Receptionist sent home from work because they wouldnt wear heels.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by banterboy
Heat>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>footpain. The point about boots was to show that, yes, i know the kind of pain that you guys are feeling, so i KNOW that it is trivial.
Most women where higheels casually out of choice, it's their preferred fasion, and most of them don't get arthritis.
meanwhile the biggest cause of male infertility is heat, and a suit adds degrees to that heat. It's even worse now that air conditioners are now considered patriarchal and sexist.
Most women where higheels casually out of choice, it's their preferred fasion, and most of them don't get arthritis.
meanwhile the biggest cause of male infertility is heat, and a suit adds degrees to that heat. It's even worse now that air conditioners are now considered patriarchal and sexist.
So complain about the dress code - don't derail a thread about high heels which shows that it IS possible to get dress codes changed.
I used to speak to the senior male managers every year to encourage them to dress down or wear smart shorts into the office on hot summer days - my employer had no dress code but some of the men on my team didn't feel confident in wearing comfortable but smart cooler clothes in the summer. Eventually I talked 3 of the senior management team to lead by example and our department director to send out an email to the department explicitly stating that it was ok for the men in the team to wear shorts and sandals/flip flops in hot weather.
If you make your case you'll usually find that a good organisation will not only change the rules but make efforts to change the culture - and if they don't care about the comfort of their employees then **** em and leave for an employer that does. Saying "I'm uncomfortable so everyone else should be to" isn't making your case - it's petty.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Unkempt_One
What's the point of wearing a suit at a workplace too poor to afford air conditioning? It takes an average of an hour for heels to start hurting like hell. Heat just makes you sweat. It doesn't hurt, unless you're a moron who doesn't drink enough. Although I think suiting and booting is past its sell-by-date, it seems you're making a big deal out of a non-issue. Associating suits with low fertility also seems to me to be a misinterpretation of scientific literature. All you need to do is keep the balls nice and cool.
Discomfort is discomfort, it looks like your vagsplaining to me.
Original post by banterboy
Discomfort is discomfort, it looks like your vagsplaining to me.
Enjoy your self-imposed discomfort then. I'm sure everyone thinks you're cool walking to lectures in a suit and a trilby lmao
Original post by PQ
So complain about the dress code - don't derail a thread about high heels which shows that it IS possible to get dress codes changed.
I used to speak to the senior male managers every year to encourage them to dress down or wear smart shorts into the office on hot summer days - my employer had no dress code but some of the men on my team didn't feel confident in wearing comfortable but smart cooler clothes in the summer. Eventually I talked 3 of the senior management team to lead by example and our department director to send out an email to the department explicitly stating that it was ok for the men in the team to wear shorts and sandals/flip flops in hot weather.
If you make your case you'll usually find that a good organisation will not only change the rules but make efforts to change the culture - and if they don't care about the comfort of their employees then **** em and leave for an employer that does. Saying "I'm uncomfortable so everyone else should be to" isn't making your case - it's petty.
I used to speak to the senior male managers every year to encourage them to dress down or wear smart shorts into the office on hot summer days - my employer had no dress code but some of the men on my team didn't feel confident in wearing comfortable but smart cooler clothes in the summer. Eventually I talked 3 of the senior management team to lead by example and our department director to send out an email to the department explicitly stating that it was ok for the men in the team to wear shorts and sandals/flip flops in hot weather.
If you make your case you'll usually find that a good organisation will not only change the rules but make efforts to change the culture - and if they don't care about the comfort of their employees then **** em and leave for an employer that does. Saying "I'm uncomfortable so everyone else should be to" isn't making your case - it's petty.
Why would i complain about a perfectly ordinary dresscode I don't have a problem with?
You don't understand the argument; you can't complain about one and not the other, which is exactly what is happening here. It's not derailing a thread, it's using a premise equivelant to yours and reducing it to absurdity.
So the argument you guys are putting out:
Accepted premise:
Discomfort due to clothing is sexist and should stop (applied to females)
Then you infer that this example also has the consequences of the above, due to being a member of the set included in "sexist clothing".
I then run with the argument:
Your premise (merely extrapolated on to men)
Absurd conclusion (men's dresscode is sexist)
No one is arguing the latter in the media, so either A. this isn't a solely woman's agenda like the media is portraying it to be or B. we cannot accept the premise which you guys are running with becuase it's equivalent runs into a conclusion that isn't true, or C there is something about it being a man vs it being a woman which makes a significant distinction between the premises, thus making my argument unacceptable, and yours acceptable.
So which do you pick; A, B or C?
This is the difference between actual augmentation and "A WOMAN IS UNCOMFORTABLE THE WORLD MUST CONFORM TO HER FEELINGZ CUS THERE THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Original post by 999tigger
Highly doubt they will legislate on such a small issue.
I don't see it that way. They might just amend existing legal guidance on dress codes.
Original post by banterboy
Discomfort due to clothing is sexist and should stop (applied to females)
Discomfort due to clothing is sexist and should stop (applied to females)
Not really. The problem is with a dress code that has the potential to cause long-term injury or ill health, and it applies equally to both sexes.
Original post by banterboy
Why would i complain about a perfectly ordinary dresscode I don't have a problem with?
You don't understand the argument; you can't complain about one and not the other, which is exactly what is happening here. It's not derailing a thread, it's using a premise equivelant to yours and reducing it to absurdity.
So the argument you guys are putting out:
Accepted premise:
Discomfort due to clothing is sexist and should stop (applied to females)
Then you infer that this example also has the consequences of the above, due to being a member of the set included in "sexist clothing".
I then run with the argument:
Your premise (merely extrapolated on to men)
Absurd conclusion (men's dresscode is sexist)
No one is arguing the latter in the media, so either A. this isn't a solely woman's agenda like the media is portraying it to be or B. we cannot accept the premise which you guys are running with becuase it's equivalent runs into a conclusion that isn't true, or C there is something about it being a man vs it being a woman which makes a significant distinction between the premises, thus making my argument unacceptable, and yours acceptable.
So which do you pick; A, B or C?
This is the difference between actual augmentation and "A WOMAN IS UNCOMFORTABLE THE WORLD MUST CONFORM TO HER FEELINGZ CUS THERE THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
You don't understand the argument; you can't complain about one and not the other, which is exactly what is happening here. It's not derailing a thread, it's using a premise equivelant to yours and reducing it to absurdity.
So the argument you guys are putting out:
Accepted premise:
Discomfort due to clothing is sexist and should stop (applied to females)
Then you infer that this example also has the consequences of the above, due to being a member of the set included in "sexist clothing".
I then run with the argument:
Your premise (merely extrapolated on to men)
Absurd conclusion (men's dresscode is sexist)
No one is arguing the latter in the media, so either A. this isn't a solely woman's agenda like the media is portraying it to be or B. we cannot accept the premise which you guys are running with becuase it's equivalent runs into a conclusion that isn't true, or C there is something about it being a man vs it being a woman which makes a significant distinction between the premises, thus making my argument unacceptable, and yours acceptable.
So which do you pick; A, B or C?
This is the difference between actual augmentation and "A WOMAN IS UNCOMFORTABLE THE WORLD MUST CONFORM TO HER FEELINGZ CUS THERE THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Nice, I have an AS in Critical Thinking as well. I don't know why you're bothering to attempt formal logic when you've just dismissed the difference between physical pain and feeling hot as "discomfort is discomfort". As PQ said, you're essentially derailing the thread since this particular issue about high heels. I actually think you're right in the sense that if action were taken to stop women having to wear high heels, we must by extension prevent dress codes for either gender that cause significant discomfort, but you obviously have some persecution complex since you've immediately assumed everyone still wants to force you to wear that godawful trilby of yours.
Original post by banterboy
Why would i complain about a perfectly ordinary dresscode I don't have a problem with?
You don't understand the argument; you can't complain about one and not the other, which is exactly what is happening here. It's not derailing a thread, it's using a premise equivelant to yours and reducing it to absurdity.
So the argument you guys are putting out:
Accepted premise:
Discomfort due to clothing is sexist and should stop (applied to females)
Then you infer that this example also has the consequences of the above, due to being a member of the set included in "sexist clothing".
I then run with the argument:
Your premise (merely extrapolated on to men)
Absurd conclusion (men's dresscode is sexist)
No one is arguing the latter in the media, so either A. this isn't a solely woman's agenda like the media is portraying it to be or B. we cannot accept the premise which you guys are running with becuase it's equivalent runs into a conclusion that isn't true, or C there is something about it being a man vs it being a woman which makes a significant distinction between the premises, thus making my argument unacceptable, and yours acceptable.
So which do you pick; A, B or C?
This is the difference between actual augmentation and "A WOMAN IS UNCOMFORTABLE THE WORLD MUST CONFORM TO HER FEELINGZ CUS THERE THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
You don't understand the argument; you can't complain about one and not the other, which is exactly what is happening here. It's not derailing a thread, it's using a premise equivelant to yours and reducing it to absurdity.
So the argument you guys are putting out:
Accepted premise:
Discomfort due to clothing is sexist and should stop (applied to females)
Then you infer that this example also has the consequences of the above, due to being a member of the set included in "sexist clothing".
I then run with the argument:
Your premise (merely extrapolated on to men)
Absurd conclusion (men's dresscode is sexist)
No one is arguing the latter in the media, so either A. this isn't a solely woman's agenda like the media is portraying it to be or B. we cannot accept the premise which you guys are running with becuase it's equivalent runs into a conclusion that isn't true, or C there is something about it being a man vs it being a woman which makes a significant distinction between the premises, thus making my argument unacceptable, and yours acceptable.
So which do you pick; A, B or C?
This is the difference between actual augmentation and "A WOMAN IS UNCOMFORTABLE THE WORLD MUST CONFORM TO HER FEELINGZ CUS THERE THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Dress codes requiring men to wear stuffy suits in hot weather are sexist. Even when there's no dress code a culture that requires men to wear uncomfortable clothes in hot weather is sexist.
That's why I, as a woman and a feminist
, took that up with senior management to change the culture at my organisation. Requiring women to wear impractical and uncomfortable shoes is sexist.
That's why the woman in this case has highlighted the issue.
if you don't think either situation is sexist then what's the point in posting in this thread? All anyone is asking for is that dress codes are appropriate, practical and comfortable for people to do their job. That's not unreasonable even if you think you have spotted some secret double standard in what the media report on.
I've found most organisations are reasonable about issues like this if approached practically. In the case of the high heels the organisation clearly wasn't being reasonable and so the issue has become a media story.
Most places may have a "business attire" dress code.
That is fine
She was weRing smart but flat shoes and sent home without pay with no option to work as is but comply the next day. (Or time to buy same)
IMHO she is correct to say that heels may not exclusively comply with a dress code, if flats are smart.
That is fine
She was weRing smart but flat shoes and sent home without pay with no option to work as is but comply the next day. (Or time to buy same)
IMHO she is correct to say that heels may not exclusively comply with a dress code, if flats are smart.
Original post by indigofox
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36264229
Why would a company want their employees in heels knowing that they are not that great for mobility and health compared to flats.
Why would a company want their employees in heels knowing that they are not that great for mobility and health compared to flats.
Thats disgusting. They want them wearing heels to make their client's dicks erect, didnt you know women were supposed to be prostitutes in all professions? *SARCASM*
Original post by DingleBerg69
A dress code is part of a job
Aw really sweetie? Do men have to wear high heels as part of the dress code?
Original post by blipson
Has no-one got the b***s to say why? it's because women look sexy in high heels and as a receptionist the company wanted her to look sexy
Obviously, but she is a receptionist, not a prostitute. If you want your employees to wear high heels and look sexy, run a brothel.
Original post by brainhuman
Yea, the alternative is to not work in a job where appearances matter.
No, the alternative is to fight against sexist policies like this. Life doesn't work like 'I wont get a job where appearances matter', she might have needed this job to get connections at that kind of workplace or because she needed admin experience, nobody applies to a receptionist work through a temp agency because they want to make a career out of inflating dicks as a receptionist. Not that I expect you to comprehend any of this, 'brainhuman' lol yeah right.
Original post by blipson
Has no-one got the b***s to say why? it's because women look sexy in high heels and as a receptionist the company wanted her to look sexy
so right bro
Original post by blipson
Has no-one got the b***s to say why? it's because women look sexy in high heels and as a receptionist the company wanted her to look sexy
But if they said that it would be sexual discrimination and illegal. Perhaps women can do their jobs perfectly well without wearing heels. Maybe youd like them to wear lingerie as well?
although unjust, the actions of this company were legal; as the law stands, employers have the right to dismiss employees who fail to live up to 'reasonable' dress code demands as long as the employee has been provided with opportunity to buy the correct and adequate clothing/shoes (due to the lady signing the appearance guideline document).
Additionally, in relation to those stating that the company acted in a sexist manner, they are lawfully enabled to differentiate the dress codes for men and women as long as they are both at an equal level of professionalism.
Additionally, in relation to those stating that the company acted in a sexist manner, they are lawfully enabled to differentiate the dress codes for men and women as long as they are both at an equal level of professionalism.
Original post by lolakirk
Aw really sweetie? Do men have to wear high heels as part of the dress code?
I don't think the issue is whether or not men have to wear it. Dress codes are different for men and women in many ways; for example in some professional situations a man would have to wear a tie whilst a woman wouldn't. They have to be at an equivalent level of formality, but in terms of the specific items of clothing there isn't really much comparison between male and female dress codes.
The real issue is whether or not it's appropriate to make heels a compulsory part of anyone's professional dress code. If it can be demonstrated that they're significantly bad for one's physical health, sexually provocative beyond an acceptable workplace standard and/or if equally smart alternatives are available with no detriment to the overall quality of the work, then perhaps it's not appropriate.
Good!
As someone who wears trousers and flats anyway I don't see myself wearing a skirt and heels for a job that I will be working long hours in, no thank you, I personally would find it uncomfortable. Also if I'm working a job with the same hours as a man and he is wearing trousers and flats then I am indeed going to do the same.
As someone who wears trousers and flats anyway I don't see myself wearing a skirt and heels for a job that I will be working long hours in, no thank you, I personally would find it uncomfortable. Also if I'm working a job with the same hours as a man and he is wearing trousers and flats then I am indeed going to do the same.
(edited 7 years ago)
Dress codes that aren't in place for practical reasons are retarded and out-dated.
Seriously, how does what you wear determine how well you do your job? The person who connected those two should've been shot at birth.
Seriously, how does what you wear determine how well you do your job? The person who connected those two should've been shot at birth.
Original post by Unkempt_One
Nice, I have an AS in Critical Thinking as well. I don't know why you're bothering to attempt formal logic when you've just dismissed the difference between physical pain and feeling hot as "discomfort is discomfort". As PQ said, you're essentially derailing the thread since this particular issue about high heels. I actually think you're right in the sense that if action were taken to stop women having to wear high heels, we must by extension prevent dress codes for either gender that cause significant discomfort, but you obviously have some persecution complex since you've immediately assumed everyone still wants to force you to wear that godawful trilby of yours.
i love how you think you're doing formal logic in as critical thinking. I don't have a dresscode atm being a student, it's the principle.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Comfortable shoes for walking
- How does academic dresses/gowns work as a PhD/postgraduate student?
- i don’t want to wear my twin block braces!
- Best shoes for the gym?
- I hate my gf - idk how to breakup
- Why girls like tall guys
- what shoes are attractive/cool on a girl
- Am I the only one that wishes I was the opposite gender?
- Pain in palm with DB bench press.
- The 'What Are You Wearing Today' Thread
- Primark Dress Code
- Dress to Impress: Share Your Secrets for Finding the Perfect Fit!
- Very short girl
- Social workers at court
- Summer jobs for a uni student?
- Shortest guy you would date
- Greggs induction help ?
- Is there anyone ridiculously taller than their parents?
- LATE PAYMENT-My bad experience with Unite Students
- Whats the most stupid rule your school has?
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadLast reply 1 minute ago
TSR Study Together - STEM vs Humanities - Ninth SessionLast reply 1 minute ago
How can I go from a grade 2 to a grade 8 to 9 in english language paper 2 in daysLast reply 1 minute ago
Learning basic vocabulary list for Higher Level GCSE in French - is that enough?Last reply 2 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 3 minutes ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 4 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 5 minutes ago
Amazon Project management apprenticeship 2024Posted 5 minutes ago
Dropping out of my degree after already starting it to pursue something else?Last reply 5 minutes ago
Bellway Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 5 minutes ago
Software Engineering Degree Apprenticeship | Digital & Technology Solutions Level 6Last reply 8 minutes ago
Official: King's College London A101 EMDP 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1033
Last reply 8 minutes ago
Feeling inferior compared to syrians as a half moroccan/half whiteLast reply 9 minutes ago
Please fill out this diss survey, will only take a few mins!Last reply 9 minutes ago
Can I drop out of college once I have an unconditional uni offer?Trending
Last reply 6 days ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 1 week ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 6 days ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 1 week ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
