These sorts of shoes for girls have been around for a while:
And there are these Barbie-branded pink platforms for preschoolers:
Bratz upped the ridiculous quotient a notch:
Shouldn’t we leave it there? Do we really need to push the bunion-and-hammertoe envelope younger and younger? Isn’t hobbling preschool-ages girls enough? Isn’t teaching girls from toddlerhood that their feet are more decorative than functional already doing the job nicely for the Patriarchy (and Manolo Blahnik)? Do we need more and more ambient images of female people lying on their backs waving their stilettos in the air?
Apparently the answer is no. The femininity-training industry has now brought out these monstrosities: “Heelarious” high heels for pre-crawlers. Sized to fit 0-6 month old infants, these high heels are billed as “extremely funny, completely soft, fully functional high heel crib shoes for babies.”
But please be aware of the manufacturer’s warning:
“Not intended for walking”
Maybe we need that warning on all high heels.
[via Sociological Images]
Similar Posts:
- Interview with the makers of “Heelarious” high heels for babies by Lauredhel
- Baggy vaginas are Out for 2008: stiletto-therapy agenda science by Lauredhel
- Newsflash: Toys Now Indistinguishable From Satire by Lauredhel
- Baby toupees: “i’m Not a Boy!” by Lauredhel
- Frontless shoes: The worst of all worlds by Lauredhel
{ 1 trackback }
{ 11 comments }
I can’t even THINK of a coherent response to this. Mainly because I don’t believe that anyone who would come up with this crap is capable of rational discourse. Maybe if I could get face-to-face with them, I could just vomit on them?
Blegghh. And I’m fresh off a shudder-making visit to http://www.momlogic.com, where the “cover” stories today are “Ask A Prostitute” and “Who’s Sleeping With Your Husband? (the ‘other woman’ speaks out).”
I need a long, hot shower now.
Sad. I worked in child care for several years and had to remind parents that heels were not suitable for toddlers. Period.
Daisys last blog post..Not a dream, but a meam…er, meme
I wonder how many of the people behind this go around claiming that it’s okay becaues women wear heels by “choice”.
I think the main defence of this particular product is “It’s just a joke!” (as in, “Can’t you take a”). I’m not sure at what age it segues smoothly from “joke” to “choice”; I suspect around age two.
Belinda: I just dipped into momlogic: oh my, that place is sooooo not for me. The stories you mention have fallen off the front page, but I’m still staring at “Brangelina’s Baby Battle” (nursery fashion arguments), diet tips, “27 Slutty Prom Dresses”, diet tips, Sex and the City, diet tips, a defence of child pageants… blecch.
Oh… my… God. If I ever have any little girls, this will be one of those things that I have knock-down-drag-out battles over, I can see it now. I just don’t really wear heels – they hurt my feet – any time I wear them is usually carefully chosen to minimise time wearing them.
I hate walking around the street seeing women do that awkward-too-high-heels walk, but even worse is seeing girls stumble along in ill-fitting, clunky heels… blegh.
It’s so frusterating to see people getting so “up in arms” over these funny shoes. It’s NOT intended to be controversial! Most women wear heels because they are fun and IN FASHION! Why not dress your little one up, too. It’s completely soft and totally meant for dress-up, not seriousness. People…PA-LEEEZ!
The creators’ intentions don’t get to dictate other people’s reactions.
I’ll grant you the “in fashion” part, but why do you think that fashion is “fun”? Doesn’t fashion involve an awful lot of work and expense with regard to one’s appearance in return for a lot of anxiety about whether one is “in fashion” enough to get social approval? What’s “fun” about that?
It can be make or break stuff in the social status stakes, and social hierarchies are a crucial part of our species’ interaction, therefore I would never say that fashion is trivial, but “fun”? Bullshit.
I neglected to mention that a distressing portion of female “fashion” involves clothing that restricts motion in one way or another. What’s “fun” about not being able to freely move your body parts as the mood strikes you, because your clothing is too tight or too revealing or too painful if you move in certain ways?
High heels are actively damaging your feet every time you walk in them. Originally only people who never had to walk anywhere (because they had litter-bearers or carriages) wore high heels on their shoes, just so they could show off their status. They never got hammertoes or bunions from them, because they weren’t so foolish as to try and actually spend a day on their feet in them.
Why on earth does anyone think it is “cute” to put pretend crippling devices on a baby daughter’s feet?
Oh, but it’s downright hilarious watching up-in-arms people going red in the face and flailing their arms around trying to defend them.
Taking a poke at high heels = SRS BZNSS.
Soft, comfortable. Just a slipper, really.
But – how many of you moms get their babies’ ears (and what else) pierced? Pain? yep
Infection? possibility
That the shoes are soft and comfortable (so different from actual high heels) is not the point. It’s what high heels signify as a display of sexuality that is the point of objection as applied to babies, yes, even “just as dress-up” – it’s very different even from a princess costume (which has its own gender socialisation problems).
and SRSLY, you’re asking feminist mothers whether we pierced our baby’s ears (aka “oh noes, we must make sure everyone knows she’s a girl even if she’s just in a nappy”)? That must be some seriously good stash that you’re smoking.
Comments on this entry are closed. If you wish to re-open this discussion, please leave a comment on the latest Open Thread.