This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/she-said/2014/jun/27/high-heels-are-glamorous-and-sexy-but-they-are-not-empowering

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
High heels are glamorous and sexy, but they are not empowering High heels are glamorous and sexy, but they are not empowering
(2 months later)
Having, as Having, as I do, an 11-year-old daughter, I long ago lost the tussle for the car radio, with the result that I am fairly relentlessly exposed to Radio 1.
I do, an 11-year-old daughter, I long ago lost the tussle for the car Little has changed since I last regularly tuned into the station. Some music is good, some bad – much of it is sexist, shallow and materialistic. Well, it was ever thus.
radio, with the result that I am fairly relentlessly exposed to Radio Nowadays, though, I find particularly offensive the illusion of girl power conveyed by young women who appear to have forgotten to get dressed properly of a morning. I am almost desperate for my daughter to understand that empowerment, as in genuine personal authority, is not to be found at the sharp end of "killer heels". However, the lyrics of Little Mix's Salute, which is currently tottering down the charts, suggest otherwise:
1.
Little has
changed since I last regularly tuned into the station. Some music is
good, some bad – much of it is sexist, shallow and materialistic.
Well, it was ever thus.
Nowadays,
though, I find particularly offensive the illusion of girl power
conveyed by young women who appear to have forgotten to get dressed
properly of a morning. I am almost desperate for my daughter to
understand that empowerment, as in genuine personal authority, is not
to be found at the sharp end of "killer heels". However, the lyrics
of Little Mix's Salute, which is currently tottering down the charts,
suggest otherwise:
Ladies all across the worldListen up, we're looking for recruitsIf you're with me, let me see your handsStand up and saluteGet your killer heels, sneakers, pumps or lace up your bootsRepresenting all the women, salute, salute!Ladies all across the worldListen up, we're looking for recruitsIf you're with me, let me see your handsStand up and saluteGet your killer heels, sneakers, pumps or lace up your bootsRepresenting all the women, salute, salute!
It may It may sound a tad humourless retro-feminist, and possibly taking Little Mix's baffling drivel too seriously, but how in heaven's name can items of footwear that in effect hobble the wearer, be empowering?
sound a tad humourless retro-feminist, and possibly taking Little Indeed, high heels could hardly be said to have been empowering even when they were intrinsically bound with very real power. The high heel was a symbol of political privilege in the French court of Sun King Louis XIV (1643-1715). The king himself owned a pair of five-inch heels and his nobles followed suit, although never in heels higher than the king – that was banned by royal decree. At 5ft 4in (1.63cm) Louis was less than statuesque and probably used heels to elevate his royal personage. But high heels weren't just about adding height. They said something else about the wearer – their very impracticality proclaimed that here was a person of such wealth and privilege that he didn't have to labour in the fields, or indeed trouble about walking too far.
Mix's baffling drivel too seriously, but how in heaven's name can The Sun King's court at Versailles was a famously paranoid and rancorous place to be. Its well-heeled nobles were enslaved by the necessity to compete for the king's favour and dictated to by fashion and foppishness. High heels may have been a symbol of being close to power, but the wearers could hardly be said to be personally empowered.
items of footwear that in effect hobble the wearer, be empowering? Heels have come and gone from fashion in the 300 years since the Sun King's court. Their association with women caused them to fall out of fashion with men, who presumably threw them to the back of the wardrobe with a grateful sigh. At times they have been wildly out of fashion – it wasn't done in Napoleonic post revolutionary France to be seen prancing about in high heels. Neither were they a good idea in 17th century Massachusetts where a women could be tried as a witch for seducing a man into marriage by wearing them.
Indeed, But they came into their own in the 20th century – specifically the latter half, when in 1954 Christian Dior and shoe designer Roger Vivier developed a low-cut shoe with a narrow heel called a stiletto, named after a particularly vicious type of Italian dagger. "Killer heels" were born.
high heels could hardly be said to have been empowering even when they Back in the 50s, however, high heels were simply glamorous and sexy fashion accessories: no one tried to argue that Marilyn Monroe posing above a subway grating in stiletto-heeled sandals and flying dress was about girl power.
were intrinsically bound with very real power. The high heel was a It took the power dressing 1980s to make that link, and now that seems to have extended to sexualised dressing in general. Female power is about wearing what you want to wear, the argument goes. I would argue, however, that the lines have become blurred between the freedom to express our sexuality and sexualisation. One is about the free will to choose what we wear, the other is about buying into the illusory power of the dominatrix, which is less about female empowerment than about a certain type of man trying to work through some complicated and unresolved childhood issues.
symbol of political privilege in the French court of Sun King Louis It is hardly surprising that the lines have become blurred. It is still relatively recent history where the showing of an ankle could lead to social ruin. It is no wonder women, whose sexuality was for so long suppressed – and still is in many parts of the world – revel in being able to express themselves. Wearing what we like demonstrates our free will, doesn't it? Yes it does, but it doesn't follow that the choices we make are always sensible.
XIV (1643-1715). The king himself owned a pair of five-inch heels and I'm not arguing that women shouldn't wear high heels – but please, let's give up the pretence that they are anything other than what they are. Glamorous, yes; sexy, yes; empowering, certainly not.
his nobles followed suit, although never in heels higher than the I worry about this stuff, because in my house is a child who will all too soon become a young woman. Still, maybe I shouldn't be so concerned. "What are you ranting about this time," my daughter asked. "Little Mix," I said. "Oh Mum," she sighed. "No one really believes all that ridiculous girl power stuff."
king – that was banned by royal decree. At 5ft 4in (1.63cm) Louis
was less than statuesque and probably used heels to elevate his royal
personage. But high heels weren't just about adding height. They said
something else about the wearer – their very impracticality
proclaimed that here was a person of such wealth and privilege that
he didn't have to labour in the fields, or indeed trouble about
walking too far.
The Sun
King's court at Versailles was a famously paranoid and rancorous
place to be. Its well-heeled nobles were enslaved by the necessity to
compete for the king's favour and dictated to by fashion and
foppishness. High heels may have been a symbol of being close to
power, but the wearers could hardly be said to be personally
empowered.
Heels have
come and gone from fashion in the 300 years since the Sun King's
court. Their association with women caused them to fall out of
fashion with men, who presumably threw them to the back of the
wardrobe with a grateful sigh. At times they have been wildly out of
fashion – it wasn't done in Napoleonic post revolutionary France to
be seen prancing about in high heels. Neither were they a good idea
in 17th century Massachusetts where a women could be tried
as a witch for seducing a man into marriage by wearing them.
But they
came into their own in the 20th century – specifically
the latter half, when in 1954 Christian Dior and shoe designer Roger
Vivier developed a low-cut shoe with a narrow heel called a stiletto,
named after a particularly vicious type of Italian dagger. "Killer
heels" were born.
Back in
the 50s, however, high heels were simply glamorous and sexy fashion
accessories: no one tried to argue that Marilyn Monroe posing above a
subway grating in stiletto-heeled sandals and flying dress was about
girl power.
It took
the power dressing 1980s to make that link, and now that seems to
have extended to sexualised dressing in general. Female power is
about wearing what you want to wear, the argument goes. I would
argue, however, that the lines have become blurred between the
freedom to express our sexuality and sexualisation. One is about the
free will to choose what we wear, the other is about buying into the
illusory power of the dominatrix, which is less about female
empowerment than about a certain type of man trying to work through
some complicated and unresolved childhood issues.
It is
hardly surprising that the lines have become blurred. It is still
relatively recent history where the showing of an ankle could lead to
social ruin. It is no wonder women, whose sexuality was for so long
suppressed – and still is in many parts of the world – revel in
being able to express themselves. Wearing what we like demonstrates
our free will, doesn't it? Yes it does, but it doesn't follow that
the choices we make are always sensible.
I'm not
arguing that women shouldn't wear high heels – but please, let's
give up the pretence that they are anything other than what they are.
Glamorous, yes; sexy, yes; empowering, certainly not.
I worry
about this stuff, because in my house is a child who will all too soon become a young woman. Still, maybe I shouldn't be so concerned. "What
are you ranting about this time," my daughter asked. "Little Mix," I
said. "Oh Mum," she sighed. "No one really believes all that
ridiculous girl power stuff."