OH MY GOD. First Strawberry Shortcake gets tramped - uh "revamped" - and now this. I'm guessing by 4 o'clock we'll be getting a press release for the new line of diaper thongs??? Ugh.

*shudders*

ugggh

Honestly, I don't find this any more offensive than any of the other baby versions of adult items. I think they're cute.

They're ugly!

Is it just me or does it seem stupid to buy your baby designer clothes and stupid stuff like that when 1)they don't know what they're wearing and 2)they grow so fast?

Well, I know it makes me sad because you know there are people out there who will think this is a great idea and that they're cute and fun, and will buy them in a heartbeat for their baby girls.

The freakiest part about it is that one of the aspects of wearing high heels is that they push your bum out a little and kind of force your body into a "sexier" stance (subjectively speaking). So what sicko thought this would be a good idea - even as a "joke" - for BABIES?

Thanks for posting this Jessica. :)

Honestly, the only thing about these that I find hilarious in any way is that they look almost exactly like the heels Daisy Duck wears in all those old cartoons, which I thought were atrocious (style-wise). But of course, the fact that these are for little wee babies just makes it kind of sickening...

Fuck-me pumps for infants. Why not get your daughter a lobotomy and a perm and start touring pageants?

I was a nudie baby, my daughter was a little nudie too. Happy babies have naked butts and dirty feet.

Also I'm not cool with imposing gender norms on an infant.

I'm not sure if "body image" is the right tag for this. I don't think putting heels on a female infant that can't walk yet is going to have any more effect on her body image/sexuality than putting a three-year-old boy in a dress, which was what you used to do until they invented easy-diaper-change pants. In terms of what it does to the baby, I don't see any difference between this and those horrible animal-shaped onesies. It's just a different idea of "cute." The only thing the baby knows about what she's wearing is whether it's comfortable or not, and if she's anything like most of the babies I've known (disclaimer: not a mom), those shoes won't be on for very long.

Not the the reverse infantilization (I guess--I can't think of any better way to term it) shouldn't be examined. But I find that trend more alarming when it equals bikinis for five year olds.

Babies always kick their shoes off anyway. Save your money and buy them some nice socks.

Seriously, what is up with people practically calling the new Strawberry Shortcake a slut? Remind me never to tape down my breasts and wear waist-high pants, because apparently this is way trampy. Sure, she's a lot more glamorous now, which could be a problem (as I child I would've much rather had a stuffed-doll type imaginary friend than a glamorous, otherworldly type), but I don't get all the slurring.

First of all, the fact that high heels were designed, 1, to make women less mobile, 2, to make noise and thus make obvious where a woman is (cow-bell, anyone?) and 3, to differentiate and sexualize the female form, makes my relationship with the high heel precarious enough. But to design a shoe like this for a baby? The point of the outrage at these heels is, I'm sure, not due to objections from the baby's point of view (except, perhaps, what the fuck did you put on my feet?) since we all understand from personal experience that one does not become conscious of one's state of living until the age of three or four. The outrage, at least mine, comes from the fact that someone wanted to sexualize and objectify a BABY! There is too much sexual abuse and violence towards babies, especially baby girls, in this world for this to be considered even remotely funny. It's on the same level as rape jokes, for me actually. Completely unexceptable.

It could be argued that it's just more adult things made tiny, how cute, but dressing a baby in a pumpkin costume for Halloween comes nowhere near to the culturally-loaded punch these tiny women-only torture devices carry.

I do wear high heels on occassion, but I do so conscious of the fact that high heels are a tool of the patriarchy.

This is just, ugh.

What worries me even more than the insane gender norms, is what effect the shoes would have medically speaking. You really want your kid to learn to walk in these things? Why don't you start binding their feet while you're at it?

um I don't know how many of you have ever been around babies, but a child young enough to wear those shoes... Cannot Walk! So seriously, this will not mess with their posture, or hobble them, or give them a sexy ass.

Make what you will of the social implications of it, but for crying out loud can we least be realistic about what these shoes entail?

Also, just for the record, heels were not invented for to enslave women (although I'd agree they've worked very to that purpose in recent decades). But initially they were very much a unisex, or male even, phenomenon.

Genetic Mishap, not that I approve of these, because I really, really don't, but they're not designed for babies old enough to be walking. They're basically intended for 0-6 months.

They're pretty ick, but I'm really more annoyed that little girl shoes that are designed for walkers have heels. Wide, clunky heels, but no 2-year-old needs a near one-inch heel, and no five-year-old needs a nearly two-inch heel.

I understand all the trappings of wearing high heels, but I think in this case we're making a big deal of nothing. Those shoes are obviously not made to be walked in, as most baby shoes aren't. It's no different than all the other mini-sized adult clothes made for babies.

Well, they aren't actually walk-able, their constructed more like plush toys. But I think about those studies where they took the same baby and dressed it in pink or blue, and adults reacted totally differently to the baby depending on whether they thought it was male or female -- called the perceived-male baby strong and active, called the perceived-female baby pretty and sweet. They talked to the babies accordingly, played with the babies accordingly. So what is put on the baby does indeed get reflected back at the baby. And while it may not be noticed by an infant, over time as the kid grows into a toddler, those gendered expectations do start to sink in. So I think these are awful in that they're just one more way to get adults to project their gendered expectations on children beginning at earlier and earlier ages. (And then, because gendered behavior shows up so early, people can claim it's "innate").

Genetic mishap - footbinding was exactly the first thing I thought of, too. Because that's what these look like to me - those tiny, tiny shoes that women whose feet had been bound had to wear.

Yes, I understood from the get-go that they're intended for babies and not for toddlers. But that was still my first thought.

Oh, this is what the world really needs: More useless plastic crap that serves no purpose whatsoever and will eventually wind up in a landfill.

I think these high heels on a baby mainly affect how adults treat her and view her from the beginning. It speaks more about the parents who seem to be inclined to assign stereotypical roles early on.

kids pick up on that in the long run and build an identity for themselves (although this doesn't happen in a week or a month, but rather throughout several years)

I also want to add that parenting is tough and I really hate bashing on parents. I'd rather think about the irresponsibility of businesses who sell these things.

Just because babies can't TELL you about it yet, does not mean they are not self-aware. Later, as memory develops, the unspoken experiences are "forgotten" but not really lost.

And as all ready pointed out, presentation of infants effect how adults treat them. They process that too.

So, pumps for babies - please no. It might be possible to turn them into ironic tampon holders for grown-ups though...

Many thanks Lucretia for setting the historical record straight. While high heels may not always be the most sensible choice they were certainly not 'designed' as a weapon of the patriarchy (unless the target of that weapon was other men).

Anyone who's interested should take a look at some of the recent writing on 16th century costume books including Bronwen Wilson's 'The World in Venice' or Ann Rosalind Jones and Tita Rosenthal's writing on Cesare Veccelio.

I suppose I just don't understand how some of the posters here (i.e .people unusually attuned to media, society, and culture and how they affect us) could find anything RIGHT about faux-heels for babies.

In the U.S., any type of clothes on an adult woman implies she chose to wear them (at least I sure hope so). But anything on a baby is heavily loaded by virtue of the fact that the stuff was chosen FOR it. AS such, what babies wear and use and ride around in is a reflection of adult mores.

So, what does it say that adults want girls in one color and boys in another, because--horrors--they may be mistaken for the opposite "gender"? What does it say that overalls (trad. "working" clothes) are marketed to parents of baby boys whilst faux-high heels are marketed to baby girls?

Obviously, neither the baby boy in his overalls is going to be pushing a plow or filing an e-brief,nor the baby girl prancing down a dance floor in shiny faux-heels.

But as Calliope and others have rightly pointed out, adults SURE do react (mostly subconsciously) to this type of gendering, and boom! You wake up one day and you see that your five year old girl begging for a sparkly midriff top has been "gendered."

Well these are ugly and even if I wasn't horrified by the social implications they just are NOT cute.

Re: heels being designed to hold women down... No. Heels were originally worn exclusively by men, and trickled down into fashion for women. And just because something has negative effects for women doesn't mean someone literally thought through all the ways it could be used to oppress women, come on now

They do LOOK almost precisely like "lotus shoes" for bound feet. So that freaks me out a little.

But really, I just find them obnoxious in the way that all baby products intended solely for adult yuks are kind of obnoxious. I put them in the same category as those pacifiers with "billy bob teeth" or toddler tees that say "daddy drinks because I cry". ha ha. A buddy will give these little shoes as a shower gift, the parents will say, "oh. You shouldn't have". And then they'll get "accidentally" left on a shelf until they're outgrown.

I Hope.

Louis XIV looked quite dashing in a pair of red heels, I'm given to understand. There's a quite famous painting of him wearing them. Picture of him here. Look at those legs! There's also a funeral wax of whoever was king in England after the Cromwell affair (forget his name at the moment) in heels and hose, that other oppressor of the female form.

And yeah, I'm with Fenriswolf (until Ragnarok, that is): "Bad for women" doesn't necessarily mean "designed for the express purpose of oppressing women."

(Sorry if this posts more than once. I didn't see it go through the first time.)

Louis XIV looked quite dashing in a pair of red heels, I'm given to understand. There's a quite famous painting of him wearing them. Picture of him here. Look at those legs! There's also a funeral wax of whoever was king in England after the Cromwell affair (forget his name at the moment) in heels and hose, that other oppressor of the female form.

And yeah, I'm with Fenriswolf (until Ragnarok, that is): "Bad for women" doesn't necessarily mean "designed for the express purpose of oppressing women."

yeah, I'm with Fenriswolf (until Ragnarok, that is)

I understand all the trappings of wearing high heels, but I think in this case we're making a big deal of nothing. Those shoes are obviously not made to be walked in, as most baby shoes aren't. It's no different than all the other mini-sized adult clothes made for babies.

Terrible argument, and you're not even the first person to say that. You think that heels for a baby are literally on the same level as say, jeans for a baby? according to this logic, thongs and low-rise jeans should also be fair game for babies, cuz you know, they're just smaller versions of what adults wear.

And some third-wavers just don't understand why fellow feminists despise crap like Sex and the City. Hmm...I wonder?

I understand all the trappings of wearing high heels, but I think in this case we're making a big deal of nothing. Those shoes are obviously not made to be walked in, as most baby shoes aren't. It's no different than all the other mini-sized adult clothes made for babies.
Bad logic. There are "adult" clothes that are made for babies because they are functional - i.e. clothes worn by people of all ages - and there are genuinely adult clothes that are totally inappropriate for those who are not adults (i.e. lingerie, thongs, heels, stockings). The clothing that falls into the latter group has a function beyond being an attractive means to cover oneself; it also functions to be either sexual or to indicate a part of society.

Now, can we imagine someone making little wool suits with camisoles or ties for little baby boys and girls? Obviously ridiculous - little babies aren't in the business world, so they don't need attire that is used solely for the business world. Likewise, babies aren't out to look sexy (or professional), so heels aren't appropriate.

oh my god. High heels are so evil. I'm not surprised at all.

Everything grapeshot said. Except I never wear high heels because, like she said,they are tools of patriarchy.

As the years pass, america tries to sexualize girls at younger and younger ages, so I guess now it's offically reached infants. DISGUSTING.

What's with the black patent and red faux velvet lining??

As if the heel wasn't bad enough on its own, they have to go all out and make them look like something Julia Roberts wore in Pretty Woman?

Whatever happened to "barefoot and in a solid (pale) colored onesie?"

That seems to be the most appropriate clothing choice, unless of course the weather is cold enough to justify little pants and socks. Maybe soft booties if you're headed out with the kid, and a jacket.

Any shoes, like, proper shoes, are just insane at that age.

I posted about these at mothertalkers dot com the other day and expected the same kind of reaction here- hell in a hand basket. But after giving it a day and looking back at them, I had to agree with most of the posters over there- any time we put our kids in a gender-specific outfit we run the risk of creating gender cues in our kids.

A child is NOT going to develop a stripper-like mentality because her momma put her in heels anymore than she will develop a Star Wars obsession due to that Halloween costume where she was dressed up as Yoda at 10 months... oh, was that just my kid? Alllrighty then.

I have a friend whose daughter demands only dresses- she can't think of why, even though every time the kid is in her dress, she is praised as being "so pretty!" and all that. That is a conditioning behavior. My partner and I try our best to avoid any sort of "pretty" comments although I have to tell you, it's tough.

My 2 year old daughter learns the most from the people she mimics, which more often than not is me. I wear heels, she like to wear her dress up shoes. She watches me put on makeup and pretends to do that. She also sees me playing outside, running around, hugging her daddy and all sorts of good role-model things too.

Bottom line, if you don't like the shoes, don't buy em. But the people who do aren't subjecting their children to a lifetime of bad body images because of it.

I think I just heard the ghost of JonBenet Ramsay screaming. What the fuck is wrong that people want to sexualize girls--not all children, just GIRLS--at younger and younger ages? We have so taken many steps backwards in the past 10 years or so.

And did anyone notice the cute little plastic purse they come in? WTF.

Who cares that they're ugly? For Christ's sake, the very idea of putting high heels on a baby is appalling. It's not funny, it isn't cute, it is ATROCIOUS and sick. These are GIRLS, not women. Women have a choice to degrade themselves and damage their bodies to appeal to societal norms; kids don't. I think people should look deeper into what they're doing. It's like these girls who rock Playboy purses because they look cute. Pull your heads out of your asses and look at what clothes like these symbolize. It's like setting your children up to be comfortable with exploitation and dehuminization. It's not ok.

Who cares that they're ugly? For Christ's sake, the very idea of putting high heels on a baby is appalling. It's not funny, it isn't cute, it is ATROCIOUS and sick. These are GIRLS, not women. Women have a choice to degrade themselves and damage their bodies to appeal to societal norms; kids don't. I think people should look deeper into what they're doing. It's like these girls who rock Playboy purses because they look cute. Pull your heads out of your asses and look at what clothes like these symbolize. It's like setting your children up to be comfortable with exploitation and dehuminization. It's not ok.