Shoes, shoes, shoes.
Shoes. Shoes. Shoes. They are like the weather; people complain all the time but nothing is done about them. Shoes, in fact, for all their many problems have been largely ignored by the consumer movement. Consumer Reports, by way of illustration, has only conducted one test series on shoes and then only “Boys’ Shoes,” as the article was titled in their September 1970 issue.
Most of the news coverage on shoes relates to the durable struggle over the extent of shoe imports which the government should permit to enter the country and take away markets from domestic shoe manufacturers. But along that oral American grapevine that usually escapes chronicling, people are relating their miffs about shoes–domestic or imported–in more personal terms. “I can’t find a pair of shoes that fit me.” “My shoes hurt.” “Have you seen what the flimsiest of shoes are selling for?” “My shoes are disintegrating faster than the price of repairs.” “I can’t believe what my children’s shoes are costing these days and I won’t even mention the quality.”
These are the words of the articulate sufferers, the people who see themselves as victims of the marketplace. More sorrowful are the silent sufferers who endure the callous whims of the shoe designers with interminable pain because they are victims of style. These are the persons perched on platform shoes or the resurgent spike heel. These are the stiff-upper-lippers whose feet are contorted into tapered points in order to replace comfort with agony.
Millions of people know the names of hundreds of men who hit baseballs, throw footballs, dribble basketballs and slap pucks. But how many people know the names of the men who design the shoes that incarcerate and torture the innocent–these tyrants of the feet?
Other questions are pertinent. Why does price have so little relationship to quality and durability? The price of ladies’ shoes seems to be directly proportional to the footwear’s gain in fragility and loss of utility. Veterans remember how long-lasting shoes could be in the armed forces, especially the army boots which even now can take you almost around the earth for less than $15.
And what about the groups whose mission it is to protect
the shod? The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) receives data forwarded by hospitals that relate to injuries attributed to “shoe causes” in part or in whole. This is no trivial cause of hurt day after day and more than platform or spike-heeled shoes are involved.
On more than one occasion, specialists in the coefficient of friction between floors, pavements and shoes have gathered to exchange knowledge under the auspices of the American Society for Testing and Materials. Inadequate shoe friction often is an accessory to many slips and falls around the country. CPSC has not yet given the public a progress report
on its findings or intentions.
Podiatrists, who know in detail of the wrongs inflicted on their patients by shoe designers and manufacturers, are reluctant as a group to challenge this system. Occasionally, as did the New York Podiatrity Society, they will warn Americans that they are “squandering more than $200 million a year on worthless and dangerous over-the counter remedies, foot supports and abrasive devices.”
Individually, they will fret over the stylistic exploitation of women.
One podiatrist asserted that “in the majority of podiatry offices, the ratio of female patients seeking relief from their painful feet must be 2, 3 or 4 to one. The major difference between women and men that could produce this ratio is shoes.” But no concerted action for change has come from those specialists either.
Making the shoe industry more sensible must be preceded by more sensible consumer understanding of the industry’s abuses.
Few people even know what to look for in quality, proper fit and safety when they go to buy shoes.
But it would not take more than a few concerned people–consumers, podiatrists, enlightened shoe salespersons and shoe store owners–to start a drive that would relieve millions of people from the pain in their feet and the penalty on their pocketbooks.