High heels won’t help achieve high ambitions

[hautechild]

Of course no one would argue that every woman wears heels for men, but it's certainly not unreasonable to suggest that male attention contributes to the motives of most women, so I don't see how it could be offensive.

Because so far I've only seen gross generalzations rather than anyone saying most women, or even some women. And yes, I do find it offensive, because I want nothing to do with the idea that any of my fashion choices are because I want to attract men. In fact, I don't like it at all when men make any kinds of comments in a sexual way about what I'm wearing. I don't like the fact that I wear high heels makes it more likely to get comments from men, specifically because I am wearing them for me, not for them, and their opinion on whether they think it looks "sexy" is unwanted and irrelevant.

 

[Lite_Brite]

I consider the notion that those who dominate (i.e. lead) a certain group or society are immediately superior, very untrue and also anti-feminist, considering that men are more adapted for fighting, both physically and psychologically. It is those who believe that females must adapt themselves to be more like men in order to be "empowered" that are implicating inferiority.

...okay? I never said any of that so maybe you replied to the wrong post. I certainly don't believe that men are superior, only that they hold more power in our society. I don't think women should act in a more "masculine" way whatever your definition of that might be.

Who's talking about reducing men or women to anything? Acknowledging differences is not defining people by them. Or do you consider the acknowledgement of women as child bearers reducing them to reproductive machines?

what you conceive as "acknowledging differences" is reductive because these differences vary from person to person, not just between the "two" sexes. you hold this essentialist view of men and women, but it has no scientific basis as far as I can tell.

in addition, grouping something as inate as childbirth with something like wearing high heels is not exactly an apt comparison. one has to do with sex and the other with gender. and since I don't intend to have children, does that divorce me from womanhood? this is what I'm talking about

you ignored my main point, which was that people shouldn't be made to behave any particular way because of this strict absolutist concept of what is a man and what is a woman. no woman should be made to feel like she is less a woman for not advertising her sexuality, for not having children, for not sleeping with men, or whatever else. she certainly should not be held back from a successful career on this basis. when you imply that these are the things that make a woman, you're excluding anyone who doesn't participate from your definition, which is, in fact, reductive.

 

[iluvjeisa]

How it that not the point?

It was said that women wear heels for men.

I don't. I wear them because I like heels, yes I like how they look and how they make me look and work with an outfit. That is nothing to do with men and frankly it's both offensive in a gernal sense, and heterosexist to suggest that all women's in what they wear come back to men.

Yes, that was said. But, this was not a thesis, therefore not all information was included. Now that I see your interest in the topic, I will elaborate on my former remark. It is essentially a suggestion for a crude historical explanation.

1. Most men like perky butts.

2. Perky butts are sexually attractive to most people.

3. Women appear to have had, in general, a tendency to adorn themselves more richly, in particular to garner interest from - to them - sexually attractive partners. One can hypothesize that this is the result of a societal structure, where women were - in general - not allowed to work and had to rely on the income of a husband. Failure to attract such an individual would result in less pleasurable life circumstances (such as no food).

4. During this time of male dominance over females, the high heels were - along with other things - introduced to help women attract prospective life partners. I'd like to think this occurred for lesbians, and I'm sure it did, but I dare venture speculating that it was less common than women attempting to secure a stable economic arrangement through marriage to a man.

5. Although much has changed in the last 100 years or so, some aspects of clothing appears to remain. For the most part only women wear skirts. And also, for the most part, only women wear heels.

Is it fair to say that the historical reason for women and not men wearing heels might be something along those lines?

After these many years of women wearing skirts and high heels, pearls, cleavage etc for occasions when they want to look especially attractive, this has formed in many minds, the view that these attributes are attractive.

So the sexual aspect of someone choosing high heels over low, a figure slicking outfit over a bulky, is derived, not immediate. Few people think "I'm going to attract men now, that is why I will wear high heels". Of course, some do, but most of us will do so because of the way they make you feel taller, gives us a pleasurable sway or simply because we like the way we look in a mirror when wearing high heels.

Just like anything considered unusually attractive really.

 

[Dego]

, the high heels were - along with other things - introduced to help women attract prospective life partners.

Except for the fact that heels were originally also worn by men.

 

[Les_Sucettes]

It relates to high heels because of the issue that women are valued for their beauty more than men, and the underlying reasons for it.

Expecting a woman to wear heels is not sexist; enforcing that she must wear them if her appearance is unrelated to her work, is. We derive expectations simply based on what we perceive to be normal and commonly occurring, and since wearing heels for women is, there is nothing wrong with simply expecting a woman to.

Oh yes, expecting a women to wear heels is most definitely sexist. That idea that because women are women we derive certain expectations is the exactly what being sexist is. I'm actually amazed with you post to tell the truth. if some men told me something like that at work for example, i would be very offended.

Wearing heels is not a feminine trait or part of what makes men and women different , it's absolutely and totally cultural, just because it was normal and commonly occurring women to have been housewives , tied to the kitchen sink and not being able to vote, it doesn't mean the perception is right or that it should be expected of them to cook for their husband and not participate in politics.
Plus this idea of women with high heels as symbols of femininity historically is actually quite recent, men in the old days wore them to much more effect than women.

 

[fashionista-ta]

Of course no one would argue that every woman wears heels for men, but it's certainly not unreasonable to suggest that male attention contributes to the motives of most women, so I don't see how it could be offensive.

I can certainly see how it could be.

 

[iluvjeisa]

Except for the fact that heels were originally also worn by men.

Oh man, I should have put another "in general" in there Yes, and scotsmen wear kilts and so on.

 

[fashionista-ta]

Yes, that was said. But, this was not a thesis, therefore not all information was included. Now that I see your interest in the topic, I will elaborate on my former remark. It is essentially a suggestion for a crude historical explanation.

1. Most men like perky butts.

2. Perky butts are sexually attractive to most people.

3. Women appear to have had, in general, a tendency to adorn themselves more richly, in particular to garner interest from - to them - sexually attractive partners. One can hypothesize that this is the result of a societal structure, where women were - in general - not allowed to work and had to rely on the income of a husband. Failure to attract such an individual would result in less pleasurable life circumstances (such as no food).

It is interesting that now, at least in most Western cultures, it's women who tend to sport our equivalent of the (male) peacock's display. (The female is the peahen ...) Not so in times past, as Dego points out ... at the French court, in England in the 19th century, men very overtly dressed up and showed off.

So what's happened?

I really enjoy the process of dressing up, and heels are more interesting than flats ... as surely we all know from having been shopping. I find myself thinking about where I'm going & who I'm going to see, and sometimes scaling back what I'm planning to wear because I don't want to send the message we're talking about here. Men (and I can quote a scientist here if you wish ) on average tend to overinterpret anything/everything women do as expressive of interest in them, so I find myself being careful ... but I think many of us tend to assume things like "It all comes down to sex" ... I suppose that wanting to feel attractive and wanting to attract sexual attention are two different things. For me they are.

 

[Mélange]

^ I agree flats are *zzzzzzz*

My own experience is taller people tend to get noticed more, whereas shorter people tend to be overlooked and ignored.
I'm sure there must be plenty of sociological arguments concerning the exploitation of women and their status in society etc.
...but what all these expert sociologists fail to comprehend, is the sheer personal joy and excitement of donning some gorgeous high-heeled designer footwear.

 

[iluvjeisa]

It is interesting that now, at least in most Western cultures, it's women who tend to sport our equivalent of the (male) peacock's display. (The female is the peahen ...) Not so in times past, as Dego points out ... at the French court, in England in the 19th century, men very overtly dressed up and showed off.

So what's happened?

I really enjoy the process of dressing up, and heels are more interesting than flats ... as surely we all know from having been shopping. I find myself thinking about where I'm going & who I'm going to see, and sometimes scaling back what I'm planning to wear because I don't want to send the message we're talking about here. Men (and I can quote a scientist here if you wish ) on average tend to overinterpret anything/everything women do as expressive of interest in them, so I find myself being careful ... but I think many of us tend to assume things like "It all comes down to sex" ... I suppose that wanting to feel attractive and wanting to attract sexual attention are two different things. For me they are.

I have heard the explanation that when the bourgeoisie became more influential in the 18th century or so, one of the important signs of success for them was an excessively adorned wife who did nothing but tend to her appearance. Not sure why the husbands didn't take to the trend of dressing up like nobility.

But even in the 16th century, if you look at the portraits of kings and queens of a country, it tends to be the queen that is a little more adorned than her husband.

 

[PinkGoddess]

what you conceive as "acknowledging differences" is reductive because these differences vary from person to person, not just between the "two" sexes. you hold this essentialist view of men and women, but it has no scientific basis as far as I can tell.

in addition, grouping something as inate as childbirth with something like wearing high heels is not exactly an apt comparison. one has to do with sex and the other with gender. and since I don't intend to have children, does that divorce me from womanhood? this is what I'm talking about

you ignored my main point, which was that people shouldn't be made to behave any particular way because of this strict absolutist concept of what is a man and what is a woman. no woman should be made to feel like she is less a woman for not advertising her sexuality, for not having children, for not sleeping with men, or whatever else. she certainly should not be held back from a successful career on this basis. when you imply that these are the things that make a woman, you're excluding anyone who doesn't participate from your definition, which is, in fact, reductive.

There are absolutely essential characteristics possessed by men and women; physically, psychologically, intellectually, sexually and emotionally, that I honestly don't believe you aren't aware of.

I used the childbirth example to show how ridiculous the notion that pointing out differenced somehow "reduces" a man or woman to them, which it doesn't.

Who's talking about people being made to behave in any way? Gender differences aren't imposed on people, they have a biological basis that manifests itself in ways that are learned. I would certainly say there are ways in which men and women should act, but wearing heels alone is so trivial and arbitrary to this that it is irrelevant.

 

[PinkGoddess]

Oh yes, expecting a women to wear heels is most definitely sexist. That idea that because women are women we derive certain expectations is the exactly what being sexist is. I'm actually amazed with you post to tell the truth. if some men told me something like that at work for example, i would be very offended.

Wearing heels is not a feminine trait or part of what makes men and women different , it's absolutely and totally cultural, just because it was normal and commonly occurring women to have been housewives , tied to the kitchen sink and not being able to vote, it doesn't mean the perception is right or that it should be expected of them to cook for their husband and not participate in politics.
Plus this idea of women with high heels as symbols of femininity historically is actually quite recent, men in the old days wore them to much more effect than women.

So if a woman for example, wore sneakers to a formal event, you wouldn't be surprised? That right there is an expectation, which simply originates from what you are used to seeing. Don't confuse being expected to do something with being pressured or forced.

Wearing heels itself is an insignificant part of being a woman, but it represents and originates from prominent physical and sexual biological differences. An example of this is that women are naturally more beautiful and sexually attractive than men, therefore female beauty and sexual attractiveness has always been valued more than male beauty. The image of women as housewives also has an obvious biological root; it is when a biological difference is imposed without choice that sexism comes into play. And since that is totally unrelated to heels, I don't know why it was brought up.

 

[Dego]

There are absolutely essential characteristics possessed by men and women; physically, psychologically, intellectually, sexually and emotionally, that I honestly don't believe you aren't aware of.

And your "proof"/source for this assumption is...?

 

[Dego]

An example of this is that women are naturally more beautiful and sexually attractive than men,

Oh, you've GOT to be kidding me!

SAYS WHO?!

 

[Les_Sucettes]

So if a woman for example, wore sneakers to a formal event, you wouldn't be surprised? That right there is an expectation, which simply originates from what you are used to seeing. Don't confuse being expected to do something with being pressured or forced.

Wearing heels itself is an insignificant part of being a woman, but it represents and originates from prominent physical and sexual biological differences. An example of this is that women are naturally more beautiful and sexually attractive than men, therefore female beauty and sexual attractiveness has always been valued more than male beauty. The image of women as housewives also has an obvious biological root; it is when a biological difference is imposed without choice that sexism comes into play. And since that is totally unrelated to heels, I don't know why it was brought up.

If the event is considered to have a formal dress code, no i wouldn't expect a women to wear sneakers the same way i would not expect a man to wear sneakers, it has nothing to do with stupid expectations society has of me has a woman. It's a dress code that the person that organized the event wants you to comply.

You seem to mistake requirements with expectations, your employer may required you in your contract to wear an uniform that may involve a bit of heel, dress in a more formal way etc etc, but he can't come up to you out of blue and say "because your a women I expect you to wear heels and make the coffee for the guys in the boardroom". This idea that women have to do certain things, even if those things have absolutely no biological base, because of their gender is the exact definition of sexism.

Since when wearing heels is a significant part of being a women? Wearing heels isn't in any shape or form a significant part of being a women. There are women that never wore a pair heels in their lives and are no less women because it. The same way it's not a significant part of being a women staying at home washing the dishes. This are simply sexist social constructions.

Once again, in history female beauty was not always considered more valuable than male beauty, all of this are cultural constructions that have absolutely nothing to do with the biological differences.

 

[msfelicia23]

Blah, Blah Blah........ Next!

 

[PinkGoddess]

And your "proof"/source for this assumption is...?

Centuries of historical, philosophical, and psychological research that cannot possibly be explained in a single post, much less a single book.

I honestly don't believe that you fail to realise these differences on some level. Even without having done research, simply interacting with men and women on a daily basis should have given you a good idea of the basic distinctions between them. It's certainly politically correct in today's society sanitised by propagandists disguised as "feminists" to pretend that women are simply men with breasts, but when it comes to people's expectation, assessment, and treatment of men and women, I would bet anything that people aren't practising what they preach.

 

[PinkGoddess]

Oh, you've GOT to be kidding me!

SAYS WHO?!

Humans are instinctively designed to respond to symmetry, proportion, averageness, and youthfulness in physical features, and women possess these qualities both facially and bodily much so more than men. Women's secondary sexual characteristics are also more pronounced, and men who do possess pedomorphic features are considered feminine-looking and less attractive than rugged looking males.

 

[PinkGoddess]

If the event is considered to have a formal dress code, no i wouldn't expect a women to wear sneakers the same way i would not expect a man to wear sneakers, it has nothing to do with stupid expectations society has of me has a woman. It's a dress code that the person that organized the event wants you to comply.

And what is the dress code based on? Expectations of how men and women are "supposed" to dress. Even if such an event had no dress code, we would still respond much more differently to a woman wearing sneakers than one wearing heels; that too is expectation.

You seem to mistake requirements with expectations, your employer may required you in your contract to wear an uniform that may involve a bit of heel, dress in a more formal way etc etc, but he can't come up to you out of blue and say "because your a women I expect you to wear heels and make the coffee for the guys in the boardroom". This idea that women have to do certain things, even if those things have absolutely no biological base, because of their gender is the exact definition of sexism.

Yes that is sexism, but what relevance does that have to gender-based expectations? Expectation and requirement are not mutually inclusive, and previously you said that the former was sexist on its own, without the existence of requirement.

Since when wearing heels is a significant part of being a women? Wearing heels isn't in any shape or form a significant part of being a women. There are women that never wore a pair heels in their lives and are no less women because it. The same way it's not a significant part of being a women staying at home washing the dishes. This are simply sexist social constructions.

Read more carefully; I said wearing heels is an insignificant part of being a woman.

Once again, in history female beauty was not always considered more valuable than male beauty, all of this are cultural constructions that have absolutely nothing to do with the biological differences.

There are exceptions to every rule, but for the most part, a woman's beauty has always been of more value than a man's, and in addition, has always comprised a considerable amount of a woman's worth. The biological roots explaining this are obvious.

 

[tigerrouge]

Women's secondary sexual characteristics are also more pronounced, and men who do possess pedomorphic features are considered feminine-looking and less attractive than rugged looking males.

Although this week, there has been plenty of discussion about new research which suggests that the contraceptive pill could be skewing women's mating preferences away from rugged men in favour of more feminised-looking males.

When ancient instincts and modern chemistry collide, the results might be more interesting than we imagine...