Is this an issue raised too high?

[Dave2002]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36278641

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I heard this report on TWaO yesterday, and was astonished that any employer would imagine that any such "rule" was enforceable, and more than a little disturbed that they would think that gender politics have regressed so much that they could get away with such a policy. Good for the woman who didn't give in to the pressure to conform.

[jean]

If by an issue raised too high you mean something really not important enough for the level of interest it's received, I can ony disagree (and presume you aren't a woman)

(I think you're supposed to refer to it as WATO, ferney.)

[Richard Tarleton]

If by an issue raised too high you mean something really not important enough for the level of interest it's received, I can ony disagree (and presume you aren't a woman)

I hoped Dave was merely attempting a pun on high, high heels, etc.... an appalling story. It follows another instance from the Cannes Film Festival, although there it was not an issue of job, conditions of work, power, etc.....

[french frank]

If by an issue raised too high you mean something really not important enough for the level of interest it's received, I can ony disagree (and presume you aren't a woman)

I thought it was just a pun? That it was the company raising the issue too high?

A completely unacceptable regulation. Should men all have turn-ups on their trousers? Or should the size of the knot on their ties be regulated? Four buttons on each sleeve?

[jean]

I thought it was just a pun? That it was the company raising the issue too high?

Didn't get the pun at first...but now I do, does the OP mean it's the company making too much of it?

The news item the OP gives a link to isn't about the original incident (a woman sent home from work because she wasn't wearing high heels and wouldn't go out and buy some), but about the 100,000 signatures on a petition about it. And as I read it, the incident doesn't become an 'issue' until it's discussed.

Back in the 70s, though, when we feminists saw very clearly that high heels were only a modern version of footbinding, I could not have believed that women would still be choosing to wear them in ever more vertiginous guise, forty years on. If they had simply ceased to exist, as we were sure they would, no employer would have the option of requiring them.

.

[Beef Oven!]

.............................. (and presume you aren't a woman)

Oh dear. Why the reference to gender? Can't people just get things wrong, irrespective of their sex?

[jean]

I think this one's a bit gender-specific, whoever is thought to have got it wrong?

(I apologise to the OP if I misinterpreted the thread title...but I did say If...)

[Beef Oven!]

I think this one's a bit gender-specific, whoever is thought to have got it wrong?

It's quite possible to see things for what they are, irrespective of one's gender. I think it certainly is not a bit gender-specific, this one.

[pastoralguy]

. Should men all have turn-ups on their trousers? Or should the size of the knot on their ties be regulated? Four buttons on each sleeve?

Absolutely!

Individuals have campaigned for Parliament on lesser issues!

[jean]

...I think it certainly is not a bit gender-specific, this one.

You're right, of course.

[Flosshilde]

A completely unacceptable regulation. Should men all have turn-ups on their trousers? Or should the size of the knot on their ties be regulated? Four buttons on each sleeve?

At least these things aren't physically damaging in the way that high heels are.

The psychology of high heels is interesting. Women who wear them claim, I think, that they are 'empowering' (a much over- and mis-used word) - I can see that they might be in the workplace, adding some extra height & bringing the wearer nearer the level of men (physically), and the dominatrix overtones could boost confidence. But at the same time they damage the wearer's feet & lower leg, shortening the tendons, emphasise aspects of the wearer's body in a sexual way, & because of the instability (especially on uneven ground, create a real or psychological dependence on someone (usually a man) or something to keep upright.

[Serial_Apologist]

It's quite possible to see things for what they are, irrespective of one's gender. I think it certainly is not a bit gender-specific, this one.

Not been having problems wearing flats at work then?

[Serial_Apologist]

'empowering' (a much over- and mis-used word)

But why then would it be possible that:

the dominatrix overtones could boost confidence.

?

Like you I'm confused about the connotations of "empowerment"

[jean]

At least these things aren't physically damaging in the way that high heels are.

The psychology of high heels is interesting. Women who wear them claim, I think, that they are 'empowering' (a much over- and mis-used word) - I can see that they might be in the workplace, adding some extra height & bringing the wearer nearer the level of men (physically), and the dominatrix overtones could boost confidence. But at the same time they damage the wearer's feet & lower leg, shortening the tendons, emphasise aspects of the wearer's body in a sexual way, & because of the instability (especially on uneven ground, create a real or psychological dependence on someone (usually a man) or something to keep upright.

All absolutely true.

I find it very hard to believe that women are still buying into this, even with the proviso that they should be allowed to decide for themselves when & where to wear the things - as I said above, back in the 70s we were so sure that pretty soon high heels would have been something quite forgotten by time.

But I do still hear men say 'I know it's terribly un-PC of me, but I can't help it, I just find women so much more attractive in high heels...'