• about me
  • also me
  • email me: dicta (dot) chick (at) gmail (dot) com
  • Wednesday, May 23, 2007

    Didn't John "the Bisquit" Cage invent this?

    Ya' know, from Ally McBeal? Because he was so much shorter than his girlfriend?

    I found it sexist then: he would use a remote control to drop the height of the heel whenever he wanted so his girlfriend didn't tower over him. That's right -- HE controlled her height because he was insecure about being short. (What's next? A remote control to shorten a woman's skirt or lower her neckline to expose cleavage? Pffft.)

    And now I think it's just plain impractical.

    When that high heel flips down and you walk on the shorter heel, won't you wear the heel down? Ya' know, ordinary wear and tear. Then when you flip the heel back to high, won't it be an uneven surface (because the base -- the shorter heel -- has been worn down), making it unstable and unsafe? If you're like me, not only will you wear the heel down quickly but it will also be uneven. My shoes are always more worn out on the outside of the heel than on the inside because I rotate my foot out a bit when I walk. Why would I want to attach a higher heel on an uneven surface? Did they consider that in the design?

    A better idea would be to have an extension heel that uses the same base as the walking surface. Literally, elevator shoes. The high heel retracts into the lower heel and extends for height -- but the same surface would be in contact with the ground. That way, you avoid the issue of uneven wear resulting in an unstable heel.

    Maybe I'm thinking about this too much. But the retractable heel could have traction!

    There ya' go, ladies and gents. You read it here first!

    (P.S. thanks to Feministing for the link)

    Labels:

    eXTReMe Tracker