While we’re on the topic, on the last year, NPR interviewed an expert who warned of lifelong debilitating injury (pain walking) that dancers developed by going en pointe too young. The woman recommended waiting until 15. But searching for this to share with dancers, I cannot find the interview now. Did NPR retract this?
I don't recall NPR, but I do recall an interview with one of the US Olympic team doctors who has done extensive work on pointe and dance-related injuries.
Yep, that’s what happened to my wife… she started rhythmic gymnastic and ballet at 4 in Eastern Europe in the 90s with a brutal coach, had to stop at 12 for an injury, and she has been having chronic pain and arthritis since she was 17. Anything taken to the extreme can have lifelong consequences.
While growth plates close at this time (~13-15), in preprofessional training it's more usual to start from about 12. Basically,one's feet need to be strong enough to protect growing bones from permanent damage, thus safely starting pointework has more to do with having enough strength from previous training (2+ years) than fully closed growth plates.
For more information:
https://www.ortho.wustl.edu/content/Patient-Care/3496/Servic...
Yep, even dancers who go on point later end up with injuries and issues like arthritis. It’s really that point is a bad idea, period. It’s an archaic holdover. For some reason people don’t view it negatively like foot binding.
I can't watch ballet. I actually, not figuratively, cringe when they do en pointe. It's like watching somebody cut themselves or even be in situations where they might, like an amateur youtube cook chopping unsafely; just physically and psychologically too uncomfortable for me. I don't have a problem with blood or injuries, per se; watching a surgical operation is tolerable, as long as I believe it's not actually painful. Maybe if I forced myself to watch enough ballet I'd learn to accept it's not that painful during the performance (is it?), but it'd take more effort than I care to put into it. Something about discrete, focused pain just triggers me. I also have to look away when getting my blood drawn or given a shot, and don't want to watch others getting the needle, either.
Conversely, I think one of the reasons some people are mesmerized by en pointe is the idea of it being painful, in the moment or at least the training/practice, and the manifest dedication involved.
It's interesting that we lunge at ballet so much faster for this danger but everyone is resisting with all their might to criticize soccer, which causes micro-CTEs unless the league bans headers. It's made me wonder if it's some kind of paternalistic misogyny. We must protect the girls, but the boys can fuck off and die. Or, alternatively, let's tear down the girls' arts, but boys sports must be untouched.
There is no 'we'. There are different values that value different things.
Slave values = sacrificing yourself is noble and good.
Aristocracy values = being born an aristocrat is noble and good.
Trader values = enriching oneself is noble and good.
Religious fundamentalist values = following the one and only book is good.
Little girl/consumer values = my emotions are good.
Etc.
Slave and religious values are being replaced by trader and little girl/consumer values.
Boys embody slave or trader values. Girls embody little girl/consumer values.
Boys go to war, girls are little princesses. Ballet/women's pro sports are a niche for the few women who embody slave values. Most embody little girl/consumer values.
I think it's more that the male-dominant sports are billion dollar industries driven by deep-seated cultures of masculinity that view safety as weakness, and spectatorship that wants to see violence. No one watches ballet wanting to hear the sound of the dancers' skulls colliding.
They do watch for the en pointe, which is beautiful precisely because it's not something we expect bodies to be able to do. And the pain and injury risk also, I think, adds to the effect. I don't think it's all that different from what people experience seeing heads or bodies getting slammed, except en pointe is feminine coded (graceful) whereas slamming is masculine coded (brutish).
Avery Trufelman does an incredibly well-researched podcast on clothing of all kinds by the name of Articles of Interest. They did a whole show on the pointe shoe. You can check it out here: https://articlesofinterest.substack.com/p/on-pointe
Speaking of shoes, can we please stop wearing leather shoes? They fit poorly, hurt feet, require polish, are bad for running when in a rush, and they shrink fast.
Well-made leather shoes have none of those drawbacks (besides polishing; nothing to do about that). When I was in high school my grandmother bought me a pair of (eye-wateringly expensive, partially hand-made) dress shoes. I can remember the style (dance-Oxford), but not the maker. I wore them for graduation, and then for another decade of restaurant and catering work. I regularly spent 10+ hours in a day in them, walking I don't know how far, and they were (with a soft-gel insole inside) as comfortable as a pair of sneakers - though indeed, not so good for running. I think I replaced the soles twice, before too much restaurant-damage on the uppers forced their retirement. More than 20 years after their demise, and I still miss them.
I don't think the raw material shoes are made of is that important. If their shape is correct and you size them right, they should be fine.
Shoes with a narrow toebox (pretty much all of them, except the ones that specifically advertise as being wide) should be considered extreme body modification IMO. Fine if that's what you're into, but most of the population should not be subjected to that.
Football (soccer) boots tend to be extremely narrow. Part of the reason is to keep the foot firm in it, but I suspect a lot of players would benefit from wider boxes.
Climbing boots are another interesting one. I can't wear most brands at all. I have settled on Scarpa as they tend to be wider. A lot of climbers have a tendency to downsize them massively though, and I honestly don't know how they do that. I have been purchasing them at least at my street size, and the next pair I get will be a whole number up. Not because they're just uncomfortable, but rather because they're nearly impossible to get in otherwise. I do wish I'd find wider toeboxes though, so I could get a pair that fits tight, but not torture tight.
From reading about the leather shoes are supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread. And I think they actually do last much longer than modern shoes made from synthetic materials, which you can’t really care for.
And they’re supposed to mold to your foot.
I feel like everyone is reading "leather shoe" and interpreting it as "dress shoe," but tennis shoes/trainers are usually leather, too. Sandals, moccasins, etc. Leather is a material. My ON running shoes are leather. My legit hiking shoes are leather. So are the kung fu shoes I used twenty years ago to fly through the fucking air with swords.
Almost all my dozen or so pairs of shoes and boots are leather and the only of these that I find true is that they’re not great for running. At least none of the ones I have.
If they fit poorly, you bought the wrong size or a pair made from a last that is very wrong for you. Ditto if they hurt your feet. Past a the first 3-4 wears of break-in neither of those should be true, they should fit and feel awesome. They’ll shrink if you soak them in water, and I mean soak, but even that’s usually not fatal to them, they’ll stretch back out. I have a beater pair of camp moccasins that I’ve straight-up walked down a waist-deep river in three times, and I regularly wear them for kayaking and briefly submerge them when getting in and out, and they still fit fine.
Also you don’t need to polish most of them. Hit ‘em with leather soap and conditioner a couple times a year if you want them to last a decade-plus, yes. Polish? That’s only necessary for certain types of shoes for certain purposes, and even then, you shouldn’t need to do it all the time or anything. I don’t put polish on any of mine.
(All this void if we’re talking reconstructed or fake leather like most of the “leather” shoes at the median Macy’s or other common department store, those are terrible, yeah)
None of these things are true about the material. They're all true of poorly-made shoes.
Also that's a very broad category. "Leather shoes." That's like nearly every dress and athletic shoe that exists. IT's all traditional moccasins. IT's a lot of the best sandals, which certainly don't have any of the problems you've listed.
While we’re on the topic, on the last year, NPR interviewed an expert who warned of lifelong debilitating injury (pain walking) that dancers developed by going en pointe too young. The woman recommended waiting until 15. But searching for this to share with dancers, I cannot find the interview now. Did NPR retract this?
I don't recall NPR, but I do recall an interview with one of the US Olympic team doctors who has done extensive work on pointe and dance-related injuries.
see: https://selinashah.com/press/interviews/
Yep, that’s what happened to my wife… she started rhythmic gymnastic and ballet at 4 in Eastern Europe in the 90s with a brutal coach, had to stop at 12 for an injury, and she has been having chronic pain and arthritis since she was 17. Anything taken to the extreme can have lifelong consequences.
While growth plates close at this time (~13-15), in preprofessional training it's more usual to start from about 12. Basically,one's feet need to be strong enough to protect growing bones from permanent damage, thus safely starting pointework has more to do with having enough strength from previous training (2+ years) than fully closed growth plates. For more information: https://www.ortho.wustl.edu/content/Patient-Care/3496/Servic...
Yep, even dancers who go on point later end up with injuries and issues like arthritis. It’s really that point is a bad idea, period. It’s an archaic holdover. For some reason people don’t view it negatively like foot binding.
I can't watch ballet. I actually, not figuratively, cringe when they do en pointe. It's like watching somebody cut themselves or even be in situations where they might, like an amateur youtube cook chopping unsafely; just physically and psychologically too uncomfortable for me. I don't have a problem with blood or injuries, per se; watching a surgical operation is tolerable, as long as I believe it's not actually painful. Maybe if I forced myself to watch enough ballet I'd learn to accept it's not that painful during the performance (is it?), but it'd take more effort than I care to put into it. Something about discrete, focused pain just triggers me. I also have to look away when getting my blood drawn or given a shot, and don't want to watch others getting the needle, either.
Conversely, I think one of the reasons some people are mesmerized by en pointe is the idea of it being painful, in the moment or at least the training/practice, and the manifest dedication involved.
It's interesting that we lunge at ballet so much faster for this danger but everyone is resisting with all their might to criticize soccer, which causes micro-CTEs unless the league bans headers. It's made me wonder if it's some kind of paternalistic misogyny. We must protect the girls, but the boys can fuck off and die. Or, alternatively, let's tear down the girls' arts, but boys sports must be untouched.
Do we?
Never heard of this ballet thing til now. Have heard plenty of rumblings about headers in youth soccer. For both boys and girls.
Male dancers and female athletes exist…
There is no 'we'. There are different values that value different things.
Slave values = sacrificing yourself is noble and good.
Aristocracy values = being born an aristocrat is noble and good.
Trader values = enriching oneself is noble and good.
Religious fundamentalist values = following the one and only book is good.
Little girl/consumer values = my emotions are good.
Etc.
Slave and religious values are being replaced by trader and little girl/consumer values.
Boys embody slave or trader values. Girls embody little girl/consumer values.
Boys go to war, girls are little princesses. Ballet/women's pro sports are a niche for the few women who embody slave values. Most embody little girl/consumer values.
I think it's more that the male-dominant sports are billion dollar industries driven by deep-seated cultures of masculinity that view safety as weakness, and spectatorship that wants to see violence. No one watches ballet wanting to hear the sound of the dancers' skulls colliding.
They do watch for the en pointe, which is beautiful precisely because it's not something we expect bodies to be able to do. And the pain and injury risk also, I think, adds to the effect. I don't think it's all that different from what people experience seeing heads or bodies getting slammed, except en pointe is feminine coded (graceful) whereas slamming is masculine coded (brutish).
“This smacks of misogyny!” I say as I cross out “sports where players regularly sustain CTE-causing injuries” and write “boys”
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/article/cte-concussion-wo...
“I’m so enlightened I forgot women play soccer” is definitely a weird take.
Okay, now attack boxing.
If anything, we’re reversing progress on this front, given we just had a UFC match on the front lawn of the White House.
Avery Trufelman does an incredibly well-researched podcast on clothing of all kinds by the name of Articles of Interest. They did a whole show on the pointe shoe. You can check it out here: https://articlesofinterest.substack.com/p/on-pointe
I was greeted with a large dickover
Speaking of shoes, can we please stop wearing leather shoes? They fit poorly, hurt feet, require polish, are bad for running when in a rush, and they shrink fast.
Well-made leather shoes have none of those drawbacks (besides polishing; nothing to do about that). When I was in high school my grandmother bought me a pair of (eye-wateringly expensive, partially hand-made) dress shoes. I can remember the style (dance-Oxford), but not the maker. I wore them for graduation, and then for another decade of restaurant and catering work. I regularly spent 10+ hours in a day in them, walking I don't know how far, and they were (with a soft-gel insole inside) as comfortable as a pair of sneakers - though indeed, not so good for running. I think I replaced the soles twice, before too much restaurant-damage on the uppers forced their retirement. More than 20 years after their demise, and I still miss them.
I don't think the raw material shoes are made of is that important. If their shape is correct and you size them right, they should be fine.
Shoes with a narrow toebox (pretty much all of them, except the ones that specifically advertise as being wide) should be considered extreme body modification IMO. Fine if that's what you're into, but most of the population should not be subjected to that.
I agree. The US Army already recognized this problem and developed the Munson last before WWI.
Some mid and high-end footwear brands produce boots with Munson or Munson-like lasts. It helps tremendously. I cannot go back to narrow toeboxes.
Oddly, lots of sports footwear suffers from the same issue and wide toeboxes are not as popular as they should be.
Sports footwear is interesting.
Football (soccer) boots tend to be extremely narrow. Part of the reason is to keep the foot firm in it, but I suspect a lot of players would benefit from wider boxes.
Climbing boots are another interesting one. I can't wear most brands at all. I have settled on Scarpa as they tend to be wider. A lot of climbers have a tendency to downsize them massively though, and I honestly don't know how they do that. I have been purchasing them at least at my street size, and the next pair I get will be a whole number up. Not because they're just uncomfortable, but rather because they're nearly impossible to get in otherwise. I do wish I'd find wider toeboxes though, so I could get a pair that fits tight, but not torture tight.
From reading about the leather shoes are supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread. And I think they actually do last much longer than modern shoes made from synthetic materials, which you can’t really care for. And they’re supposed to mold to your foot.
The problems that you listed don't affect a lot of people in a way that they themselves might find meaningful.
Moreover, leather is a widely available product and a byproduct of the meat industry.
There is probably a glut of leather.
No shoes last longer than well fitting well made all leather shoes.
I feel like everyone is reading "leather shoe" and interpreting it as "dress shoe," but tennis shoes/trainers are usually leather, too. Sandals, moccasins, etc. Leather is a material. My ON running shoes are leather. My legit hiking shoes are leather. So are the kung fu shoes I used twenty years ago to fly through the fucking air with swords.
Probably interpreting it that way because “bad for running” and “needs shoe polish” can’t possible be describing sports shoes with leather components.
Almost all my dozen or so pairs of shoes and boots are leather and the only of these that I find true is that they’re not great for running. At least none of the ones I have.
If they fit poorly, you bought the wrong size or a pair made from a last that is very wrong for you. Ditto if they hurt your feet. Past a the first 3-4 wears of break-in neither of those should be true, they should fit and feel awesome. They’ll shrink if you soak them in water, and I mean soak, but even that’s usually not fatal to them, they’ll stretch back out. I have a beater pair of camp moccasins that I’ve straight-up walked down a waist-deep river in three times, and I regularly wear them for kayaking and briefly submerge them when getting in and out, and they still fit fine.
Also you don’t need to polish most of them. Hit ‘em with leather soap and conditioner a couple times a year if you want them to last a decade-plus, yes. Polish? That’s only necessary for certain types of shoes for certain purposes, and even then, you shouldn’t need to do it all the time or anything. I don’t put polish on any of mine.
(All this void if we’re talking reconstructed or fake leather like most of the “leather” shoes at the median Macy’s or other common department store, those are terrible, yeah)
What?! I wore leather sport shoes for many years without any major issues. What should we use instead of leather?
None of these things are true about the material. They're all true of poorly-made shoes.
Also that's a very broad category. "Leather shoes." That's like nearly every dress and athletic shoe that exists. IT's all traditional moccasins. IT's a lot of the best sandals, which certainly don't have any of the problems you've listed.
Relevance?
Is technology resistant to change? Also ironically the only shoe who iscthoroughly destroyed to made useful