Why are people talking about Marco Rubio’s boots? Here’s the real reason.

For some reason, everyone is talking about Marco Rubio's boots.

Rubio's shiny boots have captured the media's attention, as shiny objects tend to do. The New York Times, the Newspaper of Record, has now recorded Rubio's boots as "one of the weirder firestorms of the presidential campaign," and notes that "bootgate" (please make it stop) "has eclipsed any other fashion story of the election thus far, including any fashion story related to the two female candidates, Hillary Clinton and Carly Fiorina." (Okay, that last part is actually sort of interesting. Maybe sexism is over! Hillary Clinton has to write her own pantsuit jokes, am I right?)

Rubio's competitors for the Republican presidential nomination, and others, started piling on and teasing him for his fashion choice:

Fitsnews, a conservative website, added Rubio's "decidedly metrosexual footwear selections" to its list of reasons not to vote for him. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough referred to Austin Powers and called the boots "shagalicious." Ted Cruz's communications director tweeted a piece from The Cut called "A Vote for Marco Rubio is a Vote for Men's High-Heeled Booties," even though Cruz himself has been seen sporting shiny boots with about the same heel height:

Media observers tried to figure out what this all means. "Note to male political candidates: Shoe’s on the other foot now, boys," wrote Vanessa Friedman in the New York Times piece, arguing that the "lesson" here is that the male wardrobe is exceptionally predictable, and that deviating from that expectation surprises people. Callum Borchers speculated at the Washington Post that people were losing their minds over this because it subverts their expectations of an "unwritten running-for-president dress code" that's relatively boring and modest.

Sure, that's part of it. But really, let's just say it: this is also sexism. This isn't just about deviation from a script; it's about deviation from a particular, gendered script. Dare to wear stylish "high heeled" shoes like women normally do, and presidential candidates become reduced to school children while others become playground bullies. We saw a hint of this dynamic in the last Democratic debate, too, with a ridiculous question asked of Hillary Clinton about gender roles in the White House that was essentially a barely-concealed snicker over the idea of Bill Clinton picking out flowers.

Daily reminder: The rigid gender stereotypes designed to keep women in line are routinely used as a weapon against men, too. Schoolboys giggle at "sissies" because feminine men are considered worthy of mockery; "throwing like a girl" is used as an insult against both genders. Some men can't take the time to care for their own children without somebody taking cheap swipes at their masculinity, or even questioning their dedication to their careers.

Yes, this boot flareup is incredibly silly. Rubio himself can't believe people are talking about it, and correctly called it "craziness." But sexism is often trivial, and trivializing. It uses "little things" to make people feel small: from offhand remarks criticizing how a woman talks, to telling a transgender person they're using the wrong bathroom. And these silly, little things add up over a lifetime.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via