High heels

Today I write about a topic that has left me feeling alienated and inadequate since I scuffed my way through adolescence in a pair of fake (flat) Kickers.

As an issue of inequality goes, high heels is pretty trivial, but it affects the ways in which many of us wealthy, privileged women comport ourselves.

I have a lot of admiration for a woman who can walk well in heels: a beautiful, poised and elegant creature, she is sophisticated and in control.

Then there are the other ones, who sway gently in the breeze, lurch about and cling onto their boyfriend's jacket in a desperate attempt to stay upright.

I don't know how you acquire this skill, whether it just comes naturally or takes hours of tottering about at home before you can pull it off. I never even tried. I know which camp I'd fall into.

High heels and femininity

High heels are a powerful symbol of femininity. They change the way the entire body moves, pushing bits out, pulling other bits in, making you look slimmer and taller.

A 2012 study (reported by the Independent) found that women wearing heels were rated more attractive than those who wore flat shoes, by both men and women. So they make us look hot. Agreed.

Heels and me

I am a total heel-refuser. I've never even owned a pair. That part of the shop just isn't for people like me (actually that's most of the shop). Can't wear them. Don't want to. 

I once had to learn to walk in heels for a play. It was beyond the comprehension of the women in the cast that I wouldn't be able to do this. The men were more sympathetic and coached me through. All credit to them that I was able to stumble inelegantly around the stage in a borrowed pair of ill-fitting white court shoes.

And I was lucky that on the two occasions I have been a bridesmaid my lovely bridal friends were understanding enough of my stiletto peccadilloes to be tolerant of my choice of footwear (although generally brides don't want their maids towering over them anyway).

If you are a heel-refuser, there is one conversation you will encounter from time to time that will make your heart sink: 'You need to wear heels with a dress like that.'

This is the common assumption that you can't go out in a nice evening dress without wearing high heels. This means I can't go out in a nice dress ever. I will never look properly feminine, ergo, I am not a proper woman.

If you don't wear high heels, you're not a proper woman. It's one of those things, like having your first period and getting your first bra. 

High heels and feminism

On the one hand, heels make you taller, and that can make you feel more powerful. and feeling more powerful is being more powerful, making high heels the ultimate feminist accessory.

If you choose to splash your hard earned (by you) cash on a pair of shoes that make you feel you can take on the world and win, then that there is a feminist act.

On the other hand, high heels make us less stable, more fragile, and vulnerable. and it's more difficult to run away. Never underestimate the importance of being able to run away.

They make us stronger and weaker all at once.

Heel-refusers

One bonus to the not wearing heels thing is short men. There are plenty of vertically challenged blokes in the world, and there are lots of women who don't want to go out with then because of this. They want their men to be not only taller than them, but taller than them when they're wearing heels.

For an average-height-heel-refuser like myself, this is where we clean up (if that isn't an unpleasant metaphor). Presuming I want to be attached to a bloke taller than myself (actually I don't really care), there is a vast swathe of possibilities who are considered short but are at the very least the same height as me. Hurrah for the average-height heel refusers.

Heels make you taller, and that can make you feel more powerful. and feeling more powerful is being more powerful. Some days, maybe that would be nice.

But tell me I have to wear them and I say one thing in return: cobbles.

Hands-on parenting

The phrase 'hands-on father' was something from my childhood.

In the past, fathers had very little to do with child-rearing. Then we had feminism, and gradually 'being a dad' became more than just a label. It became about actually doing stuff with children. Looking after them, even.

For those of us who grew up in the 80s, dads had different levels of involvement - some were 'hands on' while others literally never saw the inside of a nappy.

But that was 30 years ago.

Using your hands

The other day, my friend described someone as a "hands-on dad". We got to talking about this.

"No one ever called anyone a 'hands-on mum'", she said. "You're just a mum."

Parenting a child is first and foremost a hands-on task. You can read as many books about child development as you like, you can even put some of the theories into practice. But you still have to carry them about when they can't walk, bathe them, change their nappies and put food into them in a very hands-on kind of way.

I write this whilst simultaneously using my hands to entertain a toddler, keep her away from the wrapped-up Christmas presents and prevent her from injuring herself on the furniture.

Men can't breastfeed. And they might not have the same connection to a tiny baby that the mother who carried it for nine months has. But apart from that, a lot of the work of child-rearing can be shared.

Stay-at-home dad Michael Verhoef
with his eight-week-old daughters. 

Choosing to help

If a father isn't going to be hands-on, that basically means that the mother has to do all the work.

Describing a dad as 'hands-on' suggests that this is somehow an option. And as 2014 draws to a close, it really shouldn't be.

There are lots of dads out there who are fantastic with their children, who don't think twice about changing nappies, clearing up widely dispersed Weetabix, averting suicide attempts and reading That's Not My Duck seven times in a row. Better still, there are dads who do these things and don't expect their partners to thank them for it. They are real - I've met some of them.

Then there are the dads who do those things but expect some kind of recognition - like looking after their own child for a day deserves a medal. And then there are the other ones, who do pretty much diddly squat for their own children. After all, that's women's work.

I hope the day comes when the phrase 'hands on father' ceases to be used, because most fathers fulfil this brief. I hope it comes soon.

Women bishops

A new first came today - the first woman bishop for the Church of England.

The Reverend Libby Lane has been announced as the new Bishop of Stockport.

Until last month, when the law was changed, women weren't allowed to become bishops

Libby Lane isn't the first Anglican bishop - Massachusetts had one in 1989 and female bishops have now served in the US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Ireland, South Africa, South India and Cuba. But she's the first C of E one.

About time

It's sad that it's taken the Church of England until 2014, which is, of course, two thousand and fourteen years after the founder of the religion rocked up.

That's an awfully long time to decide that one half of the population is as good as the other. I doubt Jesus would be very impressed.

Bishops representing us all

The ruling about bishops affects more than just the followers of the Church of England.

Bishops sit in the House of Lords. So if there are no women bishops, then that means that the proportion of women to men in the Lords is kept even lower.

Let's look at that again: none of the people put forward by the Church of England to have a say on UK legislation. That's pretty rubbish. We're not a minority group - we're half the population.

I'm very glad that a woman has been appointed to be a Bishop, it's one more small stepping stone on a very long journey to equality. But I'm also sad that it took this long. And as they've been representing all of us in the House of Lords, it's pretty irresponsible.