-
an age old question … heels!
being totally aware of the ever present moderator, i am having huge difficulties deciding which forum this post should be put in. it’s not really trans gender, transsexual, transdressing (thanks Steffi), or cross dressing related per se (apologies if i have missed out anyone – please do not consider this miss out as a personal attack
), but i’m sure that there is more than one member of tr who has a more than passing interest in heel heights.Moderator
Quote:Virginia – thank you for sharing your dilemma – which I cannot resolve. But I will move the post to a private forum to avoid any problem with the copyright of quoted material.
Ever present moderator – with a smile on her face
does this fall under fun stuff (well, it’s kind of), serious stuff (well it’s kind of – e.g. it could come under religion), flag pole (well, it’s kind of … what do you think?), media watch (not really transgender related, but it is media related), so please forgive me if i get it wrong. then again, maybe it should go in the general discussion forum (but this doesn’t really relate to generals
) and then again, maybe it should be in the transgender faq section under clothing and shoes (but again, this isn’t really about transgender issues).anyway … here goes.
an interesting article appeared today about the trade union movement in the uk trying to dissuade (i kind of like suede, by the way) women from wearing high heels in the work place. go figure, is all i can think.
sure it’s backed by the society of chiropodist and podiatrists. and i can understand their logic for people who have to spend all day on their feet or they work in environments where it may be good health and safety practise to wear sensible shoes (e.g. libraries – ever had a roget’s thesaurus fall on your peep toe pumps?).
but a total ban? forget about it! power to the people, is all i can say. let us choose whether or not we want to be safe or not – subject to health and safety issues, of course (mmmm … i wonder where you can get steel capped peep toe pumps? or a job in a library? or both?).
have a read and decide for yourself:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/daggers-drawn-over-stilettos-1787950.html
and for those with a slow connection (probably most of australia, but that’s another (not transgender related) story), the full article:
Daggers drawn over stilettos
A TUC vote to ban high heels in the workplace has won support from doctors – but derision from women
By Michael Savage
Wednesday, 16 September 2009
In an SCP survey, four out of 10 women admitted to wearing shoes they knew did not fit properly simply because they were fashionable.
Few women can resist the allure of a pair of high heels – and few men can ignore the results. By throwing the pelvis forward, the bottom backward, tightening the calf muscles and making the legs look longer and sleeker, heels accentuate a woman’s natural curves – and that’s before she even starts walking.
However, the appeal of stilettos appears to be lost on delegates at the Trades Union Congress, who demanded yesterday that employers take a stand against the risks of wearing high heels in the workplace.
Speakers at the TUC conference in Liverpool labelled the style sexist, saying the shoes caused women serious health problems and cost the economy millions in lost working days. They said employers should be compelled to carry out risk assessments on heels, and they “should be replaced with sensible and comfortable shoes” where they posed a risk.
However, the TUC was criticised by businesswomen and politicians for tabling the motion. Karren Brady, the director of Birmingham City Football Club, said she would rather have her laptop taken away than her high heels.
Nadine Dorries, the Conservative MP for for Mid-Bedfordshire, said the unions were discussing trivial matters. “I’m 5ft 3in and need every inch of my Louboutin heels to look my male colleagues in the eye,” she added. “If high heels were banned in Westminster, no one would be able to find me.”
The Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists (SCP), which is leading the campaign, said it was not trying to outlaw stilettos at work. “This motion is not about telling women what to do. It is about choice,” said its spokesman Lorraine Jones. “What about the women who don’t have a choice, such as shop workers, cabin crew? [They are] women who are on their feet all day and are required by their employers to wear high heels as part of their dress code.”
She added: “This is not a trivial problem. We are not trying to ban high heels – they are good for glamming up but not good for the workplace. Women should have a choice of wearing healthier, more comfortable shoes.”
According to chiropodists, high heels increase pressure on the balls of the feet, the hips and the knees. As they age, women go through twice as many arthritic changes in their knee joints as men. Heels can cause such annoying ailments as trapped nerves, corns and heel pain, and are linked to longer-term damage such as hammer toes, knee and back pain, shortened Achilles tendons and bunions.
In an SCP survey released last week, four out of 10 women admitted to wearing shoes they knew did not fit properly simply because they were fashionable. Mary Turner, of the GMB union, said the TUC had discussed a “meaningful issue” about women’s rights, and criticised Ms Dorries for suggesting that women needed sexy shoes to get noticed. “I feel sorry for [her],” she said. “Is anyone in any doubt that if shorter men were made to wear platforms to work every day there would be a public outcry? This is about the right to choose.”
The criticism provoked a swift riposte from Ms Dorries, who posted pictures of her two latest pairs of high-heeled shoes on her internet blog.
“I applaud the SCP for pointing out the dangers,” she said. “However, I now respectfully ask them to leave it to me and every other woman in the land to decide whether or not we wear high heels [to work].
“Men have the killer instinct; we have the killer heels. If you want to know how that works, try taking them off us.”
and here is a link to mp nadine dorries’ blog (isn’t she a breath of fresh air? maybe kev should send belinda neal to work with her for a decade or two – not that i am implying that there is anything fundamentally critical about belinda’s beliefs, choices or lifestyle):
http://blog.dorries.org/Default.aspx
again, for those with slow connection, the full blog (sorry, my html skills are inadequate to copy and paste the picture of her fabulous diamond soled christian louboutins (nice even though not made of suede), and note how she has a very impressive response to a personal attack):
Well, I have just been attacked, twice from the TUC platform.
In the first attack, the article I wrote with Karen Brady in the Sun was referred to. I have been told that apparently, the motion mover said that Karen and I and the Sun newspaper in which we wrote, should be collectively ashamed.
If that wasn’t enough; the seconder linked me with the Daily Mail and said she doubted that I had ever worked a ten hour shift in heels. Wrong. I frequently work 16.
I applaud the society of Chiropodists for pointing out to me the dangers of this; however, having done so I now respectfully ask them to leave it me and every other high heel wearing woman in the land to decide whether or not we wear high heels in the workplace..
I’ve said it all before; I object to any attempt by the TUC to bring me down to size. Men have the killer instinct, we have the killer heels. If you want to know how that works, try taking them of us.
I thought I would post a picture of my last two work shoe purchases. My Christian Louboutin’s and a lovely pair with a faux diamond on the sole which reminded me of the Paul Simon song.
She wears diamonds on the soles of her shoes.
finally, all i can say is, karren brady … she’s my kind of lady!
-
5 Replies
-
Welcome to the modern age girls. 70 odd years ago a man did not like other people smoking and guess what? his Name Adolf Hitler.
While I do not defend smoking in anyway you asking how the hell does my comments relate to the above article Virginia posted on.
Well you see its all related in some strange way to personal choice!~
Thats right! Personal choice, remember that option in your life when you had been young free and ready to make your choices in life.
What you forgoten those things? Ok let me refresh your memory, You gone out, got a car, you brought what you could and afford and life seemed so full of options your head could explode.
But not so long ago in Galaxy far far away it was all up to you who you wanted and needed to be. Thats right people said it was your personal choice.
Thats not to say you have those options now, but slowly over the years you could say the few have been out to screw it all up for the many!
The new age nazis come out saying. Don’t smoke, Don’t drink, You must wear bright colors at work so we spot your a good drone in orange and yellow, Now the battle continues as females are told high heels are out and we must bow to our masters.
Sure its down to health and safety reasons, But guess what its also down to those who ware high heels as Personal choice.
Yes I worn 6 inch, it hurts like heel and yes been out on the street, but had a good time, and felt every inch a woman.So good on the girls for standing up to the mighty masters who tell you how things must work and what you muct do.
In this day and age I often wonder in some little guy in 1945 some how got out of Germany and is hiding somewhere we do not know of making these new wonderful rules up still. -
No problem
Ok, wear what ever you want
But stick a clause in the worker contract that they cannot sue anyone if one falls because of high heels.
Then both parties are liberated
Georgette
-
It is a bit of a long bow to draw Hitler and the TUC together, surely? Attempts at protecting their members from long term spinal problems is not such a crime, that is their role.
While I consider myself a libertarian ( or is is librarian?) no..there are limits. For example only, a smoker who infects all around them, their children and family eg, to the same habit, has no ” right” in my opinion. Smoking outside is fine but the medical costs for a lifetime of self abuse , the loss to the community of a person dying horribly in an oxygen tent, the loss of a kids daddy,is borne by the community. Surely the community has a right to have a say in these cases?
This applies to a lot of behaviours , I know , but it will become a huge issue as the tax dollar reduces as we all age.
I think that the only way to stave off the advances of totalitarian imposition from above ,is for each of us to behave in a way that nurtures each member of the” group”and to be responsible for our own actions (and maybe pay for our own medical costs if we must have the right to self abuse.) OK, I MAY be a bit of a socialist!! -
Hello Christina
I understand all that points of view on this debate, but just how far are you to let people tell you how things will run.
Its not just smoking and I did point that out, while safety is a concern for all of us, its the amount of danger you place in your own life that makes it worth living.
You may inform members on the dangers of high heels or high hells as I use to call them. 😆 But facts still stand its of personal choice. We seem so much of a hurry to turn the clock backwords and telling others this is how you should be over having that touch of something you like to not join the drones.
Alas I rest my points of view not wishing to turn this post into an flame war except to say just how far do we keep letting others tell us what to do thats all.
As we seen in the past Dictatorships gain ground when they first remove small rights and knock out the bigger ones after.
-
Cheetara,You are in no danger of a flame war from my side , I do agree that it is a matter of degree in how we live our lives and I make the line when others are put at risk by our behaviours. People have a right to be upset by things as much as others have a right to do things that they enjoy. I also think that the time will come when society will not be able to afford to pay to patch up peoples lives of self abuse , perhaps user pays or at least taxes collected from such things as cigarettes go directly to caring for the sick due to the drug. It just seems unfair that a lot of money goes for care to the person with self induced Emphysema while someone must wait years in pain for a knee replacement. I am not suggesting that smokers be left to their misery, just pointing out thata decreasing health dollar will call for tough regulation and that means heavy Govt intrusion ( hence my note to totalitarian regimes) I am not picking on smokers , yachtsmen, mountaineers, cyclists, fishers, bush walkers etc can incur huge costs when things go wrong ..who should pay? that is the question? We all want lower taxes and yet we mostly expect ” they” to pay for our rescue. It is something we should think about.
A bit off the “heels” debate I know, I love high heels myself , it was really the Hitler reference that I had issue with. Did he ban high heels? They were heavy into drag in those days , SS Panza Death’s Head black uniform..now that’s what I call drag!!!
