All of the fashion magazines have explained to me, ad nauseum, that “the seventies are back,” “the nineties are influencing fashion,” and that I’d better get on board.
And then they tell me that this – this – is trending:
No, just no.
These are part of the flat platform trend, or as some Neanderthal said – no doubt while eating paste – flatforms. Lindsay and I think that they are, by and large, ugly. This may be because we both owned them in the nineties, and the ones we owned may have been the foam flip flop version.
I’m just saying, we have experience. Trust us.
Or don’t. Just know that the shoes below are the best I could find, the ones I felt were least repulsive out of my short, painful flatform shoe hunt.
I did it all for you.
That’s a two-inch height difference, and the highest I’ll go in terms of these heels. Key word: flat. These almost didn’t make the cut. Notice their relative cuteness compared to, shall we say…
…these. Designers, I would submit that if the name of your shoe is bigger than the heel-to-platform ratio, you’re doing it wrong. Simple math.
While I like the idea of these, the execution leaves a LOT to be desired. Imagine wearing them. Imagine your poor arches.
Imagine your feet, again. Imagine the splayed toes. Even the word sounds gross. Splayed.
I feel like it’s sticking its tongue out at me.
I think the shape of these is a little better, but they’re still not doing it for me. The best of the bunch? Never mind: the straps are elastic, and do I see velcro? All bets are officially off.
This is what I’ll be wearing instead of flatforms:
How amazing are these? They have a 2 1/4 inch heel, which means my ankles will thank me while my foot aesthetic remains unchallenged. (Confidential to Miu Miu: that “the name of your shoe is way too long” thing still applies.)
Another gorgeous pair. These only have a two-inch heel, so they do fit into my definition of flatforms, but they also have a toe-confining…apparatus…and a t-strap. And I need everything t-strap.