From Head to Toe Bypassing the Brain

I was going to use today's blog to talk about the odd practice that shoe manufacturers have of naming shoe styles after girls, but I thought of something much more interesting instead Everyone is familiar with Mary Janes, but beyond that, is there really a point in differentiating styles with Diana, Hanna, Betty or Rachel? No woman ever said, “I'm wearing my Annabella's today.” And who cares enough to talk about it?
I guess sometimes it works out as a marketing device. During the 1960's loafers were named Penny. Superstitions and myths mushroomed for a couple of years. When I see a pair of Pennys today, I am always disappointed at the empty penny slot. Opportunity for luck wasted.
I don't know if men's shoe styles are named after boys, but I will check that next time I'm at the Buy More and Save Half of What You Wouldn't Otherwise Have Spent (BMSHWYWOHS for short) shoe store.
Clothing is usually referred to by the designer's name. That's an old practice, at least as old as Levi's jeans, but it makes a lot more sense. Designer's names give information about how and where things are made. Some clothing lines try to obscure shoddy quality by naming them after celebrity. I guess consumers are supposed to believe that actresses and models have way too much integrity to lend their endorsement to shoddy goods.
Now what was it that I was going to talk about today instead? Sorry, I forgot.
But my spell check just raised a question: Why did it object to the use of “men's in an earlier paragraph?” Is there a possessive form of men that I should be using instead? Maybe the apostrophe is superfluous. I can't change it now or you wouldn't know what I was taking about.
Nancy Sherer