New shoes

The other day I put on a pair of new shoes. They are beautiful castellanos (if you don't know what this is... google "Zapatos Castellanos". They are fantastic shoes for walking around that aren't trainers and are reliable and will last a long time. But because they're made of very rigid leather it means that they need to be broken in.

Usually, I never buy shoes that need to be broken in, except a few high heels (and my experience with high heels is as follows: if they kill your feet within the first five minutes of putting them on, no amount of breaking in will help, they will kill your feet. The only thing to do is to accept that pain is something you have to accept to look good in those heels and look a few inches taller. That said, I have bought a few heels that were not painful to start off with, and only needed getting used to. Still to find a pair that I can wear for longer than 4 hours without my feet being in pain though), but these were an exception, because I know that once they're broken in they will last me for at least two or three years, and they are shoes that I can use for pretty much any occasion that doesn't require a dress (or exercise).

Now, why do these shoes need to be broken in? Basically, because of the rigid leather, which means that they are a bit tight on the toes. In a way this is a good thing: if they were tight at the heel and caused blisters there, that would mean they were too small and I would probably not succeed in breaking them in, however, because they are tight on the toes, I know it's just a question of wearing them enough and making the leather a bit more flexible. So I have come up with a few rules as to breaking in of shoes.

1. Plan the day. Make sure you will not be wearing the shoes for so long that if they actually hurt they'll cause blisters, but also that you'll be wearing them for long enough that you'll make a difference to how they feel.

2. Wear thick socks. They will both protect your feet and also make the shoes give away a bit.

3. Make sure you walk in them. Despite point 1, what you actually want is to be able to walk in the shoes. So walk in them. Going on the bus, and then on the tube, and then sitting down for coffee, and then going back isn't really breaking in your shoes. You can take breaks, but make sure you walk in them quite a bit. I recommend about 20 minutes walking between every break.

4. Smile through the pain. Yes, it hurts, but nobody else should know about it. (This doesn't apply to other times when you're in pain, but for some reason, when you're breaking in shoes it really helps to just smile and pretend it does not hurt).

5. Give your feet a break. At the end of the day your feet really need to just rest after trying to break shoes in. Check that they're not damaged, get a good foot massage if you can (or give it to yourself) and don't wear shoes if you can help it for the rest of the day.

6. Finally, keep on at it. I've found with my new pair that one day hasn't done it completely, but they feel a lot better than when I started, so there. Don't give up on the first try.

PS: This is probably a post that is out of character for me, but I really felt like writing it after walking around central London with a stupid smile on my face trying to forget about my feet hurting. If you were expecting something different... well, maybe next time.

On tolerance

Tolerance, in its first definition: a fair, objective and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

One might read this definition and think all's well with the world. "We should all be tolerant!" one might exclaim.

I, however, have a problem with this definition. I do not understand how one can be fair and permissive. I also have trouble comprehending how one can have an "objective attitude". An attitude is a completely personal, it is a disposition towards something. It may be "good", it may be "open-minded" but I have trouble imagining how it can be objective. But this is the least of my worries. I have a lot more of an issue with a person having "a fair and permissive attitude".

Fair: treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination. (I have problems with this definition too, I cannot treat people equally if I want to treat them fairly: I cannot treat the victim of an attack the same way as I treat the perpetrator, it would not be fair. It would be different if the definition specified "treating people who are in the same situation equally without favouritism or discrimination).

Permissive: allowing or characterised by excessive freedom of behaviour.

So. How can you have an attitude that is at the same time "equalitarian without favouritism or discrimination" and "characterised by excessive freedom of behaviour"?

You're either fair (and you treat everyone equally, and if there is some sort of morals or justice it holds everyone accountable for their actions in the same way) or you are permissive (and you allow people excessive freedom and you don't make them accountable). Fairness and permissiveness don't mix.

But my other thoughts have to do with this "permissive"part of tolerance. Tolerance has been touted as a banner for acceptance of "other cultures" in the west (this is important, even today, in the west, we consider our culture the culture, and everyone else's "other cultures"), and it has been waved so violently that to say you did not agree with a practice that came from a different culture marked you as intolerant. I agree with this. That isn't a problem in itself. The problem is that being called intolerant was, for some time, equivalent with being set in your ways, with being racist, with being xenophobic, with being unwelcoming.

Well, here's the thing. I am intolerant. I am intolerant of things that I consider unfair. I am intolerant of things I consider to be bad, to be harmful, to be denigrating to human beings, to be humiliating. Take this as you will, but essentially what I mean by this is that if you consider it part of your culture to hit other people if they disagree with you, then I am going to be intolerant of your culture. Or at least of that part of your culture.

And this goes for everyone. If there is something in the way you think that I feel is wrong, I will tell you. If I think you are unfair, or mean, or a downright brutal person because of a praxis you uphold, I will tell you, and more than that, I will fight you if I can. And if you think something I do is wrong, or brutal, or cruel, or unfair, I hope you will tell me. And I hope you will fight me.

Now, let me be clear. I am respectful of other people. I believe people have a right to their own bodies and to their own minds, meaning that they can have their own opinions and expose their bodies to what they like. What I will not accept is the imposition of those practices on other people.

People have been too tolerant for too long, because being intolerant was seen as a negative. There is nothing wrong with being intolerant, in the same way that there is nothing wrong with being tolerant. It is always tolerant or intolerant of certain things.


Note: definitions have been taken without a lot of systematics from Google search. I'm usually more careful about this (using only one dictionary and being consistent) but I felt lazy today. So feel free to correct me based on dictionary use.