However, this is not to say that they are without inkling suspicions, nor is it to say that they are completely ignorant of these economic issues. Jeffreys herself skirts with the idea of gendered economic inferiority in relation to body politics such as Mansprawling. She writes “The behaviors of space, touch, and eye contact that are required of subordinates are then understood as the “natural” behaviors of femininity…Henley shows that it is not only men who act out the behaviors of power but human beings involved in other forms of hierarchy besides gender, such as employers and employees. The powerful take up more space.” (Jeffreys 25) The reader may be at a loss as to why Jeffreys separates gender and economic hierarchies rather than unifying…show more content… Economically, beauty practices in the form of high-heel clad secretaries, airline attendants, and congresswomen alike are just as damaging to the opportunities of women and equally as intended to satiate male lust. High heels serve as a visual reminder of this dynamic; as William Rossi puts it in his book, The Sex and Life of the Foot and Shoe, “The only reason is sexual, an insignia to designate the separation of the sexes.” (Rossi 17). The same can be said of high heeled shoes as any stigma: “Like many other forms of discrimination, prejudice based on appearance compounds the disadvantages of already disadvantaged groups, particularly those defined by class, gender, race, ethnicity, age, disability, and sexual orientation.” (Rhode 96). What high heels signify is internalized by both genders. For males heels signal excitement. For females, they are a necessary yet undue burden, whether they realize this or not. The ultimate result is male attainment in the economic sense, which further consolidates an overarching theme of
