# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most of us have dealt with annoying dress codes at one time or another - but here's a new one that'll make you see red. Twenty-year-old Akua Agyemfra, a waitress at the Canadian chain Jack Astor's Bar and Grill, was sent home from work for (wait for it) wearing her hair in a bun.

The restaurant requires female employees to wear their hair down at all times for reasons that remain unclear. (I'll go out on a limb and guess that these "reasons" are related to sexism and racism.) After taking out her hair extensions, Agyemfra put her natural hair in a bun for a totally practical reason. As she explained to CBC News, "a lot of Caucasian people don't really understand" that her hair just doesn't "stay down" without extensions.

Agyemfra explained this straightforward concept to her manager, but she was still forced to leave work - even after showing her boss exactly why wearing her hair down wasn't the best option.

"I take pride in my natural hair. I took it out for [my manager] in the office so she can see that it doesn't really go down," Agyemfra said. "She understood that, from my understanding."

She was sent home anyway, and Agyemfra says the incident lead to "embarrassing" conversations with co-workers when she was forced to explain her abrupt departure from her workplace.

By the company's rules, Agyemfra can keep her natural, preferred hair texture - but she won't be permitted to style it in a practical manner. Or, she can go back to wearing extensions despite the fact that she'd prefer to embrace her natural locks.

In response to the incident, a spokeswoman with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) was forced to state the obvious when she told CBC that dress codes "should not rely on stereotypes or sexist ideas of how men or women should look."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Reason This Woman Got Sent Home From Work Is NOT Okay

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most of us have dealt with annoying dress codes at one time or another - but here's a new one that'll make you see red. Twenty-year-old Akua Agyemfra, a waitress at the Canadian chain Jack Astor's Bar and Grill, was sent home from work for (wait for it) wearing her hair in a bun.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Women around the world have constantly dealt with the sexist values that are perpetuated by dress codes. In 2017, people should properly understand that many female dress codes come with sexist undertones.

Today, women are more empowered and ready to advocate for their rights than ever before, especially since the 2016 election in which 38 women of color were voted into Congress despite Hillary Clinton losing the presidential race.

However, even as women make great political strides, sexism continues to run deep within society. Fixing it starts with recognizing the everyday struggles that women of all ages face in the form of dress codes.

Last Sunday, United Airlines refused to board an employee's two teenage, female family members for wearing leggings on one of their flights, according to the New York Times.

The airline defended their actions, saying that "The passengers this morning were United pass riders who were not in compliance with our dress code policy for company benefit travel," according to The New York Times.

United officials reportedly responded that while passengers are welcome to wear what they like on flights, employees and their families are subject to more restrictions since they are representing the airline.

But the representation isn't the issue here. It's that society condones enforcing dress codes for girls. The "formality" that United wants to bring onto those representing them is, to a degree, subjective. Also, nobody wants to sit on a plane for hours on end in dress pants or denim.

Yet even when women dress modestly, they are subjected to some form of discrimination in the workplace.

The European Court of Justice ruled that employers banning any religious symbol is not considered discriminatory if the rule applies to all religious symbols. This ruling upholds dress codes that ban Muslim women from wearing hijabs in the workplace.

These laws directly discriminate against Muslim women because they infringe on a woman's right to choose how they express themselves.

Dress codes, whether in the workplace or schools, are meant to remove distractions and ensure that everyone can get things done. However, dress codes also contribute to rigid gender stereotypes and the hypersexualization of young girls.

While it is legal for schools to create and implement a dress code, schools cannot use their dress codes to single out students in a specific group, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

It is important to ensure that dress codes are updated to reflect current style choices and break gender stereotypes to be inclusive for everyone.

This type of discrimination can be found at school dances, where schools have reportedly turned female students away because they chose to wear a tux over a dress.

In late March, students of Stanton College Prep (SCP) in Jacksonville, Fla. protested dress code posters that depicted those who complied with the code were "good girls," according to CNN. Students used the hashtag #spcgoodgirl and wore purple and white to school in protest to the posters, leading to the school apologizing and removing the posters.

Immediate outrage spread not only because of the last-minute dress code implementation, but for the sexist implications.

From a young age, girls are taught they are responsible for a boy's actions. This mindset has justified the enforcement of women's modesty, and the "slut-shaming" of those who don't conform to these standards.

In May 2015, 27-year-old British woman Nicola Thorp was sent home without pay by her employers for refusing to wear heels in her workplace, according to the BBC. Thorp started a petition to ensure British law could not allow employers to force women to wear heels at work, which led to committees concluding that the company had broken the law.

Now, members of the British Parliament are calling on the government to create regulations that will not allow employers to force women to wear heels in the workplace.

America needs to follow the open-eyed bureaucracy of Britain and not push away the glaringly sexist implications that dress codes bring.

In order to strive for gender equality in the workplace and society, it is imperative to address the sexist undertones that exist in different aspects of various cultures and lifestyles, such as the dress codes we follow.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sexist dress codes for women aren't fitting in with today's society - Daily Titan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Women around the world have constantly dealt with the sexist values that are perpetuated by dress codes. In 2017, people should properly understand that many female dress codes come with sexist undertones. Today, women are more empowered and ready to advocate for their rights than ever before, especially since the 2016 election in which 38 ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Are workplace codes governing women's dress simply business regimentation - or the policing/fetishizing/sexualizing of women?

I guess that only the totally obtuse would endorse a mandatory dress code that requires women - and only women - to wear high heels to work. Googling "high heels" for this article, I had to wade through page after page of glitzy ads and articles extolling heels, and many other pages that discuss the medical and safety issues raised by wearing heels.

There is an obvious ambivalence here about high heels at work generally: they are pushed as empowering to women or feminizing, while at the same time they are condemned as being a male-demanded imprisoning or immobilizing (and hurting) of women. Like the binding of girls' feet in some cultures.

So much ink spilled over this issue, and so many tears shed (from foot pain)...

Who knew that high heels could engender such a vigorous and emotional debate?
The Current Debate Over Mandatory Wearing of High Heels To Work
The UK is in the news these days since a receptionist there, Nicola Thorp, was told by her employer that she had to wear high heels to work. And not just "high heels" - the employer's dress code required "non-opaque tights ... hair with 'no visible roots' ... 'regularly re-applied' makeup - and ... shoes with a heel between 2 to 4 inches (5 to 10 centimeters) high." Now that's specific - and when Thorpe complained that men were not so burdened, she was sent home without pay.

But you don't mess with Nicola. She started a petition drive that wound up with enough signatures to be eligible for a recent debate in Parliament.

And a hearty Parliamentary debate took place, the result of which is that "the government said the law already specifies that dress codes must be reasonable and make equivalent requirements for men and women. Employers should not be discriminating against women in what they require them to wear."

Victory?

Last year, a Kansas state senator/committee chairman "issued an 11-point code of conduct to guide women on how to dress. The Topeka Capital-Journal reported that [his] rules don't include any restrictions on men because, according to [him], men don't need instructions on how to look professional. ... He said he wrote the instruction because provocatively dressed women are a distraction."

"Oh, for crying out loud, what century is this?" another senator said.
Heels As Status And Power Symbols
Where did the whole idea of high heels come from?

The high heel became a status symbol during the Renaissance, and " by 1580, men wore them, and a person with authority or wealth was often referred to as 'well-heeled.'"

"Well heeled!" Who knew?

With status/power involved, class and gender are not far behind.

Sociologist Lisa Wade noted that while high heels were "Originally a shoe for high-status men, it was adopted by the lower classes. Elites responded by heightening the heel. The higher the heel, the more impractical the shoe. Eventually the working classes couldn't keep up with the escalation because they had to, you know, work."

She noted that "when heels are associated with power, this fits in with dominant ideals of masculinity. When heels are associated with frivolous fashion or superficial erotic value, they are associated with femininity."

And she quoted another scholar who, when asked whether men would ever again wear heels, said, "Absolutely... If it becomes a signifier of actual power, then men will be as willing to wear it as women."

Hmmm.
Scrutinizing Women's Bodies
Invoking the UK heroine mentioned above, Professor Emma Bell observed that "Women are scrutinised far more than men for what they wear and high heels epitomise the lose-lose nature of getting the dress code right. Speaking out against the policy, Thorp said: 'There is a history behind high heels that has a sexualised element to it. ... More column inches are devoted to discussing the dress codes of women political leaders than to scrutinising the sartorial choices of men in equivalent positions of power and authority.'"
Heels As Femininity - "Painful, Impractical and Frivolous"
Sociologist Zuleyka Zevallos added another element to the equation. She noted that "heels become a symbol of femininity for the same reason they were once loved by wealthy European men: they are painful, impractical and frivolous."

"Men no longer wear heels because social ideas of gender have changed - men are supposed to embody practicality while women are treated as being irrational."
Heels To Immobilize; Heels As Power And Freedom From Patriarchic Control
So far we have seen heels as symbols of both power/status, as well as femininity, and as sexualizing women for the "scrutiny" of men. Quite a range of meaning.

I found the apparent ambivalence about heels starkly summed up in the following two opposing paragraphs:

(1) "Buzzfeed reports that shoes were used to 'immobilize women' starting in Imperial China and the Middle Ages. From torturous foot-binding practices to three-foot-tall platforms, women's feet have served as a literal representation of female oppression. ... Women are also pressured to wear high heels in order to be sexually appealing."

(2) "But high heels can also be a way for a woman to break free of patriarchal control. ... women in the Enlightenment turned to high heels to appear taller and more masculine; they found the shoes lent them a sense of authority. ... women today turn to high heels to appear 'more dominating or powerful in work-related circumstances.'"

So what should a woman at work do?
Heels As ... Well, Let's Just Leave It To Shakespeare and Freud
Let's cite two men on the street for our finale. Buzzfeed commented that "Puritans in Colonial Massachusetts went so far as to ban high heels, believing that they were lewd. For Shakespeare, women's feet were vaginal symbols ... for Sigmund Freud [not a paragon of feminism], 'high heels were a vessel to a woman's genitals.'" Oy vey.

On that note, I'll pick up my male stilettos and say bye.
Richard B. Cohen has litigated and arbitrated complex business and employment disputes for almost 40 years, and is a partner in the NYC office of the national "cloud" law firm FisherBroyles. He is the creator and author of his firm's Employment Discrimination blog, and received an award from the American Bar Association for his blog posts. You can reach him at Richard.Cohen@fisherbroyles.com and follow him on Twitter at @richard09535496.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mandatory High Heels At Work: Sexist Or Empowering?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Are workplace codes governing women's dress simply business regimentation - or the policing/fetishizing/sexualizing of women? I guess that only the totally obtuse would endorse a mandatory dress code that requires women - and only women - to wear high heels to work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Breaking down the stigma around mental health means f*** all if there's no funding

Her name is Hollie, and she's a student at Farragut High School in Knox County, Tenessee.

Hollie, whose grasp of spelling, grammar and the patriarchy is clearly a lot better than mine was when I was a teen, has put together a petition on Change.org in order to protest against the sexist, outdated dress codes applied in US High Schools.

Currently, High Schools can send young women home from school, therefore missing time in class, for sins like exposed collar bones or bare upper arms.

Often, the reason given for these restrictions aren't to do with a professional dress code, nor are they to do with comfort or safety. In fact, even in 2017, the fact that a strap top is 'distracting to boys' is often given as a reason.

As if that wasn't bad enough, exposed skin being 'distracting for male teachers' is bandied around, without anyone suggesting that if men can't keep their eyes of a teenage girl they possibly shouldn't be working in a school environment.

The good news is that Hollie is doing something about the fact that this blatantly sexist double standard is being propagated by educated adults.

On the petition Hollie writes:

'I have decided to start a petition in protest to the irrationally strict dress code rules in the Knox county school system. The general guidelines for students, majorly females, and the clothes they can wear in this school system is shocking and, frankly, quite disappointing. We cannot ignore the simple truth that clothing stores do not sell a wide variety of shorts for girls that are below fingertip length, if any, so young women are forced to wear long pants and jeans in 90-100 degree weather simply to avoid suspension.

Not only does this present health risks, such as nausea, overheating and even fainting, but it promotes victim blaming in the (unfortunately, extremely prevalent) case of sexual harassment among students. In conversations with many teachers and male students, I have been told time and time again that shorts above fingertip length do not present a distraction in class, disproving the major theoretical excuse for why the fingertip rule is in use.

Going off of this, are we as a county seriously willing to send a girl home and deprive her of her education simply because her shorts are 'too short'? Due to the aforementioned reasoning, you are prioritizing the sexualization of a woman's body over her right to learn and grow as a human being. Therefore, I am approaching the county board of education peacefully and asking, on the behalf of all students, to please reform your thinking on what kind of clothing is appropriate. Be the change. Thank you for your time.'

You can sign Hollie's petition here.

MORE: This girl made her sister a brilliant T-shirt to fight back against sexist dress codes

MORE: Swedish handyman responds to sexist dress codes by wearing high heels to work for a day

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Amazing teen launches petition to destroy sexist dress codes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Breaking down the stigma around mental health means f*** all if there's no funding Her name is Hollie, and she's a student at Farragut High School in Knox County, Tenessee.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
VANCOUVER - Servers clad in short skirts and stilettos could soon be a thing of the past, as British Columbia and Ontario take steps to ditch sexualized dress codes. But women in other industries can face unwritten expectations of lipstick and heels, say workplace equality experts.

Researchers and human rights lawyers say a broader discussion is needed of the pressures faced by women to spend more time and money on their looks than men. Gender stereotypes can permeate all kinds of workplaces, including when it comes to physical appearance, they say.

"Women can be judged more harshly due to these pervasive stereotypes," said Julie Nugent, vice-president and centre leader at the Catalyst Research Centre for Corporate Practice, part of a multinational non-profit organization. "When you think about dress and physical appearance, women face higher standards in a lot of cases than men."

Nugent said women leaders are often subject to what's known as the "Goldilocks syndrome," where they're perceived as either too tough or too soft, but never "just right." This also affects expectations for how women dress, in which their looks are scrutinized more than men's, she said.

Sometimes that (focus on appearance) could even take away from a woman's abilities or her leadership style

"Sometimes that (focus on appearance) could even take away from a woman's abilities or her leadership style," she said. "That can be sort of white noise in the background."

B.C. Premier Christy Clark recently voiced support for a private member's bill that would have banned mandatory high heels in the workplace. But rather than pass the bill, her government is looking for the most "effective way" to make the fix, which could include changes to regulations.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission put forward a policy position last year making it clear that requiring female staff to wear high heels, low-cut tops or short skirts could violate the human rights code. It also contacted major restaurant and bar companies, with many saying they had already changed their dress code or planned to do so.

But in the U.K., the issue has also been debated in the context of professional workplaces. British lawmakers condemned sexist dress codes after Nicola Thorp complained that her employment agency required "regularly reapplied" make-up and shoes with at least a five-centimetre heel while she was working at a finance firm.

Renu Mandhane, chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, said the issue comes up most often in restaurants and bars.

"Often, when you're talking about offices and businesses, it's more about the implied expectation, rather than a formalized dress code," she said.

She said businesses can have a dress code as long as it's not discriminatory by imposing different or more onerous obligations on women. For example, it can't require that women wear skinny jeans and men wear straight-cut jeans - it should provide both options for both genders.

"If women want to wear skinny jeans, that's totally fine. It's about providing equivalent options so that they don't feel they have to wear something they may not feel comfortable with."

Robyn Durling, communications director of the B.C. Human Rights Clinic, said the province's human rights code already bans dress codes that discriminate on the basis of gender. But any regulatory changes by the premier would reaffirm the human rights code, he said.

He said Clark's government could amend workers' compensation policy to state that high-heeled shoes can cause injuries and therefore employers can no longer require staff to wear them.

It's important to recognize that men in certain industries probably feel equivalent pressure to look credible for their roles, said Karen Craiggs-Milne, a gender and diversity consultant.

"But that gender division, where women are taking time to put on make-up and do their hair and spend an extra hour in the morning just to be ready for the role before they're even judged on the work itself, I think is part of a broader issue of discrimination that shows up in the workplace."

She said the wage gap, lower promotion rates and expectations that women will do the office dishes or order lunch are other ways in which gender bias manifests in work environments, and are not disconnected from issues of physical appearance.

Diane Craig, president and founder of Corporate Class, which trains aspiring business leaders, said appearance is one pillar of "executive presence," but it's probably the least important one. She disagreed that women are required spend more money or time on their looks.

"We get our nails done. We get our eyebrows shaped. There's all of those things. It's like high maintenance. It's not that it's necessary," she said. "What's most important is that you are well-groomed and appear professional."

Cissy Pau, a principal consultant with Clear HR Consulting, also said she didn't think women faced an unfair burden compared to men. Presentation is important regardless of gender, she said.

"If you look completely dishevelled and that's comfortable for you, is that going to distract the person from taking your work seriously?" she asked.

"If you come in looking presentable and clean-cut and not presenting anything that's questionable, now appearance isn't an issue and your work becomes what people focus on."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
As provinces move to ditch heels in sexist dress codes, experts say servers aren't the only ones stuck tottering

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
VANCOUVER - Servers clad in short skirts and stilettos could soon be a thing of the past, as British Columbia and Ontario take steps to ditch sexualized dress codes. But women in other industries can face unwritten expectations of lipstick and heels, say workplace equality experts.