This article by Michael Harvey in the timesonline.com.uk:
There are many things that sons should not question their fathers about. Losing your virginity, marital infidelity and dancing at weddings are just a few. But the biggest “unspoken” in my upbringing was my father's height. His army nickname was “Titch” because he was not that many inches over 5ft.
I can't tell you precisely how many inches because I never asked and even now, more than two years after his death, I find I can't pick up the phone to ask my mum. It just seems too personal.
I was reminded of this by Robin Dunbar, Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology, in Lisa Armstrong's times2 cover story on Wednesday, who says that it is OK for women to be short because you can't buy height (as opposed to bigger breasts and wrinkle-free foreheads). But it is not really OK for men to be short. Of course, in this PC world, everyone says that height doesn't matter but actually, really, it does. If short men could all be magically made 5ft 8in (the male average in Britain), how many, hand on heart, would turn it down? Which is why sales of high-heeled shoes for men seem to be, erm, on the rise. The news from Selfridges is that day-to-day footwear styles have risen from a standard 1.5cm heel to a loftier 5cm version. Dior had 6.5cm heels last season but that, it seems, is deemed too vertiginous. The bestsellers are Jeffrey West's Decadent and Dandy collection, priced from £220. But do they really offer “improved posture, better trouser line and feelings of increased power and security”?
I have been wearing a pair in the office for a couple of days and, sadly, the answer is “sort of”.
Not that many people noticed and those that did were more taken with the extreme pointy-ness of the toe than my stack heels. But perhaps those rushing out to buy heels for men are shorter than I am.
Sorry, you want to know how tall I am? Don't be so rude.
