Is this important journalism? No way. Is it funny as shit? I think so.
If a high heel is any shoe with a raised heel, would that make a low heel a shoe with the heel under the toes, and a mid heel a flat?
As I understand it, a heel is a shoe with an obviously raised heel, and high, mid and low are modifiers on the height of the heel - a 1" heel is a low heel, while a 5" heel is a high heel.
Shoes styled to look like a flat but with a hidden internal raised heel are called lifts.
a shoe with the heel under the toes
Doesn’t exist. If it were to, it would be so wildly impractical that I doubt the name would follow normal convention. But, sure. Low heel or high toe. Next question.
a mid heel a flat
Yes, where the heel and toe are on more or less equal footing (hah), we call those flats. If the entire foot is on a raised platform, we call those platforms. If it’s a platform with a raised heel, we call those platform heels.
Lots of heels are styled so that most of the heel blends in with the shoe. It has nothing to do with the style. Pumps, stillettos, boots, wedges, kittens. Hell, I’ve seen high heeled converse. If it is women’s footwear with a raised heel, the blanket term is heels. High heels if they are especially high, as Ron’s are. But not for men. So why, I ask, are we sticking our necks out to deny this double standard?
Now, let’s stop pretending we are members of an alien lizard species that do not understand human language conventions. We’re talking about a man that took a normal pair of boots that are 5 sizes too big, shoved a couple fancy doorstoppers in them to make himself appear taller, and is now parading around and playing pretend with his floppy toes and comically large kankles like a little boy that got into his mother’s shoe closet. And somehow instead of pointing and laughing we’re managing to have an even sillier argument about what to call the ill-fitting homebrew contraptions.
