Why Nadine Dorries is wrong on high heels
My previous post called for greater gender balance in politics as a means to ensure that female interests are represented in political debate. I would now like to add the caveat, ‘except Nadine Dorries’, to that point. Today her blog reveals that she has ‘smacked it’ to the TUC with her hardline support for the heel wearing female public. She informs us that:
I’m 5ft 3 and need every inch of my Louboutin heels to look my male colleagues in the eye… The TUC need to get real, stop using overtly sexist tactics by discussing women’s stilettos in order to divert attention away from Labour chaos and debate something meaningful
To set the record straight the TUC couldn’t care less whether Nadine Dorries wears Louboutin or Clarks to work, our current policy, which is based on reducing long-term foot problems, is that employers shouldn’t require workers to wear uncomfortable or dangerous footwear. This includes a number of big city institutions and upmarket shops who insist female staff who deal with the public wear slip-on shoes or high heels as part of a dress code.
The new motion on heels has been been put forward to Congress by one of our affiliated unions – unsurprisingly it’s the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists – and calls specifically for:
all employers who have dress codes that promote high heels to examine the hazards their women workers face and ensure
that proper risk assessments are carried out, and that where these show the wearing of high heels is hazardous the high heels should be replaced with sensible and comfortable shoes.
This union is allowed to bring two motions to Congress, and this year has decided that this issue is of practical concern to their members and to the clients they support.
The idea that preventing women from being forced to wear unsuitable clothing to work is sexist is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as the idea that anti-abortion advocate Nadine Dorries is suddenly a champion of women’s rights.