Is She For Real?

[Longboard]

I know many folks here cut the Tom's shoes people more slack than I do,
but can this writer really be serious?

But those physical hardships were on full display around our offices on One Day Without Shoes. The usually benign parking lot became an obstacle course of dangerous terrain. The carpeted hallways held potentially harmful items -- staples and thumbtacks -- and the jagged edges of desks and chairs kept threatening unsuspecting toes. Those of us who encountered a snake near the front door, an unfortunate coincidence if there ever was one, felt particularly vulnerable (read: we were terrified). Even within the comfortable confines of a suburban office park, going shoeless was more of undertaking than we could have imagined.
Our day-long adventure reinforced the point: shoes may be a luxurious indulgence for many Americans, but take them away and not only do you forego any degree of comfort but you also expose yourself to painful repercussions. The roads and villages within the developing world are no less forgiving, no less threatening.

I'm gagging, but if you want to read the whole story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anne-goddard/one-day-without-shoes-les_b_1468910.html

 

[NickW]

Board, this reminds me of the show Total Blackout. Basically, people let their minds take over and so even the simplest and non scary things become giant hurdles and heroic feats for them. That's how most people think being barefoot is like and so their mind takes over and makes mountains out of mole hills and the slightest pebble nearly breaks their foot (sarcasm, kind of). I remember a year ago when I took off my shoes for the first time during a run, scared the bejeebers out of me. After a little bit I realized there was really not much for me to be actually be afraid of and it wasn't as bad as my mind thought it would be. A lot of people can't get over their fears like this.

 

[RunningPirate]

I couldn't get the link to work, so I'm re-posting: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anne-goddard/one-day-without-shoes-les_b_1468910.html

Indeed - that article seems to be a touch overwrought. She mentions that 1 in 10 of the children asked for shoes - which to me says that 90% were fine without them...or that they had more pressing issues than shoes.

My cousin participates in this charity that sends shoes to kids in Africa and such (Maranaptha...something like that). I used to think it was great and gave $$ last year...now I'm wondering if it's going to cause more harm than good in the long run...

 

[barefoot kean]

Some of the people do need shoes, as tools. so giving a person shoes in africa doesn't mean their lives are forever changed. They know they probably wont get another pair for a very long time, so they used them as needed.

 

[Longboard]

Yeah but it's the kids that get them, and they grow out of them quickly but keep wearing them in order to maintain the status it brought them. That ends up causing big problems for their feet.
Also, they tend to wear them full time, not just as tools, and even weaken their feet in the process.
Ahcuah has a lot of onfo on his blog detailing the problems shoe charities cause.

Here's one of his blog posts on the topic:

http://ahcuah.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/one-day-without-shoes/

 

[Barefoot TJ]

Drama queen.

 

[barefoot kean]

good points longboard. perhaps instead of donating shoes to people they should use the money they would have spent to open local shoe factories? Either way they wont change their stance on people needing shoes and this way locals who need help get jobs.

 

[ajb422]

I thought there was some issue about kids not being able to go to school if they didn't have shoes?

 

[The Ramzev]

I thought there was some issue about kids not being able to go to school if they didn't have shoes?

You are right, many schools won't let children attend if they don't have shoes. But it's healthier for kids to be barefoot, so don't give them shoes.

 

[Longboard]

Yes, the money and time are better spent educating those in charge of the schools how absurd their shoe requirements are , denying an education to a kid just because he or she is dressed appropriatly for the conditions.

 

[The Ramzev]

But in the mean time, isn't it important the kids have shoes so they can go to schools?

 

[Longboard]

No, because that will just perpetuate the status quo. By giving them shoes they will become the privelaged and those still without will continue to be treated as lower classes. The newly shod will enjoy the increased status, and will also ruin their feet in the process.
Back in the early '70's the movie "Conrack" staring Jon Voight (the actor, not the periodontist) had a scene where the teacher played by Voight had all the students take off their shoes so that the one shoeless one would'nt feel unworthy. The writer understood that principle way back then, too bad modern day people that only mean well can't grasp the concept.
Hey Ram, you're in the field......every Halloween there seems to be a news story about a dentist who pays his kid patients for their candy by the pound. The PR stunt is an attempt to show how the dentist cares so much about the kid's teeth that he will buy their candy off of them to keep them from eating it.
So a couple years ago a dentist on the local TV news depicted doing just that was also shown volunteering his time in Guatamala or somewhere around there fixing kid's teeth who have no access to dental care and have poor diets along with bad oral hygeine. The segue into that part of their story? HE BRINGS THOSE UNFORTUNATE KIDS THE CANDY HE COLLECTED!
The American kids would have been better off with it since they see him every six months and have parents with either $ or insurance.
I look at the shoe charities the same way I look at a dentist buying candy from kids to protect their teeth while donating it to kids who have very little access to dental care or anything else for that matter.
By the way, someone here does recall Jon Voight the periodontist, right?

 

[PatrickGSR94]

I tried to post a comment but they probably won't publish it:

"Seriously? I chose to go without shoes as much as possible almost a year ago, and my life is immensely better than it was. I go without shoes at home, outside, out shopping, and even at work for a few months I was barefoot most of the time. It doesn't take long for your feet to adapt, and it's a thousand times better than stuffing your feet into stinky, smelly shoes that harbor bacteria and pathogens. I've only had a couple of small puncture wounds, and really those were just minor annoyances compared to immense enjoyment and improved health benefits I get from letting my feet be free and being able to feel the ground beneath me.

Our world is far too dependent on shoes as it is. Please don't make it look worse by posting such nonsense about going barefoot."

 

[Bare Lee]

"Build a man a fire, he's warm for the night; set a man on fire he's warm for the rest of his life."

 

[Longboard]

I guess even on Tom's (Blake's?) "no shoe day" promotion designed to boost profits for the company and nothing else the well meaning students are still having a tough time with the academic shoe police (teachers who should either be embracing the "day without shoes thing" or pointing out it's faults).
But instead how do the "role models" react?
"No bare feet here, REGARDLESS of how important the message is!"
I can accept misguided educators going along with Tom's ruse, and of course would welcome teachers
using the opportunity to explain how the well meaning efforts cause so much harm to the receipients,
but to just say "bare feet/no way", how irresponsible is that?

http://my.hsj.org/Schools/Newspaper...4698/Three_students_one_mission_no_shoes.aspx