Why Must Women Wear High Heels?
Maybe it's become a talking point among those in the women-empowerment racket, but I have a hard time understanding the notion that expensive, sky-high pumps boost a woman's confidence. Pain is not empowering.
August 16, 2018 at 04:46 PM
4 minute read
At one of those pow-wows for female lawyers, where the goal is to fire up women about their careers, the speaker—a stylish female judge—asked the audience: “And, ladies, don't you feel powerful when you stride into that courtroom in your Louboutin pumps with the five-inch heels?”
Judging by the nods and big smiles in the audience, the answer seemed to be a resounding yes.
Maybe it's become a talking point among those in the women-empowerment racket, but I have a hard time understanding the notion that expensive, sky-high pumps boost a woman's confidence. In my experience, no matter how much they cost, they're painful. And pain is not empowering. (Yes, I know, some women swear that Manolos, which retail for well over $600 a pair, are “comfortable,” but I'm not convinced.)
So what's the deal? Are high, high heels a basic necessity in the female lawyer's arsenal? And are women jeopardizing their careers if they wear a shoe that's only three inches (gasp!) high or less (double gasp!)?
“I definitely noticed the trend several years ago where wearing expensive high heels became de rigueur among female lawyers,” says Alanna Rutherford, a former Boies Schiller Flexner partner who's now vice president of global litigation at Visa Inc. “I always thought it was more about a display of wealth—Louboutins and Jimmy Choos—than power.”
Of course, high heels are also about sex. Because a woman is basically balancing on her toes, high heels make her legs look longer, more shapely and alluring. But for whatever reason, high heels also have become an indispensable component of looking “professional” and “put together.”
Kila Baldwin, a partner at personal injury firm Kline & Specter in Philadelphia, learned the perils of not wearing heels, according to an article about female trial lawyers in The Atlantic by Lara Bazelon. When her tendons got inflamed, Baldwin switched to flats in arguing a case before a jury. After the trial, a female juror criticized her shoe choice. ”You get less respect,” Baldwin said about not wearing heels.
So does Baldwin regard high heels as something oppressive—something she dreads wearing? Not at all. “They are absolutely empowering, but also painful,” she tells me. “I long to wear them but can't,” alluding to her injury.
Amazingly, injuries do not dampen some women's high heel longings. A former Big Law partner who now works for the government also laments not being able to wear towering heels after a foot injury. She argues that heels “actually physically alter a person. They make the person taller,” adding that she feels “a loss” for no longer wearing them. “I don't think it's nonsense when women say it make them more powerful. They're a way better version of shoulder pads!”
But former litigator Rutherford cautions: “I just don't think it's practical if you are someone who spends any amount of time on your feet or running around a courtroom and courthouse.”
Rutherford concedes, however, that high heels have their purpose. She recalls dealing with a business person “who thought he knew the law better than the lawyers.” To put him in his place, she wore her highest heels “which made me a couple inches taller than he was,” she says. “So, if using heels for strategic advantage or literal leverage over someone is what is meant by feeling powerful, I guess I have done it at least once and can concede the positive effect.”
The bottom line: High heels are painful, but so worth the agony. Go figure.
Contact Vivia Chen at [email protected]. On Twitter: @lawcareerist
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHSF's American Dream: What Will a U.S. Merger Mean For its Asia Practice?
Trending Stories
- 1Attorney Responds to Outten & Golden Managing Partner's Letter on Dropped Client
- 2Attracted to Thompson Hine's Fee Flexibility, Morgan Lewis Litigator Switches Firms in Chicago
- 3Phila. Attorney Hit With 5-Year Suspension for Mismanaging Firm and Mishandling Cases
- 4Simpson Thacher Replenishes London Ranks With Latest Linklaters Defection
- 5Holland & Knight, Akin, Crowell, Barnes and Day Pitney Add to DC Practices
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250