脫掉高跟鞋！

By Charlotte Allen

First they came for the stilettos1…

Just before Christmas the media were agog with an allegedly brand-new trend： women throwing away their high heels in the wake of the flurry of revelations of entertainment-industry sexual harassment.2 The idea wasnt simply that women can run faster to escape from Hollywood predators if theyre wearing Allbirds Wool Runner sneakers instead of four-inch Jimmy Choos.3 It was that flat-heeled shoes enable women to “reclaim control，”presumably from men in general. “Ditching heels can be a way to show that they value their own well-being over mens desires，” Business Insiders Kate Taylor wrote.

Taylors article， like many a piece of reporting produced in this pre-Yule anti-high-heel frenzy， featured photos aimed at proving that flat shoes can be glamorous， too： Gal Gadot in an evening gown and gold thong sandals（as if Gadot wouldnt look good with her feet wrapped in cleaning rags） and some exceptionally ugly furry and wooden-soled Puma slides said to be favored by Rihanna.4 There was also the obligatory much-mocked photo of that princess of political incorrectness， Melania Trump， her feet clad in black patent-leather five-inch pumps as she boarded Air Force One with her presidential husband this past summer to visit Hurricane Harvey-ravaged Texas （never mind that Melania switched into more practical sneakers before she got off the plane）.5

In a similar vein， New York Times fashion reporter Bonnie Wertheim published a December 16 article， “Are High Heels Headed for a Tumble？，” that included photos of still more politically correct （and certifiably hideous6）“comfort shoes” that are supposed to replace the high heel in this sexism-alert age： Crocs （yes， theyre still around）， Dansko clogs （for just $135 you， too， can look like a medieval peasant）， and Birkenstocks （you have to be Heidi Klum to get away with cork-rimmed hippie sandals that make your Size 10 feet look like Size 15s）.7 Wertheim quoted Northwestern University psychology professor Renée Engeln： “Why do the things we do for ourselves have to hurt？ Why do the shoes we choose for ourselves make us less able to run away if we need to run away？…Why do the things that we do supposedly for ourselves cause us long-term physiological damage？”

And as if that campaign against actual stilettos werent enough， Florie Hutchinson， a self-described arts publicist in Palo Alto， California， has a campaign against stiletto emojis. Incensed not just at the teetering heel height on the virtual shoe that pops up on smartphones but at its “vixen-ish” bright red color， Hutchinson has asked the Unicode Consortium，8 the nonprofit that approves standardized emojis across platforms， to substitute a ballet flat instead. “The high-heeled stiletto is highly suggestive，” she wrote. “[Stilettos are] most often associated with fetishism and seduction” Hutchinson complained to the media that the stiletto emoji promotes a “sexualized” image of women that could negatively influence her three young daughters.

If the point of all of this were solicitude9 for womens comfort， it might make sense. Theres no doubt that wearing ultra-high heels day in and day out for extended periods of time can damage not just your feet but your kneecaps and the muscles in your calves as well.10 A 2012 article in the Journal of Applied Physiology reported that the long-term wearing of even two-inch heels （“kitten”-height） for forty hours a week could lead to muscle fatigue and greater risk of strain injuries11. And thats not to mention the pain of standing in four-inch heels for a couple of hours at that wedding reception. If youre a chef or a surgeon or a scrub nurse12 whos required to spend extended time on your feet， a pair of Danskos is obviously preferable to a pair of Christian Louboutins13. Still， most office jobs for women—the kinds of jobs where a pair of modestly high-heeled pumps might be de rigueur14 for a professional appearance—dont require a huge amount of standing， and there are entire brands of shoes that specialize in dress pumps designed for maximum workday comfort. Contrary to what the photos in the recent anti-high heels media flurry suggest， women dont really have to choose between spikes15 and Crocs when it comes to buying footwear.

The real goal of the war against high heels seems to be to make wearing them—or being required to wear them at workplaces—socially unacceptable. Hence the periodic declarations in the media that high heels have gone out of style （women are “ditching” them！） and Birkenstocks are in. Or the fanciful pronunciamentos from social scientists that wearing running shoes could help you flee the Harvey Weinsteins in your life.16 There has also been a flurry of antihigh heel legislative bills that would ban employers from mandating17 dress codes for their female employees that include even two-inch heels. British Columbia now has such a law， and Ontario is considering one—although the British Parliament recently rejected such an effort.

The most serious obstacle to the anti-high heel campaign—and the reason that high heels keep returning to the fashion and office scene， as they did even during the early 2000s， when it was said that women wearing flats descended the burning towers of 9/11 faster than their sisters in heels—isnt a male patriarchy leering at the hobbled gait of stilettoed females.18 Its women themselves. Studies in journals of evolutionary psychology indicate that members of both sexes simply find women wearing high heels more attractive than women in flats. The heel height not only creates an illusion of longer， slimmer legs but changes her walking style and the tilt of her hips. As a 2015 article in Psychology Today explained， “What these shoes do is make women walk even more like women.”And the women who wear high heels regularly know that， and theyre obviously willing to put up with a certain amount of discomfort to get that effect. Its going to take more than a ballet flat emoji or a breathless article in the New York Times to persuade women to stop wanting to look and feel like women.

剛開始的時候還只是關于細高跟鞋……

就在圣誕節前不久，媒體上突然興起了一個所謂的新趨勢：娛樂行業的性騷擾事件曝光后引起一陣騷動，女性隨之紛紛開始扔掉自己的高跟鞋。這個觀點并不是說從四英寸高跟的名牌鞋換到舒適跟腳的跑步鞋就能更快地從好萊塢的“掠食者”手里逃走，而是說換成平底鞋，能讓女性們從男人手里“奪回控制權”。商業內幕網站的凱特·泰勒就寫道：“扔掉高跟鞋表明了女性們更關心的是她們自己的健康而不是男性的欲望”。

和其他發表在圣誕前夕反高跟熱潮的文章一樣，泰勒的這篇報道同樣附上了能夠證明平底鞋魅力的圖片：有蓋爾·加朵穿著晚禮服和金色人字拖的照片（不過加朵就算腳上裹著抹布也會很好看吧），也有蕾哈娜鐘愛的那種特別丑的毛茸茸的彪馬木底拖鞋。必不可少的還有那位廣受詬病的政治不正確夫人梅拉尼婭·特朗普，穿著五英寸高淺口黑漆皮高跟鞋登上空軍一號，和她的總統丈夫一起在去年夏天訪問受到哈維颶風襲擊的得克薩斯州的照片（盡管梅拉尼婭在下飛機的時候已經換上了更實用的運動鞋）。

類似地，《紐約時報》的時尚專欄作家邦尼·維特海姆在12月16日發表了一篇題為《高跟鞋真的要陷入危機了嗎？》的文章，文中就插入了更加政治正確的（但也非常丑陋的）“舒適的鞋子”的照片，想用它們來在這個性別問題非常敏感的時期代替高跟鞋：比如洞洞鞋（是的，這種鞋依舊存在呢）、鄧肯木鞋（只要135美元你就能看起來和中世紀農民并無兩樣），還有勃肯涼拖（除非你是海蒂·克魯姆，不然這種軟木邊的嬉皮涼鞋會讓你10碼的腳看起來像15碼一樣長）。