This discussion has been locked.

You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Are high heels "necessary and appropriate" in a workplace?

On Monday a group of women submitted a petition to the Japanese government to protest against what they say is a de facto requirement for female staff to wear high heels at work. The #KuToo campaign – a play on words from the Japanese kutsu, meaning shoes, and kutsuu, meaning pain – was launched by the actor and freelance writer Yumi Ishikawa and quickly won support online. In the petition, Ishikawa states that high heels can cause women a number of health issues, and had become a burden to her employment, stating "I hope this campaign will change the social norm so that it won't be considered to be bad manners when women wear flat shoes like men," Ishikawa told the BBC. Campaigners have said wearing high heels was considered to be near-obligatory when job hunting or working at many Japanese companies, and said the requirement of wearing high heeled shoes is akin to modern foot-binding.

Ishikawa told reporters: “Today we submitted a petition calling for the introduction of laws banning employers from forcing women to wear heels as sexual discrimination or harassment.”

On Wednesday, Japan’s health and labour minister, Takumi Nemoto, when asked to comment on the petition, defended workplaces that require women to wear high heels to work, arguing “It is socially accepted as something that falls within the realm of being occupationally necessary and appropriate”.

One commentator on the JapanToday website asked, “Why is it necessary? Heels are incredibly painful and serve no function whatsoever. Why can’t women just work without having to be some sort of eye-candy for someone else?” Others suggested that the minister should be required to wear high heels for a week to see if he enjoyed the experience (an option which I am sure would quickly result in a change in the law!)

A similar petition against high heels at work was signed by more than 150,000 people in the UK in 2016 after receptionist Nicola Thorp was sent home from work for wearing flat shoes (refusing to wear 2-4in heels). Thorp's case prompted an inquiry on workplace dress codes by a committee of MPs, which highlighted other cases in the UK where women were required to wear heels, even for jobs that included climbing ladders, carrying heavy luggage, carrying food and drink up and down stairs or walking long distances. The UK Government refused to change the law, claiming scope for redress already existed under the Equality Act 2010.

What strikes me as absolutely crazy is that this is an issue at all. In 2019, why are grown women considered seemingly incapable of making their own decisions about what they put on their feet in the morning?!

An article by Yamini Pustake Bhalerao I came across summarises this perfectly: "Many women love to wear high heels and for various reasons. Some wear it to add height to their stature. Others wear it because it makes them look sexy, while many think it adds a certain dimension to their personality. Then there are few, like me, who see high heels as the worst thing one could do to their feet. But the most important aspect, as it is with any accessory, is the agency to make a choice. We all choose or choose not to wear heels. When you remove this choice from the equation, high heels get reduced to yet another method to sexualise or objectify women. Foot fetish makes many men see women wearing heels as attractive. They are automatically perceived to be sexy, sharp and “presentable.” This, however, has nothing to do with their capabilities as a professional. Wearing high heels doesn’t make you a better doctor, engineer, lawyer or corporate woman. Thus, it makes no sense to make it compulsory for working women to wear it to work."

Parents

0 Amber Thomas over 5 years ago

Alison Craig:

I think it's easy to say you'd never do this when you have enough money and job security.

I'm a single parent - trying to keep your kids fed and the mortgage paid can be hard. When I was poorer, and worrying a lot about money, a months salary for virtually no effort would have seemed like a good deal. I know I'd have choked down my principles, raked out the skirt from the back of the cupboard and allowed myself to be exploited.

Interesting thoughts about "female essence" though. Does it dissipate if I wear trousers a lot? Can I recapture some of it if I finish that hat I've been knitting for the last 4 years?

I agree. Relative wealth and job security play a huge factor in this. As you mention, it is virtually no extra effort and for someone with financial insecurity or financial dependants, the benefits of the additional money without having to work an extra job or find and pay for extra childcare would be worth it. Although I usually cover up my legs, I do have skirts and dresses in my wardrobe that I often wear (for free!) So if I am to wear clothes that I already own and get a financial benefit, then why wouldn't I? As Fiona Dew‍ points out, more fool them for parting with their money. But I still think that it is a ridiculous policy, and certainly can't see how it would "unite the team". I don't really have any strong thoughts regarding my knees being exposed in the same way that I might react if the company was asking to wear a bikini in the office or take "glamour" shots of other parts of my body, but if the extra money is available for rewarding knee-exposure, surely there are other categories of reward (eg. job performance) that the company should also be exploring!

Fiona Dew:
Evanna Gale‍ You raise an interesting point, while I feel slightly outraged at the thought now that any reward would be based on anything other than whether I’m good at my job - 20 years ago I probably would have done it. Back then, like you Evanna I may have been known to don a short skirt in return for free drinks, that said back then I didn’t feel exploited - more fool them for parting with their cash. But a lot has changed in 20 years, before smart phones and social media when your actions as a university student weren’t shared with millions for posterity...

This is a good point, and reminded me of a craze from my student days when students were so hard up that they would get temporary tattoos on their faces for some extra cash (£100 to keep the tattoo for a week): https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/headlines-for-hard-up-students-1137863. This is, to my mind, nothing but exploitation and public humiliation of people with no money, but when people need money they do what they have to do... but I do wonder if the same people still think this was a good idea looking back now that the photos are still on the internet and can be seen by prospective employers, colleagues, employees, partners, their children. their children's teachers etc. etc. etc....
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Amber Thomas over 5 years ago

Alison Craig:

I think it's easy to say you'd never do this when you have enough money and job security.

I'm a single parent - trying to keep your kids fed and the mortgage paid can be hard. When I was poorer, and worrying a lot about money, a months salary for virtually no effort would have seemed like a good deal. I know I'd have choked down my principles, raked out the skirt from the back of the cupboard and allowed myself to be exploited.

Interesting thoughts about "female essence" though. Does it dissipate if I wear trousers a lot? Can I recapture some of it if I finish that hat I've been knitting for the last 4 years?

I agree. Relative wealth and job security play a huge factor in this. As you mention, it is virtually no extra effort and for someone with financial insecurity or financial dependants, the benefits of the additional money without having to work an extra job or find and pay for extra childcare would be worth it. Although I usually cover up my legs, I do have skirts and dresses in my wardrobe that I often wear (for free!) So if I am to wear clothes that I already own and get a financial benefit, then why wouldn't I? As Fiona Dew‍ points out, more fool them for parting with their money. But I still think that it is a ridiculous policy, and certainly can't see how it would "unite the team". I don't really have any strong thoughts regarding my knees being exposed in the same way that I might react if the company was asking to wear a bikini in the office or take "glamour" shots of other parts of my body, but if the extra money is available for rewarding knee-exposure, surely there are other categories of reward (eg. job performance) that the company should also be exploring!

Fiona Dew:
Evanna Gale‍ You raise an interesting point, while I feel slightly outraged at the thought now that any reward would be based on anything other than whether I’m good at my job - 20 years ago I probably would have done it. Back then, like you Evanna I may have been known to don a short skirt in return for free drinks, that said back then I didn’t feel exploited - more fool them for parting with their cash. But a lot has changed in 20 years, before smart phones and social media when your actions as a university student weren’t shared with millions for posterity...

This is a good point, and reminded me of a craze from my student days when students were so hard up that they would get temporary tattoos on their faces for some extra cash (£100 to keep the tattoo for a week): https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/headlines-for-hard-up-students-1137863. This is, to my mind, nothing but exploitation and public humiliation of people with no money, but when people need money they do what they have to do... but I do wonder if the same people still think this was a good idea looking back now that the photos are still on the internet and can be seen by prospective employers, colleagues, employees, partners, their children. their children's teachers etc. etc. etc....
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

Are high heels "necessary and appropriate" in a workplace?

Community Rules & Guidelines