Yes, I saw that. But what the author doesn't acknowledge is that this counterexample invalidates his thesis. Clearly someone who read a previous draft pointed out that he was mistaken, and the author added a qualification to try to minimize the damage. But in fact it was not merely "some dandies" who wore high heels in the mid 70s. It was the default fashion for young men.
Huh -- I (born in 1958) never wore them, nor do I recall knowing anyone who did. (I do recall seeing them on TV.) Maybe it was the crowd I hung out with (prep school).
My limited memories of the time didn't have them being so popular, but I was kind of young so might not be remembering very well.
Also anigbrowl has a good point that fashions in the USA and England were different. Your memories are from the USA, the BBC is concerned with England.
I didn't see a clear thesis to the article, nor do I see how this would be a counterexample to any possible thesis of the article.
The article appeared to be primarily an expository piece on the history of heeled shoes. The thesis, if there was one, seems to be that the rise and fall of heels was driven by the whims of fashion, and that just as associations with attractiveness drove its rise again among women, associations with social status or any of the other drivers of fashion could easily drive its rise again among men. If anything, your example seems to further validate that thesis: local fashions did, in fact, get men to start wearing heels again in places.
