Nicola Thorpe, high heels, petition against sexism at work

I certainly agree that, for certain jobs, there is a dress code and it should be adhered to by men and by women. But high heels are not part of a rational and reasonable dress code. Just think for one minute (nanosecond) of asking, nay, requiring men to wear them. You can be perfectly smart and formal in flat shoes.

I am wholeheartedly with Rosina here. I worked in schools for many years and we were always dressed smartly, but teaching a practical subject, my footwear was comfortable as I had few chances in the day to sit down.
I think high heels are fine for models, who can slip them off after a catwalk show, but totally unsuitable for those on their feet a lot. Have you seen Victoria Beckhams feet? Really out of shape due to her footwear choices.
There are so many stylish slightly lower heeled and flat shoes about that office workers and others in careers where they are on public view can be well dressed and comfortable at the same time, wearing a smile not a grimace at each step.

Hi everyone not that anyone answers me anyway but that's okay anyway she is an actress and now we are all talking about her I think this might be a publicity stunt but I have to say am a cynic.

I wore high heels for work and now have really painful arthritis in my toes, a bunion and ruined knees. This is not just about aesthetics but also about the physical effect heels have on the body .

Hi Mary294, do you know if she said she was an actress or if the press found that out? I am not getting at you over your statement - just genuinely interested as to how being a 'resting actress' came into the issue.
Almost every job requires a uniform of some sort and most are reasonable. The recruitment firm could state that women may wear heels to work but they should be no higher than 2". This would safeguard both firms from health and safety issues and accusations of sexism. My daughter worked for PWC and was never expected to wear high heels as part of the job although she was expected to be professionally turned out. Her then boyfriend was sent home once by his accountancy firm to change to black socks which were de rigueur for men.

I read it on the link on here and she hasn't said in the article what sort of flat shoes she was wearing were they trainers? So as far as I can tell from the link on here she says she's an actress with lots photographs to go with the story don't forget the link is on here so it seems she brought it into the issue and if you want to have a go at me about my statement them so be it. I was going with that this is great publicity for an actress

I'm gobsmacked that any company, in this day and age, has the audacity to stipulate that a female employee has to wear high heels. I disagree that the complaint should be pushed as a health and safety issue. Only females have to do it, purely to make them look more sexy and attractive, therefore it's sexism. And to claim that, if the employee signed a contract knowing that this stipulation was included, then that makes it acceptable, is nonesense. No contract can break the law.
Of course, there would be an obvious dress code for positions such as the one in question, but smart is not the same as sexy.
If someone dared to demand I wear heels then they'd get a pain in their bottom (caused by a stiletto heel).

livingwellmagazine.net/health/family-health/study-confirms-height-of-heel-matters-in-prevention-of-foot-pain

This is only one study and only twenty one people took part so it would not be considered as statistically significant but it gives a general idea. Apparently, ideal heel height depends on the natural inclination (in this case slope rather than preference) of your foot and everyone's different, of course.

Point taken, janea. Two inch heels are not sexy. Neither are four or five inch ones in my eyes but that is what high heels are for, or to make one look more 'feminine'. How many men's shoes have two inch heels?

My point is really that it's nobody else's bloody business how high one's heels are unless they stop you doing your job. I never wear heels. Not even for my wedding or any other formal occasion I've been to. It simply isn't necessary for anyone, male or female, for any reason at all other than that they want to, to wear shoes with any heel other than the normal shock absorbing ones you see on standard men's and children's shoes. So why specify?

I don't think even court shoes should be specified. I've never been able to keep that sort of style on my feet. They just fall off my heel at every step and I refuse to squash my toes. I couldn't keep court shoes on even if they were flat, like ballet flats. When I danced, I tied my ballet shoes on.

Only one study and only a sample size of twenty means it's bullshit. It simply doesn't represent anything useful for the rest of society, however interesting or fun the exercise was.

Next thing you know, they'll be telling women, but not men, that they have to wear make-up to be properly dressed for work. Our society should be getting less bonkers, not more.

I wore high heels last weekend whilst attending an event and receiving an award. As soon as I put them on, my feet screamed, "No!!!!!" (Sorry pendants' corner members but I love extra exclamation marks!) but my confidence purred, "Oh! yes!" The extra height and straighter posture made me feel good. I took the shoes off every time there was an opportunity and my feet thanked me for that. Women in certain work roles can't do that. My feet are fine but I'm really glad I don't have to wear such shoes every day.

I agree with posters who criticise teachers who dress sloppily. As a primary teacher in KS1 I had to spend a lot of time on the floor. High heels and smart skirts don't work in that environment but we were always clean and tidy. The supply teacher who arrived one afternoon in what appeared to be her painting and decorating clothes was not asked again. A new teaching assistant who wore low cut tops, short skirts and Miss Strict, laced, high heeled boots was spoken to about appropriate dress.

A dress code needs to be appropriate for the job. Actually, I have real trouble with foot pain if I wear very flat shoes, especially ballet pumps, in the summer months. There's no support in them.

www.express.co.uk/news/uk/367892/Why-men-really-do-fall-for-women-in-killer-high-heels

If people want to wear high heels, it's up to them. Personally, I've never felt the need to emphasise my femininity. It seems to have done its job just fine.

BTW, lizzypop, please excuse my blunt dismissal of that study (and any other so small). It's not personal .

Been awake since 0210 so I'm off for a nap.

Pwc has said that the wearing of high heels is NOT company policy. My dil worked for them, and whilst smart,appropriate business wear WAS necessary, there was no stipulation about the height of heels. It seems odd to me that a receptionist ,who spends most of the day seated behind a desk, and where her shoes are rarely seen, should be treated in this way. Let's get all the facts, but I feel this is either a publicity stunt for an actress, or an attempt to get some unearned cash! And yes, I'm a cynic.

You do have to wonder what this company's disability policies are like.
.

What heels do is to throw the body out of balance so posture is changed. You have to lean forward which pushes the bust out, and backwards which pushes the buttocks out. Now why should that be part of a job description?

The other aspect of PWC policy that this reveals is that this large UK company outsources their receptionists so they can treat them like a commodity, give them zero hour contracts and thereby deny them access to most employee-protection legislation. The horrible reality of most unskilled and semi-skilled jobs these days.

Of course it's wrong to require a woman to wear high heels. What next? a short skirt and suspenders? In my first office job many years ago a 21 year old woman was sent home by the boss because she wore a smart trouser suit. He preferred to see our legs! Nothing much has changed.

It's not PwC who have a high heels for women policy, it's the temping agency. Personally, I abhor dress codes of any sort, at any time, so this one stinks. If she's an actress out for publicity, then good luck to her, but the dress code is still wrong.

Shame we haven't been given a photo of the shoes she was wearing. I would think a front-of-house receptionist would need to give a business-like impression. She would surely have to come out from behind her desk sometimes. 2" to 4" heels are hardly going to be stilettos. There is no doubt a dress code for he men as well.

Fuss over nothing in my opinion.

I'm with janea on this. It's all about reasonableness. And management prerogative. Is it reasonable for a company to stipulate that a worker adhere to a dress code? Yes. Is it reasonable to insist that the wearing of heels of 2" in height is a condition of employment? Ummmm..maybe not.

Was the company discriminating on the grounds of sex? I don't think so. Men, as a rule, do not wear heels. Women, however, do. There is an expectation that some wear heels, at least sometimes, and that it may therefore be reasonable that a dress code for women incorporates heeled shoes, for whatever reason the company decides. So adherence to the code becomes part of the employment contract, and the worker abides by that. Failure to do so is a breach of contract on the part of the employee.

I'm interested to know at what point the woman in question decided that she wasn't going to wear heels. If she'd signed the contract, she was agreeing to its terms. She knew what was expected. And as to being "forced"?. I don't think so. She had a choice; she could simply have turned down the contract and said "no".

As to whether it is "reasonable" to insist that females wear a heel, then management will do whatever it can get away with.

I think 2" heels would give good support to the arches. Hardly enough to throw you forward.

I have been fortunate enough to have jobs that did not dictate specific dress codes. Nevertheless, I have always worn a business suit and blouse, especially when representing the organisation. I found a pair of Footglove shoes with a small heel just under 2". They are so comfortable, that I forget I'm wearing them. In fact, I also bought a pair of Footglove wedge knee high boots, which I wear with leggings tucked in, and a mid-thigh top. This also looks smart enough to wear in the office. No boss, ever, has said to me to wear specific footwear.

No offence taken, thatbags I did point out in my post that the sample was too small to be significant.

If I were paranoid, I might wonder where the implications of such a dress code for female recruits actually ends. Is shoe heel height the thin end of the (he he!) wedge? ?

We have bones and muscles "to support the arches". In fact, it's the bones that make the arch.

Think of an arched bridge: it's actually strongest when downward pressure is applied to it. Same with feet.

Feet need protection from cold and rough ground, but for normal everyday British life, they don't need "support". Different if you're galumphing down a mountain but most of us, most of the time, aren't doing that.

Unless you actually have a foot problem, your arches don't need support.