A 9-hour shift in excessive heels: ‘i’m so hungry, however can’t face on foot to Pret’

Imogen Fox in heels at the Guardian’s London offices

I cheated. Of route I did. attending to my table involves a school run, seven escalators and several hundred stairs – no longer even the podiatric sadists who reportedly despatched domestic a receptionist this week for refusing to wear excessive heels on a 9-hour shift might expect that, could they?

To recap for people who overlooked heelgate: Nicola Thorp, a temp at p.c, turned into allegedly sent domestic from work with out pay for refusing to conform with the get dressed code set by way of Portico, the organisation that offers receptionist offerings at the metropolis accountancy firm. stating that male colleagues have been no longer asked to do the equal, Thorp known as the get dressed code debilitating, sexist and previous.

Nicola Thorp
Nicola Thorp. photo: BBC information/PA
So right here i’m, a “style character who doesn’t put on heels”, ditching my bushy Birkenstocks for 10cm stilettos. with the aid of 2pm, I’m so hungry from having had no lunch because I in reality can’t face the seven-minute walk to Pret a Manger from my desk. I have to agree with Thorp’s evaluation. Tripping over a colleague’s rucksack throughout an workplace thoughts assembly turned into every other low point (definitely signalling “capable and efficient” there, huh?).

In reality, it’s the semantics now not the aesthetics of excessive heels which might be so thrilling. obtained knowledge has it that residences aren’t considered to be very businesslike; they don’t have the doubtful honour of being able to shout “corporate” loud sufficient. Semantics are the purpose why I spent maximum of my day in heels attracting feedback like “you’re plenty extra intimidating today”. They’re also the cause that female actors who choose some thing aside from Jimmy Choo Minnys, the Hollywood-permitted strappy sandal, are taken into consideration to be creating a statement – see Susan Sarandon this week at Cannes.

truely, it’s no longer that i’ve a no heels policy. some extensive-leg trousers simplest puddle right (technical cloth wardrobe term, right there) with the hidden help of a couple of heels. They may be a useful device. however for the beyond few years the concept of high heels as a look of their very own proper has been sidelined. The era of the vertiginous It shoe is over. The idea consigned to the fashion gutter even as chunky skater footwear, Stan Smith trainers and, maximum these days, elongated Gucci loafers, strode expectantly past.
women proportion flat-shoe photos in harmony with brushed off receptionist
read greater
What high heels certainly signify is less approximately fashion and extra about mind-set. look at Victoria Beckham. once the patron saint of excessive heels, at her catwalk suggests she’s the backstage employee-bee tomboy in Stan Smiths. reduce to the crimson carpet at Cannes and she or he’s busy boomeranging herself in heels and diamonds. The equipment exchange from style dressmaker to superstar centres especially on the footwear.

In fact, this week’s controversy changed into as an awful lot awful press for the style reputation of high heels as it changed into for metropolis accountancy companies. If high heels can most effective truely semaphore a corporate business attitude, or even that of being in rate, then they have got their paintings reduce out to compete with flat footwear, that may send a far more elegant message. because fashion fetishises all types of garb categories, however glass-building workplace wear is rarely one in all them.