Is Hat Ettiquette Obsolete?

[HudsonHawk]

What's wrong with society is that this generation (of Americans at least) is the first generation who can not expect to be better off than their parents (as an average, of course). And however you want to allocate blame politically, the one thing you can't say is that it was the young people's lack of etiquette which caused the housing collapse, financial malfeasance in the private sector, or the ballooning student debt that previous generations never had to deal with.

The only thing more certain than the older generation complaining about the young is the young complaining that they have it worse than the older generation did.

 

[RBH]

Those guys look like cowboys/ranchers too, which makes it even more appropriate.

These cats seem to be city slickers.

 

[jlee562]

The only thing more certain than the older generation complaining about the young is the young complaining that they have it worse than the older generation did.

Not so certain that is true through history, but it is factually true today.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Not so certain that is true through history, but it is factually true today.

It's been a complaint forever. Every generation thinks they have it worse than previous ones. That it is "factual" today is a matter of perception and opinion. Those who came of age in the Great Depression might argue that "the kids today" have it a lot better than they did, and have significant data to make their case.

 

[jlee562]

No, it's actually not perception or opinion, and don't try to cloud the issue by jumping two generations.

Upward mobility is a quantifiable value. There is no "perception" or "opinion" of historical trends in upward mobility. In the US today, it is near historic lows. Adjusted for inflation, middle class wages are lower than they were in the post war years. The census has broadly shown that the middle class has shrunk over the past 30 years (which is used by some as a unit to estimate one generation).

Again, these are quantifiable facts, not supposition, perception, nor opinion.

 

[Patrick Hall]

These cats seem to be city slickers.

Wearing your hat at a lunch counter was/is allowed.

Etiquette is infinitely debatable - and probably was during The Era as well. Proclaiming it to be dead seems a bit stark - it's dead if you want it to be/think it is. I remove my hat when entering most places- lobbies, hallways, and places of commerce aside. I don't doff it at women which strikes me as a bit patronizing, and I don't tip it, because that feels a bit artificial to me. My guess is, that even if people are not acquainted in hat etiquette, they note my instinctive removal of the hat and probably apprehend that it is a ritual of sorts.

 

[HudsonHawk]

No, it's actually not perception or opinion, and don't try to cloud the issue by jumping two generations.

Upward mobility is a quantifiable value. There is no "perception" or "opinion" of historical trends in upward mobility. In the US today, it is near historic lows. Adjusted for inflation, middle class wages are lower than they were in the post war years. The census has broadly shown that the middle class has shrunk over the past 30 years (which is used by some as a unit to estimate one generation).

Again, these are quantifiable facts, not supposition, perception, nor opinion.

This is absurd. How you can make sweeping conclusions about what's going to happen in the next 50 years based on what you've seen in the last 3-5? Of course you think things will never get better, you have no other frame of reference. And that's not a put down, it's the reality of being 20-something years old and only a few years into your career. And bringing up past generations isn't clouding the issue, it's bringing in proper perspective when you complain about how bad you have it. Are times tough now for those entering the job market? Sure. They were when I was your age too...double digit unemployment, skyrocketing inflation, 18% mortgage intereste rates...you aren't the first one to be challenged on what you think real life was going to be like. We all felt exactly like you feel now.

 

[fedoracentric]

It is true, though that every generation complains about the one before it and the one after it.

I remember reading about how in the 1820s Americans were saying that the generation right after the American Revolution ruined the country, destroyed the Constitution, and made the revolution a failure.

I remember my father telling me that his father was sure that rock and roll had ruined the country, but that his father's father said that swing music and big band music was destroying the youth of the 1930s.

And on it goes.

 

[milliedog]

Facts can be inconvenient and hard to accept. US economic mobility ranks far behind most developed western countries. Meaning if you are born into a family of low economic status in the US you will likely remain there. Like jlee says, this is not opinion. The ability to pull yourself up by your bootstrap success story is rapidly diminishing in the US. There is far more economic opportunity in western and northern European countries. The US was founded on a classless and egalitarian society and the fact that countries that had or still have rigid class structures and monarchies are doing better in this regard is hard to fathom.

 

[jlee562]

This is absurd. How you can make sweeping conclusions about what's going to happen in the next 50 years based on what you've seen in the last 3-5? Of course you think things will never get better, you have no other frame of reference. And that's not a put down, it's the reality of being 20-something years old and only a few years into your career. And bringing up past generations isn't clouding the issue, it's bringing in proper perspective when you complain about how bad you have it. Are times tough now for those entering the job market? Sure. They were when I was your age too...double digit unemployment, skyrocketing inflation, 18% mortgage intereste rates...you aren't the first one to be challenged on what you think real life was going to be like. We all felt exactly like you feel now.

With all due respect, l really don't think you're getting my point.

I'm actually not complaining at all. I actually haven't spoken a word of my own personal life. The absurdity is not the objective and quantifiable measurements you first implied could not be proven. Rather, the absurdity is your reply above which is based on nothing but supposition and your own projections of what you think younger people are saying.

Secondly, if the question posed relates to successive generations, i.e. is this generation worse off than the one before, what the life experience of the depression was, is totally irrelevant to the question. It's skipping one (or two, depending on what metric you're using) generation(s).

I thought I was being fairly clear in my comments in fact, that I was NOT discussing my personal life ("as an average..."). So if we go back to the question: does this current generation have it worse off than the last?

If you want to answer the question as you did, judging by life experience, sure, it's "absurd" to judge what will happen in the coming years. However, that is not how I chose to answer the question.

Upward mobility is a quantifiable value. And it was a quantifiable value in 1965, 1955, 1945, 1935, 1925, etc, etc, etc. The proportion of the middle class is a quantifiable value. And it was a quantifiable value in 2000, 1900, you name it.

If you want to answer the question with quantifiable data, you have an answer. And that answer is that, on average, a young person today does not have as good a chance of exceeding their parent's generation, as the that generation had compared to their precedents.

Please again note that this is not a statement of complaint about my own personal life.

 

[HudsonHawk]

With all due respect, l really don't think you're getting my point.

I'm actually not complaining at all. I actually haven't spoken a word of my own personal life. The absurdity is not the objective and quantifiable measurements you first implied could not be proven. Rather, the absurdity is your reply above which is based on nothing but supposition and your own projections of what you think younger people are saying.

First, I don't mean "you" as in you personally, I mean those of the particular generation we are discussing.

Secondly, if the question posed relates to successive generations, i.e. is this generation worse off than the one before, what the life experience of the depression was, is totally irrelevant to the question. It's skipping one (or two, depending on what metric you're using) generation(s).

Why would you limit it to only the immediately preceding generation? How is that any sort of relevant comparison of history?

So if we go back to the question: does this current generation have it worse off than the last?

If you want to answer the question as you did, judging by life experience, sure, it's "absurd" to judge what will happen in the coming years. However, that is not how I chose to answer the question.

But that's the question. Will you (as in your generation, on average) have a better life than your parents? You don't think so. But you don't know that. Every generation says the same thing. You're not the first.

Upward mobility is a quantifiable value. And it was a quantifiable value in 1965, 1955, 1945, 1935, 1925, etc, etc, etc. The proportion of the middle class is a quantifiable value. And it was a quantifiable value in 2000, 1900, you name it.

If you want to answer the question with quantifiable data, you have an answer. And that answer is that, on average, a young person today does not have as good a chance of exceeding their parent's generation, as the that generation had compared to their precedents.

It's only an answer if you accept that projecting today into tomorrow is absolute. It's not.

Please again note that this is not a statement of complaint about my own personal life.

Noted.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Facts can be inconvenient and hard to accept. US economic mobility ranks far behind most developed western countries. Meaning if you are born into a family of low economic status in the US you will likely remain there. Like jlee says, this is not opinion. The ability to pull yourself up by your bootstrap success story is rapidly diminishing in the US. There is far more economic opportunity in western and northern European countries. The US was founded on a classless and egalitarian society and the fact that countries that had or still have rigid class structures and monarchies are doing better in this regard is hard to fathom.

As someone who has pulled myself up from the bootstraps, I can say you're way off base here. There is opportunity galore for anyone willing to work at it. Whether they are willing or not is another discussion.

 

[Huertecilla]

No, it's actually not perception or opinion, and don't try to cloud the issue by jumping two generations.

Upward mobility is a quantifiable value. There is no "perception" or "opinion" of historical trends in upward mobility. In the US today, it is near historic lows. Adjusted for inflation, middle class wages are lower than they were in the post war years. The census has broadly shown that the middle class has shrunk over the past 30 years (which is used by some as a unit to estimate one generation).

Again, these are quantifiable facts, not supposition, perception, nor opinion.

Over here the fatcs are tha the youths have a bleak future. It has néver been so bleak éver as there is no manual labour, odd jobs to fall back on. Unemployment amongst the sub 25 is over 60%...
As to the general behaviour I think youths behave bétter than my generation and that was wíth plent of work, even after school work.
The thing Í am observing is a general desinterest, increasing egocentrism which imo has roots in lack of real world interpersonal social contacts.

Ethics are never obsolete even though our society is currently experiencing a low tide as middle class is threatened species.
The middle class has almost gone extinct here and over the past decade the average earnings in that sector have plummeted, halved. The aspiring middle class diappearing is a crucial factor in the state of ´manners´.

Does it matter as far as hat etiquette is concerned? Imo not. The basics are the same and you individually choose to behave respectfully towards others or not. What others do or not do is not an alibi for yoúr manners.
As I wrote before, whether your manners are appreciated or not, is also a selection on those who share your understanding and probably ethics = gréat!

As middle class and expectations for the youth are under pressure, positively distinguishing features get more important. Perhaps good manners will become an advantage again. I sure am trying to get mý son to gét that.

 

[Edward]

Waht do we mean by hat etiquette? If we mean (as seems to generally be the case round here) that there is a commonly held notion of when it is polite to wear or not wear one's hat, then inevitably this will decline as does hat-wearing. There seem to be fewer remaining 'rules' in the UK than the US, for instance; hardly surprising, given that while the decline in hat-wearing in the US is broadly a post-war trend, fashionable young men were already abandoning hats in England of the early 1930s.

Of course, more rarefied codes of etiquette which extend, for whatever reasons, beyond what is merely polite and practical and into complex rules for comples rules' own sake will likely always perpetuate in small circles, much as ever they did.

Another funny thing about this ever repeated frowning/ranting is, that the mannerless youth only can be a product of the frowning/ranting generation's skills, when it comes to raising their offspring in a proper manner.

I do love Socrates. It's certainly the case as a general rule that every generation believes the next is taking us all to hell in a handbasket, while the last were puritanical monsters.

I'll doff my lid once seated or if inside an office ( not a bank), not very skilled at tipping... if I could be like Wm Powell it'd be a lot easier to carry off...
same way when just walking down the street... ya gotta OWN it...

Doffing is very popular among the Chappist / Anarcho-dandyist set here in the UK, who are, of course, at the forefront of keeping hat-wearing alive.

While I'd say not a lot of people practice the 'no hats indoors' policy, I wouldn't say its obsolete; as long as there are still people who do such a thing and people still feel respected when you take off your hat for them, then I would argue it's still very relevent today even if it's not common practice.

Indeed. I'd say that's the remaining constant. I suspect a lot of my own hat rules-of-habit were learned during all my years in the Scouts, where a quasi-military approach to when hats should be worn and when removed was strongly adhered to any time we were in uniform. I'd feel rude not to remove my hat indoors in someone else's space; beyond that, I'd probably also feel somewhat uncomfortable. My choice of hat style is, broadly, an aesthetic affectation (otherwise it'd all be beanies, watch caps and tilley hats), but the reasons why I wear a headcover of whatever style are practical. In Winter I wear one of ten or so velvet fezzes (not true fezzes, but an American adaptation which is halfway between an English smoking cap and a Moroccan fez) around the house to keep my head warm, but those are specifically indoor headwear (I've also been known to sport one with black or white tie on occasions).

Again "when the mayority is not aware of etiquettes" it is NOT etiquette.
Etiquette is only etiquette when the majority of people in a society understand it to be so.

This goes back to the question of what is etiquette. It certainly can be a commonly held notion of politeness, but it can also be specific to a particular circle of people, and used as a way of marking them out as 'different' than others, for whatever reason.

For some topics that get repeated I do think it is beating a dead horse. We get enough membership turnover, at least in participation, that every time this one comes up there are many new participants and the responses have some of the same and also some new. I am enjoying this one as much as the last ones.

I imagine eventually the bartenders will add it to a previous thread for ease of navigation. I agree that there is a value in reviving this sort of thing every so often, as much as anything because it intrigues me to see what younger and newer members are thinking, especially as it belies so much of what attracts people to hats.

I am observant in what I judge to be appropriate settings as already stated by many. I have more actions of hat etiquette when greeting a 75 year old lady than when greeting a 31 year old. The 75 yr old appreciates it and when I do the same to early thirties they look at me funny. Some of the young ones have even asked me why I did it.

This is a fair point. I would tend to the view that sometimes the truly gentlemanly thing to do is to relax a little on some of these things if it is necessary to put one's companions at ease.

P.e. the vast mayority of society never ever has had a clue about black tie or such diner etiquette yet is still exists. Yes even today, maybe more exclusively or perhaps just as it always was, intentional and all.

Etiquette is also intentionally socially exclusive! and as such thas etiquette inherently NOT understood by the mayority.

I wonder where exclusive etiquette and secret ritual meet.

Again, we're back to the elusive issue of defining etiquette. It can be both general and exclusive. You are certainly correct that some of the dress codes in play in the pat and even today are designed for the benefit of those "in the know" - you have to be "one of us" to "get it right" sort of thing. Applies the same whether it's rich people in the thirties with white tie, or kids in the seventies appointing themselves to the role of Who Is and Is Not Punk. Or goth. Or whatever... Sometimes etiquette codes, in particular, in relation to dress, were specifically designed to alienate or to keep out "the other". In one extreme example, the uniform of the notorious Bullingdon Club incorporates a very specific tailcoat which members must purchase. It is, to the best of my knowledge, only available from one bespoke tailor on Oxford, and costs GBP2000 to have made. This is no accident - it's one way of keeping out the un-monied classes by deliberate design. Alternatively, there is what is sometimes called "grey tie": traditionally, in England of an evening where the men of the Big House would be wearing white tie to dinner, the butler would be clad in an almost identical outfit, save that his bow tie and waistcaot would be black. This was an easy way of ensuring that everyone knew who the servant was, and avoided any unfortunate faux pas on that front. (Some have also argued it carried a slight edge of mockery, keeping the servants in their place by letting them dress "almost like us, but not quite", in an environment among people who did and could afford to change three or four times a day, often to no practical end. I've yet to see and solid historical evidence myself that this was a definite fact rather than an interepretation/ value judgement, however.)

One thing is absolutely sure: A fedora on the head makes no gentleman on it's own!

Indeed - manners maketh the man, the clothes just make him look good.

You see, every American felt he had the chance to make it to that genteel social order. Whereas Europeans were born to their lowly existence and many had little interest in trying to "act upper class." Americans all thought of themselves as "upper class" to the degree that they wanted to be thought of as accomplished, erudite, and up-and-coming.

It's certainly true that the English class system, still prevalent today, affects perceptions of social place in a way that might be absent in other parts of the world.

Anyway, I disagree 100% with your claim that etiquette wasn't understood by the majority. In America it was a well-known societal norm and only the most ignorant eschewed it utterly.

We're back to the issue of definition again. Is etiquette a general notion of politeness - which would, indeed, be expected at all stratas of society? Or does it imply something else - a complicated social code, the preserve of the monied classes (who were ever in existence in the US as much as in Merrie Olde England), a way of marking out who was or was not 'in the club'? Of course it can be both at once. There's no one single 'code of etiquette' for all of scoiety, and I doubt there ever was.

It seems to me that most of the marked disagreements in this thread are between folks who are not worknig from a common definition of etiquette.

Still, I'd counter that even in today's highest social strata (in the USA) there is little understanding about the old etiquette in general and hat etiquette in particular. Everyone is too worried about "my rights" to do whatever I want and once common standards of behavior have been thrown by the wayside.

I rather think you're conflating two things which are not so directly related as you suggest. It seems to me far more likely thatthe perceived decline in "hat etiquette" has a much more direct relationship with the decline in hat wearing. I'm sure there must have been etiquette involved in telegrams, but now that that communications technology is all but dead, what relevance would it have to the email generation?

 

[Edward]

I wonder how much hat etiquette was followed in its supposed heyday. Right now I'm watching House of Strangers, a 1949 film set in 1932. There's a scene in it in an indoor stadium for a boxing match. At least half of the people watching are wearing their hats, men and women included. I just found it curious, because of this thread I not only noticed all the nice hats, but I began to wonder why they were wearing them. Anyway, I just thought I'd mention it.

I suspect that would have been common back in the day too. The "rules", of course, were always different for men and women. Women's hats tended to be much less likely to be removed, especially the more 'involved' they were in terms of being fastened to the hair with the hairdo worked around them. In general even now most places where a man might be expected to remove his hat, women may keep them on (or sometimes are expected to keep them on). In many Christian Churches it was long the tradition that a woman should wear a hat as a sign of humility. Still popular in the UK and Ireland among Brethren and some Baptists. About forty years ago, my mother and aunt once visited Notarealdoctor Ian Paisley's church (when he first came to prominence, and out of curiosity). They were told, during the service and from the pulpit, that they would not be welcome to take communion because they were not wearing hats. A man who insisted on wearing a hat there would have been equally unwelcome (and no doubt would have been asked, or at least obliged, to leave much earlier on!). I've also heard tell of churches where the done thing was for married ladies to wear hats, single ladies to go without...

Much as things varied from locale to locale with churches over time, I suspect this happened more generally in an age where the world was smaller and there wasn't a large online community where one could go to learn what is 'correct' . Despite the many etiquette books, I would suspect day to day local custom was of primary importance.

For the dutch members; ´Het Blauwe Boekje´ is very much alive and available on line; http://www.hetblauweboekje.nl/

About hats it has an interesting mention:

´Het afnemen van de hoed, of lichtjes aanraken, is vergelijkbaar met het salueren in de militaire etiquette. Het komt voort uit het gebruik van ridders in de Middeleeuwen die het masker van hun harnas omlaag deden als teken van vriendelijkheid, en dus het tegenovergestelde van vijandigheid. Het was een kwestie van vertrouwen winnen.´

= ´Taking off the hat, or touching it, is comparable with saluting in military etiquette. It originates in the custom of medieval knights who dropped their guard/raised their visor as a friendly salut, contrary to hostility. It was a sign of confidance.´

I've heard this elsewhere too - it makes a lot of sense. I do wonder whether both evolved from the knights, or whether the civilian approach was a mianstreaming of military practice from an era when a much larger proportion of the citizenry had direct experience of military service.

When I was younger I lived for awhile right behind an enclosed shopping mall. It used to amuse me to gauge people's reactions to how I dressed- I'd cruise the stores, browse, come back wearing a sports jacket and do the same thing again, and get a lot more attention, more deference, and get called "Sir" a lot more. People weren't doing it consciously, it's just that many of our unconscious reactions go back in history, like it or not. Actually, if they WERE conscious of the reaction they might suppress it.

Yes, I've direct5ly experienced this many times myself. It's a fascinating aspect of human behaviour.

Sometimes it's not entirely clear cut. I noticed that I had lapsed in wearing my hat in the elevators at work, and just last week determined to correct that. I don't take it off if I'm alone in the elevator (seems ridiculous), but certainly in the presence of ladies. Just this morning, honestly, I got on a fairly crowded elevator, last person on, turned around next to a dignified elderly lady and took my hat off, and she turned around and GRINNED at me. She didn't need to say anything.

Yes, I think most people these days wouldn't be aware of that one, so it would be a mistake to presume it wilful ignorance.

People notice, even if nobody ever says a word.

Also true - on the proviso, of course, that it's done genuinely rather than for show.

I think one should handle hat etiquette like rel****n. Do it for yourself, be proud of it but stop complaining about others. [huh]

Ha.... took me a second to twig as to what you'd censored there.... I'm inclined to agree, mind.

Funny you should mention that. I was trying to remember why my last period of hat-wearing came to an end, and I think that's it.

Sports bike, no real storage. Helmet laws. There's just no way...

Brimmed hats, maybe. This sort of situation is why God invented a good cap...

On fast food restaurants I eat at a table but do not remove my hat. It's a place usually crowded and were I stay little time.

Probably the modern equivalent of the diner counter. Myself, if I know I'm going to end up somewhere that isn't best accomodating for hats, I'll tend to reach for a cap rather than a fedora. On occasion I've even been known to wear a black beret with white tie (unconventional, perhaps, but for me it has a rakish, golden era of Hollywood appeal) rather than risk destruction of a beloved topper. Of course most folks at the events I attend never notice, as I decline to wear the hat indoors (occasional it is replaced indoors by a fez bearing the mark of Our Dark Lord Cthlulu... ).

 

[Seb Lucas]

It's a matter of how traditionalist you are - and that you are, indeed. You are repeating the same old "song", Socrates "sang" about 2.000 years ago:

"Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers."

If Socrates - the millions after him, complaining the very same - and you really were right, our civilization would have been long dead, and we would all be crawling the gutters along with the rats. That is obviously not the case, but that fact certainly won't keep some from chanting rants about others' bad conduct.

Actually Socrates never said that. It's one of those fake quotes that has been repeated so often some people believe it to be genuine.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Actually Socrates never said that. It's one of those fake quotes that has been repeated so often some people believe it to be genuine.

The quote is not actually Socrates, but the observation is generations old. Young people tend to say "I'll never be like..." and older people tend to say "these kids today...".

 

[Seb Lucas]

The quote is from 1907. Kenneth John Freeman. And yes, it's pretty much a cliche.

 

[Mr Oldschool]

Wow, I had no idea the kind of hot topic I was starting right at the end of my day on Friday before going home for the weekend! I hope those that seemed like they were getting miffed were not in fact. I'd hate to be the one that started the thread that started flames, you know? there are a lot of things that I read that I wanted to comment on, which now, several pages later, I don't really remember, so when I have some time, I'll go back through this and post quote replies. I did want to mention that I had not been able to find the previous times this topic has been covered. I looked first because I know some people get irritated when the same questions are always getting asked. Unfortunately, the search engines built into most forums are difficult to get useful results from for me. it might be just me, but I actually tend to be pretty resourceful, so i am inclined to think that it is a problem with the search functions. As arrogant as that may sound, I say it with as much humility as I can... there are many things I can't do well, but dredging the internet is not one of them.

I think there is a pilosophical question behind my original question, which many people have touched on, and that is "what does your hat wearing say about you?" I believe that what we wear is an outward expression of our personality, at least to some degree, and since hats are something that at least used to have a whole set of rules about how to wear them, it makes me ponder whether there is anything left of the association with those rules. For some people, the hat is nothing more than a tool to cover the top of your head. For some it is a fashion statement, purely for aesthetics. For some, it is still strongly connected to the behavior that used to be commonplace in wearing them, and wearing a hat becomes almost more of an extension of that behavior, if that makes sense. Like it becomes a part of your personality to wear a hat and to tip and doff your hat. I don't know if that means you're trying to live in a bygone era or act like a relic, or if it has more to do with what you learned or didn't learn as a kid. When I was little, hat wearing wasn't big anymore, yet I always liked wearing hats. I was not trained to use hat ettiquette by my parents, and resented when my Grandpa would say "Take off your hat and coat and stay a while" precisely because I didn't want to uncover my "hat hair". These days, I wear my hair in a manner and cut that doesn't get so messed up from wearing a hat, and I practice much more removal of my hat under what seem appropriate circumstances. I always take it off to eat, and at times my hat does have its own chair. I can understand and appreciate the instances given for when it just isn't practical to take off your hat, and occasionally will do the same, but it's kind of like driving without seatbelts, it just doesn't feel right when you're used to doing something else.

Anyway, I wrote this last night and it appears I forgot to click the "Post Reply" button, so if there have been more comments since #99, I haven't read them yet.

Thanks for the discussion guys and gals

 

[Huertecilla]

I think there is a pilosophical question behind my original question, which many people have touched on, and that is "what does your hat wearing say about you?"

Imo that one wants to wear a hat.

The underlying reasons are as wonderfully multi facetted as a diamond and should not be simplified into a lump of dirt.