My mom just doesn't give up...

Today, I decided to go to a local pizza place barefoot and she said that I could just wait in the car because she found it socially-unacceptable. My dad got her to calm down about it a bit and I ate like nothing was out of the ordinary.

But my dad asked me what kind of statement I was trying to make before we entered; which was odd, because I wasn't trying to make a statement. I told him that I wasn't trying to make a statement, then my dad asked me why I couldn't just go slip on my sandels, so I asked him why I couldn't just stay barefoot; so he decided to let me go in barefoot.

And then, later, my mom laughed at my thoughts on discrimination. She asked me if I wore shoes when I turned in my applications today (which I did) and I told her yes and that if they didn't hire me because of the fact that I liked to be barefoot, that it was discrimination. Overall, tonight wasn't too fun because my mom needs to fucking grow up.

 

Ocean Byrd - I agree with you that your mom needs to be more open-minded about you going barefoot. However, it would not be discrimination for someone to not hire because of your "barefootism" becuase barefooters are not a legally protected class. Just like not hiring someone because they're homosexual is perfectly legal becuase gays are not a legally protected class. I think it sucks, but until someone has the balls to step up and change the law, that's the way it is.


Peace, Al

 

Hey Ocean Byrd:

I believe this seems a bit trivial to me. What's so wrong with barefeet in a pizza shop? I'm sure your mom sees you in your barefeet at home, so why is being barefoot in an establishment any different? Sounds like her issue may be with barefeet in general. Does she have a problem with you being barefoot at home? I know some moms prefer barefeet at home. They don't want their kids wearing shoes in the house or running around in socks and then have to wash those filthy things.

I'm not a parent, but I can think of much worse things a 16 year old could be doing besides going barefoot in an establishment. If you are a decent student in school and stay away from those who abuse drugs and get into trouble with the law, then what's the harm in a simple pleasure like barefooting?

When I was a teen lots of kids went barefoot and no one really thought much about it.

 

I am having problems in school (I'm trying to correct it, I'm slowly improving) and I do partake in marijuana occasionally; but it hasn't interferred with my life at all. Otherwise, I'm the kid that my parents should be proud to have.

al_from_mn, discrimination is disallowing someone to do something based on a lifestyle choice; barefooting and nudism are lifestyle choices. Although they may not be protected, it's still discrimination. I don't think you could do anything legally, but I'd boycott the company none the less if that was the case.

 

keep at it, they'll come around.

my mom used to be grossed out that i would dumpster dive, then she started using stuff i got, then started taking me to get stuff and now she goes by herself and gets right in the dumpster!!

 

lol; I'm not sure if you were being serious, but that's kinda funny either way.

 

thats true. and i think the gays have priority over the barefoots. and it doesnt look like the country will change its policy on fag-rights anytime soon. so it could be a while before somebody stands up for shoe-less americans like us. cos we can get married without shoes, but they cant get married, even if they are neatly dressed with polished leather dress shoes and a sharp haircut.

 

except in hawaii and massachusetts, the whole things flip flop. thats like a shoe-less paradise, as long as you dont step on broken glass in boston.

 

My mum automatically will add "and you're wearing shoes and socks, no arguments" to any suggestion that she might make about going out. Sometimes I'll put up with it if it's not too warm, sometimes I'll decided not to go out, and sometimes, if I have the time and the energy I'll argue it through with her. Most of the time, I just can't be arsed any more, I can go out barefoot on my own whenever I want, most of the time.

 

I would just go barefoot anyways and not worry about it. I mean its dumb that this guys mother would complain about him being barefoot, I mean she should be lucky he is such a good kid. Theyre his feet and hes a big boy so he can take care of himself without mommy needing to butt in and bark orders. If the establishment doesnt mind it then it must be ok, if they tell him to put shoes on then he should or jus go somewhere else to eat. I go shirtless alot of places so im sure thatd piss her off alot more than u going barefoot, so you at least you got it better in a way, at least all ur doin is goin barefoot.

 

I can think of 2 reasons why restaurants would people wearing shoes, one somewhat weak reason and the other one stronger.

First, the weak reason -- sometimes the patrons have trouble eating when someone else is bear footed or without a shirt or both. Could also be a hygene problem. Sometimes people smell, sometimes terribley. In a resturant setting this problem would be more noticable. Of course I'm not suggesting this was the case with yourself.

Second, the stronger reason -- lawsuits. Lawsuits is a financial drain on a business. Remember the woman who won a suit against McDonald's. She was driving with a hot cup of Coffee inbetween her legs when it spilled. She claimed the McDonald's was warned by someone that their coffee was too hot. Nobody told her it was risky to drive with a hot cup between her legs. Either way, I think after the appeals, she ended up with about $60k.
Even if the lawsuit is unsuccessful, the business still has to pay the costs of defending itself.
So, if you were to somehow cut your foot while not wearing shoes, the restaurant could be looking at some sort of civil court action.

I am also wondering if there is some kind of city ordinance requiring shoes and shirts to be worn by everyone. Patrons and employees alike.

 

If you're talking about smelly feet, you obviously haven't walked around barefoot for a day. It's true that somepeople are naturally smelly, but that's because they sweat a lot. Your feet only smell of earth if you go barefoot for a day (and avoid... hazards); although it may be distracting to some people. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to... I mean, you don't see them kicking out people that are having a rather affectionate kiss.

Well, that'd be a damn good reason to sue them for not cleaning up glass or summat. Whose to say that someone won't trip and get a stab in the stomach? Besides, God gave you eyes for a reason...

Oh no, there's no ordinance; that's an infringment of the constitution. Then again, you look at the fact that you could be arrested for being naked in public, and you question whether moral views should be accepted as the law. That's why America pisses me off sometimes...

 

That's funny, and I wonder where you get that info, because so far, as a member of the Society for Barefoot Living, the only place I have so far heard actually DOES have a municipal ordinance against barefoot people is a town in Massachusetts.

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey

 

Lawsuits aren't an issue. Why would a barefooter sue? They probably wouldn't win since they went in their barefoot so are taking on the responsibility to look after their own feet. If they did win it'd only give places a just cause to prevent against it happening, as then the fear of lawsuits would be a reality. Result: Less freedom to go barefoot. No-one wants that. And of course it's far more in the barefooter's interest than it is in that of the establishment that their own feet are not harmed. And anyway, the likelihood of damage is considerably restricted by a) common sense on the part of the barefooter and b) feet that have been in the habit of going bare for a while and have built up strength, toughness etc. Finally, if you're going to make a fuss about bare feet, well flip flops, heels and plenty of other bizarre forms of footwear carry greater risk than bare feet and so really if a place is going to be consistent it should not permit anyone to enter unless they are wearing flat, closed shoes. in fact, probably better make it compulsory to have steel toe caps just to be on the safe side.

Health isn't an issue either. The health law says so. Or rather it doesn't - as it doesn't mention it at all. You can't get done for breaking a non-existant law. Anyone who believes, or otherwise claims that there is a health law against bare feet needs to use a bit of nous with this. First of all, sweat evaporates quickly, there is full air circulation around the feet. Anaerobic organisms will not build up - they don't have the warm moist environment required, which is kindly provided to them by shoes of all kinds incidentally, including flip flops which have a nice closed area under the sole. One way or another, it's all academic anyway as No-one is going to put their feet anywhere near food or drink. Some places worry about the spread of verrucas or fungal infections. Well first of all, if you don't wear shoes you won't get them for the reason just mentioned as there's no environment for them to grow. Stepping barefoot on a part of the floor where another barefoot person had been standing really isn't enough to catch any form of infection.

Some places are not worried that the barefooter would sue, but ARE worried that their reputation might happen if there were an accident, and the place might get a bad name, even if the barefooter publically claimed full responsibility and did his/her best to defend the establishment. There isn't really a way to argue around this on the spot because the whole argument is based on the fact that the barefooter's opinion has no bearing. However, given the fact that accidents will happen for all sorts of reasons, and the barefooter is going to be very careful anyway wanting to look after his/her own feet, it's only common sense really.

Some places have a dress code - they don't really need to state a reason, and to me this is preferable ANYWAY to people pretending that it is out of their hands. They may not be reasonable but at least they're honest. ON THE OTHER HAND, some places BELIEVE there to be good reasons to have a no bare feet policy, simply because they are aware that other businesses do and so they feel it is something they have to do. It may be worth trying to convince these people otherwise because if you can show to them for a start that there's no such health law, then you can dislodge this popular misconception.

I've never met anyone in Britain who's been deliberately unreasonable about my barefeet. I've only ever been forced to leave or wear shoes by people who honestly believed they had just cause. It seems it's the USA where everyone has these loony ideas about problems with bare feet. It might have a lot to do with the suing culture, and it might have a lot to do with the American Conservative Isolationist attitude that is determined to keep things the way they are before really giving them much thought.

 

Wearing skimpy flip-flops and sandals are allowed in restaurants. How is that more acceptable than going barefoot? It is hygenically the same.

My theory is just that people have issues, and they need to fuck with those of us who are happy and content. It just makes losers feel better about themselves I guess.

I need to someday open up a craft shop or something that has a sign that says "Shoes: No service" or something similar, and when jackasses come into my store wearing shoes, I will treat them with as much crap as people treat us barefooters.

 

Do you mind if I come to your store (barefoot, of course!) and hang out, like as a "regular"?

Great posts, by the way, from you and from Sax Machine. Sax, that was a great little essay!

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey

 

and that was a wonderful oxymoron, jeff!

About running a shop with an anti-shoes policy:

Well, my initial reaction is that one should be stooping to the level of the shoe police. The ones that have the attitude that results in hostility towards bare feet probably wouldn't want to go into a shop where the staff worked barefoot, so you wouldn't have to bother to tell them to sod off. Anyone else who wants to go in shoes would probably be the sort that has no problem with bare feet, but just doesn't want try for themself. A bit like myself and smoking - I wouldn't dream of touching a fag, never mind a spliff but that doesn't mean I go up in arms against people who do.

While still on the subject of shops, I'm working just to get a bit of much needed dosh for the summer in a clothes shop. We have a dress code here for the staff, it includes closed posh shoes, shirt, tie, you know the sort of thing. The place is air-conditioned at least, I'm managing to put up with wearing shoes there although when I'm walking home I take them off straight away. It's a dress-code, it's not a discrimination. Working there barefoot would be no less acceptable than wearing a jumper instead of a shirt and tie, but both are in contradiction with the dress code, so I put up with it. However a thought occurred to me - what if a customer were to come in barefoot and one of the employees there started kicking up a fuss. Every instinct in me would tell me to intervene and argue a case on behalf of the barefooter, but could I really do that, could I really go against a colleague and make a small scene in the shop into a bigger one? This is all purely hypothetical and I don't believe it will happen. You don't see a lot of barefooters around where I live, but when you do (and it's usually me) it's very rare anyone has a problem. But it's just somethign I've thought about. What would you lot do in such a situation, bearing in mind that jobs aren't easy to come by this time of year and I'm in enough debt as it is.

 

If you own the place and do not have a shoe rule for patrons and the employee tells the patron he/she has to wear shoes then of course you could butt in and at least tell the employee there is no rule about shoes and apologize to the patron and tell them to have a nice day. Hopefully you would consult with the employees about this beforehand and make damn sure they understand your policy before they even interact with the customers so that the ydo not make any judgements that are not correct.

 

I think you've quite right, there isn't much difference between bare feet and sandels / flip-flops. Resturants generally have some sort of dress code. Expensive joints, the ones with linen table clothes, low lights, menus without the price listed require suit jackets. They even supply one if a customer arrives without one. McDonalds type places, I'm still thinking some cities have codes requiring no shoe, no shirt, no service for restaurants--but I could be wrong. Finally, really cheap greasey spoon joints, I don't think I care to go in without shoes, otherwise I would be wondering just what is sticking to the bottom of my feet.
But like I said, I consider this to be the weaker of the two reasons.

Defending against lawsuits are expensive. Many times, almost always, it is cheaper to settle out of court even if the store/restaurant did everything reasonable to make it a safe environment.

All this aside, at your store, I would more than happy to shop there barefooted as long as it isn't located in Northern Alaska and in the middle of winter.

Comments from SAXMachine:Lawsuits aren't an issue. Why would a barefooter sue? They probably wouldn't win since they went in their barefoot so are taking on the responsibility to look after their own feet. If they did win it'd only give places a just cause to prevent against it happening, as then the fear of lawsuits would be a reality.


I can't say what goes on in England, but here in the States bogus/phony unscrupulous lawsuits have been brought against businesses for express purpose of the out of court settlements. This is not uncommon. The plaintiff in these cases are fully aware of the nature of their complaint. They are aware, as does the businesses, it is cheaper to settle fraudulent cases out of court than to prove yourself innocent of the complaint. For example, such a person stubs their toe against the steel legs supporting a booth. Sues for $10,000 for loss of wages, pain and suffering, etc. On the court steps settles for $2,000. Gives half the settlement to their attorney. In other words the plaintiff gets a grand over a stubbed toe.

The restaurant pays the 2 grand to make the case go away. Because, up to this point they already paid a lawyer big bucks for legal advice, assuming he isn't on retainer. Going to trial, and even if they win the judgement, legal costs still amount to several thousands more. So even if they win, they still loose.

Here in this country, businesses has to take reasonable precautions to stay out of court.

 

Here is an excellent link regarding the LACK of health department barefoot-bans:

http://www.barefooters.org/health-dept/