It is obligatory for all women to wear high heels
Back in May 2015 I wrote this post about the Cannes film festival’s banning women from film screenings if they were not wearing high heels.
Annals of Gender Policing. Anna Merlan at Jezebel reports:
The Cannes Film Festival is reportedly not allowing women into screenings if they’re wearing flat shoes.
Into screenings. It would be bad enough if it were the Top Gala Codfish Ball, but it’s screenings. People go to screenings as part of their work, as well as for entertainment and enlightenment. The Cannes Film Festival is a professional event as well as social and festive and so on.
And then there’s the issue of what high heels are, which is a form of temporary and comparatively mild foot-binding. The bones aren’t actually broken as they are in footbinding (although high heels can easily cause broken bones in the feet and anywhere else, because they’re highly unstable – that’s the whole point of them), but they are pinched and bent.
A few days ago I saw a pair of woman-man couples cross the street on their way to a wedding in a local park. The street there is pocked and lumpy, as city streets so often are. Both women looked all but disabled by the task – their posture was hunched and distorted as they picked each step carefully in their towering heels. The men of course were just walking in a normal confident manner. It creeps me out that this is just normal. I think most people consider foot-binding (if they’re aware of it) grotesque and deeply misogynist, yet high heels are a close relative of foot-binding but they’re seen as normal…and in Cannes, actively mandated.
Flatgate erupted on Twitter this week after several women were apparently turned away from a red carpet screening of Cate Blanchett’s new movie Carol because they were in the demon flats. According to Screen Daily, the screening was on a Sunday night and the women weren’t exactly wearing Keds:
Multiple guests, some older with medical conditions, were denied access to the anticipated world-premiere screening for wearing rhinestone flats.
The festival declined to comment on the matter, but did confirm that it is obligatory for all women to wear high-heels to red-carpet screenings.
Obligatory. That’s fucked up.
Today the BBC reports:
The issue of high heels at Cannes has been a spiky one in recent years.
Now it seems Kristen Stewart, a member of this year’s jury at the film festival, has flouted the ban on flat shoes – by instead going barefoot on the red carpet.
The Twilight actress wore black Louboutin heels as she arrived at the BlacKkKlansman premiere.
But before entering the screening of the Spike Lee film, she slipped off her shoes to walk up the stairs.
She was apparently not sanctioned for taking off her heels.
Last year, Stewart – who’s been known to wear trainers with dresses on the red carpet – spoke about the event’s fashion rules.
“There’s definitely a distinct dress code, right?” she told the Hollywood Reporter. “People get very upset if you don’t wear heels or whatever.
“I feel like you can’t ask people that any more – it’s a given. If you’re not asking guys to wear heels and a dress, you cannot ask me either.”
Forcing women to wear heels is forcing them to be slowed down, off balance, easy to push over, weakened, hobbled. It’s forcing them to be at a huge physical disadvantage compared to men. Given what we’ve been learning about the ways of the film industry, maybe that’s not such a good idea, huh?
Must they wear them on their feet? Shoes are surely too heavy to work as ear rings but perhaps at each end of a sash worn over one shoulder?
NinetyEight – they could be worked into some sort of hat thing.
Not to mention that the whole high heels thing is largely for sexual gratification because of the slimming and tapering effect on the leg and slight postural change that emphasises the buttocks and breasts.
I know this didn’t take place at Cannes, so it’s not hypocrisy strictly speaking, but I remember Kevin Smith showing up for movie premieres in a hockey jersey, cargo shorts, and sneakers, and similarly slovenly attire from Kevin James and Adam Sandler, while posing with the fully dolled-up female stars of their respective films.
Rob at #3:
But does the wearing of this gear come as a command from men? If it does, then nothing could be more calculated to start a womens’ revolt. If the mass of the women attendees felt victimised, belittled, downtrodden or upheeled by the whole business, it would be a lay down misere as to what would happen next. Pairs of overalls; boiler suits?
I think the impetus for these dress-up events comes from the women, who want to engage in a costume contest.
Of course you cannot impose rules without somehow policing them. Watch out for the appearance of the footwear inspectors, with their measuring gear to check that the heels are all at or above minimum height, and fit other specs. Getting the women to walk across a low grid to show that their stilettos are not above maximum diameter would be an obvious place to start.
It interests me that the males of the species gravitate to standard dress, with perhaps touches to show the expense gone to. So at those formal events it is penguin suits all round. Be inconspicuous but expensive is the name of the game. Meanwhile, the women go the other way: each trying to be the most brilliant standout at the event; in both couture and coiffure.
NB: I speak only from watching TV coverage. My direct experience of such events is nil.
I don’t think women are in charge of the Cannes film festival.
OB: Regardless of that, do the female attendees take orders, instructions or whatever from the male attendees or bosses as to what they are to wear, or should, wear? To that or any other event?
Omar, even if it did, so what? It’s a known thing that some women support attitudes, beliefs and practices that are counter to the view of women as free agents able to make their own decisions and expecting to be treated with respect and equality. The reasons they do so are manifold, but the nature of the decisions is not ‘for the benefit of women’.
I agree 100% that women shouldn’t have to wear high heels or any other uncomfortable attire.
But this is a bit ridiculous:
High heels can easily cause broken bones in the feet and elsewhere? Come on. Insane hyperbole is causing my orbital sockets to break. I’m sure people have slipped and broken bones, but this is rare (I am not personally aware of this happening to anyone I know — slips, sure, but not with bones breaking).
And the whole point of high heels is for women to be highly unstable (and perhaps break their bones)? Not only is that not the whole point, but that is not any part of the point.
Omar, your diagnosis that “the males of the species gravitate toward uniform dress” is only a post-Industrial Revolution thing, and really only in the “Western” world, at that. For centuries before the factories, men in Europe and its colonies had much more varied dress, especially in the upper classes. You had high heels, codpieces, wigs, and powdered makeup.
The reasons for the shift are complicated, but they have a lot to do with the separate spheres mindset that began to dominate European thought during the IR, and they have especially to do with the growing idea that women were not in themselves sexual beings with innate sexual desires. Women’s fashion became an expression of women’s creativity, sure, but that creativity was understood to be in service to attracting men’s attention. Since men were the sexual agents and women were not, men’s fashion lost its incentive to be visually or sexually appealing. Men’s virility was (and is) judged by the attractiveness of the female ornament they managed to snag, since the only other sexual agents (and hence those with the ability and incentive to judge) were other men. There are also undercurrents of homophobia in this view, as men dressing attractively-slash-provocatively could only be for the purpose of attracting sexual attention, all of which was necessarily male in nature.
So yes, while many men roll their eyes at women’s fashion and it can seem on the surface to be a game entirely for and by women, that is a shallow and facile analysis. I know you’re capable of doing better than that, Omar.
Omar @ 7 – yes. Did you not read the link in the post? The festival wouldn’t allow women in if they were wearing flat shoes.
Skeletor – what are you finding so hard to believe? What makes you so certain that it’s terribly rare for high heels to cause falls that result in broken bones? Just as a matter of engineering, of course they do. Falls are common with or without high heels, so why would they be rare with high heels?
Maybe you’re just not aware of how common injuries and death from falls are. You should look it up.
Here’s a fun fact: after the towers fell on September 11 2001 the streets around them were full of women’s high heels, because the women had taken them off in order to be able to run away.
And, ya know, if you’re going to express incredulity based on nothing, maybe do so without calling me insane.
Here you go:
Fall fatalities are nearly equally divided between men and women. However, more women will experience a slip-and-fall accident. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, falls accounted for 5% of the job-related fatalities for women compared to 11% for men.
Falls account for over 8 million hospital emergency room visits, representing the leading cause of visits (21.3%). Slips and falls account for over 1 million visits, or 12% of total falls.
Fractures are the most serious consequences of falls and occur in 5% of all people who fall.
Slips and falls do not constitute a primary cause of fatal occupational injuries, but represent the primary cause of lost days from work.
Slips and falls are the leading cause of workers’ compensation claims and are the leading cause of occupational injury for people aged 55 years and older.
According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), floors and flooring materials contribute directly to more than 2 million fall injuries each year.
Half of all accidental deaths in the home are caused by a fall. Most fall injuries in the home happen at ground level, not from an elevation.
Skeletor again – how do you know making women unstable is no part of the point of high heels? If that’s true, then it becomes puzzling that high heels are in fact so very unstabilizing. What is the point of them, do you think? That they’re sexy or pretty or both? But what is it about them that’s pretty and why is it seen as pretty only on women? Why don’t we want to see men in suits or jeans and stilettos? Why do high heels keep getting more extreme – higher and thinner?
Actually, my advice to any woman put out by all this would be to tell the organisers publicly to all go and get stuffed, and that she couldn’t be bothered with their rules, and would be waiting till it was broadcast on TV, or came on DVD to her favourite video store.
And that it probably wasn’t much of a movie anyway.
Better to get a Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall movie out and watch that instead. From some video joint in downtown Cannes.
;-)
Omar @ 15, I’m sure there are people who would be only too delighted if women removed themselves from public life, unless they were prepared to conform to an arbitrary and discriminatory set of rules. But then, hasn’t the history of feminism been about pushing back on exactly that sort of attitude and practice? Why would women choose to do the work of regressives for them? What is in it for women to self exclude from the fun, the novel, the social aspects of life? Why should they be excluded from watching a goddam fucking movie because of the height of their heels?
Next you’ll be arguing that a women should stay home and rent a movie because going out runs a risk of sexual assault.
I’ll just leave this here…
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4735171/
And this
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1067251615001222
Rob:
Oh for Christ’s sake.
So what is it to be?
a. Women CHOOSING FOR THEMSELVES to wear high heels because they make themselves (at least in their own minds) more alluring to men?
b. WOMEN BEING FORCED BY OTHER WOMEN (MOTHERS, PEERS) TO CONFORM to some fashion in fashion?
c. WOMEN BEING FORCED BY MEN to wear high heels because they make themselves (at least in the MEN’S MINDS) more alluring?
d. Something else, though I can’t think what. The law perhaps? Certainly true in downtown Riyadh, where the diametric opposite applies: women have to walk around in uniform of black tents. Little choice or variety for them there. But not in my experience in the Western World. (Cue whataboutery.)
Or perhaps a blend of a, b, c and d?
Apparently, the organisers of the Cannes event are in a position to insist of certain dress rules for those who want to attend. Not much anyone who wants to attend can do about it; not unless they want to open a legal can of worms.
I’m sure there are too. Misogynists (ie women haters) and sexists are fairly frequent in some quarters and walks of life. Mohammad appears to have been one. But outside of the Islamic World, they don’t have much power: at least, not as much as you appear to think they have.
Omar, Oh for Christ’s sake yourself.
Firstly, distinguish between Woman (singular) and Women (plural). I don’t much care if an individual woman chooses to wear high heels from time to time (my partner does for ‘special’, but the rest of the time she’s in practical flats). Personally, I think heels are daft no matter how sexy they may make a woman look. Where it crosses a line is when women are proscribed from taking part in public life because of an arbitrary rule determined on a sexist basis.
As to your ‘So what’s it to be?’ Clarify. I haven’t posited anything that requires choosing between your options. I haven’t said that it is beyond the legal right of the Cannes organisers to dictate that women wear.
What I, and others, have said is that the organisers should not be making such a rule that restricts all women attending from wearing anything other than heels. For us to do so is a political and social value judgement, not merely a commentary on whether a black and white legal right exists. Is it really necessary to remind you that rights for women, non-whites, the mentally challenged, patients, consumers and just about any sub-set of people you can name have been improved precisely because of social activism based around such a political and social judgement?
In short, cans of legal worms have been repeatedly opened to good effect. If the organisers were merely worried about people projecting a glamorous image appropriate to evening dress, a suitable dress code could be defined that did not specify high-heel shoes. If they can’t figure out how to do that then I don’t see why they shouldn’t be ‘assisted’ into it.
PS, as far as the power of sexists, misogynists and sexual assaulter’s to ruin a woman’s night out, I think you might be the one underestimating their power. Maybe, just maybe, that’s your male privilege showing.
Next from Omar: Gilead is not a patriarchy, it’s all women’s fault, because the Wives and Aunts order the Handmaids around.
Dude, what do you think happens to actresses who refuse to participate in this stuff? It’s actual, documented fact that Mira Sorvino had her career ruined by Harvey Weinstein for refusing his advances: Weinstein branded her as “difficult to work with,” and other men in the business didn’t ask a lot of questions, like Peter Jackson, who ended up not casting her in his highly lucrative Lord of the Rings films based on this smear to her reputation.
And that’s just the harm to future projects. Actors are usually contractually obligated to do certain post-filming publicity (attend festivals and premiers, go on late night talk shows) to promote a film. An actress who refused to walk the red carpet because she wouldn’t wear heels could find herself being denied compensation on the grounds that she’s in breach of contract.
But hey, according to you it’s easy. I bet you agree with Kanye that those slaves should have just stopped picking cotton and it all would have been over.
Omar, it’s actually a,b,c,d, and the rest of the whole damned alphabet.
A – “I’d Best wear some sexy heels to this thing, gotta look my best”
B – “I’d best wear some heels to this thing, gotta avoid having the Twitter fashion police tear me apart”
C – “I’d best wear some bloody heels to this thing, otherwise I might not even be allowed in”
D – “I’d best wear some heels to this thing, or I’ll have spend all evening talking about my shoes”
E – “I’d best best wear some heels to this thing because god dammit, why is so fucking difficult to find pretty shoes that are not crippling to walk in?”
Etc.
Rob:
So you are saying that the organisers of the Cannes event have a right to set a dress code, for both men and women. ( I presume that it is a private event, otherwise half the world, from teenyboppers to ninety somethings, lamenting that they never even made it to the casting couch, would be wanting in.) It is, after all, a right of organisers of such private events to prescribe dress.
Except you say that in your opinion, they should not exercise that right. And Screechy and Catwhisperer add that it’s bad for womens’ movie careers not to abide by the Cannes dress code.
Well from that it would seem that movie stars when in the public eye but at a private event have to abide by the organisers’ requirements or else stay away. I would not have a clue who makes that code, and whether or not they are male, female or whatever. And I could not agree more. I imagine life gets pretty hard when you become a movie star. But people in most walks of life have dress and other codes to abide by while at work: teachers, lawyers, police, fire brigaders, shop assistants, civil servants… you name it.
Even politicians.
I was NINJA’D by Screechy. There’s a web of reasons why women might have no practical choice but to attend a screening and therefore wear high heels.
We know that actresses are subject to discrimination in the film industry. They get paid less. They are expected to endure sexual assault and not to talk about it. They are expected to look glamorous in absolutely every setting, whether in public or not. Their careers can be damaged if they don’t comply.
If they make a fuss about wearing high heels at a screening, there’s every reason to expect opportunities for work to suddenly become very thin on the ground.
I think the hypothesis that instability is at least partly the point of high heels is very plausible, even if shoe designers aren’t specifically twirling their moustaches about it. I doubt they’re saying “yeah, that’s a nice design, but can you make it 9% less stable?” It seems to me very likely that part of the (perhaps unconscious) appeal of high heels to men is that it puts women wearing them at a disadvantage. The number of times I’ve seen women in high heels at weddings clutching onto their partner’s arm because they’re tottering around in those stupid shoes…. Mrs Latsot stopped wearing high heels years ago for exactly that reason.
Omar@22
Since nobody has said the Cannes festival has no right to set dress codes, what are you talking about? People are saying high heels are not a reasonable dress code, not that dress codes shouldn’t exist at all.
Omar, PD has provided the long, polite, version of my answer.
PD: As far as I am aware, they are within their rights to set whatever dress code they like. As Harry Truman once remarked: “if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.”
And I never said that Hollywood was fair, or just, or not a lopsided power structure.
Those annoyed by it could copy the bus boycotters of Birmingham Alabama (?), who started the final collapse of Jim Crow.
Omar:
Again, nobody said they’re not within their rights, so what are you talking about?
And Kristen Stewart kind of did an equivalent of that boycott by taking off her heels. But I don’t what the problem is with also demanding an organisation change its unreasonable rules, since that happens all the time.
@Omar:
But that doesn’t mean they should or that people – even those not directly affected by it – shouldn’t complain about it.
They could but why should they have to? Especially since all anyone is asking for in this case is a tiny change in a dress code. The consequences to women in general and those actresses in particular are much greater (in a positive direction) than any imagined or real negative consequences for the organisers. In fact, if they were to allow flat shoes, the publicity would likely be mostly positive.
I really don’t think I understand your objections, Omar. We’re saying that it’s wrong for a powerful organisation to force women to wear high heels or risk their career. High heels are by design different from most other fashion items because they are uncomfortable-to-painful, hard to walk in and – I’d argue – deliberately degrading. So while dress codes are one thing (not something I agree with either, but that’s a different argument) and harmful dress codes are quite another. Here we have many elements in the film industry conspiring to force actresses to wear something that’s harmful. That could be stopped with one tiny change to a dress code, which would send a wider message about the treatment of women.
It would hardly be the biggest problem facing women in the film industry and is likely symptomatic rather than causal, but it’s a no-brainer
Asking for information, as I’ve neither the experience nor the research to already know:
Are wider diameter high heels considerably easier to wear and walk in than stiletto heels? I would guess so, but that’s just a guess, and if so, it may bear on the fashion pressures that apply. (They may, for all I can be sure of, make up for greater stability with obnoxious weight poorly distributed.) If they are much more stable (and thus leave women much less vulnerable), and have the same effects on stereotypical female attractiveness (swaying hips, pronounced buttocks, height, etc.), but are markedly less fashionably acceptable, then we’d have evidence that vulnerability is a part of the reason for the high heeled fashion. (There would still be the questions open about the forces and thinking if any behind that fashion.)
Maybe the ladies should all wear burkas. Then they could also wear whatever footwear they like.
@ Jeff Engel:
I’ve worn just enough high heels to know that they should be classed as instruments of torture so I suppose I can field that one. A wide heel gives greater side-to-side stability, so you are far less likely to go over on your ankle with what they call a “block heel” than with a stiletto. As it’s more stable it means you can put a little bit more weight on your heels than you would with a pointy heel. This in turn helps with any slight loss of balance that shifts your weight backwards because you can catch your weight with your heels. The fact that your centre of gravity is being pitched forward can’t be helped by any design changes besides, you know, just having flat heels, so off balance is what you will be at all times.
Also, you will be in pain pretty soon as most of your weight is on the balls of your feet and we’re just not evolved to walk like that. So the short answer is yes, they are considerably easier to walk in, but about equally painful in the long run. Which is why you don’t run in them, haha (sorry).
@chigau:
To be on the safe side, they should wear burkas and stay at home.
If they don’t like it, they can always risk their careers and everything they’ve worked for so far and the iniquities they’ve already put up with to get where they are.
Because the main thing is that a powerful organisation gets to do whatever it likes within the letter of the law regardless of how it hurts women along the way.
I mean, when you think about it, what do these women even have to complain about?
Just how many costume regulations does Cannes enforce? Does any document exists which might list them? Is rule enforcement linked to the money status of the ruled? Does Kevin Smith have to wear a tux when he doesn’t have a film to show?
This could be a perfect demonstration opportunity:
Men could show up in spike heels–if they could find them.
A substantial body of women could take their shoes off to climb the stairs, and leave them off.
Women could ‘wear’ high heels around their necks, as hats a la ‘Brazil.’
Protesters could throw shoes at the organizers and staff.
High heels on the shoulders could make for exotic epaulettes.
Not only are high heels problematic for all the reasons expounded upon here but they are also by definition discriminatory (in an ableist sense) because (as the article notes), many women physically cannot wear heels. I injured my foot last year and still cannot tolerate anything more than an inch or so of heel, and even then, only in a wedge or very chunky block heel. It’s not just painful, I literally cannot stand let alone walk.
If the dress code insisted women wear tightly laced corsets that shrank their waists below a regulation circumference, despite the damage those garments cause to internal organs, people would be appalled. High heels are no different.
Instead of asking why the women who attended didn’t rebel en masse, why aren’t journalists asking why the Cannes organizers were singling out one group of attendees with their dress codes. There’s no need for there to be different rules for men and women at these events. Dress should be smart-formal, no sneakers or sportswear or denim. That’s not hard is it?
High heels are protective gear like hard hats, workboots and safety goggles, but unlike construction clothing, they’re not meant to protect the people wearing them.They are required to protect the glamourous illusion of ideal feminine beauty upon which so much of the entertainment industry, and the rest of society, is built. The unattainability of this ideal keeps it an ideal. Flat shoes brings it down to earth, makes it that much more attainable.This ideal is a standard by which all merely mortal women may be judged and found wanting, a yardstick with which all can be beaten. That some women have internalized at least some of this is hardly surprising, so the apportioning of blame for its continuance in the heel requirement misses the point. Are any men attending these events judged as consistantly and harshly as all of the women? I’ll bet the dress code for men does not mandate a particular heel height. I’ll bet women wearing clothing that would be deemed perfectly acceptable, if worn by men, would not be allowed in. I wonder why that is? Why this difference based on sex? How long would Cannes have been able to maintain a dress code that was predicated on race, with black attendees, but not white, required to wear clothing that was limiting, uncomfortable and potentially dangerous?
^ Brilliant.
Anyway…
Omar @ 5, 7, 15, 18, 22, 26 – a few days ago I defended you against the accusation of being a troll. but god damn, those comments look like trolling. I don’t even know what your point was supposed to be other than “what’s all this fuss about?!” It still seems to me that if you had actually read the linked post you wouldn’t have to ask.
Yes, I’m arguing that dress codes shouldn’t put special burdens on one sex and not the other, any more than they should put special burdens on one race and not others. Yes I understand that private organizations may have a legal right to do that, but I think they shouldn’t. Yes I understand that women can stay away but I’m arguing that they shouldn’t have to, for the reasons Screechy explained @ 20.
Also…the last sentence of your last comment – “Those annoyed by it could copy the bus boycotters of Birmingham Alabama (?), who started the final collapse of Jim Crow.” – THAT’S WHAT THE POST IS ABOUT. Kristen Stewart is protesting the high heels rule by not wearing them.
I want to know what your stake is in this, Omar. Why are you so emotionally invested in making sure other people don’t see this as a problem? Because you sure are invested in that. Really deeply. How come?
It’s a trend of argumentation that is as old as time, but is seeing something of a revivification among the skeptic set these days—objecting to objections, as though private objections are not discursive or in fact a vital part of a free and open society. Not everything needs to be revolutionary activism in order to be considered protest; the very point of free speech, in fact, is to bring protest to the level of discussion rather than the level of insurrection. If we cannot attempt to affect social change through these kinds of conversations, as Sam Harris used to be fond of saying, all we have left at our disposal is violence.
Of course, Harris and the more ardent of his fans seem to only want free speech for me but not for thee, and they’re treating any criticisms of their brave stances much the way Omar is acting here. It’s pathetic, as pathetic as an old man shaking his fist at young people’s music. We’re allowed to discuss things, Omar, and we’re allowed to draw inferences and ideate about alternative premises. We’re allowed to express our discontent with the status quo without wanting to simply burn everything down.
Get a fucking grip.