Can you believe this image

Ah, the pretty pastel female shoes, safe, neat and tidy, protected by the Boots of Man.

And the Converse of Boy, literally and figuratively, adventurous, independent and stepping out to make his own place in the world.

They chose the image, they know what they are saying. And the 1950s is strongly represented there.

I do not know any woman in my civilian life who would wear those pink shoes, aside from evening wear or similar

I would wear shoes like that with day summer dresses, not always, but certainly nothing unusual.

I wouldn't be seen dead in androgynous or gender neutral footwear.

And can you cut out the "so impractical" stuff. My shoes are practical for what I need and want to do.

combatbarbie I do not know any woman in my civilian life who would wear those pink shoes, aside from evening wear or similar. A pair of office work shoes or boots, trainers (these are usually quite gendered and women have smaller feet, usually), I also have a pair of flowery converse. There are many ways to make civilian shoes gendered female, without going for impractical shoes. Impractical because they would get dirty easily and you cannot run very far. Thinking about the school run, there is one mum who wears shoes equally impractical and even then not all the time.

I have a girl and a boy - my daughter has black converse but yes, as a smaller child her shoes were pink and purple and those kind of colours sometimes but they were not shiny satin. She had ballet shoes for ballet and they were not in the family shoe line.

There are many different ways to represent a family which does not fall back on restrictive gender stereotypes.

They could’ve easily done eg. two pairs of adult, androgynous boots/converse and two pairs of colourful wellies/trainers for the kids

I've never owned a pair of "adult androgynous boots" /converse" in my life. A picture like that would not suggest to me a family with a woman in it or that it was meant to represent me.

Genuinely interested (as a serving woman myself) what image you think they could have used?

Yes I agree it's a stereotypical image but what image could they have used that wouldn't upset a portion of service families? With the kids shoes I get it, they could have easily used a pink and blue pair of converse to identify boy/girl children, but one pair of boots has to be there to represent the serving person.

Maybe the pink stilettos (to be honest given the uproar they clearly intended to cause, I'm shocked they didn't use white stilettos.... If you know, you know....) should have been a pair of white vans?

There is no ambiguity about what that represents. The last time I saw something so ridiculously clichéed and stereotyped was when our graphic design work experience student suggested this font for our Japanese office's business cards. But that was nearly 25 years ago and they were 14 years old. Even so, we were still shocked that a 14 year old thought it was okay.

Katysun that’s what irritates me about it - the neat pink, decorative shoes tidied away, a women’s touch.

I’m lucky if both of whatever DD has on her feet make it back through the door at all, they are strewn far and wide. She certainly wouldn’t be lining them up neatly beside my shoes, not to mention I haven’t worn a pair of high heels in over ten years.

They could’ve easily done eg. two pairs of adult, androgynous boots/converse and two pairs of colourful wellies/trainers for the kids. And whatever jaunty angles they wanted on whichever shoe to make the picture more interesting and show the different personalities in the house. Personalities which are likely nothing to do with the gender of those people.

I was a military spouse and these images that are rife served to alienate me from what is seen as the 'typical' military family. It can be a very lonely life and this only made me feel more so since such sexist stereotypes pervaded all such publications.
I hated it. Clearly they've learnt nothing.

The boots and converse could be worn by a woman, but we all know the pink shoes won't be worn by a man don't we.

I agree OP, it definitely grates on me. No woman straight or lesbian is going to be wearing pink stilettos as a daily shoe. And lined up with the other neat little pink shoes beside it, it’s obvious what that’s meant to be representing.

Or course the boots could belong to a ginormous lesbian and the converse could be her wife’s and the pink stilettos could belong to their gender non-conforming teenage son and the pink ballet flats could be the dogs but that is obviously not what they’re going for.

Everyone know that all the best pilots fly their fighter jets in spike heels, eh?

No teen estrangement, the Converse are a messy, independent teenager and the ballet shoes a neat child close to mum. The boots have some independence and autonomy too, being at a more jaunty angle. The pink heels know their place, again neatly.

Rebellious teenage boy who won't line his Converse up with the rest of the family. Or probably it just makes a better picture like that. But it's really sexist and regressive and it makes a mockery of previous attempts to attract female recruits.

What’s with the Cons being off to one side? Are there regular issues of teen estrangement or going off the rails or something? I thought the placing of the Cons away from the tight knit nuclear family shoes was odd too.

Wish I had as much spare time as you do opie

Jesus, just had a look, that is so sexist and ridiculous!

And sorry, I am not sure how he could say the image was picked because it could be a lesbian household with a straight face.

I agree with you - neither of the pink (coded female) shoes (adult or child) are at all practical or for everyday wear. Whereas the boots and the converse are. The image is very stereotypical and regressive.

It stinks, OP. Will send an email tomorrow asking to speak to their PR/ Press department and asking what kind of message they are sending out.