London receptionist 'sent home for not wearing heels'

[Calista241]

Source: BBC

A London receptionist was sent home from work after refusing to wear high heels, it has emerged.

Temp worker Nicola Thorp, 27, from Hackney, arrived at finance company PwC to be told she had to wear shoes with a "2in to 4in heel".

When she refused and complained male colleagues were not asked to do the same, she was sent home without pay.

Outsourcing firm Portico said Ms Thorp had "signed the appearance guidelines" but it would now review them.

Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-36264229

---

Good for her.

[KamaAina]

1. That requirement could be considered as discriminatory against women who have foot problems.

Besides against women in general.

[Delphinus]

2. Very true.

Sure would like to see that same standard applied to guys.

[Igel]

36. Indeed.

Along with the requirement that suits be worn, hair be kept trimmed short, and moustaches/beards be kept neat applied to women.

Where I work men have to wear belts and their ankles have to be covered. Most women don't wear belts and often their ankles are not covered.

[TexasBushwhacker]

46. Men are required to wear belts to hold their pants up

Women have wider hips in proportion to their waist, so droopy pants aren't generally a problem.

Skirts or dresses that are shorter than ankle length are traditional business attire for women. Short pants are not for men. There are plenty of business offices that expect women to wear suits (law offices come to mind) and women are expected to keep their hair well groomed.

Most women who visit podiatrists for foot pain are regular wearers of high heels. Regularly wearing high heels can shorten the Achilles tendon and the narrow, pointy toe box found in many women's "dress" shoes can cause bunions. Women should not have to risk the health of their feet to work.

I read elsewhere than actresses wearing flat shoes had been banned from the red carpet at the Cannes Film Festival, so Julia Roberts showed up barefoot.

[KansDem]

5. My wife has a bad case of plantar fasciitis

(not that there's ever a "good case&quot

She's often in great pain. She has to wear special shoes to help her stand and walk the little she does. No way could she wear high heels!

[tom_kelly]

10. Ouch! I get that a few times a year on both feet

when I've been wearing sandals too much and know how much she hurts

[Pacifist Patriot]

8. In the US I would absolutely make an ADA claim against that rule.

I have had four foot surgeries and cannot fathom how wearing appropriate shoes would not be a reasonable accommodation to perform essential job functions in the vast majority of jobs. What a bullshit "appearance guideline!"

[KamaAina]

9. The UK has a similar law called the Disability Discrimination Act.

[Pacifist Patriot]

11. I'd apply that were I in the UK.

I was actually wondering if she could refer to the DDA in some way because women with perfectly healthy feet could potentially make a reasonable claim that requiring 2-4" heels could result in a disability! They are murder on our anatomy.

Probably not, but I'd be sorely tempted to rattle that sabre.

[geardaddy]

12. Exactly

[arikara]

3. I remember years ago,

I was talking to a casino waitress in Reno who was wearing flats which was noticeable because it was so unusual there. I complimented her on her choice of footwear and she said she got no end of grief from management for not wearing the spike heels, but that they couldn't do anything about it. Yet she was the only one.

If women are expected to walk for 8 hours on stupid bloody heels then men should have to as well. Its the modern equivalent of foot binding. It wrecks the feet and causes suffering when older.

[geardaddy]

13. Yes, it is the modern equivalent of foot binding

I lived in Beijing in 1984-85 and I saw some women who had had their feet bound when young. They were very old and had to have someone next to them to help them walk.

[Jack Rabbit]

4. I have never heard a woman say anything good about high heels

. . . nor a man anything good about a necktie.

Fuck the corporate fashion police.

[Blue_Tires]

42. Yeah, I keep hoping someday somebody will explain the

great mystery behind what makes a necktie so special... Because I'm 39 and I still don't get it...

Although a damn *temp* worker trying to go to war over this does make me raise an eyebrow...

And sadly this is example number 3,427,149,358 of a story that gets a hundred times the exposure it would have normally gotten because the person in question is young and easy on the eye, but that is a rant for another thread...

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

59. Neckties are useless ...

... but generally harmless. Unless yours gets caught in a shredder or something, then you're doomed.

[allan01]

6. i remember when drs. were trying to get those god awful shoes banned

[Warpy]

14. They should be banned on workplace dress codes

but some idiots will always wear them.

No one should be forced to wear them in order to work. They not only wreck the feet, they also wreck the legs, hips and back. They're absolutely the worst thing you can put on your feet and try to walk in. I could always tell which older women had worn them, they were in real musculoskeletal trouble by their late 40s.

When people ask me why I went into nursing, I tell them it was so I could work nights in comfortable shoes. It wasn't far from the truth.

[jtuck004]

7. Return in heels.

And a burka.

[closeupready]

15. DU gets upset about the stupidest shit. Offices have dress codes.

In fact, she SIGNED OFF on them.

But here on DU, it doesn't matter what she agreed to. She can change her mind, willy nilly.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

17. Willy nilly?

Anyone can change his mind, for whatever reason.

I used to like smoking, now I don't.

She used to like high heels, now she doesn't.

[closeupready]

20. Did you sign an employment agreement to comply with a 'must smoke' policy?

?

[Igel]

35. You make a commitment, that's your decision.

If the commitment is a two-way agreement, defaulting on your side releases the other party.

Try this: You're hired, sign a contract, and a month later the employer decides he's changed his mind. You come to work to find that the contract's been voided. With it are any conditions imposed on the employer, and your right to sue for breach of contract. "Oops. Changed my mind." That we'd get upset about.

"All rights, no obligations" for me means "All obligations and no rights" for you.

[Warpy]

24. And if those dress codes are injurious to the health of the worker, they need to be changed

And here on DU you see why we have to keep challenging this crap.

[AngryOldDem]

80. I don't wear heels anymore because my feet can't handle them.

I wear nice-looking flats. If we're going to go this route, then why not mandate foot-binding?

Totally stupid policy that I think would not/should not hold up under scrutiny. Sorry, but I draw the line at crippling myself for my employer.

[moriah]

26. How many days have you spent in 2-4 inch heels?

I wouldn't be able to comply with such a policy for medical reasons -- just had ankle surgery and have pretty much been told an ankle brace and little to no heel will be the price I pay to not continuously fall and fuck up my ligaments more.

Heels higher than 1.5 inches should never be a requirement of any professional job because of their potential to cause damage to the Achilles tendon along with potential for a far worse sprain if they fall. Demanding at least a two inch heel for even extremely short, small-footed women is insane when guidance suggests 2 inches as a limit for *any* woman. And I can also say this -- I have tried to find higher heels in the past, and when you wear size 4 little girls shoes like I do, you're lucky to be able to find an inch of heel.

But since the point of wearing heels of that height is to cause changes to the female posture men like -- yes, the willies involved in making such policy should have nil influence on dress codes that can cause health problems.

[closeupready]

27. Would you sign off on the dress code as a condition of employment?

If the code required high heels?

[moriah]

28. I would have to let them know the dress code was impossible...

... as soon as they put it in front of me and I saw that provision. Or the moment my doctor informed me I could no longer wear them if I was an employee. I don't know if the UK has the same ADA accommodation requirements, but I know if I was already an employee who had signed such a dress code here and I had doctor's statements that restricted me from wearing said heels, it's a pretty good bet I'd win if they fired me over it rather than make a reasonable accommodation.

But I guess the answer to my question is zero.

[TexasBushwhacker]

47. Personally I wouldn't

I haven't worked for any business that required anything beyond "business casual" dress. I quit wearing panty hose in 2004 and I'm not going back!

[Yo_Mama]

39. This is an illegal dress code, both in the US and the UK

Laws are laws. Someone who had diabetes, for just one example, would not be able to work under those conditions.

That footwear is damaging to the health.

[PasadenaTrudy]

54. She was sent to this office

by a temp agency.

[closeupready]

71. I applied to temp at the self-monikered 'world's biggest temp agency' back

in the 90's - there were places they wouldn't send you if you declined a drug test.

Well, yup, you guessed it, I never temped for them - I refused to comply with that requirement, even though I don't touch anything more intoxicating than Sauvignon Blanc.

Then later in my career, I refused an interview at a big prestigious place that also required drug testing (not a public safety issue at all).

Not saying that heels are/are not discriminatory or okay, but I DO think you shouldn't agree to wear them if you aren't prepared to do so.

[haele]

65. Dress codes that require specific types of shoes can be unsafe to the employees.

Unless they are safety shoes, of course. The fact is that shoes that can't grip, affect the employee's balance, or pinch/manipulate the feet in unnatural ways just for "appearances" cause all sorts of hazards and injuries, including on the job injuries from trips or chronic time off to deal with the pain. Requiring women who aren't in constant training to wear 2 - 4" heels so they can look like they came off a magazine is a f'ing health hazard, and grounds for an OSHA or Worker's Comp lawsuit.

I never understood how CFM heels appropriate for going out to social events that were at most a few hours were ever considered "business appropriate" for a 8 - 10 hour workday.

Haele

[treestar]

77. It's the sexism

that is the problem.

[EdwardBernays]

16. Totally stupid but

Lots of jobs have dress codes. Their's may be sexist, but no one anywhere is forcing her to take that job.

She made a decision and these are the consequences.

[TygrBright]

18. Dress codes are only legally acceptable when they relate to a BFOQ

You can make a reasonable case for things like no loose clothing around machinery, toe-cap footwear on construction sites, a uniform in a restaurant that has them for service staff, etc.

High heels are not a BFOQ for doing receptionist work, I can't imagine any court allowing otherwise.

attentively,
Bright

[EdwardBernays]

30. I don't think that's true

http://findlaw.co.uk/law/employment/pay_and_work_rights/can-my-employer-legally-enforce-a-dress-code.html

http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4953

http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ltext/117-know-your-rights.htm

Nothing I've seen anywhere (or ever heard in my life) seems to validate your stance.

[DLevine]

19. You're right, their policy is sexist. nt

[closeupready]

21. Which you know because you've seen their dress code policy?

[DLevine]

22. It's sexist because they don't require men to wear 2-4" heels. nt

[EdwardBernays]

23. well...

I'm not sure that ALL dress policies which take into account gender are inherently sexist... ?

[DLevine]

25. Agreed, not all dress policies taking into account gender are sexist.

The high heel shoes requirement for women is sexist in that it forces a woman to wear shoes that can cause serious physical damage, as well as make it more difficult to do her job (work all day on her feet). Men are not put into that situation.

[EdwardBernays]

29. hmm..

well.. I'm not sure either of those is the definition of sexist either...

I Actually just talked about this to my wife who is a self-defined feminist, and she said that the rule of thumb is parity... she didn't find this sexist IF men also had rules about what sorts of shoes they had to wear. I was surprised to hear her say that as it seems sexist on it's face, but then again... if a company is forcing both sexes to wear clothes - even uncomfortable ones - then that's fair I guess.

I'm gonna swing back and say I don't think this is necessarily sexist... maybe it displays a conservative belief on the part of the company about what women should wear... or old fashioned... but that's not the same thing as sexist.

I don't think sexist is the same thing as uncomfortable or even self-defeating.

[Pacifist Patriot]

60. I think we should probably consider...

that a preference for high heels is appearance-driven. They are an arbitrary fashion, but with the intention to make the leg look more physically appealing. Can't say the same of men's footwear. ergo, sexist.

[EdwardBernays]

62. again

trying to make this just about a portion of the body (someone else said it was about women's rear-end; another said it was about her breasts) misses the point IMO. It's about making all staff attractive and professional looking by their standard... men had dress codes too as well, to make them look more attractive... men are FREQUENTLY forced to wear very uncomfortable dress shoes to make them look more presentable/professional...

I go back to the notion that the point wasn't to sexualise women per se, but to make them look more attractive - which is different... and men also had to wear closes to make them look more attractive as well..

[Skittles]

38. WTF

requiring women to walk in high heels is SEXIST BULLSHIT

I cannot stand them - they HURT MY FEET

[EdwardBernays]

41. How is it

Not being facetious... But how are you defining sexist? I say that because I assume they also have dress codes for male employees.

[reACTIONary]

43. I consider it sexist because . ..

,.. the intent of high heels is to make a sexual display of the women's feet and legs. The same is true of wearing skirts - they make women sexualy available and inhibit their range of motion and activity in order to preserve modesty.

Back in the sixties school dress codes required girls to wear dresses. Couldn't even wear kolocks. We had a few sit ins and demonstrations and trashed that bullshit.

I support this woman 100% !

[EdwardBernays]

49. Well...

The thing is its designed to make them attractive. Which is what the men's dress code is also designed to do.

We agree that it's lame but I'm not sure it's sexist.

[reACTIONary]

66. Looking professional and trustworthy is not the same.....

... as looking sexualy atractive. A woman can dress professionally and project the same image as a man without the sexual livery.

[EdwardBernays]

67. Again

I'm not thinking the intention was for women to look sexy but look attractive. The goal is often just that. And the company also had the same idea with the men's outfits.

Plus... I would assume women choose to wear heels all the time without sex entering into the equation... I think people are prone to the sex element onto the employers, maybe because they think women in heels are sexually attractive. I person don't so maybe thats why I'm less sure it's about sex.

[reACTIONary]

68. I think your analysis is ....

.... a bit superficial. Is it true that the company had the intention of making male employees "attractive" ? Would the word "attractive" even be used with regard to a male employee? No, I don't think so. The goal would be to project a professional image of competence and trustworthiness.

The goal of a professional demeanor, aplicable to all employees, is much different from the goal of making female employees attractive.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-36272893

[EdwardBernays]

72. Attractive

Means just that.

Not sexually attractive but... Nice looking. Use whatever words you want.

From your article:

"I think dress codes should reflect society and nowadays women can be smart and formal and wear flat shoes," said Ms Thorp.

In other words not sexualised but "smart and formal".

I don't think that company was trying to sexualised their employees. Instead they were trying to make them look "smart and formal. I used the word attractive but her description is probably more accurate.

[reACTIONary]

74. In this context Attractve is a gender oriented term...

..... somewhat like "beautiful". So you might not want to use it in a discussion about sexist dress codes. Smart and formal , like professional, is gender nuetral. And, as noted in the article, high heels are not required for smart and formal.

If heels aren't required for smart and formal or for professional, why are they being required? What exactly is the motivation ? And could that motivation have an underlying basis in sexist attitudes?

[EdwardBernays]

75. Annnnyway

You know what I mean. Just so there's no confusion I meant it like this

"attractive

əˈtraktɪv

adjective
pleasing or appealing to the senses"

So people walk into your business and everything is pleasing and appealing. Including the staff. Male and female. And the furniture.

And btw if you ever go into really expensive hotels and restaurants most female staff are wearing heels. That's the posh look for women in a certain strata of society.

I personally don't rate heels and think that they're fetishised by people - men and women - but I'd also be lying if I didn't say that wealthy women mostly wear heels in formal situations.

What the article says - btw - is that they aren't NOW required. Which means at one point they WERE which means that this is more an old fashioned policy than a sexist one.

[closeupready]

78. Bear in mind, in vulgar America, it's about sex or it's about nothing.

Because sex is all that IS.

Meanwhile, in the rest of the world, people can dress up and look professional and beautiful, healthy, attractive WITHOUT dressing like pole dancers and porn stars.

It's a harsh reality that becomes clear when trying to discuss topics like this without context (i.e., UK vs. the US).

Cheers.

[EdwardBernays]

83. That is true

I live in Ireland and fashion and body image is really different than in America.

[reACTIONary]

79. LOL, old fashion policies . ...

..... were often sexist policies and they became obsolete and "old fashioned " because they were sexist and we decided to reject it.

That process is called progress. It's an ongoing process and it looks like we have an example of it here. Welcome to the twenty first century !

[EdwardBernays]

82. Often

But in this case can you show that the company was deliberately endangering staff because if was trying to sexually objectivity women?

Of course you can't. It's not a thing that likely to be true.

The much more likely truth is that the person who wrote the policy is older and has an outdated sense of what's proper and improper on certain environments. For men and women.

Both are being forced to try and emulated some ideal and it's unrelated to either genders ability to do their job - more or less.

[reACTIONary]

85. No one "deliberately endangers staff" ....

.... in an attempt to "sexualy objectify women". That's a very odd standard to propose for identifying sexism in the workplace.

And sure, it's a good bet that whoever wrote the policy is older and has outdated notions - apparently notions that can be correctly characterized as sexist. That's why they are outdated. Furthermore, this has now been acknowledged by the business involved and the standard has been brought up to date.

If the ideal is "professional" and the specific restriction is 2 inch heels then the restriction does not support the ideal - instead it supports an outdated and sexist standard which undermmines professionalism.

[EdwardBernays]

87. outdated and sexist

aren't the same thing.

The business - like most businesses caught in a media shit storm - is reacting to the shitstorm, not out of guilt. You must certainly know they haven't learned any lesson... it's just damage control.

And "professional" means a world of different things to different people and in different contexts. MANY women would wear heels to an interview... why? Because they're being forced to? To make themselves into sexual objects? Because they're sexists? OR because they think it looks good and is part of their own definition of professional?

Here's the CEO of Yahoo. Is she dressed in a sexist way?



Here's the President of Oracle...



Both of them probably think they look pretty professional and have no idea that they're perpetuating sexism.

Now... I know no one FORCED them to dress like that, they chose to, and that's different, but what's NOT different is that they both chose to wear heels in a professional context. They didn't think it was some outmoded male driven attempt to objectify them.

If a company asked me to dress like the President of Oracle, because they think that look is professional, and I say hey, this look:



is an attempt to belittle my ability and objectify me, they'd probably laugh me out the door. Did heels stop her from from earning 51M last year? No.

Should it be FORCED onto anyone? Probably not, but that's not the same thing as saying it's sexist.

[reACTIONary]

89. You are right, outdated and sexist....

.... are not one and the same ... but, you have to admit, they often are.

Personally , I think both companies are quite sincere in acknowledging this mistake and correcting for it. I also think making a public case for progress, as this woman did, is the right thing to do. She has done some good for this world.

Individual choices concerning aperance are not properly characterized as sexist. Policies concerning aperience very well may be.

As a personal aside, the chief scientist (PhD in solar physics) on the project I'm involved with now wears high heels. She collects them. She has a poster on her wall showing all sorts of crazy high heels. And, good for her.

[moriah]

45. To require that high of heel -- 2-4 inches...

... serves only to change women's posture into a more sexually appealing form.

There are many professional office shoes that have minimal to no heel. A maximum would be appropriate, a minimum causes issues with health and safety just like someone attempting to walk much at all in 4+ heels in an office.

The only purpose it serves is that it makes the receptionist's breasts and buttocks stick out more, and if the dress code also required a skirt where calves were visible, would have caused a typically more perceived as attractive -- but unhealthy -- contraction of the calf muscles.

Edit to add: I would feel the same way if they dictated mandatory corsets. Foundation garments that keep distractions out of the workplace (aka, bras or if slight-busted camisoles, you lucky people) are one thing, adding distraction that causes health issues is silly.

[EdwardBernays]

48. I get all of that

But

They also dictate how men dress.

And I'm not thinking the men's dress code is designed to make men work more efficiently or comfortably. It's designed to make them look more handsome and presentable. Many men refuse to work in a place that requires them to wear a suit because most suits aren't comfortable and it's ridiculous to be judged by your appearance. But judged they are. Just like women.

Yes it's suck that their dress code... Well... Sucks... But I'm not sure it's sexist.

[moriah]

50. What known health issues come from suits? Ties would be my bigger concern.

Women often wear the feminine cut version of a blazer and either skirt or slacks.

[EdwardBernays]

52. Health issues

Don't make things sexist. Working in a mine isn't sexist.

And if we're honest many many many women don't have health issues because of heels.

If never ask a women to dress a certain way to work for me, but I also expect some jobs I do (I own my own business) will require me to be plenty uncomfortable. I actually have issues with my feet - Achilles tendon bursitis - and sometimes I'm almost in tear working but... If I take off my shoes to feel better I'll be asked to go home.

I know it's not exactly equivalent but I do empathize with sore feet for money. That sucks. And I do think their policy sucks.

But I'm just not sure it's sexist.

[moriah]

51. But as far as dangers in high heels:

http://www.osteopathic.org/osteopathic-health/about-your-health/health-conditions-library/womens-health/Pages/high-heels.aspx

According to Dr. Nevins, when you wear high heels - shoes with a heel two inches or higher - your foot slides forward in your shoe, forcing the toes into the unnatural shape of the shoe and redistributing your weight incorrectly. The increased weight on your toes causes your body to tilt forward, and to compensate, you lean backwards and overarch your back, creating a posture that can strain your knees, hips, and lower back. "The change to the position of your spine puts pressure on nerves in the back and can cause sciatica, a condition where nerves become trapped, triggering pain and numbness as far down as the feet," Dr. Nevins adds.

Recommends 1.5 inches or less for routine wear.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/negative-effects-high-heels-new-research-confirms-what-wearing-high-heels-can-do-341594

Turner and her colleagues gathered data from women training to be flight attendants to determine ankle strength and balance at the start of their freshman all the way to the end of their senior year. They found that ankle damage associated with high heel use was caused by forcing the foot into a naturally unstable position. With sneakers and flat shoes, on the other hand, the bones of the ankle are below the bones of the lower leg, creating stability. Over time, ligament and nerve damage in the ankle leads to complications in the legs and back.

So what’s the extent of the damage caused by wearing high heels? While Turner’s research team decided to focus on ankle damage caused by high heel use, other studies have found that wearing too many stilettos can lead to around a dozen injuries from a woman’s toes to her lower back, including shortened calves, muscle fatigue, osteoarthritis, and altered posture. Unfortunately, most women in their 20s decide to play through the pain.

"With prolonged use you get muscle shortening in the back of the leg and muscle lengthening in the front of the leg. These changes in muscle length then can change muscle strength,” Turner added. "High-heeled shoes also change the normal walking or gait cycle, with the ultimate result being a less fluent gait cycle. Changes at the ankle cause the muscles higher in the leg and back to lose efficiency and strength. It also changes the load the bones in and around the knee have to absorb, which can ultimately lead to injury."

[EdwardBernays]

53. I'd say

That lots of things jobs ask you to do are pretty unsafe. Workplace injuries are incredibly common and I'm absolutely certain that if you were forced to do something unsafe and we're injured you could sue. But. Society sees lots of dangerous things as acceptable. Heels are commonly worn at work. People survive. And businesses can make dress codes as long as they aren't discriminatory.

Anyway. I don't know. It's lame but it doesn't seem sexist exactly.

[moriah]

55. When I worked running cable, I was in at least...

... as much danger as any of my fellow male colleagues, though not any more than necessary for the job itself. (When they strap pallets underneath a forklift "safety" cage to get you high enough in the air and you still have to brace yourself on the side rails to get an additional foot of height, it makes you remember why they sent you out with a harness and instructions on what to do if you actually do end up suspended until they get you down to avoid circulation/cerebral anoxia issues from blood pooling in your legs.)

There is nothing wrong with women who want to or choose to wear heels. But making it a job requirement when it increases bodily stress loads and male colleagues who do the same job are probably at most required to wear a suit, tie, and while still expensive and nowhere near as comfortable as a pair of sneakers, shoes that do not hobble you, create poor posture, put you at further risk if something causes you to fall while wearing them, and are unnecessary for a professional appearance even by female grooming standards...

Just because they exaggerate female sexual characteristics at 2+ inches....

Yes, that's sexist.

[EdwardBernays]

58. See the thing is

I think it is sexist if you believe the goal is to sexualise the female employees - like that's the main goal. But I find that a bit hard to believe. I'd suggest that the main goal is to make both sexes attractive and presentable and professional looking. Same goal for both sexes. Its certainly a very easy way to view the policy. Now is their notion of what makes a female all of the above correct? No - not to me. But is it beyond reason to think that an women that wears heels is unable to do so without being sexualised? Again I'd say no.

And if it comes down to health etc then yes she should sue for heaslth reasons... But not for sexism.

[moriah]

86. Well, they changed their policy anyway, hopefully others will do the same.

Last edited Sat May 14, 2016, 12:47 AM - Edit history (1)

Unfortunately like racism, sexism is hard to see or understand the impact of from the outside sometimes.

Even if that particular employer wasn't thinking how much more a woman walking in heels is perceived to be sexier, people have known for decades how much damage they can do long-term, especially when work daily for work vs being painful enough Friday out dancing. Just based on that alone, why require them for an office position at all?

But of course you know why it's questionable to say Fred Astaire was obviously a better dancer than Ginger Rogers -- after all, she did everything he did, except backwards and in high heels. The fact people didn't think about that sooner shows most of the time, a guy isn't looking at the shoes but the overall person, and isn't considering the impact when they see us in them. It's how privilege manifests -- the people who have it usually have no friggin' clue.

And that's not their fault. Few men have feet that fit their wives pumps, though, and as a result few have ever even tried to walk in the damn things. Let alone spent a 40-hour week wearing them on their feet. But when it was actually very appropriate to use very bad drag in a Halloween costume (it was a local online community's party and the parody was not of anyone with actual gender identity or sexual orientation differences but a very skilled, cis straight male troll who decided to use the fact 90s BBS call-back verification didn't require a voice verification to create a duplicate account impersonating a Pagan lesbian, who had at first been taken completely at his word, and stirred up tons of drama), I helped a male friend find stuff for his costume parodying the "Endora" fiasco at Goodwill, including dress shoes that fit him.

He won the costume contest, but as we were walking out he took those heels off and THREW them -- cussing about the damn things. Fortunately we were in a venue where the projectiles just landed on the lawn.

[EdwardBernays]

88. It is good

that they changed their policy... and that's a funny story about the drag...

I just think it's hard - we've seen here multiple contradictory arguments - to claim that this is sexism.

Old fashioned and conservative, yeah 100%. Dangerous to women -in some cases absolutely! But sexist... I don't know... there's plenty of reason to get rid of it that has nothing to do with sexism either... and when so many professional women CHOOSE to wear heels to work and in formal situations it just makes it even more muddled.

[Angry Dragon]

31. CEO said to wear 6in stilettos at home..... he looks fabulous

[One_Life_To_Give]

33. Ballet Heels and a Hobble Skirt? Kinky!

[One_Life_To_Give]

32. Does a 2in heel qualify as High?

Can't imagine working on your feet all day in 4in pumps. However 1-3/4 to 2-1/4 especially with a heel wider than a spike doesn't seem too bad. Although alot is going to depend upon just how well the shoe is made to be comfortable or not. Now if you force everyone to sing the IBM song at the star of each shift, that should be grounds for long term disability.

[Igel]

37. Also depends what "on your feet means."

When I did office work I wasn't often on my feet. My coworker often took off her shoes. I don't think she could have stood wearing them for a full 2 hours.

Now my job puts me on my feet 5-7 hours a day.

I discovered that the shoes I wore in my office job are painful when I'm standing up most of the day.

[arikara]

40. I couldn't walk across the room in 2" heels

I've occasionally stuck my feet into some that look like they might be comfortable and they are not. What they are is excruciating. I used to wear spikes in my 20's, and not since so the effects of that stupidity is still with me in my 60's.

[Pacifist Patriot]

61. Yes it does.

Like the poster above, I could not walk across the room in them. Osteoarthritis and four surgeries (one horribly botched) have made it so a 1" heel is excruciating to me. 2" would be simply impossible. Honestly, I don't think I could even get my right foot in one. The big toe doesn't bend enough.

[One_Life_To_Give]

76. Curious as Men's heels are typically 1in

Less than that reminds me of the Ol' Exersole fad. Myself I only routinely wore a 2in heel in Oxfords and Boots, which gives a bit more support. But I thank you for your point of view. It brings into question Uniform Regs of the military which specify heel heights as worn at something like 1-1/2 to 2.

[Pacifist Patriot]

91. The heel height is also relevant to the height at the ball of the foot.

Some "4" heels have less of an incline against the whole foot than a 2 or 3" heel if the sole at the ball of the foot is higher off the ground.

[no_hypocrisy]

34. What next? Dress code demaning a push-up bra?

[MillennialDem]

57. No bra and a black thong. Oh and only white/sheer colors for the outer layers.

[trueblue2007]

44. she should sue them for discrimination

[47of74]

56. Ugh.

Whoever came up with that policy should be made to stand for eight hours in high heels with no breaks.

[csziggy]

63. Part of the job may have been to distract the clients from business

From the link in the OP:

"I was expected to do a nine-hour shift on my feet escorting clients to meeting rooms. I said 'I just won't be able to do that in heels'."

I wouldn't be surprised if she was expected to be "eye-candy" so the clients - presumably a large percent male - would NOT have their minds on work.

[alarimer]

64. What needs to stop is the requirement for women to dress in order to please men.

Whether those men are clients, bosses, or boyfriends/husbands.

Women are not your fucking property to look at. Which is why these requirements exist in the first place. Not "professional dress code", but because you, a lowly receptionist/office temp/lawyer/whatever are fucking eye candy no matter how many degrees you possess, no matter your actually position in a workplace. No matter what workplace that is, in fact.

Woe to the woman who defies those standards, either because she won't play that game or because she's not "hot" (i.e. too old, fat, whatever).

I mean look how much grief she's getting for this on even an allegedly progressive website. I know we haven't come nearly far enough.

[reACTIONary]

69. This is the basic issue...

.... not the idea that heels are uncomfortable.

[reACTIONary]

70. Update: firm changes policy,...

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-36272893

[Nye Bevan]

84. Excellent outcome.

Whether or not it's legal, forcing women to wear high heels is a dickish thing to do.

[yurbud]

73. how exactly would wearing heels help you get ANY job done?

It would even make being a pole dancer more difficult.

[AngryOldDem]

81. They don't.

I see women who wear heels so high or so bulky they can barely walk. Why? For what?

[yurbud]

90. As a guy, rather than see them as attractive, it's a big red light saying "high maintenance"

If your employer asks you to wear them, it should be a red light that your job is going to involve something other than filing and dictation.