I’ve never been a fan of high heels. I used to wear wide two-inch heels on rare special occasions — meaning, a few times per year. I’d be happy to do that now, except that my Morton’s neuroma (inflamed nerve in the ball of my right foot) begins to scream and holler after just a few minutes in heels. Even without that problem, I can’t imagine wearing heels on a regular basis: to enhance my rear lines at the price of destroying my feet, ankles, knees, hips, and back seems like idiotic trade-off to me. In my view, if you’re destroying your capacity to enjoy your life (and sex) in order to make yourself more attractive, you’re doing it wrong!

So just how bad are heels for your feet? Consider these two x-rays. First, a normal foot, standing flat on the ground:

Now, a foot in high heels:

The abnormal stress and weight on the ball foot is glaringly obvious — and we’re not even seeing how the toes are jammed into the narrow point of the shoe. Of course, feet are not the only causality of high heels, as the whole point of heels is that they change a woman’s posture — thereby affecting ankles, knees, hips, and back too. The article High Heels and Back Pain explains the basics nicely:

For over a century, the biomechanical effects of heels in everything from running shoes to stilettos has puzzled researchers and fired controversy. When standing barefoot, the perpendicular line of the straight body column creates a ninety degree angle with the floor. On a two-inch heel, were the body a rigid column and forced to tilt forward, the angle would be reduced to seventy degrees, and to fifty-five degrees on a three-inch heel. Thus, for the body to maintain an erect position, a whole series of joint adjustments (ankle, knee, hip, spine, head) are required to regain and retain one’s erect stance and equilibrium.

The slope or slant of the heel, rear to front, is called the ‘heel wedge angle’. The higher the heel, the greater the angle. On the bare foot there is no wedge angle. The bottom of the heel is on a level one hundred and eighty degrees, with body weight shared equally between heel and ball. Inside the heeled shoe, the wedge angle shifts body weight forward so that on a low heel, body weight is shared forty percent heel, sixty percent ball; and on a high heel ninety percent ball and ten percent heel.

Check out the article for more details, including some illustrative drawings.

Undoubtedly, modern high heels aren’t as damaging as Chinese foot binding. Happily, heels can be worn only on occasion, and I don’t see any problem with that. However, I can’t see wearing high heels regularly as anything but self-destructive. Sure, they’re sexy, but do you need to exude sex appeal at work? Probably not, unless you’re a stripper. More, to court chronic pain and disfigurement in order to feel a bit sexier seems like a cruel joke on yourself and your sex life. In my view, that’s a sign that you need to rethink your standards for sexy, preferably before you cause your body permanent damage.

A woman who is healthy, happy, warm, and engaging can exude plenty of sexy … with her feet flat on the ground.

 

In my live Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio on Sunday morning, I’ll answer questions on warning others about dangerous people, explaining a firing, investment versus sacrifice, downloading music after hard drive failure, and more. Join us for this lively hour of applying rational principles to the challenges of real life, where you can share your thoughts and ask questions in the text chat!

  • What: Live Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio

  • Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

  • When: Sunday, 20 May 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET

  • Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live
This week’s questions are:
  • Question 1: Warning Others about Dangerous People: Should you warn others about vicious people in your community? If you know a person to be dishonest, but that person is well-regarded in your community, should you tell others in that community what you know? Does it matter if the person is in a position of authority (perhaps over an organization’s finances), such that he could do a whole lot of damage? What kinds of immorality would be serious enough to warrant warning others?

  • Question 2: Explaining a Firing: Should an employer have to explain and justify his firing of an employee? Should an employer be able to fire an employee for some alleged misconduct, even though the employer never bothered to verify the misconduct, nor even asked the employee for his side of the story? For example, suppose that when the employee shows up for work he is simply told that he’s been fired because someone made a complaint about him. The employee could easily prove the complaint to be false but the employer isn’t concerned with proof or lack thereof. The employee’s reputation in the eyes of possible future employers is damaged, even if the employer never discusses the firing with anyone else. In such a case, should the employee be able to sue for having been fired without proper cause?

  • Question 3: Investment Versus Sacrifice: What is the difference between “investment” and “sacrifice”? In your February 26, 2012 webcast, you indicated that you regard sacrifices as something very different from investments. But doesn’t sacrifice just mean giving up something? In that case, don’t investments in the future require sacrifice now? Or: What’s the difference between sacrificing some ease and comfort for your goal versus investing time and work to achieve a goal?

  • Question 4: Downloading Music After Hard Drive Failure: Does repecting intellectual property require me to re-purchase my music collection lost due to hard drive failure? Over the years I have purchased quite a bit of digital music and have built quite a large library. Recently, due to a computer crash and lack of backup, a large segment of that library was erased. Since I paid for all of the music that was lost, I would like to restore it, whether by coping from my friends or by downloading illegal copies from the internet. But I am not entirely sure what I have the right to do based on my original purchases. When purchasing intellectual property am I paying for the right to only the original individual copy or am I paying for the right to access that intellectual property even when the original copy is damaged or lost? In other words, am I morally and legally obliged to purchase new copies of my music or can I replace what was destroyed? Also, does it make any difference if my original copy was from a CD versus an MP3 download?
After answering those questions, I’ll answer a round of totally impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”

If you attend live, you can share your thoughts and ask questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you’ll find the audio recording of the whole episode, as well as individual questions, posted to the episode’s archive page: Q&A Radio: 20 May 2012.

Also, don’t forget to Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Show Archives, where you can listen to the audio from whole episodes or just selected questions. And visit to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming broadcasts.

I hope to see you in the chat on Sunday morning!

May 182012
 
 

On Wednesday, May 16th, I broadcast my fourth episode of Philosophy in Action Radio on BlogTalkRadio. The topic was “Guilty Pleasures.”

Topics Discussed

  • The problem with guilty pleasures

  • Techniques for dealing with guilty pleasures

  • Sugar as my guilty pleasure

  • Asking for help when overwhelmed with a new baby

  • Staying up too late surfing the internet

  • Snapping at people when in a bad mood

Listen Now

    Duration: 36:28

Download the Episode

Subscribe to the Feed

In all likelihood, I won’t be broadcasting a new show on Wednesday May 23rd, as I’ll be on the road. We’ll resume on May 30th. The theme of that show will be “Guilty Pleasures.” I hope that you’ll join us… and better yet, call in!

 

Via Facebook, I found this post on some portraits of Queen Elizabeth II. The paintings were mostly unremarkable, but this one blew me away:

It’s a 1955 portrait by Pietro Annigoni. She’s not just beautiful: she’s perfectly regal, with just the right touch of distance and gentleness.

Wow.

 

“Frans Hofmeester filmed his daughter Lotte once a week for the past twelve years and produced this time lapse film. We’ve seen this kind of thing before … but the use of short snippets of video instead of still photos adds something.” (Kottke.org)

He did the same with his son Vince too:

The video really adds so much personality!

 

The Forbes website has published my latest OpEd, “Just Who Should Control Your Healthcare Spending?

The theme is that America needs market-based health reforms such as Health Savings Accounts which reduce costs while preserving quality medical care, not government-mandated “bundled payments” which will harm patients and literally set a price on human life.

Here is the opening:

What simple health care reform has reduced medical costs by up to 30%, while preserving quality of care? Hint: It’s not government price controls or mandatory health insurance. Rather, it’s letting patients decide how to spend their own health care dollars…

(Read the full text of “Just Who Should Control Your Healthcare Spending?“, May 15, 2012.)

I’m honored to appear on the Forbes website, and I’d like to thank readers who have shared this piece via Facebook, Twitter, blogging, e-mail, etc.

[Cross-posted from the FIRM blog.]

 

Unlike this dog, Conrad already has his bitch — Doggie Mae. So now he needs the book, How to Control Your Bitch. Because really, he’s failing pretty miserably, multiple times per day.

 

Once again, I’m experimenting with Philosophy in Action on BlogTalkRadio! My fourth radio show will be tomorrow evening — Wednesday May 16th at 9 pm ET / 8 pm CT / 7 pm MT / 6 pm PT. It will last for a half hour. Its theme will be “Guilty Pleasures”:

Do you struggle with the temptation of “guilty pleasures”? How can you overcome them — or should you indulge them? Join philosopher Dr. Diana Hsieh for a half hour discussion of the rationally egoistic approach to “guilty pleasures.”

BlogTalkRadio is audio-only, but I can take live callers, just like talk radio — and that’s what I’ll be doing for the bulk of the show.

To listen to the live broadcast, just go the page for this episode at the appointed time. The upcoming episode will always be found on Philosophy in Action’s channel.

I hope that you’ll join me tomorrow tonight!

 

As a follow-up to my recent webcast discussion on poking fun of friends’ ideas online, I’d say that this kind of image is objectively offensive:

It’s not just partisan tripe. It’s collectivist tripe. It’s totally unjustifiable tripe.

People deserve to be judged as individuals. Many liberals are thoughtful people, while many conservatives are flatly dishonest. Liberals tend to be better than conservatives on many important issues: separation of church and state, abortion rights, drug legalization, immigration, limiting police power, and so on. Most conservatives are utterly wrong on those issues, and many will not listen to reason.

When I saw that image in my Facebook feed, I reposted it with the following snippy remark:

I’m pretty sure that such partisan crowing and sniping never convinced anyone of anything. Also, I’m quite sure that people of every political persuasion are enamored of their own set of myths and dogmas. How about working on being more persuasive? It’s harder than you think.

More than anything else in politics, I loathe unprincipled partisan bickering. “My team is GREAT! Your team SUCKS!” is harmless enough in sports. But in politics, people’s rights — and hence, people’s lives and values — are at stake. Is it too much to ask for some concern for principle, i.e. individual rights? Alas, based on the 2012 election so far, we have every reason to expect nothing but unprincipled partisan bickering.

Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha