The Gender Equality Checkpoint

[DanaC]

A recent story in the news caught my attention.

A receptionist claims she was sent home from work at a corporate finance company after refusing to wear high heels.

Nicola Thorp, 27, from Hackney in east London, arrived on her first day at PwC in December in flat shoes but says she was told she had to wear shoes with a “2in to 4in heel”.

Thorp, who was employed as a temporary worker by PwC’s outsourced reception firm Portico, said she was laughed at when she said the demand was discriminatory and sent home without pay after refusing to go out and buy a pair of heels.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...c-nicola-thorp

Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I personally never wear heels - I gave them up as a teenager because they were fucking uncomfortable and I tended to end up twisting my ankle a lot. I'm really glad I did, because regular wearing of heels can damage your feet and your spine. I know plenty of women like wearing heels, but the idea of enforcing them as a dress code for work I find ridiculous. I get the idea of a dress code - nothing wrong with insisting that your workforce look smart, or dress according to a particular style - but there is no reason why a woman can't look perfecly smart in flat shoes. There are however, compelling reasons for not wearing heels - particularly given that part of this woman's role would have been to escort guests around the office complex, meaning she would be on her feet and walking for much of the day.

Heels are not a pre-requisite for loking smart. They do however increase the sexual attractiveness of women. So - apparently, for a receptionist it is not enough that they look smart and presentable, they also have to look sexy.


Another columnist comments:

First impressions count, even for business. It’s why the reception of any building is usually the smartest part of the office. There will be brightly coloured flowers, comfortable sofas, free water and, more often than not, a pretty young woman ready to welcome you. They’ll be wearing a full face of make-up, the smartest clothes their salary will allow, and a beaming smile. They’ll know the name of everyone in the building but nobody will know theirs. They are the first thing any visitor knows about your company and the guardian of your secrets. They’re undervalued and underpaid. And no matter how good a job they do, the one thing you will judge them on is what they look like.

I know this because I spent a year welcoming guests, pouffing the cushions and answering the phone in my best cut glass accent for a finance company. At my annual appraisal they told me I’d done a great job and they were thrilled at the effort I was putting in, there was just one thing to be improved on. Could I possibly wear more lipstick?

So - wearing lipstick was not enough - she had to wear enough lipstick. Guess she wasn;t looking sexy enough to do her job?

We know how you dress is no longer a signifier of success or importance, Steve Jobs’ dedication to jeans and trainers ended that, so why do we still feel it’s necessary to dictate the type of shoes that women wear? Yes, dress codes might ask men to wear ties and not apply this rule to women but there’s one clear difference here: unless your office takes its influences from Fifty Shades of Grey, there is nothing particularly sexual about a tie. High heels on the other hand, they’re designed to sexualise women. They lengthen our legs, change the way we walk and, whether we intend it or not, make us more attractive to both sexes.

(for the sexual attraction aspect of heels see: http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S10...122-5/abstract)

The columnist continues with an acknowledgement that heels can feel empowering, adding height and stature, but only when you are wearing them by choice.

For some reason I don’t believe that Portico wants its female employees to feel empowered by their shoes, if they did they wouldn’t have minded so much when one of them pointed out the company’s blatantly sexist policy. So why is it so wedded to this outdated dress code?

Perhaps it’s because even now in 2016, nearly 100 years after women got the vote, 50 years since we were entitled to equal pay and more than 10 years since Sex and the City stopped trying to convince us that heels were independence in shoe form, what we really judge success on is the attractiveness of the woman attached to it. It’s not enough to have a professional, competent receptionist welcoming your guests, she also needs to be sexy.

Read the rest here:

http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-...rkplace-sexism

[xoxoxoBruce]

The reality for receptionists is they are in the same boat with actors, salespeople, and TV talking heads, appearance is primary. But If heels are a requirement, she should argue the company should provide them, like hard hats, earplugs and safety glasses.