(F)uggs

As long as I'm on the topic of trends I'd really like to see retired (a topic from yesterdays' entry about the sweats-as-formal-wear phenomenon), we'll go to the top of my list: boots by UGG® Australia, or as they are more commonly known, "Uggs." Really, you'd think the name alone would alert people to the fact that these shoes are ugg-ly. (You'd think so, but you'd be wrong..so very wrong.) Again, I am ready to throw the bulk of the blame upon the Britney/Paris & Nickie/Nicole Richie/Lindsay crew for having popularized this fashion disastrophe upon the North America, but apparently (formerly unbeknownst to me), Queen Oprah herself is largely to blame, at least according to the Ugg website:

The business continued to grow steadily as the brand recognition increased. To that end, UGG® has had no better contributor than Oprah Winfrey.

In 2000, Oprah was sent a pair of Ultra boots. She loved the product so much, she purchased 350 pair for her entire staff. Oprah then featured the Ultra Boot on her well-known "Oprah's Favorite Things" show.

3 years later, Oprah selected UGG® Australia for the second time. She featured the Baby Pink and Baby Blue Classic Boots. The show aired in November, and the boots immediately became the "must-have" item for holiday shoppers.

Lightning struck a third time in 2005, when Oprah featured the Uptown boot on "Oprah's Favorite Things". The results speak for themselves.

Let's start with what should be readilly obvious (but, as the self-spoken results have shown us, has turned out to be beyond Ugg wearers' powers of detection). These boots are ugly. Plain and simple. Say it with me: "UGLY." Now I know, I know you may have been brainwashed by the Britney/Lohan/Mary Kate & Ashley/Tara Reid types. But this is where the truth comes and and the healing begins. UGLY. It may take a while to reacquaint yourself with good shoes after having lived in the Ugg-cult for so long, but I'm here to help. I can even begin anti-Ugg therapy group if enough sufferers come and ask for assistance. Walk to the mirror in those Uggs, take a good, long look, and just say it: "UGLY." It's okay if you start to cry as you realize the ugliness you've inflicted upon all those nice people in attractive footwear.

"Ugly, yes, but they're so comfortable," you say. To which I reply, "if you're wearing your Uggs with jeans and a T-shirt, then one of three things is going on: a) it's actually too cold for you to be wearing just a T-shirt on top; b) it's actually too warm for you to be wearing leather boots lined with furry stuff; c) there is some sort of meteorological disconnect between the upper and lower halves of your body, which is causing you to dress as though they were in separate climate zones." Look, if one of the main arguments for Uggs is that "they're comfortable," wear them when they make you comfortable (i.e. when you're also donning a snow jacket and scarf). I live in Southern California, where it's probably never really cold enough to justify a pair of those boots. If you want comfortable SoCal footwear, I have no problems with flip-flops: they're comfortable; they have a nice laid-back, casual appeal; and best of all, they're appropriate for our Mediterranean climate. Hot, sweating, stinky feet that have been stuffed into fuzzy boots all day (and the consequent athlete's foot) are not comfortable. Please stop lying to me: I know you're wearing them because you think they look good; you think they're trendy.

Which brings me to my third point: Uggs don't look good. Yes, I know that was also my first point, but it bears repeating, doesn't it? I don't care if guys wear them, because I don't think guys look that bad in them, and I wouldn't really care even if they did (because I look better by comparison). But ladies! Ladies, Uggs give you the appearance of cankles, because they make your whole knee-calf-ankle region look like one monolithic, uni-circumferenced, log-like mass. Is that what you want? I'm not saying you need to wear the stilettos out each time you go to the market (though that might be a sexy alternative to the Uggs), but please, why not just a pair of sneakers? Then your ankles can see the light of day, and everyone can clearly distinguish them from your calves.

If you're not buying my well-reasoned, insightful arguments against the Ugg because they seem "subjective" (which they are not, they just seem that way to people of the wrong opinion), then maybe some clear, concrete facts will help pursuade you. And what could be more factual or concrete than everyone's favorite web tool since Google, Wikipedia. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about Uggs:

The ugg boot is footwear constructed of sheepskin, with the wool as the inner lining and an untanned outer surface. Ugg boots often have a synthetic sole, although this is not mandatory. They evolved in Australia as a type of slipper for cold weather use and are also known as ugh boots and ug boots.

In Australia, sheepskin boots have long been popular with people in rural occupations, who have ready access to the raw materials, such as sheep shearers. Their popularity increased as a result of World War I and World War II, when sheepskin boots were popular with aviators, because of their need to keep warm in exposed conditions at high altitudes. Ugg boots have also been popular with surfers and competitive swimmers since at least the 1960s, for keeping warm while out of the water. Nevertheless, in Australasia, bogans and members of related subcultures are generally the only people who wear them in public. Most other Australians only wear ugg boots around the house, or at the most trips no further than the local corner shop, although recent fashion interest has given them more exposure.

First, this excerpt corroborates my other point about Ugg boots being designed for cold weather use only. Second, they are Australian house slippers, which are worn "only...around the house, or at the most trips no further than the local corner shop." I don't wear my monkey slippers out in the general public because house slippers belong in the house. Unless, you're a bogan. And what is a bogan? Our friend Wikipedia informs us that

Bogan (pronounced /ˈbəʉ.gn̩/, rhyming with slogan) is an Australian and New Zealand English slang term, generally pejorative, for a person who is, or is perceived to be, unsophisticated or of a lower class background. According to the stereotype, the speech and mannerisms of "bogans" indicate poor education and uncultured upbringing. The term is mainly applied to white, working-class people.

The stereotype presupposes a link between working-class cultural practices (for instance, style of dress, accent, and musical tastes) and anti-social behaviour.

Now, I have nothing against the white working-class (at least nothing that's going to be admitted on the Internet), but is that really how you want to identify yourself? Unsophisticated, low class, poorly educated, uncultured, and anti-social? (Now that I think about, maybe Uggs are the perfect footwear for the Britney/Lohan/Paris crowd.) But anyway, even if you wanted to identify with the white working class, is paying $300-400 for a pair of shoes really the best way to do that?

Please, let's all work together to make the world a safer, happier, more beautiful place. Please, let's all just Say "NO" to Uggs.