Wearing vintage is considered costumes.

[2jakes]

What is a “yute” Lizzie?

 

[KILO NOVEMBER]

There "no organic, essential reason ..." for anything beyond eating, defecating, and copulating. Everything, and I mean absolutely everything, else is a social construction, and that fact doesn't detract anything from those social constructions. There is no organic, essential reason why I shouldn't bash someone over the head with a rock and take something that he otherwise wouldn't surrender, except for social construction.

So, no reasonable person can simply dismiss social constructions. They are what we create to make life more predictable, and therefor easier to navigate.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Exactly the point I was making. It's just good to remember that none of these "rules" about clothing and "appropriate dress" were handed down on stone tablets from a mountaintop somewhere. They are mutable just as society itself is mutable. Except maybe the bit about not wearing fabric blends.

Honestly, I couldn't care less what people wear, or how other people react to it -- there are far more important issues for society to worry about. I feel fortunate to live in a town where nobody gives a damn about this stuff -- you can walk down the street in anything from a leopard-skin speedo to a Batman suit, and nobody will give you a second look. I've seen people sitting in jury boxes wearing t-shirts, work pants, and sneakers, and the trial seemed to go on just as well as if they'd all been suited and pressed and starched to the gills.

About the only place I'd draw the line personally is if somebody came in the door at the theatre dressed up as a commando or otherwise bristling with weaponry. Given past incidents in theatres, I'd have no problem telling him to leave. Otherwise, you can come see a show dressed up as an Elizabethan courtesan, a druid, an astronaut, Sally Rand, the Khedive of Egypt, the Sixth Doctor, or a gorilla -- as long as you've got a ticket in your hand, who am I to judge?

 

[LizzieMaine]

What is a “yute” Lizzie?

I can't get the video to run on this computer, but a "yute" is what people from the Northeast call a teenager. "Dem kids joined da yute (or yoot, or yout') group down t' da YMCA."

 

[2jakes]

I can't get the video to run on this computer, but a "yute" is what people from the Northeast call a teenager. "Dem kids joined da yute (or yoot, or yout') group down t' da YMCA."

Thanks Lizzie.
It’s a scene (My Cousin Vinny) regarding dress code in the courtroom and the judge
orders the lawyer to dress “lawyerly”...and one of the questions was...

 

[ChiTownScion]

Rather than "look silly," I submit that the robe and wig of the barrister convey an important concept: that the focus of the jury during the trial is supposed to be upon the facts presented during testimony and the law that they are to apply and not on the personality of individual counsel. Thus, the swanky Dick Tracy dress alike, or many of his other incarnations has no distinct advantage over the young assistant D.A. who can't afford a trip to Brooks Brothers every few months. The judicial wig and robe convey that as well: an anonymity coupled with the solemnity of the venue and occasion.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Rather than "look silly," I submit that the robe and wig of the barrister convey an important concept: that the focus of the jury during the trial is supposed to be upon the facts presented during testimony and the law that they are to apply and not on the personality of individual counsel. Thus, the swanky Dick Tracy dress alike, or many of his other incarnations has no distinct advantage over the young assistant D.A. who can't afford a trip to Brooks Brothers every few months. The judicial wig and robe convey that as well: an anonymity coupled with the solemnity of the venue and occasion.

I remember reading somwhere some years back that the powdered wig and robe was often a bone of contention among younger barristers who were just starting out, some of whom could barely afford it.

 

[Stearmen]

What is a “yute” Lizzie?

I remember when I saw the movie, I thought it was mighty strange that two Ute's would be entering a small store in Alabama!

 

[Trenchfriend]

Tell xenophobic people: "It's romanticism. There's nothing more behind."

This way, tasteless proletarians, like in old Germany, would be disarmed.

 

[2jakes]

I remember when I saw the movie, I thought it was mighty strange that two Ute's would be entering a small store in Alabama!

Probably the two Utes were low on grits and what better place to shop for
original grits than in Alabama.

Not sure hominy boxes of grits they bought.
I would hope enough for the coming winter.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Remove the insignia from the clothing -- the Starfleet badge on the chest and the rank pips on the collar -- and leave off the equipment belt, and all you would have had was a maroon-and-black jacket and pants combination. It wouldn't have been an especially flattering outfit, but you'd have had a hard time making a legitimate argument that it was inappropriate or disruptive. It would, in fact, likely be far less disruptive than a woman in full Victorian garb. Let's hope Lady Victoriana never gets tapped for jury duty.

Last time I was on a jury I wore my hat to the courthouse every day, but took it off inside, left it in the jury assembly room and didn't insist on wearing it in the jury box. Many here would rather be held in contempt than leave their priceless artwork out of sight. One more example of my FL heretical hat ways.

 

[Fading Fast]

Reading through this thread has encouraged me to make an implicit point, explicit. Regarding the park incident and the Victorians, my working assumption was that the no-costume rule / law was there for a reasonable reason and not simply as a dress code. In NYC, some people have been dressing up in costumes - like Elmo or Star Wars characters, cheerfully agreeing to have their picture with, mainly, tourists and, then, aggressively demand a "tip." Also, costumes have been used by some in this city over the years to hide their identities during crimes or to intimidate others.

Hence, in this city, in some pubic spaces / parks there are some costume restriction laws and rules to minimize those behaviors. I assumed the park in question had its anti-costume rules in place for similar reasons and that the Victorian couple simple got "caught in the net" of an inflexible application of the rule. If so, then all I said stands - there needs to be some space for reasonable and thoughtful discretion by law enforcement officials without fear of a "gotcha" lawsuit.

However, if the law / rule is in place as a public-space dress code, I'm in Lizzie's camp which is I simply don't care what people wear (and agree with her view on commando wear, but that fits in with the "costume" being used for / being part of criminal behavior). I think it was great there was a time that social norms encouraged nicer attire, but those can't and shouldn't be forced in public spaces because that just spirals into a not-winnable argument about what is or isn't "appropriate" attire.

In general, private businesses, like a restaurant or bar, trying to create an atmosphere, can, IMHO, have a dress code, but public spaces should almost alway default to the least restrictive or we just waste time and resources fighting over what looks nice. From jeans to tattoos, makeup to dyed hair, women in pants to men in dresses - they've all had their day of controversy which, IMHO, just argues for letting everyone dress however they want. If green hair and body piercing is your thing, I'm all for it for you - doesn't hurt me and makes you happy - I'll support that view everyday.

 

[ChiTownScion]

Hey, I'm a "looney liberal leftie," if not a full-blown dirty pinko commie, and I couldn't give a warm bowl of spit if you walk in the door wearing full Victorian dress, a clown suit, or a feed bag. If you want to discuss fine points of the law, fine, but lay off the political name-calling.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Do they have it in red?

 

[Frunobulax]

View attachment 55317

Ugh.

 

[Edward]

"You in the hat -- down in front!!"

Some might remember that this is the same Victorian-living couple that was at the center of an Internet furor about a year ago. While they do seem to run into more than their fair share of confrontations, and there's no real excuse for some of the dung flung in their direction by the Internet Snark Patrol, at least some of it can be laid to their own confrontational approach when dealing with the Ignorant and the Unwashed -- read her own books for examples. If you're going to be a public atavist, and especially if you're going to try to make a living merchandising your lifestyle, as they do, you have to have a sense of humor about it, rather than flying into outrage over every slight, real or perceived -- or you're going to get pummelled.

I saw this story reported in the UK press. I did strongly suspect there must be more to it than we were being told. I do suspect that had they been dressed in a less obviously 'old-fashioned' way, they might not have been challenged.... though who knows; I've also seen a photo of a couple of wedding guests who were ejected. If thiscouple have a reputation for being confrontational, one begins to wonder if they had seen the rules in advance. It seems a fairly likely conclusion to draw, had they read these readily available rules, that the full on Victoriana might cause a problem.

Recently the Disney parks have instituted a ban on costumes worn by persons over 14 out of security concerns. Though it's generally understood that the ban is specifically in regard to the wearing of masks, a legitimate concern, I also think it's a bit difficult to enforce because based on what I've seen people wearing at Disneyland, what exactly constitutes a "costume"?

I should expect that the thing they're worried about is the most obvious: someone posing as a Disney employe by dressing as if they were a member of the Disney staff. Particularly given the very real danger of paedophiles (as amplified by the paedophile panic of recent years). I seem to remember there being a hoo hah when someone claimed to have been groped by a costumed Disney staffer a coupel of years ago. Can you imagine the furore Disney woul have on their hands if some perv, especially a paedy, dressed up and hug out in Disney world to get access to kids? The first outcry would inevitably be "why did they let people dress in a way that made them look like Disney staff"?

I remember reading somwhere some years back that the powdered wig and robe was often a bone of contention among younger barristers who were just starting out, some of whom could barely afford it.

Still is over here. One of those wigs and gown sets can cost close to a grand all in - before any of the bits that go beneath it. Given that a barrister only gets paid per the case, it's a hard enough world to break into (Worse in Northern Ireland where there are no chambers and barristers are completely self-employed from the off). Wikipedia actually is quite good on this for the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_dress#Where_court_dress_is_worn In all probability, though, court dress as traditionally seen in England and wales is dying a slow death since the Supreme Court (which replaced the "House of Lords" court a few years ago) dispensed entirely with wigs and gowns. I believe it will soon disappeal for civil cases, and criminal cases thereafter. I doubt it will disappear for ceremonial occasions, but for working days, I think it's time is short indeed.

Reading through this thread has encouraged me to make an implicit point, explicit. Regarding the park incident and the Victorians, my working assumption was that the no-costume rule / law was there for a reasonable reason and not simply as a dress code. In NYC, some people have been dressing up in costumes - like Elmo or Star Wars characters, cheerfully agreeing to have their picture with, mainly, tourists and, then, aggressively demand a "tip." Also, costumes have been used by some in this city over the years to hide their identities during crimes or to intimidate others.

That seems likely. I also note that the rules forbid "wedding attire" outside of a specified "wedding season". I suspect that part of it is also designed to prevent those who wish to use the public park for commercial gain - i.e. as a backdrop for an advertising photo session, or wedding photos, or other activity where the photos make money.

 

[Edward]

As to the Star Trek juror..... I'm seeing only two options. Either this lady was in possession of limited social skills, or it was a carefully calculated outfit designed to avoid being selected for jury duty. People have gone far further to get out of sitting on a jury for the duration of a legal case.

 

[Fading Fast]

...That seems likely. I also note that the rules forbid "wedding attire" outside of a specified "wedding season". I suspect that part of it is also designed to prevent those who wish to use the public park for commercial gain - i.e. as a backdrop for an advertising photo session, or wedding photos, or other activity where the photos make money.

Agreed. Related, but not a counterpoint at all, for some reason, NYC seems fine with couples wearing their wedding attire and having their wedding photos taken in Central Park as I see it all the time, sometime the session is quite involved and the police never bother anyone (that I've seen).

Another thing I've noticed is that many couples from Japan have their wedding photos (or at a least a set of wedding photos) taken in Central Park. On a nice day, it is not unusual to encounter several Japanese couples having their wedding photos taken in Central Park. I've often wondered if there is a reason that so many couples from Japan do this - has it taken off, in Japan, as a "thing to do" (have your wedding photos in NYC) for Japanese couples that can afford it?

 

[MisterCairo]

do I have to point out to you the difference between a public park and a court room?

There are several mentions in posts above about the public versus private, park versus court room, etc., dichotomy. Perhaps I can shed some light on the specific controversy.

I spent four years posted to Her Majesty's Canadian Dockyard Esquimalt, near Victoria, British Columbia, and I am intimately familiar with the site in question, if not the policy.

Butchart Gardens, the scene in question, is NOT a public park, but indeed a private facility, world renowned for its elaborate year-round gardens:


http://www.butchartgardens.com

The gardens were created over several years early in the 20th century. Robert Butchart was a cabinet maker from Owen Sound, Ontario, who moved west to BC to take part in the limestone/cement industry. His wife, Jennie, was a chemist, who helped expand the business. Living at and working a quarry north of Victoria (the family home, private gardens and duck pond remain), Jennie Butchart began to plan and build the gardens. The site remains a private, family owned business to this day. I have met the owner, Robin-Lee Clarke, who is the Butcharts' great-granddaughter.

Serving military personnel get in for free, if you are in the area. While posted to Esquimalt, my wife and I visited at least half a dozen times a year, as we bought yearly passes for my wife (I, of course, was free). The Christmas display is wonderful.

Anyhoo, here is the Gardens' response to this current "controversy". Make of it what you will.


THE BUTCHART GARDENS' RESPONSE TO INQUIRIES REGARDING THE CHRISMANS

August 16, 2016

For the enjoyment and safety of all visitors, and to preserve our tranquil atmosphere, The Butchart Gardens joins many international attractions, (Disney Parks; SeaWorld Parks/Busch Gardens; Museum of Fine Arts Houston; --to name a few), in not permitting costumes or masks to be worn onsite. This includes persons wearing period style, historical dress, or adult clothing that could be viewed as a costume as they could be mistaken for entertainers or interpreters hired by The Gardens and could detract from the experience of other visitors. This policy has been in place for many years and is prominent on our website.

The Butchart Gardens stands on its record for the courtesy and professionalism of its staff. The Chrismans were afforded this courtesy from the moment they arrived at The Gardens to the moment they left. As a compromise, Mrs. Chrisman was politely asked to remove only her hat, and had she not refused, the Chrismans would have been welcomed into The Gardens.

Upon this refusal we immediately refunded all their costs including bus fare to The Gardens, admission fee, meal costs, and they were provided a paid taxi back to Victoria.

We are most thankful for all the support we are receiving.

 

[LizzieMaine]

And there you go. Here's the Chrisman's side of the story.

Take off our hats? He is commanding a lady to take off her hat? I wondered if he even realized the profound level of insult in that command. To remove one's hat in the presence of superiors has been a social gesture of inferiority since the days of medieval feudalism. He was demanding that we recognize his superiority to us.
"No, we will not take off our hats," I told him, incensed by the demand of physical submission. "That is an insulting request."

Emmeline Pankhurst lives!