I wrote an op-ed piece about the controversy that grips the world of fashion and the state of womankind.  The op-ed by me deals with high heels and whether they’re destroying women or just more proof that girls are silly.  Here is my op editorial post:

The spring/summer 2010 collections showed lots of extremely high heels, and with them, prompted commentary about why women are so ridiculous to choose such footwear despite its toll on the body (NY Mag’s The Cut, Style.com’s Style File, NYTimes’ Room for Debate).

The most compelling analysis I read comes from economist Robert H. Frank, as featured on Room for Debate.  He argues that the pursuit of ever-escalating high heels is a status “arms race” for the title of tallest woman in the room.  Fair enough.  The advantages to relative height supremacy make an established and convincing motive.

I wish he’d go further into how status relates to fashion, though.  Specifically, there are status cues that a woman communicates with her super high heels.  High end shoes are generally more stable and wearable than mall/discount/knock-off shoes, so looking comfortable in impractical heels signifies that the woman is wearing something expensive.  It also shows that she is able to adapt to change quickly since she’s seemingly at home in a physically demanding design from the forefront of fashion.

But hey, it’s cool that an economist wrote something illuminating about an aspect of fashion, even if the piece ultimately suffers from treating the topic too superficially.  Frank’s lament about what he terms a wasteful arms race misses that high heels represent a battle and not a war, and that fashion is too transient to concern itself with the results.  A few seasons ago, people were debating why women carry big, heavy bags despite the potential back injuries.  No one is reporting from the chiropractors’ front lines now.

Tags: fas, Fashion/Design, SS2010