Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Why did men stop wearing high heels?

Discussion in 'Podiatry Trivia' started by Mark Russell, Jan 25, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

  1. Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    The BBc are reporting today on http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21151350

     

    Attached Files:

  2. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    My understanding - and it may well be wrong in the light of the above - was that Catherine De Medici (a lady who encapsulated the 'womens lib' ideals centuries before such ideas became popular) wished to meet eye to eye with her male courtiers and thus used high heels. The point being that the shoes would not generally be seen in the long dresses of the day.

    It is certainly the case that her army had a huge gun - an unusual toy in those days - and when she asked what it was called the captain replied that the soldiery referred to it as the great Catherine. "Why?" she asked. He daringly replied that it was because of its enormous calibre (she was a lady who was quite free with her favours). It is not recorded what happened to him!

    I am perfectly willing to stand corrected on the shoe issue.

    Bill Liggins
     
  3. I heard the real "high heeled shoe" was initially worn by MEN in the theater a billion years ago to "rise above the rest and be seen". That is, they actually stood on " 48 inch", yes, 48 inch platform shoes ( as the main character in a play) and could be seen and heard better?!
    Weird aye?
    What was with that?
     
  4. Jose Antonio Teatino

    Jose Antonio Teatino Well-Known Member

    Today, high heels + male = questionable masculinity
     
  5. Really? I guess that would depend on how you define "questionable masculinity"! Personally I have a few pairs of boots that I keep for when the Rocky Horror Show is in town and for other select occassions but I draw the line at peep-toes these days. Unless, of course, I have some nail art done first. What's your preference Jose?
     
  6. Of course, Sir Elton John often wore high heels on the stage....and who ever has questioned his masculinity.....Saturday Night's Alright For Fighting.....:cool:

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  7. blinda

    blinda MVP

    Nothing questionable here. One of the funkiest and sexiest males, IMO....


    [​IMG]


    `Maybe we can make some time` :cool:
     
  8. Jose Antonio Teatino

    Jose Antonio Teatino Well-Known Member

    I do not think this forum is of interest my sexual orientation.
    Sorry my answer, because it can be misunderstood by the customs of each country.
    I have very good friends male female, and not discriminate against anyone for it.
    I hope in the future to stick to professional content that is the real purpose of this forum.
    greetings:
     
  9. No offence taken Jose - nor I'm sure was any intended. Best wishes.
     
  10. blinda

    blinda MVP

    None taken here either, Jose.

    In fact, it`s interesting to explore perceived attractiveness/sexuality that footwear can evoke. Just ask toeslayer :drinks

    Cheers,
    Bel
     
  11. Cameron

    Cameron Well-Known Member

    netizens

    Sorry I missed this theme (must of been sleeping) otherwise I would have contributed earlier.

    To the best of my knowledge (TTBOMK)

    Shoes were generally thought to be the preserve of males for many centuries and the height of shoe (heel/platform or wedge) and/or lacing the more senior the social station of the wearer.
    <http://historyofsandals.blogspot.com.au/>

    Women generally in antiquity went bare footed but women born into or achieving higher station (including courtesans) wore foot coverings similar to male styles but sized down to fit smaller feet. Things start to change around the 11th century in Occidental society when men's shoes get longer. Women however continue to have shoe costume as opposed to shoe fashions. Styles lasted centuries rather than seasons for both genders. Hence long toed toes (walking dildos continued four hundred years; and footbinding one thousand )

    <http://foottalk.blogspot.com.au/2007/12/most-curious-history-of-orthopaedic.html>

    <http://foottalk.blogspot.com.au/2006/04/footbinding-origins.html>

    Reference to Catherine di Medici (1519 - 1589) is important because it is generally thought she made wearing heeled pumps popular with court women. The popularity of the costune died when she died and for the first time in history a style of shoe was directly associated with one women and to many this marks the beginning of shoe fashions for women. Heeled shoes then after for respectable women became passe and we begin to see association with elevated shoes and sex workers.

    <http://foottalk.blogspot.com.au/2005/10/jezebel-in-heels.html>

    Meantime the crownheads of Europe (mainly males) sported fashionable footwear which gave them height. Baring in mind people were smaller at that time and heels were associated with horse riding which gave then a superior military baring. Ostensibly what was on display was the latest technologies and the very best in craftsmanship usually from Córdoba in Spain. Sexuality of many of the powerful men would be ambiguous and so the peacock styles popular by the French Revolution would for many of the European proletariat represent decadence. Hence any man wearing fashionable high heeled shoes was immediately taken as Aristocracy and likely to become headless.

    <http://foottalk.blogspot.com.au/2005/05/shoe-buckles.html>

    From the time of the Revolution across Europe and North America men's shoe fashion became ultra conservative and heels were lowered. Laces eventually replaced buckles and roses. Heeled shoes for women continued to be associated with sex workers and the popularity of the French prostitutes in New Orleans (who wore heeled boots) ensured the men and women of 18th century North America fell madly in love with heeled footwear and foot corsetry.

    Now I can go back to sleep ;)

    toeslayer
     
  12. wdd

    wdd Well-Known Member

    I like this formula.

    So, in this day and age male + What = questionable masculinity?

    A pink shirt? A dress? Waist length hair? Make up? Manicured nails? Crying?

    I suppose another way of putting it is: male + What = unquestionable masculinity.

    And for all men what part of your, so called, masculinity is inherent and what part is simply an attempt to confirm to the current norms of masculinity? But if in any way we, as men, are conforming, does that not represent cowardice (though we don't want to look at that idea too closely) and is that not always an indication of questionable masculinity.

    So all men are either openly or closetly questionably masculine?

    Bill
     
  13. twirly

    twirly Well-Known Member

  14. wdd

    wdd Well-Known Member

     
  15. wdd

    wdd Well-Known Member

    While I was at it I thought I would have a go at answering the question:

    Men stopped wearing high heeled shoes because other 'men' stopped wearing high heeled shoes and/or because men of openly questionable masculinity started to wear them.

    Bill
     
  16. Cameron

    Cameron Well-Known Member

    netizens

    "Men stopped wearing high heeled shoes because other 'men' stopped wearing high heeled shoes and/or because men of openly questionable masculinity started to wear them." wwd

    Not quite but reasonably close. Men do have a herd instinct when it comes to fashion and tend to dress alike. Soccer casuals as an example. Women by comparison compliment their personality.

    <http://foottalk.blogspot.com.au/2008/03/shoes-r-us.html>

    Ambiguity holds its own attraction and androgyny has an allure all by itself. Early Bowie and Willie Kerr are two examples where 'real men' skirted (excuse the pun) with girlie heels in the 70s (Kerr still wears them).

    Despite what fashion dictates determine on the outside (this is what I am ) on the inside some men wear hidden lifts to give them added height.

    <http://foottalk.blogspot.com.au/2005/12/little-big-man.html>

    So all is never what it appears.

    :morning:
    toeslayer
     
  17. wdd

    wdd Well-Known Member

    OK, I'll modify it slightly.

    Men started wearing high heeled shoes because other 'men' sarted wearing high heeled shoes and/or because men of closetly questionable masculinity started wearing them.

    I think that Bowie consciousy and/or subconsciously selected an environment that allowed him to go from being of closetly questionable masculinity to openly questionable masculinity in greatest physical and psychological safety and probably with at least tacit initial approval from others sharing that environment to eventual open universal approval.

    The move from closetly questionable masculinity to fashion icon is not an easy one to negociate as my attempts to popularise the much needed male bra testify.

    Bill

    Willie Kerr. What can you say!
     
  18. wdd

    wdd Well-Known Member

     
  19. Cameron

    Cameron Well-Known Member

    netizens

    Of course to highlight a good leg to best effect you need stockings and as you might expect "real" men wore them to good effect long before the ladies.

    <http://foottalk.blogspot.com.au/2006/03/from-tips-of-her-toes-to-tops-of-her.html>


    And now for a brief history of men's underwear :)

    <http://foottalk.blogspot.com.au/2005/06/history-of-mens-underwear.html>

    :dizzy:
    toeslayer
     
  20. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Well, we all should know that those high heels are not good for us humans - including short humans. The above male examples may have a complex issue with their height (i.e. Prince/Love Symbol or whatever he calls himself these days did have an issue with this)... as for their "masculinity" - probably best I don't speculate on that (even Elton John).

    Anyway, interesting this topic should pop up... I have recently had my R.M Williams boots modified - I've had the heel lowered. Yes, I thought it be wise I practice what I preach - besides I am an advocate for plantigrade foot function (i.e. running shoe profile).

    Here are the R.M Williams - one of a kind...

    [​IMG]

    Feel good too - feeling the serum testosterone levels rising.

    The following is on my clinic wall - hence I should lead by example...

    [​IMG]
     
  21. Cameron

    Cameron Well-Known Member

    Ben-Hur

    No matter which side of the argument you take scientifically there is no independent evidence to support high heels are the major cause of ailments so frequently associated with a common sense approach. No one denies ill fitting footwear is an exciting faction in common foot pathologies but elevated heels are not by themselves a primary factor. Independent studies have shown knee rotation is greater in lower heels than in higher heels and whilst the researchers draw short of concluding lower heels are more likely to cause OA of the knee it leaves the practitioner to ponder cause and effect.

    Off course no podiatrist on Earth could not cite a hundred and one cases where they have seen high heels as an accessory to chronic foot problems but this must be tempered with the skewed population we find ourselves next to on a regular basis.

    Condemnation of women's shoe styles has a long history which chronologically happens to always correspond to women entering the workforce. From 18th century sex workers, 19th industrialisation, the Second World War, the Sexual revolution to the present day power dressers. You can track the declarations of doom (mainly from men ) and principally from pods and orthopods. All this despite the lack of scientific evidence. Hence the argument tends to prefer a mysogynistic perspective.

    <http://foottalk.blogspot.com.au/2010/06/sex-in-city-foot-binding-and-high-heels.html >

    In terms of eye catching press condemnation of heeled shoes today certainly captures the imagination of the mass population. A recent survey report from the College of Podiatry has gone all over the world. I would argue what they are saying is 100% nonsense but in terms of promotion it has been a very successful press release.


    Whilst many historians of costume cite heels as a technical development for horse riding not all are so convinced. One very pragmatic reason for an elevated heel was you could with relative ease replace or repair it. Much cheaper than replacing the shoes which might well at times have cost as much as a peasant would earn in a year.

    <http://foottalk.blogspot.com.au/2005/09/heels-from-hell.html>

    toeslayer
     
  22. Cameron

    Cameron Well-Known Member

    netizens

    Last word from me, I promise

    Throughout history there have been laws to prevent common people from dressing in a manner more befitting those of a higher station in life. Throughout antiquity this was common practice. By the middle ages marginalisation of minorities like criminals, ethnic groups and sex workers was very much the order of the day. Possibly the most well recognised badge of this type was the antisemitic, Star of David or Yellow badge. The laws were known as Sumptuary Laws

    <http://sumptuarylaw.blogspot.com.au/ >

    In the Dark Ages communities were very suspicious and superstitious, looking for indications of good and evil in everything. Flat feet were particularly seen as a omens of evil.

    < http://foottalk.blogspot.com.au/2005/07/feet-and-anti-semitism.html>

    By extension shoe makers gained a reputation of being mischief makers and could with their craft disguise a flat foot into an arched foot.

    <http://foottalk.blogspot.com.au/2006/01/body-image-and-anti-semitism.html>

    By the 17th century laws were still enacted which captured the fear of the unseen. This is from New Jersey (1670) when it was still a British Colony.

    " Be it resolved that all women, of whatever age, rank, profession, or degree; whether virgin maids or widows; that shall after the passing of this Act, impose upon and betray into matrimony any of His Majesty's male subjects, by scents, paints, cosmetics, washes, artificial teeth, false hair, Spanish wool, iron stays, hoops, high-heeled shoes, or bolstered hips, shall incur the penalty of the laws now in force against witchcraft, sorcery, and such like misdemeanours, and that the marriage, upon conviction, shall stand null and void."

    Men it appears are just frightened of high heeled women :cool:

    toeslayer
     
  23. wdd

    wdd Well-Known Member

     
  24. twirly

    twirly Well-Known Member

    A note of warning: To take an axe to a beloved pair of heels is likely to permanently alter the alignment of the axe swingers head & torso!

    ;)

    Oh to afford a pair of


    Even prepared to go all Victor Victoria if required.
     

    Attached Files:

  25. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Am I on a Podiatry forum - the infamous Podiatry Arena... an academic forum dealing with the enlightenment of practitioners who treat & advise on lower limb conditions... oh yes, I could have sworn I was... but... but...

    'toeslayer':
    I'm not even going to bother looking for the scientific literature (it's not worth my time & effort - later did do a 5min. search). Anyway, I base my opinion on common sense... furthermore, I base my opinion on my experience as a Podiatrist; I base my opinion on the evident anatomy, physiology & biomechanics of the lower limb in theory & during the likes of a gait assessment; on the empirical evidence that walks through my clinic (calluses, corns, neuromas, "hammer toes" on feet found within high heel shoes :eek:) - based on cause & effect in association with the signs & symptoms... as well as the feedback from my patients that inform me of their higher discomfort levels whilst wearing their high heels (enlightening for me as I don't wear them - despite being a male - but then there is this: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169814101000385... & this: http://fai.sagepub.com/content/26/12/1042.short)...

    As far as listening to women complaining about the discomfort from their high heels - I have learnt a lot over the years - a lot about women. If only this video was out when I first started - it could have saved me sooo much time & frustration :craig:



    ... albeit, I still try to fix things, or patch things up... for a compromise... despite getting a sore head at times :bang: .

    'toeslayer', I'm not sure what your background is - you seem to have an interest in shoes & you seem to have some odd compulsion to endorse/justify high heel shoes without recognition of the potential harm they can cause. You also appear to be a male (?).

    No? Not a primary factor?! How about - secondary, tertiary... maybe an exacerbating factor by any chance? For Pete's sake, let's look at some of the real potential issues here:

    - increase forefoot pressures - metatarsal heads - capsulitis.
    - increase trauma to those all important Sesamoid bones (please vote your support for the little fellas here).
    - increase forefoot trauma i.e. neuromas, capsulitis.
    - increase forefoot malalignment – phalanges (“Hammer Toes”).
    - increase risk of HAV development.
    - increase callosities, corns, fissuring of heels etc..
    - shorten calf muscle - decrease ankle joint ROM.
    - increase risk of Achilles trauma.
    - increase risk of ankle injuries i.e. inversion ankle sprain.
    - increase risk of OA of knees (despite what you say). Oh heck, here's some reference (found within the first few ref.) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673697112818; http://www.japmaonline.org/content/93/1/27.short; http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000399930401398X.
    - I would suspect potential for increase pelvis & spine issues i.e. greater lordosis of lumbar region hence increase chance of lower back pain.
    - I would suspect greater chance for headaches/migraines due to the effect & association of the Trapezius & Psoas Major muscles.

    Anybody else would like to add to the list - be my guest.

    Ummm.... yea "ponder cause and effect" is a good start... find the cause & address the issue i.e. muscle imbalance, poor footwear contributing to imbalance issues, biomechanical issue... anything but substantiate the treatment/prescription of a crutch (high heel) that then can create further problems down the track. I don't have knee issues, people I know who wear low profile shoes don't have knee issues... so what would/should this tell us/you?

    What the :bang: You mean the population who comes to us for foot problems? ... because they have sore feet? ... because they wear certain types of footwear by any chance? Maybe I operate a weird clinic, maybe I operate in a weird area, maybe I have weird patients. Hmmm, maybe I've got it all wrong... maybe there is another reason why the majority of my patients are female... maybe it's some epigenetic issue, to do with the XX chromosome... maybe it's hormonal, maybe it's wearing skirts, the length of hair, the width of their pelvis (OK, I'll stop here)... noooo... the difference in footwear wouldn't be a factor - surely not.

    Say, is that "comment of the year" award still up for grabs on this forum (the above is my submission).
    Well, I see we're scrapping the bottom of the barrel now but I honestly didn't in my wildest dreams expect misogyny to be behind this conspiracy theory against the poor old innocent high heel shoe (worst still misogynistic "pods and orthopods" :eek:). I could have sworn my heart stop beating when I read that. Hey if anyone here wants to incite misandry (oh, hang on – the above accusations may qualify) & another incite misanthropy then we should just about cover it... & have a real doozy of a thread on our hands (& as that Joe Jackson song goes - "then there will be no people left").


    Fancy that "100% nonsense" - who'd had thought :sinking:


    Yea sorry 'toeslayer' - I just don't agree with your apparent biased opinion on the innocence of high heels ... & the nature of your above reasoning. Sure, you're entitled to your opinion... but I struggle to leave your justification behind it unanswered.

    You wouldn't by any chance have a vested interest in high heels?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  26. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Thanks for the heads up on that ;)

    Excuse my bafflement... & apparent insensitive cartoon. I'm sincerely curious... do girls look at high heels & have similar cognitive distortion patterns in the same way that guys have towards cars & gadgets? What is it about the shoes... the contours, the look, the potential for slimmer ankle line, the increase height, the double-up for a potential weapon?

    I would really like to know... no, sincerely I would.
     
  27. twirly

    twirly Well-Known Member

    Hi Matthew,

    What we admire is not necessarily what is appropriate. That which we desire is also not always what we attain.

    Do I like those heels? Yes.
    Could I walk in them? Not a prayer.
    Would I like a pair in my wardrobe? God yes!
    Why? Still trying to figure the real reason myself.

    Alyssa Siegel wrote an interesting article on the subject.

    Kindest regards,

    Mandy.
     
  28. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Hi Mandy. Thanks for sharing. I think I'll put all this down to as an interesting phenomenon. That Alyssa Siegel article was an interesting read... I still struggle to fully grasp the psyche behind it all - but hey, I realise that I don't need to understand everything... it's good to have mysteries... it makes the world a bit more interesting.

    Kind regards,
    Matt.
     
  29. wdd

    wdd Well-Known Member

    Wow! That's a nice coverall get out of jail free.

    Maybe toesplayer can give use a bit more information about the nature of Spanish wool's contribution to this betrayal,ie what was/is it, how did it work, does it work equally well for men, where can you buy it?

    The above quote doesn't leave you wondering which of the sexes was dominant.

    If women had been the dominant members of society I wonder what they would include in the place of, "scents, paints, ...... etc?

    Bill
     
  30. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    The following article was released yesterday by The Sydney Morning Herald - reported by a female: Sarah Berry...

    High heels: the pointy end of a crippling problem
    http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/lif...nd-of-a-crippling-problem-20130620-2olg2.html


    Thus further reasoning, logic & common sense which dispels 'toeslayer's' bizarre misogyny conspiracy theory :)wacko: :pigs:) claims against the high heel shoe.
     
  31. wdd

    wdd Well-Known Member

    I think that 'Nosegayer' has highlighted another interesting feature of the high heeled shoe, ie the high heel as evidence of misogyny ('conspiracy theory' implies conscious, organised activity and doesn't on the whole seem to describe the situation accurately).

    The mysogyny manifested in the male criticism of high heels and their use, with it's apparent and inherent need to control and define femininity, is one thing. But another and far more insidious aspect of this mysogyny becomes clear if the high heeled shoe is considered as a symbol of this mysogyny and therefore of an abuser (male) abused (female) relationship.

    The abuser, through his continual criticism, attempts to maintain control of the abused. The abused attempts to demonstrate her 'feedom and autonomy' by continuing in the action criticized by the abuser. However the shoe itself, in its confinement, distortion, limitation, discomfort, represents the abuser. Therefore the abused by continuing in her attempt to demonstrate her freedom is in fact demonstrating her enslavement and becomes an unwilling partner in her own enslavement. A catch 22 situation.


    Bill
     
  32. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member


    Hmmm. So who was abusing Charles I (other than the ultimate abuse by the Headsman).

    Bill Liggins
     
  33. wdd

    wdd Well-Known Member

    The 59 commissioners who passed judgement against him were probably his penultimate abusers and whoever pulled the commisioners strings would be the antepenultimate abusers.

    Seriously, I don't think that the symbolism of high heeled shoes worn by women can be transferred to men even if the men are transvestites wearing women's high heels rather than non-transvestites wearing high heeled shoes specifically designed for men. Although undoubtedly in each of these cases there is a symbolism associated with the high heels.

    Bill.
     
  34. OMG! What did I start ?!
     
  35. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member


    Must be 'society' then. It's always 'their' fault.

    Cheers

    Bill
     
  36. blinda

    blinda MVP

    Ella and I loved our sensible pod shoes worn at this years` Summer School;

    [​IMG]


    as did Athol, who took this pic.:drinks
     
  37. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Doing some catching up on some reading last night (on yet another wild Saturday night :rolleyes:) I came across the following piece from a Podiatry Arena member...

    From the article: 7 Surprising Sources of Running Injuries (Note: the link will probably give you a security warning - don't worry, it's safe - it's from the Runner's World website)...

    Hence more sound reasoning added to the list for not condoning the use of high heel wearing (for male & female)... particularly as health professionals specialising in this area of the body (Podiatrists).

    Then if we were to continue further down the article we come across a phenomenon that is often associated with high heel wearing (i.e. at social events)... drinking alcohol... & adverse affects on the Achilles tendon...

    Hence poor choices pertaining to footwear will increase the chances leading to poor posture/musculoskeletal conditioning (i.e. tightness, weakness) as well as poor choices in substance consumption (poor healing). There are always connections (interrelated issues) regarding achieving optimal health & wellbeing... & subsequently deterioration & unwellness.

    Naturally as a Podiatrist I see many ailments - from dermatological to metabolic (syndrome) to biomechanical... & I have to say, most could be avoided if humans made better lifestyle decisions – poor lifestyle decisions of which are made largely to appease rather superficial reasoning i.e. look/fashion, social peer pressure, appetite etc... We need to exercise some common sense & target where the blame should lay – ourselves – the ones initiating the primary cause factors. Putting aside the largely unavoidable case of carcinogenic pollutants as well as Genetic Entropy (accumulation of genome mutations –> degradation of the gene pool i.e. familial inheritance issues – as with point 1 of the article) contributing to ailments or reducing our injury threshold for potential ailments (i.e. running injuries)... we should be wise in avoiding poor lifestyle factors which are scientifically/medically known to contribute to injury & disease... some of which should be now (by 2013) be regarded as common sense... albeit require self discipline for some to refrain from i.e. wearing high heels, eating poor food (i.e. animal products, processed food), drinking class 1 carcinogens (alcohol). Self discipline again is required to also become more active for thus appropriately conditioning our bodies to withstand the demands we place on them i.e. strengthening & stretching muscles (which is associated with points 2 – 6 of the article). Thus points 1 – 7 are factors we can choose to positively influence, albeit point 1 (“Parents” – adverse familial inheritance) less so due to varying genetic entropy factors beyond our control. Then there are those carcinogenic pollutants (i.e. environmental chemicals, radiation) which adversely affect our wellbeing (i.e. cancer) - also somewhat out of our control.

    Of course, everyone has a right to do whatever they want in regard to their self... but just don't continually complain about your problems & initiate the blame game (on others or some bankrupt naturalistic viewpoint) when your own poor lifestyle decisions come back to bite you. In other words – suck it up & take responsibility... & make the time & effort for necessary changes. I suppose this comment comes off the back of a recent event with a patient who would continually complain about her sore feet (i.e. corns) every 6 weeks, of which recently had the audacity to question my treatment (i.e. blame me). Every 6 weeks corns in particular locations (i.e. dorsal lateral aspect of 5th MPJ) would be present - by end of consult these corns would be completely removed - 6 weeks later this individual would come back with the same complaints - wearing the same @#$%&@! high heel narrow toe box shoes (with a lateral toe box shoe upper bulge - coincidently corresponding to location of corns on both 5th MPJ).

    As health professionals we shouldn’t really just stop at obvious adverse footwear. There are other purely lifestyle factors (choices) which impact our treatment regime & the health & wellbeing of our patients. There are my overweight clients with their Type II Diabetes, hypertension, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis & the likes, taking a plethora of pharmaceuticals to address/mask avoidable conditions (i.e. statins -> high cholesterol) ... avoidable if they made better lifestyle changes i.e. with their diet & their activity/exercise level. Having an interest/passion in this area (i.e. diet & exercise) I advise on better lifestyle alternatives to their own obvious (cause & effect) destructive choices. Sometimes I feel I'm :deadhorse:... due to their reluctance to consider alternatives & journey beyond their ‘comfort’ (yet destructive) zone - their aches & pain & general unwellness remain... & will continue to do so till their premature death... “death” of which that some refer to as “natural” (anything but “natural” in my view). Some have made changes... reversed their Diabetes (yes, it can be done), reversed their neuropathy (yes, it can be done), lost weight, reduced their arthritic symptoms, resolved their musculoskeletal symptoms, improved their injury threshold & become more active & healthy (adding quality years to their lifespan).

    Reversal of conditions will occur in most cases if we abstain from adverse lifestyle choices (i.e. high heels, poor food etc...) & appropriately exercise/condition our bodies to regain the intended optimal state of conditioning/wellbeing for a more active & productive lifestyle... we just need to also exercise that other matter... the one between our ears!
     
  38. Cameron

    Cameron Well-Known Member

    netizens

    "Condemnation of women's shoe styles has a long history which chronologically happens to always correspond to women entering the workforce. From 18th century sex workers, 19th industrialisation, the Second World War, the Sexual revolution to the present day power dressers. You can track the declarations of doom (mainly from men) and principally from pods and orthopods. All this despite the lack of scientific evidence. Hence the argument tends to prefer a misogynistic perspective.”

    The misogynistic perspective I referred too (above) reflects historical fact and is not a personal opinion (as some correspondents seem to think). Baring in mind I am a (born again) shoe historian and anthropologist I seek more than anecdotal evidence and medicalisation of heel wearing has been shown to have no scientific substance at this time.

    Enjoy reading:

    Linder M and Saltzman CL 1988 A history of medical scientists on high heels International Journal of Health Services

    <http://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1074&context=law_pubs>

    I certainly would not contest a volume argument and ill fitting shoes are most certainly an exciting factors in common foot pathology but not the primary cause of major foot problems.

    Medical condemnation of peek toed shoes also has an established history stemming from the mid 20th century. The fashion for winkle pickers combined with stiletto heels brought on a barrage of health warnings that a generation would suffer foot ailments as yet never seen yet despite these forebodings this did not materialise. Current epidemiology would support one third of the population experience foot problems and approximately one third of that population require medical/professional foot care. I might suggest the current procrastination regarding high heeled shoes for young women will in the long term make no appreciable difference to the overall foot health of the population.

    The history of peek toed shoes (poulaines) show from the 11th century men’s shoes in Europe started to get longer and longer until eventually they were worn 24” longer than the foot itself. It is documented a nameless cobbler crafted a pair of peek toed shoes for a European courtier called Rulk Fulkner. Rulk was a dandy, a fop and dedicated setter of fashion but contemporary accounts confirm he suffered from broad feet and painful bunions. He commissioned fashionable shoes to fit his angular feet. The cobbler made shoes fourcentimetres longer than the toes, meeting at a sharp point. The peek toe shoe was called the poulaine and became a very popular male style for over three hundred years.

    Soon extensions became longer and longer until they were so long as to make walking almost impossible. Young bucks started to stuff wool and moss in the extensions to keep them erect. Indeed the blatant phallic symbol became so long, often they had to be attached to the knee with a chain to prevent tripping. (Sabbaton). A popular vulgarity was to paint the extensions flesh coloured, allowing them to flap with lifelike mobility. Small bells (hawk bells) were often attached to the end of the poulaine to indicate the wearer was a willing partner in sexual frolic. Footsie - footsie took on a more meaningful importance during this time and many a dinner party would be enhanced with below table carry on.

    The poulaine was the fore-runner to the codpiece. Shocked at the overt obscenity of the habit, the Church tried to stop men from wearing them. Initially they were condemned because they physically prevented them from praying. This edict met with dumb silence. Considered as Satan's Curse University professors were banned from wearing them in the thirteenth century. The Black Plague (1348) was cited by the clergy as God's revenge for the poulaine. In 1367, Pope Urban V publicly scorned the fashion and banned commoners wearing them with penalty of excommunication and in some cases death. He was less adamant with upper classes, turning a blind eye to their open promiscuity, and granting those of royal birth immunity to wear the poulaine. The end of the fashion came in the 15th century.

    <http://foottalk.blogspot.com.au/2005/05/shoes-and-sex.html >



    :D
    toeslayer
     
  39. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    The problem with blaming footwear for all foot pathology, is that it only needs one exception to show the statement to be fallacious. For example, we are all aware of cases of HAV occurring in unshod persons. We are also all aware of lesser digit fixed flexion deformities caused by (as an underlying factor) swing phase substitution etc. etc. and that does not take into account underlying pathological states. However, it is fair to state (as does Toeslayer) that the exciting factor is frequently poor choice of footwear. In an ideal world all footwear would be bespoke. However, the west - and Imelda Marcus - demonstrates that possession of the necessary wherewithal does not lead to the purchase of bespoke footwear but to quantity rather than quality. For this reason we must expect our good advice to be frequently ignored. So what can we do? Treat anatomical pathology by correcting it (podiatric surgery) and functional pathology by correcting it (orthoses) etc. Anything less, then we are guilty of failing to fulfill our function and the patient does have a right to complain. If corrective treatment is offered and refused then the patient has no right to complain.

    Bill Liggins
     
  40. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Toeslayer - you wrote the above at post #21... no quotes, no references stating that is was a "historical fact" & that it wasn't your personal opinion. The above also makes specific reference to "pods and orthopods". If the following quote (at post #38) is true - that being not your personal opinion, then maybe you should have articulated yourself clearer with the context of the misogyny claims... or is it really your personal opinion based on your views of "historical fact"???...
    ... but then you stated the following in post #22...
    ... alluding to a misogynistic perspective by any chance... a generalised view of men who do not condone (or who warn against) the use of high heels... or just stated in jest? From what I understand via speaking to female clients working in the corporate world, it is the men enforcing they wear high heels - they feel pressure to do so (against their will in many cases) - hence dispelling the legitimacy of the above quote.

    This is a Podiatry forum & whilst I can't speak for the other male members of this forum, my views pertaining to high heels are purely that of clinical & research literature evidence (as stated previously in post #25). Whilst there just may be some chance of a misogynistic perspective pertaining to high heels in some insecure men somewhere on this planet & in this planet's history, I couldn't care less within the context of my posts within this thread on this medical based Podiatry forum.

    But also in post #22 you stated the following...
    Maybe you have a tendency to write things - but mean something else... or is it vice versa :wacko:? Anyway, with this apparent confused intentions in mind...
    The above can be taken either way Toeslayer (for or against the medical concerns of heel wearing), but keeping in line with your shaky logic (yet inconsistent) I should be able to guess your above perspective... & a blinded (&/or biased) perspective it is. I take it you have never come across the following associations with high heels... albeit exacerbating the following conditions...
    See above the previous quote... stated back at post #25.

    You wouldn't by any chance have something in common with Austin Powers - been frozen in time... out of touch with reality?

    Firstly, no one is stating... "all foot pathology" (I have highlighted the areas of concern above... as has others).

    Secondly, your logic regarding "one exception" leading to fallaciousness is invalid... hmmm, well analogies come flooding to me... like those people who live to a ripe old age of say 90 - & smoke!; those who manage to drink & drive (high blood alcohol reading) & not crash; those who sunbake in the sun for years & not get skin cancer (i.e. BCC); those who eat a high meat diet & not get bowel cancer; those who run barefoot & not get a metatarsal stress fracture etc. etc... There are many variable factors behind why some get what they get (i.e. bowel cancer) & another (doing the same thing) doesn't get what another gets (i.e. HAV) – factors include i.e. DNA profile, difference in health/lifestyle, difference in diet, difference in physiology, biomechanics, muscle strength/tightness, age, stress levels/coping mechanisms, male/female etc. etc... Yet it is our job/role/duty of care... to advise our patients to avoid such activities (of which beyond reasonable doubt) that could provide potential to initiate harm or exacerbate, prolong current conditions.

    Like high heels (pointy toe box or not)... by any chance?
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page