Pink Shoes: The Legend Continues

Thanks to Kay Webb Harrison, I have more pink shoes news from Hampton Roads, Virginia. In a follow up article published in the Virginian-Pilot yesterday, editor Joyce Hoffmann took a look at the scandal du footwear, and talked to The Owner of Those Hot Pink Shoes, Candice Knilans, as well as the photographer who shot the image. And you know me – I’m a total sucker for behind-the-scenes info.

She “wanted to look dazzling,” according to the report, for her husband, who was deployed to Iraq six months after they were married. For those who questioned whether the shoes matched the dress, alas, no, it seems not. But she did have pink sunglasses to match, and she wanted the color to “distinguish her in the crowd at pier side.”

The photographer, Rich-Joseph Facun, didn’t think he had a great picture when he took the shots of Knilans, but the Pilot photo director thought the picture illustrated “[a]ll the joy of the day.” While other photo editors “complaints about the insinuations of sexuality in the shoe color and the crossed ankles” the photo ran anyway.

And yup, the complaints rolled in. Detractors were a minority, and they objected to the sexuality in the image as predicted.
Some insisted that a more innocent picture, that of a 5 year old waiting for his father, should have been the front-page above the fold image to portay the sailors’ homecoming. Yet again, I am struck by the desexualization and the preference for “wholesome or patriotic” images, which underscore a preference for chaste innocence when it comes to portrayals of military figures.

But the majority applauded, and the public editor, who is also an associate professor of English at Old Dominion, wrote:

…many readers were reveling in that giddy anticipation that accompanies the long-awaited arrival of a loved one.

With that moment came a flash of insight. Our military neighbors deserve to be celebrated for their sacrifices – sacrifices the rest of us seldom share.

For that awareness, we are indebted to Candice Knilans and her love of pink.

I wonder if Ms. Knilans is now a bit hyperaware of her choice of footwear when she leaves the house.

Categorized:

The Link-O-Lator

Comments are Closed

  1. Lauren Dane says:

    What I have become utterly disgusted by, is how freely people who disagree and seem to be disgruntled with EVERYTHING toss “unpatriotic” around as if they are the sole arbiters of what is patriotic. It’s thuggish and stupid and I have had enough of the uptight brigade pointing fingers and using patriotism like a club.

    Being in love with someone and excitedly waiting for them and wanting to look special (even if it’s not your cuppa) is not family oriented?

    As for the “good old days” refrain – the baby boomers? Huge population boom? Um yeah, that came about when the soldiers returned from WWII. I know it’s shocking for them to think on and all, but all those babies came from sex.

  2. J.C. Wilder says:

    Chicklet wrote: Oh, dear: I can’t tell if I’m a virgin or a whore today, because I’m wearing black flats (virgin) with a leopard-print inset over the instep (whore). How am I being categorized by the random strangers who see my shoes?!

    Bi-sexual?

  3. Flo says:

    Y’all don’t’ have to get why someone doesn’t like it.  You just have to stop talking down to them.  Like disliking sexual overtones (whether real or implied) is wrong.

    Most folks get the fact that she’s there for her husband.  We get that.  But why do we have to read it in the newspaper?

    Think of it like this: It’s a romance novel cover.  The same image.  You’d get the implied sexuality.  You’d expect it.  MOST people do not expect that on the cover of their newspaper that they pay for.  When they get it they don’t want to see it.  It’s not about desexualizing what a husband and wife do on their own time.  It’s about not seeing implied sexuality on something that really shouldn’t have it.

    If your romance novel came with a bloody knife jammed into someone’s gut (without there being any reference to it in the story) wouldn’t you be a bit off put?

    Either way, whether you’re a sex kitten or not or whether you wear hot pink shoes or not has nothing to do with patriotism.  The people just don’t want sex rubbed in their faces from their local newspaper.  If you can’t escape it in the news, in commercials, in books, you can at least TRY in other places.  Maybe call me crazy but I don’t want it all the time.  NM I know I’m crazy.  And I’m sooo on the wrong side of this discussion.

  4. desertwillow says:

    Okay, I didn’t respond on the last post – everybody had pretty much said everything that needed to be said, I thought.

    But since the opportuniy has come up again I guess I can’t let it pass: I’ve been exposed to more offensive images courtesy of the press. There are a couple of images from the Vietnam era that I was exposed to when I was in grade school. I still remember them. If you’re too young to remember Vietnam then google Vietnam images you’ll see what I mean.

    Since then,  I’ve seen pictures of dead bodies, people in mid-air falling to their death (911), and car accidents. But nobody screams about those pictures or worries about the messages these images send.

    But expose the world to the image of a young woman in pink shoes excited to be meeting her STILL-ALIVE young husband after seven months of separation and the bitching starts. (What a long-ass sentance!) Was the photographer’s lense traveling up her skirt or what? I didn’t see it if so.

    I like the picture – it was filled with excitement, happiness, optimism, patriotism,  love and sex. How often do we get to see that?

    During the first gulf war I saw a lot of military wives and girlfriends wearing these T-shirts with the caption “Property of a soldier [or sailor] serving in the gulf”.

    Property? As if they were easy chairs. That’s not even sexual. I didn’t hear about anybody writing letters about that – if there were please tell me.

    Pink shoes are better. It speaks to me of choice.

    Just so you know, I’m a veteran: was active duty Navy for six years, then retired from the reserves. So I do know something about long separations and missing family.

  5. snarkhunter says:

    Flo, there is a difference between a bloody knife on the cover of a romance novel and a picture of a pair of pink shoes. Just like there is a difference between overt sexuality and barely-hinted-at sexuality. This picture falls into the latter category. It’s subtle—which is ironic, because the shoes are anything but, and wasn’t that her point? She wanted her husband to see her. But the sexuality of the picture is subtle.

    If you really had a problem with implied sexuality on the front page of your newspaper, you wouldn’t ever BUY a newspaper. Because every time you saw a woman holding hands with a man, or an engagement/wedding photo, or a picture of a pregnant woman—all of that implies sexuality. It implies that someone is having, will be having, or has had sex. Every single one of those pictures is EXACTLY as provocative as this one. Because every single one hints at sex.

    I have no objection to keeping pictures of naked people off of the cover of the paper. If the picture had been of a woman with her legs wrapped around her husband’s hips and her tongue down his throat, I wouldn’t personally object, but I could see the point of those who do. The objections to this picture shriek of individuals’ personal hang-ups, and not social standards. Even by the most conservative religious standards, a married woman dressing up for her husband is considered a positive thing.

  6. SusanL says:

    I’m pretty sure this bitch was wearing pink shoes, if she had them.

    http://www.johnderian.com/index_decoupage.html

    Top row, center trays

  7. SusanL says:

    Sorry, the above link does not go the exact page when you click on it, but if you click to open it in a new window it does.

  8. Kelly says:

    Oh MAN, wouldn’t THAT be an awesome “Support Your Troops!” symbol for women to take on (if we didn’t have to actually WALK in the silly things).  If women all wore bright pink shoes one day.  Heh.

    I’d do it. 😉

  9. Go, Ms Knilans !

    I think it’s a beautiful photo. I also think it’s wonderful to see the kind of caring and love that went into picking out the shoes and wearing them…bravo.

    Boo to those small-minded, bitter folks who can’t see love in a pair of pink shoes. It sure made my heart melt.

  10. The sexuality in the image was implied.  It is not like they have a picture of those hot pink pump clad legs wrapped around the husband’s waist!  (But how hot would that be?) Stuffy people annoy me.
    girly tattoo

Comments are closed.

By posting a comment, you consent to have your personally identifiable information collected and used in accordance with our privacy policy.

↑ Back to Top