I don't get the ugly shoe trend

[ktkl09]

As most of us have been abroad for many years, we've been away from the US style and see it from a different perspective now.

For example, why do girls do their hair and makeup (and a lot of makeup!) but then throw on a pair of PINK sweatpants and a tank top + ugg boots and go out in public? Yuck. I don't get it.

[jupiter2311]

I think I'm about to get a serious side-eye! We own all of these shoes in some form in our house. DH loves Crocs (I hate them) and everytime he wears them, I die a little inside. Although he found some loafer style ones that aren't super hideious. (sp.)

I got some TOMS last year and I love them because they are super comfortable! And I do love my Uggs, but I have not reason to wear them here since it doesn't really get cold enough. EVER. So if I go to a place where it IS cold enough to wear them, you better believe I'm wearing them!

[fernane]

Crocs are a godsend here when you have to go out and drive a motorbike in several inches of water during rainy season. I love them, but I don't have the kind with all the holes, minr are more like flats.
I think Toms look so comfy even though I've never tried any on. I'm more of a comfort and practicality over style person.
I've never considered Uggs, and am pretty sure the only boots I will ever have are cowboy boots. I love them..

[fernane]

Jun 5, 2012 18:17:03 GMT -5 @frauschmindy said:

Jun 5, 2012 7:51:34 GMT -5 doctoranda said:

I like the philosophy behind the Tom's shoes.

They are pretty damaging to the local economy of the places they are supposed to "help." They create a surplus and kill local businesses.

I would have to disagree with this. From what I know, the shoes are supposed to be going to people who can't afford them. If that's the case, these people wouldn't be the ones buying from their local economy, hence the reason they don't have shoes.

[frauschmindy]

Jun 6, 2012 1:06:38 GMT -5 fernane said:

Jun 5, 2012 18:17:03 GMT -5 @frauschmindy said:

They are pretty damaging to the local economy of the places they are supposed to "help." They create a surplus and kill local businesses.

I would have to disagree with this. From what I know, the shoes are supposed to be going to people who can't afford them. If that's the case, these people wouldn't be the ones buying from their local economy, hence the reason they don't have shoes.

The problem isn't "hey, these people don't have shoes." The problem is these people are living in poverty. The lack of shoes is a symptom. Sending shoes doesn't help, it hurts people who would otherwise be employed selling, making or repairing shoes through local businesses. The economy is more complex than TOMS likes to pretend it is when they are throwing shoes at the problem.

It's really not sustainable, and doesn't really help anybody in the long run. The fact that they are made in China for practically nothing is an entirely different problem.

[fernane]

Jun 6, 2012 1:18:15 GMT -5 @frauschmindy said:

Jun 6, 2012 1:06:38 GMT -5 fernane said:

I would have to disagree with this. From what I know, the shoes are supposed to be going to people who can't afford them. If that's the case, these people wouldn't be the ones buying from their local economy, hence the reason they don't have shoes.

The problem isn't "hey, these people don't have shoes." The problem is these people are living in poverty. The lack of shoes is a symptom. Sending shoes doesn't help, it hurts people who would otherwise be employed selling, making or repairing shoes through local businesses. The economy is more complex than TOMS likes to pretend it is when they are throwing shoes at the problem.



It's really not sustainable, and doesn't really help anybody in the long run. The fact that they are made in China for practically nothing is an entirely different problem.

I guess I don't see how aiding with shoes is hurting. Granted not having shoes is a symptom of poverty, but I don't see where just because they are given shoes prevents them from holding jobs making, repairing shoes, etc. I guess it depends on the place, but usually there is some level of economic disparity, which would mean that there would still be buyers even if some people were given free shoes.
Did you read something about this that gave examples of people losing jobs/businesses because of Toms donations? I think I would understand better if I heard firsthand from people negatively affected, cause its hard for me to wrap my mind around otherwise.
I don't believe you have to have a long term solution to a serious problem in order to help today, however small the donation.

[oneslybookworm]

I bought a pair of Uggs, before I knew all the crap behind them (mainly from PETA). Now that I own then, damage done, so I'm going to wear the hell out of them before getting rid of them. I water protect the leather and I've never had a problem with snow. They're warm as all get out, but they don't have any arch support.

Now that I know more about how they're made, I'll never buy another pair.

[frauschmindy]

Jun 6, 2012 1:32:25 GMT -5 fernane said:

I guess I don't see how aiding with shoes is hurting. Granted not having shoes is a symptom of poverty, but I don't see where just because they are given shoes prevents them from holding jobs making, repairing shoes, etc. I guess it depends on the place, but usually there is some level of economic disparity, which would mean that there would still be buyers even if some people were given free shoes.
Did you read something about this that gave examples of people losing jobs/businesses because of Toms donations? I think I would understand better if I heard firsthand from people negatively affected, cause its hard for me to wrap my mind around otherwise.
I don't believe you have to have a long term solution to a serious problem in order to help today, however small the donation.

Hand outs foster dependence. There are much, much better ways of providing aid.

Giving shoes creates a surplus, which affects the economy negatively. It is short term band aid but the results locally are long term. People are given shoes so they don't have to have their shoes repaired and they don't have to buy new shoes. People who make and sell shoes lose their jobs. They are now unemployed and can't afford shoes. So, now what? Do they sit around and wait for another TOMS rep to drop by with a shipment of shoes?

TOMS has the opportunity to stimulate their local economy by bringing their production and sale to the locals. But they don't. Obviously, there will be people who disagree that their model hurts ("any aid is good aid!") but there is research that supports it.

TOMS has been largely criticized for all of this, and several other things. As has World Vision. As has 1 Million T-Shirts for Africa. As well as an org (which I don't remember the name of) which donates bras to the bra-less women of Africa.

Here are some random articles pulled from googling "toms shoes bad aid" (honestly, I didn't even read them all, so I don't know if any include firsthand accounts from people in the areas TOMS helps)
goodintents.org/in-kind-donations/toms-shoes
humanosphere.kplu.org/2012/04/its-day-without-dignity-day-skewering-kony-2012-toms-shoes-and-other-bad-aid/
apersonaldiaspora.blogspot.com/2011/04/toms-discussion-on-bad-aid.html
aidwatchers.com/2010/11/a-tryst-with-toms/

[glitterfart]

I think crocs, ugs and toms are fugly. And since none of them comes in a triple or quad, there´s not a snowball´s chance in hell that I´d even try a pair on, much less buy any. Shoes don´t have to be ugly to be comfy.

[Lucille Bluth]

LeggsBenedict is right. TOMs are a ploy so people think they are doing something great by shopping and "helping others".

There's a movie out in the US now about the everything pink = breast cancer movement, too. You can watch the trailer here: trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/pinkribbons/

It's dreadful how the commercialization of poverty and diseases trivializes the actual plights of the people suffering.