How creepy... my mom's fondly reminisced about the fun of playing dress-up-the-infant-because-they-can't-refuse, but yeesh.

In a recent lecture on babies' muscle development and their motor coordination, I couldn't help but blanch at the terms 'skinny' and 'chubby' baby.

Stilettos for babies, definately NOT cool. What's next, genital piercing at age three like ears??? Sick.

I'm 21 and I can't walk in 2.5" heels... how the crap is a baby supposed to?!

Okay, why, if this is such a joke, did they not go with the obvious pun name "Hot to TOT"?

I mean, it is beyond obvious people.

This is pretty dang ridiculous. Hopefully babies don't have the comprehensive ability to understand what the hell is going on. But there are plenty of toys marketed to older children which are freaking disgusting. Like those "Bratz Babyz," the sexualized baby dolls equipped with bikinis, thongs, and a "Babyz night out" fashion set. Wait… what?!?!

Aren't the Heelarious shoes just soft booties that look like heels? Babies are not supposed to walk in them. It's a joke. I'm a feminist through and through, and I don't see these as anything more than a goof. Baby Cone Bras or Baby Thongs would be creepy, but these crib shoes are just silly.

As a proud father of a 8 month daughter just one comment - they cannot walk with 3 month.

Nevertheless apart from the color scheme!! of the shoes that would complement her red hair, nothing like this would get into my household.

We do however have lovely strawberry shoes (-:

I'm with smartbunny. It may be harmful in that it's gendered, but chances are someone who would buy these for their infant is already dressing her up in frilly pink.

Not a parent or a psychologist, so I may be totally off base, but I don't see it as more or less harmful than giving an infant boy a plushie hammer.

(Actually, if I had an infant boy I might put these on him, because I enjoy screwing with strangers like that.)

Tacky in my opinion and a waste of money.

Because I so want my child to know that she exists for the pleasure of men... before she's 2.

What I wrote, feel free to use any of the content if you can't be bothered writing your own but still want to complain:

I just want to say that I do not find this concept 'fresh' nor 'funny' in the slightest. As if women in general are not sexualised enough, the continued sexualisation of children (particularly girls) is continued and disturbing and acts as a money-making device which shows no consideration for the emotional and societal damage it does.

If you really find the concept 'funny', then that means you find the sexualisation of girls funny, which I do not. Who knows, maybe you just have a very different sense of humour to me; maybe the idea of a 5- or 6-year-old having emotional issues because she doesn't think she's "sexy" enough provides you with endless hours of laughter. Having been a victim of anorexia at a young age, I do not find ANYTHING funny which accentuates the idea that women (and girls) are worth nothing more than their appearances - because I realise the damage it can, and has, done, particularly in recent times. Making a profit off such damage is not only completely un-funny, it's also completely irresponsible, and disgusting.

Sincerely,
Anna McDougall

Sociological Images is a major sociological/feminist blog that gets a ton of traffic! They also posted a blog about this recently!
http://contexts.org/socimages/2008/09/10/high-heels-for-babies/

I have a pair of sexy boots that fit me because I have small feet, but they were initially placed in the "kids" section at Aldo.

I think it's disgusting that these boots were meant for young girls. In fact, I wish, in retrospect, I would have thought twice about buying them and supporting the marketing concept behind them. I think these heels are equally disgusting. I will never buy a padded bra for my six-year-old, or heels for my baby. Little girls are little girls, not little women.

It's not like they have padded diapers for little boys, do they? And they never will.

I agree entirely Anna - this is not funny. This is going quite a few steps too far.

Hey, thanks for the link!

I made sure to send them an encouraging note, telling them to keep up the good work, and to ignore the small but vocal minority of whining feminists.

You guys should ask yourself why the majority of women (myself included) refuse to align themselves with you.

But please, continue with the QQ, it does amuse me so.

Interesting that they were designed by a mother of a baby girl. I bet she changes her tune when her 13 year old daughter is being chased by bald middle aged men in Miatas.

Hm. I wonder if Sarah Palin dressed her daughters in similar shoes. Not like she thought it would cause any problems.

Thank you foxdie - for letting us all know what a pathetic excuse for a female you really are.

no u.

seriously, though, any woman who disagrees with you is "pathetic" niceeee.

You sure are out for the best interest of women aren't you xtine.

Foxdie = teenage boy whose Warcraft server is down at the moment? Just a guess...

Seriously though, I think it's less the actual product(which is simply dumb) and more the not-cool things people are saying about them (the model-in-training and other ick) that I don't like.

This is wrong since babies should not be dressing in a mannor that is appeared as "sexy". It is like conditioning your child to be this way at such an early age. The media does enough of this i think it is terrible for parents to be just as bad.

foxdie - ya think?

Oh, foxdie. Normally I wouldn't waste my time blasting the women who, for some reason, don't want to be feminists. I wonder, darling, do you like voting? Do you like the fact that you're husband is legally not allowed to rape you? Do you like the fact that you can take birth control? Do you like that if you choose to get married, you can *gasp* actually still control your own life and assets? Do you, sweetie? Because you have us, and the millions of women who came before us, who fought and died and spent years in prison winning those rights, so you could do those things. Know your history, girl.

Although I do think it was made as a joke, I think the creators should have thought about the messsage that it might be sending to little girls who wear them, that being fashionable is what will catch people's attention. I don't have any kids and don't know much about babies, but I can't see one being content with having those things strapped to their feet, but what do I know? I don't believe that the intention was to have girls start as early as possible in order to become super models but I don't find this product very necessary.

Well for once I am in complete agreement with one of your articles. This is nothing less than part of a process of sexualising children at ever younger ages. Children have too short a childhood as it is these days in my opinion - let them enjoy their precious childhood in peace because all too soon the hormonal storms of puberty will take it away forever.

Yeah, yeah, feminists don't have a sense of humor--wow, I've never heard that one before. Except this isn't about humor, as it's not funny. Why would anyone want to see their baby daughter in sexualized clothing? How about a garter belt and a pair of stockings to go with the crib heels? Maybe a bustier, too. How far are you willing to go? It's not funny, it's disgusting. I'm having a baby girl in the next week or so, and she's going to wear baby clothes. No heels, no sequins, no onesies with double entendres on them. I'm determined that she will enjoy being a child as long as she can in this fucked-up society of ours.

This is just ridiculous. Regardless if they thought it was all in 'good humor' - it's a real enough concept that there will be people like nicole richie who will latch on and the next thing you know 'everyone' will want a pair for their baby! Thanks for the link.

"Hm. I wonder if Sarah Palin dressed her daughters in similar shoes. Not like she thought it would cause any problems."

"Thank you foxdie - for letting us all know what a pathetic excuse for a female you really are."

xtine

If you are going to call other women pathetic excuses for females for having a sense of humor about these shoes, what would you say about the woman who makes slut-shaming cracks about a politician's teenage daughter?

For the record, I think the shoes are tacky.

I just think it's pretty lame to make snide remarks about teenage girl's sex life, even if her mother is a public figure who you disagree with.

This makes me think of that movie where they surgically put makeup on the fetus baby for beauty pageants. HAHAHA!
oh!press pass

Interesting that they were designed by a mother of a baby girl. I bet she changes her tune when her 13 year old daughter is being chased by bald middle aged men in Miatas.

Ironically (and totally creepy) I had that happen to me (though both I turned 18). Yah, like I am really going to get into a car with a middle-age stranger. And I wasn't wearing anything remotely revealing sweatshirt and jeans. Thankfully the first time the other person at the bus stop (who I initially pegged as creepy just based on looks, bleh) told the guy off the second time he came around.

But onto the baby heels topic (totally a joke, I really do hate them), at least it is good to know that all the male to female trans babies out there now have an option! (bad joke, feel free to scold me :P It's way late)

I just realized that I am WAY too sleep to write a coherent post. Feel free to ignore all the coherency typos in my post above this. :P 'Nite all

I don't know what says worse about our culture--the fact that high heels (even soft ones) are being created for baby girls OR that most people think the only problem with this is that they're for babies, but think they're okay for teenage girls and women.

It's like saying, "Baby girls are too young for sexism. We should wait until they're older before suggesting they wear something painful and dangerous. After all, grown women can take that kind of punishment."

Wow, At a time when little girls are learning to wak, they need all the ankle support they can get. Now you you put these mushy foam heels on them with a wobbly lump of foam under their foot.
Whay's next? a stripper pole for there crib.

Roland--

Actually, they're supposed to be "crib shoes"--which are purely decorative. I can't imagine that anyone would put those things on a little girl who was learning to walk. (Although I could be wrong.) BTW, babies don't actually need ankle support or stiff soles to walk, it's something people used to believe but it's been disproven. Bare feet are best for learning to walk.

And Frye--there's nothing wrong with adult women making the choice to wear heels. High heels are sexy, and being able to choose to be sexy is one of the pleasures of adulthood. The important parts of that sentence, however, are "choose" and "adulthood." If you don't want to wear heels, don't. But don't tell the rest of us that there's something wrong with enjoying looking sexy.

BluePencils,

The problem is that when some adult women "choose" to wear high heels (as well as makeup and sexualized clothing), it makes it harder for the rest of us women who don't wear this stuff. It reinforces the idea that women are sex objects, that they are always sexually available, and that their bodies are imperfect the way they are--so they must wear heels to make themselves taller, wonderbras to make their breasts bigger, and makeup to cover up scars and 'discoloration'. You have the right to choose how you dress but you have to keep in mind that the way you dress affects women as a group. Looking 'sexy' for women in this culture means being unnaturally thin, hairless, white, with flawless skin, and with breasts and legs on display for men. This is shallow and harmful for women. And when some women strive for this, it makes it that much harder for all other women. Feminist politics are not individualist. Your choices affect the rest of women.

And we seem to be forgetting that high heels are incredibly painful to wear--this is why so many women wear sneakers while they're out walking and then put on their heels once they get to work, e.g. And why so many women take off their heels to let their feet rest when they're at parties and complain about how they have sore feet. Men would not put up with that (and don't have to, since they're in the privileged category). Finally, heels are dangerous. If you wear them, you have a greater likelihood of twisting (or breaking) your ankle (ask any podiatrist) and you can't move quickly or smoothly--which makes you more vulnerable to sexual assault.

frye, would you also agree that trans women chose "femme" heels over sneakers, or wear makeup or shave their legs are doing harm to women as a group?

"frye, would you also agree that trans women chose "femme" heels over sneakers, or wear makeup or shave their legs are doing harm to women as a group?"

I would say anybody who does this is doing harm to women as a group--the sex or gender of the person doing it doesn't matter.

frye, unfortunately those sorts of arguments are essentially replacing "patriarchy says" with "feminism says" - I'm not going to let anyone dictate to me how I dress, regardless of gender. If I want to wear heels, I'm going to, feminism be damned. And if I want to wear flats, I'm going to, patriarchy be damned. It's no one's business to tell me how to dress to be more pleasing to their group.

Like I said, feminism is not an individualist politics. It's not about women doing whatever they feel like doing. It's about ending male domination.

I don't understand what's so terrible about saying that our practices and behaviors may carry unintended consequences for other groups of people. I never said "if you wear heels, you're not a feminist" or "if you're a feminist, you don't wear heels." What I've been arguing is that wearing heels is not a feminist PRACTICE. Wearing heels is unhealthy for women and reinforces the idea that women are sex objects who should do whatever it takes to look attractive to men.

Myself and other feminists are not dictating what you can and cannot wear. We're saying that by dressing in certain ways, you reinforce sexism. I'm sorry if you don't like hearing that.

In critiquing individualist politics, I think Sociologist Sherryl Kleinman puts it best when she writes:
"[Baumgardner and Richards] share an individualistic belief system that disregards the interconnectedness of human beings and the consequences of our actions on others. Individualism leaves privileges intact by ignoring the fact that not everyone has the resources to do whatever they desire or the power to make things happen. It also ignores the unintended consequences of our individual actions for women as a class (and for other oppressed groups). If you don't think you should care about the content of your choice, then you don't have to care about how that choice affects others."

This is from her 2007 book "Feminist Fieldwork Analysis" from Sage Publications.

Thanks for the thorough answer, frye. I hope my question didn't come off as snark.

I'm just always curious about the tension among feminists when it comes to gendered dress and trans women. I think the tension exists because of the way these issues can lead us toward and away from essentialism at the same time.

I didn't realize there was a tension.

It seems obvious that any politics that reinforces the idea that people with vulvas should wear (and celebrate wearing) heels, makeup, and sexualized clothing is reactionary and harmful to women, whether associated with trans people or not. It seems to me that we spend far too much time arguing over identity and what makes a woman a woman--sex or passing (gender). My thoughts are similar to those of radical feminists like Sheila Jeffreys and Julie Bindel, but that's not important to this discussion.

I think if we spent more time challenging and breaking down patriarchy (which gender is a product of) rather than trying to carve out various identities within it, we'd all be healthier and safer.

But we ARE a bunch of various identities. We're not some lump mass called "woman". If anything, this recent Sarah Palin debacle should drive that point home. No one woman or group of women can say, "This is best for all women."

frye, the problem I have with your point of view is that its goal always seems to be replacing patriarchy with a woman-created set of expectations and approval. If all we do is change WHO is making these expectations, rather than getting rid of them completely, nothing has improved.

I don't agree with the baby booties at issue in this blog post - a baby, toddlers, little kids, they don't have the social consciousness to make informed decisions about their clothes. And it's very important to inform those of us old enough to make fully informed decisions about the sexist side of heels. But a woman shouldn't feel pressured or obligated to make choices about her footware for men OR women.

I think that this is obsurd, little girls should not be wearing heels, I did not get my first pair of heels until I started going to bar and batmitzvahs.

So if I wear heels, I'm reinforcing the stereotype that all women are sexually available at all times--and therefore it's partially my fault when women are raped? Bullshit. Feminism means I can do (and wear) what I choose. You may not be trying to dictate what I can wear...but you are telling me that I'm not as good a feminist as you are if I don't let you dictate what I wear. Guess what? I don't need your "feminist" approval. No matter what subject, there's always someone more extreme telling you what you should or shouldn't do with your life. I prefer to make up my own mind. And I don't happen to agree that wearing heels is the same as footbinding. I don't agree that wearing makeup and gendered clothing makes me a tool of the patriarchy. I believe that there are better and more effective ways to fight the patriarchy than by forgoing shaving our legs. We do it by making our own choices, by living up to our potentials, by voting our consciences, and by not allowing anyone to treat us as lesser members of society. If people try to put me in a niche because I happen to be wearing makeup and a kicky pair of Louis heels, they're going to have a rude surprise on their hands.

What I've been arguing is that wearing heels is not a feminist PRACTICE. Wearing heels is unhealthy for women and reinforces the idea that women are sex objects who should do whatever it takes to look attractive to men. Myself and other feminists are not dictating what you can and cannot wear. We're saying that by dressing in certain ways, you reinforce sexism. I'm sorry if you don't like hearing that..

Alixana,

Where have I created expectations and where have I expressed approval or disapproval?
You seem to think I’m trying to pass judgment on women who wear heels. Passing judgment is different from pointing out that certain actions carry consequences for women as a group. And according to you, feminists aren’t allowed to do this... I still don’t understand why it’s wrong for feminists to point out when certain actions and behaviors harm women. How is this a bad thing? If feminism is not about exposing harm done to women (by men, but also by the actions of some women), then what the hell is the point of feminism?

Is the issue that you’re just upset at someone suggesting that your actions might be harmful to women?

BluePencils,

I highly, highly recommend this essay from Philosopher Rebecca Whisnant. It's called "Not Your Father's Playboy, Not Your Mother's Feminist Movement." She addresses the VERY arguments you're making.

you can read the whole essay here.
http://saidit.org/archives/jun06/article5.html

Here are a couple of excerpts:

"...The claim that women are a class sharing a common condition suggests a particular aim and purpose for feminist endeavor: namely, to figure out as best we can what serves the interests of women as a class (not just our own personal interests) and then to try as best we can—imperfectly, messily, but in good faith—to do that, support that, be that. Or, to put the same point a different way: what we do as feminists is figure out what the institutions, ideologies, and practices are that keep women down, and then try as best we can to challenge them, chip away at them, withdraw from them, take a sledgehammer to them, or in any other way diminish their power to harm and to subjugate women."

"...if some role or practice X harms women as a group in that it sustains and reinforces patriarchy, it is utterly predictable that some women will choose it. Thus, again, the essential feminist question is not whether some individual women like or choose or benefit in certain ways from X, but whether the overall effect of X is to keep women as a group subordinate to men.

Feminism is about ending the subordination of women. Expanding women’s freedom of choice on a variety of fronts is an important part of that, but it is not the whole story. In fact, any meaningful liberation movement involves not only claiming the right to make choices, but also holding oneself accountable for the effects of those choices on oneself and on others."

frye- " I didn't realize there was a tension."

Tension, point of disagreement, whatever. This un-agreement is on display on this blog often. It may not be a tension for you, but in the broader group of people who call themselves feminists, there is no such certainty.

frye- " I didn't realize there was a tension."

Tension, point of disagreement, whatever. This un-agreement is on display on this blog often. It may not be a tension for you, but in the broader group of people who call themselves feminists, there is no such certainty.

Actually, Frye, I think that feminism is best served by actively demonstrating that feminists come in all shapes, sizes, colours, sexes, faiths, sexual orientations, relationship status, and modes of dress. This, of course, is the idea behind the slogan "This is what a feminist looks like". Encouraging standards of, "a person with X beliefs dresses like X and not like Y" encourages more appearance-based prejudgement, not less.

We're here to make changes with our words and actions. If what we say and do is completely different from what someone thinks a person who looks like us would say and do, all the better. Our goal as feminists should be to get all women treated as thinking, feeling people, no matter what they're wearing.

ShifterCat,

I couldn't agree with you more and if you look at my previous posts I never say "feminists should dress like this..." What I do say is that dressing in particular ways may not be feminist PRACTICES b/c of the way they reinforce sexism. That's very different. Because of course there is no such thing as a perfect feminist and certainly we sometimes act in ways that are not feminist. The important thing is to be honest about when we make choices that are inconsistent with our feminist politics--rather than make justifications for them (denying responsibility).

I personally think the "this is what a feminist looks like" movement has some problems. It seems to eschew personal accountability in favor of making feminism seem more mainstream, more palatable to the rest of the world. It seems to me that the movement sustains the notion that feminism is simply about adopting an identity without thinking about how one's actions, choices, beliefs, and yes, dress affect other groups of people.

I will remind everyone of the famous feminist slogan "the personal is political." The personal decisions you make in private (including what you wear) are political because they affect the people around us. Humans are interdependent.

I still don’t understand why it’s wrong for feminists to point out when certain actions and behaviors harm women. How is this a bad thing? If feminism is not about exposing harm done to women (by men, but also by the actions of some women), then what the hell is the point of feminism?

Is the issue that you’re just upset at someone suggesting that your actions might be harmful to women?

Where did I say it was wrong to point it out? I specifically said that it's important for everyone to have enough information to make informed decisions. If you really think your posts aren't judging and creating expectations for what women should do, I'll defer to you there, but I think you are. The way you've twice assumed I'm "upset" just because I arrived at a different conclusion than you when looking at the same information drives that home.

My concerns in feminism about what "harms" women is women who make a choice and it's not honored. The choice to take birth control. The choice to have an abortion. The choice to keep a baby even when the baby's father is pressuring her to get rid of it. The choice not to sleep with a man. The choice to sleep with a man and not be labeled a "slut." The choice to work in the workforce. The choice to be a stay-at-home mom. The choice not to undergo painful and mutilating surgeries on their genitals. And the choice to express themselves as they wish. "The men" don't really enter into that, except when they're part of the social forces that prevent women's choices from being honored.

I closed my italics too soon, the top two paragraphs there should be italicized.

as i (and the folks i quoted) said...

your choices are political b/c they affect other women. you have a right to make certain choices but that right carries with it some responsibility. you really ought to be conscious of how your choices affect other women.

i apologize if that sounds judgmental but there's really no other way to put it.

some choices that women make harm other women. i do not believe these choices are sacrosanct simply b/c women made them. i don't believe that's what feminism is about.

Well, I actually stopped lurking and registered so I could post about this.

Let me identify myself as a Master's level educated married 37 yr old woman who didn't change her name when she married and who outearns her 4 yrs younger husband by about $10,000 or so. I am avidly pro-choice and am one of those feminists who loves being a woman and who also happens to like most men. I also just purchased a pair of these shoes for my soon to be born niece with the tagline, "This is only the beginning of my bad influence". See, I'm one of those who loves makeup, clothes, and HIGH HEELS.

This was intended as a gag gift for my friend who is sort of tomboyish and who seldom ever wears heels. She will get the irony and I'm sure will laugh her ass off when she opens this at her shower. I hardly think we are sexualizing an infant who has no idea what is on her feet (or anywhere else on her body) and it is not harmful to her in any way, physically or mentally. They are meant for babies up to 6 months who aren't even walking. People are too alarmist these days over anything at all to do with kids. No one is making you spend your money on this so get over your indignation....this is not child abuse. If you think it is you've led a very sheltered life.

I get that it's supposed to be a joke, but it's not funny. It's disturbing. I agree with what someone else said: childhood is already too short. Let's leave the kids alone, shall we?

How much younger can we sexualize little girls as a culture, and then shame individual men who find them sexually attractive?! We're creating monsters here! We're as much to blame as they! There are thong undies for kindergarten'ers and now sexy heels for infants? My friggin gawd. What's next? Lacey, peek-a-boo diapers? (Get it? Peek-a-boo? Babies? I'm so funny, I should run a sexist campaign that ruins little girls!)

And watch out for Foxdie- sounds like a pageant mom...(shudder)

First of all, kindergardeners are old enough to internalize some of the sexual messages thrown at them. A one month old infant does not. This is not the same as putting thongs and nippleless bras on a five year old. It isn't the same thing as a thriteen yr old with 'Juicy' across her butt. It, to me, is no different than my mom putting my Grandma's wig on me with an unlit cigarette in my mouth when I was 9 months old just to take a quick picture of me looking like Grandma. I don't remember having the picture taken but when I look at it now it cracks me up. This isn't even for infants, it's entertainment for the adults, and brief at that. I hardly think anyone who isn't already a pedophile would find a month old baby sexually arousing because she put these bottie crib shoes on. Sheesh.

Some women seem to think anything that is socially defined as feminine is inherently oppressive just like some extremists think that all heterosexual sex is de facto rape. Everything isn't that deep.

Crumpet- if you'll read my post again, you'll see that I didn't say anything against what is inherently feminine (or anything against hetero sex. In fact I enjoy hetero sex. I don't see what that has to do with this though, but thanks for the assumptions that only you are allowed to make). I was only against children wearing things inherently sexualized. And while the infant might not be aware of these things now, it just shows what her parents will allow. As she grows, her parents will likely be increasingly permissive about what their child wears and how sexual it is, until you end up with hyper-sexed teens & preteens. And for some reason, only then are we allowed to say something (and usually it's still not ok to blame the parents at all).

And I do like to think everything IS that deep. It's either that or everything in American culture is THAT shallow. In which case, what the hell is the point of anything?

Sorry, Frye, I still call bullshit on that whole "heels and makeup reinforce the patriarchy" business. Culture changes the meaning of clothing. Who is wearing something, and what she does while she's wearing it, carry a stronger message than the clothing itself, and, slowly or quickly, the cultural associations attached to the clothing change.

Danyell:
You suggest I'm making assumptions about what you meant, then you proceed to say that any parent who would allow these shoes on their infant would be the same kind of person who would be permissive in other ways. That is a huge assumption. It isn't like the infant wants to wear Manolos so the parents give in and get her these Heelarious baby shoes instead just to pacify her need to look sexy. These shoes are no indication of what the parents would allow a pliable preteen to get away with. To me it's no different than putting a tie on a little boy to take a picture.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Crumpet- except that a tie is not sexualized in the way that leopard-print pumps are.

I know this is deviating a little from Heels for Babies (which is wrong in the same way that piercing their ears before they can talk is), but can women not reclaim fashion, including high heels, which yes, are bad for women, and yes, are sexualized by men? What I mean to say is, can we not take it back, like some feminists have sought to reclaim words like "bitch" and "slut" (which of course brings up a whole other set of tricky dialogue).

I guess for me, fundamentally, what feminism means is having the right to choose, and having the mindset that I do it for myself.

What if we stopped giving credit to "the system" by saying "that choice of dress is sexist because men sexualize it and the media sensationalizes it" and say, "I choose this style of dress for myself", regardles if your wearing Keds or Jimmy freakin' Choos.

God! I know that not even most of the yr13s (17-18yr olds) at my school wear any more than kitten heels! But babies?? I mean I'm 13 and I wear what? 2inch heels...but that's coz I'm short and have a slight shoe fetish...Ok not slight...I just kiss them before I go to bed.