Dress codes in society

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by S.A.M., Nov 12, 2010.

  1. NetJaded Registered Member

    To address the original questions of why do businessmen wear suits, soldiers wear uniforms...etc...

    The reason is to be easily identifiable for the job they do. In many cases it is a matter of life or death (soldiers, doctors...etc) that other people are not mistaken for them. In most cases (waitstaff, store employees...etc) it's a matter of added customer service to make them easily identifiable to customers who may need assistance.

    Why do business men wear business suites? Because it is the established dress of people in their position and there are many studies that show people behave in a more professional manner when dressed in one. Some people opt to wear the suit and tie because they are proud of what it symbolizes (professionalism) and others simply wear it because it is a requirement.

    Many companies have dress policies as a way of setting standard of dress so that employees and clients are not made uncomfortable by the inappropriateness of a persons dress.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. NetJaded Registered Member

    As for the burqa ban, I think that while people should not be forced to assimilate to a culture, if you CHOOSE to move from an eastern nation to a western, you are foolish to then expect that culture to adapt to you.

    With high crime, terrorism and security measures that include facial recognition at airports and people being asked to be more aware of people and their surroundings, yes I think that is very unsafe to allow a segment of the population to be completely masked and unidentifiable.

    There is a cult that lives not to far from me that believes in nudity all the time, yet when they come into town, they wear clothes.

    I do not think that it is unreasonable to expect that citizens of a country dress in a manner that shows they respect the comfort and safety of their FELLOW citizens.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. stratos Banned Banned

    Beware of any enterprise that requires new clothing, it's said. But Prince William and Kate Middleton have decided to wed anyway, and let's hope this one works out. Felicitations.

    Nuptials aside, as dress codes go, black is the great default colour, for both sexes, and it's the props that make it, the right tie, jewellery or what have you. Black is the new black more often than it isn't and it won't ever be going anywhere for long.
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2010
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Is that really true? Apart from the Arab burqa and the business burqa, where is black the default colour? In Asia, it is not even the colour of mourning.
  8. NetJaded Registered Member

    Black is the default color of fat chicks, western mourners, sullen emo kids, panthers, and beatnik poets.

    It's true.

    I read it on the internet.
  9. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    But is it necessary? For example, wouldn't less US soldiers be killed in Afghanistan if they dressed like the natives rather than wore uniforms which identified them as soldiers? Do you really need a uniform to identify a waitress or a customer service agent? Wouldn't you be able to do so if they appeared at your table or stood behind the counter and responded to your queries? In many restaurants I have been to, the maitre d' dresses in a suit. Similarly for reputable shopping places in India the dress code is casual wear. Plainsclothes cops by definition do not wear a uniform but still manage to get their job done. Do you think insisting on specific clothes is a form of social brainwashing? Does it make it harder for people to look beyond the clothes at the person?

    What does a terrorist look like?
  10. NetJaded Registered Member

    More CIVILIANS would be killed if they were not able to distinguish the soldiers from the general population.

    You over simplify.

    In a work environment, the JOB is more important than the individual. While you are being paid by your employer to do a job in the manner they outlined and you agreed to, it is not their responsibility to cater to your style choices, it's your job to cater to their clientele in an easily identifiable manner that conforms to their corporate image.
  11. NetJaded Registered Member

    What does a terrorist look like?[/QUOTE]

    It could look like ANYONE, but no one can be identified when their face is covered.

    Are you really so silly that you don't understand why people wear masks when they rob a bank?
  12. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Who is "they"? Are you saying that by wearing uniforms soldiers are less likely to be killed because they are more easily identified?
    No I'm trying to figure out why people think the way they do. Resistance fighters dress like civilians and in fewer numbers [French resistance vs Nazi soldiers, mujahideen vs Russian soldiers] are able to defeat big armies. So what is the advantage of the uniform? To whom?

    You consider the Walmart and McDonald corporate image to be superior to the diner and mom and pop stores?

    If you could see everyone's face, how would you identify a terrorist? How many terrorists try to stand out of a group?

    Lets insert another statistic here:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    How likely is it that a burqa woman is a terrorist? What is the frequency of apprehension of terrorists in burqas?
  13. NetJaded Registered Member

    you use the strawman approach, none of your arguments relate to the point being made, so you veer off course.
  14. stratos Banned Banned

    On the smart sort of night out that usually involves ironing beforehand. Men's shirts are curious, as manufacturers have contrived to put every ironing challenge into this one item of clothing. A really smart night out would involve a dinner jacket (black tie or white tie variants), as quaintly shown:

  15. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Actually Sam, it occurs to me that this is a question you could aptly answer using examples more familiar to you from the Middle East and India: why do people think the way they do regarding wearing the burkha? Why is hair covering such an important mandate in the Islamic world? What is the advantage of that uniform? To whom?
  16. Mr MacGillivray Banned Banned

    Ignorance is no excuse. Now you know. Do something.
  17. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    For what?

    If you mean the burqa, then yes. It's an overt symbol intended to broadcast membership in a particular group, with an implied threat of retaliation by said group if their expectations of treatment of the symbol-bearer are not satisfied.

    Of course you are. Don't be asinine.

    Because such is required in order to justify a policy to a population with a variety of religious beliefs. Otherwise, you're imposing religion onto people.

    It is indeed my preference to live in a society where people are governed justly.

    How would you know? You have yet to examine any of it.

    That's the same threat, basically.

    Still specious.

    Not sure about France, but in most Western countries the state will prevent one from quitting school, and also parents from preventing children from attending school. So I think you are missing something in this story.

    So, they don't "quit school" or "become housebound," they simply attend private institutions that cater to their preferences. What is the problem with that supposed to be? Isn't that exactly what religious fundamentalists who refuse, on principle, to go along with prevailing social mores should be doing?

    Would that I could - but enlightenment is the sort of thing that people have to come to on their own. Why don't you try examining the issue with an open mind and trying to see the French side of the story, instead of playing partisan?

    Unbacked assertion - and they're already prisoners not just in their own homes, but in their own clothes.

    With the forceful backing of the state, which has made it a crime to force a woman to wear a veil.

    "Disposable sex object" is a conventional woman's role in patriarchal societies.

    So you agree that you are peddling offensive, ignorant bigotry here, then?

    Or that Western perspectives on your culture are valuable and worthy of respect?

    Which is it?

    Yeah, and that's oppressively patriarchal and wrong. I recognize it as such because it's basically similar to oppressive patriarchy everywhere else, including the West.

    And I know enough women who veil (including ones who refuse to do so when not required to by law and/or threat of retaliation). And yet I don't agree with you, so these arguments from authority are, again, irrelevancies.

    Also, "Asian women" have almost nothing to do with the subject. French Muslims are overwhelmingly African.

    The issue was not "opinions" but "bald assertions."

    Possible. Why is that a problem?

    Again, not seeing the "problem" here.

    What does that have to do with French concepts of equality?

    All countries have that problem.

    And this is a problem why?

    More places than they could if they insist on wearing a burqa - that rules out a great deal of employment venues, in France (ban or not).

    You're still talking about matrilinearity. Matriarchy is a different story.

    It is the very definition of "matriarchy" that men would be oppressed in such a society. The character and means of oppression would be different, but it would still be oppression.

    Relevance to topic?

    In the US? Sure.

    It's a mistake to impute political conflicts entirely to cultural bigotry but, moreover, relevance to topic?

    You miss the point - these women become unrecognizable in the photos because the clothing they are required to wear obscures almost all of their features. I usually have to ask which one of the women in the photo is them, especially if they have sisters or cousins around the same age. At which point, what is the point of even looking at the photo? It could be anybody.

    Seeing pictures of my Indian friends in kurtis or whatever doesn't really register. They generally dress the same way as they do here, for the most part.

    I have no idea - ask someone versed in French police procedures. My guess is that she'll just keep accruing tickets.

    I have a convincing counter-argument, but I refuse to present it out of fear of provoking a violent attack. It is really terrible how you are going to physically assault and injure me just for my views!

    That's because you refuse to subject your assumptions to critical scrutiny - instead you just run with them on whatever pretext is convenient. If you were in the realm where "proof" occurs, you wouldn't be dealing in assumptions, but in hypotheses and inferences.

    That a self-sealing outlook is impervious to fact or argument does not make it accurate - rather the opposite.
  18. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Shaved legs, lipstick and heels is a uniform.

    Cow boots and cowboy hat is another uniform.

    Tattoos and piercings is another uniform.

    There have always been many types of unofficial uniforms portraying subtle or not so subtle messages about how the uniform wearers wish to be stereotyped by others or by themselves.

    Oppression comes into this when people feel pressured to conform to other peoples tastes.
  19. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    You've got it backwards - the point of military uniforms is that more soldiers will be killed, but fewer civilians. The point is to make it immediatley clear who is a soldier and who is a civilian, so that armed people making pressured decisions can act accordingly (hopefully, by not killing civilians).

    And, indeed, in none of those categories are the dress codes universal. Some places prefer a casual feel, and so go with that. Other places are more formal. It seems to largely be a class thing.

    And the jobs that plainclothes police officers get done by definition require obscuring the fact that they are law enforcement officers by eschewing a uniform. So they are the exception that proves the rule - they would not be effective if most police officers didn't normally wear uniforms, as the lack of a uniform would no longer provide a useful pretense for plainclothes officers.
  20. PsychoTropicPuppy Bittersweet life? Valued Senior Member

    Well, I think Frankfurt's decision was correct. But what kind of strikes me as odd is, why would she suddenly want to wear a burqa after coming back from maternity leave? Psychological? Her husband? I mean, she knew fully well that she's a public servant and people would like to see her face when speaking to her...

    Is there anything to object about Frankfurt's decision? What's your opinion on public servants 'appearance', as in..would it bother you to talk to a fully veiled one, or would you rather talk to someone whose face is visible?

Share This Page