It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Challenge Match: Supercertari vs orange-light: "It's a Sole Thing"

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:32 PM
The topic for this debate is "shoe shopping is essential for women."

Supercertari will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
orange-light will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit. Excess characters will be deleted prior to judging.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

Videos are not permitted. This includes all youtube links and other multi-media video sources.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy

Each debate must post within 48 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

[edit on 3/18/2009 by semperfortis]

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:02 PM
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!

posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:47 PM
As a good tradition of a debate in the debate forum I will start my case thanking Semperfortis for setting up this challenge match.A very special thank you to the courageous Supercertari for taking up my challenge with this not very manly subject of “shoe shopping”. It was very easily to get Super agreeing to take the pro-side of this debate. I really like your attitude my friend.

And certainly a big thank to our readers and judges. I guess my opponent will agree with me – probably just in this case – that we will try to entertain you as good as possible. Share the fun with us.

And now welcome to the temple of shoe shopping. Get the popcorn, take a glass of wine or a cup of coffee, sit down and relax. You don’t have to fasten seatbelts; this will be a lovely nice ride without roller coasting, and hopefully no feet will be harmed during this debate.


The subject of this debate is “It’s a Sole Thing: shoe shopping is essential for women”.

I am sure many men reading this will start rolling their eyes and remember the endless shopping sprees of their wives, girlfriends, mothers and sisters for the mere hunt for shoes. Many men and children will also recall the pain they suffered, while attending the females in their life on these shopping sprees, while stumbling across the innumerable results of the countless sprees. They will all agree with me that shoe shopping is even not essential, in fact it is injurious to health. Noxious - not only for the suffering spouses and offsprings, but for the women as well.

During this dispute we will prove this unhealthfullness especially for women. We will prove that it is in no way essential for women, shoe shopping is hazardous to the health of women – while shopping and while wearing the results of their shopping.

We can really go to such length that women are victims of down-and-dirty shoe designers, of unethical shoe vendors, who have nothing on their mind than filthy lucre. They value a brimmed bank account, a filled purse higher than the health of fellow females.

We will prove the damages a woman suffers boudily and – yeah we have to face this as well – on her soul.

Women are usually regarded as the “weak gender”. Women are regarded as sensitive, as vulnerable. This is so true.

Just imagine thousands of women meandering through our cities. Restlessly wandering from shoe shop to shoe shop, some of them are all on their own, some of them unified with other delegates of their gender.

We will see throughout this debate that these women don’t really have fun, even if they pretend having fun. They don’t have fun, believe me, they just think having fun, they just think the ceaseless attempts of filling their lives with meaning by doing these shoe shopping, is fun. Most men, who suffered from this habit of their female loved ones, will agree.

Shoe shopping is neither essential nor is it fun. No woman needs to shop for shoes to lead a fulfilled life. Shoe shopping is not a habit which is necessary to survive; it is not embedded in the genes of women. Actually it is a learnt behavior.

When reaching puberty, girls stop playing with the toys of their childhood. We won’ discuss the differences of upbringing girls and boys in these days; this should be subject of a future debate. When reaching puberty the course for the future women have been already set. We can also claim: “It is already to late” – unfortunately the damsel is already on the wrong path. She has to fill a vacancy. How to do it? She follows the examples of the people in her environment: mother, aunt, sister, girlfriends, who have already been socialized in this bad habit. But the environment has to be extended; it doesn’t only include the close vicinity of our girl. Magazines and movies tell her that her favorite actress or model indulges the same passion: shoe shopping.

So shoe shopping women are victims, victims of upbringing, of education, of learnt behavior.

Designers and salesman take advantage of this education. They sell appearance which are deceiving.


My esteemed opponent tries to be very witty by playing around with brand names of shoes:

Should they proclaim that your obsession is “a load of b*ll*cks!” you can reply “No, dear heart, these are in fact Blahniks!”

This actually let me fear that we got a new victim of skin deep beauty – this time a male. Male victims suffer even harder since the market of shoes for men is geared toward functionality.
Women are lured with beauty, with promises which are embedded somehow in the design of the shoe. But what happens to men? They end up with the same amount of shoes than an addicted woman: 50 pairs, 100 pairs or up to 500 pairs maybe. Women got different pairs of stilettos, chucks, pumps, peep toes, boots – colored in black, brown, white, grey, rainbow colors, decked with Rhine stones, bows, and ornaments.

But men: look at the choices they got. It is pretty limited, absolutely adequate for the reasonable use of shoes.

My opponent tries to create an ugly scenario with hush puppies. I assure you my dear reader: I don’t want to take colorful shoes away from you. If you want to wear stilettos – do so! – if you legs don’t hurt. It is not necessary to shop excessively for the second hundred pair of stilettos. It might be necessary in times of economical crisis and economists might tell you that you are doing good for the economic system of your country.
If you support Malono Blahnik you support Spanish design. If you support Jimmy Choo shoes, you will support Malaysian design based in UK. Adidas Sneakers – German, Bally shoes – Swiss, Ecco shoes – Danish, Gucci shoes – Italian design, company is based in the Netherland, Reebok – UK, even the comfortable Birkenstock - German.

So which economy do you support?

I am really looking forward to the arguments of my opponent to prove shoe shopping

use archaeology, ancient history, theology and philosophy to demonstrate the timeless and intrinsic necessity of shoe shopping
– especially the theological aspect sounds pretty scaring. May I say: “Supercertari, now that’s going too far!”

Comparing the sky with shoes creates a lovely image for readers, but again this is too far fetched. Don’t start to discuss the semantic origin of these words; this can only be a bewildering action for our readers. We are talking about modern life shoe shopping, which is promoted by shows like “Sex and the city”.

Supercertari defines shoe shopping as essential as breathing for survival. He claims this being a fundamental right which is only questioned by

testosterone addled mindset of the recently industrialized world

Dear me, I am shocked but not speechless. So even woman who haven’t lost her common sense and don’t spent her days with overdrawing her credit cards and bank accounts or even worse the credit cards of her husbands find herself accused being “testosterone addled”. What will happen next? Will my opponent promote operations to enable to wear shoes at more spots than just feet? Yeah I already can hear him cry “Oh no orange-light, we are sane people, nobody will ever demand such nonsense.”

Maybe today – but what will happen tomorrow? Maybe Supercertari won’ have this idea, maybe a shoe shopping victim encourage in her bad habits by the debating posts of my esteemed opponent. Who will know where the insanity will stop!
Probably shoe shopping is promoted to establish the NWO! And therefore my opponent has to bother archeology, theology and sociology to hide the purposes of the New World Order.

Are these thoughts far fetched?

Ladies and gentlemen, we are members of the finest conspiracy website in the World Wide Web – so no thoughts in the field of conspiracy are fare fetched.
In my opinion nipping things the bud isn’t possible anymore. All we can do is sensbilizing women, girls and their partners for the problem!

Stop the madness NOW!

“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.”

Interesting attempt to re-define the subject of our debate, but no need to fear that I might throw in the towel. This will not happen, as all my previous opponents know!

I will not deny the protection a shoe will give for the feet of men, women and children. But I deny it passionately the necessity of extremely shoe shopping and resulting innumerous shoes in storage.

SQs by Supercertari

How can that which is essential to life be separated from shoe shopping?

Easily coz 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, but if you don’t shop for shoes you will truly survive. So it is not essential!

Is it not sexist to deny women their definitive and essential right to protect their feet as they actualise the potential of life? ?

Oh dear me! No No No!
Nobody denies protection of the feet, but you don’t need it centuple!

Would you agree with the 1960’s Arkansas State Representative, Paul Van Dalsem, that women should be “bare-foot and pregnant in the kitchen”?

I don’t agree with any conservative “back to kitchen” attitudes. We are not discussing that women shouldn’t be allowed to wear shoes. We are just discussing that shoe shopping is NOT essential for living.
A woman can easily survive with one or two pair of shoes.
She will be able to have a wonderful job or to go to university with just a very limited number of shoes in her storage. Not shopping for shoes spares even time for women to study more or to work more, to create a career. So no need to stand bare-foot in the kitchen and being pregnant. Although walking bare-foot from time to time is pretty healthy.

Now dear Supercertari the shoe shelf is yours again.

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 07:08 AM
My opponent urges me,

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.

posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 02:07 PM
taking my 24 hours extension

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 06:37 AM

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.

Main Entry:

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

1: of, relating to, or constituting essence : inherent
2 a: of the utmost importance : basic , indispensable , necessary
/3/ – emphasis mine

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.

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 06:47 AM

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,.


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!

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 11:56 AM

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]


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.


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


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.


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.


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.

posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:34 AM
The female is presented as the “weaker gender” by our misogynistic world, however as my posts have thus far demonstrated this is far from the truth and is an accusation levelled by the truly weak and slothful male of the species to hinder the vibrant, energetic vitality of the female. To contradict this received wisdom is my entire purpose in this debate – to liberate women from these conventional bonds and enable her to enjoy the essential manifestation of her very vitality and strength: shoe shopping.

The importance of this task is highlighted by my opponent’s continuing failure to grasp the current sociological milieu which so inhibits and limits women’s capacity to grasp her destiny:

Dear me! You must be kidding Supercertari. Psychological misogyny?

Were that I was kidding. The hobbling of the feminine is so complex and complete that orange_light imagines that her regard for her gender is manifest by her desire to see "equality".
Men might eventually surrender such equality, for me it is not enough. The feminine is not equal in strength to the masculine, nor as vibrant, she naturally surpasses him in both! To accept “equality” is to further cement the male enslavement of and inhibition of her natural graces. Where some feminism presses for equality it should consider that which it seeks to be equal to: sloth, aggression, pillage which contradict the vibrancy, nurture and vitality of the feminine.

I hope my fellow readers are as appalled as I am by the cartoon representation of male/female shopping habits my opponent included in her last post. Look carefully at the image and note the presumption that the man goes straight to Gap while the woman goes everywhere except where she was meant to go. As a male may I assure my opponent that this depiction is an absolute lie. Men do not go straight to the shop they should, I am a man, I know. This probably would better represent a woman going to shop for her male significant other’s pants while he sat in his vest at home watching ESPN. The implication that somehow she would forget what she went out for is supposed to make us laugh at the silly woman getting easily distracted. I would suggest it should instead represent that the woman has the patience, style and vitality to search for the proper pants and not make do with the elastic waist banded pants the man was hoodwinked into wanting by the advertising industries use of sex and potency.

Stilettos and flip-flops are bad for your health and difficult to balance in!? Good grief how enslaved to the male view of things is my poor opponent! Of course they are difficult to walk in, that’s why men never bother – too much effort. Women wear them to manifest their strength and courage which surpasses the male. Men show strength and courage, they suppose, by driving fast, going to war, playing sport, all activities which imperil the life of others and seek to make the other subservient. Women show their strength by taking their risk alone without harm to any other’s life or liberty. My opponent wishes to take this off you and turn you into wacky racing, jock-strap wearing mercenaries “equal” to men. Why on earth would you want to be equal to man – buy your shoes, manifest your essential character and destiny and accept no equality – seize your supremacy and make our world a better place. For the sake of our children and our children’s children please don’t become equals, buy shoes and make this male-corrupted world submit to your vital creativity.

You may be told shoe shopping is only about filling a void in your own lives, but I promise you, surrender to the scorn of the male of this species, surrender your essential shoe shopping and it is the world that will be facing a void.

Before concluding this rebuttal I reply to the 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?

It's not about "shouldn't" it's about "can’t", because they are different and do not understand. They can physically, of course they can, but meta-physically they are incapable of doing so.

2. Shouldn’t we abolish the differences in shoes between the genders, like it has been in very ancient times?

No. Such prohibition would be the thin end of the wedge, a victory for the male imposing an equality upon the genders which would be self-serving for men and destructive for women.

Indeed, let me ask but one Socratic Question:
1. What “should” we abolish next to reduce the proper distinction between genders and impose a false equality upon the vibrancy of the feminine?

And now, our promised excursion to Spain…

They say “the exception makes the rule” and I find that religion with its rigours and exceptions often highlights that which is vital for us. Food is essential for life, yet do we not see many religious people fast and deprive themselves often of nutrition in devotion and sacrifice? Sex is essential for life, quite literally, yet do we not see many religious people endure continence depriving themselves of sex’s satisfaction in devotion and sacrifice? True devotion often manifests itself in this surrender of the essential, demonstrated par excellence by the willing and humble acceptance of martyrdom which religious histories abound with.

Thus I now use the via negativa, that apophatic way, to demonstrate the essential nature of shoe shopping for women. 16th Century Spain, the Inquisition rages, the clergy and those under religious vows show more concern for the material, disconnecting its value from its metaphysical worth. Enter the scene a mystical nun whose visions of God provoke such ecstasy within her heart that Bernini’s cold marble rendering of it renders every heart that views it with the heat of the passion represented:

I give you St Teresa of Avila. As you look upon that image of her mystical trance I want you to look at her feet. No shoes at all, utterly barefoot! Are we to imagine that Bernini couldn’t do shoes? Perhaps he thought to suggest that so quickly did she rush to her vision that she had no time to put them on? No, the naked feet of St Teresa are iconic and symbolic for it was she who reformed an entire religious order and who transformed the Carmelite order into the Discalced Carmelites. Note that word well, discalced, it means without shoes. As St Dominic manifest his chastity to the world by his shaven head, as St Francis manifest his poverty by the cord tied around his waist so did St Teresa manifest her sacrifice of shoe shopping by her bare feet.

St Teresa brought sacrifice to its furthest extent, without martyrdom, by doing without shoe shopping. So serious was her commitment to this drastic action that she enjoyed little of the praise and adoration of her peers that Dominic, Francis, etc. had known. No, surrendering the essential shoe shopping was considered so outrageous that Teresa, a spiritual Galileo, suffered investigation and imprisonment by the Inquisition itself. How can we know what is essential? Watch someone surrender it and see. Her religious order now spans the world in convent after convent of women who have taken the extraordinary step of surrendering the essential activity of shoe shopping for the sake of their devotion to God. It moves me to think of them, like their foundress, barefoot for Him – and us. For celibacy is not practised by some to impose it as an ideal upon others – if you doubt me read what happened to the Cathars – it is to demonstrate to the world that sexuality is an essential gift which needs cherishing. Poverty is not taken by some to impose penury upon the world; it is to demonstrate to the world that nature’s abundance is an essential gift which needs cherishing. Discalciation is not practised by some to impose it upon all; it is to demonstrate to the world that women’s shoe shopping is an essential gift which needs cherishing.

So let us follow St Teresa as she leads us barefoot, and very carefully, across the stony ground of this issue. She had the courage to stand up to Kings and Pontiffs and her courage and strength in doing so might, I hope, inspire the women who read this to do likewise. Stand up to he who imagines himself to be “king of his castle” and continue to shop for those essential shoes. Let no man pontificate to you with the dogma’s of this age that paint you as being empty headed or unreal for your devotion to shoe shopping. He may promise you equality in exchange for giving up these “women’s ways”, he may convince you that only if you gave up “silly” things like shoe shopping you’d be better able to be the same as him. He may even find voices like my opponent’s to try and convince you – but I ask you again, why would you ever wish to be equal to, the same as, these thuggish, slothful louts?

Be real feminists, fight for the feminine: strength, grace, courage, vitality, vibrancy. Show man how you alone can walk in those heels. Show man the splendid variety of creativity with your cloakrooms full of shoes of every style and hue. And take your time, show him that “make do” doesn’t do, challenge blandness and bestride nature’s munificent variety proudly manifesting its reflection in your own.

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:55 AM

Response 3 and Rebuttal

My dear opponent still seems to be lost at the Nile or at some sea shores traveling from ancient spot to ancient spot. Or maybe even worse, his head is buried in some sand bank. I hope the judges got a shovel to dig him up. After all I would be very sorry, if he gets lost in nature.

Supercertari doesn’t get tired to create a wonderful ideal world where everybody is treated according to her/his individual worth. It’s more than wonderful, even I would love to follow my opponent to the bank of what ever river he names.

Supercertari ennobles the female, or shall I say: the divine female? He coddles us with quotes from the Bible, with lovely heart warming pictures.

But did that tell you, me, us that shoe-shopping is essential for women? Take your time and go carefully and open minded through the material Supercertari presented so far. Even if it is true that Egyptian peasants owned shoes, and owned even more than one pair. Get your senses: are the one, two or three pair of sandals for ancient Egyptians comparable to the excessive amount you find in shoe cabinets of modern women.

Remember Imelda Marcos, for sure one of the most excessive shoe shopper in the entire world , got over 1,000 pair of shoes! But even moderate female shoe shoppers own about 20 to 60 pair of shoes. Every woman in my acquittance got problems to store their shoes! Isn’t that ridiculous? Shoe shopping leads to furniture shopping and to houses and apartments crowded with an incredible amount of extra dressers, cabinets, and wardrobes.

I even hear people shout: “Why does orange-light castigate shoe and furniture shopping. We got an economical crisis, so let them go to the shops and shop shop shop.”

How short sighted! We have seen before that shopping shoes doesn’t support the local economy. Shoe designing is like fashion an international business. So by no means it supports your local economy. You also have to keep in mind, that even if your favorite shoe is designed by a Spanish, British, German or American designer, you have to be aware that your shoes will be produced in emerging markets. I know this is a nasty business and that it destroys the lovely pictures Supercertari tries to paint for us so neatly. But that is reality!

I am very sorry, but we have to deal with reality! Not only in regards who is manufacturing your shoes but as well according the position of women.
The emerging markets, new industrialized countries don’t follow the standards we are used to in Western industries. There are more or less general lacks in our standards of ecology, lacks in our standards of employment protection. Some countries even allow or better say demand children, very young children to work.
And I ask my female readers: Do you really want to dirty your hands! Dirty your hands in supporting child labor? Dirty your hands by increasing pollution in times of global warming?

Supercertari wants us to believe that shoe shopping is a harmless pleasure, which makes women more female, gives men more to worship on women!
Ha what a nice but quixotic picture. Maybe my eloquent, civilized and educated opponent should leave his ivory tower much more often and walk with us – using wellies or trekking shoes – the common grounds of real life.

Supercertari wants you to believe that me wants equality between man and woman. Again I can only laugh into his face. Such thoughts are very popular among men. Although Supercertari tries to make you believe that he is the long desired Messiah, a knight on his milk white horse, rescuing the divine female and re-establishes her – us – on a wonderful pedestal to be worshiped by MAN-kind. Again a very attractive picture.

But my dear fellow females we all know that it – again –lacks the correspondence to reality. Another reason for my esteemed opponent to leave his ivory tower and get some real mud at his feet. Every woman of this world, and if you like it or not Super, know that men and women are not equal. Sorry, but only a man could get such thoughts. Women know about the obvious differences – we just have to consult a mirror – but aswell about the very subtle differences. And by all means, I will always fight for the differences between female and male. All we want are equal rights! This is a very huge difference!

Equal rights and equal payment – in a world which is very male based.
And sending women to shop for shoes doesn’t help the fight for equal rights and equal payments.
Supercertari’s constant demand to let women shop for shoes, to claim this would be an essential right, doesn’t help this fight, actually by claiming this he reduces women. He tries to tell you that women are superior to men, but sending them on shopping, making them being girls who only got the clacking of the stilettos in her ear, and the shape of a pumps in her eye, reduces women! He disrobes women their intelligence, their humanity, their common sense.

Is this really what we want?
The only answer can be NO, and this NO has nothing to do with the male orientated world. Again being a woman, I don’t want to be reduced like that. I want to decide what I am doing with my life. And shopping for shoes isn’t a fulfilling life at all. But sisters each of you has to decide by herself. It is your life!
Don’t allow a man, even if he is disguised in pseudo understanding for women, even if he appears to be a woman in a male body, he is a man, he is socialized as a man, and he represents the male world.

What could be his reason?
Sure for one the subject of the debate. But a woman who competes for jobs with him is dangerous, especially in this economical crisis. So let them go out, let them shop for shoes, tell them they are supporting economy – those stupid little angles won’t understand it anyway, and if one complains, tell them how much we worship them – and bingo: no more competition with women!

And the poor little female bunnies even believe that Supercertari and other men just want their best.

How perfidiously! How abhorrent!

And men like Supercertari want to make you believe that they only act for your sake, sisters!
They poke to others and claim that these are the misogynist.
I guess you got enough to think about and figure out by yourself where the misogynists wait for you!

By answering my Socratic Questions Supercertari claims:

… because they [the men – my emphasis] are different and do not understand. They can physically, of course they can, but meta-physically they are incapable of doing so

Keep in mind Supercertari is a man too, isn’t he telling us that he can’t understand too? He is a man! He tried to lull you with his pretended understanding of the subject, of the female desire. But he is a man and he told us man do not understand – this subject of shoe shopping.

I asked my dear opponent to abolish the difference in shoes between the genders, his answer to this SQ was very strictly.

No. Such prohibition would be the thin end of the wedge, a victory for the male imposing an equality upon the genders which would be self-serving for men and destructive for women.

Ah, again, my opponent lowers his mask! Can you see it! He can only think in terms of males.
The only idea he seems to get by my question to abolish the differences, that it could only mean: abloish women’s shoes, let them wear men shoes as well. Lets make the world black and white, abolish color.
How perfidiously! How abhorrent!

Like all men, my opponent is not able to leave the common path of male thoughts.
I clearly miss a lack of visions!

Nobody demands women to reduce themselves to the footwear of men.
Why does Supercertari not allow himself and his fellow males to elevate themselves.
Let men wear stilettos and pumps as well, let them wear sandals of colorful leather and satin, let them polish their shoes with rhine stones.

Just think a bit different.

But still, excessive shoe shopping is not essential and not necessary, neither for men nor for women.
You can always wear one pair at once.
Just store those you really need! One for winter time, one for summer time, one for rain, one for church
or for dancing.

Better stick to quality than to quantity!

Let me end this response by answering the Socratic Question of Supercertari:

What should we abolish next to reduce the proper-distinction between genders and impose a false equality upon the vibrancy of the feminine?

Folks, after reading this – my – post you know the answer by now.
Nothing at all, nothing should be abolished. Why should anything be abolished?
Equality is necessary, but as I claimed before: equality in rights, equality in payment!

So maybe we should say: yeah lets abolish this gap in rights and payment – and lets abolish the gap in education. Educate men the way that they understand that women are humans like themselves!

Socratic Question to Supercertari

1. What is in your opinion the “proper-distinction” between men and women?

2. What makes a man a man?

3. What makes a woman a woman?

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 01:44 AM
Taking my 24 hour extension

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 04:30 PM
In my opponent’s last reply she follows my example of St Teresa of Avila with a repeated allusion to Imelda Marcos:

for sure one of the most excessive shoe shopper in the entire world , got over 1,000 pair of shoes!

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? That which is essential to life may, as willingly be abstained from, be indulged in to a damaging degree. Imelda Marcos’s shoe obsession has given many men an accusation to level against their female significant others – “You’d think you were Imelda Marcos! / It looks like Imelda Marcos’s room in here!”, how strange my opponent should also employ this example to dismiss your shoe shopping.

Her enslavement to male argumentation against the essential nature of shoe shopping for women is so complete that even after so much evidence to the contrary she imagines that:

Supercertari wants us to believe that shoe shopping is a harmless pleasure

I wish no-one to believe any such thing, though it may be a pleasure (like eating/sex) it is much more than this it is essential for women to do this, for themselves and the future of our civilisation, our very planet itself.

She continues to manifest this masculation:

But a woman who competes for jobs with him is dangerous, especially in this economical crisis. So let them go out, let them shop for shoes

I don’t know about the readers following this debate, but I hope the vast majority agree with me that women can do more than one thing at a time – shoe shopping and career success are not mutually exclusive. Indeed what better actualization of the claims on a C.V. can there be than the determination, vitality, variety, strength and devotion which may be manifest in the process of shoe shopping.

Orange_light tries to convince us that she does not wish to abolish shoe shopping, the cunning word play of the tyrant. Oh no, we don’t want to abolish shoe shopping for women just limit how many they can buy:

One for winter time, one for summer time, one for rain, one for church or for dancing.

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 now answer my opponent’s Socratic Questions:

1. What is in your opinion the “proper-distinction” between men and women?

That which naturally distinguishes the male from the female outside those artificially imposed by a particular society, culture or convention. The feminine is vibrant, embracing, creative, determined and devoted. The masculine is slothful, grasping, destructive, apathetic and fickle.

2. What makes a man a man?

X and Y chromosomes.

3. What makes a woman a woman?

X and X chromosomes.

Closing Statement

Shoe Shopping Is Essential For Women

Through etymology, theology, archaeology I have demonstrated the inherent truth in this declaration.

Shoes, we have seen, are much more than a protection for the feet they are intimately and irrevocably connected to life itself both symbolically and actually. From the ankh symbol to their representation of the land of Ireland cultures around the world and throughout history have acknowledged and rightly venerated the shoe as essential. The shoe is the physical vicar of the metaphysical wonder of the feminine. Even Christ Himself throughout His ministry showed the feminine sacramental nature of the shoe through His prohibitive instructions to His male disciples and the actions of their female counterpoints. Shoes are thus demonstrated as being essential.

Shoes are only available by shopping, whether this be from the craftsperson’s scoppa of old or the modern mega malls. Whether paid in corn or cash, or having a cousin a cobbler, commerce coincides with acquiring shoes. Shopping is therefore essential to have shoes.

What makes the “for women” true? Quite simply the essential nature of the feminine. Femininity cannot be separated from the vibrant and vital, though many efforts are made to do so as our girls are encouraged to be “laddettes.” It is this effort to artificially, and dangerously, blur the proper distinction between the sexes that imperils our world at this time. Women have been forced into “pant-suits” to imitate their male counterparts as if it is only in impersonating the male that they can be successful and contribute. Women shouldn’t be lead to believe that only in imitating the male, or adopting his manners that they can flourish, women should be allowed to be women. Women who lead, manage and inspire as women: endowing the corridors of power in our world with the much needed feminine graces of self-confidence, unimaginable strength of will and creativity. Men have “let” women into the corridors of power, but shun and reject what would be most fruitful in their presence, instead imposing upon them the old patterns of male behaviour which have so poorly served our world so far. Now they go for your shoe shopping, that manifestation of all that you are as women. Is it any wonder men laugh at your shoe shopping? Not because it is foolish, but because it is frightening. They’ve ripped away your skirts, don’t give them your shoes as well!

If shoe shopping is surrendered it will jeopardise further, and perhaps finally, the feminine identity itself. If women wish to stay women shoe shopping is essential.

Follow my opponent’s advice and like men have “sensible” seasonal shoes, and a dress pair, and you will join man leading the world in the trudge towards chaos.

Follow my advice and shop for as many shoes as you like, in as many styles as you want, and as often as you wish and you will lead man, and the world, striding into a brighter future of vitality and variety.

For women, for the world, that is essential.

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 10:20 AM


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.



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.

posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 04:59 PM
Off to the Judges


posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 10:33 AM
We have a winner::::

This has been an entertaining debate. Both fighters are to be congratulated on their well-thought out arguments.

Supercentarian argument took an unexpected turn with his tour and interpretation of history. I liked how he tied ancient Egypt, Ireland and Christianity to support his argument.

Opening arguments were well done. Supercenter did a nice job setting the stage for his argument by presenting his definitions and his premise on the essentials of shoe shopping.

Orange-light's opening was also well done. She also set forth her argument that not only was shoe shopping not essential but down right unhealthy.

Supercentari goes on in his following posts to compare a sandal's ankle strap to the ankh symbol in the the same post he also uses the gospels of Matthew, Mark and John to support his argument.

Orange-light over in true ATS fashion fights back and counters with the assertion that in fact, her opponents argument is a cover for the NWO.

Supercentari however, wins this debate due to his ability to layout his argument and stick to it.

Supercertari vs orange-light: "It's a Sole Thing"

The topic for this debate is "shoe shopping is essential for women."

Both opponents did a wonderful job of taking a relatively silly topic and proceeding very seriously with it. I applaud you both.

The debating styles here in this debate, were remarkably different. While that should by all accounts, make for an easier judgment; in this case the opposite is true.

SC (Supercertari) takes a turn in his first rebuttal into the historical nature of shoes. In this he in essence takes control of the debate and never really loses that control.

OL (orange-light) fought back bravely even using the necessity for shoes and seeming to delve into the equality issues some. However, SC had control.

I give Supercertari the win.

Supercertari is the winner.


posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:29 AM
Thank you to the judges for taking the time to do the above and to Orange_Light for taking part. It was a "fun" topic to do and I appreciated the opportunity to do so.

posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:34 PM
well done super !!

you are a hell of a debater
it was really fun and i never knew what i had to expect next when i read your next posts

i learnt, i laughed and i was entertained.

thanks again to the judges, readers, and semper.
and a big thanks for doing this debate with me super.

and now we are going on a wonderful shoe shoping spree - i always knew that shoe shopping is essential for women and i amm more than happy that supercertari proved it!

[edit on Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:36:07 -0500 by orange-light]


log in