{"id":92859,"date":"2017-03-07T03:16:30","date_gmt":"2017-03-07T08:16:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=92859"},"modified":"2017-03-07T03:16:30","modified_gmt":"2017-03-07T08:16:30","slug":"are-high-heel-dress-codes-sexist-uk-lawmakers-hold-debate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2017\/03\/07\/are-high-heel-dress-codes-sexist-uk-lawmakers-hold-debate\/","title":{"rendered":"Are high heel dress codes sexist? UK lawmakers hold debate"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"British<\/a>
British lawmakers focused on footwear Monday, asking whether employers should be able to make women wear high heels as part of a corporate dress code. (Photo: Susan Sermoneta\/Flickr<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

LONDON\u2014British lawmakers focused on footwear Monday, asking whether employers should be able to make women wear high heels as part of a corporate dress code.<\/p>\n

Members of Parliament were to debate a ban on mandatory workplace high heels, in response to a petition started by a receptionist who was sent home without pay for wearing flat shoes.<\/p>\n

Nicola Thorp was told in December 2015 that her shoes were unacceptable for a temporary assignment in London with finance firm PwC.<\/p>\n

Her employment agency, Portico, had a dress code specifying that female workers must wear non-opaque tights, have hair with \u201cno visible roots,\u201d wear \u201cregularly re-applied\u201d makeup \u2014 and appear in shoes with a heel between 2 to 4 inches (5 to 10 centimetres) high.<\/p>\n

For Thorp, that was a step too far.<\/p>\n

She started an online petition, calling formal workplace dress codes \u201coutdated and sexist.\u201d It has gathered more than 150,000 signatures, making it eligible for a debate in Parliament.<\/p>\n

Thorp told the BBC that \u201cdress codes should reflect society.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cTwenty years ago, women weren’t allowed to wear trousers in the same role that I’m doing now,\u201d she said. \u201cAnd it’s only because some women spoke up about that and said, ‘We feel like we have a right to wear trousers,’ that that’s changed.\u201d<\/p>\n

Monday’s debate is non-binding, but the political pressure for companies to scrap mandatory high heels is building. British law forbids companies from discriminating against women, but Parliament’s Women and Equalities Committee said in a report sparked by Thorp’s experience that \u201cdiscriminatory dress codes\u201d remain commonplace.<\/p>\n

The lawmakers said they heard from hundreds of women \u201cwho told us about the pain and long-term damage caused by wearing high heels for long periods in the workplace, as well as from women who had been required to dye their hair blonde, to wear revealing outfits and to constantly reapply makeup.\u201d<\/p>\n

The committee also heard from the College of Podiatry, which said women who wear high heels for long periods of time have \u201creduced balance, reduced ankle flexion and weaker muscle power in the calf,\u201d and are prone to disabling pain.<\/p>\n

The committee urged the government to enforce existing laws against discrimination and impose higher fines on companies that break the rules.<\/p>\n

In response to Thorp’s petition, the government said the law already specifies that dress codes must be reasonable and \u201cmake equivalent requirements for men and women.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cEmployers should not be discriminating against women in what they require them to wear,\u201d the government said.<\/p>\n

Thorp’s petition has already caused one change. Portico announced last year it was amending its policy to adopt a gender-neutral dress code and to allow workers to wear flat shoes if they prefer.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

LONDON\u2014British lawmakers focused on footwear Monday, asking whether employers should be able to make women wear high heels as part …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":92860,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36,3],"tags":[16272],"class_list":["post-92859","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-fashion-and-beauty","category-lifestyle","tag-high-heels","mauthors-jill-lawless","mauthors-the-associated-press"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92859","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=92859"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92859\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/92860"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=92859"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=92859"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=92859"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}