Woman fired for not wearing high heels

[at9]

Actually American rather than English. Often slightly perjorative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Anglo-Saxon_Protestant

[Shyheels]

Not just English. It is a fairly universal acronym in the English speaking world. It stands for White Anglo Saxon Protestant.

It is often used pejoratively, as in the above instance, to indicate a privileged person who never suffers from discrimination.

 

ps: I see at9 got in just ahead of me

Edited May 17, 2016 by Shyheels

[killer heels]

White Anglo Saxon protestant

[nyenor]

Can't say I've ever heard it before.

[meganiwish]

23 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Who says I am a protestant?

And the enforced wearing suits jackets and ties, and the resentment thereof, is hardly confined to WASPS! 

It's a real bee in my bonnet, so to speak

Well, as the above posts imply, the acronym has become a word in its own right.  I don't think Protestantism is a prerequisite.  Indeed, I believe that, nowadays, that's left to the conscience of the individual wasp..

I didn't suggest that WASPs are the only ones with cause for complaint, merely that they now have pigeons coming home to roost.  Time to get the pest control chap in.  I know one who pays his rent for the year dealing with wasps, of the lower-case variety.  At the moment, though, he's troubled with people calling about wasps when they're really bees (who doesn't know the difference?).

You need to work freelance, so you don't have to wear a suit, or indeed a bonnet for the bees to get in   I see your point, though.  I believe Abe Beam set up a study into it in the 70s calledi Authoritarian Clothing Requirements On New York Minorities to look into it.

[Shyheels]

1 hour ago, meganiwish said:

Well, as the above posts imply, the acronym has become a word in its own right.  I don't think Protestantism is a prerequisite.  Indeed, I believe that, nowadays, that's left to the conscience of the individual wasp..

I didn't suggest that WASPs are the only ones with cause for complaint, merely that they now have pigeons coming home to roost.  Time to get the pest control chap in.  I know one who pays his rent for the year dealing with wasps, of the lower-case variety.  At the moment, though, he's troubled with people calling about wasps when they're really bees (who doesn't know the difference?).

You need to work freelance, so you don't have to wear a suit, or indeed a bonnet for the bees to get in   I see your point, though.  I believe Abe Beam set up a study into it in the 70s calledi Authoritarian Clothing Requirements On New York Minorities to look into it.

Well, if protestantism is no longer a prerequisite, as WASP is now a word in its own right, it would follow that being white and Anglo-Saxon are no longer requirements either. Aside from a rather unobserved Catholicism,  I have rich strains of French and Dutch ancestry, and indeed some (a tiny bit) of American Indian and yet I know very well that I would qualify as a WASP in nearly anyone's definition. These days, anyway. That definition - put up by various adherents to PC and blinkered feminists - seems to be someone, anyone, typically male, typically white, who, according to the tyranny of political correctness, has no right to complain about any form of social injustice that is visited upon him. Ever.

True, I am a freelance and can wear whatever I please in my home office. (I do draw the line at bonnets, you are quite right there) but I do have a sense of social justice and don't care for the purring insistance of some of the Guardian columnists this past week, on the heels of the heels story, that men have a free ride when it comes to dressing for work. Men don't. Men are far, far more restricted in what they can wear - especially WASPSs

 

Edited May 18, 2016 by Shyheels

[Pumped]

White Anglo Saxon Protestant

[Shyheels]

You chimed in a mite late with that one...

Edited May 18, 2016 by Shyheels

[meganiwish]

22 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Well, if protestantism is no longer a prerequisite, as WASP is now a word in its own right, it would follow that being white and Anglo-Saxon are no longer requirements either. Aside from a rather unobserved Catholicism,  I have rich strains of French and Dutch ancestry, and indeed some (a tiny bit) of American Indian and yet I know very well that I would qualify as a WASP in nearly anyone's definition. These days, anyway. That definition - put up by various adherents to PC and blinkered feminists - seems to be someone, anyone, typically male, typically white, who, according to the tyranny of political correctness, has no right to complain about any form of social injustice that is visited upon him. Ever.

True, I am a freelance and can wear whatever I please in my home office. (I do draw the line at bonnets, you are quite right there) but I do have a sense of social justice and don't care for the purring insistance of some of the Guardian columnists this past week, on the heels of the heels story, that men have a free ride when it comes to dressing for work. Men don't. Men are far, far more restricted in what they can wear - especially WASPSs

 

I'd agree with you that Anglo Saxon is probably also no longer a prerequisite (though it must be said that Dutch and Anglo Saxon are at least first cousins, if not siblings).The nature of protestantism is non-observance.  I fail to see how unobserved Catholicism is any different.  I think that white probably is a prerequisite, though, not through acronymity, but because that's what it means.  Meaning moves to the arbitrary with the single-mindedness of the Gadarene swine and the inevitability of entropy, though the two are the same thing, really, and is no respecter of etymology.  It's still the case that the best thing to be in this world is a white middle-class+ male  I can see your point, but I can see how being a white, male, middle class victim is an untenable position.  Men might be more restricted in what they can wear, but it's men who are making that situation.

[Shyheels]

Hmmm. Yes, it can certainly be argued, on one plane, that men created the situation in which they find themselves, especially in terms of what they can and cannot wear. Women as a group have had the courage of their convictions and worn what they wanted to wear, out-stared society's expectations, and made whatever style they wanted their own. Trousers and jeans being a great case in point.

Men on the other hand have always retreated when women moved into 'their' fashions - as with bright colours, adornments and heels in the 18th century. There was no room for retreat with trousers and jeans, so they merely slid over. In general, though once something has been feminised in any way, there is no collective corage or willingness to take it back, or wear whatever it is regardless.

So, yes, to that extent men have created the situation in which they find themselves. But it is also true that there are enormous social forces and expectations in play that make any push-back by men extremely risky. 

As to being a WASP or perhaps we should just say middle class white male, since at least three letters in that acronym seem to be irrelevant, there are certainly more opportunities open to such a person - but only along a certain narrow path, and only by complying with all the rules and restrictions along the way. A misstep can be disaster.

In Western societies these days there are lots of advocacies for change, enlightenment, broadening that path, easing its restrictions and making success more inclusive - and that is a good thing. But it is also highly selective.  Your white middle class male is still expected to follow the same narrow hidebound path, dress like, and play, the role of 1950s breadwinner. The changes and enlightenment are for others. There is no advocacy for him at all. And it's considered poor form for him to bring up the subject.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Shyheels

[aristoc]

On 11 May 2016 at 2:43 PM, at9 said:

 

Temp worker Nicola Thorp, 27, from Hackney, arrived at finance company PwC to be told she had to wear shoes with a "2in to 4in heel".

When she refused and complained male colleagues were not asked to do the same, she was sent home without pay.

 

Well at the risk of a custodial sentence in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act and a flaming for not being PC, I personally would be ecstatic if my employer stipulated heels were compulsory.... I would however push for the clause be amended to read minimum 4 inch. 

In mitigation of my defence, could I ask the jury to consider this evidence be taken in context of the plaintive's possible unhealthy addiction to heels. 

 

Edited May 19, 2016 by aristoc

[Shyheels]

No harm in wishing, but alas, in real life the imagined stipulation would almost certainly apply only to workers of the female persuasion

[Chorlini]

I wish I had to wear 4" heels to work. If only to shut up all those complaining women. Maybe if most women actually wore heels more often then they wouldn't complain so much when wearing them. It seems like the only time 99.9% of them put on a pair is when they go to a posh party. Where they sit down most of the time. Other then that its sneakers and flats everywhere. Practice makes perfect and if you never practice you'll never become good at anything. 
 

As for this case, it seems like the usual SJW fad of the month. How dare a company forces its female employees to look smart and representable! Heresy! Quick! To the Outrage Mobile!

[meganiwish]

2 hours ago, Chorlini said:

I wish I had to wear 4" heels to work. If only to shut up all those complaining women. Maybe if most women actually wore heels more often then they wouldn't complain so much when wearing them. It seems like the only time 99.9% of them put on a pair is when they go to a posh party. Where they sit down most of the time. Other then that its sneakers and flats everywhere. Practice makes perfect and if you never practice you'll never become good at anything. 
 

As for this case, it seems like the usual SJW fad of the month. How dare a company forces its female employees to look smart and representable! Heresy! Quick! To the Outrage Mobile!

Er, woman in the room!  And I can't even retreat upstairs, since you darlek chaps have unsportingly mastered stairs

22 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Hmmm. Yes, it can certainly be argued, on one plane, that men created the situation in which they find themselves, especially in terms of what they can and cannot wear. Women as a group have had the courage of their convictions and worn what they wanted to wear, out-stared society's expectations, and made whatever style they wanted their own. Trousers and jeans being a great case in point.

Men on the other hand have always retreated when women moved into 'their' fashions - as with bright colours, adornments and heels in the 18th century. There was no room for retreat with trousers and jeans, so they merely slid over. In general, though once something has been feminised in any way, there is no collective corage or willingness to take it back, or wear whatever it is regardless.

So, yes, to that extent men have created the situation in which they find themselves. But it is also true that there are enormous social forces and expectations in play that make any push-back by men extremely risky. 

As to being a WASP or perhaps we should just say middle class white male, since at least three letters in that acronym seem to be irrelevant, there are certainly more opportunities open to such a person - but only along a certain narrow path, and only by complying with all the rules and restrictions along the way. A misstep can be disaster.

In Western societies these days there are lots of advocacies for change, enlightenment, broadening that path, easing its restrictions and making success more inclusive - and that is a good thing. But it is also highly selective.  Your white middle class male is still expected to follow the same narrow hidebound path, dress like, and play, the role of 1950s breadwinner. The changes and enlightenment are for others. There is no advocacy for him at all. And it's considered poor form for him to bring up the subject.

I think WASP is just fine, if only for saving pencil mileage.  Perhaps it should now go lower case.

I take your point about narrow paths, because rock star, astronaut, sporting hero, inventor et al  are ever closed to MCWMs.  Your argument verges on the line of 1970s unions.  'We support our brothers' claim for a pay rise, but pay differentials must be maintained.'  So WMCM is happy for people to have more opportunities as long as he has more to keep him where he is.  I'm going to have to end here, because it appears my heart is bleeding.

[Shyheels]

4 hours ago, Chorlini said:

I wish I had to wear 4" heels to work. If only to shut up all those complaining women. Maybe if most women actually wore heels more often then they wouldn't complain so much when wearing them. It seems like the only time 99.9% of them put on a pair is when they go to a posh party. Where they sit down most of the time. Other then that its sneakers and flats everywhere. Practice makes perfect and if you never practice you'll never become good at anything. 
 

As for this case, it seems like the usual SJW fad of the month. How dare a company forces its female employees to look smart and representable! Heresy! Quick! To the Outrage Mobile!

So true. Practice does make perfect. While I have never worn or even tried on a pair of four-inch heels I would not be so foolish as to think I could just slip on a pair and stride off to work. And then be ditzy enough to complain a hundred yards later that my feet hurt. And blame the shoes. That's why I never understand these articles written by guys who do an experimental day in heels. Even when they are not yuk-yuking self consciously, and are trying to take the thing seriously, there does not seem to be an awareness that this is something to be worked up to, and that a single day is woefully insufficient an experiment. The first day of anything involving a physical or athletic challenge is never going to be very flash.

And yes, a great cause celebre for a Twitter storm, the uktimate tempest in a teapot.

[Shyheels]

3 hours ago, meganiwish said:

Er, woman in the room!  And I can't even retreat upstairs, since you darlek chaps have unsportingly mastered stairs

I think WASP is just fine, if only for saving pencil mileage.  Perhaps it should now go lower case.

I take your point about narrow paths, because rock star, astronaut, sporting hero, inventor et al  are ever closed to MCWMs.  Your argument verges on the line of 1970s unions.  'We support our brothers' claim for a pay rise, but pay differentials must be maintained.'  So WMCM is happy for people to have more opportunities as long as he has more to keep him where he is.  I'm going to have to end here, because it appears my heart is bleeding.

WASP is an acronym. Upper case required. 

I was talking more about dress codes and activism, not blocked career paths and certainly never suggested that any if the careers you mention were closed to white middle class males. Neither are they closed to women, minorities or gays, and to the extent their paths to success are or have been made more difficult, much is being done for change. That is what I mean by activism. Nowhere have I suggested pay scales should be different, or even hinted at anything like that, or that activism on behalf of women and minorities is a bad thing. It is not. I am merely pointing out that men - specifically in terms of dress code, as per this thread - are rigidly required to conform to stereotype in ways women are not, and that men have no recourse.

Just suppose a man said no to wearing a jacket and tie on a hot day, and was sent home from work by his boss for not being presentable at a meeting. And then sobbed about the unfairness of it all onsocial media. Do you really think it would create a Twitter storm, go 'viral', generate thousands of words of self righteous and wholly supportive pity and wrath in newspapers worldwide and 130,000-plus signatures on a petition to Parliament demanding legislation to end this kind of anachronistic dress code foolishness? No. He'd be a laughing stock, told to shut up, man up and get on with it. Life's tough. There are bigger problems in the world than wearing jacket and tie etc. etc.  Would women really like to be see equality in the workplace extend to that? Be treated just the same? Or would that be that taking equality too far?

Edited May 20, 2016 by Shyheels

[Bubba136]

These days there are so many different problems, issues and disagreements.  Everyone has an opinion, idea or stance on each and every one.  And, each of these opinions are the "correct" one, according to the individual voicing their stance which results in everyone thinking they can do whatever they want to do and no one has any business disagreeing with them.  And, woe be unto those that object, disagree or try to offer something different.

For instance, my oldest daughter is a Lawyer.  A member of an long established, prestigious law firm that is well known in this area for its vigorous advocacy, excellent representation and winning record.  The senior partners have a vision of how they like their firm to appear in the eyes of the general public.  Therefore, they have an effective, strongly enforced dress code and if an employee does not want to comply with it, they are welcome to seek employment elsewhere.  There is no room for discussion.  Comply or get terminated for not complying or not being hired in the first place.

(As an aside, I am not sure what their policy is, or would be, towards the transgendered.  However, while they just might hire a transgendered person for inside administrative jobs, I  am equally sure (keeping in mind that I have never discussed this subject either with my daughter or of the partners) they would never be allowed to work in any position  appearing in public.)           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a

[RonC]

While I admit to being quite comfortable wearing khakis and an open collar shirt as business wear, if the company I worked for said that from now on I had to wear a suit and tie and dress shoes to work, so bi it.  Guess I'm old fashioned, but it is part of the job.  And if you took a job where the told you up front this is the dress code, and now you're going to fight it...that is a totally different story as well.  You knew the parameters before had.  Live with it.

As an aside to this story, the code for this woman was a 2-4 inch heel.  Is she saying she cannot walk around all day in a 2" heel?  Please!  I think you could give just about any man a shoe with a two inch heel and tell him he had to wear it all day and you'd likely get little to no complaint at the end of the day.  Come on.  She could find a dress shoe with a 2" wedge heel that would be no more uncomfortable than some stupid little flat thing that offers no support at all.  Good grief - let's just blow everything way out of proportion so it looks like you're being so put upon.  

[Shyheels]

The really funny thing is that she reportedly bills herself as an actress. One assumes then that there must be all sorts of roles she would refuse to take as the costumes would not agree with her.  Yet one also can't help but suspect that if she were offered a lucrative part in a Sex and The City remake she would not tell the director to take a hike if he/she suggested wearing heels - even towering stilettos. A way would be found...

Edited May 20, 2016 by Shyheels

[Pumped]

I wear two inch heels pretty much every day, men's western boots!

[Shyheels]

And I'd be willing to bet your feet don't end the day bloodied and you crippled with pain...

[Pumped]

The type and style of shoes plus the materials they are made of affect  the comfort level. Generally mid priced leather shoes will be more comfortable than low end man made materials. Two inch heels in a quality shoe should be easy, four inch might be a problem no matter the quality, but better quality should be doable for a longer time. My wife often brings two pairs of shoes to work and trades of during the day.

[robbiehhw]

14 minutes ago, Pumped said:

The type and style of shoes plus the materials they are made of affect  the comfort level. Generally mid priced leather shoes will be more comfortable than low end man made materials. Two inch heels in a quality shoe should be easy, four inch might be a problem no matter the quality, but better quality should be doable for a longer time. My wife often brings two pairs of shoes to work and trades of during the day.

I have found this to be the case too. When i buy cheap but cute shoes i don't have high expectations for comfort or wear and tear. I wear them and retire them in one season sometimes. Mid-range leather shoes last. Here when you pay $100 you often start to get into that range. I believe everyone's shoe closet should have a mixture of both.

[Shyheels]

With any kind of footwear - hiking boots or heels - quality has a huge impact on comfort and wearability. So does having the good sense to break in a shoe or boot before wearing them out somewhere. 

[Gudulitooo]

Don't know where to put this. Seems that it was anticipated.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/ottawa/workplace-sexual-discrimination-men-heels-union-613-1.3483305

[Ynotme]

It's always the same thing the average guy that where heels for these things all say that they hurt and give up 

I think if they started on small heels like young girls and us guys early on they could get used to the high ones 

I think women should be given the choice of heels or not but don't complain that everyone needs to be in flat shoes some of us might like to be in heels  

just what I think 

[Shyheels]

I ride a bicycle with a classic Brooks leather saddle. No padding, just old fashioned stiff leather on a copper frame. The beauty of these old fashioned saddles is that they mold themselves to you and become incredibly comfortable. But the thing is, they need to be broken in by the rider.  Any newbie who hops on a bike with one of these saddles will more than likely find them quite uncomfortable and thus not wanting to ride far. People new to them usually hop off quick smart and announce these saddles are the Devil's own work.

There would seem to be some parallels with heels here. Guys who try them for some experimental thing, wear four inch heels for an hour or two for a newspaper story and say they can't imagine how women do it, are no different than those who pedal away on a Brooks saddle and announce they are 'impossible' to use.

 

[Heelster]

7 hours ago, Shyheels said:

I ride a bicycle with a classic Brooks leather saddle. No padding, just old fashioned stiff leather on a copper frame. The beauty of these old fashioned saddles is that they mold themselves to you and become incredibly comfortable. But the thing is, they need to be broken in by the rider.  Any newbie who hops on a bike with one of these saddles will more than likely find them quite uncomfortable and thus not wanting to ride far. People new to them usually hop off quick smart and announce these saddles are the Devil's own work.

There would seem to be some parallels with heels here. Guys who try them for some experimental thing, wear four inch heels for an hour or two for a newspaper story and say they can't imagine how women do it, are no different than those who pedal away on a Brooks saddle and announce they are 'impossible' to use.

 

Same goes for Western cowboy boots. Most guys can't stand them after their first hour or so, but once you break them in, they are perfectly fine for long walks and such. Most guys I have talked with whine that the heel bothers them, but these newer styles don't have half the heel boots 20 years ago had.

[Chorlini]

19 hours ago, Ynotme said:

It's always the same thing the average guy that where heels for these things all say that they hurt and give up 

I think if they started on small heels like young girls and us guys early on they could get used to the high ones.

Thing is, I can excuse those men because they haven never worn heels before, it's not something that men in general do, in which case they can be quite uncomfortable. But there are more and more women who have never worn heels before either. So there is a growing number of women who don't know how to wear heels, don't know how to learn how to walk in heels, just don't have the patience to learn or have made their mind made up already and who now bitterly complain about these patriarchal torture devices. And there's an never ending brigade of SJW's willing to take up their cause.

 

19 hours ago, Ynotme said:

I think women should be given the choice of heels or not but don't complain that everyone needs to be in flat shoes some of us might like to be in heels  

just what I think 

There are plenty of low heeled options. And platforms can help you cheat on heel height considerably. And if push comes to shove a woman could wear ballerina flats and still look graceful. The point of formal wear is that it makes men look stylish and women graceful. Something which no woman ever does in sneakers or flipflops..

[Shyheels]

I read in a newspaper article the other day that health problems caused by wearing high heels cost British businesses £260 million a year - this was from evidence presented to the parliamentary commission into wearing heels in the workplace. (Yes, with all that is going on in Britain and the world, our politicians have nothing better to do) One wonders - indeed, marvels - at the capacity of "experts" to snatch BS figures out of thin air and have them solemnly accepted and recorded as "fact".

Here truly is an instance of Mark Twain's "lies, damned lies and statistics".

Edited July 30, 2016 by Shyheels