Shoe Month! Nude Shoes
I’m always surprised when I like something by Kate Spade, because Kate Spade is not generally considered Real Fashion. Received fashionista wisdom has it that Kate Spade is for people who wear Juicy Couture and carry Coach bags with logos, i.e., people who think they are fashion people but are, in fact, dental hygienists.*
It ain’t necessarily so.
I have a much beloved pair of red patent leather heels that I can clomp around in for twelve hours that are Kate Spade and they’re terrific. That being said, whenever people ask me who made them, I answer in that same bashful voice usually reserved for admitting my cute prom date was my cousin (he wasn’t. My cousin I mean. He was cute though. Miss Plumcake doesn’t do ugly.)
That being said, I have warm feelings about both these:
This is what I call a First Lady Shoe (and I’m charmed by the “film” treatment of the bow.) It doesn’t look like much on the screen, but you’ll find yourself reaching for these again and again for years and as long as they’re in season, they’ll be in style.
I’m a big proponent of the nude shoe, and I know some folks aren’t, but for when you want to elongate the leg and look polished without adding another serious element to your outfit, these are perfect. The Gracie slingback from Kate Spade (above) reminds me very much of the heyday of Valentino and Ferragamo, before the tyranny of black shoes trampled the nude neutral.
For another, more contemporary sexier take, check out the Gianna pumps (currently almost 25% off at Endless):
Usually I approach anything snug around the ankle with an appropriate quantity of fear and trembling. While I do not have “cankles” my ankles are delicately turned in perhaps a more substantial way than the average woman’s so I need a strap that’s a bit more generous in nature.
My red Spades have ankle straps and they are the easiest, most generous straps I’ve ever used, so I can buckle down in the beginning of the day and loosen up as my afternoon progresses (read: no pump fat.)
These remind me a bit of the lingerie inspired Diors from couture last year (which I loved) but are drastically less expensive.
*Please do not put me on some sort dental hygienist death list. I love you all. Also I floss regularly. Also also, I agreed to go out on a blind date with the moron son of my favorite hygienist, who truly was an idiot (btw: DON’T tell someone your son is a professional cyclist when in actuality he’s a 35 year old guy who still plays with BMX bikes in his sweatpants) which I think is going way above and beyond the call of dental health.
The ankle strap on that has a cleverly hidden bit of elastic to help you out. You can see it in the close up view on the Endless page.
I’ve always felt that Kate’s bags were mite twee for me; usually entirely too small (one needs to carry book and a handgun, and even a one takes room). However, some of her jewelry manages to be playful and yet wearable, and I honestly do love her shoes. I have a pair of brown pumps of hers that I’ve had for ages and they are go-to shoes for long days.
I’ve never felt the need to put my gun in a handbag (as I feel it always takes way to long to reach that way, no matter how small the purse is.) I do have to admit that I have a fabulous green pair of patent heels from her that I adore beyond reason.
The Spades are cute and, yes, I love the bow detail.
The Coach comment hurt me a little…I’m a fashionista by no means, but I think I do okay. I have a wide array of bags; a Gucci, a Burberry, a Dior. But, my favorite bag out of all of them is a Coach tote that I carry 75% of the time. I would like to think that people passing me aren’t snickering and pointing at my choice of bag. Or assuming that I am a dental hygienist. Or wear Juicy Couture.
I read to four and five year old kids at a head-start type program. The other day, this kid didn’t know what a giraffe was. Or a pineapple. But when I asked what the cows were carrying (a purse), he said, “A Coach purse.”
Scary.
@Natalie: fight for your right to use a Coach bag, but you should know: I think plenty of people are snobby about it. My first good-quality bag, 100 years ago, was a leather Coach bucket bag. I still have it, and it still looks great. I think when Coach expanded its merchandizing so that it is available in outlet malls, and it began to schill its logo bag so relentlessly, it’s become a bit of a pariah amongst the fashionable set. For one, many people just hate the idea of a logo print at all: I’m not sure what is the cliche anymore: the logo prints or the people who need to tell you how they feel about them. And given that only a small number of companies really are that exclusive anymore, with online shopping and every metro region in the world having a mall where big design houses have stores, this derision of Coach shouldn’t hold much water: but it does. For fashionable people, it’s very important that what they buy isn’t available to the hoi polloi: *custom* this *custom* that; perfume you can only buy in Paris, shirts you can only buy in London etc. With some reason: contemporary mass marketing of luxury has changed the fashion in ways I’m not sure really anybody understands yet.
As far as I am concerned, somebody who has style can pull off anything, so long as she has “to hell with the rest of you” in the back of her mind.
@megaera where do you put it, darling? I used to wear a should holster but it’s far to hot for that here.
@Natalie: Sorry, but yeah. Same thing with Burberry if there’s any visible check or pretty much any bag that has visible logos, or its logo as part of the design = embarrassingly bougie and probably a knock off. See also: Louis Vuitton logo bags. I mean, I owned and loved a Gucci bag for years, but it just had a very small GUCCI embossed near the lip, and that’s it. The general rule is you buy a bag because of its beauty and craftsmanship not the status, and it’s pretty common knowledge that the bag with the most logos is almost always the cheapest and cheapest made, for people who want to show off their status (which they do, but not in the way they want).
Love the old Coach bags. I must have more than a dozen – some from misspent youth, some hand-me-downs, some thrifted. They’re durable as hell, which I need because I tend to stuff them full and sling them around.
@Lisa, hang on now, I don’t think you’re being fair. I freakin’ YEARN for Serge Lutens exclusifs to be available outside of Paris, or Ormonde Jayne to be closer than Old Bond Street. Heck, I have to drive 416 miles round trip to go to my nearest Barney’s up in Dallas for frickin’ Le Labo! But you’re right, when people truly and deeply care about beauty and craftsmanship and art, that requires luxury and there is no such thing as mass luxury. I hate to see the decline and fall of luxury goods. People who want to buy true luxury items should be able to, and it’s getting increasingly difficult to weed through the labels-for-labels’ sake dross. I understand it from a financial point of view, but for historic houses that actually MEANT something…it breaks my heart.
Wouldn’t Kate Spade be for someone who carries a Kate Spade purse?
I have one, which I got at a sample sale. It’s good quality, thick leather, simple and durable. No visible logos, other than a small, easy-to-miss embossed one in the leather. It carries my book, my wallet, my phone, my sunglasses, my Metrocard, my keys and a small umbrella.
And not a one of Kate Spade’s shoes come in my size.
Having read this blod for sometime and thoroughly enjoying the content, I am quite surprised at the elitist attitude shown here. I’ve never understood those people who look at another person’s bag and proceed to judge the wearer. If it is a knock-off, who cares? If it’s not your taste, ignore it and move on. I’m really disappointed at the “true luxury item” attitude. Luxury is relative and can mean different things to different people.
@Natalie: I’ve never claimed not to be an elitist BUT I do think there is something morally wrong with knock-offs. Stealing an artist’s intellectual property and producing it in parts of the world where labor laws are atrocious just so more people can have access to a “designer” look (without the actual designer who created it, or the craftsmen who made it a thing of beauty benefiting from it at all) is wrong. And luxury items in the way I mean it isn’t relative, although I agree that luxury in the general sense means different things to other people.
First of all, nice pick, Plumcake. I want some nude shoes now!
Wearing logo anything is a personal choice. I am more concerned that my bag is cute and made to last. If I want to show off a little with my Coach signature print bag, it’s all good. I saved up, made sure it was real (bought it at Macy’s) and enjoy it. I also own many non-logo bags. Just wear what you want.
I agree with Plumcake-don’t buy knockoffs! If it is not from the full-price boutique or an authorized dealer, you run the risk of buying a knockoff if you are not familiar with the brand. Save your cash and sanity.
At the same time, a logo bag is not necessarily a knockoff. For example, Coach outlet stores carry different merchandise than the full-price boutiques, dealers or the website. I have a red leather Zoe bag from the outlet that made like the full-price one. Yes, lots of knockoff often mean lots of logos.
Hey, take care and have a great weekend!
“people who think they are fashion people but are, in fact, dental hygienists” did make my hackles rise, but, God love ya, Plumcake, you educate, you entertain, you enliven the day… and if remarks like that are part of the package, I’ll get over it.
@ Plumcake Perhaps I am being unfair, but I don’t think so, and I am not really judging the impulse towards exclusivity: you certainly know enough about fashion to understand the tensions between the type of quality that comes from customization (and that, hence, entails expense) from that which is merely expensive (and creates exclusion through the expense) like those ghastly dollar sign shoes. Then there’s the exclusivity that derives from vintage–a find, something unusual–that isn’t expensive. THEN there’s the sort of exclusivity that derives from having a really original concept. All of those are in the mix when you think of fashion and style, but what they all have in common is that it–whatever it is–must not be ubiquitous or prosaic or everyday. Coach did something different when it moved to the outlet mall at a time when other brands began to jack up their prices and go into online retailing–and still other luxury businesses, like Jack Taylor and some perfumers, watchmakers, etc–refused to do any of the above. Significantly different niches and approaches to global markets.
I’m going to speak up for the logo bag, oddly. I never would have bought it myself, though I do like LV Epi and Suhali bags, but a few years ago my much more massively affluent hubby, who has no taste whatsoever, has to be snootered into wearing nice clothes, drinks beer from cans and wants nothing more out of life than to read library books and watch baseball games, bought me one of the LV multicolore bags as a birthday gift. I pasted a grin on my face and acted thrilled because I would rather set myself on fire than hurt his feelings.
I’ll be darned if that isn’t one of the most useful bags I’ve got. I *know*. Prior to owning this bag, I sniffed about how stupid it was to charge outrageous amounts for nonleather bags, how ugly logos are, how crassly consumerist, how status-symboly, etc etc etc. But that stupid bag has worn like IRON. It goes with pretty much every single thing you could ever have in a spring wardrobe (this is the white multicolor, not the traditional brown). It is *a lot* lighter than my other LV bags, and all of my leather bags. So I’m just saying: nobody was more surprised than me, but I wound up really loving it.
My dental hygienist is a hottie. Plain and simple. Takes some of the pain away.
@Natalie. People judge all the time, based on tons of things. It doesn’t mean you have care what they think.
@<b]Lisa I keep it in a UM sidekick in the front of my slacks. My rack lets me conceal as long as I don’t wear a skintight shirt. (Likewise my rack makes the shoulder holster BEYOND irritating.) Once in a desperate dress situation I actually had the holster tucked into my bra, but I’m gonna tell you that is UNCOMFORTABLE. I have had to carry my gun in a purse, but when I do, it’s pretty much DL, credit card, maybe cash, keys, gun. I live in Houston, so it’s plenty hot, but fortunately my ice cold heart keeps me cool.
I’ve never claimed not to be an elitist Hmm, well. I’ll just quote Orwell.
“Probably the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing-fields of Eton, but the opening battles of all subsequent wars have been lost there. One of the dominant facts in English life during the past three quarters of a century has been the decay of ability in the ruling class.”
I do really enjoy your voice Plumcake, truly. But sometimes the “oh, the little people” tone gets a a tad, I don’t know, rough. Can’t we mix things up a little? I like pictures of $700 shoes but like a nice snog with Daniel Day Lewis it ain’t gonna happen.
I’m in law enforcement and having done an investigation into couterfeit bags myself, I get the wrongness of illegal bags. That being said, I am not going to look down on a person wearing a bag that may or may not be fake. I have enough common courtesy to not assume that a bag is fake or to turn my nose up when I see someone carrying a bag that is obviously fake. I can appreciate an Hermes Birkin and a Coach Hampton with the same enthusiasm and I don’t understand the point in looking down on someone who truly enjoys one over the other.
I have also grown tired of the “little people” sentiment often expressed here. But, Plumcake, this is your blog, and bottom line, you write it how you want and from your point of view.
I never got it as a “little people” sentiment. Like the seminal Shoeblog that later budded this one, this is a blog on luxury items. Maybe some readers actually use the manolosphere for shopping recommendations, but I know I’m not the only one who reads it only for the pure pleasure of the photos and the writing. Frankly, even if I had the spare cash to drop on $700 shoes, I still wouldn’t, since I’m a rural farm girl and have no use for such things.
There are lots and lots of places on the internet to find recommendations for realistic, budget-conscious clothes and shoes. The Manolosphere is not one of them. But what other fashion blogs give you etiquette tips and poetry in Middle English?
“this is a blog on luxury items’
I thought it was Fashion, Lifestyle and Humor for the Plus-Sized Woman?
“this is a blog on luxury items’
I thought it was Fashion, Lifestyle and Humor for the Plus-Sized Woman?
Right, but surely you must realize that not all the details of the character of a blog can be covered in a tag line? If you’re going to put it that way, then Manolo’s Shoe Blog should be about “Manolo Loves the Shoes!”, which says nothing whatsoever about expensive vs. inexpensive shoes, art history, celebrity chefs, films, literature, and pokes at shoes that the Manolo does NOT love in the gallery of horrors.
Abby, I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood me. My statement was neither an order nor a request for what the blog SHOULD BE about. It was my perception of what the blog IS about, what the blog HAS BEEN about for the past several years. It’s only my observations. If you disagree with them, that’s fine.
I’m not worried about any elitism in the products here.
What I AM concerned about is how nobody here has called out “nude” as being subliminally racist! This beige colour should not be called nude, because it enforces the idea that the default skin colour is beige (ie white). We need to stop thinking of white as the default skin colour and to do that we need to stop calling this colour – lovely colour in my opinion, and I covet those shoes – “nude”.
I used to use the word “nude” all the time regarding shoes like this until my (non-white) friend pulled me up on it and said that wasn’t her nude skin colour. I never realised before then that it was unconsciously supporting white as the default to refer to white nude as simply “nude”.
Please can we not do this any more! :) Love the blog but don’t like to see unconscious racism go unexamined. :)
Rachael, I must be really obtuse but to me nude has always meant the absence of colour rather than a skin colour. I know that when I’m naked I’m not the colour of those Kate Spade shoes. If you look hard enough you can find subliminal messages in anything. There are bigger battles to be fought and won than the naming of a pair of shoes. How about calling a sports team the All Blacks? Is that subliminally racist as well or do you think it might just be because of the colour of their uniform?
I hate it when the term ‘Elitist’ is thrown out to demean people who understand and appreciate the difference between a t-shirt with the Chanel logo and a Chanel couture suit and are willing call it out.
All you need is a library card to develop an understanding of the difference between style and fashion. Knowing the difference and owning it does not make you a bad person any more than owning a designer label bestows ‘class’ on someone. The “Real Housewives” franchise is built on the concept.
I’ve never owned a ‘designer’ handbag, but I’ve owned plenty that got me envious looks because I could recognize a well designed and well made bag even without a designer label. I also got labeled as ‘cashmere girl’ by a bunch of Ivy Leaguers in my office who had no clue that all my cashmere sweaters cost $10 each at a thrift shop.
That being said, I am currently coveting a Cole Haan bag that stopped me dead in the street, not because of the label, but because of the beautiful lines and proportion.
So Plumcake – please keep up the most excellent work. I love your writing and the knowledge you share with us – from Lane Bryant to Barneys and beyond
I hate it when the term ‘Elitist’ is thrown out to demean people who understand and appreciate the difference between a t-shirt with the Chanel logo and a Chanel couture suit and are willing call it out. It isn’t elitist to point out these differences. My objection was to unkindness.
And there are many ordinary folk who are passionate about fashion and fashion history who have learned about it at the library and the street and other free/cheap resources. Some of them are dental hygienists. Why denigrate that fine tradition? It is a fine one. If fashion is only by/for/about the super rich it is really boring and sterile. In my opinion.
I have no problem with others appreciating the differences between couture and department store items. The problem comes in when someone looks down on others for not wearing Chanel suits and carrying Balenciaga bags. Let’s face it; not everyone has the money to spend on couture or premier designer labels.
Why is it that we, as readers of this blog, get so uptight and defensive about people putting plus-size women down, but some of us don’t seem to have a problem doing the same thing to people of lesser financial means? If it’s okay to look down on one section of the population, shouldn’t we all be fair game?
Those shoes may not be the color of Rachel’s non-white friend but they aren’t the color of any white folks I know, either.
Toss around the term ‘racist’ loosely enough and eventually you trivialize the argument. If everything is racist then nothing is racist.
Denying a person equal access or treatment due to the color of their skin is racist. Is using the word ‘nude’ to describe a shoe color equivalent or even comparable to that?
Rachel, those were my first thoughts too on reading about the ‘nude’ shoe. In fact, I went scrolling through the comments deliberately to see if it was going to be an issue, and was going to make a point of commenting on it. Good to know I’m not the only one.
bushpiglet and theDiva, the concern is not that calling these shoes ‘nude’ is denying anyone their rights – but it does point up just how matter-of-factly we assume that ‘white’ is the default normal colour, and that anything else must be the other. It’s in that unconscious assumption that harm is done.
If a person of colour tells those of us who are in the white privileged group that calling this colour ‘nude’ is offensive, we don’t get to say “oh, but I’m not really racist by doing that”. We say “I’m sorry, I didn’t realize what I was doing and will try to be more sensitive” – exactly as Rachel is now trying to do.
See especially this article at Sociological Images titled “Nude is the New Black” for another example of how we’re swimming in an invisible sea of privilege.
Plumcake, sorry for the threadjack. I’m sure the word choice was an unconscious choice. It’s just that the reason it’s unconscious that has to be examined. They are lovely beige shoes, though. :D
I would never denegrate someone based on their credit rating, salary or education. I will however reserve the right to mock those who think a designer label unto itself is a fast pass to class – whatever class they may come from or aspire to.
In most circles (tho not Anna Wintour’s I’m sure) we can all can work out an acceptable look with a studious application of observation, careful shopping – both new and vintage, and the occasional dumpster dive.
I speak from experience
Well spotted Rachael. I agree, now that you’ve said it.
As it is, I would be lucky if this were my color “nude”. Were a shoe to actually match me nude, it would have to be along the lines of ‘dead-fish-belly’ white or “pasty”.
Magista
You really shouldnt assume that I am in “the white privileged group” by my comments. In fact I have never considered white the “normal default colour” and that is why I never associated “nude” with an actual skin colour. I do object to the subtle insinuation that I am racist or ignorant when you know nothing of my ethnicity or my background.
Apologies for the off topic everyone. I’m done
Bushpiglet said “Rachael, I must be really obtuse but to me nude has always meant the absence of colour rather than a skin colour”
Nude means naked. The colour referred to as nude closely resembles the naked white person – not perfectly, but close enough that this is the intended effect of the colour when worn in the outfit. That is not a coincidence! That the white-nude tone is called nude is part of looking at this world though privileged eyes, eyes that see light coloured skin as the default skin. Why isn’t brown called nude? It is as much nude as this beige colour.
To all who objected: Yes this is not as serious as people’s rights being denied to them. And yet this stuff contributes to cultural messages that subliminally tell people of colour that their skin colour is “other” and separates them from white people. That message creates real issues in how people experience life in majority-white countries when they are not white. It also matters to me, as a white person, that I RESIST this because I think it is damaging and I do not wish to live in a society that “others” people of colour.
If you can’t be bothered to say “beige” instead of “nude” because you think you have more important things to worry about, consider this: why is “nude” your default? Why not “beige”? You chose the word randomly and it happens to be what the fashion establishment uses also? Of course not. Nude is the default word. And there is a reason for that: the reason is white privilege. Why keep using a term that perpetuates that privilege?
I am shocked that a small change like this seems to be too much to ask.
bushpiglet, absence of colour is either black or white depending on your reference points. Nude is not. This shoe is intended for “when you want to elongate the leg” – and that is not going to happen to anyone who is not of caucasian skintone, any more than it would happen for me wearing brown shoes.
Alas, English does not distinguish between inclusive and exclusive we. I assume nothing about you other than that you are not willing to make a minor adjustment to language that you have been informed is offensive. It doesn’t matter whether you can say “I’m _______ and it doesn’t bother me, so it doesn’t matter” or “some of my best friends are ________ and they’ve never said it bothers them so it doesn’t matter”.
First of all, Plummy used as an example TWO DIFFERENT SHADES OF BEIGE shoes to illustrate that “nude” doesn’t mean “only this particular shade of beige.”
Second of all, that dark beige is way darker than my skin tone. In fact it would suit an African American friend of mine quite well.
Third of all, NO to “If a person of colour tells those of us who are in the white privileged group that calling this colour ‘nude’ is offensive, we don’t get to say “oh, but I’m not really racist by doing that”.” That’s freaking ridiculous. If our skin tone is too pale, we don’t get to use our brains and our reason to determine what was meant? We automatically have to defer to someone else’s opinion because they have a darker skintone? Gimme a break. Just because someone says something is racist doesn’t necessarily make it so, no matter what their skin color.
I was going to refer everybody to the Sociological Images post for an example of the use of “nude” in a fashion spread in a way I really do see as problematic — there are like 30 different looks and every one is that light beigey color that blends into the skin tone of a pale white person. But I guess I’m a little surprised anyone could look at the two pairs of shoes in this post and react hte same way. Because I’ve never a seen a white person with skin either of those two colors. When I read this post, I actually thought Plummy was specifically and on purpose broadening the conventional use of the term “nude” to denote skin-toned. It could have used even more and more varied examples, I guess.
“What I AM concerned about is how nobody here has called out “nude” as being subliminally racist!”
It’s always nice to have a good laugh in the morning. Sets the tone for the entire day! Thanks!
I am shocked that a small change like this seems to be too much to ask.
Not shocked, but saddened at the stubborn adherence to privilege I see displayed here. Rachael has stated the case with eloquence and fairness and has been mocked in return.
Gosh, you mean this is a snarky fashion blog for grown women, not the Womyn’s Studies 210 Study Group?
Besides: THAT SHADE OF BEIGE IN THAT ONE PARTICULAR SHOE IS NOT A WHITE PERSON’S SKINTONE ANYWAY.
PUTTING SOMETHING IN ALL CAPS DOES NOT MAKE SOMETHING COMPELLING, INTERESTING, RELEVANT OR RIGHT. It means you posses a caps lock key.
What you and your friends can match with their skin tone isn’t relevant. It’s whether assuming that light tones for “flesh” colors is a good idea. Does excluding very dark flesh tones from words that are meant to convey “flesh” have a larger social consequence and meaning? That’s the question.
If what we call the color doesn’t mean anything, as you seem to be suggesting, why are you posting, multiple times, and with such vehemence? Why does asking us to refer to color as “beige” instead of “nude” cause people get their undies in a collective twist?
Because, clearly, the words are not meaningless.
You can accuse Rachael of making a big deal out of nothing, but she’s not posting histrionics. That’s coming from elsewhere. She’s posting ideas. For me, I’m grateful to Rachael for doing the thankless of job of pointing something out to me that I hadn’t thought of or noticed before. There. I haven’t died from being asked to think about race or entertain the possibility I don’t have all the answers yet. Nope. No exploding sun or plagues of locusts either. Hairy-legged womyn’s groups haven’t overrun the earth requiring us to be forsake the company of men. In fact, I feel fine.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
“If what we call the color doesn’t mean anything, as you seem to be suggesting, why are you posting, multiple times, and with such vehemence?”
BECAUSE IF I YELL LOUD ENOUGH MAYBE YOU DULLARDS WILL GO AWAY AND NEVER COME BACK. Is why.
And because you’re missing the fucking point over and over again.
If this blog were written out of Nigeria, with a predominantly Nigerian readership, and the author were to post some brown shoes and call them “nude” or “flesh-toned”, I don’t think anyone would bat an eye. They would say, “Duh, it’s a Nigerian blog. Of course the assumption is that most readers have dark skin.”
Similarly, if this blog were written out of Sweden, with a predominantly Swedish readership, and the author were to post some pale ivory shoes and call them “nude”, I don’t think anyone would bat an eye.
Only in racially-diverse America do we have a wish to include everyone. Perhaps the way to have handled this in a more inclusive way, but without erasing the purpose of the original post, which was to suggest that shoes that are close to your skin tone elongate the leg and match almost anything, would have been for Plumcake to have included a range of flesh colors.
But to call her oversight racism is going too far. In fact, below this very post was a post on Plumcake’s Personal Style, right? Suppose you don’t like large clip-on earrings? Move on. That part does not apply to you.
Nope, Harri, I’m staying no matter how many insults you sling, and no matter how many all caps you use. Get used to it: YOU CAN’T BULLY EVERYBODY. Keep posting every other post to make sure you’re so above this topic, that’ll just show us how little you care. Brilliant rejoinder, btw.
@wildflower I agree on the what “Plumcake is doing” part, largely because her job is to get fashion stuff out here for this audience. However the “nude” trend is all over the industry itself, which purports to be a global one. There’s “nude” lipstick, “nude” shoes, etc. So she’s using the lingo of the industry which assumes that nude is beige, and that’s a reasonable thing to challenge. If I feel left out and excluded because designers don’t design for me because of my size, I can’t really fault somebody for bringing up when they feel excluded when the colors and ideas don’t really include them either. It’s worth thinking about.
Harri, why do you keep coming back? YOU can always find another blog with people who are not “dullards” as you so eloquently put it.
Hm, so my post gets deleted, but Harri gets to yell at us and call us dullards? Kind of not fair, eh?
The problem with “nude” is, in fact, that it is usually applied to a particular shade (I’d call that first pair of shoes “nude” rather than “beige,” because they’re too pink to be beige) that’s supposed to represent more-or-less the skintone of white women. It doesn’t stand for a concept, such as “match your shoes more-or-less to your own skintone to make your legs look longer.”
I think one of the reasons that it’s so hard to get rid of this issue — and why it continues to be a problem, one that people often get upset about when it’s pointed out to them — is that “nude” has stuck as the descriptive term for *that particular color* while shades that match the skintones of people of color have already been designated as “mocha,” “cafe au lait,” and the like. And so far, there’s been no real effort to get the “nude” descriptor replaced with something that doesn’t suggest that the default skin tone is a light one. “Beige” occupies its own space already, and “blush,” while close, isn’t really right.
It’s definitely problematic that “nude” continues to be used in connection with a light color, but I’m not sure much will change until there’s some kind of agreement on a replacement term, as there has been for other terms that have changed over the years.
IIRC Crayola once had a light pinky peach color called “flesh” or somesuch, but after a great deal of effort from antiracism groups, the company discontinued it or renamed it and introduced other colors representative of a variety of skintones. Change is possible, but with “nude,” in terms of fashion, we’re only at the pointing-out-the-problem stage, not the suggesting-an-alternative stage.
Time to halt the galloping assumptions folks. I am particularly concerned that this is such a big deal when I work with indigenous people everyday who cant even sign their name to a government form to get financial assistance let alone be able to debate what nude means to them. In fact they would be happy to accept any pair of shoes no matter what the colour. Incredibly high rates of infant mortality, less that 10% will finish high school, our young men are killing themselves and each other,huge problems with alcohol and you guys are accusing me of being racist and intolerant because I didnt consider nude to be a racist word!
Incredibly patronising by the way Rachael thats your definition of nude, I still stand by mine I only use nude to describe the absence of something ie clothes, makeup or lipstick, as its already been said its not particularly useful to describe a colour.
Arguing and name calling isnt helpful but I am really objecting to the patronising and dare I say paternalistic tone of some of the posters.
Right now I really am riding off into the Western Australian sunset on my high horse (see not American. not white and only privileged in the fact that I get to work with one of the oldest indigenous races in the world)
At the risk of really really beating this poor dead horse…
@bushpiglet: I don’t think it was ever “such a big deal.” More of a gentle suggestion, that was met with “OMG YOU CALLED ME A RACIST!” Rachael was achingly fair. I just went and read every word she wrote. Not a name was called. Disagree with her, but it isn’t right to accuse her of something she manifestly did not do. Especially when she clearly stated that this was not as important an issue as those you’ve referenced, but one nevertheless worth discussing.
I’m Hispanic and both of these “nude” shoes are too dark for me. I’m not sure what white epidermides they are supposed to suit –maybe that of really tanned gals? – but none of my White friends would be a match. Isn’t it just possible that our dear blogger sees “nude” as a family of tones rather than just a few that would match those who are lily white?
My two cents on knock off bags: I don’t carry them but have to recognize that fashion evolves. Not only does it evolve, but non-designer merchandisers (such as Lane Bryant) watch the runways and then base their designs on what is there. Granted, they sometimes are a few years behind…but none-the-less. In the case of direct knock-offs, the only thing questionable (to me) is the use of another’s name. Otherwise, the people rolling out the handbag copies are doing what most clothing/shoe retailers do – right down to employing Third World labor.