Is this an issue raised too high?

[P. G. Tipps]

I beg to differ from the overwhelming majority here but that in itself might actually increase one's confidence of personal rectitude rather than diminish it.

Employers, especially those whose business involves dealing with the general public, insist staff abide by a dress code, and in my long workplace experience in retail men are rather more affected than women.

Suit (sober, grey or black), shirt (white or beige, please) and tie (nothing too colourful or flamboyant, thank you!) was the simple order of the day. Nothing else ... take it or leave! Some companies even insist that male staff continue to wear jackets even in unbearably hot weather with no air-conditioning present.

But the ladies? The lucky girls had a choice. From memory they could choose from various uniforms, some clearly designed with hotter conditions in mind. A skirt or trousers? No problem, ladies, it's entirely up to you! And then there is the much-vaunted new 'equality' of the House of Commons where male MPs are expected to wear the traditional suit and tie (or at least a jacket and tie) and their female counterparts appear to have the freedom of their wardrobes which seemingly includes little else than the most hideous and slovenly of leisure garb.

Whilst I couldn't really care less whether an hotel receptionist is male or female, wears high-heels or wellington boots, if a company has its own dress code for both male and female employees that is entirely its business (and that of its staff) and shouldn't be the concern of interfering busybodies elsewhere who have absolutely no interest in the success or even survival of that business.

I suspect most people (whether male or female) understand that perfectly well enough, it's only the small minority of agenda-driven social engineers (both male and female) who'd ever raise the matter.

All in my humblest of opinions, of course ...

[Richard Tarleton]

Mr Tipps I think - at the risk of rehashing the arguments - there is a particular issue with high heels, which is where we came in. Men are not required to wear shoes that harm their musculature and skeletal structure, deform their feet, crush their toes, give them bunions, prevent them walking properly and put them at a severe disadvantage in the event of an emergency. And these requirements are imposed on women by, in large, men. I know many women choose to wear high heels, which is fine, we're only talking about women being forced to wear high heels (or lose their jobs).

We really aren't talking about dress codes in general, or what women wear from the ankles up. We're talking about high heels.

There was a brief but amusing bit in the recent series on the House of Lords where Oona King was pulled up for wearing trainers by.....a man.

[P. G. Tipps]

Mr Tipps I think - at the risk of rehashing the arguments - there is a particular issue with high heels, which is where we came in. Men are not required to wear shoes that harm their musculature and skeletal structure, deform their feet, crush their toes, give them bunions, prevent them walking properly and put them at a severe disadvantage in the event of an emergency. And these requirements are imposed on women by, in large, men. I know many women choose to wear high heels, which is fine, we're only talking about women being forced to wear high heels (or lose their jobs).

We really aren't talking about dress codes in general, or what women wear from the ankles up. We're talking about high heels.

There was a brief but amusing bit in the recent series on the House of Lords where Oona King was pulled up for wearing trainers by.....a man.

A MAN, for goodness sake? ... outrageous and quite unacceptable! One must assume if she was 'pulled up' by a woman that would be just fine. As you say, many women are perfectly happy wearing high-heels and, indeed, prefer to do so.

If any lady is unhappy with the dress code of her particular employer she might well be advised to seek alternative employment. There are plenty of occupations where females are not obliged (or forced in hyperbolic parlance)) to wear high-heel shoes. I never became a fireman because my body can't stand excessive heat.

One may as well ban attack ballet companies because of the possible danger in the occupation of someone breaking one's toes ?.

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2006/sep/05/dance

[french frank]

Rather a poor reply, Mr Tipps. It is fundamental to a firefighter's job that s/he needs to face heat. That IS the job. It is not fundamental to a receptionist's or airhostess's job to wear high heels unless there is a diktak - usually by a man who appreciates a bit of eye-candy - that she must.

Similar point with ballet. There's a difference between 'fundamental risk' and 'imposed risk'.

[Richard Barrett]

If any lady is unhappy with the dress code of her particular employer she might well be advised to seek alternative employment.

Yes, good thing there's such a surfeit of jobs at the moment that anyone can pick and choose their employer according to the dress code or lack thereof at their office.

Obviously, there are occupations which require certain items of clothing for reasons of practicality or safety. Secretaries and receptionists (etc.) do not come under this category. Requiring them to wear shoes which many would regard as not just impractical but actually uncomfortable and even damaging (and the the case of airline cabin crews potentially unsafe too) is just plain wrong. Is there really any more to say on the subject?

[jean]

...the possible danger in the occupation of someone breaking one's toes...

That would mean that there's a danger that someone else might break one's own toes, which I don't think is what you meant.

Far better to write of the possible danger...of someone breaking their toes.

[jean]

...Is there really any more to say on the subject?

No!

[P. G. Tipps]

That would mean that there's a danger that someone else might break one's own toes, which I don't think is what you meant.

Far better to write of the possible danger...of someone breaking their toes.

I'll remember that ...

[P. G. Tipps]

Is there really any more to say on the subject?

There always is, given an open-minded and receptive audience.

If not, probably no !

[Serial_Apologist]

Whilst I couldn't really care less whether an hotel receptionist is male or female, wears high-heels or wellington boots, if a company has its own dress code for both male and female employees that is entirely its business (and that of its staff) and shouldn't be the concern of interfering busybodies elsewhere who have absolutely no interest in the success or even survival of that business.

Characteristically, it is always the authoritarian mindset that insists that fitting his or her underlings for ill-suited roles is his or her business, and no other's; e.g. "We determine our own company/national/church policy, and others have no business meddling in our affairs - keep out". It's what unelected doctators tell the UN when it passes a resolution calling for sanctions or intervention to save a populace. What if it was pointed out that said company might well function far better were its staff to be treated with respect, rather than as cyphers? Wouldn't that accord with your agenda?

I suspect most people (whether male or female) understand that perfectly well enough, it's only the small minority of agenda-driven social engineers (both male and female) who'd ever raise the matter.

All in my humblest of opinions, of course ...

Yep, here comes that tired old cliché, "social engineering" - never of course to be applied to such things as forcing employees into Mao suits to make them "representive", only to those questioning such compulsory stereotyping...

It's all social engineering - as Uncle Frank said, "We're all wearing uniforms, don't kid yourself".

[Richard Barrett]

There always is, given an open-minded and receptive audience.

Open-minded and receptive... hmmm... well there are things I'm not open-minded about - whether the earth is flat, for example, is something I'm not really interested in debating; another rather similar example is whether employers should be able to indulge in the social engineering of forcing their workers to wear clothes which have no bearing on their ability to do their job except perhaps to make it more uncomfortable and difficult.

[P. G. Tipps]

Characteristically, it is always the authoritarian mindset that insists that fitting his or her underlings for ill-suited roles is his or her business, and no other's; e.g. "We determine our own company/national/church policy, and others have no business meddling in our affairs - keep out". It's what unelected doctators tell the UN when it passes a resolution calling for sanctions or intervention to save a populace. What if it was pointed out that said company might well function far better were its staff to be treated with respect, rather than as cyphers? Wouldn't that accord with your agenda?



Yep, here comes that tired old cliché, "social engineering" - never of course to be applied to such things as forcing employees into Mao suits to make them "representive", only to those questioning such compulsory stereotyping...

It's all social engineering - as Uncle Frank said, "We're all wearing uniforms, don't kid yourself".

I believe in the greatest possible freedoms (within the current law) for companies to decide their own policies free from the interference of those with quite separate political and social agendas.

That does not mean I necessarily agree with any of those policies, it's simply that I wish to be a genuine liberal ... not the absurd modern definition which is itself dictatorial in essence illustrated by many of the posts on this thread. In other words companies (always, it appears, 100% managed by misogynistic males!) have no right to 'force' female staff to wear high heels even though the huge majority of female staff may have absolutely no objection to the ruling and indeed wish to wear such footwear anyway.

What is so difficult to understand about this ? I am genuinely baffled about those who constantly complain about 'being dictated to (by men, of course) and then do exactly the same in reverse to others (to men, of course!).

In my experience women are perfectly capable of looking after themselves in such matters, believe me!

[Serial_Apologist]

Open-minded and receptive... hmmm... well there are things I'm not open-minded about - whether the earth is flat, for example, is something I'm not really interested in debating; another rather similar example is whether employers should be able to indulge in the social engineering of forcing their workers to wear clothes which have no bearing on their ability to do their job except perhaps to make it more uncomfortable and difficult.

Exactly!

[Serial_Apologist]

I believe in the greatest possible freedoms (within the current law) for companies to decide their own policies free from the interference of those with quite separate political and social agendas.

What - in competition, you mean?

That does not mean I necessarily agree with any of those policies, it's simply that I wish to be a genuine liberal ... not the absurd modern definition which is itself dictatorial in essence illustrated by many of the posts on this thread. In other words companies (always, it appears, 100% managed by misogynistic males!)

... which I made it my business not to say, by the way, so are you excluding me from this 'always'?

have no right to 'force' female staff to wear high heels even though the huge majority of female staff may have absolutely no objection to the ruling and indeed wish to wear such footwear anyway.

What is so difficult to understand about this ?

Because without asking them in a non-pressurised environment you can't possibly know.

I am genuinely baffled about those who constantly complain about 'being dictated to (by men, of course) and then do exactly the same in reverse to others (to men, of course!).

In my experience women are perfectly capable of looking after themselves in such matters, believe me!

I think you're just concocting all this platitudinous gumph to show us all how in tune you are with the new populism.

[jean]

I think he's indulging in a bit of self-caricature.

...the huge majority of female staff may have absolutely no objection to the ruling and indeed wish to wear such footwear anyway.

I think the important word there is may.

Lots of women don't want to wear high heels at all, and few want to wear them all the time, especially when they're on their feet all day.

In my experience women are perfectly capable of looking after themselves in such matters, believe me!

Well, yes; they were looking after themselves when they objected to their employers forcing these dress codes on them.

And they seem to have won, so what are you complaining about?