Should she have paid for Carrie’s shoes?

[AllyBama]

Lighthearted obviously and I know I’m being unreasonable for doing an AIBU for a Sex And The City episode but it was the on in the house in the background today and it was like they took the storyline right out of a mumsnet classic! You don’t need to have watched the series to weigh in.

It was the episode where Carrie goes to a baby shower or kids party or something in $475 Manolo Blahnik shoes and is asked (with everyone) to remove them at the door. At the end of the night, the shoes are gone, ostensibly nicked. After some deliberation,

Carrie comes to the conclusion that the homeowner who asked her to remove her shoes should replace them. Carrie is ‘shoe shamed’ - the party thrower initially rebuffs the idea of reimbursement and says she shouldn’t have worn such extravagant shoes to a party and they shouldn’t have to fund her lifestyle.

So
YABU: The party thrower was right, Carrie chose to wear such an over the top shoe to a baby shower, she shouldn’t have to replace them
YANBU: Carrie is right, while the shoe was an extravagant choice, it was never Carrie’s choice to remove them and the homeowner should replace them.

As soon as I saw the title I remembered the episode! Yes, she should have paid for the shoes and she was bloody judgemental about Carrie's life choices. I was team Carrie all the way

Carrie is always U.

The only person responsible is the person who stole them.
(Is that a suitably MN answer? )

I’ve never forgotten this episode, the patronising response of Carrie’s “friend” grated like fuck then and it still does. Probably because it was meant to highlight how some (disclaimer: not all, before you flame me) parents decide that they’ve had an epiphany once they had a child and to them nothing is as important as parenthood/children. Caring about anything else is just shallow and meaningless.

I loved the ending of that episode

Meant to add…….Carrie should have ‘logged’ it with the police

The friend was hugely unreasonable! And as a PP has said it highlights this thing that happens to some women when they have kids- that’s it’s shallow/frivolous/not maternal to care about things like fashion, what you look like, hair and makeup, expensive clothes bags shoes that people work really hard for etc etc

Carrie should have put the shoes inside the door instead of outside it if she couldn’t afford to lose them. Leaving $475 shoes outside an apartment is way too risky and she should have insisted on at least bringing them inside. Plus as @AnnaDelvorkina says, Carrie is always U.

Can't stand the character Carrie but in this instance the "friend" was unreasonable.

I actually mentioned this episode in a AIBU thread where someone was slagging off her "friend" for being upset that poster couldn't attend her hen. Poster and most of MN believed the friend was ridiculous to be upset and couldn't possibly understand because they hadn't birthed a child yet 🤯. Patronising fcukers

I think friend was a snide dick about it, but Carrie "registering" for the shoes in a hugely passagg "what about me?" gesture was more U.

No one comes out of it well.

This was about the only time, in the entire series, that Carrie wasn't an unreasonable cunt

Sorry meant to type that at cnut but my spellcheck corrected it

I may need to leave off using that word a bit.

Oh interesting voting, a dead tie.

I didn't see the episode but I would say Carrie is BU, she had a choice to not take the shoes off and leave the party or take the risk to take them off and leave them or if she was very worried about them she could have taken them off and asked the home owner to put them in their room or some where else?

The party thrower was in the right although the shoes shouldn't have been nicked whatever the value. She insisted Carrie remove them but they were still Carrie's responsibility, she could have left the party or kept the shoes with her in a bag.

@FatFilledTrottyPuss

Carrie should have put the shoes inside the door instead of outside it if she couldn’t afford to lose them. Leaving $475 shoes outside an apartment is way too risky and she should have insisted on at least bringing them inside. Plus as *@AnnaDelvorkina* says, Carrie is always U.

They were inside the apartment. Another guest nicked them.

You’ve left out some crucial info, in that the reason the house owner doesn’t want to reimburse Carrie is because “I shouldn’t have to pay for your lifestyle choices”, to which Carrie responds, “well I’ve paid for your wedding present; hen do; baby shower” etc, so have paid loads for your lifestyle choices!

It’s a classic case of people who meet culturally celebrated milestones being prioritised above people who do things a bit differently.

@Movingsoon21

You’ve left out some crucial info, in that the reason the house owner doesn’t want to reimburse Carrie is because “I shouldn’t have to pay for your lifestyle choices”, to which Carrie responds, “well I’ve paid for your wedding present; hen do; baby shower” etc, so have paid loads for your lifestyle choices!

It’s a classic case of people who meet culturally celebrated milestones being prioritised above people who do things a bit differently.

Came to say this!

@Movingsoon21

You’ve left out some crucial info, in that the reason the house owner doesn’t want to reimburse Carrie is because “I shouldn’t have to pay for your lifestyle choices”, to which Carrie responds, “well I’ve paid for your wedding present; hen do; baby shower” etc, so have paid loads for your lifestyle choices!

It’s a classic case of people who meet culturally celebrated milestones being prioritised above people who do things a bit differently.

But the problem there is Carrie was invited to pay for those lifestyle choices, to go to that wedding, that baby shower etc. Yes, social pressure dictates you 'should' do those things but it's still an invite you can decline. Someone choosing to bring expensive shoes to your celebration and not watch them like a hawk is not an invite you get to accept/decline.

In hindsight Carrie should have kept the shoes on her (can't remember her bag, was it a clutch or could she have popped the shoes in there?) but I think the homeowner should have replaced the shoes. She even offered to until she was told the cost. If Carrie had known she would be asked to remove her shoes she would not have chosen to wear those expensive ones. Or maybe she would but it would have been her choice then and her risk if she were to lose them.

If I asked someone to remove their shoes and then those shoes were stolen I would definitely feel responsible. She could have provided a safe place for people's shoes seeing as it was her who wanted people to go shoeless.

If they're that valuable, put em out of the way!

Haven’t seen the episode but it seems all this discussion about lifestyle choices and cost of the shoes isn’t that relevant.

It’s about who’s responsible for the shoes. Not sure what the law is in this situation, but if I was the host, I’d be mortified that one of my guests had stolen from the other.

I’ve been witness to a similar situation where the thief gave the item back and apologised. But they were never seen in the same light again and the friendship was ruined.

Of course the friend should have paid for them!

Carrie attended a party not knowing she would be asked to remove her shoes. She was effectively forced to remove her shoes and then when she went back to get them they were gone.

Her friend was a CF and Carrie was completely reasonable.

Of course they are carries responsibility, she should have kept them with her if they were so expensive, people rarely leave their phones lying around

I also liked the fact that she noted how much money she spent celebrating other peoples life choices etc e.g engagements, weddings, babies etc. Her friend should have noted how much money Carrie had gifted her over the years whilst trying to find out which one of her so called friends was a shoe thief!

Oh it annoyed me when she said, "I shouldn't have to pay for your lifestyle choices" and berates her for spending that amount on shoes! Erm, excuse me, but a professional, grown woman, in her 30s can spend whatever the hell she likes on shoes!!! You were paying for the "lifestyle choice" of the thieving guest who chose to STEAL the shoes from your party.

However, was it a child's party? I can't remember now but I wouldn't waste my Manolos on a child's party. Although saying that, Carrie probably doesn't have any cheap pairs.

I haven’t seen it because they all irritate me intensely, Carrie esp, but if the shoes were so important she should have carried them inside with her obvs. Her friend isn’t responsible for her choosing to leave them outside or for the actions of the thief.