Men in heels on Women's Hour

[at9]

BBC Radio 4. Women's Hour

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007qlvb

Friday 16th July. About 36 minutes into programme.

Hardeep Singh Kohli and Catherine Hayward, fashion director for Esquire magazine join Jenni to talk men, shoes and elevation.

Direct link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p008wp7n

[shrimper]

Not available.

[sendra45]

Thats a good little programme, well worth a listen. I think it will only be available if you are in the UK though, sorry for the rest of you.

[hhboots]

I was actually able to open the 2nd link posted without problem and I am in the US... so perhaps it was not an issue of location for Shimper? *shrug*

[SF]

I was able to listen to the program here in the US. Good to hear that on the air, it makes our "cause" more credible. I sent a response to the Womens Hour about my hh experience here in the US. It will be interesting to see if they use it. see ya, sf

[danielp6406]

I was able to listen to it ( Montreal, Canada )

I really like the comment near the end when the man

says something like "Men's shoes are old fashioned".

This made me smile as I was saying to myself

"this is exactly why I prefer women's shoes..."

... I sent a response to the Womens Hour about my hh experience here in the US.

It will be interesting to see if they use it...

Well done !

Please let us know if you get any reply from them !

[Histiletto]

It is good to hear that people are talking about men in heels, even though some of the comments are unfavorable. There is always going to be those who won't like the idea of people wearing high heels, no matter how popular they become.

[roniheels]

I enjoyed the broadcast. Any publicity for men wearing high heels has to be a step in the right direction. I was a little surprised to hear the negative comments coming from a male. Just from that short presentation, I interpreted that the women were more open minded about men in high heels than men.

[Majo]

I felt the same, Roni. The guy that's interviewed seems to be a wearer, but is no open to use them publicly even if he is in the fashion industry... seems a bit contradictory to me.

[shrimper]

Direct link is working now.

[hh4evr1]

I have listened to it an agree that the women seemed more open to the idea of men in heels. I have sent a comment to the radio. Hopefully if more people comment they may do a follow up story.

[Thighboots2]

To me the man sounded almost homophobic about the idea of heels for men. The woman demonstrated the openness that Kneehighs, Malinheels and others have written about in their threads. He clearly thinks that men should continue to be restricted in their approach to fashion using only hints of colour in an otherwise drab exterior of baggy ill-fitting clothes that somehow are deemed to be what we want to wear. He also expressed his opinion that mens legs should always be hidden. What tosh. Also he did engage his mouth before his brain in that he admitted to cross-dressing for professional reasons. His speech stumbled at first then his brain realised what he started to say and he had to finish the story much to his embarasment. He probably really enjoyed the experience, but seemed to be desperate not to show it. Simon.

[blender]

Hardeep has forgotten his Indian heritage of brightly coloured clothes and has been brainwashed by the European/ American way of dressing, i liked it when he mentioned he has cross dressed but only in a professional way!! yeah right like we believe that.

[Bubba136]

Hardeep has forgotten his Indian heritage of brightly coloured clothes and has been brainwashed by the European/ American way of dressing, i liked it when he mentioned he has cross dressed but only in a professional way!! yeah right like we believe that.

What does "in a professional way" mean? Does it mean that he did a stint as a female impersonator entertainer? Or, as a hooker for an in depth article on the life of street walkers? Or, as a clerk in a women's wear store? and even could it have been for a part as a woman in a after noon soap opera? Sounds kinda "thin" to me.

I'd rather read kneehigh's adventures than listen to someone I don't know saying things in which I absolutely have no confidence .

But, again, that is just me!

[blender]

a quote from hardeep singh kohli from the radio show "i have worn heels for work kind of dressing up as a women for a comedy show" that is what is meant by in a profesional way as an entertainer bubba 41 minutes and 8 seconds into the interview "I'd rather read kneehigh's adventures than listen to someone I don't know saying things in which I absolutely have no confidence ." we all like reading kneehigh's adventures and he is an insipriation to all of us as well as all the others that wear heels out and share their adventures for all of us to read.you cant know most of the people on this forum so does that mean that you have no confidence in them either? Or is it a select few that you like. Thats the way it looks to me anyway.

[Bubba136]

a quote from hardeep singh kohli from the radio show "i have worn heels for work kind of dressing up as a women for a comedy show" that is what is meant by in a profesional way as an entertainer bubba 41 minutes and 8 seconds into the interview

"I'd rather read kneehigh's adventures than listen to someone I don't know saying things in which I absolutely have no confidence ."

we all like reading kneehigh's adventures and he is an insipriation to all of us as well as all the others that wear heels out and share their adventures for all of us to read.you cant know most of the people on this forum so does that mean that you have no confidence in them either? Or is it a select few that you like.

That's the way it looks to me anyway.

Blender, you can take my comments anyway you want to. I won't be offended if you decide that I am not credit worthy. Because, I really don't give a darn if you like them or not.

As Sasha used to say....this is the Internet....people can be anything they want to be, say anything they want to say and take credit for things they either have or have not done all under the cloak of anonymity. So, while I enjoy reading comments posted here by others, it doesn't matter to me if they're true and factual. It's all under the heading of "Entertainment."

Besides, over the years that I've been a member here, I've learned to separate between those comments that are believable and might actually be factual and those comments that are so outlandish that even if you were an eye witness, you still wouldn't believe them.

So Blender, take heart. And, once again I say, take my comments anyway you like. It doesn't matter to me. Because, as the old saying goes, "its a question of mind over matter.....I don't mind and you don't matter."

[blender]

bubba so what has anything that you have written to do with the thread???. just what are you reading bubba what the hell has credit worthyness and sasha got to do with the thread,i would like to know what you are smoking because i would like some. it will take more than you to insult me with your personal digs,like you said i dont mind and you really dont matter. Thanks again to bubba for taking things off course can we get back to the conversation about womens hour please.

[at9]

As the OP of this thread may I politely ask that the OT stuff is done elsewhere.

Hardeep Singh Kohli is a well known broadcaster here in the UK. He has occasionally caused controversy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardeep_Singh_Kohli

IMO, the interview was a sane and useful look at men wearing heels. It's good to hear the subject discussed in a reasonable and measured way rather than a "isn't this weird" or "wow look at him" way. I knew before I heard the programme that HSK had done some CD/drag stuff so I was a little surprised to hear his point of view. He's not in the same league as Eddie Izzard, either doing CD or as a comedian:smile:

[kneehighs]

a quote from hardeep singh kohli from the radio show "i have worn heels for work kind of dressing up as a women for a comedy show" that is what is meant by in a profesional way as an entertainer bubba 41 minutes and 8 seconds into the interview

"I'd rather read kneehigh's adventures than listen to someone I don't know saying things in which I absolutely have no confidence ."

we all like reading kneehigh's adventures and he is an insipriation to all of us as well as all the others that wear heels out and share their adventures for all of us to read.you cant know most of the people on this forum so does that mean that you have no confidence in them either? Or is it a select few that you like.

Thats the way it looks to me anyway.

I think you might be misreading the point of Bubba's comment.

Whose point of view do you instinctively value more? Someone you've known for years, or the total random passerby? Hardeep is not known at all here in the U.S., so his point of view can be considered akin to a random passerby.

For what it's worth, on one hand I give Hardeep the benefit of the doubt and on the other, I don't.

With regards to benefit of the doubt, when talking about standard fashion in the 17th and 18th centuries, Hardeep did say, "It was an attempt to be feminine rather than to be overtly masculine. And so set within that context, one can see it working"

And with regards to Prince he stated, "[the] complete sexuality that he had at that period of his career, it kind of worked with him"

So Hardeep does appear to make exceptions for his rule.

However, his heavy emphasis on what is acceptable "now" is what makes me not give him the benefit of the doubt. His statements, "the heel as we've come to understand it now is an extrapolation of the feminine, of the leg, it's effectively an extension of the leg..." and "clashing with kind of what is so part of feminine culture now..." make clear that for him, personal style is limited by socially constructed gender stereotypes--what is considered feminine or masculine "now".

He's trapped in his own citadel of fashion. By keeping out the feminine or things he associates with a feminine stereotype, he leaves less room for his own movement and growth.

[at9]

So Hardeep does appear to make exceptions for his rule.

I think he is just a bit worried about his image and perhaps a bit confused. That would be true for many of here at HHP and indeed anyone who has wondered whether to push sartorial boundaries. We often draw parallels with when women first wore trousers or with men wearing earrings. Both are now mainstream but the pioneers were presumably either bold, in some doubt or both.

[blender]

kneehighs When you put it as eloquently as that then I can do nothing else apart from admitting that I have read bubbas comments wrong. Hardeeps exemptions are purely based around the sexuality of a person and as we know you cant use that as a reason not in this day and age and that is more shocking when there are pictures of him wearing a pink turban and wearing a kilt and to some that could be seen as a bit effeminate, I personally think that he would be o.k with it but the male bravado steps in and stops the male mind from admitting it. it would have been nice for him to of turned around and said if thats what you want to wear then who am I to say that its wrong. It said it all for me when he started to say that at weekends he dresses up, like the saying goes there is many a true word said in jest.

[Puffer]

I've only just seen this thread and listened to the recording. There is a lot of speculation above, perhaps understandable from those who do not know of Hardeep and his background. The comments by at9 do however point clearly to the truth.

Hardeep is a TV 'reporter' who has also done some comedy work. He usually brings a tongue-in-cheek and light-hearted touch to his reports and certainly has a more risque side to his nature. He was banned by the BBC for some months until quite recently after an alleged incident involving remarks made to a female colleague (which were probably blown out of all proportion in these PC times). He certainly has a shoe fetish; see http://www.hhplace.org/everybody/11882-man_heels_one_show.html for example.

I was surprised and disappointed by the programme and certainly by Hardeep's apparent attitude. 'Brothel creepers' are not high heels and there seemed to be little recognition of any true male heel styles, let alone support for them. I very much doubt that Hardeep was being honest in his stated preferences - and a shoe with an internal lift is not really what it's all about, either.

As to the remarks about male fashion and good quality shoes, there seemed to be a preference for the ugly and boring traditional English oxford or brogue, with a dismissive remark about 'old fashioned pointed shoes'. Maybe I am out of touch, but surely pointed shoes are currently fashionable for men and (in my book) introduce a very welcome note of stylishness to the achingly dull world of male footwear?

Apart from introducing a talking point (which is never a bad thing), I cannot see that this programme achieved anything positive. It simply seemed to me to dismiss any idea of true heel wearing by men as being uncomfortable, unfashionable or just 'unmanly'.

[Thighboots2]

Quick research on Hardeep reveals he has a passion/fetish for womens shoes on women. I have extracted his article from the Sunday Observer 9th March 2009 for you to read. To me he is firmly in the camp of heels are for women alone. I am sure we can all empathise with his views on women and high heels though.

Simon.

My passion for women's shoes started with my primary-school teacher, Miss Knipe. She smelled of lady and dressed hip, and hippy. She had Farrah-Fawcett hair, cheesecloth shirts and beaded skirts. She was young enough to be a schoolboy fantasy, and old enough to be out of reach, and every woman I have ever met has been judged against the benchmark of Miss Knipe.

It was 1974 at Meadowburn Primary School in North Glasgow. Miss Knipe was looking lovely, while talking about something educational, when my pencil rolled off my desk. I ducked down to catch it and found myself at eye-level with a pair of women's shoes: Miss Knipe's shoes.

They were chunky cork wedges with a red faux-alligator peep-toe upper, and a delicate strap which encircled my teacher's well-turned ankle. Compounding the architectural perfection of the shoe itself was the pose of Miss Knipe's feet: one wedged heel was placed flat on the ground, the other swung back slightly, the tips of the toes of that foot delicately brushed the ground ...

It was the start of an obsession. My name is Hardeep and I am a women's-footwear addict. Let me be clear though: I am addicted to the images of women wearing shoes, boots and sandals. I have no desire to pop my size 11s into a pair of Manolos.

As a child of the Seventies, there was a degree of inevitability to my obsession. Women were emancipating themselves. Bras were torched by a new generation of free-thinking, sexually liberated and politically aware women. This should have meant dull shoes, librarian shoes; the sort that enable a woman to walk a long march in dungarees, while holding placards. Women could have co-opted footwear design back from the fantasies of exclusively male designers. But they didn't.

Shoes in the Seventies were sexier, more sensual than they have ever been, before or since. Knee- and thigh-high boots; heart-stoppingly high heels; a plethora of platforms ... I was born when the shoe evolved from footwear into a weapon of mass distraction. But that doesn't explain my fascination with women's footwear. If it did, my contemporaries would be equally fascinated. When the Eighties arrived, and women began smashing glass ceilings, they would have been as delighted as I to discover that Chanel released seven variations of high heel every season. They too would have noted the lengthening of toe and a more slender heel. But I seemed to be the only man addicted to fabulous footwear. Me and the nation's transsexuals.

I am not in recovery, either. Just last week, I saw a foxy redhead wearing a foxier pair of Olivia Morris shoes. For a moment I forgot my own name.

So why am I so excited by shoes?

Perhaps it's science. Psychologists have noted that our cognitive abilities develop as we crawl. And what would appear prominently on our horizon as we learned to crawl? Shoes. So perhaps my love of the ladies' shoe comes from looking at my mum's feet at that crucial stage of life. That would make sense - except that my mum wore little other than Indian sandals. It wasn't until the late Seventies that she embraced the iconic polo neck, nylon trousers and court-shoe look, and by then my crawling days were over. Perhaps it was this dull footwear at home that led me to become fascinated with the exotic, gorgeous potential of other shoes out there ...

Most women's shoes sell sex; I like those shoes. I'm not interested in those that are androgynous, unisex. Or the Ugg - so called because every man who lays eyes on them says 'Ugg'.

I celebrate the elegance and engineering of heels: I've found myself holding up a single Christian Louboutin in a vain attempt to locate the fulcrum of balance among the leather, wood and raffia. The first pair of Terry de Havilland's I ever saw were under glass as an exhibit, part of a retrospective of his work. It was fitting for these dramatic creations to be treated with reverence.

I am fascinated to hear my female friends talk about their favoured pair of stilettos or boots. They talk about power and confidence, self-expression and the desire to be seen. I found myself sitting opposite a blonde Amazonian on a train, talking shoes. She spoke eloquently about the control she derived from adding five inches of stiletto to her already impressive six feet.

The Nineties compounded my shoe lust. For the first time I had disposable income to spend on women's shoes - and a wife who loved to wear them. What a joy to be able to choose and hold and cradle and admire every shoe available - safe in the knowledge that I had a woman by my side to legitimise the whole thing.

But there was an interesting disparity in what I would have chosen for her and what she chose for herself. I went for the more obviously sexual statement. I loved her Chloé block wedges, the sensual strappiness of them; I purchased her first pair of Marc Jacobs studded black boots. And her peep-toe Miu Mius, so Fifties and so sexy. It is ironic that, a month before we separated, my wife came home with a pair of knee-length black patent Pradas.

There are few big trends any more which, for an aficionado like me, is an advantage. You can get pretty much any style, at any time. Perhaps the last couple of great revolutions in women's footwear were the embracing of the anti-feminine Ugg - and you already know how I feel about that - and the Frye-driven, Cuban-heel, utility movement. The latter I found more acceptable: particularly when worn with above-the-knee skirts; because then the Frye is an invitation to reverse every cowgirl, if you know what I mean.

This season, we've witnessed the birth of the ugly shoe. Shoes that are ugly, furthermore, in imaginative and designer ways. Prada has the newest offering with its Trembled Blossoms range. Blossoms are beautiful; how, then, has Prada managed to launch the ugliest shoe I have ever seen? Properly ugly.

In my lifetime (I am just under 40) I have owned about 200 pairs of shoes, boots and trainers. I currently own six pairs of Birkenstocks, seven pairs of Bally shoes, a pair of Kenneth Coles and an abundance of Adidas. I like my shoes, but I don't love them. Love is reserved for ladies' footwear, shapes and sensations that ghost through my mind.

If we men really do think about sex every six seconds or so, perhaps the trigger is women's shoes. Let me be clear. Women in the right shoes need worry about little else. You are goddesses and I can think of nothing I would rather do than wrap myself round your Jimmy Choo'd feet, warm leather against my grateful face. Just you, me and the right pair of shoes ...

I can't pretend I don't think about what might have happened to the fragrantly beautiful, wedge-footed Miss Knipe all these years later. I hope her life was full of great shoes and perhaps she is somewhere, somehow, slipping her beautiful feet into a brand-new pair of Louboutins

.

[benno]

I don't really see what the fuss is about. Hardeep was on woman's hour. He has a fetish/admiration for women's shoes but he doesn't really want to totter about in them. I have always found Hardeep to be a good journalist and have enjoyed everything he has appeared on. Maybe he was an incorrect choice for a man's perspective for the programme as he doesn't have an interest in wearing heel as a fashion statement. I personally find it refreshing that the subject of men wearing heels got significant air time on a mainstream programme! It was also well handled and not used as a cheap laugh. Maybe some of us on this forum need to realise that not every man on the planet wants to wear high heeled shoes. Thanks for listening. Regards, Ben

[SF]

Well, it's been one week and so far no response from the BBC Womans Hour to my email message / comment. Don't 'spose I will be hearing from them. Maybe they don't want input from us folks over here in the States (ha ha, just kidding folks!!)... Take care all, sf