Something Odd

[Magickman]

Something Odd

Odd as it may seem, I have never seen another man in high heels out in public, here in Minnesota.

At the shoe stores I frequent, the sales people tell me I am the only man they have encountered, who buys high heels for himself.

And the people I know, say they haven't ever seen another man in high heels. My friends think I am a little dingy, because I wear high heels.

This could lead one to conclude that, at least in the American midwest, men in high heels are very rare.

Lots of very rare things are highly valued. Others, such as men in high heels, are considered, to say the least, pretty strange.

The fraternity of high heeled men are spread across the globe, a few here and there. But in the American heartland, males in high heels are unusual, indeed.

The reactions I encounter are all over the map, from "Men don't wear shoes like that," to "I love your heels." Most, though, are a tad surprised that a guy will don high heeled shoes.

Some people get the wrong idea, assuming that I must be gay or bisexual. It is incomprehensible to them that a straight guy would wear high heels. There are others who think it is cool, if unconventional.

It is great fun for me, to play the part of the eccentric, the guy at the hardware store, grocery, or social event, who just happens to be wearing women's shoes. I like to play it straight, as if I do not notice that there is anything odd about a man in 4" stiletto heeled boots.

I should note for the many closet heelers, that I have not ever suffered any actual adverse consequences, for my heeling. Not everyone likes or approves of my high heels, but other than a few comments, nothing negative has happened.

I shop at local stores, visit the post office, dance with women, and go about my daily business in high heels. And nothing bad ever happens.

The apprehensions of dire consequences, at least for me, were entirely baseless. No one gets bent out of shape or has ever threatened me.

In fact, I meet many more people, who are intrigued with and curious about the man in heels. Particularly, lots of women have started heely conversations with me.

So, while men in heels are rather unusual in my part of the world, somewhat odd, no one seems really too upset about it. "That's different," is the way most folks react.

[heelium]

What style of heel do you generally wear? and are they on full display? My preferred style of footwear is stiletto boots, but I have only been brave enough to wear those once out shopping in 'male mode' (no adverse reactions) , normally I wear a 2 1/2" block style heel that is covered with bootleg jeans, this I have done on many occasions now, the last being a couple of days ago out and around London. Heelium

[Shafted]

Magickman, I have experienced pretty much the same thing as you. And like you, have never seen another guy in high heels.

[kneehighs]

Magickman, ward and bluetango are steady members of hhplace and they live in the twin cities area. Maybe you guys could do a heel meet? They have a thread for it in the real life meetings section. When I lived in the Detroit area for 10 years, I only saw one other man in heels. Heel wearing men are definitely a species that live under the radar in the midwest. Many sightings here in nyc though. Just last week I went out to a local pub for a burger and beer. It was about 9 pm. There at the corner I was approaching was a man, in a form fitting brown leather jacket, baggy fit boot cut jeans, and brown high heels with a blade. I was with my gf though (who will NOT be seen in public with me, but doesn't mind if Im with friends or alone--like to see what happens with this when I get into Law School he,he), so I didn't say anything to him. Another time on the subway I saw a guy in a long velvet jacket, the kind with the faux fur lines that form boxes on the front and back. He was in loafer high heels, definitely made for a woman. Another time I was driving up eighth Avenue and saw two guys cross the street with a group of other women. Both guys were wearing block high heels. Another time, at a bar here, I saw a guy wearing block heels. At the same bar I saw another guy wearing stilettos with pants, yet another with platform heels. And no, that is not a BDSM bar either.

[Dr. Shoe]

Even in a city as cosmopolitan as London I find men in heels far and few between. Apart from some TVs I have only ever met one male heel wearer outside of the guys who post on this board who wears heels, even then he was in normal male shoes. However, when buying heels in central London I'm told that they have a lot of male customers, so where are they all?

[larry]

Hello Magicman. Usually I wear 5" stilettos and very seldom outside and never in broad daylight. Once in Tampa Florida I saw a man wearing white capri pants, a polo shirt and 4" red stilettos. EVERYONE stared at him as he strutted down the street, heels clicking on the side walk. Some people rolled their eyes, some shook their heads in disbelief and most people laughed! On the tip of cape cod is the villiage of Provincetown. 50% gay and lesbians 50% straight and anything goes. In the past decade I have seen about six or seven men wearing male attire and noticeable high heel stiletto shoes or boots. P town is like a dream land in its own way but in the real world, in my visits to Chicago, Detroit, Montreal, Toronto, New york, ect ect I have never seen a man in public wearing stilettos........Larry

[sendra45]

Even in a city as cosmopolitan as London I find men in heels far and few between. Apart from some TVs I have only ever met one male heel wearer outside of the guys who post on this board who wears heels, even then he was in normal male shoes.

However, when buying heels in central London I'm told that they have a lot of male customers, so where are they all?

As odd as it may seem, I only have only seen one man in heels. It was before I found the HHplace, It was in Cheltenham and I followed him for a while just in case he went into a shoe shop (I guess I wanted him too). Nowadays I would have chatted to him and chewed the cudd about heels, but before the HHPlace was a part of my life, I was more than just a shyguy.

I have to agree with Dr Shoe though, dispite the lack of men in heels on the street, shoe shops seem to take it as the norm. I think one of us should get a job in a highstreet store just to see how often it happens.

Nigel

[bluetango]

Magickman, ward and bluetango are steady members of hhplace and they live in the twin cities area. Maybe you guys could do a heel meet? They have thread for it in the real life meetings section.

Yes, I live in the Twin Cities too. I'm on the west side of town and Magickman is on the east side. I doubt that our paths ever cross. We both shop at Frattalone's Hardware - but at different stores in the chain. Maybe we should try meeting at the same hardware store in our heels? A manly environment with two different fashion freestylers at the same time. I wonder what the reactions would be?

I'm a conservative heeler in public. I wear boots with chunky heels. Even then I get plenty of stares. Never get comments, but then I don't engage people in shoe conversation. I'm just my usual friendly, outgoing self when I am out shopping. I think most clerks don't realize there is anything different until I walk away. I should try asking people who stare what they think. It would break the ice and I could show them that I'm not a nut case.

I worry out going public with thin heels because I work in a very conservative company. I would not want to put my job at risk.

[kneehighs]

Here's a word on this topic from former board member Emery who resides in New Mexico.

...I worked in a

women's-only shoe store for 6 weeks and saw three men who came in

wearing heels and tried on more during that time: one tranny (regular

customer) and two gays in male mode (well, one with a mustache and

women's wide-leg slacks - semi-male mode). Regrettably, that means

the only real-life men in heels I've seen have indeed been gay or

tranny. Maybe I don't blame the general public, if that's all they've

seen!

[kneehighs]

...I worry out going public with thin heels because I work in a very conservative company. I would not want to put my job at risk.

I hear you on that. Being fired for stiletto street heeling is illegal in nyc and I think if argued correctly, not legally enforceable in mn either. From what I hear, there are specific local ordinances in minneapolis and st. paul that prohibit any employment discrimination based on outward violations of stereotypical symbols of gender.

Here is some interesting case law I pulled up. Most of the cases center around violations of Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was recently amended in 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e. The relevant subsection K stating, “(k) The terms "because of sex" or "on the basis of sex" include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work, and nothing in section 2000e-2(h) of this title shall be interpreted to permit otherwise. This subsection shall not require an employer to pay for health insurance benefits for abortion, except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or except where medical complications have arisen from an abortion: Provided, That nothing herein shall preclude an employer from providing abortion benefits or otherwise affect bargaining agreements in regard to abortion.”

The Supreme Court in the Price Waterhouse case ruled that failure to conform to sex stereotypes is a form of discrimination. The 9th Circuit court of appeals in Schwenk v. Hartford concluded the same stating, “Price Waterhouse sets a rule that bars discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes.” The 6th Circuit in Smith v. City of Salem also concluded the same providing persuasive argumentation that failure to conform to sex stereotypes is discrimination.

Supreme Court Ruling:

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 109 S.Ct. 1775

"There were clear signs, though, that some of the partners reacted negatively to Hopkins' personality because she was a woman. One partner described her as "macho" (Defendant's Exh. 30); another suggested that she "overcompensated for being a woman" (Defendant's Exh. 31); a third advised her to take "a course at charm school" (Defendant's Exh. 27). Several partners criticized her use of profanity; in response, one partner suggested that those partners objected to her swearing only "because it's a lady using foul language." Tr. 321. Another supporter explained that Hopkins "ha[d] matured from a tough-talking somewhat masculine hard-nosed mgr to an authoritative, formidable, but much more appealing lady ptr candidate." Defendant's Exh. 27. But it was the man who, as Judge Gesell found, bore responsibility for explaining to Hopkins the reasons for the Policy Board's decision to place her candidacy on hold who delivered the coup de grace: in order to improve her chances for partnership, Thomas Beyer advised, Hopkins should "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry." 618 F.Supp., at 1117.

Dr. Susan Fiske, a social psychologist and Associate Professor of Psychology at Carnegie-Mellon University, testified at trial that the partnership selection process at **1783 Price Waterhouse was likely influenced by sex stereotyping. Her testimony focused not only on the overtly sex-based comments of partners but also on gender-neutral remarks, made by partners who knew Hopkins only slightly, that were intensely critical of her. One partner, for example, baldly stated that Hopkins was "universally disliked" by staff (Defendant's Exh. 27), and another described her as "consistently annoying and irritating" (ibid.); yet these were people who had had very little contact with Hopkins. According to *236 Fiske, Hopkins' uniqueness (as the only woman in the pool of candidates) and the subjectivity of the evaluations made it likely that sharply critical remarks such as these were the product of sex stereotyping--although Fiske admitted that she could not say with certainty whether any particular comment was the result of stereotyping. Fiske based her opinion on a review of the submitted comments, explaining that it was commonly accepted practice for social psychologists to reach this kind of conclusion without having met any of the people involved in the decision making process…

…In the specific context of sex stereotyping, **1791 an employer who acts on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be, has acted on the basis of gender…

…Indeed, we are tempted to say that Dr. Fiske's expert testimony was merely icing on Hopkins' cake. It takes no special training to discern sex stereotyping in a description of an aggressive female employee as requiring "a course at charm school." Nor, turning to Thomas Beyer's memorable advice to Hopkins, does it require expertise in psychology to know that, if an employee's flawed "interpersonal skills" can be corrected by a soft-hued suit or a new shade of lipstick, perhaps it is the employee's sex and not her interpersonal skills that has drawn the criticism…."

9th Circuit Ruling:

Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, C.A.9 (Wash.),2000.

"…The initial judicial approach taken in cases such as Holloway has been overruled by the logic and language of Price Waterhouse. [FN12] In Price Waterhouse, which was decided after Holloway and Ulane, the Supreme Court held that Title VII barred not just discrimination based on the fact that Hopkins was a woman, but also discrimination based on the fact that she failed "to act like a woman"--that is, *1202 to conform to socially-constructed gender expectations. [FN13] Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. 228, 240, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989). What matters, for purposes of this part of the Price Waterhouse analysis, is that in the mind of the perpetrator the discrimination is related to the sex of the victim: here, for example, the perpetrator's actions stem from the fact that he believed that the victim was a man who "failed to act like" one. Thus, under Price Waterhouse, "sex" under Title VII encompasses both sex--that is, the biological differences between men and women--and gender. Discrimination because one fails to act in the way expected of a man or woman is forbidden under Title VII. Accordingly, the argument that the GMVA parallels Title VII and applies only to sex is in part right and in part wrong. The GMVA does parallel Title VII. However, both statutes prohibit discrimination based on gender as well as sex. Indeed, for purposes of these two acts, the terms "sex" and "gender" have become interchangeable…

…Sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII to the extent it occurs "because of" the plaintiff's sex. Oncale, 523 U.S. at 79, 118 S.Ct. 998; see also Schonauer, 905 P.2d at 400. Sanchez asserts that the verbal abuse at issue was based upon the perception that he is effeminate and, therefore, occurred because of sex. In short, Sanchez contends that he was harassed because he failed to conform to a male stereotype….

Sanchez's theory derives from Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989), in which the Supreme Court held that a woman who was denied partnership in an accounting firm because she did not match a sex stereotype had an actionable claim under Title VII. Hopkins, the plaintiff in Price Waterhouse, was described by various partners as "macho," in need of "a course in charm school," "a lady using foul language," and someone who had been "a tough-talking somewhat masculine hard-nosed manager." Id. at 235, 109 S.Ct. 1775. Hopkins was advised that she could improve her partnership chances if she would "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Writing for the plurality, Justice Brennan held that "n the specific context of sex stereotyping, an employer who acts on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be, has acted on the basis of gender." Id. at 250, 109 S.Ct. 1775; see also id. at 272-73, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment) (characterizing "failure to conform to [sex] stereotypes" as criterion of discrimination)….

[19] Sanchez contends that the holding in Price Waterhouse applies with equal force to a man who is discriminated against for acting too feminine. We agree. See Oncale, 523 U.S. at 78, 118 S.Ct. 998 ("Title VII's prohibition of discrimination 'because of ... sex' protects men as well as women."); see also Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1202 (9th Cir.2000) (comparing the scope of the Gender Motivated Violence Act with the scope of Title VII, which forbids "[d]iscrimination because one fails to act in the way expected of a man or woman"); Higgins v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., 194 F.3d 252, 261n. 4 (1st Cir.1999) ("[J]ust as a woman can ground an action on a claim that men discriminated against her because she did not meet stereotyped expectations of femininity, a man can ground a claim on evidence that other men discriminated against him because he did not meet stereotyped expectations of masculinity.") (citing Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 250-51, 109 S.Ct. 1775).

At its essence, the systematic abuse directed at Sanchez reflected a belief that Sanchez did not act as a man should act. Sanchez was attacked for walking and carrying his tray "like a woman"--i.e., for having feminine mannerisms. Sanchez was derided for not having sexual intercourse with a waitress who was his friend. Sanchez's male co-workers and one of his supervisors repeatedly reminded Sanchez that he did not conform to their gender-based stereotypes, referring to him as "she" and "her." And, the most vulgar name-calling directed at Sanchez was cast in female terms. We conclude that this verbal abuse was closely linked to gender.

…Price Waterhouse sets a rule that bars discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes. That rule squarely applies to preclude *875 the harassment here. That rule squarely applies to preclude *875 the harassment here. [FN7] The only potential difficulty arises out of a now faint shadow cast by our decision in DeSantis v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., Inc., 608 F.2d 327 (9th Cir.1979). DeSantis holds that discrimination based on a stereotype that a man "should have a virile rather than an effeminate appearance" does not fall within Title VII's purview. Id. at 331-32. This holding, however, predates and conflicts with the Supreme Court's decision in Price Waterhouse. And, in this direct conflict, DeSantis must lose. To the extent it conflicts with Price Waterhouse, as we hold it does, DeSantis is no longer good law. Under Price Waterhouse, Sanchez must prevail…"

6th Circuit Ruling:

Smith v. City of Salem, Ohio, 378 F.3d 566. C.A.6 (Ohio),2004.

"However, the approach in Holloway, Sommers, and Ulane--and by the district court in this case--has been eviscerated by Price Waterhouse. See Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1201 (9th Cir.2000) ("The initial judicial approach taken in cases such as Holloway [and Ulane ] has been overruled by the logic and language of Price Waterhouse."). By holding that Title VII protected a woman who failed to conform to social expectations concerning how a woman should look and behave, the Supreme Court established that Title VII's reference to "sex" encompasses both the biological differences between men and women, and gender discrimination, that is, discrimination based on a failure to conform to stereotypical gender norms. See Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 251, 109 S.Ct. 1775;

Schwenk, 204 F.3d at 1202 (stating that Title VII encompasses instances in which "the perpetrator's actions stem from the fact that he believed that the victim was a man who 'failed to act like' one" and that "sex" under Title VII encompasses both the anatomical differences between men and women and gender);

Bibby v. Philadelphia Coca Cola Bottling Co., 260 F.3d 257, 262-63 (3d Cir.2001) (stating that a plaintiff may be able to prove a claim of sex discrimination by showing that the "harasser's conduct was motivated by a belief that the victim did not conform to the stereotypes of his or her gender");

Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 256 F.3d 864, 874-75 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that harassment "based upon the perception that [the plaintiff] is effeminate" is discrimination because of sex, in violation of Title VII), overruling DeSantis v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co., Inc., 608 F.2d 327 (9th Cir.1979);

Doe v. Belleville, 119 F.3d 563, 580-81 (7th Cir.1997) (holding that "Title VII does not permit an employee to be *574 treated adversely because his or her appearance or conduct does not conform to stereotypical gender roles" and explaining that "a man who is harassed because his voice is soft, his physique is slight, his hair long, or because in some other respect he exhibits his masculinity in a way that does not meet his coworkers' idea of how men are to appear and behave, is harassed 'because of his sex' "), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 523 U.S. 1001, 118 S.Ct. 1183, 140 L.Ed.2d 313 (1998).

After Price Waterhouse, an employer who discriminates against women because, for instance, they do not wear dresses or makeup, is engaging in sex discrimination because the discrimination would not occur but for the victim's sex. It follows that employers who discriminate against men because they do wear dresses and makeup, or otherwise act femininely, are also engaging in sex discrimination, because the discrimination would not occur but for the victim's sex. See, e.g., Nichols, 256 F.3d 864 (Title VII sex discrimination and hostile work environment claim upheld where plaintiff's male co-workers and supervisors repeatedly referred to him as "she" and "her" and where co-workers mocked him for walking and carrying his serving tray "like a woman"); Higgins v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., 194 F.3d 252, 261 n. 4 (1st Cir.1999) ("[J]ust as a woman can ground an action on a claim that men discriminated against her because she did not meet stereotyped expectations of femininity, a man can ground a claim on evidence that other men discriminated against him because he did not meet stereotypical expectations of masculinity." (internal citation omitted)); see also Rosa v. Park West Bank & Trust Co., 214 F.3d 213 (1st Cir.2000) (applying Price Waterhouse and Title VII jurisprudence to an Equal Credit Opportunity Act claim and reinstating claim on behalf of biologically male plaintiff who alleged that he was denied an opportunity to apply for a loan because was dressed in "traditionally feminine attire")."

The court concluded:

"Sex stereotyping based on a person's gender non-conforming behavior is impermissible discrimination, irrespective of the cause of that behavior"

[canadianbeaver17]

The only time I saw a man wearing heels was when I was driving down the main strip in Windsor on a Saturday Night. This guy was wearing 70s style men's platform shoes in shiny silver. He was definately showing them off.

[bluetango]

Being fired for stiletto street heeling is illegal in nyc and I think if argued correctly, not legally enforceable in mn either. From what I hear, there are specific local ordinances in minneapolis and st. paul that prohibit any employment discrimination based on outward violations of stereotypical symbols of gender.

Kneehighs,

Thanks for the legal references. I get involved in some commercial lawsuits at work. It costs upward of $400 an hour for our attorneys. And you posted all of this for free. What a deal.

Minnesota law is generally favorable to fashion freedom. However, if someone wants to fire you for your attire, they can find other performance related reasons and start building a case. I shouldn't worry though. I have unique skills that my employer cannot find elsewhere.

Bluetango

[kneehighs]

Thanks for the legal references. I get involved in some commercial lawsuits at work. It costs upward of $400 an hour for our attorneys. And you posted all of this for free. What a deal.

Minnesota law is generally favorable to fashion freedom. However, if someone wants to fire you for your attire, they can find other performance related reasons and start building a case. I shouldn't worry though. I have unique skills that my employer cannot find elsewhere.

Bluetango

No problem, bluetango...hope it didn't bore you to death. I find the law fascinating but know that it can easily put others to sleep. I swear, one of these days I am going to find the time to create a legal protection thread, with various references starting with U.S. members.

I'm just glad that you are enjoying yourself in your heels (irregardless of what kind of heel), that you are a regular participant here at hhplace, and that you are a respected and successful member of society who just happens to wear heels. Good fuel for the cause I say.

[blackslide]

I lived in New Brighton, Minnesota from 1960- 1975 and wore women's shoes the entire time. Will be back for a high school reunion and will have my 3' high heeled boots in October. That would make 3 in a city of over 1,000,000 people.

[Danielinheels]

I've seen a couple guys wear heels. Most recently was at the grocery store - guy couldn't have been older than 17, but he had some block heels on. Must've been a good 2, 2.5 inches. Back in New Orleans, I saw it more often. But only one time did I encounter another guy shopping in the women's shoes section, and this was before I developed the bravado to do it myself.

[sandalcrazy27]

speaking of which Danielle. Have you started rebuilding your collection?