kind of personal scrutiny - men are subjected to it too. There is just much less of a hoo-ha by the 'victims' when it happens. President Obama, for example, was castigated last year for having the temerity to wear a brown suit, instead of black or navy blue. David Cameron's hair, and Boris Johnson's too, regularly receive comment. In terms of worthy commentary, I would say Theresa May is to be commended for her dress sense - she is happy to push the boundaries of what is considered 'susceptible' for women in their 60s by wearing thigh boots and leather trousers as and when she feels like it. And she manages to carry off the look. That speaks of self confidence, strength of character and a willingness not to blindly follow the herd - good attributes in a politician or a person and worthy of comment.
  11. Yesterday
  12. Well, as a regular DM reader, I didn't take offence at the light-hearted 'legs' article although I can see why it ruffled so many PC-obsessed feathers. There are far more serious things to worry about than allegedly offensive words - generally objected to vicariously and vociferously by anyone but the apparent target. Sticks and stones ... As to Ms Sturgeon, I admire her guts whilst disliking her attitude and values - and she scrubs up well on occasions, especially in the shoe department. I'm just waiting now for newspaper comment (DM or otherwise) about the need for the many foreigners injured in the Westminster attack to be charged in full by the NHS for their treatment. They should be, if the rules are to be applied properly, but I suspect that any such suggestion will be treated as 'outrageous' by the great unwashed. I will now duck down behind the nearest parapet ...
  13. You're obviously a fan ......
  14. Four left feet and four tin ears.
  15. Actually you never mentioned stilettos - you referred to heels, as did I. Stilettos, as a specific style, were a 1950s creation specifically designed for women. Nobody could show you a picture or painting of anybody wearing stilettos much before 1950 at the earliest. However, high heels as a fashion go back much, much further - centuries - and there are indeed paintings of Louis XIV of France and King Charles II of England (to name but two fashionable royals) wearing 3-4 inch heels. Neither of the two kings were riding horses n the paintings or were wearing equestrian clothes. They were arrayed in all their court finery. It was totally fashion, a male fashion. Charles II https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/df/44/c0/df44c002469ab4340ae15bc4c657952f.jpg and: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Charles_II_of_England_in_Coronation_robes.jpg Louis XIV: http://68.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lkzid3Jvkb1qggdq1.jpg
  16. I was careful to word my response. I doubt you or anyone could show me paintings depicting men wearing 4 or 5 inch stiletto's. A boot with a heel to show off wealth (owner of horses) is one thing. A high fashion court shoe .... Overall, it's a one way street. When woman's fashion takes up something previously largely masculine, MEN don't go after it again. In that respect, trousers and jeans 'never left the building', but they are unisex, omnisex, or pansexual? [Tick box as appropriate. ]
  17. I had to read up about that to understand it. "Apparently", Murdoch didn't see a need to change the headline even when the full story about the sinking (and loss of life) was known. Says a lot about the man really. As for the DM editorial profile, I think it's stuff of 'legend', and none of it good. I began reading it because of the pictures, my interest being glamorous women wearing high heels. (There is a thread I started here, with me having access to hundreds of images to be included - sometime.) But I have to say, with all the 2015 GE going on, the Referendum, Brexit, I am often motivated to comment. Sometimes on the picture editors ability to show us so many woman with no lower limbs, but 20 near identical photo's if a glimpse of cleavage is seen. I guess he'she used to work for The Sun newspaper? I remember Sarah Vine getting herself into a lot of hot water over the election of a new leader of the Conservative Party, with her husband's rather foolish route to gaining access to that position and the PM's job. Trying to defend the indefensible .... I wouldn't be surprised if that couple has 4 left feet between them.
  18. True, everybody - male or female - makes subliminal judgements about others as we see/encounter them. That's just part of being human. But as you say, this woman is being paid fancy money to offer considered opinions on political topics. This is not a swift subliminal take on sexy (or otherwise) legs, stilettos and outfits, but a feature article that took time write, edit caption and headline - not just be Ms Vine but by the team of editors and copy-editors who put out that paper. And this is what they come up with? This must frank with the infamous Gotcha headline during the Falklands war for sheer stupidity and inappropriateness.
  19. I obviously missed the early edition, as I read the DM on-line. Even so, I had two thoughts when looking at this picture ..... Firstly, TM has shiny tights on, very luxurious I concluded. Then looking at Sturgeon, I decided no matter how desperate I might feel, that women is never going to seem attractive to me. For that matter, neither is Teresa May, though she have been attractive in her younger days. Sadly, I can't counter 10,000 years worth of DNA heritage that gives us all the 3 second 'flight or fight' urge. I suspect part of that DNA training is the (also) intellectually unconquerable thought about attractiveness. (Men vs women.) I've no defence. That said, I'm not married to a British MP (and sometime Government Minister) and I don't write for a national publication, where intellectual skill and writing ability are judged daily, not least because I'm getting paid to be judged. The more favourably so, the greater my remuneration of course. For a woman in her position to reduce the encounter of two successful women to the shape of their legs, is crass. Not verging on stupidity, but deeply buried in it. What was she thinking? Her husbands career is barely out of the toilet, was she trying to flush it again?
  20. At one time - albeit a long time ago - men did indeed 'own' high heels. They were seen as very masculine and it was only a few very daring women at the dawn of the 18th century who began wearing them. Men of course are always sensitive to anything that strikes at their (our) masculinity and as more women began adopting this exotic fashion for heels, they were dropped by men. If by boots you mean desert boots etc, you may be right. But if you look at selections of men's boots you will see they are nearly all the same - very low ankle boots and with little variation, despite the varying style names. Calf, knee, OTK and higher boots are all the province of women. Men can wear certain styles of knee boots if they happen to be actually riding horses motorcycles, but the horse or motorcycle had better be in the frame. Women can wear equestrian or biker style boots whenever they please and in any context.
  21. Boots haven't been 'taken over' by women. Some styles are more synonymous with womens fashion, but I would think more mens boots are sold globally than womens. Likewise trousers. Some more synonymous with womens styles ("slacks", capri pants, ski pants) but more sold for men. Even jeans ... Women probably own more pairs (more sold to women) than men, certainly in the Western world. More styles for women (look better on women too), but men still wear them. Men have never 'owned' high heels, not in the sense of 'high heel fashion shoes'. They are -generally- the realm of womens fashion garb, rather like a pencil skirt might be.
  22. For anyone who thought the media had pretty much plumbed the depths and had really nowhere deeper to sink, there was this eye-popping headline on the cover of the Daily Mail this morning. Yes, it's real. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/mar/28/daily-mail-legs-it-front-page-sexist As one commentator put it, this is what happens when you let your drunken pervy uncle edit a newspaper....
  23. Ah yes, but trousers and jeans never became feminine. Not like heels and boots did. They were adopted by women, but never taken over by them. It would have been impossible, really, for women to have done so as that would then have left men literally with nowhere to go for leg coverings. Throughout history skirts, dresses or leggings of some sort have been what humans have covered their lower halves. Two of those three are now comprehensively lost to men. Trousers, jeans etc are the last refuge. There are no alternates left for men to retreat to! Women moved in and adopted them, but couldn't take them over fully as with boots and heels.
  24. Last week
  25. Mrs Freddy came up with one, I didn't really understand at first .... Trousers. Used by men, 'borrowed' (still) by women, but worn (still) by men. The reason I didn't get it, is that we don't see them as feminine attire, which is exactly why the answer is a winner. Truly, unisex. Is there a prize?
  26. Having bought my long sought PVC jeans from Topshop I am now on their e-mailing list - which is fine with me. I received an email from them last week crowing about their new lines of clothing which blurred traditional gender lines. Intrigued, I read on. It was all about women's fashions - pretty yet boyish. The traffic really only ever goes one way...
  27. Scarves? Skin toner. But I would tend to agree. Once an item has been recognised as predominantly "ladies" attire, I can't think of one item that has crossed back, even half-way to become unisex. So much for "equality" of the sexes ....
  28. Yes, that is one of the nice things about this place - the fact that it is just for guys who happen to like heels or boots without going in for all this CD stuff. HHP is supposedly a fashion site but, geez, some of the stuff that appears there! At present there is a deeply offensive photo on one of the HHP threads, utterly inappropriate for anything like a family friendly site (which is what HHP purports to be) and although I reported it, and others probably have as well, judging by the comments, nothing has been done to remove it. It has been up there a week now. Its continued presence on the forum is certainly making me re-think my involvement there.
  1. Load more activity