These days you see heels everywhere, specifically stilettos. Not only are they a trend in today's fashion, but they also symbolized women leaving inferior jobs and gaining status and power. For women to be wearing these heels on a day to day basis, they made it look a lot easier than it actually is. It takes balance and confidence to be able to rock a pair of heels, let alone stilettos. Even through the pain, women manage to wear these heels, not only for power but sex appeal, status, and luxury. In the past it was known that women bound their feet in order to transform their bones to show they were of higher class than the other women.
In your opinion, is there a difference between the foot-binding and the trend in stiletto heels?
5 comments:
I think there is a difference. Stilettos aren't really meant to change the foot's shape as much as foot binding was, so it's more of a temporary thing. Girls have been known to take their heels off when they want to dance/run from dinosaurs, so heels don't really restrict their motions and abilities as much as foot binding did. Also, I thought foot binding was done by parents to their kids, which would make it different from high heels which are usually self inflicted.
Yes, I do believe there is a huge difference in the physical nature of high heels v. footbinding. Yes, both are physically harmful practices done for aesthetic appeal, but the effects of footbinding were far more permanent than any minor damages suffered by women who wear high heels. Footbinding was also expected of women (they would never be able to marry, a woman's only possible aspiration at that time in China, without bound feet), whereas in today's society I think high heels are not expected, only perhaps glorified. Feet that had been bound were reduced to a mere 7 cm, with the woman's toes curled all around underneath the sole of foot (a process that required young girls to walk on their feet until all the bones broke). Feet were considered one of the most sensual parts of the body at that time in China, and thus bound feet were sort of an expected, erotic conformity. Women nowadays can still get jobs, find husbands, and succeed in sneakers or dress flats.
That being said, the parallel you draw between the two practices as perhaps a double standard that places an onus upon woman is quite valid. Nevertheless, wearing heels is a woman's choice, and thus I agree with Brian's point about heels being self-inflicted. Furthermore, you could theoretically extend your comparison to neck-coiling, braces, and any other mechanism of beauty commonly accepted in different societies. Arguments for and against these practices probably exist, but in the end, high heels are an individual's choice to wear if he or she chooses to wear them.
I agree with Brian and Sabrina there is a huge difference in high heels vs. footbinding. Footbinding was the custom of binding the feet of young girls painfully tight to prevent further growth. Women wear heels for a more sex appeal or business like look. But usually when your going to a job you wouldn't wear stelletos you would wear business heels that are about one inch. So i believe that no footbinding and heels have no similarities.
I agree that there is not really a similarity between stilettos and feet-binding. Stilettos is not really a custom, whereas, like Sabrina said, in China, women of higher class (usually) had their feet bound to set them apart from other classes, as well as preventing them from having to do tasks such as farming because it was more "difficult". In today's society, women have more opportunities than before. Not all women wear stilettos because they are free to choose not to, not because of customs or traditions.
I think you make an insightful (albeit somewhat flawed) comparison between stiletto heels and the ancient practice of foot-binding. As the previous commentators have stated, foot-binding has been proven to physically morph the foot in notable and drastic ways, whereas stiletto heels--although not as comfortable as, say, sneakers--are not actually proven to impose such physical consequences. However, I do find it interesting that you imply the same social consequences for both practices--an assertion of feminine power and an elevation of social as well as sexual rank. In addition, in both cases, the widespread promotion of such practices have led them to become a sort of "beauty trend"--pressuring women all over to succumb to the social norm. However, I do think there is a subtle difference in the social assertion of these two practices; while foot-binding emphasized the dainty femininity of women and portrayed them as gentle, well-bred creatures, stiletto heels almost label a sense of masculinity on women, giving them not only a physical sense of height but also a heightened sense of power and status.
Post a Comment