But this time, not on a book cover. Try the front page of a newspaper. Bitchery reader Kay Web Harrison thoughtfully sent me both the picture and the follow up letters that line up on either side and either cry, “Yay for teh sexy!” or “Down with the sexism!”
So have a look: this photo by Rich-Joseph Facun (additional popup copy here in case that link breaks) ran on the front page of the Virginian Pilot with the caption, “Candice Knilans waits for her husband, Petty officer 3rd Class John Knilans, to disembark from the carrier Harry S. Truman… after the strike group’s seven month deployment ended. More than 7,000 sailors returned on the Truman….”
Those are some new shoes, judging by the stickers and the pristine condition of the heel tips and shoe bottoms as caught in the photo. And they are pink. Shocking, hot pink. But in the “picture worth 1k words” department, what do they say?
Read on.
On 6 June, the Pilot published two letters, one from JulieAnn Singleton-Smith, a fellow military wife, who stated that she has “a career and a series of degrees” and therefore objected to the “cheap, hot pink high-heeled shoes” as an image that “conveys a message that military wives are cheap and trashy.”
Another letter praises the image as on par with the WWII era photo of the sailor kissing a nurse on V-J Day.
But the reaction continued on!
On 7 June, more letters appeared.
First, a rather fascinating analysis from Dr. Frederick Lubich Chair of Old Dominion’s Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, who calls the image “controversial” as it may be “insulting” or “intimidating to those military wives who are…more than just lusty ladies in waiting.” But Dr. Lubich then likens the image to:
mythic memories of seafaring warriors” such as Ulysses and Penelope, providing the epic model for this timeless human experience, in which ‘passion’ in its archaic sense connotes the suffering of separation and the ecstasy of reunion.
From the shorts of ancient Greece to the modern ports of Hampton Roads, there is nothing offensive about young lovers dressing up to celebrate the magic…of homecoming and its nostalgic euphoria.
Dr. Lubich also recognizes the similarities to the V-J Day photo, and states that the photograph “symbolically encodes the increasingly more complicated lifestyles and love lives of our own times and…stand[s] as an iconic image.”
But wait, there’s more. A former military wife weighed in by relating her memories of “choosing carefully what to wear to enhance that special first evening home,” and pointedly responding Ms. Singleton-Smith that “one can have degrees and careers and still look fabulous while celebrating while celebrating the ship’s return from a difficult mission.” A second military wife also said she thought the picture was “absolutely great” and that it had “nothing to do with how many degrees you’ve got” but the “joy of having your ‘sailor’ home again.”
Another letter said he thought the image was not cheap or trashy, but “touching and poignant” and offered “a unique perspective on that familiar theme” of families reunited during wartime.
But another spouse was “saddened” by the paper’s decision to highlight that particular photo as “inappropriate” for the Truman’s homecoming, as “a woman’s legs and her high heels with the price tag still on the bottom…do not capture a…homecoming for one of our beloved aircraft carriers.”
I’m struck by two things: one, the seeming desire to asexualize a homecoming. Those who objected referred to the aircraft carrier, not the people on it – people who loved and missed their families, and in some cases spouses who, one would hope and pray, were loved in a demonstrative fashion once they arrived home. The asexualization of the military and the concept of homecoming vs. the sexuality and human need for contact on the part of the servicemen and service women on board are quite at odds with one another in the responses, especially in the context that we are, after all, at war, and deployment is a life-or-death issue for many, many enlisted individuals. Coming home safe means coming home alive, and let’s be frank, the most affirming way to celebrate the fact that one is alive, home, and safe? Sex. Hugging. Kissing. Possibly more sex. (I hope it was awesome.)
And two: that yet again hot pink shoes are very, very eye catching.
Personally, I thought the image was very evocative and certainly sexual, and that’s not at all a bad thing from where I stand in my shoes which, today, are brown. I don’t know if I can stand anywhere and judge the welcome-home wear of a woman whose husband has been deployed for seven months, but I surely wouldn’t dare start by casting aspersions on the relative cost of someone else’s shoes.
However, what is the lesson in this minor kerfuffle? That pink shoes are eye catching? Publishers already know that!
No, the lesson may be: take the price tag off the bottoms of your shoes. You never know from what angle you may be photographed.
Addendum: welcome home and thank you to the service men and women of the Harry S. Truman, the Oscar Austin, the San Jacinto, and the Winston S. Churchill and anyone else who returned home. Hope your reunion was so great you had to take your shoes off.
Oh FFS! Seriously the things people get up in arms over! It’s a pretty picture, stunning in the contrast of the vivid sky and the shoes. As for the bare legs, I rarely see women in hose during the days in the summer, I don’t wear them and letters behind my name notwithstanding, I don’t think it’s trashy or vulgar at all to not wear hose in the heat. (although I do have these nifty little hose inserts I wear under the shoe. I got them at a dance wear store – they fit my foot but you can’t see them outside the shoe at all) This could also be a coastal thing, I can’t speak for east coasters but I grew up in Southern California and have been in the northwest for twenty years and I rarely see women in hose in the summer – and tights are the norm up here for the winter.)
Back from tangentland here – the photo is poignant – she’s got her legs crossed in a way that shows her anxiousness and yes her stickers are still on the bottom but goodness if I hadn’t seen my husband in a year and worried he’d be killed every day, I don’t know if I’d be thinking of pulling the price tags off the bottom of my shoes anticipating this photo, LOL.
I don’t really know that I can say it any better than anyone else has. It astounds me that anyone could have anything negative to say about that photo. As has been pointed out already, to me it clearly says, HE’S HOME!!!! And I can’t wait to celebrate in the MOST FUN WAY POSSIBLE!!!! and look good doing it. Someone else also already said the price tag still stuck on the shoe just shows that she had more important things on her mind as she waited for her hubby to finally return home safe and sound than whether or not her freaking shoes still had a tag on. Who gives a sh*t? She certainly doesn’t—and I’ll bet her husband didn’t either. He probably thought they were fantastic and was focused on how hot his wife was and how great that she got dressed up just for him. Get over it people. The editor probably went with it because it was something different, not the father hugging kids/wife photo we’ve all seen a million times. In my opinion this shot is just as fabulous as the shoes. If I was subbing for my editor and I had that photo, I’d make it the lead too. Oh, and where did she get those, because I want a pair … Guess I’m just a cheap tramp at heart.
“asexualization of the military”
This caught my eye as I read an article last quarter for school that discussed how we construct the “goodness of America”. The author, Benedict Anderson, commented about the military twice, but the second time he talked about our youth in the military as a symbol of strength, vitality and virility; of a celibate fraternity. He goes on to suggest that that is why there have been so many issues with gay, lesbian, and female soldiers. It makes “possible” sexual love.
I’ve clearly spent WAY too much time on Project Rungay’s blog because my first thought regarding the appropriateness/inappropriateness was, “Well, I’d have the see the dress, wouldn’t I?”
That photo is utterly brilliant. It highlights everything romance is about – anticipation, love, excitement…good shoes.
As for people desexualizing the homecoming of soldiers, Americans have such a twisted identity when it comes to sex this isn’t terribly surprising, IMO. These people take themselves way too seriously and they should learn to have fun.
Being ‘serious’ doesn’t make you a better American – acknowledging the sacrifices of the men and woman of the armed forces does. Because of them we live in a country where women can where hot pink shoes and not be stoned as a harlot (Iraq) and we have unfettered access to the internet (unlike China) – we owe it to those serving to wear pink shoes to celebrate and remember what this country was founded upon.
Can you tell I come from a long line of men who served? 🙂
Hi Sarah! I’m just going through the comments again. Yep, I’ve been home for about six weeks now. It’s fantastic! But the waiting for him to get home next…that really sucks!!! Somehow it’s easier when you’re both deployed…
Wow, so much fuss over a pair of pink shoes…
My honest first thought – I’d never be comfortable in a pair of shoes like that. I always feel too wobbly and off-balance on heels that high. So the fact that she’s wearing them suggests that she’s got far more balance than I – or at least isn’t worried about falling in the heels.
Second thought – I guess she likes pink. Many people do, though I’m not big on wearing it. And this is a very bright pink, not a powdery pastel. It’s PINK! not pink. She’s clearly not worried about what other people will say about her color choices.
And yes, I do hope that the shoes coordinate well with the rest of her outfit. Good for her, wear whatever she feels suitable and appropriate for welcoming her husband home – note the key word. What SHE feels suitable and appropriate.
Personally, I’d half expect her to be more freaked out that someone was crouching/laying behind her snapping photographs of her legs than the discussion about her shoes.
As for the tattoo on her ankle… so what? If she wants on, why should the rest of us care? I bet she has an assortment of heart shaped jewelry to coordinate with that little heart.
entire62 – no, I’m sure more than 62 people are too worked up.
Talking about Project Runway let’s all quote Tim Gunn…
Don’t defend the shoe to me!
I think that some people are straying a little from the point here. I took us to be discussing the semiotics of that wonderful photograph – the style and colour of the shoes, the price-sticker, the pose, the bare legs, the tattoo – and thus the vastly different symbolic messages all those elements convey to different people. Clothing is a language, and we cannot avoid conveying meaning to other humans by what we wear. Likewise observers cannot avoid perceiving meaning, though some will understand exactly what is meant, and others will misunderstand.
We could also simply discuss the aesthetics of the photograph as a visual image – the choice of focus and depth of field, the colour contrast, the low viewpoint, the extreme cropping – and some of us have done that a little.
Neither of these things is the same as discussing the emotional impact on society and individuals of war and the separation of couples and families, let alone the individual woman who is wearing those shoes (even though she is named). I can understand why some, especially if they have experienced these stresses at first hand, are offended by any negative comments on the personal taste so vividly conveyed by the picture, or are simply irritated by the ‘fuss’ over a pair of shoes, but I think it is interesting, and quite important, to be aware of the wide range of responses aroused by a particular image.
One of the most common reasons for misunderstanding is a lack of awareness of cultural, regional, class and generational differences. We can easily unwittingly offend people by choosing words that are perfectly unremarkable in our own society, but have different nuances in another. Nobody wants to give offence unintentionally, nor do we want people to draw false conclusions about us from the way we look and dress and act, so learning about the different ways in which different people interpret these things is valuable. Greater awareness of the subtleties aids understanding and empathy.
What a sweet and poignant picture. And how small-minded of those who think the subject is trashy for wearing them and OMGWTFBBQ, without hose too.
Chickie there’s probably crossed her ankles so she’s not bouncing up and down on her toes. Having just driven myself and my Mum home from sending my Dad out to the Middle East I say good on the girl.
And to those who complained about the fact an image that wasn’t of a family got the front page, how do they think these military types get a family? Wishful thinking? The American reverence for the military (trust me, your guys get a heck of a lot more respect than ours do, usually) seems to forget that ‘our boys and girls’ are human and shagging’s as much a part of that as wanting to hug our children and rejoice that we’re all alive and together.
I love this picture. I love the pink shoes, I love the price tag.
To me, this picture is poignant and lovely.
The tag says that she was too busy preparing for her soldier’s homecoming to worry about taking a silly tag off a pair of shoes.
Her crossed ankles say to me that she’s really excited and trying to restrain herself from jumping up and down/running to her husband and making a spectacle.
Finally, her tattoo makes her accessible. 1/4 of Americans under the age of 45 have tattoos. Why should an army wife be any different from the rest of us?
Is it terrible that I covet those shoes?
That is such a perfect example of what I am talking about with the issue of cultural conditioning. To a young American, the tattoo is therefore a comfortingly familiar, ‘accessible’ element: to an old Brit, it is a deeply alienating one. To you, the tattoo says, ‘here is someone just like me – I feel for her’. To me, the tattoo marks her as a person with whom I have very little in common: she belongs to a different generation, of course, but also to a culture in which the older associations of body mutilation have been turned on their heads and have become normalised. This is very disturbing.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not criticising the vogue for tattoos as such – the practice is far more common in this country than it used to be, too, and the normalisation of a formerly subversive symbol is a common, indeed a standard, process. All I am saying is that for me, the sight of a repectable young woman wearing a tattoo, even a discreet one, is still startling. (I remember noticing Ms. Roberts’s ankle tattoo – and her extremely elegant shoes – at the 2003 RWA conference, and doing a double-take). A parallel is the wearing of an ankle-chain. I don’t know if it ever had any significance in the USA, but I was very taken aback when there was a brief vogue for gold ankle-chains in, I think, the 1980s, because they used in earlier decades to be worn specifically, and only, by working girls (professional prostitutes). I suspect that everyone over 40 at that time who saw a nice young woman sporting an ankle-chain gasped at first, but the wearer would have been innocently oblivious.
I am not making value-judgements here. I am not saying that tattoos are bad. I am saying that the range of associations for me are very different from the associations for most of you, and thereby trying to point out the importance of cultural conditioning – and the importance of understanding and looking beyond it, of understaning the essential superficiality of a stereotype, analysing, and often rejecting it. The fact that there were some negative comments in reaction to the original newspaper publication of the picture shows that some responses even within the USA hold echoes of the strictures that I have described.
And I LIKE the picture, I defend strongly the lady’s right to wear whatever shoes and body-decoration she likes, and I am glad that her husband made it home safely. This is not about her: it is about tradition, culture and semiotics.
Apologies for a couple of typos above.
AgT:
First, you should be able to edit your posts, if you’re logged in, I think. Next to the timestamp should be an “EDIT” button.
Second, I’m not offended at all and your ruminations on the cultural and societal differences between the US and the UK, especially from the generational markers as you say, is freaking fascinating.
I, and the tattoo on my tushy, are enthralled. Really. And in case you are curious: My tattoo is of a doll I’ve had since childhood, and she’s holding an American flag. I got it on 9/14/01, and the tattoo parlor offered a free flag tattoo with every image purchased. So, I have the stars and stripes on my behind. How’s that for American cultural weirdness? 🙂
No ‘edit’ button that I can see. 🙁
Your tattoo sounds unique! Of course, a decoration that is seen only in intimate situations is different from one that is visible to every passer-by. It is lingerie rather than outerwear, in that it speaks only to people, or a person, of your choice, whereas tattoos that are visible in ordinary day-clothes are part of a public persona. The discreet little ankle tattoo in the pink-shoes picture is a mere whisper; one might chat to its wearer every day without even noticing it (or, if one is observant but short-sighted, simply assuming she has a slightly bruised ankle). But there are many tattoos around that are in-yer-face aggressive shouts, highly visible if their owner is wearing an ordinary short-sleeved, scoop-necked summer top, let alone an off-the-shoulder evening dress or a swimsuit.
I love that picture!
And ditto on everything Alesia said.
Every time my husband came off a long patrol (he’s in the Coast Guard, and currently at a desk job, but we’re going back to boat life next year,) I met him at the boat, dressed to the nines. I dressed different for each return home, so he’d never know what he was getting. (And let me just say, there were some rather…shocking…moments for him when we’d get home and he’d discover what was under the long coat! *g* )
It was a treat for both of us.
These guys are gone for a long time, and if a military wife wants to “tart” up a bit for fun, who is to say that’s wrong? Maybe the tattoo is fake, maybe the shoes were bought for fun, and the person wearing them normally wears suits, a bun, and no makeup to her doctorate-degreed job?
Or maybe she always wears pink shoes, is tattooed up to her eyeballs, and has half her teeth missing.
Does it matter? She’s there to greet her husband. I know a LOT of wives who have sent their husbands off to Iraq and didn’t even bother to drive them to the base to say goodbye, and who, when they return, make them find their own ride home. (My brother’s wife was one of them.)
So I really, really do not see the issue here.
Oops, my soapbox just keeps growing, doesn’t it? LOL
Yawn. Another piece of propaganda glamorizing war.
That’s an interesting interpretation, and while there is a lot of such propaganda about, I don’t actually perceive it at all in the sub-texts, either conscious or subliminal, of this particular picture. On the contrary.
The image makes reference to the safe return of troops that have been on active service, and to the joy and relief arising from that return. But that very response in itself depends on the knowledge that safe return is far from inevitable: that some partners and families are not able to experience this relief because their loved ones do not return alive and well. If all members of the armed forces came back safely as a matter of course, a picture like this could not exist. It would be no more intense than a picture of someone welcoming their partner back from a few months abroad on a teaching or other professional exchange programme, for instance, a separation that might be irksome, but not dangerous and frightening.
Because that difference is implicit in the image, because we are being made to realise that safe return is not a foregone conclusion, I fail to see how it ‘glamourises’ war. Could you analyse and explain your interpretation of the symbolism more fully?
Wow, Hellbound Alleee. Nice display of compassion there.
I hardly think a woman waiting for her husband’s *return* from war glamorizes war. But if you want to continue making the anti-war segment of the population (I’m one of them) look bad by refusing to acknowledge the struggle of those who have no choice but to fight…go right ahead.
AgTigress, your answer is much better than mine. 😀 I haven’t had my coffee yet.
~Yawn. Another piece of propaganda glamorizing war. ~
How?
I got to the party late, but….FWIW:
I love the picture, the implications of the pose the everything.
I hate hot pink. I hate high heeled shoes. I, too, think they look slightly trashy.
But even ‘slightly trashy’ people fall in love, and eagerly await the return of their lovers from dangerous sitations. I don’t care if she is a ten dollar whore, someone she loves is on that ship and as such, she deserves to be wholeheartedly congratulated on his safe return. And even more congratulated that she went to welcome him home instead of hiding in shame, as some people seem to think she should have.
And yes, I do slightly detest the personal snobbery that makes me think people are “trashy”. No one, regardless of their class or status, is trash. I’m getting better about it, the farther from my family’s rather moribund and unpleasantly Victorian values I get. 🙂
Your flippant comment suggests you know absolutely nothing about the US Navy and have never lived in a military town. Let me clarify something: Navy ships go to sea regardless of what’s going on in the world. It’s their job. Year in, year out, in all kinds of weather, there are families standing pier side saying goodbye to their loved ones or welcoming them home after a long absence. The Virginian Pilot and local news stations do an excellent job of covering every one of those somber deployments or joyous homecomings regardless of whether it’s a time of war or a time of peace. It’s not propaganda—it’s respect.
So many great responses, so little time to read them all.
My thoughts on the picture/controversy? I’m jealous I don’t have the legs to make shoes like that work. And I’ve always thought that so many problems in this world come from when we stick our noses where they don’t belong. I’m much more concerned about the military having adequate health care and education benefits – a problem that legitimately belongs to all citizens, since the military serves our country – than the style in which their families are dressed.
Alesia, you said it all so beautifully. I wish you and all military families, including Ms. Knilans’, many moments of joyous poignancy.
Thanks Nora, for the suggestion on lotion for stockingless feet and heels – I’ll have to try it. Although I still don’t have the legs for those shoes. Darn.
It might amuse you to know, AgTigress, that nearly every woman I’ve ever seen who habitually wears an ankle bracelet is older than I am, and quite, quite respectable. I’m 55. I do believe that the “fad” is rather older than the 1980s, to judge by their ages. I know one lady in her 70s who has been wearing one for a good 40 years. Of course, again, these are US trends.
I think it’s um…bootless (ahem) to generalize about clothing and jewelry fads or what they mean about a person’s general status or demeanor from across an ocean. My mother forced me to wear horrid little white gloves and hats until I was 12. One would have though that would have made me grow up into a lady, wouldn’t one? Ha! I’m just as much of a smart bitch as the rest of this gang, and I’m not wearing pantyhose today myself , since it’s a roasting 85 in my home town.
LOL! So if there had been British soldiers in the USA during the Second World War rather than GIs over here, there would have been some very, very major misunderstandings as they confidently propositioned those virtuous ankle-chain-wearing American young ladies!
Right on, Kristina Wright! The Marines deploy year round in times of “peace” as well. I don’t believe that the Army or Air Force does with the same frequency, but homecomings are not wartime only occurences.
They’re just friggin’ shoes. Does the photo imply that she’s trashy & is a reflection of every military wife’s lack of morals? Most likely “yes” on the first, & “Nah” on the second. People who call this photo “offensive” or stereotypical need to get a life. They can cry “stereotype” all they want, but there’s no denying the lack of opportunity in a town surrounding a military base. Usually, that military base IS the town. There is little civilian work available, & most businesses appeal or cater to enlisted individuals. Ex) strip clubs, car lots, tatoo shops, resturaunts & pawn shops & really cheap civilian housing (trailer parks & apartment buildings) because most enlisted people cannot afford a mortgage or much rent on military pay & choose to remain on base. I’m sure one can imagine the pool of interesting local ladies these guys have to chose from. Hence, the stereotype of trashy military wives.
They can cry “stereotype†all they want, but there’s no denying the lack of opportunity in a town surrounding a military base. Usually, that military base IS the town.
I have to imagine you’re not very familiar with the Norfolk area. Nor, I guess, the role of civilians within the military environment. The Department of Defense (DoD) hires over 600,000 civilian employees world wide, over 32% of whom have a bachelors degree or better.
Norfolk is the DoD’s largest Naval complex, employing over 78,000 people. (http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/dod101/dod101.html)
Norfolk is a thriving community in its own right. Granted if the Navy left, it would affect the local economy, but the Navy is not the entirety of it (http://www.norfolk.gov/about/).
I’m sure one can imagine the pool of interesting local ladies these guys have to chose from.
I happen to know quite a few of the “interesting local ladies” from the Norfolk area. Some are lifelong residents of Virginia; others are ladies such as my cousin’s wife, who is college educated and moved there when my cousin was assigned there. I have to think I possibly have greater insight into the “pool of interesting local ladies” than someone making inferences based on a pair of bright pink shoes.
She’s got sexy, brightly colored, cheerful-looking shoes to welcome her husband home in. Good for her. I hope she and her husband had an awesome reunion, too.
Brava Alesia Holliday!!!
I’ll bet the husband/lover of the woman wearing those pink shoes loved seeing her in them! I’d also be willing to bet they enjoyed some hot monkey sex as soon as got alone! Welcome home indeed!!! Love it!!! HOO RAH!
All out of touch critics – Get over yourselves!!!
Well said, Karen! Well said!
Oh please! This is an awesome photo. I like it better than the V-J Day photo because it’s not some random woman off the street. She’s being sassy and proactive in welcoming him home.
BTW. Her name is Candice. Candi. Get it? I bet she was dolled out in cotton-candy pink. If I were her, our song would totally be “I want Candy.” I bet her man loved it.
Thank you, Karen! I wince when people seem to think Norfolk is something out of An Officer and a Gentleman and that all the women are just like Debra Winger, looking for a nice sailor to marry her. 🙂 For the record, our strippers can’t even dance naked (you have to go to North Carolina for bare breasts) and tattoo parlors have been fighting an uphill battle to be legalized in Norfolk (they are legal in other cities, but few and far between).
It’s been my observation, based on talking to and visiting friends who live in other parts of the country, that Hampton Roads (the area that encompasses Norfolk and several surrounding cities) is more insulated from the economic problems much of the country if facing. If anything, thanks to the military, our location on the east coast and the constant need for more teachers, police and rescue (which signals growth), I think we have more to offer than the average American town. Including pink shoes…
All I can say about that brilliant picture is; I grew up during the Viet Nam era and wish I’d had a chance to stand like that in a pair of pink shoes and welcome home the man I loved. I never did. He never came home. So for all of the people who lined up on the trashy side of that picture, (and I don’t see that line here) I say, be glad you’re not that woman who lived all those months wondering if she’d ever have the chance to wear something like that to welcome her man home, or would she be wearing black.
What a sad social commentary to think that people overlook what that picture truly stands for because all they can see is a ‘trashy pair of pink shoes’.
I can’t quite fathom how looking pretty for your man to show that you missed him makes you smutty or slutty or whorish.
What’s in the picture besides romance? Oh wait, the ultimate goal of romance is to procreate…how utterly DIRTY! /end sarcasm
The way I figure it, being offended by a woman who obviously went out of her way to be attractive for her mate is either reverse sexism (read: women’s lib gone wild) or good old-fashioned jealousy.
I’m sure everyone has encountered the female who gets seriously offended when a male holds open a door for her. I do wish someone would explain to me why that could possibly diminish your person-hood somehow, but I suppose if one did have that mindset, the picture might be offensive in a moral sort of way. ::ponder::
Or…the offended has a huge chip on her shoulder and such a sour disposition that no amount of pink shoes or hearts and flowers and candy would make coming home to them (the offended ones, that is) preferable to being on a ship with a few hundred hairy men rather than a hairy-legged, bitchy, self-righteous female wearing Birkenstock’s. Jealousy makes anything you want and can’t/don’t have seem pretty offensive, right? ::rolls her eyes:: Don’t forget, dearie: you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar!
You folks think that if her shoes the same style but in red, white, and blue it would’ve been less “smut” and more patriotism? Maybe for the small-minded. Remember what patriotism is? “devoted love, support, and defense of one’s country” (dictionary.com) Nowhere do I read that one has to prove one’s patriotism by wearing red, white and blue and waving the flag around. America is all about freedom of speech and freedom of religion and freedom to be a self-righteous, whiny asshole if you get your panties in a wad about something stupid. It means you can get a tattoo and go without stockings with your pink high heels, too!
Welcoming a soldier home wearing something that’ll bring a smile to his face and remember what it was he was fighting for makes pink high heels pretty patriotic in my book.
Now, if y’all will excuse me, I’ll be the one in the kitchen (barefoot, of course…but my toenails are painted hot pink!) cooking dinner for my man because he deserves it.
Cheers!