What's in a pair of high heels? Pain, discomfort, and suffering. Plenty of that, we know. And now, it's become the symbol of choice for the Filipina's protest against male dominance.
And so, during Women's Month, we suddenly see a parade of men wearing high heels, meant to deliver the message that men should empathize with women and their issues and their burdens. Men should get to feel how women feel, what they have to put up with, blah blah blah. And what better way to take that adage literally than by making them slip on a pair of stilettos?
Admittedly, it's quite a catchy idea. Men tottering on their heels (cute men, preferably celebrities, even better) make an arresting and comic sight, to be sure. And doesn't that bring home the message super effectively?
But having said that, am not quite sure stilettos should typify the plight of women. Bras might be a better suggestion. But Blahniks and Choos? I have reservations.
For one thing, wearing high heels is a choice most women do not make. I know a lot of women who eschew those painful, uncomfortable and injury-causing heels for comfy pumps or ballet slippers. They all know what high heels can do. I mean, how many times have we heard women complain they can't walk a step further, and how they refuse to budge, and how they are ditching everyone else and going home because their feet are literally killing them?
And did we force these women to wear high heels? Nope. These pains and aches were all self-inflicted, all because they were trying to run after some dumb ideal of women's beauty foisted on them by luxury brands and their own glossy magazines (published by women, written by women, and edited by women). No party invitation goes "high heels only", the way some invitations will prescribe a dress code and mandate "black tie only" or "evening gowns."
Instead, those women made a choice: sexy over plain. Height over balance. Pain over comfort. And it was their choice. Not men (unless we are talking about a specific substrata of men who get turned on by heels who probably comprise a hundredth percent of a percent).
So when women do fall for that lure of glamour and sexiness that high heels promise, it's not the fault of the men. It's not an environment made by men. It's not an oppressive working condition that men have stuffed them in. It's a stupid and masochistic choice made by women.
You see the issue I have with equating women's issues, at the way they are oppressed by men or the way glass ceilings are imposed on them or how little power they have relative to men, with high heels?
That's why I say perhaps it's better if women choose the bra or some other confining garment rather than heels. In the 60's or 70's, or some decade way before I was born (ahem), feminists chose to burn the bra to symbolize women's liberation. It was a way to tell society: I, the glorious woman that I am, don't need this restrictive piece of cloth that convention dictates I must wear for me to be accepted in society.
Heels, on the other hand, aren't forced on women by men, or even society in general. It's the own fault of the women if their blisters pop up or their muscles cramp. So why make men feel the way it is to wear heels?
Yes, men still dominate the corridors of power. Men steer the course of society and business and government. Men have an inordinate amount of decision making power. And that inequality must be addressed.
But to bring home the message to them via heels may not be the best idea. It might backfire, because the fact that the woman couldn't keep up with the man to go to the next meeting or to tackle the next corporate emergency or to stride down those very corridors of power wasn't because the woman was held back by the man: it was because the woman chose the wrong pair of shoes.