Well I'll at least give them points for diversity in the promo sign, although I doubt it's only skinny women who need the women's center's services.

Somehow, skinny-legged, high-heeled, naked-to-at-least-mid-thigh images don't speak to me as a fat, female but non-femme, religiously observant person. (Of course, I doubt that a place billing itself as a 'women's centre' has anything of interest to me, either.) Also, events involving alcohol tend not to be comfortable spaces for those of many different religious orientations, or for recovering alcoholics for that matter. And nothing like getting someone associated with The Biggest Loser involved to up the fatphobia quotient. I'm not clear on what these people actually do, but, whatever it is, it looks as if they are trying to alienate most of their potential client-base.

I think, the wine notwithstanding, I'd donate to the animal-blessing cause instead. :-)

"some saint who apparently is the patron saint of animals, and who I am too lazy to look up right now"

Probably Anthony the Abbot. Here in Spain people bring their pets to be blessed at his festivity on January 17. You can watch a newscast about the celebration of this festivity in Madrid at youtube.com/watch?v=FF3xq2UJy24

Or Francis of Assisi.

the intention seems good. but the application...what the hell?

Not to mention the fact that actually walking any distance in high heels is bad for your calves and ankles. There's a reason why sneakers were invented and it wasn't to show off designer logos.

What a way to help women -- organize something that impairs their health in the name of making them look sexy.

That's awfully similar to the behavior of the people who hinder women.

Basically, I think that walking for 'women' while wearing high heels reinforces the mainstream gender order far more than that challenges mainstream gendering (given how high heels handicap women in many ways... given how high heels put women's body parts on display in certain ways... etc... etc...).

This probably won't be a very popular opinion, but in general "awareness" - unless it is, e.g. to do a breast self-exam or something else medically useful - really isn't worth much but good feelings on the part of the participants that they are "doing something".

I don't think this is just odd, it's using high heels as a stand in for, and symbol of, women. Gendered shoes are used all the time as a kind metonymy - there was a New York Magazine last year that showed a masculine shoe (I don't know how else to describe it) being stepped on by a high heel. All you could see was the shoes but it was clearly supposed to mean that women were in some way stepping on, or over taking, men. I think in this ad the high heels are an unfortunate, stereotyping and ultimately sexist, attempt at pointing out how very much about women this women's event is. And in the process they alienate lots of women. I feel the same way as the earlier commenter that this event is also clearly fatphobic and as a fat person there is no way I would go to something with those kinds of graphics and a contestant from the biggest loser.

Maybe I'm just reading into this wayyyy too much, but could it be that walking a mile in high heels is symbolic of the difficulty of performing femininity and trying to live up to the unattainable feminine archetype? I don't necessarily think that it serves to "increase a person’s understanding of some of the problems women face"--and really, how could it?--but, in some twisted way, I read it as an interesting and kind of subversive comment on what our society expects from women.

But you make a good point in wondering what exactly the bystander gets out of it. To the untrained eye, it really doesn't make much sense.

Could there also be an element of pandering to the "I'm not a feminist" crowd? "See, you can support your women's centre and still be fashionable and sexy! We won't stop you from shaving your legs AT ALL..."

It's nonthreatening. Compare it with hairy-legged feminists, or lesbians who are otherwise known as "women in sensible shoes".

There are several domestic violence shelters here in Connecticut that do a spin on this called "Walk a Mile in Her Shoes", which asks MEN to do the walk in heels. Naturally, it makes the news all the time because "Ooo! How novel! We must praise the men for doing this noble thing!" Yes, great that men are involved, but this kind of event?

I've had mixed feelings about it since I first heard about it because it seems to equate the pain of DV with the pain of walking a relatively short distance in heels. As if this is going to help men understand the impact of violence by some weird form of osmosis.

I'll grant that watching an adult try to walk in high-heel shoes for the first time can be hilarious. Suddenly an otherwise with-it chap is tottering around, clumsy-like, undignified, barely in control. So they saunter down the race course, either looking drunk, or, if they eventually master the skill during the walk, facing chuckles for being "a little bit TOO good at that, if you know what I mean" by the end of the event.

However. A segment of the human population is daily encouraged to traipse around in this very same footwear that restricts their movement, re-arranges their body profile, shortens leg muscles, causes corns and bunions, and confers a gait that quickly identifies them as a member of this segment. Sure, they can always wear more sensible shoes, but the social pressure to wear heels is remarkable, and failure to comply has important consequences that's hard to just brush off.

So, yeah, when I see an event that highlights this reality without examining it beyond lip service about high heels being hard to walk in (ha ha ha, stupid women, they insist on being vain and wearing these dumb painful shoes), my hackles raise.

@archdiva EXACTLY. I feel the same way. I've seen these and they rub me all kinds of the wrong way.

I think men should NEVER wear high heels.

Or women for that matter.

archdiva and withoutscene - you're right men in high heels doesn't say anything about domestic violence and its certainly not about making the guys involved understand the problem - presumably they're involved because they're already sympathetic to it.

The whole point of that sort of exercise is to get coverage for the issue in general. The problem with DV (or mental illness, or cancer or whatever) is that people don't talk about it in general conversation and the victims often feel isolated, ashamed or embarrassed and like they're the only one with that problem.

Seeing a segment on the news along the lines of "hey look, here's a bunch of men in high heels - don't they look silly ha ha ha, and by the way, they're raising awareness about , says is a common problem affecting of people and if you or someone you know is experiencing you can call or visit for information and help" at least gets that information out there.

Marketing is expensive and not-for-profits tend not to have big budgets for it. Meanwhile, we all know that stupid things for good causes get on the news - and any publicity is good publicity as they say. It's an effective way of using a limited marketing budget.

doh - i had a bunch of things in pointy brackets in that comment which have been filtered out. Wherever there's a weird break in the sentence insert "issue" or "support group" as seems appropriate.

First, Episcopalian clergy are generally referred to as priests, male or female. When Episcopalians bless animals, it is usually on the feast day of St Francis of Assissi.
Second, I agree that they are using high heels as a sign of feminity, but I don't think it's because they are a symbol of the challenges of being a woman. I think it's because high heels are a of saying "women" with out being overtly sexual. The trouble is high heels are a sexual thing. They change a woman's stance to promote her breasts and make her legs seem longer.
I wear them because sometimes I want to, but I also know that I'm emphasizing my role as a sexual being when doing so. I find it interesting that a Women's Center would choose this type of advertising. The fact that I suspect it was not a conscious decision to pick a sexually suggestive item is only more interesting.

I'm glad not ALL of the comments overlooked the fact that walking any real distance in high heels is terrible for your feet, legs, and back. That should be enough right there to stop people from doing it. But, the patriarchy always wins...

I only skinned the comments since I don't have much time right now, so someone may have mentioned this:

Perhaps it's a method of self flagellation?

Like people who harm or mutilate themselves in order to attract attention to some cause/ act out dedication/faith.

My school's Women's Center does an event, Walk a Mile in Her Shoes, every year in which men don women's shoes and walk together (with the bunch of women who join in as well) to raise awareness for Women's Issues.

We always have a speaker before the event who explains that the point of this event is to open a dialogue about how Women's Issues (like DV, Rape, etc.) are issues that pertain to men, and should be fought by men, as well!

The walk, in my experience, seems to start off lighthearted and goofy - as you'd expect of guys in high heels - but by the end their feet are sore and they have a smaller idea of the stupid patriarchal inconveniences that women are expected to go through each day. (Towards the end I heard one guy exclaim, "I'll never complain when my girlfriend doesn't want to wear heels again!")

We wrap it up with a speak-out type session that, when I attended, really did open a dialogue about gender issues and how the men on campus can help/get more involved.

All in all - I think the concept of this event can work, in a very specific context that is not the one above!

- J

Ian Aleksander - I had a similar thought: it's like pilgrims putting dried peas in their shoes to make their journey more arduous.

I'm glad previous commentors cleared up the confusion about Episcopal priests and the blessing of the animals.

Otherwise, from the way you worded it, people would have thought it was just some flaky thing you had to be a part of while volunteering at an animal shelter. This blog usually shows a lot of respect to the different groups it discusses- going so far as to apologize for the use of the word lame. Why wouldn't you extend that same respect to people who practice such ceremonies as blessing their animals? You don't have to believe in it to give it respect.

Heather,

You're totally right. The thing was, until I read commenters' posts, I had no idea this was something that people regularly do. We had a very sweet but somewhat new-agey volunteer who organized it, and I really thought it was just something she thought up as a publicity thing. I just never got around to editing the original post to indicate my lack of knowledge.

That said, the ensuing tensions between the evangelical Christian volunteers and community members and the Episcopalians as a result of the presence of wine at the event WAS, indeed, both amusing and ridiculous, and I, as a member of neither group, just spent a lot of time keeping my mouth shut.

As Catholics, growing up my mother and I would bring our dog to our church's annual St. Francis blessing. It was actually very special; everyone in the parish would bring their animals, which instilled a respect for them as living beings and as quasi-family members.

Either way, while I appreciate and understand that you weren't familiar with the ceremony, and that you didn't mean to offend anyone, I am still surprised at how disrespectful and sarcastic the whole tone of that section of the post was ("some saint," "priest?") given how attune you are to subliminal messaging.

Persona,

I regret the tone. However, I felt it was better to cross through it and admit my mistake than to take it out as though it never happened--that seemed more honest. In my defense, in my mind as I was writing it, the tone wasn't sarcastic at all, though I accept the disrespectful charge. I googled "Episcopalian clergy" and a couple of related terms and found both "priest" and "preacher" used, and I didn't know which was correct. The "priest?" part was not meant disrespectfully, but just as an acknowledgment that I wasn't sure of the right terminology and knew "preacher" might not be the right word.

Hey, I just wanted to say that I didn't want to come across as too sensitive or angry about. That's why I like this blog- dialogue from the bloggers.

It is usually called Walk a mile in her shoes and it is a great gimick to raise awareness. Since women do wear heels...