Shoes

The History of Heels

“Everything is made up, stay woke.” Can you pinpoint where that quote is from ? Just know it’s valid either way. So let me learn ya somethin’ real quick, okay ? Okay !

So *cue Morpheus meme* what if we told you that high heels were originally made exclusively for men ? Like, the entire world would have looked at a woman as if she was a 4 headed girafficorn if she had on high heels in the 15th century. Wild, right ?

Yes friends, the introduction of the high heel was solely for men and was pretty much reserved for soldiers, aristocrats and royals around the globe. It all started in Persia (modern-day Iran) when soldiers wore them to keep their feet secure in some stirrups. From there, as Persians migrated to Europe, the fancy male elites wore them for fashion, to appear taller than they actually were. 

Fast forward from the 15th century to 1673. King Louis number 14 comes up with Red Bottoms. Not the famous red bottoms today; pretty much though. He was found in the palace courts rockin’ shoes with red heels and red soles. And those thangs were four inches high ! He did not come to play. He then ordered that only his noble homies could wear them and no one else, or else. 

So how did heels become feminized they way they are today ? Three words. WE. HIJACKED. IT. Between the 17th and 18th centuries European women started fighting for gender equality. They started cutting their hair, adjusting the brim to their hats and wearing heels (oh the fucking anarchy, ahhh !). But even then the men folk weren’t really trying to let it go. They instead made thick heels for men and skinny heels for women.

Eventually women started wearing the thicker heels too because who was going to check them really ? Today we have it that in the States at least for sure, heels are only for WOMEN.

Hey Alexa, play Bodak Yellow by Cardi B.

*Aaaaaaannnddd SCENE*

Standard
Hoe

Who Was Jezebel

Today we shall honor a famous, if not the most famous hoe there is. The original hoe. Yeah, you know how I’m talking about. JEZEBEL ! Let’s see how much we actually know about this smutty harlot.

Now everything in this post is coming straight from the dome (shout out to my religious upbringing) with the help of Biography to fill in gaps.

Jezebel was either a Phoenician queen or a Phoenician princess (or a princess THEN a queen) that lived in the 800 bc’s. She ended up becoming the wife of King Ahab of Isreal (see, thanks biography). Jezebel was super pagan and worshiped the god Baal. Baal was largely know amongst the Canaanites as the god of fertility. From that alone we can kinda see where this going, amirite ?! *insert suggestive face and elbow nudge*

So anyway, she was like wild obsessed with Baal and the people weren’t having it. Her love of Baal over Yaweh or Jehovah got her hella haters. Then to make matters worst, she gets 800 Baal soldiers to come to Israel and murder anyone who served someone other than Baal.

So boom, it gets even more tense as a religious war pops off and someone from the opposing team plots to come kill her personally. His name was Jehu. So Jehu finally makes it to the palace right and Jezebel is already expecting him. She’s dressed to the 9s and her face beat by the GAWDS okay. 

So the hoe shit comes in because some people (men) believe she got all dressed up to seduce Jehu. They assume she thought that if she maybe threw him some cooch he wouldn’t kill her. She couldn’t possibly just be getting dressed up for a dignified death.

How wild is it that the most infamous hoe shows no proof of being a hoe at all.

How do you think her reputation got so screwed ??? Let’s really talk about it !

Standard
Accessories

Men And Purses

Let’s talk about THE MURSE.

High Snobiety came out with an article last summer about how men totally want to wear purses but they don’t know it yet. Wild speculation. A lot of men (men I know who aren’t fashion forward, might I add) were literally OUTRAGED when I posted this. Here’s the first paragraph of the article, “The crowds outside menswear shows in Paris are always a good hint of what’s going to be the talk of the industry in the months to come. At PFW19, we saw plenty of great ’fits, but Frank Ocean and his large green Celine bag were a particular show-stealer. As well as Frank, we spotted a host of men’s bags carried down the runway, and now we’re seeing them in our favorite stores…”

Okay so Paris and Frank Ocean (who is openly bisexual) are mentions. Not solid proof eluding to the validity of the title of the article. Being openly bisexual as a black man in America clearly means that you don’t give a fuck about playing by the rules. Not a normal “man” relatability type thing. Also Paris fashion and nonParis fashion is markedly different, but go off.

Then a ways down they say this, “Historically, men and bags have had a complicated relationship. Google the two words together and you’ll find anxiety-laden questions along the lines of “Are man bags acceptable?” “Can a man carry a purse?” “How to wear a man bag?” and “What do you put in a man bag?” In the past, the rigid idea of masculinity allowed a backpack, a briefcase, or ideally nothing at all, stuffing your essentials into one’s pockets. In fact, the very term “man bag” is an awkward attempt at emasculation.”

Facts, facts, facts. Really big facts. Alladat.

They then go on to talk about jawns like fanny packs, backpacks and messenger bags. Valid. Now I’m not claiming that men don’t desire convenient, yet stylish ways to carry their items. That’s true. But to claim that men specifically want a purse is pretty wild if you ask me. 

What do you think ?

Standard
Hoe

Promiscuity

For most people the main line between hoe and holy is promiscuity. Which just like everything else, is completely made up and borderline ridiculous. Throughout history, sex and mass sex, group sex, sacrificial sex, just sex of all kinds have been a large part of religion actually. 

Check out what our homies at Deseret had to say:

Feminism swept into American culture during the 1960s in the name of women’s equality. While much has been said about feminist efforts to alter gender roles and workplace dynamics, scant attention has been paid to the dramatic changes wrought in response to inequalities in sexual relationships. Feminism sought an end to the double standard that winked at promiscuity in men while condemning it in women. But in response, society made a tragic misstep.

Rather than seek an equal standard by demanding sexual fidelity from men, the feminist movement encouraged women to “imitate the promiscuous tendencies of men.” Sexual relations outside of marriage became a mark of women’s independence. Natural feelings of commitment and relational interdependence, often associated with female sexuality, were condemned as outdated norms that subordinated women and made them dependent on men. No more. As Steven Rhoads aptly summarizes, women were told to negotiate sexual relations for personal desire and pleasure, rather than for love and familial bonding.

Their arguments worked. In Jean Elshtain’s pithy expression, “the new woman” became “the old man” Though premarital sexual relations began to be more common after World War II, it was still socially frowned upon. And sexual relations between people who did not plan to marry was unacceptable. But from 1943 to 1999, with widely available contraception and abortion, attitudes toward premarital relations changed dramatically, particularly among young women, whose approval increased from 12 percent to 73 percent (young men’s increased from 40 percent to 79 percent). This trend has continued, with millennials holding the most sexually permissive attitudes of any generation.

Such dramatic change has little to do with equality. Rather, it represents a fundamental shift in how our society sees sexuality itself. Human intimacy had long been respected as the power to bond men and women and create new human life. That power demanded boundaries to protect those who could be victimized by it and to channel it into the formation of families that are the building blocks of communities and nations. But in the wake of the 1960s, sexuality was socially transformed from a respected power that demanded boundaries and responsibility to a personal right that demanded free expression.

And there begins the irony of so called “sexual liberation.” Perhaps nothing has brought more devastation to modern family life than the dramatic changes in social norms around sexual behavior. In 1960, the out-of-wedlock childbearing rate was 5 percent — in 2014, it was 41 percent. In the same period, the rate of cohabitation increased more than 17 times, with 50 percent of women today between ages 25-39 currently cohabitating or having cohabitated sometime in the past. This has had significant implications for marriage. Premarital sexual relations with someone other than one’s spouse have consistently been linked to divorce.

And it is children and their mothers who have borne the brunt of the negative outcomes associated with these changes. Children of single mothers “have negative life outcomes at two to three times the rate of children in married, two-parent families.” Children whose parents divorce don’t fare much better, even when their parents remarryChildren living with cohabitating biological parents are at a similar risk for negative outcomes, in part because cohabitation is associated with high breakup rates (50 percent within five years), lower household incomes and higher levels of child abuse and domestic violence. Mothers in cohabitating, step- and never-married family structures are also at much greater risk for poverty and unhealthy and unsafe relationships. Among college women, one in four undergraduates last year reported being physically forced, or threatened with force, into unwanted sexual contact.

Feminist Sally Cline concludes that what the sexual revolution achieved was “not a great deal of liberation for women but a great deal of legitimacy for male promiscuity. …” That legitimizing of promiscuity has left many victims, including men.

Turning back such a tide might seem impossible. But there is one influence that consistently stands out as making a difference: religion. Weekly church-goers are much less likely to have premarital sexual relations and, for those who do, to restrict those relations to their future spouse. Adults who attended church weekly during adolescence, as well as those who consider religion to be “very important,” are eight times more likely to be abstinent compared to those who do not.

This influence should not be taken lightly. To a culture that says there is no way to proscribe sexual behaviors, religion provides an alternative, channeling the sacred power to procreate into the formation of families, and protecting those who would be victimized by its misuse.

Jenet Erickson is an affiliated scholar of the Wheatley Institution and a former assistant professor at Brigham Young University.

Standard
Hoe, Holy

Holy & Hoe

Holy Hoe is somewhat of a contradiction. We are all walking contradictions in one way or another. Other people would describe someone who continuously contradicts themselves a hypocrite. Maybe though it’s just possible to have two opposing forces working within you at once ? It’s definitely worth exploring.

One of the better fitting words that comes to mind is DICHOTOMY. A dichotomy is a contrast between two opposing or sharply different things. Also, according to the dictionary, a dichotomy is “a division of a class of something into subclasses that are mutually exclusive; I.e. they are separate. 

Another word that comes to mind is ‘duality’. Right off bat, the suffix du- let’s you know it’s two of something. Duality is “a classification into two subclasses or opposed parts. I.e. two parts of one whole.” Duality embodies even more so the idea of being both separate and together. Polarity is the “manifestation of two opposite or contrasting principles or tendencies; I.e. two ends of a spectrum.”

We then have the word ‘enigma’. An enigma is someone or something that’s considered puzzling or to be a riddle, a conundrum even. These four words, or phenomena, fascinate me when it comes to exploring humans; figuring out what we do and what we stand for. If we’re so complex and so dynamic why do we take every opportunity possible to stuff each other into a box with a single label ? Why do we act as if all things are mutually exclusive much more often than not ? Is life a choice of perpetual opportunity costs or can we have it all ?

Our goal is to give you a slice of it all wrapped together. Our tagline WEAR YOUR TRUTH is encouraging you to both love and be in tune with yourself as a totality. As an imperfect compilation of perfection. It doesn’t necessarily have to be half holy and half hoe. Embrace any dichotomy that is beautifully you. 

How would you describe yourself ? Let’s talk about it !

Standard