My offhand observation is that feminists are less likely to wear very high heels, and wear lower heels in general. This would fit with the idea that heels are more likely to be girly clothes, and even sexually provocative, and harder to run in, making women more vulnerable. I have no numbers, and if people know something different, I am open to correction. Professional women in many professions might tend toward higher heels for example.
If so, however, then feminists experience the world from some shorter height than non-feminists or undecideds, or whatever. Say it is one inch shorter. This would matter not only in interacting with women, but in interacting with men, who are on average taller. Would feminists thus have an impression of men as more intimidating and powerful? In terms of interpretation, that could flow either way - that women in heels have an artificial sense of equality, or that women without them have their cultural impressions too strongly influenced by the merely physical differences.
Hard to draw conclusions, but it's fun to play out the various possibilities. There might also be generational, professional, or regional differences that confound things.
9 comments:
First, define feminist!
In this case, I am using it to describe a woman who sees the popular use of the term as the primary definition of herself (or something near that), rather than a woman who agrees with a single set of principles. That is, a woman whose primary reading or media is feminist of any description rather than one whose feminism is part of a larger set of understandings. That is unsatisfactory, I know, but I don't think it is worse than the other definitions that run around. There are women who would exclude many others who think themselves feminist, and women who would draw the circle broadly enough as to use "woman" and "feminist" as near synonymous. And, there are political manipulators who slide between those definitions as the need suits them. I am not talking about those latter so much, as I consider them power-seekers, often marxist, who use the label only as a tool to manipulate others.
I am describing an attitude and a tribal loyalty/affiliation rather than a set of ideas. The ideas, especially the emphases,have changed over the decades.
And then there are those of us who absolutely will never wear heels because we can't stand the pain.
I always found a number of interesting things happening around the subject of heels. One is that girls and women hear a lot--a LOT--about the risk of seeming taller than men, who will secretly resent and reject them for it. Another is that when lawyers gather out in the hallway for negotiations, they get in a bit of a football hurdle, which requires some combination of physical and social pressure to invade, which is more difficult if you're the shortest one; for this purpose heels are surprisingly helpful. A male friend once asked me in apparent sincerity whether using heels to solve problem #2 didn't lead to resentment of the problem #1 one sort, which I found amusing--as if I had wanted to date the guys I was trying to negotiate with at work. Issue #3 is, as you suggest, the crippling effect of heels, the vulnerability it causes, and the reality and perception that while you're wearing them you have to stay on very safe surfaces in very safe environments, which disqualifies you for many areas of life and exposes you to a fairly reasonable assumption that you don't mind making yourself both helpless and useless. Fourth is the idea that a woman in flats ostentatiously rejects the idea of making herself attractive and should be rejected on that count. A nice thing about reaching my 60s is that most of this nonsense has fallen away.
More research is needed.™
I tend to think of all fashion as signaling of some sort, so it's reasonable that some feminists might be trying to signal that they're not girly, provocative, or vulnerable by wearing "sensible" shoes. It would be difficult to know by appearance only if that is the reason or if they are like lelia and me and simply dislike being uncomfortable. The same applies to clothing choices. In my case, age is certainly a factor.
Height is a different matter. A short woman has to take some precautions against being perceived as a child, especially in some professional settings. High heels are one way of doing this. Provocative dress, as in form-fitting or low cut is another. Pastels, flowery prints, lace, and curly hair are generally avoided also. That's a 'projection of power' argument for a feminist to wear high heels, regardless height.
There are so many ways to send so many signals.
Tex, I don’t think men resent or reject taller women. However, taller women may be seen as out of one’s league. Studies show that taller men and women are generally perceived as more attractive; a shorter man (unless very confident) may simply assume that women taller than himself will never be interested in him.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150928-tall-vs-small-which-is-it-better-to-be
There is a paradox that shorter men are often more willing to date very tall women. I suspect that it is not very different to be 2" shorter than 6" shorter, and they have long since made the adjustment.
On a wild tangent here: Lin Yutang (My Country and My People) argued that the abolition of bound feet in China was made dramatically easier by the introduction of Western high-heel shoes. They let a woman have the same desirable classic posture and gait without the pain and disfigurement. Or at any rate, with far less pain.
I can't say. I know that the lawyers I worked with joked almost constantly about who was the tallest guy in the room, with the recurring theme that they'd have to go along with whatever he said. (Oddly enough, the businessmen, less so. Maybe lawyers are simply more insecure about the professional conflict they're constantly immersed in.) And then there was my friend's nervous comment--don't you worry that you'll be less attractive to your co-workers if you increase your height with heels? Does a woman suddenly become out of a guy's league because she puts on heels? Or is she instead repugnant because she's (unfairly?) won some kind of competition? I sensed a tremendous competitive preoccupation with height, which leaked into the conversation in all kinds of ways. When I quit practicing law, I stopped noticing it, though it recurred briefly last spring during my election.
For our own part, the women I've known have been almost completely indifferent to height differences among themselves, though they do generally find height an attractive trait in men and prefer men taller than themselves--and not only for fear of the man's reaction otherwise.
Post a Comment