Is this an issue raised too high?

[Mary Chambers]

I can only say that if anyone tried to tell me what kind of shoes to wear, for work or otherwise, they would be dismissed from my life!

At least the firm involved has, I believe, changed its mind.

[MrGongGong]

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...'

It's a bit depressing isn't it!

More than a but actually

There is a simple two word answer to being told what to wear in this way.

[Sir Velo]

It's a bit depressing isn't it!

More than a but actually

There is a simple two word answer to being told what to wear in this way.

There speaks the man who's self employed!

For those who have to comply with employment contracts, it's generally a mite more tricky. Unless you thrive on the aggro of work place tribunals, possible suspensions, compromise agreements, uncertain future employment (eg why did you leave your last job? Oh, I refused to comply with their dress policy) then a little more diplomacy is usually advisable!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

At least the firm involved has, I believe, changed its mind.

Indeed - but only after the publicity.

FWiW - and fully accepting everybody's right to choose how they wish to present themselves, and fully realizing that I am probably not the "target audience" for those who do choose to wear them - this particular man doesn't not find high heels in the least attractive, and never has.

[Flosshilde]

I find it very hard to believe that women are still buying into this,

Like so many things relating to sexism & gender stereotyping it seems to have gone into reverse in the past twenty or so years. Shoes have become fetish objects for so many women - Imelda Marcos was an extreme example of the idea that one couldn't have too many shoes, Sex and the City elevated them to something without which one's life wasn't complete. Shopping has become a leisure pursuit rather than something one did to provide necessities - it probably always was for the rich (the shoes drooled over & bought in Sex anbd the City were way beyond the reach of most people - in reality they would have been beyond the reach of the central characters) but cheap immitations now mean that any woman can aspire to owning hundreds of pairs - mostly extreme high heels.

[Serial_Apologist]

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...'

Is that right? Flats seem to have been the general attire in London for quite a number of years now.

[Richard Tarleton]

The incomprehensible advert for Money Supermarket would have been enough to ensure I did not visit this site even if I desperately needed its services and it was the last one of its kind on the internet.

[vinteuil]

Is that right? Flats seem to have been the general attire in London for quite a number of years now.

... certainly among the people I know. And yet - Mme v usually wears flattish shoes, but occasionally - for more formal events - does like to have a little extra heel height (she is not particularly tall) which she says gives her greater social confidence. But certainly not anything approaching 'high heels'.

I think it should be obvious that women should choose what they like, what they are 'comfortable' with physically or psychologically in any particular context. The case under consideration was absurd from the start - a real time-warp. I'm delighted she protested, and delighted she won her case.

[Flosshilde]

When I clicked on the video I just got a message saying 'This video does not exist', so I can't see what the fuss was about. Why did people complain? Did they object to a man in semi-cross-dressing? Because he was 'twerking' (whatever that is)? Would they have complained if it was a woman?

[ahinton]

The first thing that struck me about this - apart, obviously, from its sheer absurdity - was why the employer appeared content to believe that this particular part of its dress code might not be legal or legally enforceable, particulary given the short-term dangers and long-term physical damage associated with the frequent wearing of such things. That said, one part of that absurdity concerned the prospect that such an employer would include that requirement in its dress code on the presumed basis that its clients will be paying more visal attention to female staff's feet rather than to their faces, even when in conversation with them; how dumb is that?

Anyway, it is certainly a good thing that the employee stood up for her rights in the way that she did,- although all that I've seen about the outcome so far is that PwC's reviewing Portico's requirements and its relations with that firm; I've yet to read evidence that the latter's actually removed this requirement from its drress code, but maybe it has. I certainly hope so.

[Richard Tarleton]

Today's Times Diary - TMS -

Germaine Greer is a feminist but she can see, noting a recent news story, why wearing high heels can be empowering in some jobs....she recalled working in Tulsa and going to a bar where the waitresses were wearing little more than killer heels. "Couldn't you talk to your employer about a more rational outfit?", she asked one. "Honey", the waitress said, "it's how I get tips".

[ahinton]

I omitted in my previous post to mention that this firm's by no means the only one to have tried it on with such a dress code requirement; someone that I know once worked for another such employer but, when pointing out that she stood 1.9m and that complying with it would be rather absurd, they dropped it!

[french frank]

On the subject of height, that infamous blogger Lady Effingham noted that (sorry, not being au fait, I forget all the names) an actress (just to be clear) was saying how good it was to be acting in a television series/serial with men the same height as herself. One was Jeremy Irons and the other Tom Hiddleston, one of whom was fractionally shorter than her. The three of them, all 6-footers, were pictured together about the same height.

But when the inevitable paperback was published with all three on the cover, the actress had had about 6 inches taken off her height (Why? Lady E fumed).

What seems distasteful to me about both stories is that it seems to be men manipulating in various ways what they see as the appropriate image for women.

[vinteuil]

... in the recent telly romp The Night Manager we rather liked the fact that Elizabeth Debicki [at 1.9m, 6ft 2.3ins] was even taller than her co-stars Tom Hiddleston and Hugh Laurie...

Mind you, we thought all of them were outclassed by the sex thimble Tom Hollander... [1.65m, 5ft 4 ins]...

[Richard Tarleton]

On the subject of height, that infamous blogger Lady Effingham noted that (sorry, not being au fait, I forget all the names) an actress (just to be clear) was saying how good it was to be acting in a television series/serial with men the same height as herself. One was Jeremy Irons and the other Tom Hiddleston, one of whom was fractionally shorter than her. The three of them, all 6-footers, were pictured together about the same height.

But when the inevitable paperback was published with all three on the cover, the actress had had about 6 inches taken off her height (Why? Lady E fumed).

What seems distasteful to me about both stories is that it seems to be men manipulating in various ways what they see as the appropriate image for women.

This referred to The Night Manager, said actress being Elizabeth Debicki. Hugh Laurie, not Jeremy Irons