The British shoe wars
It’s come to this:
Can women in power truly command respect if they are wearing high heels? Not according to a group of trade union leaders in the U.K., who are calling upon British Prime Minister Theresa May to ditch her signature kitten heels for flats so she can “set an example” by wearing “sensible shoes.”
The call for flats came out of a conference of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), which represents union workers to the government, being held in Brighton, England. The conference is backing a new law that would ban policies that force women to wear heels in the workplace ”” a reaction to a much publicized incident in May, in which 27-year-old London receptionist Nicola Thorp was sent home for not wearing high heels at the office.
The TUC leaders are calling for May’s support on the effort, and for her to take a symbolic step ”” down and out of her much-talked-about kitten heels.
Requiring high heels seems wrong, unless the job is something on the order of Playboy bunny. But asking May to ditch these snazzy items is also wrong, wrong, wrong:
And women can certainly wield power and command respect while sporting high heels. Case in point:
Absolutely right, Neo. And BTW, that photo of Reagan and Thatcher is wizard! You sure don’t see pix like that out of the White House any longer! More’s the pity.
I remember Thatcher, heels or no heels, Hillary is no Thatcher. However, I would like to see her walk up or down stairs unaided in heels.
Here’s a novel idea: she’s the British Prime Minister, maybe, just maybe, she’s capable of deciding for herself what shoes she wants to wear.
Parker: I’d rather see Hillary walk up or downstairs unaided. With or without heels.
It’s the intellect that makes the woman, not her shoes.
And that’s precisely what feminists are afraid of.
May should tell TUC to FO. “I’ll wear what I want!” or “If businesses want to project a certain image, it’s a free market. Nobody is forced to work there.”
Heels makes a lady taller and taller is better in this case. so its bad advice masquerading as good advice, so that its not called out and people will side with it. same with lots of what the left has recommended over the 30 years, like what has caused the population collapse of the dominant group in under 50 years necessitating importing replacements.
Depends on the height of the heel and the area covered by the bottom of the heel. “High heels” covers a considerable range of heel heights (anywhere from 1.5 to 4.75 inches) and heel shapes. I know a couple of orthopedic surgeons who consider very high stiletto heels to be a safety hazard because they can get caught in cracks in the sidewalk or other irregularities in a paved surface, and send the wearer sprawling with injuries ranging from ankle sprains to bone fractures. In addition, stiletto heels can do considerable damage to wood or linoleum floors in high-traffic areas in public buildings. Moderately high heels with a wider heel bottom, such as the present PM’s kitten heels, are both more comfortable for the wearer and safer.
As for high heels making the wearer look taller, that also depends on the individual wearer and the situation. Nothing looks sillier than a very short woman wearing exaggeratedly high heels.
F,
High heels would be more fun to watch.
Nothing wrong with heels if you’re woman enough to wear them.
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/name/ginger-rogers-obituary?pid=1000000178593564
In 1986, Reagan commented: “Her male counterpart got the lion’s share of publicity but Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did and did it with high heels on and did it backwards.”
Heels?! *Shoes* are tools of the system to oppress the masses!
Let women wear heels if they want, or no heels. What business is it of theirs? The trade union? Just wrong! And yes, I love Thatcher’s style there (and Reagan’s) and I had no idea the new British Prime Minister had such cool taste. Good for her and no one’s business but her own!
Who do these people think they are that they can tell the Prime Minister of Great Britain what to wear?
Oh dear god, the heel police. They think of things I never dreamt of as offenses.
Only state-approved boots and shoes are permitted for stomping on your face forever.
I thought that we as a society had agreed on this, that the one topic where men can say that women are insane is shoes. Women can say that men are crazy about anything, any time, but we males are limited to this and this only.
It’s fine by me. The male is supposed to be magnanimous. There were only two other places where a man used to be allowed to question a woman’s sanity: romantic comedies and PMS (and that was clinical). But the former seems to have died off as a genre, and the latter went from being something we never talked about to a subject of humor to a feminist right.
Anyway, heels are a very important issue and we should definitely pass laws about them. (sigh)
“set an example” by wearing “sensible shoes.”
Robin Williams: I know, we can’t use the word “dyke.” You can’t even say “lesbian”, it’s “women in comfortable shoes.”
No that would be a sensible woman who dresses according to the situation and circumstances, not their sexual whatever.