Myths and excuses against barefooting
There is a small but recurring set of "reasons" used by those objecting
to bare feet, all of which are specious and express no truth.
They are based on nothing other than timeworn prejudice and
deliberate misinformation that began over a half a century ago.
Here is why none of them are valid excuses for discrimination:
-
Health/sanitation:
There are NO health laws/regulations in any state in the US, or in
most counties and municipalities, against bare feet in public places,
including food or other business establishments.
That's amply detailed at all of the barefoot advocacy sites, notably
barefooters.org
which hosts official supporting letters from state health and
agriculture departments.
Bare soles do not spread "germs" on floors any more than shoes do, and
feet left open to the air are in fact much healthier than when kept
confined in dark, stagnant bacteria-farms all day.
This is why the feet of a routine barefooter don't stink and are generally
in much better shape.
-
Safety:
Little or no bearing.
People accustomed to living barefoot enjoy more agility, balance,
situational awareness, and general comfort, even while walking and
working in harsh environments and around heavy items.
And driving vehicles, which is actually safer without shoes.
Experienced barefooters develop thick, leathery soles which are
surprisingly resistant to hazards underfoot -- our "dog pads".
The perceived injury risks are generally overblown, especially by
those unfamiliar with the physical reality on the ground.
Some "acceptable" footwear, such as flip-flops and high heels, leave their
wearers far less safe.
Footwear may be useful on occasion in very cold weather or on genuinely
injurious surfaces, but only as a tool for a specific use -- like oven
mitts, to prevent actual damage.
It is hard for the routinely shod to understand how incredibly resilient
the human foot can be.
Some of us spend time enjoying hikes outdoors, up mountains and over sharp
rocks and gravel and plenty of broken glass, without mishap and
happily "growing our own shoes" in the process.
Nature wants our feet to be this way, and they will develop
naturally to a very robust condition when allowed to.
-
Liability/insurance:
Because of the way premises liability and duty-of-care law works, an
establishment has NO responsibility for anyone's feet.
This is one of the most common stated fears of
venue management, and it's totally groundless.
There is not one general-liability business insurance policy on
the planet that calls out footwear concerns for patrons.
No sane lawyer would try to prosecute a foot-injury claim by someone
who freely entered a premises without shoes -- the notion is ridiculous,
and the most likely response would amount to "you walked into the place
barefoot? Have a nice day."
Looking out for one's own well-being in such places rests
100% on the individual, regardless of circumstances.
-
Food:
No relevance, and there never has been any.
The "No Shirt/No Shoes/No Service" signs are one of the most
insidious fake-news myths from the sixties, a discriminatory
holdover from trying to exclude "undesirables" from shops in spite of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
This deeply entrenched mythology often included bogus "health code"
claims, all lies.
See above.
Our community is working to dispel this, and a growing list of high-profile
corporations have no "shoe rule" anymore because they've realized that
having one is nonsensical and simply bad for business.
Food establishments have far more to fear from the hands and mouths
of their patrons, not their feet.
Unfortunately, many workers in food and related industry have not been made
aware of these facts, and still run on their own misguided prejudices.
-
Social "Decency":
None of anyone else's business, just
like for any other outwardly visible lifestyle choice.
We don't go around belittling people over their weight or hat logos or
unusual hair colors and body art, because we supposedly live in a polite
society where we simply tolerate each others' quirks and appearance.
"Decorum" is about how we behave, not how we dress, and it's generally
agreed that arbitrary harassment is what's unacceptable.
Enlightened corporations and venues are encouraged to support this
position to anyone who raises a question, and handle third-party
complaints with solid reassurance that there's nothing wrong.
Far too many people are ignorant of these facts and thoroughly brainwashed
by the misinformation they grew up with, but as detailed here it only
takes a few minutes on the internet to find the right answers.
A few happy piggies running around has absolutely no impact on the operations
of any business establishment, venue, attraction, or infrastructure.
In addition, there are individuals with a medical need to avoid
wearing shoes, and for ADA compliance must legally be accomodated without
question.
Public awareness of all of this is increasing, and while unshod visitors,
customers, or even workers may still not be the most common day-to-day sight,
the sooner it becomes normalized and accepted in our lives and culture
the better.
Barefoot living is much more common in New Zealand, for example, where
what's on or not on someone's feet is not even noteworthy.
In a professional context, any employee or representative of an
establishment who chooses to bully someone over such a petty, harmless
non-issue does so at the risk of their own career.
No organization's management should ever support such behavior on the part of
an associate, and incidents or confrontations need to be promptly reported
in the strongest possible terms for remedial action and training.
It's the only way they'll ever learn.
[A half-sheet printable graphic shorter form of this can be
downloaded here --
geared specifically for Massachusetts, but an image of any other state letter
from barefooters.org could be resized and substituted in.
Print double-sided landscape and cut apart into convenient flyers.]
