I think we can all agree…
…that this is a little disturbing, no? From the Toronto Star’s parentcentral.ca (thanks, Kelly):
Sex and the City put stilettos in the spotlight and now a couple of mothers have put them in the crib.
Tiny soft baby shoe with soft heels, for infants up to 6 months, are “just a fun, novelty, dress-up item,” says Britta Bacon, 30. “I’ve always been a shoe freak and I thought, 
`Omigawd, what if you could take a baby to a party wearing high heels? It would be hilarious!’”
Bacon and partner Hayden Porter, 31, call their Bellevue, Wash., company Heelarious.
The one-size shoes, in leopard and zebra patterns, black and hot pink patent and hot pink matte arrived this week at Acheson’s in Orangeville. They’ll be available next week in Toronto at the Doll Factory, 1122 Queen St. E.
“They’re very cool,” says Acheson’s owner Dianne Acheson, who sells them for $39.95. “The packaging is so cute, with a great big rhinestone. They’re a beautiful baby gift. The heel is soft. There’s nothing that’s going to affect the baby.”
But there’s been criticism of the product, on blogs and by some experts. “We get tagged as horrible and perverted: `Why would we put babies in heels, taking away their innocence?’” says Porter. “But a 3-month old baby has no idea she’s wearing high heels.”
This reminds me of sex-stereotyping clothing I’ve seen, from “Future Cheerleader” or “Future Prom Queen” for girls, and “Future Quarterback” or “Future Prom King” for boys. Both in pink and blue, respectively, of course. I find it so nauseating and unfair.
The stilettos? Where is the hilarity in putting an item so wrapped up in sensuality and empowerment on a baby? There’s a difference between making Baby “cute” with frilly dresses and bows, and making them “sexy” with high-heeled shoes. It doesn’t help the shoe styles have rather hooker-esque names (when attached to stilettos) such as Brooke and She’s a Little Lady.
Also: $40 for a 0-6 months soft pair of shoes? Um, no.
Possibly related posts:
There are currently 7 responses
I just saw these somewhere on line a few hours ago. They grossed me out then and, yup, they still do.
Besides the fact that they are really ugly, not “cute”, as the designer claims, why on earth would I want my 0-6 month old to look like a hooker? She’ll have plenty of time in her teen years to do that herself. Why can’t we (a big, ol’ general “we”) let our kids be kids while they’re young?
Not impressed.
I’ll tell you why Jen O .. three words. Jon Benet Ramsey … ’nuff said.
Saw this earlier today and my immediate reaction was, “ewwww!” I do get that they mean for it to be fun and a joke, but I just find it disturbing.
Do they come with a brass rail accessory?
I believe that’s an optional accessory, Cindy …
Those “shoes” are just wrong on so many levels. Ugh.
Those are awful! I get the joke but the greater psychological ramifications are just distrubing.
Wow. I’m a speechless.