ruminations on places where high heels should not be attached

this morning lil g train was sad to see the weekend sunshine go, but made the best of the day and hopped through puddles wearing these:

overpriced yet really really live up to hype if bought on huge discount

but saw on the feet of a fellow commuter something closer to these:

Kate Spade Randi Rainboots

And has in the past seen examples closer to these:

Aquatalia by Marvin K, melon, $259.95

Which brings lil g train to the following query: why do individuals in fashion design positions of power continuously return to the never actually successful concept of adding high heels to inappropriate places, places that otherwise possess a perfectly acceptable and in some cases relatively ingeniously engineered autonomous existence.

Dear naysayers, please see the following examples throughout recent history:

fig 1. the platform fitness shoe:

MBT Sport2, $245

and

Shape-Ups, Skechers, $115

lil g train wonders, could any potential fitness results possibly justify this aesthetic decision?

fig 2. the timberland hiking boot inspired stiletto:

"Custom Burberry Ladies Manolo Blahnik Timberland Boots," $103*

fig 3. the high fashion yet still inappropriate high heel

Balenciaga, circa fall 07, appr. $4,175

fig 4. and lil g train's personal favorite, the nike jordan stiletto

Jordan Lady High Heel, $76.99**

*quotation marks here denote lil g train's uncertainty of the factual claims made at the online shopping boutique Really Dope in terms of this photo and the authenticity behind the concept of a Burberry/Monolo Blahnik/Timberland fashion mash-up.

**lil g train has not been able to ascertain whether or not the "jordan lady high heel" is in fact manufactured and authenticated by the Nike corporation.