Showing posts with label bad clothing decisions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bad clothing decisions. Show all posts

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Coeds & Tennis Shoes

Today's post is a kritikism of language, unlike yesterday's, which opined on social protocol. There are a couple words and/or phrases commonly used by the generation(s) previous to mine, especially that of our parents that, simply put, are outdated. First example: "coeds."

I'm led to believe, through contextual use, that there was once a time when men and women were not permitted to attend college together, or that once they were, the concept was so new and radical that an expression was needed to delineate those colleges and universities where such co-matriculation (2 posts in a row!) was in practice. These were dubbed "co-educational" institutions, or, in the shortened vernacular use, "coed." Interestingly enough, only female students who attended those schools were referred to as "coeds." This use can be observed through a reference in the popular feature film, That Thing You Do!, when lead guitarist Lenny Haise (played with aplomb by Steve Zahn) exclaims "college girls: coeds, by the fistful!" To provide a translation for today's use, I believe the same sentiments would be conveyed by phrases such as "college girls," "female college students" or even the multi-gender "college kids." I believe there are even short length feature films available through the intertubes or late night television advertisements which feature such students and the things they may or may not be doing.
Secondly, we arrive at the term "tennis shoes." Again, through some anthropological research, we've uncovered that in the history of footwear, most people wore more formal shoes at all times, whether in formal or more relaxed situations. However, as the professional game of tennis – whether singles or doubles play – rose in popularity over the 20th century, its athletes required and received a form of athletic footwear that allowed both improved performance and comfort. Not surprisingly, these articles became known as tennis shoes. Corresponding with the sport's ascending popularity, spectators began demanding the shoes for their own, recreational use. The sports apparel industry quickly responded, supplying department stores, shoe stores and cobblers everywhere with the vogue, non-sports related fashion item, and perhaps, although maybe not at the same time, polo shirts with little alligators on them, and headbands in various hues. Sensing the opportunity to capitalize on a yet-untapped market of non-formal footwear. Retailers began adapting the not-yet as popular "basketball shoe" for non-athletic purposes. However, for some unspecified reason, the phase "basketball shoes" did not indoctrinate itself in the cultural milieu to the same degree as its tennis counterpart. Needing a new term to promote the product, the footwear industry zeroed-in on the brand of "sneaker." The phrase was a smash with the public, and now, nearly a quarter-century later, sneaker is the established phrase for all types of footwear that are not shoes, sandals or slippers. Today, you may also know these products as "hops," "kicks" or "tires."

Well, those are about the only examples I can come up with. Oh, wait, here's one: Oriental. Except, unlike the above references, this term is not only out-dated, but is generally considered taboo, if not offensive. To the degree that I won't even discuss its use here, but here's a start.

And, one more for the road: buzz. Very Jesus Christ Superstar (which isn't actually that bad, so long as its the original studio version with Ian Gillian).

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Philadelphia Phylers

Fitting for this inaugural post, we'll rant and roar about the buffoonery of Philadelphia Flyers and their ilk who have long offended the sensibilities of reasonable-minded hockey fans.

Last night, in their first home game of the 2008 Stanley Cup Playoffs, Eastern Conference Quarterfinals, versus the upstart Washington Capitals (the series was tied 1-1 going into the game), the Phlyers handed out complementary orange tee-shirts to their fans upon arrival to the Wachovia Center. Ok, so far, not a big deal; after all, most NHL teams (and other leagues as well) provide free swag for playoff series games. The kicker here was the sole message that was printed on the garb: "Vengeance Now!"



What in the name of batty Ron Hextall does that mean? Surely, they weren't that wronged by the Game One loss to the Caps? Even if they were, how would they been able to have that many shirts printed so quickly? Or, perhaps they feel they need vengeance after last year's dismal Flyers' campaign, one of the worst in the franchise's history? Clearly, it's someone's fault other than the Flyers and their idiot former GM, Bobby Clarke, that the team was so ill-equipped to play in the new NHL (see: 4/24/06). Certainly, they are justified to cry "Vendetta! Vendetta!" like Side-Show Bob's villianous Italian son after the concrete-footed Derian Hatcher was exposed as the petty slug (get it, Sabres fans?) that he is.

Of course, outrageous fashion decisions are nothing new for the Flyers. I believe I only need one image to make my argument:
So, to echo the long-ringing chants heard in New York, New Jersey, Washington, Pittsburgh and Buffalo: "FLYERS SUCK"

Congratulations, you look like gooddamn idiots.