Next Question
RSS
I don't have kids, but my thought is that they likely won't have shoes through their entire baby-hood. At times, yes, but not constantly. Babies grow very fast (as you know) and shoes are NOT cheap. If you are getting them new shoes for every size, it's going to cost a fortune! And since they are not walking, why are shoes considered necessary over just booties or socks to keep their feet warm?
I can see both sides of the drama
On one side, why should the baby really have to wear shoes? She's right, it's feet aren't touching the ground. But is it just because it's a baby? What about a 2 year old? Where is the cut off? Is a learning-to-walk toddler allowed to go barefoot because they learn better barefoot? Could an adult in a wheelchair go barefoot because they're not touching the ground? Are flip flops OK since their feet aren't covered? A clear cut-off can't be made so the rule needs to apply to everyone, no matter what (or this is the interpretation by employees at least). Also, some people are absolutely disgusted by feet, which might be bad for business.
I do think some form of foot covering; booties or socks would be a good idea to keep on hand for this kind of thing, just so everyone is following the same rules. They're cheap and they stretch so they won't be grown out of as fast as shoes. But then again, why does they need them if they are not touching the floor?
So I guess to answer the first question, no, I don't think all babies need 1 pair of shoes (especially ones that fit), just because they are unneccesary and you need to have a LOT of shoes to always have fitting ones, but I do think foot covering of some type is necessary.
Good luck!
Permalink | Report
It's not about the food safety of the restaurant, it's the safety of the baby's feet. Icky floors full of germs. Even if baby cannot walk, mom can put her down on counter, feet touch counter, then baby eats her feet (babies do this). Voila! Cold city.
I say, socks and no shoes, fine. But completely barefoot is not good way to be in public.
Permalink | Report
I'm from the anti-shoe camp. Until my baby was about (what was it?) 6-8 months old, she wasn't using her feet any more than she was using her hands. She didn't walk anywhere, and certainly wasn't allowed to crawl around in a public place. If she wasn't inside a trusted person's home, then she was in her mommy/daddy's arms or in her stroller. And that's it!
So shoes were a big waste! (during the winter she'd wear socks or booties) Not only do they cost a lot of money, but they're a pain to keep track of and wedge on the tiny baby feet for no reason. That'd be like putting lipstick or a bra on a baby. Why? Just why?
As long as that baby wasn't walking or crawling in the restaurant, it is ridiculous to assume they'd have to wear shoes. To me, it's the same as if they required her to wear shoes on her HANDS - because that's as practical (for germ prevention and safety) as wearing shoes on her feet at that age!
Permalink | Report
I am a mother of 2 ( 10 and 2 ) and the reason why little kids ( Baby's from 0 to 1 ) should not wear shoes ( hard sole ) is due to that their little bones are still growing - they would misshape their feet and they are way to heavy !
It is just like putting your baby into a walker and 80% of those kids grow up with hip problems and feet problems because they cant control them yet as well as not being strong enough for their own weight.
Doctors recommend to put socks or soft Baby shoes on the child and not bust out with the Jordans or Nikes until they learned how to walk ( even then its best to use shoes by those brands that were made especially for Babys / Toddlers )
I havent seen the report on CNN but if the Baby was walking already and wasnt wearing anything on its feet he could have been hurt and BK would have been taken to court.
Anything could have happened ( stepped into something, stepped on his feet by a adult, etc. )
Both of my kids wore Baby soft shoes by Rebeez because they keep them warm and when they learned how to walk they wont hurt their feet.
It might look cute to dress them with cute shoes but the health should always be first then the look.
Those shoes wont make a difference if the child needs surgery because of misshaped bones and feet !
Source(s):
http://www.babytipsonline.com/When-Should-Baby-Wear-Shoes.html
Permalink | Report
Answered Question
M$2.25
August 06, 2009 03:17 PM
I love baby feet as much as the next mom, but shouldn't all babies have at least 1 pair of shoes?
In a video interview over the barefoot baby kicked out of Burger King drama, the mom said her baby didn't even own shoes. My question is- who doesn't by their baby shoes? I mean yeah they kick them off and they never stay on, but to not have baby shoes? 
- About Barefoot Baby Burger King |
- In Newborn & Baby |
- Tags: baby, burger, shoes, videos, king |
- |
- Report |
-
Share
RSS
Best Answer Decided by Votes
| August 06, 2009 03:29 PM |
I can see both sides of the drama
On one side, why should the baby really have to wear shoes? She's right, it's feet aren't touching the ground. But is it just because it's a baby? What about a 2 year old? Where is the cut off? Is a learning-to-walk toddler allowed to go barefoot because they learn better barefoot? Could an adult in a wheelchair go barefoot because they're not touching the ground? Are flip flops OK since their feet aren't covered? A clear cut-off can't be made so the rule needs to apply to everyone, no matter what (or this is the interpretation by employees at least). Also, some people are absolutely disgusted by feet, which might be bad for business.
I do think some form of foot covering; booties or socks would be a good idea to keep on hand for this kind of thing, just so everyone is following the same rules. They're cheap and they stretch so they won't be grown out of as fast as shoes. But then again, why does they need them if they are not touching the floor?
So I guess to answer the first question, no, I don't think all babies need 1 pair of shoes (especially ones that fit), just because they are unneccesary and you need to have a LOT of shoes to always have fitting ones, but I do think foot covering of some type is necessary.
Good luck!
Permalink | Report
Voted as best: denise801
Reply
Other Answers (5)
August 06, 2009 05:12 PM
Not clear from the Mahalo page if the kid was completely barefoot, or had socks on. CNN doesn't say either. It's not about the food safety of the restaurant, it's the safety of the baby's feet. Icky floors full of germs. Even if baby cannot walk, mom can put her down on counter, feet touch counter, then baby eats her feet (babies do this). Voila! Cold city.
I say, socks and no shoes, fine. But completely barefoot is not good way to be in public.
Permalink | Report
Reply
August 06, 2009 07:07 PM
Oh, and my baby ate socks too. And shoes for that matter. Hmm, my kid's kind of gross. :(
Report
August 06, 2009 07:11 PM
Good point, which was also brought up in a seperate answer to this question. Thanks for the perspective.
Report
August 06, 2009 07:05 PM
I'm a mom of a 2 year-old, and my mom and I used to have this debate regularly during the first year of her life. I'm from the anti-shoe camp. Until my baby was about (what was it?) 6-8 months old, she wasn't using her feet any more than she was using her hands. She didn't walk anywhere, and certainly wasn't allowed to crawl around in a public place. If she wasn't inside a trusted person's home, then she was in her mommy/daddy's arms or in her stroller. And that's it!
So shoes were a big waste! (during the winter she'd wear socks or booties) Not only do they cost a lot of money, but they're a pain to keep track of and wedge on the tiny baby feet for no reason. That'd be like putting lipstick or a bra on a baby. Why? Just why?
As long as that baby wasn't walking or crawling in the restaurant, it is ridiculous to assume they'd have to wear shoes. To me, it's the same as if they required her to wear shoes on her HANDS - because that's as practical (for germ prevention and safety) as wearing shoes on her feet at that age!
Permalink | Report
Reply
August 07, 2009 03:54 AM
I totally agree. I have two kids, and I never saw the purpose of putting shoes on a baby. Until they're walking, there's just no point. And since babies grow so rapidly during their first years, you'd be buying shoes every month or two.
Report
August 06, 2009 08:19 PM
Hi I am a mother of 2 ( 10 and 2 ) and the reason why little kids ( Baby's from 0 to 1 ) should not wear shoes ( hard sole ) is due to that their little bones are still growing - they would misshape their feet and they are way to heavy !
It is just like putting your baby into a walker and 80% of those kids grow up with hip problems and feet problems because they cant control them yet as well as not being strong enough for their own weight.
Doctors recommend to put socks or soft Baby shoes on the child and not bust out with the Jordans or Nikes until they learned how to walk ( even then its best to use shoes by those brands that were made especially for Babys / Toddlers )
I havent seen the report on CNN but if the Baby was walking already and wasnt wearing anything on its feet he could have been hurt and BK would have been taken to court.
Anything could have happened ( stepped into something, stepped on his feet by a adult, etc. )
Both of my kids wore Baby soft shoes by Rebeez because they keep them warm and when they learned how to walk they wont hurt their feet.
It might look cute to dress them with cute shoes but the health should always be first then the look.
Those shoes wont make a difference if the child needs surgery because of misshaped bones and feet !
Source(s):
http://www.babytipsonline.com/When-Should-Baby-Wear-Shoes.html
Permalink | Report
Reply
Answer this Question
Related Questions
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- jbarrera, November 25, 2009 03:46 PM
- bombladen, November 25, 2009 03:46 PM
- jennifermurnin, November 25, 2009 03:34 PM
- merniegf, November 25, 2009 03:33 PM
- nathanreign, November 25, 2009 03:20 PM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
Of course, this is assuming a mom would actually set a crawling baby down on a counter - in which case my bigger health violation issue is that the only line of defense between a soiled diaper and a food counter is a thin cotton onesy panel!