May I begin by thanking my opponent, orange-light, for challenging me to enter into this debate and taking such an active hand in organising it with
our moderator semperfortis. To him let me also extend my sincere thanks for organising this challenge match, especially given the already huge
commitment involved in the ongoing tournament. To all engaged in the tournament and all others who might read this I hope it might provide an engaging
distraction from the stresses of tournamenting, or indeed, life itself.
-----
Speaking of “life itself” I begin this opening statement proper by drawing attention to our title: “"It's a Sole Thing: shoe shopping is
essential for women." There it is, that word which refers to life itself “essential” - that which is necessary for being – and indeed I
shall demonstrate that shoe shopping is indeed necessary for women’s lives. I will provide women with a cast iron justification for those frequent
trips into town, no more shall man sneer or roll his eyes at you as you drool over a pair of Choo’s. Should they proclaim that your obsession is
“a load of b*ll*cks!” you can reply “No, dear heart, these are in fact Blahniks!” – their “arghs” shall become your Uggs and their
tongue clicking disapprovals will be silenced as you freely count your Geigers!
Psychology and sociology will not assist me, for after all how could any of those who wear brown suede hush puppies (*shudder*) ever fully understand
such an essential. No, here I shall use archaeology, ancient history, theology and philosophy to demonstrate the timeless and intrinsic necessity of
shoe shopping.
I begin, however, in this opening statement with etymology which, as we have seen with “essential”, is a key tool for understanding and
elucidating upon any conceptual statement. Considering the title of this debate I think it incumbent upon us to investigate the key words within that
title and “decode” the real meaning of the statement “shoe shopping is essential for women” and thus show it is a statement of fact of such
obviousness that it is in fact tautologous.
Shoe: A Norse/Germanic word derived from the Proto Indo-European (PIE) root “skeu” meaning “to cover” and familiar to us in the Latin
“ob-scurus.” What is quite remarkable is that this then connects with a word we use everyday, that being “sky,” which in turn is connected to
the Latin for shield “scutum.” Is the sky not essential for our survival? Is the sky not the shield that covers and protects us from the solar
radiation and lifeless void of space? Indeed it is and here we see that the humble “shoe” is named and renowned as that which covers and shields
the foot from that which would mortally wound the wearer otherwise. I shall return to this theme when I consider ancient Egyptian reverence for the
shoe but already, even in the briefest of examinations of the first word of this debate topic, we see that the “shoe” is associated with that
which enables the persistence of “esse”, of our very being. Indeed the tautology commences for already we could translate the debate's topic to
“Shopping for that which shields and protects is essential for women.”
But allow me to continue by grappling with Women: is this not an example of our language’s bias toward the male? By saying “woman” do we
only define the female in relationship to the man? No, because before “man” was usurped by the male of the species to denote itself “man”
meant “human being”, “woman” meant something entirely admirable and praiseworthy, it was indeed, I consider, a proper insult to the slothful
and degenerate male to describe the female of the species thus. For while “man” is just human being “woman” is “human being plus…” That
plus being her “wiff-ness”, her indefatigable activity and resourcefulness. For the “wo-“ of woman is nothing less than the old English
“wiff” from the PIE “weib” which meant “to move quickly to and fro.” Indeed “woman” and “vibrate” are both intimately connected by
this ancient root word “weib.” Can we see the full import of this? Does the male of the species not hang its head in shame when it acknowledges
that whilst we are merely “human beings” the female of the species are those human beings who rush to and fro inexhaustibly actualising the
potential of their existence through activity? Whilst the male pretends to be the “bread winner” it is the female who makes, by her activity,
life, being itself, possible for all. I almost feel inclined to cease here and afford my opponent the opportunity of three uncontested replies to try
and undo the irresistible impact of this proof that shoe shopping is essential for women, for look now at that debate topic unpacked via etymology:
“Shopping for that which shields and protects is necessary to the being of those who rush to and fro actualising the potential of that being
itself.”
For fear my opponent should instantly fold upon reading this proof and offer me too quickly the laurels of victory I shall ask here my first Socratic
Questions to afford her the opportunity to offer some words of challenge:
Socratic Question #1: How can that which is essential to life be separated from shoe shopping?
Socratic Question #2: Is it not sexist to deny women their definitive and essential right to protect their feet as they actualise the potential of
life?
Socratic Question #3: Would you agree with the 1960’s Arkansas State Representative, Paul Van Dalsem, that women should be “bare-foot and
pregnant in the kitchen”?
Dear reader, note already that the essential nature of shoe shopping for women is clearly manifest. In the coming posts I will show, using historical
examples, how this has long been recognised and only in the testosterone addled mindset of the recently industrialised world is this fundamental right
questioned. Prepare yourselves to join me on the banks of the Nile and the Jordan, the plains of Spain and the rolling hills of Ireland. In fact,
consider how many pairs of shoes you will need for such a journey and seize your fundamental right my sisters be liberated and go now buy shoes!
Challenge Match: Supercertari vs orange-light: "It's a Sole Thing", page
privacy
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 11 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 11 times
reply posted on 21-3-2009 @ 07:08 AM by Supercertari
My opponent urges me,
Perhaps she fears this confusion particularly among our female readers because after all as she says:
I, however, do not believe this to be true. As the “semantics” of my opening statement clearly demonstrated that on the contrary it is far from true that women are the “weak gender” they are, rather, the dynamic gender who, in exercising their fundamental right to shop for shoes, manifests to the truly weaker sex – the slothful male – her predominance.
Orange-light proceeds by repeating the false claims of the male of the species so thoroughly has her natural feminine energy been hobbled by the prevailing fear motivated attack on shoe shopping purveyed for centuries.
Like those weak men she cannot help but quiver in fear at the sight of a pair of beautiful stilettos and their manifestation of the incredible strength of the female. Evolution may have given man, apparently, more physical strength but watch them nod in agreed horror with my opponent as she says to women,
I watch many women walk past me in their stilettos, doing the seemingly impossible and I do not run in fear from this manifestation of their strength I gasp in awe at something which manifests the inner strength, courage and energy of the female. The points of all those heels aerating the earth and ensuring mother earth’s fecundity brings to mind that other manifestation of female strength which reminds man of his place.
The male winces at the strength required to walk in those shoes because they threaten his imagined superiority by reminding him of the unimaginable, to him, physical strength of the female. The industrial revolution removed women from the fields and allowed man to imagine she was the weaker sex, exiling her to the menial tasks of kitchen and hearth. His victory swagger though continues to be threatened each time he see’s his opposite saunter by in shoes that would snap his feeble ankle.
It is with this in mind that I contradict my opponent’s assertion that
For the very “essence” of “wiff-men” is threatened daily by this attack on her fundamental right to shop for shoes. Give up those shoes and man will have triumphed in assuring that women no longer live but merely exist. A woman without all her shoes, in our industrialised world, is indeed destined to be bare-foot and pregnant in the kitchen, enslaved to the whims of the male who would thus be able to believe their own delusion that he were the stronger. Many shoes, of many colours and styles are as essential to the female as are shells to an oyster – they protect her from the machinations of a male world that see’s women as only “plenty more fish in the sea.” They remind the male that his pretentious notion he is stronger collapse as surely as he would were he to try and walk the length of himself in them.
It is, alas, not surprising that my opponent does not see this essential nature of shoe shopping as she seems captive to the male view of what is essential, listen to her and hope we can rescue her, and the many other women, who have been shackled by the male view of life.
We are not drones in a hive doing nothing until the opportunity for sex arises, well at least women aren’t, many men are. Women don’t buy shoes to get more sex! They buy shoes to show the opposite sex their strength and destiny, they shop for shoes to ensure their essential nature is clear for all to see – “don’t step on me brother” those shoes proclaim “for my tread hurts more!”
My opponent has given me the opportunity to further expand upon this essential nature of shoe shopping for women in the current age, but now is the time to begin those excursions I promised. Let us go back in time to see where this totemic nature of the essence of women contained in shoes and making their purchase by women essential begins. Stilettos aside for the moment, don your wellies and join me on the banks of the Nile.
What is that fair Isis with which you anoint the lips of the sovereign Queen? Why certainly we all recognise it as the ankh symbol.
Egyptian hieroglyphic symbols have a conceptual meaning beyond immediate appearance. “What relevance is this to shoes!?” I hear you say. Well, let us look at the ankh symbol and discern that it is in fact an ideogrammatic rendering of a sandal strap. Yes, that mysterious symbol which the new-age has so embraced is no mystical rendering of an oval headed alien, nor a prefiguring of the Christian Cross, it is a sandal strap. For ancient Egyptians the sandal strap represented life, essence, itself. See where the loop passes around the ankle (indeed, consider why it’s even called the ankle!), note the strap across the top of the foot and the line of leather between the toes. Yes! Life is Sandals!
Not convinced? Well let us not just read ancient Egyptian, let us hear it. “How say you life sweet Isis?” ’nh comes her reply shimmering across the pages of time. Dare we proceed, lets! “And how sweet Queen, how do you say sandal?” listen closely, hear her reply: ’nh she says.
Can something so mundane truly have symbolised the most precious of gifts? Well consider why it might. Go to the desert and walk hot sands bare foot – ouch! Wake in the morning and step from your bed onto the floor – “crunch” go the insects assembled over night. Approach the river barefoot and scream as a viper’s thrusting attack meets no resistance. Life, indeed, is shoes!
Ladies, take the image above and print it out and show it to your men folk. Your shoe shopping is no flim-flam, for life itself is a flip-flop.
See that heavenly Queen appoint and bless her earthly counterpart, not with oil or crown or sceptre, but with the strap of a sandal. It touches her lips for she is to proclaim life and you, dear ladies, are ordained not only to bring life into the world, not only to speak of life but to proclaim it by your actions – go shoe shopping, it is literally essential!
Are we not breathless at this realization? Does it not swell your heart with pride and humble the scornful eyes of we men folk to see in all clarity the excellence of what we should no longer dismiss as a past-time but acknowledge as something which is life itself. But breath again I must for our journey continues to another river bank – go ahead, pick another pair of wellies, show us the abundance and energy of life as we head toward answering my opponent’s accusation that,
Let me lead you in hushed tones to the bank of the Jordan, the year approximately 30A.D. and hear a prophet speak:
(Luke 3:16)
This is no passing phrase by the Baptist for it is repeated not only in the other two synoptic gospels (Matt 3:11, Mark 1:7) but also in the Gospel of John (1:27). John thus proclaims that the Christ is above all, that His life is not to be denied or undone by him. The Christ is to be acknowledged in that tradition of the Levant that associated life with sandals as the Sandal, as Life itself.
What has that to do with women? Well let us look at further examples of the sandal in the Gospels. For Christ when sending our his male disciples commands them to give their very life for Him, these men are commanded to “not take a purse or bag or sandals” (Luke 10:4) for men there is not to be the dignity of these emblems of the essential nature of life itself. Let us then see what one woman did and how commended she was by the Lord. For where men were sent out sandalless, where even John the Baptist could not undo the sandal of the Messiah we read:
“Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair.” (John 12:3)
It is the feminine alone who can undo the strap of His sandal, the feminine alone to tend to His very life. As surely as Isis appointed the earthly Queen so does the Messiah appoint the feminine to deal with the great and ancient symbol of life. Men are excluded, even commanded to be without, the feminine is shown to own, as part of her essence and the very divine essence, this symbol of life.
Women, have you seen and fully appreciated the import of these passages? Can we glimpse through the wall of oppression imposed on your most natural inclination by the weak male’s conspired dominance the true and essential nature of your shoe shopping? Might it be jealousy over man being commanded to “not take a purse or bag or sandals” and you receiving the divine commission to have them all that generates this conspiracy?
Etymology, ancient history, theology all unveil the essential nature of shoe shopping for women. I myself even feel a pang of jealousy but righteously I convert that to awe as I reveal the timeless commission you have received. Take your purses and bags, shop for shoes it is your right mandated by One I cannot undo.
Don’t start to discuss the semantic origin of these words; this can only be a bewildering action for our readers.
Perhaps she fears this confusion particularly among our female readers because after all as she says:
Women are usually regarded as the “weak gender”. Women are regarded as sensitive, as vulnerable. This is so true.
I, however, do not believe this to be true. As the “semantics” of my opening statement clearly demonstrated that on the contrary it is far from true that women are the “weak gender” they are, rather, the dynamic gender who, in exercising their fundamental right to shop for shoes, manifests to the truly weaker sex – the slothful male – her predominance.
Orange-light proceeds by repeating the false claims of the male of the species so thoroughly has her natural feminine energy been hobbled by the prevailing fear motivated attack on shoe shopping purveyed for centuries.
A woman can easily survive with one or two pair of shoes.
Like those weak men she cannot help but quiver in fear at the sight of a pair of beautiful stilettos and their manifestation of the incredible strength of the female. Evolution may have given man, apparently, more physical strength but watch them nod in agreed horror with my opponent as she says to women,
If you want to wear stilettos – do so! – if you legs don’t hurt.
I watch many women walk past me in their stilettos, doing the seemingly impossible and I do not run in fear from this manifestation of their strength I gasp in awe at something which manifests the inner strength, courage and energy of the female. The points of all those heels aerating the earth and ensuring mother earth’s fecundity brings to mind that other manifestation of female strength which reminds man of his place.
The male winces at the strength required to walk in those shoes because they threaten his imagined superiority by reminding him of the unimaginable, to him, physical strength of the female. The industrial revolution removed women from the fields and allowed man to imagine she was the weaker sex, exiling her to the menial tasks of kitchen and hearth. His victory swagger though continues to be threatened each time he see’s his opposite saunter by in shoes that would snap his feeble ankle.
It is with this in mind that I contradict my opponent’s assertion that
Shoe shopping is neither essential nor is it fun.
For the very “essence” of “wiff-men” is threatened daily by this attack on her fundamental right to shop for shoes. Give up those shoes and man will have triumphed in assuring that women no longer live but merely exist. A woman without all her shoes, in our industrialised world, is indeed destined to be bare-foot and pregnant in the kitchen, enslaved to the whims of the male who would thus be able to believe their own delusion that he were the stronger. Many shoes, of many colours and styles are as essential to the female as are shells to an oyster – they protect her from the machinations of a male world that see’s women as only “plenty more fish in the sea.” They remind the male that his pretentious notion he is stronger collapse as surely as he would were he to try and walk the length of himself in them.
It is, alas, not surprising that my opponent does not see this essential nature of shoe shopping as she seems captive to the male view of what is essential, listen to her and hope we can rescue her, and the many other women, who have been shackled by the male view of life.
it is essential for living to breath, to drink, to eat and to have sex.
Shoe shopping and resulting shoes might help to get more sex
We are not drones in a hive doing nothing until the opportunity for sex arises, well at least women aren’t, many men are. Women don’t buy shoes to get more sex! They buy shoes to show the opposite sex their strength and destiny, they shop for shoes to ensure their essential nature is clear for all to see – “don’t step on me brother” those shoes proclaim “for my tread hurts more!”
My opponent has given me the opportunity to further expand upon this essential nature of shoe shopping for women in the current age, but now is the time to begin those excursions I promised. Let us go back in time to see where this totemic nature of the essence of women contained in shoes and making their purchase by women essential begins. Stilettos aside for the moment, don your wellies and join me on the banks of the Nile.
What is that fair Isis with which you anoint the lips of the sovereign Queen? Why certainly we all recognise it as the ankh symbol.
Egyptian hieroglyphic symbols have a conceptual meaning beyond immediate appearance. “What relevance is this to shoes!?” I hear you say. Well, let us look at the ankh symbol and discern that it is in fact an ideogrammatic rendering of a sandal strap. Yes, that mysterious symbol which the new-age has so embraced is no mystical rendering of an oval headed alien, nor a prefiguring of the Christian Cross, it is a sandal strap. For ancient Egyptians the sandal strap represented life, essence, itself. See where the loop passes around the ankle (indeed, consider why it’s even called the ankle!), note the strap across the top of the foot and the line of leather between the toes. Yes! Life is Sandals!
Not convinced? Well let us not just read ancient Egyptian, let us hear it. “How say you life sweet Isis?” ’nh comes her reply shimmering across the pages of time. Dare we proceed, lets! “And how sweet Queen, how do you say sandal?” listen closely, hear her reply: ’nh she says.
Can something so mundane truly have symbolised the most precious of gifts? Well consider why it might. Go to the desert and walk hot sands bare foot – ouch! Wake in the morning and step from your bed onto the floor – “crunch” go the insects assembled over night. Approach the river barefoot and scream as a viper’s thrusting attack meets no resistance. Life, indeed, is shoes!
Ladies, take the image above and print it out and show it to your men folk. Your shoe shopping is no flim-flam, for life itself is a flip-flop.
See that heavenly Queen appoint and bless her earthly counterpart, not with oil or crown or sceptre, but with the strap of a sandal. It touches her lips for she is to proclaim life and you, dear ladies, are ordained not only to bring life into the world, not only to speak of life but to proclaim it by your actions – go shoe shopping, it is literally essential!
Are we not breathless at this realization? Does it not swell your heart with pride and humble the scornful eyes of we men folk to see in all clarity the excellence of what we should no longer dismiss as a past-time but acknowledge as something which is life itself. But breath again I must for our journey continues to another river bank – go ahead, pick another pair of wellies, show us the abundance and energy of life as we head toward answering my opponent’s accusation that,
the theological aspect sounds pretty scaring. May I say: “Supercertari, now that’s going too far!”
Let me lead you in hushed tones to the bank of the Jordan, the year approximately 30A.D. and hear a prophet speak:
John answered them all, "I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.
(Luke 3:16)
This is no passing phrase by the Baptist for it is repeated not only in the other two synoptic gospels (Matt 3:11, Mark 1:7) but also in the Gospel of John (1:27). John thus proclaims that the Christ is above all, that His life is not to be denied or undone by him. The Christ is to be acknowledged in that tradition of the Levant that associated life with sandals as the Sandal, as Life itself.
What has that to do with women? Well let us look at further examples of the sandal in the Gospels. For Christ when sending our his male disciples commands them to give their very life for Him, these men are commanded to “not take a purse or bag or sandals” (Luke 10:4) for men there is not to be the dignity of these emblems of the essential nature of life itself. Let us then see what one woman did and how commended she was by the Lord. For where men were sent out sandalless, where even John the Baptist could not undo the sandal of the Messiah we read:
“Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair.” (John 12:3)
It is the feminine alone who can undo the strap of His sandal, the feminine alone to tend to His very life. As surely as Isis appointed the earthly Queen so does the Messiah appoint the feminine to deal with the great and ancient symbol of life. Men are excluded, even commanded to be without, the feminine is shown to own, as part of her essence and the very divine essence, this symbol of life.
Women, have you seen and fully appreciated the import of these passages? Can we glimpse through the wall of oppression imposed on your most natural inclination by the weak male’s conspired dominance the true and essential nature of your shoe shopping? Might it be jealousy over man being commanded to “not take a purse or bag or sandals” and you receiving the divine commission to have them all that generates this conspiracy?
Etymology, ancient history, theology all unveil the essential nature of shoe shopping for women. I myself even feel a pang of jealousy but righteously I convert that to awe as I reveal the timeless commission you have received. Take your purses and bags, shop for shoes it is your right mandated by One I cannot undo.
reply posted on 24-3-2009 @ 06:37 AM by orange-light
Response #1
After reading the very eloquent post of my esteemed opponent Supercertari I got the idea that my opponent is a bit tangled about our subject.
To make it clear once again! We are talking about “shoe shopping is NOT essential for women”.
Before going closer into the matter I have to rebut some of Supercertari’s statements.
My dear opponent you seem to misunderstand the word “regard”
I claimed
by orange lightWomen are usually regarded as the “weak gender”.
In my opinion – being myself a woman – I would never claim that women are the weak gender, we are not! But some men and somehow society thinks so! This is a big difference!
Perhaps she fears this confusion particularly among our female readers
is Supercertari’s statement concerning my warning to discuss semantics. Maybe my female intuition makes me more sensitive, but every word seems to shout male prejudice to me. Do we really have to discuss the capacity of the brain especially the female brain? A bit far away from the feet. By no means I intended to consider what my opponent seems to do. Surely our female readers are more than capable to follow a dispute on semantics – we are on ATS, many of our fighters are female – the elite of ATS, the brains of ATS. So don’t ever claim that anybody fears that the female readers might be confused by any part of a debate. They could be offended by such a proposition.
Truly my opponent is right to claim that women are dynamic and strong. I am not very sure whom he is adulating – me, the female readers, the judges? I don’t want to insult the men of ATS but in my country some feminists use to say “if men would have to bear children mankind would become extinct” – I guess this says a lot.
Back to topic!
My opponent tried to define the terms “shoes” and “essential” in his opening. It is time to take a closer look.
/1/
Main Entry:
1shoe
…
1 a: an outer covering for the human foot typically having a thick or stiff sole with an attached heel and an upper part of lighter material (as leather)
A shoe covers the human foot! It protects the human foot.
We all need shoes. We can’t walk outside just being barefoot. Modern life makes this impossible. Wearing shoes is one of the unwritten codes we follow in our life. Some people would even get offended if they had to go out without shoes. Even if a modern person would go out all naked, that person would still wear shoes. There is no doubt about it.
But take a look at the different kind of shoes – shoes from ancient time and shoes of modern fashion. Decide on your own which will suit best for the purpose to protect the foot and to keep it warm in a cold climate!
Mankind know shoes for many thousand years. The first ancient shoe was discovered about 8,000 BCE, but not all humans wear shoes during the last 10,000 years.
Most of the time there have been people, most people have not worn shoes. Until recent years, shoes were not worn by most of the world's population—largely because they could not afford them./2/ – emphasis mine!
Yup, you read right, mankind didn’t wear shoes most of the time the past 10,000 years because shoes were too expensive. At this point of the debate I would like to thank Supercertari for the wonderful virtual excursion to the banks of the Nile and Jordan, very interesting indeed, but absolutely useless and fruitless for our topic. Beside privileged people like Pharao, gentry and priests, nobody could afford shoes, regardless whether Supercertari’s thesis about the symbol “ank” is right or not.
Again: normal people who where usually poor people but actually the majority of the population couldn’t afford shoes! TOO EXPENSIVE so shoe shopping only for Goddesses or Queens.
So all these analogies to Egyptian mythology and Christian Bible my dear friend are again far fetched!
Shoes are worn for 10,000 years but only recently they became available for everybody. Until modern times shoe were also a symbol which distinguished the regnant caste from the poor working caste. Again no shoe shopping and therefore no right for shoe shopping.
Actually the industrial revolution made shoes available for everybody. And women weren’t doomed to be pregnant in her own kitchen, everybody had to go out and work. At least the majority!
To stay at home – and to wear shoes – were again a privilege for wealthy people. The poor regarded this way of living being very attractive and when it became possible to live on one income men declared themselves to be superior and banned their wives to the house. It also became very attractive to follow the eating habits of the wealthy people – therefore people started to eat white flour and all the stuff, which is made out of that crap. But that is the topic of another debate!
So sorry my dear friend, no historical developed right for women to shop for shoes.
Until modern time shoe shopping wasn’t popular. Shoes were made on order by the local shoemaker, as well as dresses were sewed by the local tailor. No shopping for that!
Shopping for shoes became possible in the 20th century, when they started to fabric shoes in masses! Shoes became cheap and women became mad of shoes.
My dear opponent praises women into the shoe shops:
Give up those shoes and man will have triumphed in assuring that women no longer live but merely exist. A woman without all her shoes, in our industrialised world, is indeed destined to be bare-foot and pregnant in the kitchen,
I can’t help but ask myself for what reason? Does he fear a woman, who is not shopping for shoes? A not excessively shoe shopping woman is capable of everything, she got plenty of time, she is able to get a careers – one became Secretary of State of the United States of America, another one Chancellor of Germany – just imagine if Mrs Clinton and Mrs Merkel would have wasted their time by meaningless shoe shopping.
And before my opponent accuses me again for wanting women bare feet and pregnant in her kitchen, I will admit that shoes are necessary: protection and keeping feet warm. No doubt.
But you don’t need hundreds, really you don’t need them.
A friend told me that she got three pair of shoes, yes you read right THREE!
One pair for summer, one pair for winter and another one – she called it my good ones – for official purpose, like going to church. Maybe this selection is a bit limited, even most non shoe shopping got more pair. My son got two pair for each season. So he owns four pair of shoes. Quiet enough! Add some of Supercertari’s wellies to the needed shoes, and for women one or two pair of stilettos, if you like stilettos, and that’s it. All you need, very well-arranged.
Feet are warm, feet are protected, and some days feet look hot. Fine!
Plenty of time to do useful things in life!
And believe me, even if Supercertari is claiming this, I don’t have a male view on this topic, I have got a more handy view on this subject. No wasted afternoons with fruitless attempts to find a special pair of shoes, which aren’t too expensive. No wasted space in my wardrobe to store shoes you just bought but rarely wear. No wasted time cleaning all these shoes. If I would go out shopping for shoes the way my opponent wants me to do, because he claims it is my right as a woman, and not doing so – how did he called that – is
testosterone addled, yeah if I would do so I wouldn’t have the time to do this debate.
Now a closer look to the word “essential”
Main Entry: 1es·sen·tial/3/ – emphasis mine
…
1: of, relating to, or constituting essence : inherent
2 a: of the utmost importance : basic , indispensable , necessary
Essential means necessary, yup it is necessary for us to breath, otherwise we will die.
It is essential to eat, otherwise we will die.
It is essential to drink, if we don’t death will follow much quicker as if we won’t eat.
Even sex is necessary or essential, to make sure that mankind will survive, maybe not essential for the single person, but for mankind in general.
But shoe shopping is not among the stuff we need to survive. Or did you hear ever from a person, who actually died because she/he wasn’t allowed to shop for shoes? If so, please u2u me.
When I mentioned first, that sex is essential and some women buy shoes to get more sex, my opponent rebuts:
We are not drones in a hive doing nothing until the opportunity for sex arises, well at least women aren’t, many men are. Women don’t buy shoes to get more sex!
You might believe in an ideal woman my dear friend, and yeah some women buy shoes because they like them. But there are also women, who buy shoes because they get men much more easily. It is common saying among girls: “If you want to date, wear stilettos no sneakers!” And I guess I don’t have to explain to you to what dating a girl or a boy will lead!
Socratic Questions to Supercertari:
1. Why do women prefer to wear stilettos?
2. Why should women waste their time in meaningless shopping?
3. What do you think women try to compensate by this shopping?
So on your feet again, kick the manolos away and back to the computer.
reply posted on 26-3-2009 @ 06:47 AM by Supercertari
Rebuttal
My opponent claims:
This however contradicts her previous assertion that:
And her consequent expression in her latest reply that:
I fear a debate topic which began with a modicum of humorous intent now takes on the very serious task of rescuing my opponent from the shackles of psychological misogyny imposed by our male-dominated culture. Certainly a vital task in this liberation is an understanding of the truth of the essential nature of shoe shopping for women. By laughing in the face of male sneering, by showing the strength of character required to wear them, by manifesting the individuality in an abundance of styles I hope my opponent can begin this process!
In her effort to support the male caricature of shoe shopping my opponent employs, unconsciously I am sure, the same techniques of the frightened male – mistruths. In tackling the importance of the shoe to ancient Egyptians she claims that:
This is incorrect, in ancient Egypt shoes were affordable to all but the very poorest, indeed the sage Ipuwer equates the shoeless state with a life imperilling destitution. [1]
In my opponents ancient idyll it seems shoes were free:
I can but reply to that claim – cobblers! For indeed, as Ipuwer shows us, cobblers did not ply their trade for free. Indeed allow me to expand etymologically upon the word “shop,” beyond a mere repetition of a dictionary definition composed in the male orientated era in which we live. “Shop” has its etymological origin in the Old English “scoppa” meaning “booth or shed for trade or work.” Our ancient cobbler indeed carried out his work and plied his trade in such a booth or shed, his customers indeed visited his shop to obtain their sandals, they went shopping for that essential to keep them from destitution.
Though I do not intend to linger much longer by this Mother of Rivers one last point needs emphasised in refuting my opponents claim that shoes were merely practical or simple for we read the instruction in ancient documents:
[ibid]
Socratic Answers
1. Why do women prefer to wear stilettos?
To manifest to the weaker sex the courage, determination and inner strength that he can but imitate, or would if he were freed from the sloth inducing beer can, sofa and sport’s television.
2. Why should women waste their time in meaningless shopping?
No one should waste their time in meaningless shopping. As my comments here demonstrate shoe shopping is far from meaningless it is essential.
3. What do you think women try to compensate by this shopping?
Nothing. It is not compensation but a proclamation of their essential nature.
Reply Two
Time to set aside those wellies used in my previous post and select some charming moccasins, sandals and shoes as we head away from river banks towards the great hills and plains of North America, Spain and Ireland on our journey unveiling the history of the essential nature of shoe shopping for women in cultures unshackled by post-industrial misogynism.
First ancient Ireland [2]. Approach with me the Hill of Tara as we witness the commissioning of a new king. Look around the spectacle of colour and dignitaries and the cushioned regalia of the ceremony. A crown there? No. Instead on the sacred cushion we find a pair of elegant and beautiful lady’s slippers. For ancient Irish Kings were not crowned so much as enslippered. In the ceremony the “king-maker” would place the slipper on the king’s foot as a sign of his union with the land of Ireland. Mother Ireland enveloped the king and bestowed upon him her protection. For indeed our view of sex and symbolism has been corrupted by the male view and imagines sex and fertility to be about penetration (such an ugly word) when the discerning will note it is an enveloping. In this sense the new king was united to his realm, not by himself actively penetrating the slipper but by passively allowing himself to be enveloped by Mother Ireland – a beautiful and proper expression of the proper order of things.
What happened to the other slipper then? Did it too envelope the new king? No, the honour and privilege of wearing a pair of beautiful and ornamental slippers was not his and this remoteness from total authority was manifest when the “king-maker” took the other slipper and threw it over the new king’s shoulder. For Ireland might give him her protection, but she still belonged to herself.
Here we see the shoe representing the essential nature, power and authority of the feminine which could never be entirely in the control or grasp of any earthly potentate. The feminine would remain free, granting rather than seeking protection. Sovereign Ireland might donate certain authority to a male king but persisted in Her own supreme authority. When men denounce women for their shoe shopping what else are they doing but seeking to impose a control over this vital expression of their identity that even the ancient Irish kings would not claim. Man wishes to control women’s shoes, and the shopping for them, as a way of asserting his dominance over the feminine. If this dominance be permitted then woman’s essential nature is deprived of expression resulting in her enslavement. Do not allow the weak and capricious male to do this! Take up your right and do that which is essential to manifest your independence, strength and power. There are men like me who understand this threat to the proper order, there are some who “walk a mile in your shoes” and understand them to be the very totemic expression of your essential nature.
Did you feel that teleportation as we walked in those other shoes? Did you notice rolling hills of Ireland become the vast plains of North America, for that is where we have come to that expression of the essential nature of shoes - “walk a mile in my moccasins.” A cliché certainly, but like all clichés it contains that kernel of ancient wisdom which recognised that those humble foot coverings that accompany us through our life’s journey are a symbol of that life. Essential for their utilitarian advantages they are also emblematic of that very essence of who we are.
There is in this a particular lesson for us in this debate which is gender specific. We can all walk many miles in our brother’s shoes but for at least half the population it is rightly impossible to walk a few feet let alone a mile in our sisters shoes – our ankles just couldn’t take it! Yes, women have footwear which are emblematic of their true essence. On a meta-physical level women’s shoes are often a totem of their strength, power, and vitality. I can manage to walk in your moccasins though, my sisters, and like that Irish king of old being so enveloped in your true and essential character leaves me with nothing but deep respect for your dignity and character and encourages me, no compels me, to here defend your essential right to shop for them as abundantly as you wish.
My opponent persists in introducing sex to this debate, I confess that is inevitable but beyond orange_light’s mechanical treatment of sex there is the broader supra-physical nature of what might better be called pro-creation – that sweeping up of the physical into the very creative and defining impulse of nature. The enveloping of the king’s foot shows this. The man who makes the emblem and totem of the lady’s shoe into a fetish shows this where he seeks to surrender to the dominant power of the feminine – of course being male this righteous order is corrupted by mere physicality in these cases. Shoes and sex are connected, but more than the mere mechanics of the act but as a representation of the creative power of the feminine. This I shall take up further on that promised trip to Spain, but let us rejoice that so far we have reclaimed words from their male definitions by tracing them back etymologically to the moment of their creation and begin to truly connect shoes and sex in its vibrant creativity beyond the mechanical obsession of the male.
Shoe shopping is essential to women not only as a response to male distortions of your character and nature but as a fullsome representation of who you are. And you are that which man can never aspire to be, the very essence of nature's greatness. In this era of ecological concern we begin to see that women's shoe shopping is essential not just to the women themselves but to us all. Please, delay no longer, go shop - the world depends on you!
My opponent claims:
In my opinion – being myself a woman – I would never claim that women are the weak gender, we are not! But some men and somehow society thinks so! This is a big difference!
This however contradicts her previous assertion that:
Women are usually regarded as the “weak gender”. Women are regarded as sensitive, as vulnerable. This is so true.
And her consequent expression in her latest reply that:
Maybe my female intuition makes me more sensitive.
I fear a debate topic which began with a modicum of humorous intent now takes on the very serious task of rescuing my opponent from the shackles of psychological misogyny imposed by our male-dominated culture. Certainly a vital task in this liberation is an understanding of the truth of the essential nature of shoe shopping for women. By laughing in the face of male sneering, by showing the strength of character required to wear them, by manifesting the individuality in an abundance of styles I hope my opponent can begin this process!
In her effort to support the male caricature of shoe shopping my opponent employs, unconsciously I am sure, the same techniques of the frightened male – mistruths. In tackling the importance of the shoe to ancient Egyptians she claims that:
mankind didn’t wear shoes most of the time the past 10,000 years because shoes were too expensive. Beside privileged people like Pharao, gentry and priests, nobody could afford shoes.
This is incorrect, in ancient Egypt shoes were affordable to all but the very poorest, indeed the sage Ipuwer equates the shoeless state with a life imperilling destitution. [1]
In my opponents ancient idyll it seems shoes were free:
Shoes were made on order by the local shoemaker. No shopping for that!
I can but reply to that claim – cobblers! For indeed, as Ipuwer shows us, cobblers did not ply their trade for free. Indeed allow me to expand etymologically upon the word “shop,” beyond a mere repetition of a dictionary definition composed in the male orientated era in which we live. “Shop” has its etymological origin in the Old English “scoppa” meaning “booth or shed for trade or work.” Our ancient cobbler indeed carried out his work and plied his trade in such a booth or shed, his customers indeed visited his shop to obtain their sandals, they went shopping for that essential to keep them from destitution.
Though I do not intend to linger much longer by this Mother of Rivers one last point needs emphasised in refuting my opponents claim that shoes were merely practical or simple for we read the instruction in ancient documents:
In the monthly service, wear the white sandals,
Visit the temple,.
[ibid]
Socratic Answers
1. Why do women prefer to wear stilettos?
To manifest to the weaker sex the courage, determination and inner strength that he can but imitate, or would if he were freed from the sloth inducing beer can, sofa and sport’s television.
2. Why should women waste their time in meaningless shopping?
No one should waste their time in meaningless shopping. As my comments here demonstrate shoe shopping is far from meaningless it is essential.
3. What do you think women try to compensate by this shopping?
Nothing. It is not compensation but a proclamation of their essential nature.
Reply Two
Time to set aside those wellies used in my previous post and select some charming moccasins, sandals and shoes as we head away from river banks towards the great hills and plains of North America, Spain and Ireland on our journey unveiling the history of the essential nature of shoe shopping for women in cultures unshackled by post-industrial misogynism.
First ancient Ireland [2]. Approach with me the Hill of Tara as we witness the commissioning of a new king. Look around the spectacle of colour and dignitaries and the cushioned regalia of the ceremony. A crown there? No. Instead on the sacred cushion we find a pair of elegant and beautiful lady’s slippers. For ancient Irish Kings were not crowned so much as enslippered. In the ceremony the “king-maker” would place the slipper on the king’s foot as a sign of his union with the land of Ireland. Mother Ireland enveloped the king and bestowed upon him her protection. For indeed our view of sex and symbolism has been corrupted by the male view and imagines sex and fertility to be about penetration (such an ugly word) when the discerning will note it is an enveloping. In this sense the new king was united to his realm, not by himself actively penetrating the slipper but by passively allowing himself to be enveloped by Mother Ireland – a beautiful and proper expression of the proper order of things.
What happened to the other slipper then? Did it too envelope the new king? No, the honour and privilege of wearing a pair of beautiful and ornamental slippers was not his and this remoteness from total authority was manifest when the “king-maker” took the other slipper and threw it over the new king’s shoulder. For Ireland might give him her protection, but she still belonged to herself.
Here we see the shoe representing the essential nature, power and authority of the feminine which could never be entirely in the control or grasp of any earthly potentate. The feminine would remain free, granting rather than seeking protection. Sovereign Ireland might donate certain authority to a male king but persisted in Her own supreme authority. When men denounce women for their shoe shopping what else are they doing but seeking to impose a control over this vital expression of their identity that even the ancient Irish kings would not claim. Man wishes to control women’s shoes, and the shopping for them, as a way of asserting his dominance over the feminine. If this dominance be permitted then woman’s essential nature is deprived of expression resulting in her enslavement. Do not allow the weak and capricious male to do this! Take up your right and do that which is essential to manifest your independence, strength and power. There are men like me who understand this threat to the proper order, there are some who “walk a mile in your shoes” and understand them to be the very totemic expression of your essential nature.
Did you feel that teleportation as we walked in those other shoes? Did you notice rolling hills of Ireland become the vast plains of North America, for that is where we have come to that expression of the essential nature of shoes - “walk a mile in my moccasins.” A cliché certainly, but like all clichés it contains that kernel of ancient wisdom which recognised that those humble foot coverings that accompany us through our life’s journey are a symbol of that life. Essential for their utilitarian advantages they are also emblematic of that very essence of who we are.
There is in this a particular lesson for us in this debate which is gender specific. We can all walk many miles in our brother’s shoes but for at least half the population it is rightly impossible to walk a few feet let alone a mile in our sisters shoes – our ankles just couldn’t take it! Yes, women have footwear which are emblematic of their true essence. On a meta-physical level women’s shoes are often a totem of their strength, power, and vitality. I can manage to walk in your moccasins though, my sisters, and like that Irish king of old being so enveloped in your true and essential character leaves me with nothing but deep respect for your dignity and character and encourages me, no compels me, to here defend your essential right to shop for them as abundantly as you wish.
My opponent persists in introducing sex to this debate, I confess that is inevitable but beyond orange_light’s mechanical treatment of sex there is the broader supra-physical nature of what might better be called pro-creation – that sweeping up of the physical into the very creative and defining impulse of nature. The enveloping of the king’s foot shows this. The man who makes the emblem and totem of the lady’s shoe into a fetish shows this where he seeks to surrender to the dominant power of the feminine – of course being male this righteous order is corrupted by mere physicality in these cases. Shoes and sex are connected, but more than the mere mechanics of the act but as a representation of the creative power of the feminine. This I shall take up further on that promised trip to Spain, but let us rejoice that so far we have reclaimed words from their male definitions by tracing them back etymologically to the moment of their creation and begin to truly connect shoes and sex in its vibrant creativity beyond the mechanical obsession of the male.
Shoe shopping is essential to women not only as a response to male distortions of your character and nature but as a fullsome representation of who you are. And you are that which man can never aspire to be, the very essence of nature's greatness. In this era of ecological concern we begin to see that women's shoe shopping is essential not just to the women themselves but to us all. Please, delay no longer, go shop - the world depends on you!
reply posted on 28-3-2009 @ 11:56 AM by orange-light
Rebuttal and Response # 2
I am not sure, if I am shocked or fascinated by the rhetoric of my opponent. Maybe he even tries to take advantage knowing that English isn’t my first language.
He claims:
I fear a debate topic which began with a modicum of humorous intent now takes on the very serious task
after starting his semantic discourse again!
We have to go back again, I know it might be boring for our readers, but it has to be done for the sake of clarification.
Yep, I claimed that women are regarded to be the weak gender. Does this mean I agree with this statement. No it does not!
Why not? – because of the word “regard”, which means that something is looked at, or considered at, kind of public agreement.
I know that all the female readers know what I mean.
We are not, I want to emphasis this, we are NOT, what ever men might think or regard us, the weak gender!
And I have to disclaim very strictly the assumption of my opponent:
the shackles of psychological misogyny imposed by our male-dominated culture.
Dear me! You must be kidding Supercertari. Psychological misogyny?
I am still sitting here, being completely baffled by this allegation.
Wake up, it is time for it.
Nobody is hating women, at least not this woman who is your opponent.
And don’t get me wrong; I love women as sisters, as fellow gender.
I love to fight for equal rights for women, because this makes my life as easy as it makes yours my dear female reader.
So when fighting for the right of women to give up the overflowing shopping for shoes, and you can easily replace shoes by purses, bags, clothing even lip gloss, I want to open a new world for them.
A world where women truly have the same rights as men.
A world where women can spent their time with developing themselves.
A world where women can learn!
Where we can learn, and can be what we want to be.
So who seems to be the true misogyny? Me or my opponent?
He still wants women, wants us to crowd the malls, hurrying from shop to shop.
Wanting these poor souls to grasp to different shelves, to try shoe after shoe, knowing it won’t be healthy for them!
When you try a new pair of shoe in a shop like one of the big chain shops you find in every city, every mall all around the world. Where you are not served by the shop assistant, who rather stands near the cashier talking to her fellow clerk, chewing gum and hardly register if you are around or not. Got it? Those girls and young women don’t want to serve you, they usually ignore you. And while they ignore you, their customer, you can be pretty sure that they will ignore all their other duties too. Or do you really think they will care for the shoes in the shelves? That they will disinfect shoes, which have been tried by other women?
Do you really believe this?
Nope they won’t. They tell you to wear one of those little socks they offer in boxes when trying their shoes. They want to lull you to security. They want you to believe you are safe, your health is safe.
How tall is a bacteria? About 1 to 10 µm – 1 to 10 mikrometer – as tall as the diameter of a human hair. Ever tried to put a human hair through those nylon socks? Try it – it works!
If a human hair can get through, what do you think one of these agile bacteria might be capable of? Yeah right they get through too.
Yours into the shoe, those of the shoe onto your feet.
Is this imagination disgusting? I have to confess, to me a bit!
Really! And this is what my opponent wants you to condemn to. He wants you to shop shoes.
For what reason? He claims it is your right! Huuu my right! Really?
Is it my right to try the contaminated shoes which have been tried by thousands of other women, buy them, carry them home with me and wear them?
How many of you disinfect the booties of a shopping spree? Yup as I thought, hardly none. You are proud of your goodies, put them on and show of in front of your husbands, boyfriends and girlfriends. Quiet natural, nearly everybody does it.
So I don’t blame you.
I just want you to open your eyes.
Supercertari still wants you to get your health damaged by meaningless shoe shopping.
And we are not talking about the health damages that might occure when wearing stilettos or other shoes.
Just a side note:
stilettos can damage your health! Really – it might look great, gorgeous or sexy – no doubt, but high heels, thin heels make it much more difficult to hold balance, they can damage your joints and muscles. So maybe better just to wear them on special occasions.
Even flip-flops, you know those very flat sandal like foot wear, can damage your health the same way as a stiletto! Did you know that? I didn’t, I thought it is a flat shoe, so why should it harm? It can harm your heel and arch.
When referring to the danger of trying shoes, dear sisters, we haven’t yet talked about the aching feet after such a shopping spree, the wore of shoes, the overdrawn bank account and credit card, the anger in the family, the emptiness of the fridge, and the emptiness in your souls.
Supercertari provides us with beautiful stories of ancient Egypt and Ireland, he sacrifice the female … we all should be honored.
But he still lacks the prove that an Egyptian peasant bought as excessively shoes as a modern girl! Even if those ancient people got shoes and sandals as he claimes, do they really got more than 1, 2 or 3 pair of shoes?
And please don’t tell me that 93 pairs of shoes were found in the grave of TutAnkAmun. He was the Pharao. Imelda Marcos, widow of the former Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, was famous for the many shoes she owned.
After the Marcos family fled Malacañang Palace, Imelda was found to have left behind 15 mink coats, 508 gowns, 888 handbags[13] and 1060 pairs of shoes.[14]
/1/
Didn’t ancient people handle it as I quoted my good friend in my 2nd response, who got three pair of shoes: one for summer, one for winter and another one for official occasions? As she claims, she needs her good pair for church, as the ancient Egyptians of Supercertari used their good pair for visiting the temple.
If excessive shoe shopping would have been popular in ancient times, I guess we would know it. Any prove for that? Not to my knowledge.
Before I close I would like to take a closer look at the Socratic Answers of Superertari.
1. Why do women prefer to wear stilettos?
To manifest to the weaker sex the courage, determination and inner strength that he can but imitate, or would if he were freed from the sloth inducing beer can, sofa and sport’s television.
I am not sure if I get this right!
But maybe my opponent can help to clarify!
Do you really think, that men should or would imitate women in wearing stilettos?
And women are wearing stilettos to show the inner strength of them?
Or do women wear stilettos because men are more attracted?
Stilettos became more erotic in nature than just being simply worn to gain height. Women started wearing them more because they appealed so much to men. They have become somewhat of a fetish item and are considered to be seductive.
/2/
The keyword is seductive – I guess you all know what this intends to: sex, love, finding a mate – men prefer good looking women, so wearing stilettos makes a woman much more attractive. It even helps a woman to appear much more slender, due to the different way of walking.
Men think that women who wear mini skirts and stilettos are irresistible
/2/
A little bit more on the true reasons wearing stilettos:
It doesn't need a scientist to tell us that the sight of stilettos can have a dramatic effect on men's libido.
/3/
High-heeled shoes not only tone the legs and strengthen the pelvic muscles, but they "directly work the pleasure muscles which are linked to an orgasm", it is claimed.
/3/
So stilettos are worn to get sex and to get better sex. Yeah, maybe it works according to the Socratic Answer of Supercertari as well for men? I don’t know, it might be worth trying. But I doubt that women think men in stilettos are as attractive as women in stilettos appeare to men!
Socratic Questions:
1. If shoe shopping is such a benefit for women, why shouldn’t men participate in the benefits, and shop for shoes the same way as women do?
2. Shouldn’t we abolish the differences in shoes between the genders, like it has been in very ancient times?
I am not advocating against stilettos and other wonderful female shoes. I just want you to get a little common sense. Women, men and children need shoes to be protected! That is true. But we don’t need 20 pairs or 50 pairs or even the over 1,000 pairs of Imelda Marcos. That is ridiculous.
Get three pair, or maybe five pairs. Get one pair for summer, one for winter, women a good decent pumps and a some hot stilettos, and one pair of sneakers. And you will be fine. You will look great and you will have plenty of time to do things you really like!
Things that gives your life a meaning.
Shoe shopping just covers the emptiness, not only of the shelves but as well the emptiness in your life.
reply posted on 5-4-2009 @ 10:20 AM by orange-light
Rebuttal
AHHHHHHHH!
Supercertari did it again!
He presents himself, my dear reader, being smart, being intelligent, being well educated, being eloquent, but being only a man! Not that I mind him being a man, but in this case …… all the ladies are going to ask the same question, we are asking for centuries:
Will men ever understand women the right way?
Will men ever understand the necessities of a lady properly?
Sisters, we all know the answer.
It is NO, no man understands what a girls needs, what a girl desires!
My opponent again compares apples with oranges
or let us better say: melons with cherries. I have to tell the judges and the readers again, that I am a woman, and my opponent marks me as being a puppet of male misogynies. I am really lacking words to describe how ridiculous these thoughts are!
Supercertari even don’t shy away in advising to prove the obvious talent of women of being multitasking by claiming this in a C.V. – shoe shopping and career at one time.
WOW, great.
I can already hear the future bosses – male and female – laughing their asses off while reading such C.V.s:
Dear Sirs,
my name is Martha Smith, and I am the right woman for the job you are offering.
Besides working for the fantastic company I am still in my biggest skill is shopping for shoes. You will clearly see how this proves me being multitasking as any other fine lady.
Ladies let us clearly see what this attempt of Supercertari is. He isn’t obviously admiring our talent to do a tremendous amount of things right and well at the same time, he is just mocking at us.
While bringing the subject up and advising to build our talent into our C.V.s by claiming being able to shop for shoes and to build up a career, he does a disservice to us.
He is really poking fun as you sisters.
Just read this again:
Perhaps orange_light wishes to ban food, or restrict the variety our palettes can enjoy because some people have greedily gorged themselves on all manner of rich foods? Perhaps she is one who wishes to impose continence on the world because some people are promiscuous?
How ridiculous!
As I said: comparing melons with cherries.
Food my dear opponent is essential for human life, as drinking water and having sex.
All these are necessary to survive individually and as a species.
So nobody is banning food or banning sex or what ever.
Actually I am not banning these things, certain organizations try to ban food or sex from members, like the Catholic Church does. They ban food or certain food on Fridays and at Lent and expect of their priests, monks and nuns to live a life without sex.
Whether this is good or not could be the subject of another debate
“You’d think you were Imelda Marcos! / It looks like Imelda Marcos’s room in here!”
Oh holy innocence! Do I really have to ask that it rains brain?
Really we need brain in this debate!
Melons and cherries compared again!
Dear me, I am nearly speechless.
Imelda Marcos was an example to show what could happen to excessive shoe shoppers. But usually the ladies of this world got more common sense than my dear and esteemed opponent seems to allow them to have.
I know that most women love to shop for shoes, as well as they love to shop for anything else. But most of them, or lets say all of them besides Imelda Marcos got enough common sense not to exaggerate this hobby.
They know – most times - about the limitation of their closets, bank accounts and credit cards.
And when I appeal to the common sense of my fellow sisters my opponent mocks at us again, he mocks at us as a group, as a whole gender when he tries to persuade you the reader, you the judge and you my fellow female by asking these questions!
Are you, the reader, looking forward to collecting your vouchers from the Department of Shoes? Will you know the secret knock to enter the Speak Easy, or, Hush Puppy as it’s likely to be called? They already check our shoes at the airport, are you ready to have them checked after your shopping trip as well?
I really think we need no further comment on this monstrous ridiculousness. It is really unbelievable what a male mind is able to come up with!
We live in a free society and nobody wants to proscribe any individual to buy what ever this individual wants to buy.
And my dear opponent you know just as well as me that no government will proscribe shoe shopping, purse shopping, dress shopping, since all western governments still worship the god of economy.
Closing
The topic of this debate was:
Shoe Shopping Is Essential For Women – is it?
And even since my opponent took as on a very interesting journey through history, through geography, through religion, he still lacks the prove that it is really essential.
We have figured out that shoes are necessary for any gender to protect the foot.
But we have also seen that some shoes are not able to protect the foot.
Usually these are the shoes women love to buy on their shopping sprees – alone or with girl friends. These shoes – high heels, stilettos, flip-flops and others – don’t protect the foot, they harm the foot. They damage the health of the woman who is wearing it!
So even my dedicated opponent can’t believe that it is essential to buy a thing which damages your health!
We have figured out that essential things in life are those things we need to survive. Survive as an individual, survive as a species.
So the essential things in human lives are:
- Oxygen – to breath – suffocation after 2 to 5 minutes°
- Food – to eat – starvation after 30 days
- Water – to drink – dying of thirst after 4 days
- Sex – to survive as a species – extinction of your own family: 1 generation
Just have a look at the wikipedia category of causes of death – maybe you are more lucky than me, but I can’t find a cause, which claimes “caused by not shopping shoes”, “caused by to less shoes”.
So again, it is not essential for life, not essential for women nor men nor children.
Buy some to protect your feet in summer, winter, cold and rain, but for heaven’s sake use your common sense and stop the madness.
People, who spent much time on the web, hear this quiet often, but I also have to ask it to my shoe shopping sisters: “get a life, girls!”
There is so much more in life, besides shoe shopping.
Women are of so much more capable.
Lets just do it, even if the only reason is to show men like my opponent what is possible for a woman who decides not to spent her life on shopping!
Ladies, shoe shopping might be fun but it is not essential for us!
Living our lives the way we want it to be, this is important for us and for the world.
Thanks again to the highly esteemed readers of this debate, to the judges who will start their important job now, to semperforties for setting this up, Supercertari for taking me with him on this wonderful journey and to each of my girlfriends and fellow sisters for not killing me when I told them about my subject and position.
Pages: ^^TOP^^
