There are two kinds of people in this world: Those who'd gladly remove their shoes before entering someone's home, and those who'd rather keep them on.
A Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article by columnist Kris Frieswick recently argued for the latter, drawing the ire of netizens all over the world.
Keeping shoes on in a shoeless home
The piece, titled "Here's why I'll be keeping my shoes on in your shoeless home", made the point that barring shoes just to keep home floors clean is nonsense since germs and bacteria are already everywhere.
She also said: "Why are you assuming that your guests' shoes are dirtier than your floors?"
Frieswick, however, caveated her article by saying that there are some people who don't wear shoes into homes due to cultural or religious reasons. In such cases, she would gladly take her shoes off if the host perceives it to be disrespectful when guests wear shoes inside.
She would also remove her shoes if they were covered in snow, mud, excrement or any sort of hazardous waste.
But in general, she is all for keeping her shoes on.
Even when it comes to indoor slippers for guests, Frieswick takes issue with these "nasty slippers" that were previously worn by different strangers before her.
"There’s dried-on foot sweat and dead skin in those things. I’ll stick with the E. coli, thanks," she wrote.
Reactions from netizens
WSJ's Facebook post on Feb. 11 garnered over 2,000 reacts and nearly 500 comments at the time of writing.
Comments criticised the author for being disrespectful, with one comment saying that she didn't like how the author "talks down to the reader while simultaneously being sanctimonious about whatever new germ fact she found out about shoes or feet".
Some comments also highlighted cultural differences when it comes to removing or keeping shoes on while inside homes.
The article was also shared to subreddit r/mildlyinfuriating, with somewhat similar (triggered) responses:
Top photo: WSJ article screenshot, Mothership photo.