Be the first to know about breaking news, articles, and updates.
The Coast | News, events, restaurants, concerts and Burger Week for Halifax, Nova Scotia
Home of the Best of Halifax Reader's Choice Awards, the award-winning independent newspaper covers the Halifax news, politics, events, concerts, movies, restaurants, and nightlife scene.
It’s a frikkin office and I know that casual is sort of okay these days….but…there is something not cool about walking around the office in bare feet! Your feet aren’t dirty nor do they smell; it’s just wrong. —Blusenoser
This article appears in Jul 24-30, 2014.
22 Comments
Sprinkle some staples on the floor.
Caltrops!
nothing written now will top that one^^^
Jesus, where are these crazy worklplaces?
Grew up in a naked-body-parts-are-shameful house, did we?
It really does depend on the corporate culture. I worked in one environment where EVERYONE walked around with no shoes on. It was an office environment but you could wear jeans and go shoe-less (for the most part). One person used to wear slippers. I never went bare foot, but I would walk from my office to the photocopier/printer with no shoes on, sometimes when I had tights or pantyhose on.
Then I worked in a corporation’s head office for the president/ceo and uh, anything less than dress shoes was a big no no.
dress for the job you want
not the job you have
my old boss used to give me the eyebrow if i took off my suit jacket.
and this place? i went to toronto for my meet n greet and saw the vp in capris and flip flops and ‘we’ are 10X the size of the old place. gotta love it.
I don’t agree with staples or caltrops, those things can get you fired/sued/shunned.
USE SUPERGLUE!!!!!
i don’t know what caltrops are – i was lol-ing at staples
OP knew what he was getting into when he took a job at BagginsCorp.
Don’t see him complaining about Second Breakfast, now, do we?
as long as they don’t start clipping their toenails or scraping at dead skin
Sprinkle the floor with legos.
cat hork! and turn off all the lights. kitty and sir meow should be able to supply you with cat hork.
I don’t mind no shoes or socks, everyone’s feet smell at some time or another, but for God’s sake, don’t forget the undies. May be appealing to the optical senses at times but jackhammers the olfactory system senseless.
Barefeet and carpets are a recipe for dirty carpets. The foot oils transfer to the carpet and the dirt sticks to it like flies on shit.
HALIFAX UNDERCLASS?
” Your feet aren’t dirty nor do they smell, it’s just wrong.” Bluenoser
Yes, this would probably be a member of the Halifax Underclass. There’s not really all that much you can do.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Gee.. I would not be okay with that at all.. I would be more worried about warts and things of that nature being spread around a work place rather than smell..
how would he transfer warts from his feet? does he open doors or pick up other people’s phones with his toes? I got the impression from OP that he was the only one walking around barefoot.
hey, maybe OP walks on her hands? or maybe slithers along using her face on the carpeting?
People crying about dumb shit nowadays. Yeesh, I swear that people look for shit to be “offended” about.
A SUBTLE BITCH
“… there is something not cool about walking around the office in bare feet! Your feet aren’t dirty nor do they smell,
it’s just wrong.” Bluenoser
This is a subtle bitch which requires further reflection. The question reduces as to why Bluensoser frowns on someone walking around the office in bare feet. A number of possibilities arise.
The question of hygiene can be dismissed straight away. His feet are neither dirty nor do they smell so that is off the table at the outset. But then things get more complex.
Bluenoser writes that walking around the office in bare feet is not “cool” but what, one wonders, is to be understood by the expression. The term “cool” is itself ambivalent, often referring to behaviour that flouts convention. So viewed, being “cool” would actually require that one walked around the office in bare feet. But this is not Bluenoser’s view of being “cool.”
Bluenoser appears to be a conventional type and so to flout convention by walking around the office in bare feet is not “cool”. Bluenoser is unequivocal about this. So, being “cool” is in the eye of the beholder and can mean diametrically opposite things depending upon the conceptual framework of the beholder. For the person walking around the office in bare feet might be “cool” but for Bluenoser it is not. So who is right here? Since convention itself is an ambivalent concept – conventional behaviour changes over time and place – there is no “right” answer in the sense of absolute certitude. It all depends on one’s perspective. So where do we go from here?
We go to Bluenoser’s claim that walking around barefoot in the office is not just not “cool,” it is actually “wrong.” What does that mean? It means that the ante has been upped from the level of convention to the level of morality. Bluenoser claims that walking around the office in bare feet is morally wrong. But on what grounds does he make the claim?
Bluenoser’s claim would seem to rest upon the indecent exposure of skin. But what constitutes the indecent exposure of skin? In western cultures the exposure of some skin is mandatory. Think of facial skin. To conceal the skin of one’s face is tantamount to being immoral. Think of the Ukrainian rebels who wear hoods which, for many, brands them as criminals. But normally, exposing the skin of one’s face is strongly encouraged. The same with the skin of the hands and fingers which need to be exposed in order to manipulate objects one finds in extra-mental reality. But here the question relating to the exposure of skin becomes vexed.
At the far end of the spectrum of exposure things are clear. One must never expose expose the skin of one’s genitals or even buttocks. This is considered wrong as it might encourage libidinous thoughts, the occasion of sin, in observers who are so inclined. The same, but to a lesser extent, is excessive exposure of skin on the back. The Japanese, one understands, get off on the sight of female back skin. Similarly, excessive exposure of the skin on the belly is considered morally inappropriate and for the same reason. One wonders about what is under the thong. And so on. But what about the feet?
The feet find themselves in a morally ambivalent position. To show the soles of one’s feet to another is, in some cultures, considered morally insulting as, for example, is throwing one’s shoes at a person one wishes to rebuke and thereby exposing one’s feet. But, generally speaking, the exposure of one’s feet is, like matters of convention generally, a matter of convention rather than of strict moral prohibition. Excepting in cases of those possessing strong foot fetishes and might be inclined to impure thoughts, the question of exposing the skin of the feet is not a matter of enormous import.
So one can see that this bitch has subtle and fra-reaching implications. Thank you for your patience and understanding.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
shut up OP. who fucking cares?