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(jié)前不久，媒體上突然興起了一個所謂的新趨勢：娛樂行業(yè)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(yè)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(fā)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(tǒng)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(fā)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）。維特海姆還引用了西北大學心理學教授雷內·恩格爾恩的話說：“為什么我們要做傷害自己的事情？為什么我們穿的鞋在我們需要逃跑的時候反而更不方便逃跑？為什么我們做的本該為己的事反而會對自己產生長期的生理損傷？”

就好像反對細高跟鞋的運動做得還不夠到位似的，來自加利福尼亞州帕羅奧圖市的弗洛里·哈金森還發(fā)起了反對高跟鞋表情符號的運動。哈金森自稱為藝術公關，她不僅被從手機彈出的虛擬鞋那搖搖欲墜的高跟所激怒，更是痛恨高跟鞋表情用的那種潑辣的大紅色，她要求統(tǒng)一碼聯(lián)盟（一個批準各個平臺標準化表情符號的非營利性機構）用一個平底的芭蕾舞鞋表情去替換掉高跟鞋表情。“高跟鞋的表情有著很強的暗示性，”她寫道，“高跟鞋往往和戀物癖還有誘惑有關。”哈金森向媒體抱怨說高跟鞋表情推崇的是一種女性被“色情化”的形象，這對她三歲大的女兒會有很不好的影響。

如果這一切都只是出于對女性舒適與否的關心，那情有可原。毫無疑問，經常性地整天穿著恨天高不僅會對腳造成傷害，膝蓋骨和小腿肚的肌肉也會受到影響。2012年發(fā)表在《應用生理學雜志》的一篇文章就指出，哪怕穿著只有兩英寸高的高跟鞋（小貓跟），一周穿40個小時，也會引起肌肉疲勞并增加肌肉拉傷的風險。更別提在婚宴上穿著四英寸高的高跟鞋站好幾個小時的那種痛苦。如果你是一個像廚師、外科醫(yī)生或者助理護士那種需要長時間站立工作的人，很明顯，相比于名牌高跟鞋，平底鞋是一個更好的選擇。不過，大部分女性從事的辦公室工作——就是那種由于社交禮儀，穿適當高度的高跟鞋會顯得更職業(yè)的工作—— 一般不會要求長時間的站立，并且還有很多鞋的品牌會為了最大限度的舒適工作體驗而專門設計職業(yè)高跟鞋。與最近的反高跟風波報道中的照片所顯示的觀點相反，女性在買鞋時并不是只有高跟鞋和洞洞鞋這兩種選擇。

這場反高跟戰(zhàn)役的真正目標似乎是要讓穿高跟鞋——或者說被要求在工作場合穿高跟鞋——不被社會廣泛接受。因而才有了媒體時不時地聲稱高跟鞋已經過時（女性們已經在“拋棄”高跟鞋了?。┒闲攀浅绷鬟@樣的言論，或者是那些社會學家說的穿上跑鞋才能擺脫你生命中的哈維·韋恩斯坦這樣的華麗宣言。甚至有陣子還出現(xiàn)了反對高跟鞋的立法草案，禁止用人單位在著裝規(guī)定里要求女性員工穿哪怕是兩英寸的高跟鞋。加拿大不列顛哥倫比亞省現(xiàn)在就有了這樣的法律規(guī)定，而安大略省也在考慮制定一條這樣的法律——不過英國國會最近否決了這一做法。

反高跟鞋行動最重要的障礙——以及高跟鞋一直在重回時尚圈和辦公室的原因，哪怕在21世紀早期的時候人們說穿著平底鞋的女性比穿著高跟鞋的女性在逃離911火災現(xiàn)場時下樓更快——并不在于父權社會下男性喜歡偷瞄穿著高跟鞋女性蹣跚的身影。相反，其實是在于女性自己。進化心理學相關雜志里的研究表明，不管是男性還是女性都認為穿高跟鞋的女性比穿平底鞋的女性更吸引人。鞋跟的高度不僅會造成腿更細更長的錯覺，也改變了女性走路的方式和臀部的翹度。正如《今日心理學》在2015年發(fā)表的一篇文章所說：“這些鞋子讓女性走起路來更像女性”。而那些經常穿高跟鞋的女性也注意到了這一點，因此她們更愿意為了達到這樣的效果而犧牲一點舒適感。說服女性不再想看上去更女人或是感覺自己更女人，恐怕替換一個芭蕾舞鞋表情或者在《紐約時報》寫一版長篇累牘的文章是遠遠不夠的。

1. stiletto： // 細跟高跟鞋。

2. agog： 興奮期待的，急于了解的；flurry：騷動，不安。

3. Allbirds： 美國知名運動鞋品牌，Wool Runner sneaker指其系帶運動鞋款；Jimmy Choos：吉米·周，是著名高跟鞋品牌。

4. pre-Yule： 圣誕節(jié)之前；Gal Gadot：蓋爾·加朵，以色列女演員、模特，在《速度與激情4》中出演了角色Gisele；thong： 人字拖鞋；sole：鞋底；Rihanna： 蕾哈娜，美國女歌手，曾多次獲得格萊美獎。

5. obligatory： 義務的；patent-leather：漆皮的；pump： 淺口高跟鞋。

6. hideous： 可怕的，丑陋的。

7. Crocs： 著名鞋類品牌，以洞洞鞋著稱；Dansko： 鄧肯，著名鞋類品牌；clog： 木底鞋；Birkenstocks： 勃肯鞋，知名鞋類品牌，以雙條拖鞋著稱；Heidi Klum： 海蒂·克魯姆，德國模特、演員；cork-rimmed： 軟木邊的。

8. incensed at： 被……激怒；vixenish：潑辣的，兇悍的；consortium： 聯(lián)盟，聯(lián)合企業(yè)。

9. solicitude： 關懷，牽掛。

10. day in and day out： 夜以繼日地；calf（復數calves）： 小腿肚。

11. strain injury： 肌肉拉傷。

12. scrub nurse： 助理護士。

13. Christian Louboutins： 著名高跟鞋品牌，以紅色鞋底為特色。

14. de rigueur： 法語，指禮節(jié)需要的。

15. spike： 本意為長釘，可用來指代高跟鞋。

16. pronunciamentos： 西班牙語，指宣言，聲明；Harvey Weinstein：哈維·韋恩斯坦，美國電影制作人，2017年年底爆出大規(guī)模性騷擾丑聞。

17. mandate： 規(guī)定，頒布。

18. patriarchy： 父權社會；leer at： 色瞇瞇地打量；hobbled： 蹣跚的；gait： 步伐。