barney15c Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 There is an item in the Mail on Sunday about a TUC motion banning high heels in the workplace. What are other forum members take on this. Is it sexist and demeaning to women to be forced to wear high heels or is it another example of the Nanny State? http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1204645/Why-womens-heels-high-union-bosses-agenda.html In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benno Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 I'm split on this one... The Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday is right up it's own back bottom. They used to have a policy that women had to wear skirts in editorial photos. The Mail are the poison of the nation, generally abusing their power to ridicule anything slightly left wing. I can see where the no heels idea is coming from. Very high heels are a ridiculous invention and in a way not suitable for anything remotely practical no matter how skilled the wearer. However I think there are many more ridiculous things in life, I'd rather they banned the waste of electricity that people call sunbeds! I think people should be free to do/think pretty much anything they can dream up. Hope I make some sense! Cheers, Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euchrid Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 There is an item in the Mail on Sunday about a TUC motion banning high heels in the workplace. http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1204645/Why-womens-heels-high-union-bosses-agenda.html oops, I missed this thread & started another one after seeing the story online today. i think the article is basically just mis-reporting the TUC motion which was simply about banning 'heels are mandatory for women' rules in the workplace. i have no idea which professions actually have this rule (pole dancing clubs?) Always High-Heel Responsibly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puffer Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 The article is actually in today's Daily Mail and appears to be reproduced correctly on the website quoted. As far as I am aware the TUC motion is (as euchrid suggests) misquoted and is actually about preventing employers from requiring women to wear high heels. Apart from obvious roles such as dancers or 'hostesses', I think this is aimed at the businesses which expect women to dress in a smart (or 'professional') manner, e.g. some airlines and many banks, legal firms and other city institutions. Women working in these areas may not be required to wear heels but are expected to do so as part of their overall look and will probably suffer an element of discrimination if they do not. Some of the comments on the web make the point that men could wear heels to work if they wished. And the vast majority of comments deplore any attempt to dictate to women (or men) what shoes they should wear at work (unless for very obvious safety reasons). Quite right too! Interesting too that a maximum height of one inch is suggested - most men's shoes have a heel at least that high and many ordinary folk of both sexes would find that uncomfortably low for everyday wear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrid Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 There was a piece about this on BBC breakfast this morning just before 9. You had one lady claiming that women were being forced to wear high heels in work against their wishes and she started firing out stats about the harmful effect of wearing heels e.g. as heel height increases the physical pressure increases greatly. She didnt go beyond 3 inches because Susanna jumped in and changed the direction of the discussion. The other lady was a high heel wearer who said she always wears heels of 3 inches or so to work and would feel uneasy or incomplete wearing flats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puffer Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 The Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday is right up it's own back bottom. They used to have a policy that women had to wear skirts in editorial photos. The Mail are the poison of the nation, generally abusing their power to ridicule anything slightly left wing. Oh dear, benno, you can't decide whether the Mail is singular or plural, can you? That aside, as a Mail reader, I can assure you that I am quite capable of deciding for myself whether its stance on 'anything slightly left wing' is justified or not - and I am sorry to say that the present government and its supporters need no help from the press to demonstrate the folly of most of it. But, although the Daily Mail was indeed wrong in its suggestion that the TUC was intending to seek a ban on heels in the workplace, it made for an interesting debate. And the follow-up article today ('Hands off our heels') gave the ladies an excuse to tell us why they will go on wearing them - as if we care! The facts are that a TUC affiliate, the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists, has put a motion on the preliminary TUC agenda but it hasn't even been debated yet, never mind adopted. The motion reads: 'Congress calls on all employers who have dress codes that promote high heels to examine the hazards their women workers face and ensure that proper risk assessments are carried out, and that where these show the wearing of high heels is hazardous the high heels should be replaced with sensible and comfortable shoes.’ I would not myself take exception to the Society's sentiment; it is neither seeking to outlaw high heels in the workplace nor even suggesting that employers should never 'promote' them in a dress code. It is simply reminding employers that there may be good health and safety reasons to discourage them. We might however question the need for the reference to 'women workers'. For anyone interested, there is more on the Society’s website at: http://www.feetforlife.org/cgi-bin/item.cgi?ap=1&id=2350&d=pnd&dateformat=%25o-%25B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts