Voices
in
Japan

poll

Do you consider dress codes forcing women to wear high heels at work power harassment?

25 Comments
© Japan Today

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

25 Comments
Login to comment

If it is office work, yes. I support dress code for offices and I think any HR would complain if you show up in jeans and flip-flops, but high heels can be perfectly replaced with low heels or no heel shoes, they don't have to be sneakers. But I voted "depends on the job", because if you work as a model for example, wearing whatever in on the menu is part of your job

0 ( +13 / -13 )

If you think this is harassment, you have no idea what harassment means.

-27 ( +9 / -36 )

I, a man, do not like women's high heels . . . my wife damaged the carpet in our car due to her high heels -- she is not permitted to wear them in the car any more.

-1 ( +11 / -12 )

Of course it's harassment!

9 ( +16 / -7 )

If you think this is harassment, you have no idea what harassment means.

It is still harassment, even if some forms of it are even more egregious.

10 ( +13 / -3 )

Of course it is power harassment. It is one of many ways people are intimidated and bullied in Japanese business culture.

Mark40 - If you think this is harassment, you have no idea what harassment means.

Um, it is 'power' harassment. I'm afraid it is you who has no idea what it means.

14 ( +18 / -4 )

This doesn't fit the dictionary definition of harassment. It is however sexual discrimination.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Don't like the dress code? Don't take the job. I'm a woman and I fully believe in having dress codes. Women are funny, bc we will where heels anywhere else but magically have a problem when it comes to wearing them for work.

-12 ( +6 / -18 )

As a male I came to understand the destructive power of heels when I coached a university team that was participating in an academic competition. The dress code was formal and most of the female team members wore heels, which was a first for most of them.

We only had to do some light walking around a campus and some standing was required in the competition, but not much. Despite that, after two days the female team members were barely able to walk, they looked like they had been doing a forced march barefoot on broken glass the whole time rather than doing something that required no physical work at all. The heels just destroyed them.

Its insane to require something that borders on torture be worn as part of a job. I always tell students NOT to wear heels if they can.

14 ( +17 / -3 )

In recent articles, I wonder what exactly is meant by "high heels". Some posters have pointed out that the accompanying pictures do not show high heels. Could it be a translation thing? Perhaps what is considered low heels in the west are high heels in Japan...

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Don't know about harrassment. It's a certain indicator of a person who can't think logically. WTF does it matter what kind of footwear a person wears? Is she going to operate the cash register with her toes?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Harassment because of the word "required".

4 ( +5 / -1 )

High heels cause lower back, hip, knee and achilles tendon issues. Coercion to do anything that obviously is a threat to health is not only harassment but deliberate cruelty.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Wearing high hills as DRESS CODE is "not" power harassment!!! "Most companies" have a dress code that "everyone" has to follow! Why is it any different when its applied to a woman? Stop crying and dress as your boss tells you. Is not harassment, its just cloathing!

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

I can't imagine a job where high heels are necessary.

Certain type of shoes (like no sneakers) makes sense to me, specially if facing customers, but my brain fails to understand why high heels would ever be considered as necessary.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

It's harassment when men are allowed to wear flats and women must wear heels. HR can easily say business attire. No reason a women must wear a skirt if she wants to wear pants. And she could certainly wear pumps or flats which are stylish and professional business wear.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Sorry, but anything that is not an option is force, and force is abuse.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Don't like the dress code? Don't take the job.

Well what happens when a huge percentage of jobs have the same illogical rules drastically reducing your freedom to chose your occupation and your pursuit of happiness?

This is the sort of illogical argument people make to defend all sorts of corporate bullying and interference in the lives of their workers (and also against the minimum wage).

The "don't like it, don't sign up" mantra is a uniquely stupid point of view since iIt ignores reality by completely removing from the equation the obvious power imbalance between the employers and the employee based on the fact that everyone has to earn a living, and sometimes, if you let them, a huge proportion of companies will make the same unreasonable demands, leaving the worker with no choice but to comply against their better judgement unless they want to struggle.

It is a position that suggests a company is justified in wanting anything from their workers just by virtue of the fact that that is what they want. There are people who are so blind to this power balance it is almost as if they cannot imagine that a demand can be objectively "unreasonable" - it is as if they don't know the words unreasonable, unnecessary, illogical and onerous are even in the dictionary.

This is the same mindset that thinks it reasonable to order an employee to the other end of the country just after he has bought a new house and his wife has given birth, as in the recent Kaneka case.

Don't trust anyone who uses the "don't like it, go somewhere else" argument to defend poor corporate behavior since those who cannot see the unequal power relationships that govern and shape society are failing to see a huge and critical factor that impacts human social structure and decision making.

This myopic stance (either through ignorance, or on purpose, in cases where it is to the advantage of those in power to subscribe to this positions themselves) is the source of a great deal of human misery (and the foundation of traditional right wing political philosophy).

4 ( +5 / -1 )

How many wear high heels before they start a job the forces them to wear them ?

Just because they are female does not mean they wore them before.

as said above high heels do cause damage to the feet, legs and back.

mu-daJune 12 08:14 am JST

High heels cause lower back, hip, knee and achilles tendon issues.

Any who suffer injuries at work because they have to wear them should sue their employer for industrial related injuries as high heels are part of the dress code.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Just to be specific about the injuries high heels are causing:

https://www.medicaldaily.com/no-pain-no-gain-high-heels-can-lead-dozen-foot-and-leg-injuries-320096

The motivation, "acceptance and necessity", to wear high heels is not that much different from the tradition of foot binding in China. "Foot binding eventually spread to most social classes by the Qing dynasty and the practice finally came to an end in the early 20th century. Bound feet were at one time considered a status symbol as well as a mark of beauty. Yet, foot binding was a painful practice and significantly limited the mobility of women, resulting in lifelong disabilities for most of its subjects. [...]  It has been estimated that by the 19th century, 40–50% of all Chinese women may have had bound feet, and up to almost 100% among upper-class Chinese women." In other words it was considered classy. (quotes from Wikipedia on foot binding).

It is depressing that women still have to sqeeze there feet in footwear which is detrimental to their health to please mens warped conceptions of beauty and appearance in a corporate environment - class, in the 21 century.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Yes. Some people can't wear high heels due to injury in their feet.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I'm on the fence about this one. Part of me thinks this will never change. Luckily I work in a creative field, so we can wear whatever we want. But I do believe men have zero to say on this matter since they have no requirement to wear high heels.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Power harassment? …...Well never been one for cliché.

It is a simple question of a duty of care. Office dress codes should not require employees to be at risk of osteoarthritis.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Only if a girl has legs for days

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Why would women wear heels in any other occasion if they hate them so much then?

Dress codes exist for a reason

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites