Sarah Sixpack’s sexy shoes give me a grumble. If a goal of feminism is to be equal with men, why can’t we have parity with comfortable shoes?? All the men running for office, running corporations, running the world are wearing comfortable, flat-heeled shoes. What are the women wearing—- pointed toes, spiky heels, flimsy sandals, etc.? No serious person can walk far in that kind of foot gear.

Of course, I agree that legs look much better in heels of some sort. But, then again, none of the serious male candidates or people-running-the-country are showing their legs. Does this mean that women who aspire to high office or professional careers must have glam legs and sexy shoes??

Perhaps my opinions are just angst that I can no longer wear such shoes and must now traipse around in clunky, low-heel, wide heel base shoes—or risk losing my balance. When I was 25, I was hobbling around in stylish heels….but I didn’t have much sense back then.

Women who want to look professional should not wear sexy high-heeled and/or open toe shoes in professional situations. I have more confidence in women who wear sensible shoes, whether they are medical professionals or politicians. Apparently this is a generational thing, young women believing that sexy and smart are a good combination. Perhaps for the under 40 set, but I prefer mature women to look and act mature. Obviously, I am not in the majority on this issue.

Once, about thirty years ago, I went to a women’s religious retreat, Brown County Women’s Retreat, or something like that. The speaker who stuck in my mind—for all the wrong reasons—was a women wearing sexy, spiky, high-heeled sandals. She informed her listeners that it was important to belong to a “bible believing church.” I was naive in those days and did not understand religious code, so I didn’t realize the churches she meant belived in the rapture, sin, dispensationalism, the King James Bible as infallible [ho ho…not even a Protestant translation], and all that other stuff of the religious right. I just knew that woman was not appropriately dressed. In my long family religious tradition of Mennonites, Brethren, Presbyterians, and Methodists, church women and religious women wore modest clothing in modest pastel or dark colors. This gal was wearing a black dress and sexy heels; she could have gone straight from there to a cocktail party. I can still see her toes wiggling in those sexy shoes as she stood there telling us all this pious drivel. I never went back to that retreat again; that woman was not the least bit spiritual—or religious. I prefer the RC nuns and their much more spiritual retreats—and they wear sensible shoes. Isn’t interest in fashion the last thing as far as being “godly”? Not that I want to be “godly,” having NO use for conservative christianity.

What’s with these women and their attachment to fashion? Being well-groomed; attractive, modest clothing; modest make-up and hair styles—sooooooo middle-aged. But…sooooo professional and competent.

Sarah finds Katie Curic’s questions annoying. I find Sarah annoying. I
don’t care for her sexy red high heels, or her winks, or her tight
skirts. She looks like a game-show hostess or a cocktail waitress.
Further, I am appalled at her lack of knowledge—she has NO
background of knowledge about American history, Supreme Court
decisions, government policy, or serious public issues. She is very poorly
educated and yet has shocking self-confidence.  Brash rather than
humble, she sure doesn’t embody the traditional Christian virtues.

Her ideas on abortion are repellent, too….ugh….insisting that victims
of incest bear their father’s or brother’s or uncle’s children. I remember
the old days of coat-hanger abortions–and much prefer the era
of Roe vs Wade. Further, if she were really “feminine,” she would
know that life is abundant on earth; when one seed is crushed or fails
to grow, many more are there to flourish. I prefer other choices than
abortion, but I also believe that no woman should have to bear a child
she does not wish to bring into the world—for whatever reason.
A woman should have total control of her body and any issues about
pregnancy should be between her and her doctor.

What I really believe in is birth control—and would
have it handed out at the high school door. A society that truly loves life
would help hormone-laden adolescents learn to develop their
sexuality in a protected and informed manner. Holding on to the myth of
protecting virginity until marriage is a really STUPID idea, one more in
line with patriarchal property rights than about learning to love.  And—guess
what—sexy Sarah doesn’t believe in that idea either. She seems to have
jumped the gun a bit on her first child and now finds herself with a
pregnant teen. What I really don’t like about her ideas is that a “shotgun”
marriage seems to be her only solution to the problem. Woe betide Black
teens in the same situation…..the Republicans cannot find enough evil
words to denounce them.

Something Sara did in the debate really annoyed me—refusing to
answer the questions. I had students use that tactic when taking
tests or giving speeches or writing research papers. Basically—the
student, or the vice presidential candidate, does so because he or she
is not prepared to do the serious work required. Sarah has only talking
points and cue cards, beyond that she does not seem to know anything
of substance. Only fools would think that being a mayor of a small city of
7000 is substantial “executive” experience. She is very poorly prepared to
be on a national ticket.

I think her religion is scary, and her ambition is scarier. Why are
Republicans so hot for her? Because she is so entertaining compared to
their usual deadly-dull politicians? Because she so devoutly embraces
their ideas, even if she doesn’t understand them? Because she’s sexy?
They didn’t like old sexy Bill….