UK News
Insights from the UK and beyond
Should stiletto heels be banned in the workplace?
A call by the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists asking employers to work with unions to conduct risk assessments and if necessary allow workers to replace high heels with comfortable shoes in the workplace created a controversy this week.******Unions passed a motion at the Trades Union Congress conference demanding that women have the right to comfortable footwear in the workplace.******Defenders of the stiletto claimed that unions were attempting to ban the shoes in the workplace, but the podiatrists defended their position, stating that high heels can cause such foot problems as blisters, corns, calluses, damaged joints, knee and back pain.******Some women argue that stiletto heels give them a power advantage in male-dominated workplaces because the shoes make them appear taller and enhance their sex appeal.******Others consider the shoes demeaning and symbolic of the sexist subjugation of women and their health to satisfy male whims and fantasies.******What do you think? Should stilettos be banned in the workplace?
-
The Wall
It never ceases to amaze me how many people there are who are so spoiling for a row or for the opportunity to be offended that they can scarcely bother to listen before they jump in with both feet to give battle. Here are the relevant phrases from the first two paragraphs of Julie’s article (emphasis mine with ALL CAPS) that make clear the intent of the parties (the Society and the trade unions) involved:”…and if necessary ALLOW workers to replace high heels with comfortable shoes…”"Unions passed a motion at the Trades Union Congress conference demanding that women HAVE THE RIGHT to comfortable footwear…”As an aid to the logically impaired: What these phrases imply is that the current dress codes at some workplaces do not ALLOW women THE RIGHT to “replace high heels with comfortable shoes,” and the Society and the unions want women to “HAVE THE RIGHT to comfortable footwear.”Julie then goes on to tell us that “Defenders of the stiletto [the preceding paragraphs indicate that "the stiletto" was not under attack in the first place] CLAIMED that unions were attempting to ban the shoes in the workplace,” so that they could then blame men for the necessity of wearing them to gain competitive advantage. She then contrasts these “defenders” against “others” with the worn-down-at-the-heels argument that they “consider the shoes demeaning and symbolic of the sexist subjugation of women and their health to satisfy male whims and fantasies.” Men are, of course, at fault in either case (always handy to have one about, isn’t it?).(To this last argument: 1) Fashion historians have mostly settled on Queen Catherine de’ Medici as the first person to wear heels as a fashion statement [she commissioned them from a cobbler, who adapted them from the chopine, which was also worn by women]. 2) When women decided they wanted to wear trousers, the fashion industry [and the rest of society] were forced to adapt; the same would obtain if women didn’t want to wear heels.]All of this Julie placed under the provocative banner headline, “Should stiletto heels be banned in the workplace?” and blog-spaces are filled with comments about interfering busybodies who want to regulate everything. It seems that the headline was so effective that most people just couldn’t get past it. Tsk, tsk, tsk…