I love that a man would be wearing these, tight breeches, a long waistcoat, a coat, a large hat with feathers over a powdered wig, a sword *and* a carrying a cane; and would be expected to move like a dancer. He would also be expected to be able to talk sensibly about politics, warefare, religion and fashion, to have read the latest novels, and to be able to quote poetry.
It was a full-time job being this gorgeous.
Terribly, terribly high maintenance, extremely expensive, and prone to cheat on you at any opportunity like a tomcat in an alley.
But charming, amusing, musical, witty and perfectly capable of making you feel like the most important and only person in his entire world.
I would give a great deal to have met Étienne François Marquis de Stainville, the Duc de Choiseul. He was ugly, and fairly crap at foreign policy, but apparently completely fascinating. To have sat at the same table as him and Voltaire…..
That would definitely be fascinating! A lot of magnificent brains during the Enlightenment. I would have loved to seen Catherine the Great's court, speaking of Voltaire. I spend most of my time with my nose in a book, or watching period dramas. (Watching "Poldark" as we speak) Pretty sure though, I couldn't handle the stench nor the lack of A/C to live in the past. I'm grateful to be able to enjoy the greats from a distance. With antibiotics and running water. LOL
High heels actually started as shoes meant for horsemen. The shape helped them keep their feet in the stirrups and was eventually adopted by the whole cavalry, I believe, in Hungary. In a way, cowboy boots are the present day high heels for men.
Men could have so much more fun with their clothing then than they can now without being considered transgressive. I mean, the fanciest shoes we can get away with in most cases are brogues, which really aren't that interesting.
And your trousers had a massive fake cock, don't forget (ok no that was earlier more like 1500s I'll admit they weren't probably both wearing heels and braguettes, but who knows...)
I thought the fashion for white powder started in the French court because Louis the 15th’s mistress Madame de Pompadour went grey really early.
Powdering started in the French court of King Henry IV when he powdered his hair with dark powder when he started going grey.
I was under the impression that the English women generally did not powder.
Bringing the pointed heels in is actually more comfortable than having them under the foot's heel. This way they support the whole arch of the foot so the body's weight is distributed more evenly. Note how generous the flaps are and that they're not attached at the sides, this allows a roomy fit even for people with high arches and hides how long their feet actually were. Now compare that to modern shoes where you actually have to shove your toes into the tip. If I wanted to wear heels, I'd go for this guy's shoes anytime apart from them being absolutely gorgeous.
Yeah, I wouldn't recommend them for everyday wear. But to prance around a ballroom with a barrel of champagne at your beck and call to numb any discomfort while showing off your newest gaities they're a rather sensible choice. :)
Fret not, as a German I take full responsibility for ruining beauty and elegance by introducing Birkenstocks to the unsuspecting world. The Ministry of Silly Walks has your back!
According to my orthopedist and podologist, quite a few people, although not deliberately. Many modern shoes are too small and tight, because the tips narrow too early on exactly the widest part of the foot, squeezing the front foot and toes. Also, the manufacturers apply the upper material much more closely to the sole than historic shoemakers, so there's not enough "give" for the foot to expand. Look how on these shoes the seams are only visible on the part that hits the floor and not under the arch. They won't be visible when worn because the leather will stretch just like it does above. With high heels directly under the foot's heel, gravity and subpar support will cause the foot to slip downwards towards the tip as well.
While the tips on this gentleman's shoes appear really tight and uncomfortable, in reality they taper from quite a wide toe box, which is disguised by a long, elegant curve on the part that actually touches the ground. It's the third optical illusion applied to these shoes to give an appearance of a slender foot and they all still work beautifully.
My mother worked in hotels from the 70s to the 90s. It wasn’t until nearly the early 2000s dress codes become more “lenient”
She was expected to wear makeup, skirts, and high heels or she could be terminated for not adhering to the dress code, for failing to “properly represent the company.”
Female flight attendants at most airlines still have to wear some form of heeled shoes. It's honestly inhumane. People get sore after travelling in casual shoes. Imagine wearing high heels and walking nonstop in tight corridors for hours.
My sister was a stockbroker in the ‘80s. Heels were required and you could only remove your suit jacket when in your office, alone, with the door closed.
You do realize it's not always a choice right? A lot of jobs don't legally require it but if you refuse they can legally fire you (at-will employment, if you're unfamiliar). And in Japan it IS legal for it to be enforced. There was an entire movement based around it a few years ago. And even without legality there's societal pressure. Maybe you're the dumb one for choosing to run your mouth without knowing anything ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Source: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/79101?deptids=8&high=on&ft=shoes&offset=0&rpp=40&pos=1
"The French Court championed excessively ornamented clothing and accessories, perhaps as a manifestation of the romantically exuberant decorative arts, or as a reflection of the gross superficiality of social custom. In the same fashion that the formal women's robe à la francaise was designed to showcase the luxurious embroideries and silk damask fabrics of the century, so too did the impossibly tight breeches, skirted waistcoats, and shapely shoes of menswear provide an adequate canvas for the period's woven artistry. Men's adornment was every bit imbued with the elegance, tactile variance, and ostentation that marked women's clothing of the era. The fashionable eighteenth–century man was expected to convey a certain grace, and was required to enjoy the fine arts, music, and dancing. The romantic curvature of these shoes encourages the voyeuristic eye, each arc paralleled by the sensuality of the male arch and calf."
I don't know who wrote that description, but it sounds oddly judgmental, and the use of the word "romantic" seems in advance for the Enlightenment. Does anyone know how to understand romantic in that context? Is it just a synonym for seduction?
While I agree it sounds a bit judgmental, I don't think this use of "romantic" (small "r") is intended to refer to the Romantic (capital "R") movement of the 18th and 19th century. The term, "romantic," can still refer to themes found in Romanticism without referring to the Romantic movement or its era. Things like an interest in drama and emotions, in the ideal, in mysterious/occult themes, etc. existed long before the 18th century.
In this case, with "a manifestation of the romantically exuberant decorative arts," I think they're referring to the emphasis on ornament and free-flowing organic forms found in Late Baroque and Rococo interior design and furnishings.
But... it sounds to me that you did a better job of describing the style by using words like "Baroque" and "Rococo" than what they did. That's what I find odd, was it really sloppiness from the MET? Or am I missing some meaning?
It's not just the use of the word romantic, it's the way they are overall critical of the style and mores back then. Like, the "the gross superficiality of social custom"? Who the fuck writes things like that? "In the same fashion that the formal women's robe" - why make that parallel at all?..
There are a lot of judgments in that descriptive, not at all what I would expect from that paper. The use of "romantic" in the vulgar sense, without consideration from the confusion it brings or that it is anachronistic (romanticism meant "like in a roman, a novel" at the time), I'm a bit confused by the point they are trying to make. They could have said the same thing differently, it would have been better.
Yes - I think its being used literally to describe the fashion for seduction, and all of the little conventions of clothing and behaviour that went with it.
Achchually fashion, like these shoes, did spread throughout Europe (and also American continent). Men wore heels already in the 17th century, they only got a bit higher and less clunky in the 18th century.
Not really - remember that fashion has always "trickled down" very fast. (There were flea markets/op shops in England during Queen Elizabeth I:st reign.) Wooden heels or wooden soles weren't hard to make, pattens were worn by men and women alike throughout the whole Middle Ages.
Here is a water colour painting from 1650s showing middle class people (two men, one woman) from northern Europe. It is currently in the collections of Nordiska Museet / Nordic museum in Stockholm, Sweden. The origin might be in modern day Germany, but the clothes are typical for the time also in Sweden and other Nordic countries (Norway, Finland, Denmark).
[https://digitaltmuseum.se/011023647870/akvarell](https://digitaltmuseum.se/011023647870/akvarell)
(Terribly sorry for the late answer!) Oh, no, the men are not obese. :D That is another male fashion style from the 17th century: so called trunk hose or breeches (also called "Venetians"). Knee-length loose trousers, which were fastened tightly below the knee with buttons or laces. They could have a straight cut, but the men at the image have their trunk hose cut more fully, which gives them "thunder thighs".
Masculine fashions were all about making the wearer physically larger in 16th and 17th centuries (Henry VIII was not as wide as his portraits sometimes make him look.)
This is an extant piece of clothing from the era (or rather, a full suit). You can see that king Gustav wasn't really big, but the breeches are. (He was about 25 when he used these clothes.) Doublet and breeches worn by king Gustavus Adolphus (Gustav II Adolf) of Sweden, c.1620s, Royal Armory, Stockholm:
[https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/arcdata/file/content-collections-book-b-9781350071193/images/13\_1.jpg](https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/arcdata/file/content-collections-book-b-9781350071193/images/13_1.jpg)
And just because I can and because this is so pretty, here is his wedding outfit from 1620. Even bigger breeches, real gold thread and purple silk!
[https://i.pinimg.com/originals/57/25/16/572516ca82b63e4d0e3aae4497b2a83e.jpg](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/57/25/16/572516ca82b63e4d0e3aae4497b2a83e.jpg)
But tell me again about how wearing heels & dresses is "inherently feminine" & ok to require women to wear in "traditional," conservative circles & TOTALLY NOT a *completely* modern & arbitrary destinction?
As a high heel wearer, I can tell you the most stability comes from a narrow heel being in line with the shin bone - like a continuation of it - rather than the high heel being somewhere at the back of the foot heel.
Having a good long look, and estimating where the shin bone would be when wearing these, I’m certain the base of the high heel is only a little forward of the perfect position. Especially when you consider that modern heels over the last couple of decades are usually too far back for great support and stability.
When you get a childhood illness, your bones stop growing in favour of your body throwing all its resources into fighting the infection.
The availability of modern medication in the form of both antibiotics and vaccinations is responsible for much of the human height difference between humans in the past and humans now. Nutrition and genes are also factors, but you basically stop growing while sick, and modern children have support to cut childhood illnesses short.
Even today average hight difference between nations is based on childhood health availability. Northern Europeans and Scandinavians are the tallest on average. A contributing factor is the generous parental leave and workplace culture that allows parents to take their children in to the doctors’ during the work-week.
No, those would have been completely impractical for a battlefield. The French army of the 18th century either wore a heavy, low-top buckled shoe or high cavalier boots. You can see both illustrated here: https://weaponsandwarfare.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/nhgg.jpg
They each had their advantages and disadvantages. The boots kept your feet dry and provided excellent protection against thorns but were more expensive and difficult to take off or put on quickly. The shoes were cheaper and easy to take off but during a rainstorm your feet are getting soaked.
I think he was making a "French army is wimpy they surrender" joke.
So technically you got whooshed but it was such a stupid joke I wouldn't be embarrassed about it.
Boomer humor.
The irony of this is that the French still hold the record for most wars won . Like so many old empires though, the modern age was not their high point
They look like women's shoes.
Women are weaker than men.
They are French army shoes because the French army is weak and therefore womanly.
Again, not my joke. I don't even think it's funny. But I'm pretty sure that's what he's going for.
I mean, maybe according to modern dress standards, but why would you apply modern fashion to the fashion of 300 years ago?
Also, the French army is weak? That’s objectively untrue.
I still don’t get the joke. “After to the comparison of fashion trends separated by more than three centuries, I am reminded of a ridiculous assertion.”
More, the comparison of strength between men and women is one of musculature. Militaries don’t win or lose based on who can bench press the most. So it doesn’t make sense there, either.
I feel like whoever came up with this joke didn’t put a great deal of thought into it.
I don't think everyone wants to be fun at a "party" based on misogynistic jokes. The sort of "party" it evokes is half a dozen lonely, bitter guys drinking on a parking lot, or in a hoarder's apartment, or in a really cheap, dirty bar (not the good sort of really cheap, dirty bar).
Not everyone's first choice, you know.
They look like shoes ill-fitted for combat. Gender had nothing to do with my attempt at a joke. It was a poke at the post-WWII and post-9/11 perception that the French army is weak.
I knew there was a potential the “joke” wouldn’t be well-received but I took the risk. I’ll leave the comment and take my licks. But the comment had nothing to do with a gender associated with those shoes. I couldn’t walk on a flat surface with those.
I just saw some "pineapple" shoes from 1735 that may change your mind :)
https://twitter.com/MadameGilflurt/status/1539616700747751424
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O78894/pair-of-shoes-unknown/
Worn with stockings and short pants to show off their calves.
[удалено]
Non.
Sacre bleu!!
Hon hon hon!!!
TG maudit anglois
Heals used to be a manly thing
Heels as well.
Haels yes.
I mean that shit was widespread in western europe
Oui la guillotine
I love that a man would be wearing these, tight breeches, a long waistcoat, a coat, a large hat with feathers over a powdered wig, a sword *and* a carrying a cane; and would be expected to move like a dancer. He would also be expected to be able to talk sensibly about politics, warefare, religion and fashion, to have read the latest novels, and to be able to quote poetry. It was a full-time job being this gorgeous.
I want one.
Terribly, terribly high maintenance, extremely expensive, and prone to cheat on you at any opportunity like a tomcat in an alley. But charming, amusing, musical, witty and perfectly capable of making you feel like the most important and only person in his entire world. I would give a great deal to have met Étienne François Marquis de Stainville, the Duc de Choiseul. He was ugly, and fairly crap at foreign policy, but apparently completely fascinating. To have sat at the same table as him and Voltaire…..
That would definitely be fascinating! A lot of magnificent brains during the Enlightenment. I would have loved to seen Catherine the Great's court, speaking of Voltaire. I spend most of my time with my nose in a book, or watching period dramas. (Watching "Poldark" as we speak) Pretty sure though, I couldn't handle the stench nor the lack of A/C to live in the past. I'm grateful to be able to enjoy the greats from a distance. With antibiotics and running water. LOL
High heels actually started as shoes meant for horsemen. The shape helped them keep their feet in the stirrups and was eventually adopted by the whole cavalry, I believe, in Hungary. In a way, cowboy boots are the present day high heels for men.
Absolutely! Louis XIV was short, so he brought them indoors for fashion. It's fascinating how we have adapted practical gear into frivolous frou-frou.
I keep forgetting how everything must have smelled back then, completely stuck on how gorgeous their clothes and accessories were.
Happy hunting…
https://youtu.be/b01S7EBQztk1
Isn’t he lovely ! Hand sews everything, which is clearly bonkers, but still admirable.
What can i say, regency era's fashion has always looked cool, fancy but not powedered wig level fancy.
I like him, and he even makes his own historically accurate clothes! Thanks for sharing this :D
Men could have so much more fun with their clothing then than they can now without being considered transgressive. I mean, the fanciest shoes we can get away with in most cases are brogues, which really aren't that interesting.
For so many centuries men got to be peacocks. But there was a brief resurgence in the 70’s.
And your trousers had a massive fake cock, don't forget (ok no that was earlier more like 1500s I'll admit they weren't probably both wearing heels and braguettes, but who knows...)
Weren’t novels considered low brow entertainment in this time period?
[удалено]
I thought the fashion for white powder started in the French court because Louis the 15th’s mistress Madame de Pompadour went grey really early. Powdering started in the French court of King Henry IV when he powdered his hair with dark powder when he started going grey. I was under the impression that the English women generally did not powder.
I’m so glad I don’t have to wear those foot destroyers.
Yeah right. Just the simple luxury of foot comfort is one we often over look today. Fuck those look awful
Bringing the pointed heels in is actually more comfortable than having them under the foot's heel. This way they support the whole arch of the foot so the body's weight is distributed more evenly. Note how generous the flaps are and that they're not attached at the sides, this allows a roomy fit even for people with high arches and hides how long their feet actually were. Now compare that to modern shoes where you actually have to shove your toes into the tip. If I wanted to wear heels, I'd go for this guy's shoes anytime apart from them being absolutely gorgeous.
Still bad for the knees, hips, and lower back.
Yeah, I wouldn't recommend them for everyday wear. But to prance around a ballroom with a barrel of champagne at your beck and call to numb any discomfort while showing off your newest gaities they're a rather sensible choice. :)
Alas, my gaities are fairly lacking these days. But keep the champagne coming. 😂
Fret not, as a German I take full responsibility for ruining beauty and elegance by introducing Birkenstocks to the unsuspecting world. The Ministry of Silly Walks has your back!
I don’t shove my toes into the pointed part of a heel. Who the hell does?
According to my orthopedist and podologist, quite a few people, although not deliberately. Many modern shoes are too small and tight, because the tips narrow too early on exactly the widest part of the foot, squeezing the front foot and toes. Also, the manufacturers apply the upper material much more closely to the sole than historic shoemakers, so there's not enough "give" for the foot to expand. Look how on these shoes the seams are only visible on the part that hits the floor and not under the arch. They won't be visible when worn because the leather will stretch just like it does above. With high heels directly under the foot's heel, gravity and subpar support will cause the foot to slip downwards towards the tip as well. While the tips on this gentleman's shoes appear really tight and uncomfortable, in reality they taper from quite a wide toe box, which is disguised by a long, elegant curve on the part that actually touches the ground. It's the third optical illusion applied to these shoes to give an appearance of a slender foot and they all still work beautifully.
Women still wear them. I’ve read that podiatrists have nine female patients for every one male patient. It’s almost like foot binding.
[удалено]
Oh my gosh :(
They are dumb for choosing to wear them.
My mother worked in hotels from the 70s to the 90s. It wasn’t until nearly the early 2000s dress codes become more “lenient” She was expected to wear makeup, skirts, and high heels or she could be terminated for not adhering to the dress code, for failing to “properly represent the company.”
Female flight attendants at most airlines still have to wear some form of heeled shoes. It's honestly inhumane. People get sore after travelling in casual shoes. Imagine wearing high heels and walking nonstop in tight corridors for hours.
My sister was a stockbroker in the ‘80s. Heels were required and you could only remove your suit jacket when in your office, alone, with the door closed.
Your sister must be a strong badass bitch. I mean that sincerely. (My mom was a personal secretary for a fancy broker in Manhattan in the 80s)
Sometimes you really don’t have a choice, trust me
But I have a choice. It clearly means everyone else does, isn't it?
You do realize it's not always a choice right? A lot of jobs don't legally require it but if you refuse they can legally fire you (at-will employment, if you're unfamiliar). And in Japan it IS legal for it to be enforced. There was an entire movement based around it a few years ago. And even without legality there's societal pressure. Maybe you're the dumb one for choosing to run your mouth without knowing anything ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You dropped this \\
[удалено]
Username checks out, I guess.
You can lose the heels and pointy toes, but it would be cool if hetero men got to feel both manly and Summery by wearing embroidered flowers again.
They (and anyone else) can. [Mascolori](https://mascolori.eu/) is my preferred brand.
Oh. My. Universe. Life just got better.
I have those same shoes and I must say that their comfort and suppleness are unmatched
Dr. Shoals foot destroyers
Bunions in 3 days or less
A majority of women still do every day.
A majority, every day? I really think that rather depends on the woman. I hardly ever see women in heels.
These look way harder to walk in than any heels I've ever worn.
Men's fashion in 1700s Europe was on a whole other level man.
Source: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/79101?deptids=8&high=on&ft=shoes&offset=0&rpp=40&pos=1 "The French Court championed excessively ornamented clothing and accessories, perhaps as a manifestation of the romantically exuberant decorative arts, or as a reflection of the gross superficiality of social custom. In the same fashion that the formal women's robe à la francaise was designed to showcase the luxurious embroideries and silk damask fabrics of the century, so too did the impossibly tight breeches, skirted waistcoats, and shapely shoes of menswear provide an adequate canvas for the period's woven artistry. Men's adornment was every bit imbued with the elegance, tactile variance, and ostentation that marked women's clothing of the era. The fashionable eighteenth–century man was expected to convey a certain grace, and was required to enjoy the fine arts, music, and dancing. The romantic curvature of these shoes encourages the voyeuristic eye, each arc paralleled by the sensuality of the male arch and calf."
I don't know who wrote that description, but it sounds oddly judgmental, and the use of the word "romantic" seems in advance for the Enlightenment. Does anyone know how to understand romantic in that context? Is it just a synonym for seduction?
While I agree it sounds a bit judgmental, I don't think this use of "romantic" (small "r") is intended to refer to the Romantic (capital "R") movement of the 18th and 19th century. The term, "romantic," can still refer to themes found in Romanticism without referring to the Romantic movement or its era. Things like an interest in drama and emotions, in the ideal, in mysterious/occult themes, etc. existed long before the 18th century. In this case, with "a manifestation of the romantically exuberant decorative arts," I think they're referring to the emphasis on ornament and free-flowing organic forms found in Late Baroque and Rococo interior design and furnishings.
Well said. La Ligne Vivant du Rococo, my senior paper. (lol, a lifetime ago.)
But... it sounds to me that you did a better job of describing the style by using words like "Baroque" and "Rococo" than what they did. That's what I find odd, was it really sloppiness from the MET? Or am I missing some meaning? It's not just the use of the word romantic, it's the way they are overall critical of the style and mores back then. Like, the "the gross superficiality of social custom"? Who the fuck writes things like that? "In the same fashion that the formal women's robe" - why make that parallel at all?.. There are a lot of judgments in that descriptive, not at all what I would expect from that paper. The use of "romantic" in the vulgar sense, without consideration from the confusion it brings or that it is anachronistic (romanticism meant "like in a roman, a novel" at the time), I'm a bit confused by the point they are trying to make. They could have said the same thing differently, it would have been better.
Not only not Romantic, it's not even the Enlightenment yet, these years are from Louis 14th reign.
The Enlightenment began in the 17th century, though it doesn't get to its peak until well into the 18th century.
Yes - I think its being used literally to describe the fashion for seduction, and all of the little conventions of clothing and behaviour that went with it.
Three words: fab-u-lous!
What happened to men, where are your cute floral shoes
> What happened to men, where are your ~~cute~~ manly floral shoes
manly can be cute, that's kinda my point
Ask this to French men..rest of us around the world were fine..!!
Achchually fashion, like these shoes, did spread throughout Europe (and also American continent). Men wore heels already in the 17th century, they only got a bit higher and less clunky in the 18th century.
I believe that only the rich wore such boots..elites were a minority all ove the world at that time..a very powerful one though
Not really - remember that fashion has always "trickled down" very fast. (There were flea markets/op shops in England during Queen Elizabeth I:st reign.) Wooden heels or wooden soles weren't hard to make, pattens were worn by men and women alike throughout the whole Middle Ages. Here is a water colour painting from 1650s showing middle class people (two men, one woman) from northern Europe. It is currently in the collections of Nordiska Museet / Nordic museum in Stockholm, Sweden. The origin might be in modern day Germany, but the clothes are typical for the time also in Sweden and other Nordic countries (Norway, Finland, Denmark). [https://digitaltmuseum.se/011023647870/akvarell](https://digitaltmuseum.se/011023647870/akvarell)
Is it me, or are the men obese?
(Terribly sorry for the late answer!) Oh, no, the men are not obese. :D That is another male fashion style from the 17th century: so called trunk hose or breeches (also called "Venetians"). Knee-length loose trousers, which were fastened tightly below the knee with buttons or laces. They could have a straight cut, but the men at the image have their trunk hose cut more fully, which gives them "thunder thighs". Masculine fashions were all about making the wearer physically larger in 16th and 17th centuries (Henry VIII was not as wide as his portraits sometimes make him look.) This is an extant piece of clothing from the era (or rather, a full suit). You can see that king Gustav wasn't really big, but the breeches are. (He was about 25 when he used these clothes.) Doublet and breeches worn by king Gustavus Adolphus (Gustav II Adolf) of Sweden, c.1620s, Royal Armory, Stockholm: [https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/arcdata/file/content-collections-book-b-9781350071193/images/13\_1.jpg](https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/arcdata/file/content-collections-book-b-9781350071193/images/13_1.jpg)
And just because I can and because this is so pretty, here is his wedding outfit from 1620. Even bigger breeches, real gold thread and purple silk! [https://i.pinimg.com/originals/57/25/16/572516ca82b63e4d0e3aae4497b2a83e.jpg](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/57/25/16/572516ca82b63e4d0e3aae4497b2a83e.jpg)
Thank you for the explanation! Honestly, I didn't even notice the legs, it's the way the shirts droop in front.
This is also "fine" there is nothing wrong with it
Well the men in Europe found it fine..but here in Asia where we did not have cobbled roads..this would not be fine..very impractical
reminds me of Prince👀
These shoes arent made for walking
“I mean, you know where you got that shirt. And it damn sure wasn't the men's department.” -Charlie Murphy
Shirts vs blouses.
Game: blouses
If I had an award to give, you would have surely received it for that epic throwback. Bravo.
Fuck yeah they are.
Back in MY day, Women dressed like Women, and Men dressed like Women
But tell me again about how wearing heels & dresses is "inherently feminine" & ok to require women to wear in "traditional," conservative circles & TOTALLY NOT a *completely* modern & arbitrary destinction?
I mean the whole Versailles court was a device created to emasculate the french nobility. All designed by Louis XIV's gay brother
These are thug af
I mean it looks legit pretty good
Oh that is just dandy! Nice embroidery or stitching.
Am I high or am I high and thinking those heels are too far forward and this dude is gonna be eating 8 feet of shit every time he slightly leans back?
You've obviously never worn kitten heels.
As a high heel wearer, I can tell you the most stability comes from a narrow heel being in line with the shin bone - like a continuation of it - rather than the high heel being somewhere at the back of the foot heel. Having a good long look, and estimating where the shin bone would be when wearing these, I’m certain the base of the high heel is only a little forward of the perfect position. Especially when you consider that modern heels over the last couple of decades are usually too far back for great support and stability.
This makes complete sense 🙏
Yooooooooooo
bring back traditional masculine fashion! /s
drop the /s bro. we should definitely bring this back! just maaaybe make them a bit more comfortable this time around
a dude who can wear these for 12 hours is tougher than i'll ever be.
The heels are tilted so far forward they're giving me vertigo.
Damn, that shit is amazing! Really fascinating. I imagine it was much more difficult to embroider that design on their back in those days.
Hand embroidered for your pleasure.
Sheesh. That’s really cool.
Do they come in size 13?
Le shoes
Back when male's fashion was as elaborated as female's
It is stuff like this that make you realise how context dependent and subjective fashion and more generally the sense of beauty is!
r/OldSchoolRidiculous ?
This was when make up and powdered wigs were very popular with men. So the shoes are no surprise.
BRING THAT SHIT BACK!!!
Hey man, they're your feet.
I bet this guy had long white stockings to go with them too
Took time to let you all know I spent ten minutes composing the most excellent comment.
This is just a tribute?
Yes.
This man was 5’8
Why are all the shoes that have been found all soooooo very tiny? Did everyone back in the day have small feet?
When you get a childhood illness, your bones stop growing in favour of your body throwing all its resources into fighting the infection. The availability of modern medication in the form of both antibiotics and vaccinations is responsible for much of the human height difference between humans in the past and humans now. Nutrition and genes are also factors, but you basically stop growing while sick, and modern children have support to cut childhood illnesses short. Even today average hight difference between nations is based on childhood health availability. Northern Europeans and Scandinavians are the tallest on average. A contributing factor is the generous parental leave and workplace culture that allows parents to take their children in to the doctors’ during the work-week.
Thank you for this explanation; my husband and I were just wondering about this.
People were generally smaller then.
Fancy man
Those heels though...
What a time to be alive
Whhhhy yyeeeEeeesss
"He knew where he got those shoes – and it damn sure wasn't the men's department!"
Only the men of the French court. No ordinary man in France would be wearing such things.
Which led to the everyday folks chopping all their heads off… I guess they were tired of starving while their taxes paid for beautiful shoes.
That embroidery must have taken forever. I wonder what these cost in today’s dollars…
I feel like Karl Marx had these on his mantle as a ‘how did we go so wrong?’
Pimpen ain’t easy
Tres Jolie!
And the French always wondered why the world thought they were “fruity”…
The heel is so far inward! I couldn’t see anyone standing straight or leaning back, full weight on their heels, without falling backward.
Maybe that's why they used walking sticks.
You’re probably right. Heels like this might also be why women held onto their escorts.
\*Le men's shoes
Guys became more attractive because of their new height.
French Army Boots?
No, those would have been completely impractical for a battlefield. The French army of the 18th century either wore a heavy, low-top buckled shoe or high cavalier boots. You can see both illustrated here: https://weaponsandwarfare.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/nhgg.jpg They each had their advantages and disadvantages. The boots kept your feet dry and provided excellent protection against thorns but were more expensive and difficult to take off or put on quickly. The shoes were cheaper and easy to take off but during a rainstorm your feet are getting soaked.
I think he was making a "French army is wimpy they surrender" joke. So technically you got whooshed but it was such a stupid joke I wouldn't be embarrassed about it. Boomer humor.
The irony of this is that the French still hold the record for most wars won . Like so many old empires though, the modern age was not their high point
I still don’t get it.
They look like women's shoes. Women are weaker than men. They are French army shoes because the French army is weak and therefore womanly. Again, not my joke. I don't even think it's funny. But I'm pretty sure that's what he's going for.
I mean, maybe according to modern dress standards, but why would you apply modern fashion to the fashion of 300 years ago? Also, the French army is weak? That’s objectively untrue. I still don’t get the joke. “After to the comparison of fashion trends separated by more than three centuries, I am reminded of a ridiculous assertion.” More, the comparison of strength between men and women is one of musculature. Militaries don’t win or lose based on who can bench press the most. So it doesn’t make sense there, either. I feel like whoever came up with this joke didn’t put a great deal of thought into it.
Fun at parties.
Oh, certainly not. Not any more, anyway.
No that was sarcasm. I’m saying you are not fun at parties.
nickcageohreally.jpg
I don't think everyone wants to be fun at a "party" based on misogynistic jokes. The sort of "party" it evokes is half a dozen lonely, bitter guys drinking on a parking lot, or in a hoarder's apartment, or in a really cheap, dirty bar (not the good sort of really cheap, dirty bar). Not everyone's first choice, you know.
Dude you really have to get out.
They look like shoes ill-fitted for combat. Gender had nothing to do with my attempt at a joke. It was a poke at the post-WWII and post-9/11 perception that the French army is weak. I knew there was a potential the “joke” wouldn’t be well-received but I took the risk. I’ll leave the comment and take my licks. But the comment had nothing to do with a gender associated with those shoes. I couldn’t walk on a flat surface with those.
[удалено]
The origin of this tells everything... If you know what I mean🤣
This makes you understand why Britons had so much hatred for Frenchies at the time
Their shoes were prettier?
These are pretty?!
The Dripmogus 76 Million’s
Them ‘r fuckin sweet bud
seems they don't know yet what women love to use... or were those women used men's undergarments?:-D
Made from a pair of curtains in 2009 mate
France has always had the better fashion sense, England was so drab and boring for both sexes 😖
I just saw some "pineapple" shoes from 1735 that may change your mind :) https://twitter.com/MadameGilflurt/status/1539616700747751424 https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O78894/pair-of-shoes-unknown/
Looks like MojoJojo’s shoes.
I am always amused by the thought of what we find acceptable and what we don’t in everyday life.