Sarcastorial
When we are unhappy or unsatisfied with something, like a shoe trend, it's a natural tendency to look for someone or something to blame. So, let's do that: I blame - Johnston & Murphy.
First, in full transparency, for years I would treat the J&M catalog like shoe porn. When it came in the mail I would set it aside for the weekend, when I'd have time to go through it slowly and thoroughly. I didn't care much for most of their clothing line - it's a bit too 'middle of the road' for me, but their shoes . . .
My family was aware that for a time I couldn't walk past a brick-and-mortar J&M without stopping in - even if just for one quick walk around. I have a pair of their wingtip boots (black) and have a few other casual pairs - good quality shoes. I'll shop there again, probably, but that doesn't mean I can forgive them for promoting the 'dress' sneaker thing.
Don't get me wrong, I recently wore a pair of white Pumas to a funeral and would wear them with a suit. Because they're Pumas. That's not what we're talking about. White sneakers with a suit is OK.
What I'm talking about is the whole concept of leather or canvas uppers with sneaker bottoms and the term 'dress sneaker'. A dress shoe is a leather shoe with a leather bottom. Suede is good, opera slippers are OK, alligator, ostrich, and even vegan leather is all OK, but a sneaker bottom is a casual shoe. Period.
Wear Converse All Stars with a tuxedo if you want; that's fine. Just don't call them a 'dress' sneaker. If you do, you're falling for marketing hype and bullshit so let's keep it real.
