The poster for a 1920’s themed restaurant opening in California advised male customers that collared shirts were preferred, and female customers that heels were required. This was so important that they used space on their grand opening marketing poster (below) to write "Ladies: No flat shoes or sandals. Must have heels. Exception will be made if injured." Seriously.
I’ll give you a minute to wrap your head around that and then we’ll talk about this. I’ll give away the ending — there was so much pushback so fast that the restaurant — ridiculously called ProAbition — changed the policy, but in the process a lot of truly screwed up stuff happened.
Considering that it’s a 1920’s theme, let’s remember that the decade saw women win the right to vote, the first woman governor, and the first women competing in the Olympic field events (not in high heels, one assumes). So suggesting that, almost 100 years later, women shouldn’t be allowed to choose our own footwear doesn’t exactly seem like an homage to the age.
While I’m not necessarily against restaurants having dress codes, I think that there is a world of difference between a provision that indicates the level of dress required, and a provision that requires an injury exemption.
Let’s also remember that studies show that high heels are actually injurious to the body in and of themselves. There are no such studies about collared shirts. Also, what constitutes “injured”? Do I need a note from my mum? My doctor? What if I’m not injured now, but I have a reasonable expectation that if I wear heels and drink I’ll end up that way?