THE CICAK.com

Crocs, I know they’re ugly. Now leave me alone!

No matter which way you look at them, they’re not pretty.

By SHANNON TEOH

Crocs have taken the world by storm!

This is no news at all and in fact, you might be sitting there looking absolutely ridiculous in your own pair of Crocs Beach, the first and as yet, most ubiquitous model of the clogs that have found their way everywhere, selling 20 million pairs in 2006 alone.

Throwaway fact for the day - one in six people in the nonexistent country known as Israel own one. Why? Nobody’s really sure.

But I can tell you why I own one. It’s comfy.

When Crocs first landed in Malaysia, chomping and death-rolling its way into urban consciousness, I honestly thought they were just about the ugliest thing I’d seen since the lead singer of Nickelback.

But I was compelled to try them since you know, the rule goes that if it looks like a car crash, it must have a great personality or something.

Made of molded resin that softens with body heat to adapt to the shape of your foot, Crocs were designed as non-slip, no-scuff boating shoes about three years ago. The ergonomically designed heel cup and arch support, which help reduce muscle fatigue in the feet and legs, and the nubby sole bed, which provides a massage every time you shift your weight.

Plus, they’re ventilated and made of anti-microbial material, so you won’t fall victim to the dreaded stinky feet syndrome.

Yes, I’ll admit it. I didn’t write the last paragraph. That was PR schpeel, through and through.

But is that so wrong? Critics of the shoes have harped upon how ugly they are and how they’re a fashion faux pas. But of course, we all know that being fashionable is a state of being at least, if not more gullible than believing PR talk.

Because no matter what, you can be sued for lying about your product but you can’t be sued for preferring red to orange this spring or summer.

So, yes, they’re ugly. But isn’t that just it? A middle-class uprising of sorts. Since we’re not about to have a political, social or economical revolution anytime soon here, how about a footwear revolution?

I’m proud to finally wear something that I feel is a victory of function over form. Substance over style.

“We, the middle-class suburbia of Malaysia, do solemnly swear to wear these ugly shoes, so long as they’re the comfiest things we can buy for our RM129 or thereabouts.”

Yes, let’s not forget the price. So here goes the other argument - if it’s comfort you want, then why not just Japanese slippers? RM10 can buy two. Bargain a bit more, can get three for RM13.

Well, just the other day, I nearly stubbed my toe. I would’ve if I was wearing open-toed footwear. But I wasn’t. I was wearing my good ol’ pair of Crocs. My toe would’ve been protected had I been wearing shoes as well, but then, alas, where would my comfort be?

It’s easy to forget that amidst the rather bubbly and funloving marketing of these clogs, that these are pretty much state-of-the-art footwear. All the features described earlier are due to a conscious use of thoughtful design and the lightweight, anti-bacterial Patented Closed Cell Resin.

But for some reason or another, people have gotten so pissed off with the prevalence of Crocs that reports have circulated about how dangerous they are. Yes, dangerous! Like the swimming pool in your backyard.

The Blekinge Hospital in Sweden banned Crocs because they build up static electricity and interfere with electronic equipment.

Seriously, my good people of wonderful minimalist furniture and tasty meatballs, don’t you think that if static electricity from Crocs can put your equipment on the fritz, that you should upgrade your equipment? Static electricity can come from any number of commonplace items. In fact, the hospital has admitted that other shoes have been known to cause the same problem but the popularity of Crocs have necessitated such a move.

It seems that Crocs have become a victim of its own success. If it had remained a niche product, I wonder if many fashionistas and hipsters might’ve considered it trendy and subversive - at the same time, as is the way of things.

And obviously, if fewer people were wearing it, people wouldn’t be seeing patterns to the unfortunately everyday occurrence of escalator or whatever other accidents that happen with children - or indeed, build-up of static electricity.

And now, there’s this gibberish about Jibbitz. You take these buttons or badges or whatever you see, and they’ve got these designs on them - cartoons, NFL logos, random cute stuff - and plug them through the holes in your Crocs.

Wait a minute, I thought we all agreed that Crocs were ugly. Are there actually people who think they can be fashionably cute with some customisation?

So is there an actual argument for the stylishness of Crocs? Will a runway model one day parade them in Milan whilst adorned in the latest evening gown from some Italian or French person who likes to say “haute” too much?

Probably not. The logical thing to do if you wanted to be fashionable is to go out and get a pair of Manolos or Taninos. But you know, they might’ve just discovered the way to finally kill off Crocs - get people confused about why they’re buying them for.

When you move away from the purity of an idea - in this case comfort, hygiene, shoe-like protection, uniqueness, customisable individuality, style - then you start people second-guessing. You get people wondering if the idea should really be just this or topped-up with that.

No doubt, everything from democracy to communism, caramel macchiato to Grandma’s fried chicken needs tweaking. But when you tweak it a little too far and when you bow to pressure, then you’re riding on a slippery slope. Exactly how much tweaking becomes too much tweaking?

Here’s an easy example. Liberals basically try to say that you should be able to do anything so long as it doesn’t hurt or impinge on the rights of someone else. So you shouldn’t stop immigrants and you shouldn’t hurt the environment because it’s robbing your children.

But they’re pro-choice, which is iffy and pro-gun control, which is very iffy. Why? Because they started down the slope that says, well, an unborn is not a real person per se, but the probability of you hurting someone with your gun is real. But both cases rely on a potentiality.

A gun “can” become a murder weapon. A foetus “can” become a person. So which is which? It seems to me that logically, both are either potentialities or actual tangible things. You can’t have one rule for one and not the other.

So don’t let me catch you with any of them Jibbitz on your Crocs. Keep the faith and keep the comfort.

–
SHANNON TEOH is a contributing writer for theCICAK.

Shannon is in fact a flighty little lifestyle journalist for NST who’s more concerned about how to own his first BMW than freedom of speech. He’s just upset that everyone’s getting all excited while he’s still waiting to flip Paul Tan the bird in an Evo IX.