So I just got an email from Schuh…

[SnuggleWuggle]

Lecturing on the importance of pronouns including some I’d never heard of before (zhe?) and being inclusive

Then ironically in the email the shoe links - women’s, men’s and children’s

So biology matters with feet but not with reality?!

Mind blown.

Unsubscribed.

I’m so exhausted with this nonsense

@littlbrowndog

When did companies flogging stuff to us start lecturing customers

Jeez. They can do one

Indeed!

Out of interest, if you happen to only have one foot, will Schuh sell you one shoe rather than making you buy a pair?

Surely that would be an actual measure of inclusion of marginalised people they could take which would actually be relevant to their business.

I really dislike corporate rainbow-washing, but it’s even more cynical and vacuous when it’s a shoe shop trying it on. There’s gonna be some right pinchy feet and blisters and Schuh will have quite a few returns to deal with, if they are trying to say that mens and women’s sizing of shoes in the UK is just a matter of politics, or how their customers personally ‘identify’.

By all means everyone should feel free to choose whatever style they feel comfortable with. And manufacturers should be prepared to make a choice of styles in different sizes for each sex to facilitate this because gender is a load of nonsense… but that doesn’t seem to be what’s happening here. This seems less about smashing gender norms and more about corporately changing nothing while trying to get woke points by being sanctimonious about words.

In UK sizing, shoes for infants, children, teens, men and women shoes are all still typically made up on different lathes to accommodate typical (biologically-determined) size and shape differences. A size eleven is obviously not going to be the same shoe across all these different categories. I don’t see how it helps customers to be encouraged to think that ‘identifying as’ whoever is relevant, rather than biology and age for finding shoes that fit.

I have found my people

@BlackForestCake

Out of interest, if you happen to only have one foot, will Schuh sell you one shoe rather than making you buy a pair?

Surely that would be an actual measure of inclusion of marginalised people they could take which would actually be relevant to their business.

This is a very good point.

So many people with various mobility disabilities need one shoe, or very expensive, shoes in different sizes so have to buy 2 pairs. Only one company gives a (small) discount for this.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/if-its-social-justice-companies-want-they-should-start-with-their-workers-pj8m86jb3

Sorry I don't have a share token. Have posted on another thread but thought some might want a read on here. James Kirkup is pretty good on the whole trans debate but this is the first time I've seen anything in the Times business section. I didn't find it until last night. He puts the point that we do, sell us stuff but not your opinions and if your going to do anything, look after the poor and the local communities. Nicely written article, M & S get a good mention

Instead of pretending to be activists on social media, businesses that want to do something socially beneficial — and that means almost all companies — should talk less and act more, with action focused on the people and places closest to them. Never mind telling us what you think about the Middle East, trans rights or statues of dead white men. I want to know how you treat your staff, your suppliers and your neighbours. A small selection

@highame

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/if-its-social-justice-companies-want-they-should-start-with-their-workers-pj8m86jb3

Sorry I don't have a share token. Have posted on another thread but thought some might want a read on here. James Kirkup is pretty good on the whole trans debate but this is the first time I've seen anything in the Times business section. I didn't find it until last night. He puts the point that we do, sell us stuff but not your opinions and if your going to do anything, look after the poor and the local communities. Nicely written article, M & S get a good mention

archive version: archive.is/LeVdh

Instead of pretending to be activists on social media, businesses that want to do something socially beneficial — and that means almost all companies — should talk less and act more, with action focused on the people and places closest to them. Never mind telling us what you think about the Middle East, trans rights or statues of dead white men. I want to know how you treat your staff, your suppliers and your neighbours.

I’m far from alone in that. Recent think tank research shows that the public want companies to be good citizens but not by sounding off online.

@EmbarrassingAdmissions I told them that I had subscribed for shoes not lessons in pronouns and as such I would unsubscribe - which I now have

@ArtemesiaK

I felt tempted to subscribe, just so I could unsubscribe!....

Me too. Still thinking of doing it.

The James Kirkup article is spot on. We want good companies who pay their staff fairly, treat them well etc. All things that cost actual money and time and effort.

Instead we get this nonsense. It's the lazy way of demonstrating that you are doing good. Just so they can tick the diversity box.

It's like they all went to the same powerpoint meeting about 'being down with the kids'.

I suppose this is just the corporate version of 'slactivism' , be seen to be doing something, without actually having to do anything.

@NewlyGranny

So Schuh effectively caters for transmen but not transwomen, then? How very non-inclusive of them. Is that actual hate, I wonder, or do they just need to educate themselves?

Someone needs to post this on Twitter!

I’m actually quite angry on gender dysphoric and gender non-confirming people’s behalf. They are appropriating their struggle for a marketing campaign, whilst making not one tiny improvement to the range of shoes available to them. I would be fuming!

On the subject of inclusion, my MIL wears differently sized shoes on each foot due to disability. A small discount on buying a second pair would be a practical thing they could do if they wanted to be more inclusive.

Clothes for men and women are manufactured differently even in the same size; men are more bulky than women. Its just a biological difference between the sexes.
So a size 6 in a men's shoe would usually be loose on me and the bridge too high.

Thank Goodness the people of Ramallah can rejoice they can no longer buy an overpriced tub of sugar and fat with suspicious things in.

Late to this thread. I got the Schuh email. They are not the only company doing this though. I used to subscribe to the newsletter of an American hair extensions brand, InsertNameHere, back in June I got an email 'let's talk pronouns' with the advice at the end to 'forward this to educate a friend'. In 20 years of subscribing to online store newsletters this is the first issue on which I have recieved emails telling me what to think and how to behave as regards a particular issue.

@MissSeventies

Late to this thread. I got the Schuh email. They are not the only company doing this though. I used to subscribe to the newsletter of an American hair extensions brand, InsertNameHere, back in June I got an email 'let's talk pronouns' with the advice at the end to 'forward this to educate a friend'. In 20 years of subscribing to online store newsletters this is the first issue on which I have recieved emails telling me what to think and how to behave as regards a particular issue.

Are you reporting them to ICO using the grounds given above by a PP?

I'd be annoyed to get this email.

But wouldn't it be great if the increased visibility of trans people meant Schuh and other companies started offering a much wider variety of styles and fits in all sizes, rather than categorised just as 'women' and 'men'. That would be an improvement for a lot of people, both sexes and any gender expression. Personally as a tall female with large, wide feet and non-'girly' taste I'd really welcome this across all clothing and shoe shops!

Hopefully there will be some positive changes to come from the trans movement. We're stuck on some particular points of disagreement, which currently feel impossible to resolve, and make it hard to listen to each other properly, especially online, but I reckon there's a lot most of us would agree on if we got to know each other in real life.

I can't get behind the demands made by the trans activists, but that's because I think that logically there are wider implications for women if they are applied at a policy level. Not because I don't like trans people, or care about how they feel.

Sorry bit of a tangent!

LongBlobson you have a good point, but many of these companies don't intend to actually do anything useful. Expanding "women's" range into bigger sizes would be of practical use to transwomen who wanted that style as well as us women with big feet. But that requires more effort from a company. Sending an email costs them very little and allows them to tick a diversity box. See also Green washing.

@BlackForestCake

Out of interest, if you happen to only have one foot, will Schuh sell you one shoe rather than making you buy a pair?

Surely that would be an actual measure of inclusion of marginalised people they could take which would actually be relevant to their business.

Unlikely! My cousin is an amputee & has a Shoe Buddy who has the other leg.

Every time one of them buys a pair of shoes he sends the unwanted one to the other chap. Apparently they don't always have the same taste, but over 20 years they've both saved a few quid & he says it's fun getting a parcel with a random trainer.

@EndoplasmicReticulum quite! Imagine if GC feminists and trans people teamed up to say hey Schuh, don't patronise us with your virtue signalling emails, make some actual change to the products you're offering...

I totally agree @LongBlobson

I love the shoe buddy anecdote. It’s why I keep coming back to MN.

@CorvusPurpureus, that's brilliant 😄💛.

I'm not against the idea of shoe companies expanding their range, and with more individually made items maybe that will happen, but realistically, the reason more companies don't do this is that there aren't that many people who want the relevant shoes in expanded sizes.

But I have a hard time feeling that people are being seriously oppressed by western clothing standards in any case, we really have more comfortable clothes, more variety, and more accepted variation around individual choice, than almost any society, ever. The most oppressive element to my mind is the sexualisation of popular/fashionable clothing for women and particularly young women.

Anyway - yes to virtue signalling by businesses. And may I add, universities. I've had several emails from my university this year stating their position on things which have nothing to do with their institution, and haven't even occurred in the same country. But I guess that is easier than creating an atmosphere of academic integrity.