Dress Code Discrimination -and LGBT community feeling uncomfortable

[Usermuser]

The Guardian has done an article today about the dress codes in work places for women (heels, make up, skirt above the knee, blonde hair). As far as I can see, it focuses on the law, the health issues of heels and the fact that woman feel sexualised by having to dress this way.

And then there's this:

'MPs also expressed concern that gender specific dress codes reinforced stereotypes which could make lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers feel uncomfortable at work.'

Fine, I'm sure that's true, but many straight women feel uncomfortable with these gender stereotypes too! It's not just an issue of women being sexualised, it's that many would much rather wear trousers than a skirt, and don't see why they should have to conform to 'femininity' and wear makeup. These 'reinforced stereotypes' hurt everyone, not just the LGBT community. Grr.

For anyone who is interested:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/25/law-must-be-tougher-over-dress-code-discrimination-say-mps

To quote the woman who started the petition that led to this enquiry...This wasn’t just about shoes. It was about the treatment of women in the workplace,”

It is a total revelation to me that this goes on. I've never worked in an environment with such ridiculous rules. It starts at primary schools, girls are encouraged not to flash thier pants, then skirt lengths are policed at secondary, not to forget the no trouser rule some schools still persist on. Then at work, footwear, shade of nail varnish, hair colour.

Girls just wanna.....wear unsupportive ballet flats in the workplace in they choose to.

Oh yeah and..... I wear insoles with all my shoes, trainers, DMs. Gel ones with arch support are pretty good.

I can see that ballet flats or court shoes are comfy for some but I have very wide feet that are quite big for my height (I'm a size 6) so my feet need room to move.

I really hate dress codes which don't make any sense but I am a scientist/engineer so I am used to being careful with my clothes so that they are safe and comfortable with PPE in a working environment.

For DMs, I find dubbin and a correct pair of socks and sensible 'wearing in' usually does the trick

I'm not sure I see the point of going through the agony of "wearing in" shoes to make them comfortable. Don't know whether trainers make feet soft, don't know never owned a pair.

I can see that ballet flats or court shoes are comfy for some

Yes. People are different- I'm mystified by the need for ankle support, gel insoles, getting the better of Doc Marten's.

Wearing in shoes isn't agony.

"I'm not sure I see the point of going through the agony of "wearing in" shoes to make them comfortable. "

Any shoes/boots made of anything other than very soft or thin leather will require some wearing in.

The point being that wearing shoes in is a different issue to whether the worn-in shoe supports your ankjle or not, or is of a shape that potentially causes damage to your foot. I think you were criticising DMs for the former issue, whereas we were originally talking about the latter...............

Anyway, college of podiatrists doesn't think ballet pumps are that great for yer tootsies:
www.scpod.org/contact-us/press/press-releases/ballet-pumps-are-not-the-foot-haven-women-are-looking-for/

I like the summary:
"The ideal everyday shoe should have a heel height of approx. 1-3cm, be made from a breathable material such as leather, have a round rather than pointed or narrow toe box, and a strap or lace to hold the foot in place.”
Which fits my DMs .

I don't think the discussion is about whether a few individuals find certain shoes comfortable, or have been lucky/unlucky in their work dress code. It's a fact that there are many schools and work places that do insist on certain things like court shoes/heels/make-up/skirts for females, which can limit their ability to work and be comfortable, and can even cause damage.

Yes, men may find ties/collard uncomfortable but it's easy enough to have a slightly looser shirt/tie, there's not much that a woman can do if she's told court shoes or heels.

As a heterosexual woman I, like zillions of other women, wear these saucy little Clarks numbers. Clarks have been selling them in a wide range of colours and fabrics for years and we'll keep buying them for as long as they keep making them. Not just Clarks - pretty much every shoe shop sells women's brogues and Oxfords.

There are still employers who insist on female employees wearing heels and makeup and they should be prevented from doing so under the relevant discrimination act unless they can demonstrate a specific business need - I'm prepared to accept that I'm not going to get a job on the makeup stand at Estée Lauder unless I pile on the slap, and that if I want to be a catwalk model I'll need to wear whatever shoes are stipulated, but for a job on reception handing out security passes and fetching coffee? No.

Mind you, both areas get interesting when it comes to recruitment. You can't currently stop people recruiting on the grounds of looks. So if I pull a bait and switch, interview for a glamour job in full warpaint and skyscraper heels, then turn up on my first day six inches shorter and with my normal grey acne-scarred skin - I guess my employers would have to live with it?

*I like the summary:
"The ideal everyday shoe should have a heel height of approx. 1-3cm, be made from a breathable material such as leather, have a round rather than pointed or narrow toe box, and a strap or lace to hold the foot in place.”
Looks down at feet, describes the pumps I'm wearing other than a strap.

We shall have to disagree on DMs. They were agony to wear so fail to see how being in agony was good for my feet no matter how well supported my ankle was. They certainly failed in the basic requirement of any footwear as being something I could walk in.

I agree KickAss, it's just a pity that discussion can't be had without describing other women's choices , where they have a choice, such as the Ugg boot wearers as "stupid" or sneering at the ballet flats wearers in SomeDykes's work place.

We seem to have veered from the op's point, which is that there wasn't a need to add some kind of LGBTQ rider to the comment. Mandatory heels are ridiculous whatever is in your pants or whoever you want in your pants.

Mandatory heels are ridiculous whatever is in your pants or whoever you want in your pants.

Yes - very true.

It just seems that the article assumes that heteronormative women are emotionally OK with overfeminization, and only LGBTQ etc. would feel that discomfort, which is stereotyping of all concerned. I'm an individual who gets to express my own discomfort. There shouldn't be rules at work that make me damage my feet based purely on my perceived genitalia.

What if I went to interview appearing male, and they told me the dress code based on that, then I turned up looking more female but wearing 'male' clothes.

Going back to the lesbians and 'sensible shoes' thing, the very fact that this phrase ever existed shows quite explicitly that straight women were expected to be wearing something different to what lesbians preferred wearing and that what that was wasn't sensible! So it follows that the discomfort here based on the shoes at least would be focused on straight women as opposed to dykes.

Basically, I'm just saying that I think dykes do have a slightly different perspective on this to straight women. But all our feet suffer if they force us into heels!

SomeDyke

Isn't it rooted in the "lesbians are just dykes because they are ugly and don't dress pretty for a maaaan" trope, though?

I.e. The allusion to it is an allusion to an offensive, dated stereotype

L and G and B are irrelevant.

T is relevant if the company has one rule for men and one rule for women and will enforce you wearing the "right" outfit according to how they perceive your gender.

Oxford university has a lot of archaic rules on clothing but in 2012 they made those rules gender-neutral. If they can do it, companies can do it.

To an extent, Trills, but enforced heels shouldn't be part of the dress code at all.

I don't think that's suggesting that any other women are OK with hyper-feminization.

No sensible trans person thinks that everyone else is perfectly happy to comply with all the gender stereotypes and expectations. (there are of course idiots in every group of humans you could possibly name)

Helen if you have a gender-neutral dress code, heels would never be enforced. They'd be an option under the "shoes" section, but the definition of a "smart shoe" would have to be much wider.

Because nobody would dare to say that men had to wear high heels.

Isn't it rooted in the "lesbians are just dykes because they are ugly and don't dress pretty for a maaaan" trope, though?

That's what I assumed - it wasn't that lesbians necessarily wore different shoes to heterosexual women, but that any woman who wore sensible shoes deserved to be insulted, and the greatest insult is suggesting that they weren't attractive to men - still a bit weird to my mind, given that lesbians don't want to be attracted to men - but I suppose that's the male centric view isn't it - who cares what the woman wants, it's all about what I want.

(and one last derail feed - there is something particularly comforting and comfortable about a well broken in pair of leather boots or shoes - like an old coat, or ancient jeans (they don't make them thick enough any more to break in) - the way you slide them on and they just fit all your lumps and bumps perfectly - it's the reason that I buy leather shoes really.)

I can't wear heels in the workplace (or anywhere), but I think it has more to do with clumsiness and ankles prone to dislocation than the fact that I'm sexually attracted to women as well as men. I think it's a way of saying trans without it becoming a trans argument.

In terms of this article, I suspect that the either the writer (or perhaps the MP who "expressed concern") didn't know what they were talking about or what point they intended to make.

Someone vaguely mentioned the word "trans"
They thought that "LGBT" was the polite way of saying it.
They thought it would be better to write it out in full.
They did not stop to think about what those words actually meant.

Basically, I'm just saying that I think dykes do have a slightly different perspective on this to straight women.

Really? I'm a straight woman, and my shoe choices over the years have mostly been based on whether I could run for the bus in them or not (despite rarely taking the bus, or indeed, running.) I don't wear make-up either. It's possible some people have decided I'm a lesbian on account of my shoes, but it would be a wrong assumption - and I'm not aware of it, if so. I don't find looking at people's shoes is a reliable way of determining who they are most likely to sleep with. It's almost like we're all different, regardless of our sexualité, not because of it.

I do agree that gender stereotypes aren't good for anyone, including those who aren't any part of LGBT, and I think gender neutral dress codes can only be a good thing.

Today's shoes have about a 1.5cm heel, but could probably do with a bit more of a strap. OTOH, they're unlikely to actually be on my feet at the times I'm sitting at my desk. (See many previous MN threads on this matter.)

They thought that "LGBT" was the polite way of saying it.

Hadn't thought of that. Good point.