A few days ago, I posted a picture of a shoe on my Facebook. In fact, it was this one, from the Givenchy resort collection that just landed at Barney’s New York:
I started wearing heels in my thirties because I realized that for my feet -- with a very high arch and short Achilles tendon -- heels are much more comfortable than flat shoes. And shoe comfort is largely about quality: I have cheap 3 inch heels that would hurt after an hour or so, and 4 inch I can walk three miles in with no discomfort. Nowadays, as I teach three classes per day and am on my feet the whole time, my heels have to be comfortable. Having said that, if you cannot find heels that work for you, I would agree that not wearing them is probably a good idea.
As for pelvis-buttocks thing: I've seen it before, and I find it puzzling. I wonder how those studies were done and on who -- because this sounds like either a person in too-high heels or simply inexperienced heel wearer trying to keep her balance. Most women who wear heels on a daily basis don't seem to experience this -- personally, my shoulders go back a bit, but buttocks are tucked under and pelvis is neutral. Like when doing a plie squat, beginners often stick their butt out instead of tightening the abdominals and tucking the pelvis so the spine stays straight whether you go down or rise on your tip toes. I don't know, but the whole tilted pelvis thing seems at the very least limited to me.
As for corsets: I disagree quite a bit. First, corsets DO compress nerves and arteries even if they are not laced tight enough to displace the internal organs. In some circles (steampunk cons) corsets ARE expected -- to the point where I felt pressured into wearing one, in a way I never felt pressured into wearing heels (seriously, where are heels a requirement? Most Americans at least seem to wear Uggs, Reeboks, or flip flops, the latter of which cause as much or more foot damage as heels). They are certainly more confining than high heels, in my experience, and hurt a lot more. Heels are easier to take off if necessary -- and really, shoes actually have a purpose, with or without heels. Corsets don't, except to make the female form explicitly sexualized (and yes, it is possible to wear heels without increasing one's sexiness). As for feeling dangerous: may we deconstruct this sense of own danger in relation to societal view of female empowerment via sexuality?
As for pelvis-buttocks thing: I've seen it before, and I find it puzzling.
Actually what I was thinking of wasn't studies (though I've seen those too) but marketing that touts the pelvis/butt emphasis as a selling point for wearing the heels, like this. (Have better sex and less painful childbirth! IN HEELS!)
First, corsets DO compress nerves and arteries even if they are not laced tight enough to displace the internal organs.
This is super interesting to me because there are elements of corset-wearing that feel beneficial to me, posture and comfort-wise, in much the way you're describing heels. I also seem to remember costume geeks at Wiscon a few years ago telling me that the history of the corset was ultimately one of support, with tight-lacing and organ-shifting being the exception rather than the rule, but I have no more than anecdata on that -- it's just striking me how opposite-and-equal our experiences of heel v. corset are.
In some circles (steampunk cons) corsets ARE expected -- to the point where I felt pressured into wearing one
Boo! I'm sorry that happened. And I can see how I'd probably feel similarly pressured if I didn't actually want to wear them, which is analogous, I think, to how you see heels.
seriously, where are heels a requirement?
Again with the opposite-and-equal -- in my extended family, not wearing heels is more or less on par with not shaving your legs and armpits (but, you know, I'm one of those raging feminists, so it's more or less expected that I won't do any of those things, ahaha).
Most Americans at least seem to wear Uggs, Reeboks, or flip flops, the latter of which cause as much or more foot damage as heels
Okay first I genuinely do not understand how people walk in flip flops. It's like they have muscles in their feet which I lack.
I guess context really matters? I can't remember ever seeing a woman wearing Uggs, Reeboks or flip flops in an office casual environment; the default there, in my experience, is heels, of varying height and chunkyness. As a grad student I'd notice the women around me might wear comfortable, non-dressy shoes for sitting at a computer, but would put on heels to teach (as did I until it started hurting too much). And it's just very difficult for me to visualise dressy settings without heels. To me they're ubiquitous, and to not wear them when dressed up is to have failed in a crucial dress code way.
Heels are easier to take off if necessary -- and really, shoes actually have a purpose, with or without heels. Corsets don't, except to make the female form explicitly sexualized
I'm pretty sure (again, thinking of the costume geeks' conviction) that corsets did and do, for many women, serve a supporting purpose, but I'd have to actually dig something like a source up to back me up on this.
As for feeling dangerous: may we deconstruct this sense of own danger in relation to societal view of female empowerment via sexuality?
Oh, definitely. ETA: Reflecting on it, the feeling of being dangerous may come down to confidence: I do not feel comfortable or confident in heels, so feel like I've been sexualised in a way I have little control over, whereas I do feel comfortable and confident in a corset, so feel, perhaps, like I'm in control of that sexualisation.
"As a grad student I'd notice the women around me might wear comfortable, non-dressy shoes for sitting at a computer, but would put on heels to teach (as did I until it started hurting too much)" and "I do not feel comfortable or confident in heels, so feel like I've been sexualised in a way I have little control over"
OK, we sort of need to admit at this point that putting on heels for teaching is about authority, not sexualization.
OK, we sort of need to admit at this point that putting on heels for teaching is about authority, not sexualization.
Oh, for sure. But it's nuanced, right? High heels grant me an authority with younger students, but I don't feel they do with people my own age or older.
Dressing to project authority actually works with many groups -- hence the very notion of power dressing. It might nit be authority over someone but authority enough to be listened to. Heels may or may not be a part of it; I am however objecting to the notion that heels are necessarily sexualized, as you suggested in your very first comment and later ones.
As for pelvis-buttocks thing: I've seen it before, and I find it puzzling. I wonder how those studies were done and on who -- because this sounds like either a person in too-high heels or simply inexperienced heel wearer trying to keep her balance. Most women who wear heels on a daily basis don't seem to experience this -- personally, my shoulders go back a bit, but buttocks are tucked under and pelvis is neutral. Like when doing a plie squat, beginners often stick their butt out instead of tightening the abdominals and tucking the pelvis so the spine stays straight whether you go down or rise on your tip toes. I don't know, but the whole tilted pelvis thing seems at the very least limited to me.
As for corsets: I disagree quite a bit. First, corsets DO compress nerves and arteries even if they are not laced tight enough to displace the internal organs. In some circles (steampunk cons) corsets ARE expected -- to the point where I felt pressured into wearing one, in a way I never felt pressured into wearing heels (seriously, where are heels a requirement? Most Americans at least seem to wear Uggs, Reeboks, or flip flops, the latter of which cause as much or more foot damage as heels). They are certainly more confining than high heels, in my experience, and hurt a lot more. Heels are easier to take off if necessary -- and really, shoes actually have a purpose, with or without heels. Corsets don't, except to make the female form explicitly sexualized (and yes, it is possible to wear heels without increasing one's sexiness). As for feeling dangerous: may we deconstruct this sense of own danger in relation to societal view of female empowerment via sexuality?
Reply
Actually what I was thinking of wasn't studies (though I've seen those too) but marketing that touts the pelvis/butt emphasis as a selling point for wearing the heels, like this. (Have better sex and less painful childbirth! IN HEELS!)
First, corsets DO compress nerves and arteries even if they are not laced tight enough to displace the internal organs.
This is super interesting to me because there are elements of corset-wearing that feel beneficial to me, posture and comfort-wise, in much the way you're describing heels. I also seem to remember costume geeks at Wiscon a few years ago telling me that the history of the corset was ultimately one of support, with tight-lacing and organ-shifting being the exception rather than the rule, but I have no more than anecdata on that -- it's just striking me how opposite-and-equal our experiences of heel v. corset are.
In some circles (steampunk cons) corsets ARE expected -- to the point where I felt pressured into wearing one
Boo! I'm sorry that happened. And I can see how I'd probably feel similarly pressured if I didn't actually want to wear them, which is analogous, I think, to how you see heels.
seriously, where are heels a requirement?
Again with the opposite-and-equal -- in my extended family, not wearing heels is more or less on par with not shaving your legs and armpits (but, you know, I'm one of those raging feminists, so it's more or less expected that I won't do any of those things, ahaha).
Most Americans at least seem to wear Uggs, Reeboks, or flip flops, the latter of which cause as much or more foot damage as heels
Okay first I genuinely do not understand how people walk in flip flops. It's like they have muscles in their feet which I lack.
I guess context really matters? I can't remember ever seeing a woman wearing Uggs, Reeboks or flip flops in an office casual environment; the default there, in my experience, is heels, of varying height and chunkyness. As a grad student I'd notice the women around me might wear comfortable, non-dressy shoes for sitting at a computer, but would put on heels to teach (as did I until it started hurting too much). And it's just very difficult for me to visualise dressy settings without heels. To me they're ubiquitous, and to not wear them when dressed up is to have failed in a crucial dress code way.
Heels are easier to take off if necessary -- and really, shoes actually have a purpose, with or without heels. Corsets don't, except to make the female form explicitly sexualized
I'm pretty sure (again, thinking of the costume geeks' conviction) that corsets did and do, for many women, serve a supporting purpose, but I'd have to actually dig something like a source up to back me up on this.
As for feeling dangerous: may we deconstruct this sense of own danger in relation to societal view of female empowerment via sexuality?
Oh, definitely. ETA: Reflecting on it, the feeling of being dangerous may come down to confidence: I do not feel comfortable or confident in heels, so feel like I've been sexualised in a way I have little control over, whereas I do feel comfortable and confident in a corset, so feel, perhaps, like I'm in control of that sexualisation.
Reply
OK, we sort of need to admit at this point that putting on heels for teaching is about authority, not sexualization.
Reply
OK, we sort of need to admit at this point that putting on heels for teaching is about authority, not sexualization.
Oh, for sure. But it's nuanced, right? High heels grant me an authority with younger students, but I don't feel they do with people my own age or older.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment