Blue Shoon

I was going to call this "A Woman's Right to Shoes", after the "Sex and the City" episode of the same name. But then I would end up asking why many feminists insist that other women are rational beings who are perfectly capable of making their own decisions, and yet treat other women like ninnies. "You made your choice? O-kay. Are you sure about that? Are you really, really certain that you want to wear that? In public? Here is why I, as a feminist, think you shouldn't do that."

And that I don't want to open that can of worms. Too slimy.

Nearly 4 decades ago, the late Mary Daly wrote in "Gyn/Ecology":

"Hobbling on spiked heels or platform shoes, painfully smiling, women feel physically and emotionally unsteady. In such attire, they are vulnerable physically, since it is at least difficult, if not impossible, to run from an attacker or participate in many ordinary - not to mention athletic - activities. They are also vulnerable mentally/emotionally, since such footwear keeps them aware, at least subliminally, of their victim status. Their response to this awareness is to send out signals of helplessness through their tones of voice, nervous laughter, body language, and Self-deprecating speech and behavior ... [we] choose our equipment wisely, and this means choosing sensible shoes." (Gyn/Ecology, the Women's Press, 1978, page 146.)

It seems clear that Ms Daly assumed that her personal experience of wearing high heels was universal. This was a mistake. And, for the record, surely even in the olden days women were not expected to wear high heels in order to participate in sport.

But the topic of heels seems to cause confusion in supposedly intelligent women. Can they really be as stupid as they seem, or are they just irresistibly drawn to sound bites and attention seeking?

A couple of years ago, the Trades Union Congress decided to take up the cause of women whose employers dictate that they should wear high heeled shoes because they are considered "smarter" than their flatter counterparts.

To quote the TUC: "A new TUC guide Working feet and footwear found that while many employers allow employees to wear healthy and safe footwear, a number of big city institutions and upmarket shops insist female staff who deal with the public wear slip-on shoes or high heels as part of a dress code. This can lead to long-term foot problems, especially when combined with prolonged standing.

"TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: 'When researching case studies for the guide on footwear we were surprised how many times we found that employers' dress codes did not permit the wearing of comfortable sensible footwear by women.'"

A woman's right to choose ... comfy shoes. Surely something to which no sensible woman could object? Some women share Daly's dislike of high heels and unless they are actresses, models or similar, there is no logical reason not to allow them to wear flat or low-heeled shoes at work.

Why on Earth gives male airline owners the right to tell stewardesses what type of shoes to wear in the sky? Why should a shopwalker's footwear have to resemble that of a streetwalker?

I am quite good at moving about in heels, but would certainly not like an employer ordering me to wear them if they were nothing to do with the job.

However, I was astonished to find a Guardianista being paid to promote the same fallacy that also appeared in "The Sun".

In "The Guardian", Jenni Russell asked, "Must every grain, or barrel of sense that comes out of a union be accompanied by such grim joylessness? ... Wearing high heels is one of the great joys of being a woman."

Well, Mary Daly didn't find that so, and she was perfectly entitled to hold that opinion - about herself, not about womankind as a whole.

Russell continued, "Just imagine the French taking such a stern and puritanical stance... It's been one of the great mistakes of the left in Britain to confuse equality with sameness, and to think that if we can just eliminate sexual differences, or sexual awareness in the workplace, the world would be a better, happier, more egalitarian place. Well, it's nonsense."

Ms Russell appears to object to the TUC's daring to suggest that high heels might be a health and safety hazard if they were to cause the wearer to trip. But, surely, this is just a cunning ploy to persuade employers that it is in their interest to amend their codes? It presents the perfect opportunity for women who are comfortable in heels to demonstrate their opportunity to demonstrate their ability to safely walk, run and dance in them.

Meanwhile, those who don't like mandatory stilettos can say they would feel much steadier if their feet were literally nearer the ground.

Simple. Or Ms Russell could have contacted the TUC directly to make sure she had her facts right. They would have clarified that they did not, I repeat not, seek to ban the wearing of high heels by those who chose to do so.

It is possibly unsurprising that a Conservative MP, Nadine Dorries, should echo the same fallacy. Dorries wrote, "Don’t ya just love the TUC?

"Apparently, at their forthcoming conference, they want to debate a proposal to ban the wearing of high heels in the office.

"I'm 5ft 3 and need every inch of my Louboutin heels to look my male colleagues in the eye. If high heels were banned in Westminster, no one would be able to find me.

"The TUC need to get real ...

"From a prone position on a sun bed, with a toe dipped in the Med whilst assessing the damage to my pedicure caused by the chlorine in the pool water, I did my bit for all high heel wearing shorties, like myself, and smacked it to the TUC, via the Today programme and the Daily Mail with just a 30 second effort to reach into the beach bag and pick up the phone.

"Some days, life is so good."

Yes, indeed.

Who is this Dorries woman anyway? A little googling reveals that Ms Dorries appears to believes in the Palin strategy: if a female politician pays enough attention to her hair, clothes and shoes, nobody will question her intelligence or integrity.

It clearly works on a section of the population. Not, however, this bit or this bit here. And I swear that I thought of the connection before I googled these.

Ms Dorries clearly sees herself as the self-appointed scourge of the scroungers.

Last year, she blogged, "Is there such a thing as Twitter addiction? How can anyone live a normal life who can do that? Surely these people cannot be in employment because if they are, how can they work? if they aren't then it's time they got a job which involves being sat at a key board because there's nothing much up with their fingers, brain or attention span!! ...

"... I will put money on that being a Daily Mail story one day. In the meantime, do you know of anyone else who has Tweeted more than 35,000 times in less than six months? If so, email my office and let me know. Or, better still, if it's someone you know is on benefits, contact the DWP."

To those of you in the USA, that is the Department of Work and Pensions. Not Water and Power.

I'd be interested to know if Ms Dorries has ever cancelled an appointment because of illness. If so, whether she felt well enough to phone in sick. If she were seriously ill and there was a three line whip, would she struggle into the House of Commons in time for the vote? How ill would she have to be to miss it? In a wheelchair? On a drip? On oxygen? In a coma? If one of her opponents were to draw rifle crosshairs on a picture of Ms Dorrie's constituency and, heaven forbid, someone unbalanced were to shoot and gravely injure Ms Dorries, would her hospital bed be wheeled into the House of Commons?

Actually, I don't have to speculate. Democracy, don't ya just love it? We, the public, can access Nadine Dorries's attendance record. Between 5 May 2005 and 12 Apr 2010, she was in attendance for 764 votes out of a total of 1288, which works out at 59.3%.

Less than three out of five ... that's not great. Surely she owed either her constituents or her party (or both) a bit better than that?

Dorries was also on the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee. Her attendance was a paltry two percent.

Meanwhile, outspoken disabled people such as Sue Marsh are running the risk of being noticed by Nadine Dorries and her fans. Who, no doubt, are writing down their findings in stylish notebooks and reporting people to the Department of Work and Pensions and its subcontractor, Atos.

But Sue has faced bigger challenges than Nadine and the Nadettes. This is her view on importance of shoes. If you haven't time to click on the link, here are some edited highlights.

"If you are one of the mercenaries hired by the ATOS monopoly to prove we've all been cheating all along, you can watch me if you like. Take your pictures, twitch the curtain, send me forms and summon me to assessments. Doubt me, judge me, even try to take away my dignity, but you will NEVER take away my shoes.

"If I have to use a wheelchair, then surely it's time for the 8 inch hooker heels? (Electric-blue satin with never ending chrome spike heels. If I can't walk anyway...) If I feel like wearing fake-fur and ripped leggings I will. I will wear red lipstick and paint my nails gold. If I want to go to dinner with friends and sip cocktails and nibble tapas and pretend, just for once, that I won't pay for it dearly later, then I will. I don't do hair shirts and self-denial.

"If I have a rare good day, amongst the searing pain and endless vomiting and I want to dance, then I will dance. Joyously, because I know that joy is fleeting. If it puts me on the floor, I will still dance, because I am free. You can't tell me never to dance."

Anarchist Emma Goldman said: "If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution." I'm not entirely sure whether anyone was trying to prevent Ms Goldman from dancing, but I'm glad that she was so insistent.