Put the boot in to fight sexism at work

There is no purpose to a high heel, other than to sexualise, writes Suzanne Harrington

MEN! How would you feel about being required to wear high heels to work every day? A few of you might love it, maybe if you’re Panti Bliss or Eddie Izzard or the LadyBoys of Bangkok. But most of you would probably think, ugh how uncomfortable, I feel like a giraffe on rollerblades, oh no I’m pitching forward, I can’t run for the bus, ow ow ow, my back hurts, my feet are killing me, crikey, these things are a nightmare.

Massive shout out then to Nicola Thorp, who unexpectedly asked this question on her first day as a temp at PriceWaterhouseCooper in London. Thorp, an actress, was sent home for not wearing heels. The organisation’s ‘female grooming policy’ requires women to wear high heels — two to four inch — so that they look ‘feminine’. Thorp had not turned up to her receptionist job in hobnailed boots, but in smart black work shoes. Flat ones.

When she queried whether her male colleagues were expected to wear shoes with a two to four-inch heel, she was laughed at; when she asked how the height of her shoes might impact on her ability to do her job, she was told to go out and buy a pair of heels, or go home without pay. She went home without pay.

On her way home she did not sigh wearily and go to the shoe shop to buy herself a pair of high heels, and then stop at Boots to get those gel pad shoe inserts which manufacturers say make the wearing of high heels marginally less agonising.

No, Nicola Thorp started an online petition, stating that workplace dress codes which require women to wear high heels are sexist and need to change.

At the time of writing, this petition has gathered over 124,000 signatures, which means it will be debated in the UK parliament, and is probably not what PwC had in mind when they sent the new temp home. Corporate dress code policy has hurriedly been amended.

This is not about the good or bad of high heels (as someone who works in bunny slippers, it’s personally irrelevant).

This is about an updated, proper version of what Sex & The City once termed a woman’s right to shoes; Carrie Bradshaw thought the ability to both purchase and run in high heels equalled liberation, which is frankly a bit last century.

What Nicola Thorp has achieved is highlighting the absurdity of being obliged, if you are in possession of a vagina, to wear uncomfortable footwear to work.

There is no purpose to a high heel, other than to sexualise. Which makes high heels ideal if you work as a stripper, where you are commodifying your sexuality, but not as an office worker, where you are commodifying your ability to do office work. You’d think this would be fairly obvious, but even in 2016, apparently it isn’t. Good on Nicola Thorp for putting the boot in, instead of tiptoeing away.