Tag Archives: The New York Times

My tribute to Robert Redford

Posted on September 20, 2025 | 2 comments

The stellar film actor, Robert Redford, died a few days ago.  He was not only a brilliant actor, but he also incorporated a set of values, embracing everything from the environment to independent filmmaking.  Since he died, a lot of people have been writing about him and his life’s work.  I wrote the following tribute to him in May 2019:

The Sundance Kid rides again!  Not on horseback but in a 1970s sedan.

In his most recent film (and perhaps his last), The Old Man and the Gun, Robert Redford plays a charming real-life bank robber.  Announcing his retirement from acting, he told Ruthe Stein of the San Francisco Chronicle that he chose the part because he identified with the bank robber’s rebellious spirit, and he wanted his last film to be “quirky and upbeat and fun.”

I have a special fondness for Redford that goes back to his role in his first memorable film, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.  Redford has called it the “first real film experience I ever had” and “the most fun on any film I’ve had. It changed my life.”

When I saw the film in Chicago shortly after its release, I was struck by the performances of both Paul Newman (my perennial favorite) as Butch Cassidy and newcomer Redford as the Sundance Kid.

Unbeknown to me, there was a real live double of the Sundance Kid out there, waiting to meet me when I moved to LA a short time later:  my soon-to-be husband.  Once he added a mustache to his otherwise great looks, hisresemblance to Redford in that film was uncanny, and I dubbed him the Sundance Kid.  I evenacquired aposter of Redford in that role to affix to my office wall as a reminder of my new-found love.

The 1969 film, now fifty years old, holds up very well.  In perhaps its most memorable scene, the two leading men plunge from a cliff into roiling waters below, shouting a now more commonly accepted expletive for probably the first time in movie history.

Newman and Redford play leaders of the “Hole in the Wall Gang,” a group that robs banks, successfully for the most part, until robbing a train gets them into serious trouble.  They alienate Mr. E. H. Harrison of the Union Pacific Railroad, who hires special trackers who relentlessly follow Butch and Sundance.

An endearing scene takes place when the two men approach the home of Etta Place, Sundance’s wife.  News stories have alarmed Etta.  “The papers said they had you.  They said you were dead.”  Sundance’s first reaction: “Don’t make a big thing of it.”  He pauses and reflects.  Then he says, “No.  Make a big thing of it.”  And they enthusiastically embrace.

Redford’s brilliant career includes a large number of notable Hollywood films.  It’s easy for me to name some favorites:  Downhill Racer in 1969, The Candidate in 1972, The Way We Were and The Sting in 1973, All the President’s Men in 1974, The Natural in 1984, and Out of Africa in 1985.  (A few of these especially resonate with me.)  And in All is Lost, as recently as 2013, Redford shines as an older man on the verge of dying alone in troubled ocean waters. Outstanding performances, each and every one.

In recent years, as I became an active supporter of NRDC (the Natural Resources Defense Council), an entity vigorously working on behalf of the environment, I began hearing from Redford, who aligned himself with NRDC’s goals and requested additional donations.  I commend him for his strong support for protecting the future of our country and our planet.  His efforts on behalf of the environment seem even more critical now, as we face increasingly dire problems caused by climate change.

As for Redford’s movie career, my hope is that he chooses not to retire.  Most movie-goers would welcome seeing new films that include him, even in a small role.  In the meantime, I encourage every film buff to see The Old Man and the Gun.  Featuring a number of brief scenes from his earlier movies (plugged into the movie by director David Lowery), the film is a great reminder of a storied Hollywood career.  A career that began with the Sundance Kid.

I also wrote about Redford more recently.  In January of this year, I focused on his role in the remarkable film, “All the President’s Men.”  In that film, which highlighted the vast amount of wrongdoing by the Nixon administration, Redford assumed the role of journalist Bob Woodward, ferreting out what exactly happened in the Watergate scandal.  Here’s what I wrote in January 2025:

A few weeks ago, I plucked an old movie from my TV playlist and re-watched the 1976 award-winning film, “All the Presidents’ Men.”   I found it not only the riveting film I remembered but also a remarkably relevant film to watch right now. 

In this fast-moving story of two intrepid journalists working at The Washington Post in 1972, the media world at that time gradually became aware of what became known as “Watergate.”  Although President Richard Nixon had a commanding lead in the polls and was about to be reelected in a landslide in November 1972, his sense of insecurity and inferiority led him, along with his cronies, to sponsor abreak-in of Democratic Party headquarters in the Watergate office building in June 1972.  The break-in was lessthan totally successful.  Moronic criminal-types made a couple of foolish errors that led to the detection of the break-in and their arrest by DC police.

At the Post, the two young journalists, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, faced innumerable obstacles as they tried to ferret out the truth of exactly what had happened and why.  The story ultimately focused on WHO:  Who were the players in the Nixon administration who were pulling the strings behind the Watergate break-in? 

To see the whole story play out, you may want to watch the film yourself.  But whether you watch it or not, please keep in mind just how relevant it is today.

Watergate was only one of the “dirty tricks” Nixon and his cohorts employed to undermine his political opponents.  On January 20, a president demonstrably worse than Nixon was inaugurated.  After a campaign replete with disinformation, he has already begun to effect enormous change in our country.  More than ever, we need brave and intrepid journalists like Woodward and Bernstein to ferret out the truth behind any possible wrongdoing.

The role of The Washington Post is central in both eras.  In 1972, Woodward and Bernstein had to persuade their reluctant editor at The Post to support them as they pursued the truth.  He finally relented and allowed them to publish their findings.  But if they had faltered in the face of opposition, the truth may never have come out.

In 2025, journalists at The Post have taken a different route.  A popular columnist, Jennifer Rubin, loudly spoke out against her editors and her publisher, Jeff Bezos, whom she saw as kowtowing to the incoming administration.  She and her colleagues decided to quit working at The Post, proclaiming that it was no longer seeking the truth.  On January 20, she wrote:

“The American people certainly will not be front and center at Trump’s inauguration. It’s all about him and his billionaire cronies, including the media owners who have buckled to his will. ‘Big-name billionaires are lining up to strengthen their relationships with incoming President Donald Trump during next week’s inauguration festivities,” Forbes reported.  When you add in [others] whose combined wealth dwarfs many countries’ GDP’s—you get a vivid tableau of the new oligarchy. We usher into office today a government of, by, and for the billionaires.” 

Rubin and other like-minded journalists decided to create a new entity, The Contrarian.  Norm Eisen explained how it started:

“Jen and I agreed to launch [this] venture, rounding up…over two dozen contributors in a matter of days.  We kicked off with … Jen’s Post resignation letter. While we had high hopes, we never could’ve imagined what happened next. A quarter of a million subscribers poured in … And the engagement was through the roof, with over 1,000,000 views per day.” 

Rubin proclaimed that the new venture hoped to be “a…space where independence is non-negotiable. Here, you won’t find cozy alliances, half-measures, or false equivalences. We bend the knee to no one, vigorously challenge unchecked authority, and champion transparency and accountability.  In a nation awash with noise and growing disinformation, The Contrarian cuts through the static to deliver sharp, uncompromising insights…. Our loyalty is to … the truth, and to our democratic ideals—many of which are currently under threat.”

I’ve signed up to get The Contrarian delivered to my inbox.  I hope it will stick to its commitment to the truth.  But I haven’t given up on the “legacy media”–mainstream publications like The Washington Post, The New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the San Francisco Standard.  All of them still land in my inbox every day.  (I also watch TV news programming when it appears to report the news fairly.)  I think that all of these publications include at least a few brave journalists, like the now-legendary Woodward and Bernstein, still searching for the truth, still speaking out to report wrongdoing in DC or elsewhere. 

I’ll be watching to make sure they don’t falter, hoping that, despite editors and publishers who may stand in their way, they’ll continue to live up to their role as journalists and tell their readers the truth.

In closing, I’ll add these two thoughts:

  1. Robert Redford’s glorious film career will endure.  His legacy is certain to endure as long as the legacy of outstanding Hollywood films does.  He will also be remembered as an actor who embodied values we should all revere.
  • Let’s not forget one of his most important roles: that of a journalist committed to the truth.  And let’s enthusiastically support journalistic efforts by those who are equally committed to the truth.  It’s more important right now than it was at any time in our past.


2 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Pockets! revisited

Posted on August 19, 2025 | 1 comment

In 2018, I wrote a post titled “Pockets!”  [https://susanjustwrites.com/2018/01/] 

I began with these words: “Women’s clothes should all have pockets!”

My focus: How important it was for women to have clothes with roomy pockets.  Why?  For a fundamental reason: Freedom.  The freedom men have, to carry possessions close to their bodies, allowing them to reach for essentials like keys without fumbling through a clumsy handbag.

Although I’ve often wanted to return to this focus, other critical topics have demanded my attention.  What has inspired me to return to this focus now?

In June, I came across a book review in The New York Times that made me aware of a leading women’s fashion designer I had never heard of:  Claire McCardell.  The review noted that, in this biography, Claire McCardell: The Designer Who Set Women Free, author Elizabeth Dickinson noted McCardell’s penchant for pockets. 

I quickly got a copy of this new book.  I learned that McCardell, a prominent designer in the 1930s, ‘40s, and early ‘50s, consistently added pockets to her designs of women’s clothes.  She was an ingenious and daring designer in other respects as well:  inventing mix-and-match separates, introducing hoodies, denim, and more.  She advocated wearing ballet flats instead of high heels, she banned confining corsets, and she insisted on pockets, even though male designers usually stood in her way.  As early as 1933, in her first real job, she wanted every dress and skirt to include pockets.  (Pants for women were still on the drawing board—a topic for another day.)

This book notes that pockets had been around since the 1600s.  Originally, in men’s breeches.  But men opposed pockets for women, largely because they feared that women might conceal dangerous or threatening items:  “The more a woman could stash on her person, the more freedom she had to act.”

When McCardell was growing up, “suffragists and dress reformers fought for pocket parity.”  In 1915, author and social reformer Charlotte Perkins Gilman noted that American designers “ignored the practical needs of women” and kept pockets out of women’s clothes.  McCardell took a stand against this history.  “She wanted pockets and believed that other women did, too.”  But she had to get her design ideas past the men who dominated the American fashion industry.  It became a constant struggle.  But as one journalist noted: “Because Claire’s basic principle of design is that the wearer should feel comfortable, she puts pockets into almost everything.”

In the 1940s, Diana Vreeland, the influential fashion editor at Harper’s Bazaar, shared Claire’s “love of pockets,” condemning bulky handbags: “Cigarettes, lipstick, powder, a small comb, money—it should all go into pockets,” she wrote.  “Real pockets, like a man has, for goodness’ sake.”  Vreeland added, ”Of course, you’d [need] much bigger pockets, and they’d be rather chic.”

According to author Dickinson, Claire has “never been forgotten by the world’s fashion designers….” Designer Tory Burch in 2022 created a spring collection inspired by her designs, and in 2023 the Costume Design Institute at the Met mounted an exhibit featuring women designers and celebrated Claire.  Dickinson concludes: “We are the inheritors of her brave risks, her experiments, and her singular focus.”

But what has happened to her focus on pockets?

Here’s what I wrote in 2018, revised just a little.  (I’ll follow it with a brief update.)

Women’s clothes should all have pockets. 

I admit it.  I’m a pocket-freak. When I shop for new pants, I don’t bother buying new pants, no matter how appealing, if they don’t have pockets.  Why?

Because when I formerly bought pants that didn’t have pockets, I discovered over time that I never wore them. They languished forever in a shameful pile of unworn clothes.

It became clear that I liked the benefits of wearing pants with pockets.  Why then would I buy new pants without pockets when those I already had were languishing unworn?

Result:  I simply don’t buy no-pocket pants anymore

Most jeans have pockets, often multiple pockets, and I like wearing them for that reason, among others.  [“They’re My Blue Jeans, and I’ll Wear Them If I Want To,” https://susanjustwrites.com/category/blue-jeans/.%5D Most jackets, but not all, have pockets.  Why not?  They all need pockets.  How useful is a jacket if it doesn’t have even one pocket to stash your stuff?

Dresses and skirts should also have pockets.  Maybe an occasional event, like a fancy gala, requires a form-fitting dress that doesn’t have pockets.  But how many women actually go to galas like that?  Looking back over my lifetime of clothes-wearing, I can think of very few occasions when I had to wear a no-pocket dress.  As for skirts, I lump them in the same category as pants.  Unless you feel compelled for some bizarre reason to wear a skin-tight pencil skirt, what good is a skirt without pockets?

Cardigan sweaters, like jackets, should also have pockets.  So should robes.  Pajamas. Even nightgowns.  I relish being able to stick a facial tissue into the pocket of a nightgown.  You never know when you’re going to sneeze, right?

By the way, I view fake pockets as an abomination.  Why do designers think it’s a good idea to put a fake pocket on their designs?  Sewing what looks like a pocket but isn’t a real pocket adds insult to injury.  Either put a real pocket there, or forget the whole thing.  Fake pockets?  Boo!

Despite the longing for pockets by women like me, it can be challenging to find women’s clothes with pockets.  Why?

Several women writers have speculated about this, usually blaming sexist attitudes leading to no-pocket clothing for women.  Those who’ve traced the evolution of pockets throughout history discovered that neither men nor women wore clothing with pockets until the 17th century.  Pockets in menswear began appearing in the late 1600s.  But women?  To carry anything, they were forced to wrap a sack with a string worn around their waists and tuck the sack under their petticoats.

These sacks eventually evolved into small purses called reticules that women would carry in their hands.  But reticules were so small that they limited what women could carry.  As the twentieth century loomed, women rebelled.  According to London’s Victoria and Albert Museum, dress patterns started to include instructions for sewing pockets into skirts.  And when women began wearing pants, they finally had pockets.

But things soon switched back to no-pocket pants.  The fashion industry insisted on “slimming” designs for women, while men’s clothes still had scads of pockets.  The result has been the rise of bigger and bigger handbags (interestingly, handbags are often called “pocketbooks” on the East Coast).

Enormous handbags create a tremendous burden for women.  Their size and weight can literally weigh a woman down, impeding her ability to move through her busy life the way men can.  I’ve eschewed bulky handbags, often wearing a backpack instead.  Unfortunately, backpacks are not always appropriate attire.

Today (in 2018), many women are demanding pockets.  Some have advocated pockets with the specific goal of enabling women to carry their iPhones or other cell phones that way.  I’m a pocket-freak, but according to recent scientific research, cell phones emit dangerous radiation, and this kind of radiation exposure is a major risk to your health.  Some experts in the field have therefore advised against keeping a cell phone adjacent to your body.  So, advocating pockets for that reason may not be a good idea.  [Please see my update below.]

We need pockets in our clothes for a much more important and fundamental reason:  Freedom.

Pockets give women the kind of freedom men have:  The freedom to carry possessions close to their bodies, allowing them to reach for essentials like keys without fumbling through a clumsy handbag.

I propose a boycott on no-pocket clothes.  If enough women boycott no-pocket pants, for example, designers and manufacturers will have to pay attention.  Their new clothing lines will undoubtedly include more pockets.

I hereby pledge not to purchase any clothes without pockets.

Will you join me?

Update in August 2025:

I still endorse almost everything I wrote in 2018.  But I have a few new thoughts:

First, instead of keeping my previously-purchased no-pocket pants in a shameful pile, I’ve donated almost all of them to charity. My hope is that shoppers will find some use for these pants, possibly using the fabric alone to create something wearable.

Next, although I’m still concerned about the radiation risk posed by cell phones, my thinking evolved during the pandemic. Instead of carrying a handbag/purse, I carry all my valuables on my person. [Please see susanjustwrites.com/2021/08/06/outsmarting-the-bad-guys/ ]  This includes my cell phone, which I now put in a roomy pants pocket whenever I leave home.  I’ve reduced the radiation risk by invariably removing my phone from my pocket as soon as I return home, where I place it in a prominent place (and try to remember where it is). A backpack can sometimes be useful, but I still prefer pockets.

Third, I haven’t been doing much shopping for new clothes in the past few years, but one item I occasionally seek out is new black pants or jeans.  After all, pants do wear out.  And I’ve been delighted to discover that many more pants are now available with pockets!  Is it possible that my advocacy of a boycott on no-pocket pants has had some effect?  I’d like to think so, but I doubt it.  I simply think that the fashion industry has finally come to acknowledge that women want pants with pockets, and the bigger the pockets the better.  By purchasing more and more pants with pockets, women themselves are now influencing what’s for sale.

One more thing:  When I recently read a book describing the efforts of many Italians to resist the fascist takeover of their country in the 1930s and ‘40s, I learned that Italian women often sewed large pockets into their voluminous skirts.  They filled those pockets with items like guns and explosives that were passed on and used to resist the fascists ruling their country.  These brave women helped the resistance overcome the fascists and return Italy to democracy.  Brava!!  Their history is inspiring.  But I truly hope that, here in the United States, we can preserve our democracy without having to resort to using pockets in this very scary way.

1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Serbia? Seriously?

Posted on March 20, 2025 | 2 comments

How many Americans know anything about Serbia?  My guess? Very few.

I’m one of those very few.  In 2016 I took a Danube River trip with an affable group of fellow travelers.  Halfway through our trip, we made a stop in Bratislava, the charming capital of Slovakia.  [FYI: After Czechoslovakia broke up in 1993, about half of the former Czechoslovakia became the country of Slovakia. The other half became the Czech Republic.]

Our tour left Bratislava and went on to Belgrade, the capital of Serbia. [FYI:  Serbia is one of several smaller countries that formerly made up Yugoslavia.  Even though Yugoslavia broke up in 1992, Serbia didn’t opt for independence until 2006.]

Belgrade turned out to be a surprisingly beautiful and sophisticated city.  As our tour guide led us through the Belgrade Fortress and other tourist sights, I spied an interesting sculpture—that of Nikola Tesla. 

Tesla, the scientist and inventor whose work with electricity rivaled that of his American competitors, Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse, is a celebrated figure in Serbia.  In 1884, he left Europe for America, where he led a complicated life, ending alone in a NYC hotel room with a history of unpaid bills.  Sadly, his formerly-respected name has become anathema to some Americans, thanks to current political developments that Tesla himself had absolutely nothing to do with.

Why talk about Serbia today?  Because its current political situation has become headline news, news seriously worth our attention.

According to the AP, over 100,000 people—maybe as many as 325,000–joined a mass rally in Belgrade last weekend to culminate months-long protests against Serbia’s current President Aleksandar Vucic and his nationalist right-wing-inspired government.  “Large crowds of flag-waving protesters clogged the downtown area…despite occasional rain, with people hardly able to move,” many of them unable to get close to the actual protest venue.

University students have been leading peaceful protests in Serbia for the past four months.  The protests began when the canopy of a railway station collapsed, killing 15 people.  Many blamed the allegedly corrupt builders, allied with the government, as responsible for the canopy’s shoddy construction.

The protests have continued because of fierce opposition to the autocratic government, not merely among students but also among the rest of the Serbian population.  According to a survey reported in The New York Times, only one-third of Serbians approve of President Vucic’s leadership.  As the Financial Times quoted one protest leader, “it is time for this regime to end.”

On Wednesday, March 19, the protests had a demonstrable impact, forcing Prime Minister Milos Vucevic, an ally of President Vucic, to resign, giving the President 30 days to choose a new Prime Minister.

Without elaborating further on Serbian politics, I’ll close with this:  It’s heartening to see young people rise up to protest what they view as corrupt and destructive behavior by their government’s leaders.  Here in the U.S., I’m heartened to see that both young and older citizens have begun to stand up against the current leadership of our own government.  Recent town halls held in a number of congressional districts have highlighted the outspoken protest by those who’ve shown up.  

I hope we don’t have to wait for the 2026 midterm elections to change things.  Some special elections, like the Supreme Court fight in Wisconsin, loom in the next few weeks. 

Let’s fight for the survival of our democracy.  Let’s lend our support to current leaders who have earned it.  Let’s support new leaders who will continue the fight for democracy.  I’m doing what I can to support them, and I hope that you will, too.

2 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

All the Presidents’ Men: an update

Posted on January 24, 2025 | 2 comments

A few weeks ago, I plucked an old movie from my TV playlist and re-watched the 1976 award-winning film, “All the Presidents’ Men.”   I found it not only the riveting film I remembered but also a remarkably relevant film to watch right now. 

In this fast-moving story of two intrepid journalists working at The Washington Post in 1972, the media world at that time gradually became aware of what became known as “Watergate.”  Although President Richard Nixon had a commanding lead in the polls and was about to be reelected in a landslide in November 1972, his sense of insecurity and inferiority led him, along with his cronies, to sponsor a break-in of Democratic Party headquarters in the Watergate office building in June 1972.  The break-in was less than totally successful.  Moronic criminal-types made a couple of foolish errors that led to the detection of the break-in and their arrest by DC police.

At The Post, the two young journalists, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, faced innumerable obstacles as they tried to ferret out the truth of exactly what had happened and why.  The story ultimately focused on WHO:  Who were the players in the Nixon administration who were pulling the strings behind the Watergate break-in? 

To see the whole story play out, you may want to watch the film yourself.  But whether you watch it or not, please keep in mind just how relevant it is today.

Watergate was only one of the “dirty tricks” Nixon and his cohorts employed to undermine his political opponents.  On January 20, a president demonstrably worse than Nixon was inaugurated.  After a campaign replete with disinformation, he has already begun to effect enormous change in our country.  More than ever, we need brave and intrepid journalists like Woodward and Bernstein to ferret out the truth behind any possible wrongdoing.

The role of The Washington Post is central in both eras.  In 1972, Woodward and Bernstein had to persuade their reluctant editor at The Post to support them as they pursued the truth.  He finally relented and allowed them to publish their findings.  But if they had faltered in the face of opposition, the truth may never have come out.

In 2025, journalists at The Post have taken a different route.  A popular columnist, Jennifer Rubin, loudly spoke out against her editors and her publisher, Jeff Bezos, whom she saw as kowtowing to the incoming administration.  She and her colleagues decided to quit working at The Post, proclaiming that it was no longer seeking the truth.  On January 20, she wrote:

“The American people certainly will not be front and center at Trump’s inauguration. It’s all about him and his billionaire cronies, including the media owners who have buckled to his will. ‘Big-name billionaires are lining up to strengthen their relationships with incoming President Donald Trump during next week’s inauguration festivities,” Forbes reported.  When you add in [others] whose combined wealth dwarfs many countries’ GDP’s—you get a vivid tableau of the new oligarchy. We usher into office today a government of, by, and for the billionaires.” 

Rubin and other like-minded journalists decided to create a new entity, The Contrarian.  Norm Eisen explained how it started:

“Jen and I agreed to launch [this] venture, rounding up…over two dozen contributors in a matter of days.  We kicked off with … Jen’s Post resignation letter. While we had high hopes, we never could’ve imagined what happened next. A quarter of a million subscribers poured in … And the engagement was through the roof, with over 1,000,000 views per day.” 

Rubin proclaimed that the new venture hoped to be “a…space where independence is non-negotiable. Here, you won’t find cozy alliances, half-measures, or false equivalences. We bend the knee to no one, vigorously challenge unchecked authority, and champion transparency and accountability.  In a nation awash with noise and growing disinformation, The Contrarian cuts through the static to deliver sharp, uncompromising insights…. Our loyalty is to … the truth, and to our democratic ideals—many of which are currently under threat.”

I’ve signed up to get The Contrarian delivered to my inbox.  I hope it will stick to its commitment to the truth.  But I haven’t given up on the “legacy media”–mainstream publications like The Washington Post, The New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the San Francisco Standard.  All of them still land in my inbox every day.  (I also watch TV news programming when it appears to report the news fairly.)  I think that all of these publications include at least a few brave journalists, like the now-legendary Woodward and Bernstein, still searching for the truth, still speaking out to report wrongdoing in DC or elsewhere. 

I’ll be watching to make sure they don’t falter, hoping that, despite editors and publishers who may stand in their way, they’ll continue to live up to their role as journalists and tell their readers the truth.

2 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Polls 2024

Posted on October 24, 2024 | 2 comments

Are you fed up with polls?  I am.

I’m mad that every time I turn on TV news, I’m confronted with one poll after another.  The media seem obsessed with them, perhaps because they’re desperately trying to come up with fresh stories to fill their nearly endless need to offer viewers something new and different.

I’ve always been leery of polls.  First, I’ve never been asked to be in any poll, and no one I know has either. I’ve always wondered exactly who are the people answering questions in these polls.  Currently, polls seem to be focusing on voters in “swing states” and voters in one demographic group or another.  Maybe I don’t fit into any of those categories.  But I think my views on any number of issues are valuable and should somehow be included in these polls.  Why aren’t they?

Further, I’m quite certain that the people who do participate are often led to answer questions in a given way, thanks to questions that are, in my view, slanted in one direction or another. You’ve probably noticed that, too.

Instead of getting mad, maybe I should take the advice of Ezra Klein, an opinion writer for The New York Times.  On October 13, he published a column, “Ignore the Polls.”  He makes a bunch of good points.  To begin with, he notes that you’re probably looking at polls to know who’ll win.  But the polls can’t tell you that.  On average, polls in every presidential election between 1969 and 2012 were off by two percentage points.  More recent polls, in 2016 and 2020, were off by even more.  Klein states that pollsters today are desperate to avoid the mistakes they made in 2016 and 2020, when they undercounted Trump supporters.  So some of them are asking voters to recall who they voted for in 2020 and then using that info to include Trump voters more accurately this time.  But the results are very different when pollsters don’t ask voters to recall what they did in the past.  According to Klein, voters are “notoriously bad at recalling past votes.”  So why do the pollsters even bother asking?

Klein adds that polls are “remarkably, eerily stable.”  Events keep happening (like assassination attempts and televised debates), but the polls haven’t really changed.  So Klein advises us to give ourselves a break.  “Step off the emotional roller coaster.  If you want to do something to affect the election, donate money or time in a swing state…or volunteer in a local race.  Call anyone in your life who might actually be undecided or might not be registered to vote or might not make it to the polls.  And then let it go.” 

That’s exactly what I’ve been doing.  I’m glad my outlook resembles Ezra Klein’s.  Now if the media would just pay attention to his wise advice.  Hey, media people, ignore the polls.  Instead, seek out interesting stories about the candidates, the voters, and the issues.  Then let it go. 

2 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Cynicism can be bad for your health

Posted on September 26, 2024 | 1 comment

Hey, it’s easy to be cynical these days. 

We’re faced with lie-spouting politicians threatening democratic rule in our country.  We’re confronted by incompetent jerks who make countless mistakes, or even try to scam us, at almost any business we patronize.  And I can’t forget the maniac drivers who weave from lane to lane at illegally high speeds, threatening to kill us every time we’re near them on the freeway. 

But hold on a minute.  A social scientist/author says that having a cynical worldview isn’t such a great idea.  Jamil Zaki wants you to know that having a cynical worldview may have a negative effect on your health. 

In his new book, “Hope for Cynics:  The Surprising Science of Human Goodness,” Zaki concedes that being a cynic can make us feel safer and smarter than the selfish, greedy, and dishonest people in our midst.  But his research at Stanford (where he’s the director of its Social Neuroscience Lab) suggests that it’s much better to become “hopeful skeptics.”  In other words, it’s okay to be critical of troublemakers, but you should also recognize how kind and generous most people really are.

What’s at play here?  Well, we tend to pay more attention to negative events than to positive ones.  This “negativity bias” leads you to remember an occasional driver who cuts you off in traffic while you ignore the countless drivers who are obeying the rules of the road.  Zaki says we should take 15 minutes out of our day and pay attention to the kindness all around us instead of the rudeness you encounter now and then.

Similarly, he recommends that we spread “positive gossip,” pointing out good deeds and kind behavior instead of doing the opposite–spreading mean-spirited gossip about people we dislike.

What’s the benefit of avoiding cynical thought?  You’ll probably feel better about humankind, and that will probably lead to better health.  According to Zaki, the cynical among us are more likely to suffer from depression, heart disease, and feeling burned out.

In the midst of a heated campaign for mayor in San Francisco, one candidate has asked voters to end “the era of cynicism.”  He’s a political novice who has spent much of his personal fortune on philanthropic efforts aimed at improving life in our city, and he’s angry that his opponents have belittled those efforts.  I don’t blame him one bit.  Even though his philanthropy hasn’t always met its goals, the other candidates shouldn’t stoop to cynical bashing.  Instead of criticizing him (as they did in a recent televised debate), they could be praising his attempts to make life better. They could adopt a positive approach and advocate their own ideas for achieving worthwhile goals for our city.  Sadly, the negativity hurled during the debate was so awful that I immediately stopped watching.

As The New York Times book review of Zaki’s book has warned: “Don’t Fall into the ‘Cynicism Trap.”  I don’t plan to, and I hope you won’t either.  Let’s aim for hopeful skepticism.  If we avoid cynicism and instead pay more attention to the kindness around us, we just might feel better.

1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Declare your independence: Those high heels are killers

Posted on July 1, 2023 | 1 comment

Following a tradition I began several years ago, I’m once again encouraging women to declare their independence this July 4th and abandon wearing high-heeled shoes. I’ve revised this post in light of changes that have taken place during the past year and a couple of new ideas I want to pass along.

My newly revised post follows:

I’ve long maintained that high heels are killers.  I never used that term literally, of course.  I merely viewed high-heeled shoes as distinctly uncomfortable and an outrageous concession to the dictates of fashion that can lead to both pain and permanent damage to a woman’s body. 

Several years ago, however, high heels proved to be actual killers.  The Associated Press reported that two women, ages 18 and 23, were killed in Riverside, California, as they struggled in high heels to get away from a train.  With their car stuck on the tracks, the women attempted to flee as the train approached.  A police spokesman later said, “It appears they were in high heels and [had] a hard time getting away quickly.” 

During the past few years, largely dominated by the global pandemic, many women and men adopted different ways to clothe themselves.  Sweatpants and other comfortable clothing became popular.  [Please see my post, “Two Words,” published three years ago, focusing on wearing pants with elastic waists:  https://susanjustwrites.com/2020/07/15/two-words/].

Many women also abandoned wearing high heels.  Staying close to home, wearing comfortable clothes, they saw no need to push their feet into high heels.  Venues requiring professional clothes or footwear almost disappeared, and few women sought out venues requiring any sort of fancy clothes or footwear.  

But when the pandemic began to loosen its grip, some women were tempted to return to their previous choice of footwear.  The prospect of a renaissance in high-heeled shoe-wearing was noted in publications like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.   In a story in the Times, one woman “flicked the dust off her…high-heeled lavender pumps” that she’d put away for months and got ready to wear them to a birthday gathering.  According to the Times, some were seeking “the joy of dressing up…itching…to step up their style game in towering heels.”

Okay.  I get it.  “Dressing up” may be your thing after a few years of relying on sweatpants.  But “towering heels”?  They may look beautiful, they may be alluring….

BUT don’t do it!  Please take my advice and don’t return to wearing the kind of shoes that will hobble you once again.

Like the unfortunate young women in Riverside, I was sucked into wearing high heels when I was a teenager.  It was de rigueur for girls at my high school to seek out the trendy shoe stores on State Street in downtown Chicago and purchase whichever high-heeled offerings our wallets could afford.  On my first visit, I was entranced by the three-inch-heeled numbers that pushed my toes into a too-narrow space and revealed them in what I thought was a highly provocative position.  If feet can have cleavage, those shoes gave me cleavage.

Never mind that my feet were encased in a vise-like grip.  Never mind that I walked unsteadily on the stilts beneath my soles.  And never mind that my whole body was pitched forward in an ungainly manner as I propelled myself around the store.  I liked the way my legs looked in those shoes, and I had just enough baby-sitting money to pay for them.  Now I could stride with pride to the next Sweet Sixteen luncheon on my calendar, wearing footwear like all the other girls’.

That luncheon revealed what an unwise purchase I’d made.  Leaving the event, I found myself stranded in a distant location with no ride home.  I started walking to the nearest bus stop, but after a few steps, it was clear that my shoes were killers.  I could barely put one foot in front of the other, and the pain became so great that I removed my shoes and walked in stocking feet the rest of the way.

After that painful lesson, I abandoned three-inch high-heeled shoes and resorted to wearing lower ones.   Sure, I couldn’t flaunt my shapely legs quite as effectively, but I nevertheless managed to secure ample male attention.  Instead of conforming to the modern-day equivalent of Chinese foot-binding, I successfully and happily fended off the back pain, foot pain, bunions, and corns that my fashion-victim sisters often suffer in spades.

Until the pandemic changed our lives, I observed a troubling trend toward higher and higher heels.  I was baffled by women, especially young women, who bought into the mindset that they had to follow the dictates of fashion and the need to look “sexy” by wearing extremely high heels.  

Watching TV, I’d see too many women wearing stilettos that forced them into the ungainly walk I briefly sported so long ago.  Women on late-night TV shows who were otherwise smartly attired and often very smart (in the other sense of the word) often wore ridiculously high heels that forced them to greet their hosts with that same ungainly walk.  Some appeared to be almost on the verge of toppling over. 

Sadly, this phenomenon has reappeared.  Otherwise enlightened women are once again appearing on TV wearing absurdly high heels.  Even one of my favorite TV journalists, Stephanie Ruhle, has appeared on her “11th Hour” program on MSNBC in stilettos.  C’mon, Steph!  Don’t chip away at my respect for you.  Dump those stilettos!

What about the women, like me, who adopted lower-heeled shoes instead of following fashion?  I think we’re much smarter and much less likely to fall on our faces.  One very smart woman who’s still a fashion icon agreed with us long ago: the late Hollywood film star Audrey Hepburn. Audrey dressed smartly, in both senses of the word.

I recently watched her 1963 smash film Charade for the tenth or twelfth time. I once again noted how elegant she appeared in her Givenchy wardrobe and her–yes–low heels. Audrey was well known for wearing comfortable low heels in her private life as well as in her films. [Please see my post: https://susanjustwrites.com/2013/08/08/audrey-hepburn-and-me/.]  In Charade, paired with Cary Grant, another ultra-classy human being, she’s seen running up and down countless stairs in Paris Metro stations, chased by Cary Grant not only on those stairs but also through the streets of Paris. She couldn’t have possibly done all that frantic running in high heels!

Foot-care professionals have soundly supported my view.   According to the American Podiatric Medical Association, a heel that’s more than 2 or 3 inches makes comfort just about impossible.  Why?  Because a 3-inch heel creates seven times more stress than a 1-inch heel.

A few years ago, the San Francisco Chronicle questioned a podiatrist and foot and ankle surgeon who practiced in Palo Alto (and assisted Nike’s running team).  He explained that after 1.5 inches, the pressure increases on the ball of the foot and can lead to “ball-of-the-foot numbness.”  (Yikes!)  He advised against wearing 3-inch heels and pointed out that celebrities wear them for only a short time, not all day.  To ensure a truly comfortable shoe, he added, no one should go above a 1.5-inch heel.  If you insist on wearing higher heels, you should at least limit how much time you spend in them.

More recently, another source chimed in.  A blog post by Associated Podiatrists, PC, outlined all of the foot problems that develop from wearing high heels, including stress fractures, bunions, and metatarsalgia (overuse of the fat pad in your forefoot leads to its becoming thinner over time, causing severe pain).  These podiatrists recommended the following:

  • Avoid heels higher than two inches.
  • Because a high stiletto with a pointy closed toe is the worst type of shoe for your feet, choose heels with a generous toe box area and extra cushioning at the front of the shoe.
  • Consider wearing supportive shoes en route and changing into high heels only after you arrive at your destination, minimizing the time you spend in heels.
  • “Kitten heels” are a foot-friendly option for heel wearers. With a heel-height typically less than one inch, they deliver a bit of height without the pressure that higher heels can cause.
  • Be extra-careful when wearing platforms or wedges; they can compromise your balance and stability. Very high heels may lead to ankle-rolls and falls. Choose only lower platforms and wedges that have ankle straps.

Before the pandemic, some encouraging changes were afoot.  Nordstrom, one of America’s major shoe-sellers, began to promote lower-heeled styles along with higher-heeled numbers. Although stilettos hadn’t disappeared from its promotions, they weren’t the only choices.  I was encouraged because Nordstrom is a bellwether in the fashion world, and its choices can influence shoe-seekers. 

Then the pandemic arrived and changed the dynamics of shoe-purchasing.  During the first year, sales of high heels languished, “teetering on the edge of extinction,” according to the Times.  But because the pandemic has dissipated in most of our lives, there are undoubtedly women who have resurrected the high heels already in their closets.  They may even be inspired to buy new ones.  I hope they don’t.

Now there is heartening news from bellwether Nordstrom.  In its catalog for its 2023 Anniversary Sale, two pages feature nothing but sneakers by brands like Adidas, Nike, and Cole Haan.  Another page displays nothing but flat-heeled shoes.  (It’s titled “Flat-Out Fabulous.”)  Another page features “modern loafers” in a wide range of prices.  And stilettos are nowhere to be seen.  This is a notable shift by a major retailer.

Let’s not forget the Gen Z generation.  Most Gen Z shoppers don’t follow the dictates of fashion. They largely eschew high heels, choosing pricey and often glamorous sneakers instead–even with dressy prom dresses.

Forgive me, but I can’t help mentioning some retrograde news:  An item in The New York Times on June 29th:  In a new episode on a “popular” TV series, the stars have returned to wearing outrageous shoes.  The Times highlighted a pair of “balloon heels,” so I looked them up online.  They are leather sandals, selling for $1,200, that feature “playful balloons floating on delicately buckled straps.”  I could barely believe that the photo accompanying the sales pitch for these sandals was genuine.  Small red balloons are attached to the shoes and presumably burst while the fashion-victim is wearing them!  Who is wacky enough to purchase and wear these absurdities?  I sincerely hope that this kind of footwear is viewed, even by high-heel lovers, as ridiculous, and it simply dies on the vine.

My own current faves: I wear black Skechers almost everywhere (I own more than one pair). I occasionally choose my old standby, Reeboks, for serious walking. (In my novel Red Diana, protagonist Karen Clark laces on her Reeboks for a lengthy jaunt, just as I do.) And when warm temperatures dominate, I wear walking sandals, like those sold by Clarks, Teva, and Ecco.

Any women who are pondering buying high-heeled shoes should hesitate.  Beyond the issue of comfort and damage to your feet, please remember that high heels present a far more serious problem.  As the deaths in Riverside demonstrate, women who wear high heels may be putting their lives at risk.  When they need to flee a dangerous situation, high heels can handicap their ability to escape. How many needless deaths have resulted from hobbled feet?

The Fourth of July is fast approaching.  As we celebrate the holiday this year, I once again urge the women of America to declare their independence from high-heeled shoes. 

So, if you’re thinking about returning to painful footwear, think again.  You’d be wise to reconsider.

Instead, I urge you to bravely gather any high heels you’ve been clinging to and throw those shoes away.  At the very least, keep them out of sight in the back of your closet.  And don’t even think about buying new ones.  Shod yourself instead in shoes that allow you to walk in comfort—and if need be, to run.

Your wretched appendages, yearning to be free, will be forever grateful.

[Earlier versions of this commentary appeared on Susan Just Writes and the San Francisco Chronicle.]

1 Comment

Posted in , stilletos, Audrey Hepburn, blog, clothes, clothing, clothing, fashion, feet, foot pain, Gen Z, high-heeled shoes, high heels, San Francisco Chronicle, sneakers, sneakers, stilettos, teenage years, television, The New York Times, TV late-night, TV news, walking, well-being, women, women's clothing

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Being short

Posted on May 30, 2023 | 3 comments

Being short

When I was in seventh grade, I was one of the tallest kids in my class.

The other kids kept growing.  I didn’t.

So, for most of my life, I’ve been viewed by others as “short.”  Not painfully short.  Just short.  And that’s been fine with me because I’ve always viewed myself as perfectly normal, confident in my own (short-sized) skin.  At the same time, I can’t deny my short stature, with all of its attendant pros and cons.                      

Another writer, Mara Altman, recently put forth her own ideas on being short. In an opinion piece in The New York Times, Altman declared that “there has never been a better time to be short.”

Why did she decide to take up this particular cause?  Altman tries to make being short seem to be somehow better by dredging up a list of positives as support for her claim.  Quoting famed economist John Kenneth Galbraith, who was himself 6’8” and once said that our culture’s “favoring the tall” is “one of the most blatant…prejudices in our society,” she attempts to knock down that prejudice.

As someone who’s about the same height as Altman, I like her list of benefits.  For example, I like her claim that short people live longer and have fewer incidences of cancer.  Great news, if true.  I’ve lived my life feeling pretty happy about being short, and anything that bolsters my general feeling of well-being is welcome.  But I question some of her sunny conclusions. 

First, Altman contends that being short benefits the environment.  She cites Thomas Samaras (she refers to him as the Godfather of Shrink Think), who has calculated that if Americans were just 10 percent shorter, we would save 87 million tons of food every year, as well as trillions of gallons of water and millions of tons of trash. But where are the calculations that support these conclusions? 

Altman also cites, Yuval Noah Harari, the author of “Sapiens,” who studied a population of early humans living on a small island.  When the island was cut off by rising sea levels, “Big people, who need a lot of food, died first,” Harari wrote.  But does this story of an isolated group of early humans really inform us in twenty-first-century America?  For a more recent and more apt example, why don’t we look at Holocaust survivors?  I haven’t researched this topic, but it seems to me that those who survived horrendous treatment in the Nazi concentration camps covered a wide range of body types.  Everyone in the camps was desperate for food, disease stalked the camps, and survival depended on a number of things in the survivors’ lives.  I have to question whether the “big people” died first.

Another bit of questionable evidence cited by Altman:  The findings of a Dutch researcher, Nancy Blaker, who has studied “social status” and concluded that short men (not clearly defined), “counter to prevailing attitudes,” may “compensate” for being short by “developing positive attributes.”  According to Blaker, short men aren’t necessarily “aggressive and mean” but “behave in smart strategic ways…that can also mean being prosocial.”  Huh?  Let’s be honest here.  I’ve known a great many short (as opposed to tall) men during my lifetime, and I would never presume to generalize about them.  Each man, like each woman, is an individual, subject to his gene pool and to a number of influences that began in their early childhoods.  Each man, short or tall or medium-height, is the result of whatever has made him the way he is.  Whoever said they were “aggressive and mean” in the first place?  Ludicrous.  All of them now behave “in smart strategic ways”?  Some, maybe, but all? 

I share Altman’s concern that some parents foolishly seek out expensive human growth treatment in an attempt to produce a child who’s bigger than nature intended.  A Philadelphia endocrinologist, Dr. Adda Grinberg, worries that parents think height is the key to success and belonging.  Grinberg disagrees with these parents.  “There are some short people who thrive and do phenomenally well and lead fantastic lives, and there are some tall people who are miserable.  It’s not the height that determines the outcome.”   Well said.  Truly caring parents should think twice before subjecting their children to an uncertain and possibly harmful treatment, hoping their kids will turn out taller.  Altman confesses that her parents, concerned that she would be short, subjected her to those “excruciating” treatments for three and a half years.  And those treatments apparently didn’t make much of a difference.  She still turned out to be “five-feet-even” short.

I’d love to believe Altman’s claims that short people live longer and have fewer incidences of cancer.  I sadly don’t find any citations of evidence for those claims.  I similarly like her focus on environmental benefits, but her support there is also sketchy.  If anyone can offer valid numbers to attach to these claims, I’m all ears.

By the way, I’d add one advantage Altman’s omitted:  Being a passenger on an airplane.  No matter where I sit on a plane, I always have plenty of legroom because my legs simply don’t require a lot of room.  Taller passengers often look resentful.

But things may not the same on other forms of transit.  When I would take a commuter train from home to downtown Chicago, I’d usually seek out the window seat on a two-seater bench. Time after time, a large overweight man would squeeze into my bench, leaving me little space to enjoy my chosen spot.  Whenever I later told my darling husband about it, he wisely responded, “Of course! Those guys want to sit next to you because you’re so small.”  He explained the obvious:  These men were exploiting my small size by occupying the lion’s share of my bench.

So, being a short person hasn’t always been totally positive.  I have a perennial problem reaching high shelves and racks in stores.  Since the pandemic has cut my time in stores to a minimum, that problem has abated.  But I still have kitchen cabinets and closets with high shelves requiring a stool to reach items perched there.  But seriously, are those enormous obstacles to happiness?  I don’t think so.

Overall, being short hasn’t been a big problem for me. As a child, I always felt perfectly normal.  Both of my parents and my sister were also short, and I was never made to think that it was better to be tall. I’ve rarely felt excluded, because of my height, from any activity or pursuit I chose to follow, including attending law school at a time when women were generally discouraged from doing so.  And I had a whole universe of men, from the shortest to the tallest, who were OK with dating me, while taller women may have attracted a somewhat smaller cohort.

Still, I’m not sorry that my delightful daughters have turned out to be about five or six inches taller than I am, reaching a height somewhere between mine and that of their much taller father. They light up my life in every way.  But to be specific, they’re happy to grab items for me from those pesky high shelves. 

I’m OK with being short, and I don’t feel a need to defend it.  Nature intends us to be short or tall or in-between.  Why should I pick a fight with Mother Nature?

3 Comments

Posted in cancer, Chicago, environment, family, happiness, long life, longevity, parents

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Try laughing

Posted on January 31, 2022 | 1 comment

We’ve been going through a rough patch.  Name it:  Covid fatigue, our overly-partisan political scene, endless stories about Russia’s possible assault on Ukraine.

Can anything pull us out of the dumps?  The New York Times recently talked to a bunch of medical professionals who came up with a solution:  Try a little laughter.

A cardiologist at a med school in Maryland called humor not only a distraction from grim reality but also a winning strategy to stay healthy.  “Heightened stress magnifies the risk of cardiovascular events, including heart attacks and strokes,” said Dr. Michael Miller.  “Having a good sense of humor is an excellent way to relieve stress and anxiety and bring back a sense of normalcy during these turbulent times.”

Is there a scientific basis for the benefits of laughter?  Actually, there is.  Laughter releases nitric oxide, a chemical that relaxes blood vessels, reduces blood pressure, and decreases clotting.  At least two studies have demonstrated its positive effects.  In Japan, a study of older men and women confirmed that those who tended to laugh more had a lower risk of major cardiovascular illness.  And a study in Norway reported that possessing a sense of humor was associated with living longer, especially for women.

A neuroscientist at University College London, Sophie Scott, pointed out that laughter has been shown to reduce the stress hormones cortisol and adrenaline, thereby increasing the body’s uptake of feel-good endorphins.

Ready for more?  There may also be cognitive benefits. According to a study conducted at Loma Linda University, watching a funny video was related to improvements in short-term memory in older adults; they also increased their capacity to learn.

The Times noted that some hospitals have initiated formal humor programs, making funny books and videos available to their patients.  One nurse-manager who works with chronic-pain patients has tried teaching them laughter-exercises and other ways to enhance positive feelings like gratitude and forgiveness.  Although the stress of the pandemic could make the experience of pain worse, she found that humor helped her patients “relax and release their grip on pain.”  She advised patients to set aside time for humor on a daily basis (much like setting aside time for physical activity).  She also recommended having “laughter first-aid boxes,” where patients can stash items like joke books and funny toys. Instead of their simply taking a pill, she liked encouraging people to “cultivate the healing power of laughter,” helping them to be in control.

Dr. Miller added that he was trying to bring a dose of comic relief into his own medical work, and he believed that his colleagues had begun to do the same.  “The culture is beginning to shift—injecting humor and humanity back into medicine,” he said.  If you can’t change the world around you, you can at least “change how you view it.  Humor gives us the power to do that.”

So…if you’re thinking about choosing something to read or watch, consider something funny.  It may be tempting to opt for anxiety-producing suspense or stories fraught with horror, but if you need a lift, you’re probably better off with humor. 

My choice?  I’m off to watch one of my favorite Seinfeld episodes, The Marine Biologist.  “The sea was angry that day, my friends”–but I won’t be angry or stressed.  I’ll be laughing!

1 Comment

Posted in anxiety, cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular disease,, humor, laughing, laughs, laughter, stress

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Declare Your Independence: Those high heels are killers

Posted on June 29, 2021 | 1 comment

Following a tradition I began several years ago, I’m once again encouraging women to declare their independence this July 4th and abandon wearing high-heeled shoes. 

I’ve revised this post in light of changes that have taken place during the past year.

My newly revised post follows:

I’ve long maintained that high heels are killers.  I never used that term literally, of course.  I merely viewed high-heeled shoes as distinctly uncomfortable and an outrageous concession to the dictates of fashion that can lead to both pain and permanent damage to a woman’s body. 

A few years ago, however, high heels proved to be actual killers.  The Associated Press reported that two women, ages 18 and 23, were killed in Riverside, California, as they struggled in high heels to get away from a train.  With their car stuck on the tracks, the women attempted to flee as the train approached.  A police spokesman later said, “It appears they were in high heels and [had] a hard time getting away quickly.” 

During the past year, one dominated by the global pandemic, many women and men adopted different ways to clothe themselves.  Sweatpants and other comfortable clothing became popular.  [Please see my post, “Two Words,” published July 15, 2020, focusing on wearing pants with elastic waists.]

In particular, many women abandoned the wearing of high heels.  Staying close to home, wearing comfortable clothes, they saw no need to push their feet into high heels.  Venues requiring professional clothes or footwear almost disappeared, and few women chose to seek out venues requiring any sort of fancy clothes or footwear.  

As the pandemic has loosened its grip, at least in many parts of the country, some women have been tempted to return to their previous choice of footwear.  The prospect of a renaissance in high-heeled shoe-wearing has been noted in publications like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.   In a recent story in the Times, one woman “flicked the dust off her…high-heeled lavender pumps” that she’d put away for months and got ready to wear them to a birthday gathering.  According to the Times, some are seeking “the joy of dressing up…itching…to step up their style game in towering heels.”

Okay.  I get it.  “Dressing up” may be your thing after more than a year of relying on sweatpants.  But “towering heels”?  They may look beautiful, they may be alluring….

BUT don’t do it!  Please take my advice and don’t return to wearing the kind of shoes that will hobble you once again..

Like the unfortunate young women in Riverside, I was sucked into wearing high heels when I was a teenager.  It was de rigueur for girls at my high school to seek out the trendy shoe stores on State Street in downtown Chicago and purchase whichever high-heeled offerings our wallets could afford.  On my first visit, I was entranced by the three-inch-heeled numbers that pushed my toes into a too-narrow space and revealed them in what I thought was a highly provocative position.  If feet can have cleavage, those shoes gave me cleavage.

Never mind that my feet were encased in a vise-like grip.  Never mind that I walked unsteadily on the stilts beneath my soles.  And never mind that my whole body was pitched forward in an ungainly manner as I propelled myself around the store.  I liked the way my legs looked in those shoes, and I had just enough baby-sitting money to pay for them.  Now I could stride with pride to the next Sweet Sixteen luncheon on my calendar, wearing footwear like all the other girls’.

That luncheon revealed what an unwise purchase I’d made.  When the event was over, I found myself stranded in a distant location with no ride home, and I started walking to the nearest bus stop.  After a few steps, it was clear that my shoes were killers.  I could barely put one foot in front of the other, and the pain became so great that I removed my shoes and walked in stocking feet the rest of the way.

After that painful lesson, I abandoned three-inch high-heeled shoes and resorted to wearing lower ones.   Sure, I couldn’t flaunt my shapely legs quite as effectively, but I nevertheless managed to secure ample male attention. 

Instead of conforming to the modern-day equivalent of Chinese foot-binding, I successfully and happily fended off the back pain, foot pain, bunions, and corns that my fashion-victim sisters often suffer in spades.

Until the pandemic changed our lives, I observed a trend toward higher and higher heels, and I found it troubling.  I was baffled by women, especially young women, who bought into the mindset that they had to follow the dictates of fashion and the need to look “sexy” by wearing extremely high heels.  

When I’d watch TV, I’d see too many women wearing stilettos that forced them into the ungainly walk I briefly sported so long ago.  I couldn’t help noticing the women on late-night TV shows who were otherwise smartly attired and often very smart (in the other sense of the word), yet wore ridiculously high heels that forced them to greet their hosts with that same ungainly walk.  Some appeared to be almost on the verge of toppling over. 

On one of the last in-person Oscar Awards telecasts (before they became virtual), women tottered to the stage in ultra-high heels, often accompanied by escorts who kindly held onto them to prevent their embarrassing descent into the orchestra pit.

So…what about the women, like me, who adopted lower-heeled shoes instead?  I think we’ve been much smarter and much less likely to fall on our faces.

Foot-care professionals have soundly supported my view.   According to the American Podiatric Medical Association, a heel that’s more than 2 or 3 inches makes comfort just about impossible.  Why?  Because a 3-inch heel creates seven times more stress than a 1-inch heel.

A couple of years ago, the San Francisco Chronicle questioned Dr. Amol Saxena, a podiatrist and foot and ankle surgeon who practiced in Palo Alto (and assisted Nike’s running team).  He explained that after 1.5 inches, the pressure increases on the ball of the foot and can lead to “ball-of-the-foot numbness.”  (Yikes!)  He did not endorse wearing 3-inch heels and pointed out that celebrities wear them for only a short time, not all day.  To ensure a truly comfortable shoe, he added, no one should go above a 1.5-inch heel.  If you insist on wearing higher heels, you should limit how much time you spend in them.

Before the pandemic, some encouraging changes were afoot.  Nordstrom, one of America’s major shoe-sellers, began to promote lower-heeled styles along with higher-heeled numbers.  I was encouraged because Nordstrom is a bellwether in the fashion world, and its choices can influence shoe-seekers.  At the same time, I wondered whether Nordstrom was reflecting what its shoppers had already told the stores’ decision-makers.  The almighty power of the purse—how shoppers were choosing to spend their money–probably played a big role.

But the pandemic may have completely changed the dynamics of shoe-purchasing.  Once we faced the reality of the pandemic, and it then stuck around for months, sales of high heels languished, “teetering on the edge of extinction,” according to the Times. 

Today, with the pandemic a somewhat less frightening presence in our lives, there are undoubtedly women who will decide to resurrect the high heels already in their closets.  They, and others, may be inspired to buy new ones, dramatically changing the statistics—and their well-being.

I hope these women don’t act in haste.  Beyond the issue of comfort, let’s remember that high heels present a far more serious problem.  As the deaths in Riverside demonstrate, women who wear high heels can be putting their lives at risk.  When they need to flee a dangerous situation, high heels can handicap their ability to escape.

How many needless deaths have resulted from hobbled feet?

The Fourth of July is fast approaching.  As we celebrate the holiday this year, I once again urge the women of America to declare their independence from high-heeled shoes. 

If you’re currently thinking about returning to painful footwear, think again.  You’d be wiser to reconsider.

I encourage you to bravely gather any high heels you’ve clung to during the pandemic and throw those shoes away.  At the very least, please keep them out of sight in the back of your closet.  And don’t even think about buying new ones.  Shod yourself instead in shoes that allow you to walk in comfort—and if need be, to run.

Your wretched appendages, yearning to be free, will be forever grateful.

[Earlier versions of this commentary appeared on Susan Just Writes and the San Francisco Chronicle.]

1 Comment

Posted in blog, Chicago, Covid-19, Fourth of July, freedom, high school, high-heeled shoes, high heels, Nordstrom, Oscar awards, pedestrian deaths and injuries, pedestrian safety, shoes, teenage years, television, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, TV late-night, walking, well-being, women, women's clothing

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,