It has all been kicking off again in the generation wars. The latest battleground: sock length. And you don’t want to be on the wrong side of sartorial history with this one.
Apparently, Gen Z has declared the ankle sock, a long-time staple of the Millennial wardrobe, as being the domain of “old people”. Instead, they have decreed, it is all about the crew sock these days.
For the uninitiated, a crew sock is markedly similar in appearance to the chunky sports socks that used to sell three for £1 at the Barras. Ankle socks, meanwhile, look like teeny tiny ballet slippers worn by twinkle-toed toddlers.
Before we jump into all this, though, let’s remind ourselves of the players. Millennials were born between 1981 and 1996, while Gen Z are those born from 1997 to 2012.
We also have Gen X (1965 to 1980), Baby Boomers (1946 to 1964) and the Silent Generation (1928 to 1945), none of whom are involved - yet - in this current skirmish.
The first shots across the bow came a few years ago when Gen Z began mercilessly mocking Millennials for their love of Harry Potter, wine and saying “doggo”.
READ MORE SUSAN SWARBRICK
Help! I'm in a slavish relationship with my judgemental smartwatch
Who wore it best - Kim Kardashian or Isa from Still Game?
In subsequent exchanges, Gen Z has poked fun at Millennials for everything from having side partings to wearing skinny jeans.
Now we are onto sock length. To be fair, a quick glance around the room in most scenarios does appear to lend credence to this hypothesis: it is rare to see anyone under the age of 30 wearing ankle socks.
I find the whole thing fascinating. Partly because, as a Gen X-er, I have zero skin in the game. But also, because sock length isn’t something that I have ever given much thought to, particularly within the context of whether it might be perceived as stylish.
As tends to be the case with many things in life, I’m something of an outlier. I wear neither an ankle sock nor a crew sock. After extensive Googling, I have discovered my typical sock length is what is termed a “micro crew”, which is slightly shorter than a true crew sock.
Go figure. Still, this has got me pondering the myriad nuances and quirks of each generation. Gen X is often dubbed “the slacker generation”, characterised as being cynical and disaffected, but that is arguably something of a misnomer.
There is plenty we care about, but for the most part we’re happy to exist without the constant need for external validation or making bold statements that draw attention, preferring to fly largely under the radar.
I recently saw a video in which someone posed the question: Why has there never been a US president from Gen X?
In the last 30 years there have been four Baby Boomers (Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump) and one from the Silent Generation (Joe Biden).
READ MORE SUSAN SWARBRICK
Summer has been my nemesis - I am determined to love it this time
I've signed up for Edinburgh half marathon - that's a scary thought
The US Constitution states that the elected president must be at least 35, which means Gen X has been in with a shout since 2000. Or not.
For the record, on this side of the Atlantic, there have been three UK prime ministers from Gen X: David Cameron, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak. Although, if that sentence didn’t make you guffaw even slightly, you are missing the joke.
There is currently a brilliant subgenre on the social media platform TikTok where middle-aged folk - those in their forties and fifties - undertake a raft of mundane activities to the soundtrack of 1990s dance bangers.
We’re talking pottering in the garden, vacuuming the boot of the car and sorting the recycling as the dulcet sounds of Faithless or Josh Wink plays out.
If you ever needed an analogy for the mindset of Gen X, it would be this. Forever marching to the beat of our own Roland TR-909 drum.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here