Ugh

'We tend to think of Uggs as silly boots for girls who don't want to be fancied'.. wrote Simon Hills in the Style section of the Times magazine last Saturday (24.03.12). I take this as a joke, or irony; otherwise, it's very irritating. Mr. Hills goes on to say that Uggs are now manufacturing 'pretty nifty' footwear for men, which, presumably, will be worn only when they don't want to be fancied, either. Is 'Ugg' short for 'ugly'? The official Ugg website doesn't go into etymological detail as far as I can see, though Wikipedia seems to indicate that it's a generic term dating from the 60s. Sheepskin boots were apparently popular with surfers (when not in the water, I guess), and only caught on with women when the company started selling in California. Girls would appropriate their surfer boyfriends' boots in the same way they borrowed their shirts and sweaters, developing an 'emotional bond' with their pet-sized Uggs. The rest is commercial history. 
Anyway, Mr. Hills is at fault on at least two counts with his comment; has he not seen the very famous picture of Miss Raquel Welch wearing an early pair of Uggs in one of her more notable films?