Announcing... The 2nd Annual theFashionSpot Awards. Vote NOW via the links below:
Designer of the YearThank you for participating!
VOTING WILL CLOSE 27/12/2024 EOD!
The facial hair analogy is flawed. Women are genetically predisposed to having lighter and thinner facial hair than men. (Counting the number of hairs, they actually have more of them). There is nothing genetic about women wearing high heels and men not.Like I said, if you saw a woman with facial hair, say a beard, would you think it's attractive? Would you think it's acceptable?
The kind of earrings/jewellery some men wear today would be considered "shocking" just 20 years ago. Even just wearing an earring would make people think you were gay.But say a man wearing a pink shirt is fine, because it's still within people's comfort boundaries, it's not as "shocking" as a man in heels.
Of course they do, because we live in a gender-fixated, sexist society.Women also have social limitations to how masculine they can dress...maybe less limitations than men but they're there for sure.
Define "ladylike".When pants became available for women, they were eventually made thinner and more elegant, so that they DID look ladylike.
I don't think most people would bat an eye.Similarly, if you saw a woman today with mannish baggy jeans you'd think "Oh she's not very lady like" lol
You write as like "society" was some kind of sentient being that could make decisions about "sacrifice". A society is made up of all the people existing in it, and their notions about "masculine" and "feminine" with regards to clothing are just socially constructed concepts that evolve over time. It's not something that is set in stone. And today, no matter how equal we are to the law, women are still seen as inferior. Not often consciously, but it's the message that is being conveyed everywhere.So it really has little to do with sexism I think, and more to do with how much society is willing to sacrifice to have their women look masculine and their men look feminine. Heels for men seems to sacrifice just too much.
Society will frown on that notion, but fashion types will applaud expressing one's own style and standing out in his/her own way.
in regards to heels? uhm. no.
when i see a pair of chic or sexy heels, i think of a woman in those shoes. NOT a man. a regular build guy will make chic and sexy heels rather.... unattractive.
you want feminine pieces for men? try colorful florals and ruffles first. ribbons and bows. pale pink hearts dangling off of your clothes.
To be honest I'm a little frustrated reading this(which I always do when I get bored... and always end in frustration never commenting) but let's see if I can say something.
I think that men in heels is a possibility and a very near one. A few months ago(maybe a year IDK) i was reading a study and saw that alot of men were going back and adding height to their hard soled shoes. The effect was in a sense a heel... but not in the conventional notion. It was a heel that was thick, more wedge like.
Tom Ford even has a pair or two that are from what I can guess are 3-4 inches thick. it doesn't look feminine at all. Why, because it wasn't a shoe done in imitation of a woman's shoe. I think that when you say heels for men you have to think of it as that, heels FOR men. You don't want to think of taking a woman's heel and then just putting it on a man. That's not going to work. Just as menswear pieces weren't originally accepted for women by society at large. It was only after these pieces were reworked, had some structure taken out, made more form fitting, then people began to describe them as feminine so they were ok for women.
So, I actually think heels for men are OK, and possible, but they have to be conceptualized as heels FOR men, not heels just worn by heels.
"Heels have long been the domain of women, but all we ask is that should a man choose to wear them, there is none of the pointing and name calling," said Nagamoto. "We wish to have this enshrined in Japanese law. As illegal as discriminating against people for being gay or occidental."
Quite interesting: