Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    08 Apr '17 19:45
    This thread follows up the earlier thread (now closed)
    "Enforcing High Heels in the Office is the Height of Workplace Sexism".
    https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/enforcing-high-heels-in-the-ofice-is-the-height-of-workplace-sexism-article.168952

    https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2017/apr/08/canadian-province-makes-it-illegal-to-require-women-to-wear-high-heels

    "Canadian province makes it illegal to require women to wear high heels:
    British Columbia amends workplace act saying high heels are a threat to employee health and safety"

    "“In some workplaces in our province, women are required to wear high
    heels on the job. Like most British Columbians, our government thinks
    this is wrong. That is why we’re changing this regulation to stop this
    unsafe and discriminatory practice,” said BC premier Christy Clark.

    A mandatory high-heel dress code “is a workplace health and safety
    issue,” she said. “There is a risk of physical injury from slipping or
    falling, as well as possible damage to the feet, legs and back from
    prolonged wearing of high heels while at work.”"

    "Employment experts say a broader discussion is needed about the pressures
    faced by women to spend more time and money on their looks than men, and
    the expectations in some industries that short skirts and lipstick are worn.

    “When you think about dress and physical appearance, women face higher
    standards in a lot of cases than men,” Julie Nugent, vice-president of
    the Catalyst Research Centre for Corporate Practice told CTV news."
  2. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    09 Apr '17 01:401 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    This thread follows up the earlier thread (now closed)
    "Enforcing High Heels in the Office is the Height of Workplace Sexism".
    https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/enforcing-high-heels-in-the-ofice-is-the-height-of-workplace-sexism-article.168952

    https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2017/apr/08/canadian-province-makes-it-illegal-to-require-women-to ...[text shortened]... Nugent, vice-president of
    the Catalyst Research Centre for Corporate Practice told CTV news."
    Men do not typically wear make-up, visit nail bars for acrylic nail treatment, visit beauticians etc etc This therefore begs the question why are you holding men and women to the same standards when clearly women spend a lot more time and energy on cosmetics, dress and physical appearance. Is it really because expectations are higher for women or that they simply create higher expectations by their behaviour?
  3. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    10 Apr '17 00:18
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Men do not typically wear make-up, visit nail bars for acrylic nail treatment, visit beauticians etc etc This therefore begs the question why are you holding men and women to the same standards when clearly women spend a lot more time and energy on cosmetics, dress and physical appearance. Is it really because expectations are higher for women or that they simply create higher expectations by their behaviour?
    Would you feel comfortable if your wife was required to wear heels and miniskirts at work?
  4. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    10 Apr '17 00:30
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Men do not typically wear make-up, visit nail bars for acrylic nail treatment, visit beauticians etc etc This therefore begs the question why are you holding men and women to the same standards when clearly women spend a lot more time and energy on cosmetics, dress and physical appearance. Is it really because expectations are higher for women or that they simply create higher expectations by their behaviour?
    if that's their choice, fine.

    it is clearly wrong to force them to do so.
  5. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    10 Apr '17 00:43
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Men do not typically wear make-up, visit nail bars for acrylic nail treatment, visit beauticians etc etc This therefore begs the question why are you holding men and women to the same standards when clearly women spend a lot more time and energy on cosmetics, dress and physical appearance. Is it really because expectations are higher for women or that they simply create higher expectations by their behaviour?
    My earlier thread "Dress Code: How Different It's For Girls" addresses the reality that
    dress codes tend to be more elaborate, restrictive, and onerous for females than for males.
    And females tend to be more harshly punished for failing to conform to expected standards of appearance.

    http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/dress-code-how-different-its-for-girls.172178

    Does any male prime minister have to be concerned about a newspaper judging his legs' appearance?
  6. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    10 Apr '17 00:47
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    This thread follows up the earlier thread (now closed)
    "Enforcing High Heels in the Office is the Height of Workplace Sexism".
    https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/enforcing-high-heels-in-the-ofice-is-the-height-of-workplace-sexism-article.168952

    https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2017/apr/08/canadian-province-makes-it-illegal-to-require-women-to ...[text shortened]... Nugent, vice-president of
    the Catalyst Research Centre for Corporate Practice told CTV news."
    High heels should be banned as torture devices... certainly before burkinis.
  7. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    10 Apr '17 08:25
    Originally posted by sh76
    High heels should be banned as torture devices... certainly before burkinis.
    what you fail to understand is that they are banning the requirement to wear high heels. nobody is stopping anyone from wearing them if they so choose. there is a difference. big one
  8. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65519
    10 Apr '17 08:51
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    what you fail to understand is that they are banning the requirement to wear high heels. nobody is stopping anyone from wearing them if they so choose. there is a difference. big one
    Dilbert you dilbert, of course employers can stop you from wearing high heels at work, many do. You may be better keeping that activity in the privacy of your home anyway.
  9. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    10 Apr '17 09:02
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Would you feel comfortable if your wife was required to wear heels and miniskirts at work?
    you have added the proviso miniskirts. why is that?
  10. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    10 Apr '17 09:06
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    My earlier thread "Dress Code: How Different It's For Girls" addresses the reality that
    dress codes tend to be more elaborate, restrictive, and onerous for females than for males.
    And females tend to be more harshly punished for failing to conform to expected standards of appearance.

    http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/dress-code-how-different-its-for-girls.172178

    Does any male prime minister have to be concerned about a newspaper judging his legs' appearance?

    Perhaps not his legs but Mr. Corbyn was repeatedly chastised for his alleged slovenly appearance. Its clear that Mrs May needs a fashion guru like me because some of her creations have been in very poor taste especially her trip to America. That orange jacket was hideous.
  11. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56281
    10 Apr '17 10:01
    I can understand high heels and miniskirts being banned in a workplace.

    I cannot fathom any rational reason to force women to wear them.
  12. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    10 Apr '17 15:35
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    you have added the proviso miniskirts. why is that?
    Because it is in the OP
  13. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    10 Apr '17 22:03
    The title of the thread had me confused? I thought D started this to complain about the city of Banning.
  14. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    11 Apr '17 01:231 edit
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    I can understand high heels and miniskirts being banned in a workplace.
    I cannot fathom any rational reason to force women to wear them.
    Given the endemic poor reading comprehension in this forum, some people seem to confuse banning
    an employer's requirement to wear high heels with banning an employee's choice to wear high heels.
    (By the way, should men have the same right as women to choose to wear high heels?)

    The original post's article makes it clear that banning *required* high heels is a 'workplace health and safety issue'.
    I have to say that a miniskirt is not in the same category as high heels as a 'workplace health and safety issue'.
    There are medical studies showing the adverse consequences of wearing high heels.
    I don't know of any medical studies showing that wearing a miniskirt endangers one's health.
  15. Subscriberkmax87
    Land of Free
    Health and Education
    Joined
    09 Oct '04
    Moves
    82196
    14 Apr '17 00:38
    Originally posted by Eladar
    The title of the thread had me confused? I thought D started this to complain about the city of Banning.
    Me too, I thought this was a clickbait play on words where somehow Dark Lord Bannon's Whitehouse was revelling in the joy of seeing accentuated female calf muscles.
Back to Top