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.

刚开始的时候还只是关于细高跟鞋……

就在圣诞节前不久，媒体上突然兴起了一个所谓的新趋势：娱乐行业的性骚扰事件曝光后引起一阵骚动，女性随之纷纷开始扔掉自己的高跟鞋。这个观点并不是说从四英寸高跟的名牌鞋换到舒适跟脚的跑步鞋就能更快地从好莱坞的“掠食者”手里逃走，而是说换成平底鞋，能让女性们从男人手里“夺回控制权”。商业内幕网站的凯特·泰勒就写道：“扔掉高跟鞋表明了女性们更关心的是她们自己的健康而不是男性的欲望”。

和其他发表在圣诞前夕反高跟热潮的文章一样，泰勒的这篇报道同样附上了能够证明平底鞋魅力的图片：有盖尔·加朵穿着晚礼服和金色人字拖的照片（不过加朵就算脚上裹着抹布也会很好看吧），也有蕾哈娜钟爱的那种特别丑的毛茸茸的彪马木底拖鞋。必不可少的还有那位广受诟病的政治不正确夫人梅拉尼娅·特朗普，穿着五英寸高浅口黑漆皮高跟鞋登上空军一号，和她的总统丈夫一起在去年夏天访问受到哈维飓风袭击的得克萨斯州的照片（尽管梅拉尼娅在下飞机的时候已经换上了更实用的运动鞋）。

类似地，《纽约时报》的时尚专栏作家邦尼·维特海姆在12月16日发表了一篇题为《高跟鞋真的要陷入危机了吗？》的文章，文中就插入了更加政治正确的（但也非常丑陋的）“舒适的鞋子”的照片，想用它们来在这个性别问题非常敏感的时期代替高跟鞋：比如洞洞鞋（是的，这种鞋依旧存在呢）、邓肯木鞋（只要135美元你就能看起来和中世纪农民并无两样），还有勃肯凉拖（除非你是海蒂·克鲁姆，不然这种软木边的嬉皮凉鞋会让你10码的脚看起来像15码一样长）。