While at times it may feel like I am going about things in a round about way I know there is a point to everything I have been doing this past year. I have learnt many things about Sneaker Culture that I didn’t previously know about and I have also realised what my exact issues are with the culture that get me feeling so disappointed.
This culture was not made for women and has involved in such a way to keep women on the outskirts even if it doesn’t make a habit of stating that fact in an obvious way. It is a culture that doesn’t publicly announce that women are still secondary to men in the culture. It’s not sneaker culture’s fault though, it inherited these attributes from hip hop culture and rather than breaking the mould has remained the same. The only thing that has changed is how involved women are in the culture.
More and more women are popping up who love sneakers just as much as their male counterparts and most of them rather than complaining about the fact that the culture isn’t really designed for them take part anyway. They are just happy to be included, if included is the word you can call it. The brands women love keep creating sneakers that are small, pink and covered in patterns and insisting these are appropriately feminine and yet there has been no revolt.
I may not be the person to start this revolt but I know that something needs to change, I am not blind to these issues and nor should anyone else be. Ads will still be made that depict women as sexual objects used as a mere tool to sell sneakers and that is because out culture says this is okay. There is a point though when this rudimentary stereotype of women becomes insulting rather than a fact of life.
I don’t hate pink, I know that everything I may have suggested up until this point says otherwise but I don’t hate the colour. I hate the way it is used in the context of sneakers. The way it is automatically prescribed to womens sneakers just goes to show how ingrained the association of pink to feminine is in our culture. It is insulting because there is this assumption that all girls like pink shiny things and that is not true, in fact I know men who like a lot of the womens sneakers they see and they don’t come in their sizes.
The advertising agents need to stop churning out ads that play on this idea that being sexy is liberating and that wearing sneakers will make you feel this way, it’s always the same types of women in these ads anyway and they are more for the mens benefit than the womans. Women deserve the same ads that are created for men, the shoes are what we are buying so stop trying to sell us sex. The sneakers themselves are enough to sell them, there doesn’t need to be any agendas or stereotypes attached.
My point is, there doesn’t need to be a division of sexes in sneaker culture. The brands need to remove the labels and let people make their own decisions based on their own personal tastes without worrying if they will be judged for wearing a mens or womens sneaker. Brands like Vans are getting it right, inside the tongue they show sizes for both men and women rather than making shoes specifically for either gender. Women are allowed to like pink and they are allowed to like the mens designs, they shouldn’t have to worry if the sneakers they are purchasing are really meant for them. It shouldn’t matter, but it does and it needs to change.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Go Forth, Find Sneakers.
Unfortunately it is that time of year, where I discover time is quickly running out and this project is coming to a close. Which is why there has been a lack of a blog post this week. That does not mean that I haven’t been paying attention to what has been going on in the sneaker world of Melbourne. Some new releases have dropped and I have picked up a couple of new additions to my collection. I have also noticed some things, that I had never really paid much attention to up until now.
First thing, leather shoes are far more expensive than sneakers. I have decided that I want a nice pair of leather lace ups, the type you see all the hipster boys wearing. Unfortunately not much of that style pops up for ladies, at least not in the same abundance. Upon some recommendations from friends I visited a couple of stores around Melbourne’s CBD, this was fine until I turned to look at the shoes sole and check the price. I should have expected the prices to be close to the $300’s but I was not prepared. This is the cost you pay for fine leather shoes it seems. The second thing I discovered about shoes is my feet really are not accustomed to them. I can’t imagine what the shop assistant thought of me as I asked to try on a pair, trading my Adidas Samba’s for something far more upmarket. It was a different type of fit, tight and supportive and the lack of grip on the sole seems like a health hazard. The conclusions I have drawn from this experiences is that I am not sure I am ready for the world of shoes.
After this foray into a foreign environment I went back to what I know and love, sneakers. I was quick to decide a few months ago that the next pair of sneakers to add to my collection was going to be a pair of Vans (Vans being my current favourite brand), I had a particular pair in mind — 106 vulcanised in blue suède with tan highlights — unfortunately in the four places I looked they were out of my size, I was not prepared to give up. I was adamant that I would be going home with a pair of sneakers, and I did. Eventually. Hype DC was the last place I was prepared to go and it was there I was going to make up my mind. In the end I did come out of it with a pair of kicks that I am currently wearing. A couple of months ago Vans dropped a release with Crayola, in which it looked like all our favourite Vans silhouettes had been haphazardly coloured in with the crayons from our childhood. I purchased a pair of purple authentics, even the heel tab comes in a rich yellow and green combination. The box? Looks like a crayon box. The salesperson asked if I wanted the box, of course I did!
As for the other recent purchase, well that would be thanks to my great friends who for my birthday took me shoe shopping. It’s great when people know exactly what you like. Like a child in a lolly shop I was affronted by endless possibilities. It is different when you buy for yourself, you decide what your budget it is and then the limitations mount from there, but when you are given the choice that you are allowed any sneaker of your choosing it becomes that text book scenario of being spoilt for choice. However I spied the shoes I had been eyeing off for some time, the elusive Nike Air Toki in royal blue with eye popping yellow highlights and sole. I am not one to deliberate over things for too long, I make snap decisions and that is the end of it. At least with sneakers anyway. They had my size and that was that, the Air Toki’s were mine.
What does the future hold? I am not sure what pair of sneakers I will acquire next, for now I am satisfied but that won’t last long. When a new release or pair of sneakers catches my eye the cycle will begin again. Ah to be young and have no financial commitments. Occasionally I have positive outlooks on sneaker culture, only when it provides me with fancy footwear.
First thing, leather shoes are far more expensive than sneakers. I have decided that I want a nice pair of leather lace ups, the type you see all the hipster boys wearing. Unfortunately not much of that style pops up for ladies, at least not in the same abundance. Upon some recommendations from friends I visited a couple of stores around Melbourne’s CBD, this was fine until I turned to look at the shoes sole and check the price. I should have expected the prices to be close to the $300’s but I was not prepared. This is the cost you pay for fine leather shoes it seems. The second thing I discovered about shoes is my feet really are not accustomed to them. I can’t imagine what the shop assistant thought of me as I asked to try on a pair, trading my Adidas Samba’s for something far more upmarket. It was a different type of fit, tight and supportive and the lack of grip on the sole seems like a health hazard. The conclusions I have drawn from this experiences is that I am not sure I am ready for the world of shoes.
After this foray into a foreign environment I went back to what I know and love, sneakers. I was quick to decide a few months ago that the next pair of sneakers to add to my collection was going to be a pair of Vans (Vans being my current favourite brand), I had a particular pair in mind — 106 vulcanised in blue suède with tan highlights — unfortunately in the four places I looked they were out of my size, I was not prepared to give up. I was adamant that I would be going home with a pair of sneakers, and I did. Eventually. Hype DC was the last place I was prepared to go and it was there I was going to make up my mind. In the end I did come out of it with a pair of kicks that I am currently wearing. A couple of months ago Vans dropped a release with Crayola, in which it looked like all our favourite Vans silhouettes had been haphazardly coloured in with the crayons from our childhood. I purchased a pair of purple authentics, even the heel tab comes in a rich yellow and green combination. The box? Looks like a crayon box. The salesperson asked if I wanted the box, of course I did!
As for the other recent purchase, well that would be thanks to my great friends who for my birthday took me shoe shopping. It’s great when people know exactly what you like. Like a child in a lolly shop I was affronted by endless possibilities. It is different when you buy for yourself, you decide what your budget it is and then the limitations mount from there, but when you are given the choice that you are allowed any sneaker of your choosing it becomes that text book scenario of being spoilt for choice. However I spied the shoes I had been eyeing off for some time, the elusive Nike Air Toki in royal blue with eye popping yellow highlights and sole. I am not one to deliberate over things for too long, I make snap decisions and that is the end of it. At least with sneakers anyway. They had my size and that was that, the Air Toki’s were mine.
What does the future hold? I am not sure what pair of sneakers I will acquire next, for now I am satisfied but that won’t last long. When a new release or pair of sneakers catches my eye the cycle will begin again. Ah to be young and have no financial commitments. Occasionally I have positive outlooks on sneaker culture, only when it provides me with fancy footwear.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Advertising
Advertising is fundamental in how products are marketed and sold in todays consumer society, with footwear this is no exception. Genders are divided clearly and without confusion as to who wears what shoes. Sneaker culture has not escaped this division and the marketing and advertising of sneakers only serves to make this division larger. Since the birth of sneaker culture the ads that are aimed at men and women have always been different and this has not changed. Sneakers have been transformed into objects of sexual desire, as well as useful in enhancing sexuality thanks to the sexualisation of advertisements and products.
There is a large difference in the way that mens shoes are advertised in comparison to women’s. The focus is primarily on the sneakers itself, and the associations that sneaker has to the lifestyle that goes with it. The sneakers are photographed in such a way that they reflect what type of shoe it is meant to be; rock star, skate, boutique, dress, athletic. Brands like MacBeth like to use real life rock-stars (majority of the time male) to wear their shoes whilst they play their instrument of choice, whereas Supra prefer to just have the sneaker on a plainly coloured background and that is all.
However for women there is a greater focus on the women themselves. Women are usually shown to be doing something of social, sexual or athletic nature, the sneaker itself not being the main focus of the ad. The woman’s athleticism, social nature and sexuality are the primary focus with the sneakers acting as the tool needed to enhance these things. It is the lifestyle being sold in conjunction with the sneakers that is of high priority in women’s ads. Depending on the type of sneaker being sold the way women are portrayed will differ. For sneakers that are used for running the woman is shown to be in an action stance, often wearing only a sports bra and small shorts, making a point to show off the athletic physique of the women wearing those particular sneakers. This isn’t an uncommon approach for specifically athletic sneakers.
With sneakers worn for fashion and leather the advertising takes a completely different approach. In various Adidas Originals ads the women are shown to be having a good time out with the boys or in a party scene, they aren’t shown to be a strong confident role within the ad but to be submissive to the male figure that appears. This approach is common in other brands as well, like Le Coq and Creation, in this same approach the women become a sexual object rather than a role model to women who purchase sneakers.
The sexualisation of sneakers has become a key factor in marketing particular brands; Patrick and Puma use this to give their sneakers a sexual edge. Patrick follow a retro chic within their ad campaigns, women in short athletic clothes sporting these sneakers whilst showing off a lot of leg. In the same campaign they have a shot of woman seductively pulling a shoelace with her teeth. Puma take a similar approach but are a lot more sexually explicit, in particular an advert depicting a range of women who are naked except for the sneakers and socks that they wear. These ads may have been intended to inspire confidence in women, insinuating that wearing these sneakers will give you the confidence to be comfortable enough to wear nothing but your sneakers. The truth is that these ads really only appeal to men and reaffirm the sexism that exists in our culture.
It gets worse than this though, in another Puma ad that I found via google image search depicts a faceless woman performing sexual acts on a man, the point of the ad being that she is wearing puma’s and therefore she is far more sexually submissive because of this. Whether this ad is fake or not the fact that it exists means that for many ad agencies this is an acceptable way to advertise sneakers to the general public but also causes a disruption within the culture itself, in terms of how the men view women. Women appearing to be less than men is nothing new in advertising but the persistence in which these ads are generated is concerning.
This type of advertising is responsible for the reoccurrence of sexism in western culture, the notion that a woman being highly sexual is empowering and inspires confidence is being used constantly by big brands to sell their products. However the consequences of doing so means that many men now continue to view women as sexual objects rather than people, the advertising within sneaker culture is only a small part of a much larger issue. The fact that this is how sneakers are marketed cause the designers to continue to create stereotypical feminine sneakers that embody these ideals. The marketing of sneakers for women needs to change in order to dissolve the division of genders as well as changing the preconceived notions of what women actually want when it comes to sneakers.
There is a large difference in the way that mens shoes are advertised in comparison to women’s. The focus is primarily on the sneakers itself, and the associations that sneaker has to the lifestyle that goes with it. The sneakers are photographed in such a way that they reflect what type of shoe it is meant to be; rock star, skate, boutique, dress, athletic. Brands like MacBeth like to use real life rock-stars (majority of the time male) to wear their shoes whilst they play their instrument of choice, whereas Supra prefer to just have the sneaker on a plainly coloured background and that is all.
However for women there is a greater focus on the women themselves. Women are usually shown to be doing something of social, sexual or athletic nature, the sneaker itself not being the main focus of the ad. The woman’s athleticism, social nature and sexuality are the primary focus with the sneakers acting as the tool needed to enhance these things. It is the lifestyle being sold in conjunction with the sneakers that is of high priority in women’s ads. Depending on the type of sneaker being sold the way women are portrayed will differ. For sneakers that are used for running the woman is shown to be in an action stance, often wearing only a sports bra and small shorts, making a point to show off the athletic physique of the women wearing those particular sneakers. This isn’t an uncommon approach for specifically athletic sneakers.
With sneakers worn for fashion and leather the advertising takes a completely different approach. In various Adidas Originals ads the women are shown to be having a good time out with the boys or in a party scene, they aren’t shown to be a strong confident role within the ad but to be submissive to the male figure that appears. This approach is common in other brands as well, like Le Coq and Creation, in this same approach the women become a sexual object rather than a role model to women who purchase sneakers.
The sexualisation of sneakers has become a key factor in marketing particular brands; Patrick and Puma use this to give their sneakers a sexual edge. Patrick follow a retro chic within their ad campaigns, women in short athletic clothes sporting these sneakers whilst showing off a lot of leg. In the same campaign they have a shot of woman seductively pulling a shoelace with her teeth. Puma take a similar approach but are a lot more sexually explicit, in particular an advert depicting a range of women who are naked except for the sneakers and socks that they wear. These ads may have been intended to inspire confidence in women, insinuating that wearing these sneakers will give you the confidence to be comfortable enough to wear nothing but your sneakers. The truth is that these ads really only appeal to men and reaffirm the sexism that exists in our culture.
It gets worse than this though, in another Puma ad that I found via google image search depicts a faceless woman performing sexual acts on a man, the point of the ad being that she is wearing puma’s and therefore she is far more sexually submissive because of this. Whether this ad is fake or not the fact that it exists means that for many ad agencies this is an acceptable way to advertise sneakers to the general public but also causes a disruption within the culture itself, in terms of how the men view women. Women appearing to be less than men is nothing new in advertising but the persistence in which these ads are generated is concerning.
This type of advertising is responsible for the reoccurrence of sexism in western culture, the notion that a woman being highly sexual is empowering and inspires confidence is being used constantly by big brands to sell their products. However the consequences of doing so means that many men now continue to view women as sexual objects rather than people, the advertising within sneaker culture is only a small part of a much larger issue. The fact that this is how sneakers are marketed cause the designers to continue to create stereotypical feminine sneakers that embody these ideals. The marketing of sneakers for women needs to change in order to dissolve the division of genders as well as changing the preconceived notions of what women actually want when it comes to sneakers.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Neutral
Few shoes are able to surpass the gender boundary and make generally ambiguous shoes, however a few brands have succeeded, even if it took them some time to get to this point.
The iconic Chuck Taylor has been around since the beginning, the first sneaker to be endorsed by a pro athlete and a sneaker that all the kids would wear. Basketball players chose the Chuck Taylor as their shoe of choice and young boys would emulate them. In the beginning the Chuck Taylor was predominantly worn by males, with the competing sneaker of the time; Pro Keds being deemed the female version.
Since then the Chuck Taylor has disappeared then come back and in an entirely new way. The sneaker has made a come back and it has changed as well. The design may still be the same but the people who wear it have changed. Going from basketball players to rock stars the Chuck Taylor has become an entirely new sneaker. With new ad campaigns promoting it as the sneaker worn by famous rockers like Karen O from the Yeah Yeah Yeahs and Billy Joe Armstrong from Green Day, it opens up the sneakers to a much wider audience and doesn’t perpetuate the stereotypes about women.
The silhouette of the sneaker itself is also gender neutral, it is not overly chunky and the amount of materials used is minimal, while this sneaker does come in all the typical colours expected of female sneaker it isn’t separating the spheres. If you walk into a Chuck Taylor store there isn’t a mens or women’s section, instead there is a large range of sneakers to choose from that come in an array of colours and patterns.
Similarly Vans have also created a range of sneakers that cater to both genders without insulting women with stereotypes. Based on deck shoes used for boats the first Vans were designed to withstand the damage endured with the first wave of skateboarding. Much like Converse in the early years Vans were worn mostly by young boys and men, mainly because those are the people who surfed then later went on to skateboard.
With the revival of vulcanized sneakers Vans made a comeback in the skate and general sneaker community. The classic slip-ons and authentic’s were revived and have become extremely popular within sneaker culture. Their range of classics appeal to both genders and come in such a large range of colours and patterns that a variety of personalities can be pleased as well as both men and women. Much like Converse they also don’t created gendered sections in their stores, both men and women are welcome to all the sneakers Vans have to offer.
Adidas on the other hand started out making sneakers that were aimed at athletes rather than a specific gender. The early sneakers produced by Adidas were designed for track and field sports, sports that were not dominated by men, this influenced the designs they produced. Sneakers like the Gazelle and Superstar were relatively gender neutral, the silhouettes were simple and made to serve an athletic purpose, colours were often blues or whites and it was never specified which gender these shoes were aimed at.
Over the years Adidas has had periods in which they struggled to keep up to brands like Nike and Reebok, they have conformed to the idea that pink and pastel is what the ladies want, and they have separated male from female in their designs and marketing.
The Adidas originals line of sneakers does however still exist and it still remains true to where the brand began. It has kept many of the original designs and have expanded upon them. Adidas are able to compete with other juggernauts in the sneaker industry such as Nike and Puma, they do make the stereotypical women’s sneakers that perpetuate the standards of femininity that have been created by western society, but they also continue to release the sneakers that don’t follow gender lines.
These three brands present the potential that exists within sneaker culture to remove the gender boundaries that have been put up. The fact that Vans and Converse have been able to create sneakers that are equally popular with both genders suggests that there really doesn’t need to be a separation between men and women.
The iconic Chuck Taylor has been around since the beginning, the first sneaker to be endorsed by a pro athlete and a sneaker that all the kids would wear. Basketball players chose the Chuck Taylor as their shoe of choice and young boys would emulate them. In the beginning the Chuck Taylor was predominantly worn by males, with the competing sneaker of the time; Pro Keds being deemed the female version.
Since then the Chuck Taylor has disappeared then come back and in an entirely new way. The sneaker has made a come back and it has changed as well. The design may still be the same but the people who wear it have changed. Going from basketball players to rock stars the Chuck Taylor has become an entirely new sneaker. With new ad campaigns promoting it as the sneaker worn by famous rockers like Karen O from the Yeah Yeah Yeahs and Billy Joe Armstrong from Green Day, it opens up the sneakers to a much wider audience and doesn’t perpetuate the stereotypes about women.
The silhouette of the sneaker itself is also gender neutral, it is not overly chunky and the amount of materials used is minimal, while this sneaker does come in all the typical colours expected of female sneaker it isn’t separating the spheres. If you walk into a Chuck Taylor store there isn’t a mens or women’s section, instead there is a large range of sneakers to choose from that come in an array of colours and patterns.
Similarly Vans have also created a range of sneakers that cater to both genders without insulting women with stereotypes. Based on deck shoes used for boats the first Vans were designed to withstand the damage endured with the first wave of skateboarding. Much like Converse in the early years Vans were worn mostly by young boys and men, mainly because those are the people who surfed then later went on to skateboard.
With the revival of vulcanized sneakers Vans made a comeback in the skate and general sneaker community. The classic slip-ons and authentic’s were revived and have become extremely popular within sneaker culture. Their range of classics appeal to both genders and come in such a large range of colours and patterns that a variety of personalities can be pleased as well as both men and women. Much like Converse they also don’t created gendered sections in their stores, both men and women are welcome to all the sneakers Vans have to offer.
Adidas on the other hand started out making sneakers that were aimed at athletes rather than a specific gender. The early sneakers produced by Adidas were designed for track and field sports, sports that were not dominated by men, this influenced the designs they produced. Sneakers like the Gazelle and Superstar were relatively gender neutral, the silhouettes were simple and made to serve an athletic purpose, colours were often blues or whites and it was never specified which gender these shoes were aimed at.
Over the years Adidas has had periods in which they struggled to keep up to brands like Nike and Reebok, they have conformed to the idea that pink and pastel is what the ladies want, and they have separated male from female in their designs and marketing.
The Adidas originals line of sneakers does however still exist and it still remains true to where the brand began. It has kept many of the original designs and have expanded upon them. Adidas are able to compete with other juggernauts in the sneaker industry such as Nike and Puma, they do make the stereotypical women’s sneakers that perpetuate the standards of femininity that have been created by western society, but they also continue to release the sneakers that don’t follow gender lines.
These three brands present the potential that exists within sneaker culture to remove the gender boundaries that have been put up. The fact that Vans and Converse have been able to create sneakers that are equally popular with both genders suggests that there really doesn’t need to be a separation between men and women.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Jessie Mae
It’s not often I get excited about upcoming releases of sneakers. Often I see upcoming releases and mentally deciding if I will buy the shoes if I can find them or not, but I usually don’t look and go ‘wow I must have those’. Jessie Mae make me go ‘wow I must have those’. It’s not only because of the design, but what the shoes represent and stand for. It is like the people at Jessie Mae read mine, and other equally tormented women’s minds and designed a sneaker specifically for us.
There is no pink, no frills and no floral arrangements appearing all over the sneaker. In fact the designs are exactly what you would expect to be released as an exclusive pack for men. The release that is about to drop (not sure when) is set to follow a city theme, specifically New York inspired. Other than these small facts I really don’t know much about Jessie Mae, who is responsible for it and when exactly I can start hunting these sneakers out in stores.
In fact the only image I could find is a screen grab from the splash page of the website. Looking through the blog you can find various interviews with sneaker obsessed women as well as general posts about gallery launches and similar events. Everything else seems to be pretty under wraps.
What I can say from what I have seen so far is that the sneakers look incredibly promising. While what imagery I can currently find, shows a range of high top basketball sneakers in a range of different colourways and silhouettes. There seems to be enough variety within that style of sneaker, catering to those who want a more laid back style of sneaker or those who really want their feet to be loud. It would be nice to see a more low cut range, and some in canvas but who is to say that won’t be coming next.
I’ll leave you with the mission statement from the Jessie Mae website, it is exactly what is needed in sneaker culture right now:
“Solely for the ladies, Jessie Mae is a deluxe women’s sneaker brand debuting in July 2010. No more stuffing socks into the toes of your man’s kicks, or loving that style... if only it wasn’t for those ‘girly’ colourways. Launching with 4 styles that mix unique finesse and comfort, the collection gets today’s modern, smart, urban and socially aware woman, understands what she wants and pours that knowledge into a product that embodies her attitude.
The first collection is all about the city that sums up our girl - New York: a pioneering spirit, a hub of style and a contagious energy. For those women among us that keep their feet on the ground, Jessie Mae ensure our sneakers are truly our own.”
There is no pink, no frills and no floral arrangements appearing all over the sneaker. In fact the designs are exactly what you would expect to be released as an exclusive pack for men. The release that is about to drop (not sure when) is set to follow a city theme, specifically New York inspired. Other than these small facts I really don’t know much about Jessie Mae, who is responsible for it and when exactly I can start hunting these sneakers out in stores.
In fact the only image I could find is a screen grab from the splash page of the website. Looking through the blog you can find various interviews with sneaker obsessed women as well as general posts about gallery launches and similar events. Everything else seems to be pretty under wraps.
What I can say from what I have seen so far is that the sneakers look incredibly promising. While what imagery I can currently find, shows a range of high top basketball sneakers in a range of different colourways and silhouettes. There seems to be enough variety within that style of sneaker, catering to those who want a more laid back style of sneaker or those who really want their feet to be loud. It would be nice to see a more low cut range, and some in canvas but who is to say that won’t be coming next.
I’ll leave you with the mission statement from the Jessie Mae website, it is exactly what is needed in sneaker culture right now:
“Solely for the ladies, Jessie Mae is a deluxe women’s sneaker brand debuting in July 2010. No more stuffing socks into the toes of your man’s kicks, or loving that style... if only it wasn’t for those ‘girly’ colourways. Launching with 4 styles that mix unique finesse and comfort, the collection gets today’s modern, smart, urban and socially aware woman, understands what she wants and pours that knowledge into a product that embodies her attitude.
The first collection is all about the city that sums up our girl - New York: a pioneering spirit, a hub of style and a contagious energy. For those women among us that keep their feet on the ground, Jessie Mae ensure our sneakers are truly our own.”
Monday, July 19, 2010
Air Jordan
The Air Jordan is arguably Nike’s most successful sneaker. It is a sneaker that is not only popular in basketball but also in fashion. It was the shoe that created the iconic jumpman logo and later went on to be Nike’s first range of sneakers that didn’t use their iconic tick anywhere on the shoe. This shoe was originally made famous by Michael Jordan but has since gone on to become a famous icon all by itself, with continual releases and updates in its design.
It is also a sneaker that I have noticed has never had a specific women’s release. There are women’s variations of the sneakers but they seem to be an afterthought. Especially when some of them look like a regular Air Jordan with pink laces and highlights on the mid sole to indicate a gender difference. The shoe was created for basketball legend Michael Jordan, and basketball itself is a sport dominated by men and the sneakers that are designed specifically for basketball reflect this.
The Air Jordan is no exception to this rule, while the design of the shoe itself may have evolved from the very first Air Jordan, it’s air of masculinity remains the same. The colour palettes on the shoes continues to use white, black, red and blue and the designs themselves are usually high tops and quite chunky sneakers. However as I currently browse the site I can’t see any female variations of the sneaker. Women play basketball too and as such would need dedicated basketball footwear, which I know exists but why is there such an absence of the Air Jordan for women? Upon further exploration I was able to find some female Jordan’s on Sneaker Freaker. The sneakers reflect the usual stereotypes; pink dominating the shoe, or just being used for highlights.
It makes me wonder though, has there been no dedicated women’s release of the Jordan because they are comfortable with women wearing any Jordan? Or is it because there hasn’t been a female equivalent to Michael Jordan? I am not very familiar with any aspect of basketball, the only name I can think of that could potentially be the female Jordan is Lauren Jackson, maybe she isn’t as marketable as the jumpman.
Like many sports that are predominantly played by men the sneakers created for them usually reflect the masculinity that is encountered in those sports. Subsequently the women’s options of those shoes become a slapdash effort, put some pink here, there, some white over there and make them in a smaller size rather than dedicating any real time or effort into considering what women really want out of a sneaker. Women need to start realising that the choices out there for women in sneaker culture are extremely restricting, and they continue to perpetuate stereotypes and gender inequality. The lack of a female range of Air Jordan’s are further proof of this.
It is also a sneaker that I have noticed has never had a specific women’s release. There are women’s variations of the sneakers but they seem to be an afterthought. Especially when some of them look like a regular Air Jordan with pink laces and highlights on the mid sole to indicate a gender difference. The shoe was created for basketball legend Michael Jordan, and basketball itself is a sport dominated by men and the sneakers that are designed specifically for basketball reflect this.
The Air Jordan is no exception to this rule, while the design of the shoe itself may have evolved from the very first Air Jordan, it’s air of masculinity remains the same. The colour palettes on the shoes continues to use white, black, red and blue and the designs themselves are usually high tops and quite chunky sneakers. However as I currently browse the site I can’t see any female variations of the sneaker. Women play basketball too and as such would need dedicated basketball footwear, which I know exists but why is there such an absence of the Air Jordan for women? Upon further exploration I was able to find some female Jordan’s on Sneaker Freaker. The sneakers reflect the usual stereotypes; pink dominating the shoe, or just being used for highlights.
It makes me wonder though, has there been no dedicated women’s release of the Jordan because they are comfortable with women wearing any Jordan? Or is it because there hasn’t been a female equivalent to Michael Jordan? I am not very familiar with any aspect of basketball, the only name I can think of that could potentially be the female Jordan is Lauren Jackson, maybe she isn’t as marketable as the jumpman.
Like many sports that are predominantly played by men the sneakers created for them usually reflect the masculinity that is encountered in those sports. Subsequently the women’s options of those shoes become a slapdash effort, put some pink here, there, some white over there and make them in a smaller size rather than dedicating any real time or effort into considering what women really want out of a sneaker. Women need to start realising that the choices out there for women in sneaker culture are extremely restricting, and they continue to perpetuate stereotypes and gender inequality. The lack of a female range of Air Jordan’s are further proof of this.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Like Patchwork
The act of quilting and making patchwork decorations has belonged to the female domestic sphere for centuries. It was made widely popular during the Victorian era when it was the females role to beautify the home.
Lavish decorations were essential in the parlour and it was the woman’s job to buy and accommodate the home for her husband, as well as to aid in her social life. The separation of spheres was important in determining the different tastes that occurred between men and women, according to the experts of the time. It was suggested that a woman’s taste was less than a mens, in fact their taste was often insulted at great length by men. Their lavishly decorated parlous and patchwork tapestries created were believed to hold the design standards.
With the numerous years that have passed since that point in time, you would have thought that the separation between male and female taste would no longer exist. However that is not the case. It still happens all the time, from fast moving commensurable to white goods and furniture, but one area where is still abhorrently obvious is within fashion. Within fashion it occurs specifically in sneaker culture. An area of fashion and a culture that has been mostly dominated by men since it’s conception, and the designs of sneakers continue to prove that women are a minority within the culture.
Nike recently released a some new additions to this years range for women, this recent release sports a patchwork aesthetic. Even until now the range of sneakers for women, released this year has been disappointing. Disappointing in the sense that the majority of the sneakers released are only causing the rift between male and female to grow wider. This inequality between men and women will continue to be made apparent when shoes such as the patchwork dunk by Nike are advertised as a woman’s sneaker.
At a first glance the shoe is appealing, brightly coloured and not too insulting in terms of girly colours being used but the more you look at it, the more it becomes clear that the use of patchwork on a shoe for women further implies that female taste are somehow drastically different in comparison to men.
The use of patchwork has been considered, and is intentionally used on a female shoe rather than a mans because of it’s historical associations to women. These patchwork designs acould have easily been applied to a male range of sneakers as well, the colours are bright and the dunk silhouette is already extremely popular with the male market. So then why hasn’t Nike made this release for the men? I think it has a lot to do with the associations of patchwork and the relationship it has with females.
The implications of patchwork and men would be seen as emasculating, real men don’t sit around with needles and thread making quilts and patchwork embroideries. At least not according to gender standards that appear in todays society.
Lavish decorations were essential in the parlour and it was the woman’s job to buy and accommodate the home for her husband, as well as to aid in her social life. The separation of spheres was important in determining the different tastes that occurred between men and women, according to the experts of the time. It was suggested that a woman’s taste was less than a mens, in fact their taste was often insulted at great length by men. Their lavishly decorated parlous and patchwork tapestries created were believed to hold the design standards.
With the numerous years that have passed since that point in time, you would have thought that the separation between male and female taste would no longer exist. However that is not the case. It still happens all the time, from fast moving commensurable to white goods and furniture, but one area where is still abhorrently obvious is within fashion. Within fashion it occurs specifically in sneaker culture. An area of fashion and a culture that has been mostly dominated by men since it’s conception, and the designs of sneakers continue to prove that women are a minority within the culture.
Nike recently released a some new additions to this years range for women, this recent release sports a patchwork aesthetic. Even until now the range of sneakers for women, released this year has been disappointing. Disappointing in the sense that the majority of the sneakers released are only causing the rift between male and female to grow wider. This inequality between men and women will continue to be made apparent when shoes such as the patchwork dunk by Nike are advertised as a woman’s sneaker.
At a first glance the shoe is appealing, brightly coloured and not too insulting in terms of girly colours being used but the more you look at it, the more it becomes clear that the use of patchwork on a shoe for women further implies that female taste are somehow drastically different in comparison to men.
The use of patchwork has been considered, and is intentionally used on a female shoe rather than a mans because of it’s historical associations to women. These patchwork designs acould have easily been applied to a male range of sneakers as well, the colours are bright and the dunk silhouette is already extremely popular with the male market. So then why hasn’t Nike made this release for the men? I think it has a lot to do with the associations of patchwork and the relationship it has with females.
The implications of patchwork and men would be seen as emasculating, real men don’t sit around with needles and thread making quilts and patchwork embroideries. At least not according to gender standards that appear in todays society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)