Six months ago, the New York Times published a piece about the unexpected ascension of wrist watches in certain segments of the cell phone generation.
Somehow they found men willing to say things like this:
“In certain circles,” Mr. Thoreson said, “if you don’t have a substantial timepiece with some pedigree, you feel like you’re missing out on something.”
“Right now there is no clearer indication of cool than wearing a watch. If it was your grandfather’s bubbleback Rolex, even better.”
This led me to suggest several alternate titles for the article, including my favorite:
Douchebags Make It Douchy for Non-Douchebags to Wear Watches
Fast forward six months. The New York Times has once again published a piece on wrist watches (perhaps a bi-annual feature?) and has somehow managed to find an entirely new set of douchebags to quote for their story.
This piece centers on the increasing size of wrist watches, spurned on my celebrity fashion trends, and includes quotes like:
“Guys wanted a fine timekeeping device that not only kept time but said something about status and personal style.”
“It (a large wrist watch) gets attention, and it makes a statement.”
“No man wants to wear a watch smaller than a woman has on.”
Once again I am stunned that they were able to find men willing to be quoted like this.
Have we really reached a point where male coolness is determined by the size and price of a man’s watch?
Whatever happened to the strong, independent man?
The man with his own sense of style?
The man whose style of dress was dictated by personal taste and not by a desire to dress like Tom Cruise or compete with the 64 millimeter watch that his buddy is wearing?
Why haven’t these guys realized that high school is over?
That unfortunate penis size cannot be compensated for by a wrist watch?
That materialistic displays of wealth strapped to a wrist only serve to demonstrate your insecure, sheep-like douchebaggery to the world?
I have a friend who, like me, does not wear a single item of clothing (other than sneakers) that displays a name brand. He intentionally opts out of fashion name-plating despite the fact that he was able to sell his company and retire quite early in life.
Unlike me, he is a man with plenty of money and could purchase the finest clothing and accessories possible, yet his style is completely his own. It is not dictated by celebrity fashion or the appearance or fashion choices of his friends or the people around him.
This, in my estimation, is a man. A real man.
The need to wear a time piece that “says something about status and personal style” is sad.
The belief that “there is no clearer indication of cool than wearing a watch” is pathetic.
The need for a man to wear a watch that “gets attention and makes a statement” is disgusting.
I do not understand these men. They sound like cartoon characters to me. They sound like the mean, rich bad guys that populated so many of the John Hughes and John Hughes-like films of the 1980s.
Did films like Pretty in Pink and Revenge of the Nerds teach them nothing?
There is nothing wrong with wearing a wrist watch. It is an excellent way to keep track of the time.
There is nothing wrong with wearing a wrist watch that you think looks great.
There is, however, something wrong with a man whose choice of wrist watch is dictated by price, celebrity style trends or a mindless, materialistic competition with the men around him.
This is the sign of a man who never grew up. Never became a man.
And I remain shocked and dismayed why this guys would offer these kinds of douchebaggy quotes to the New York Times.
Again.
Alcohol must have been involved. It’s the only explanation. I hope.
