Guy in Gown

I don't know about this. I mean, I get it that the OP feels that seeing men in skirts in ST "was silly," but really as far as human fashion is concerned, men-in-trousers is a relatively recent dress code and its use was limited to northern European climes for a long period.

Historically, the Romans managed to run a relatively successful and millennia-lasting republic and empire with their soldiers in skirts and senators in gowns and all other men wandering around shamelessly in at-the-knee shifts; the Greeks before them in their chitons (below the shin for older men, and at the knee for young ones) and mantles (gowns sometimes worn off one bare shoulder), and even gadding about in an chalmys when the mood took them; the Egyptians before them with those linen towels slung round their hips and the bare-chestedness of it all.

Even today, where the West dictates what's in and what's not in all things, including dress-code, there are still many regions of the planet that feature "men in gowns" as the fashionable norm.

They seem to manage ok with their sense of masculinity intact, i.e. without feeling "outright silly."

There's no historical basis for thinking that what is considered utilitarian dress in the future for males should be fixed to our current cultural fashion comfort zone, is there?

 

Would people be so opposed if they wore shorts? In the summer, where I work we can wear shorts on Fridays and most everyone takes advantage of that as it's very comfortable. It doesn't seem very impractical at all. I think it's just people's preconceptions that are at work here.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/USCG_Uniforms.png

Women wear skirts. And depending what happens in 300 (three hundred) years, men may do that, too.

 

^That's a picture of a woman in a dress uniform ironically enough. Do you think she wears that while she's piloting an F-18? Or parachutes wearing that?

Since the notion of certain things being less practical to wear than others for certain types of jobs seems so... foreign, let me put this way to further reiterate that this has nothing to do with how overwhelmingly stupid the Skant Uniform looked but has everything to do with how impractical it was and silly due to the fact.

I would never put on a pair of Jenco's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jnco175.jpg) and go mountain biking. "Why Withers? That seems perfectly reasonable!" Well, it isn't. The extra baggy pants could easily get caught in the chain of my bike or the spokes on its tires causing a crash that might easily result in serious injury. Wearing such a thing would be a hazard not only to me but to potentially anyone else I was with. When it would be so much easier to put on a more appropriate and safe thing to go mountain biking in, why would I run the risk of wearing a pair of Jenco's?

I wouldn't.

"But the Greeks and Romans wore skirts and they fought in Gladiatorial arenas!" Well, they hadn't invented pants. Nomadic Iranian horseman came up with the idea of trousers sometime later. If I went up to a Gladiator and said "Hey buddy, you can keep wearing that skirt or you can wear these pants that cover your legs and offer at least some minimal protection as opposed to bare flesh," what do you think he'd say?

That's all to say nothing of the fact that pointing at an ancient civilization and saying "They did it! Why wouldn't people in the 24th century do it," it tantamount to "He get's to why not me!" I'm not entirely certain about this but I think a lot of practices utilized by the Greeks and Romans fell by the wayside between BC and the 24th century in favor of more practical solutions.

It boils down to the fact that this isn't about fashion or twenty first century viewpoints on men wearing skirts. It's about functionality (and I guess I should say just to make it clear- it was as stupid for Dianna and Tasha to sport the skant as it was for a guy to do so.) On a Starship (even the pleasure craft Enterprise-D) the notion that one could easily be in dangerous situations where debris and explosions wouldn't be at all unheard of yet still be expected to wear a skirt is unreasonable.

-Withers-​

 

Yeah, the reason modern military uniforms include the option of skirts for women is that less than 100 years ago it was fairly scandalous for a woman to wear pants.
Same with the hats: 60 years ago a proper gentleman wore a hat in public, so the military includes a hat in the uniform, and expects it to be worn.
The military is a little slow to change, but change it does.

And I doubt you'll find a Coast Guard crewman in a skirt on a ship. Just as I doubt you'll find a member of a Highland Regiment wearing a kilt in combat.

Dress uniforms often include features that make them impractical to work in: I believe the men's Dress Uniform in the first season or two of TNG was a below-the-knee-length dress (over pants). In later seasons, it got shortened to mid-thigh.

 

It was a silly thing to show on a TV show.
It doesn't matter if 300 years from now guys do end up wearing them, it looked silly on the show.

I heard that in ancient Rome the Gladiators would frequently promote products that they used, like which sandals they bought, or where they liked to eat after they won a fight.
Ridley Scott was thinking of showing this in his movie with Russell Crowe but didn't because it would be too hard to swallow.

 

Was the guy walking down the hallway in a skirt piloting an F-18 or about to parachute?

 

Tasha Yar was the effing Security Chief. How much more labor intensive does the job need to be before wearing a skirt becomes a ludacris notion for you? You're thinking I have objection to this one guy wearing the uniform and it isn't just him. As I've said at least three times now my objection isn't to the fact that a man is wearing a skirt. And for all I know that guy was a shuttle craft pilot. He could have been the guy in charge of polishing the ladder rungs in the jeffries tubes for all I know- that's all beside the point.

This is a little bit different for a handful of reasons. First of all she's a character from the early 1960's not the late 1980's. At that particular time the alternative to making her feminine was making her something akin to "Rosie the Riveter" and I think it's pretty clear they were aiming for feminine with Uhura. Putting Uhura in pants would have detracted from her appeal at that time (or so I assume) whereas today (or when TNG was produced) seeing a woman in pants wouldn't have detracted from their "feminine appeal" (see: Seven of Nine, Kira, Ezri, T'Pol, Crusher).

Finally, yes, it was just as stupid for her to wear a skirt as it was for anybody else to wear a skirt as a uniform in an easily hazardous situation and it is as simple as that. When there's a chance for sparks and debris to contact your skin it's crazy to expose more flesh as opposed to less. ("Hold on Mr Klingon. Don't fire those torpedoes yet. Uhura has to change into her overalls.")

In summation on that point I'm a little more forgiving of Uhura wearing a skirt because it would have been antithetical to what they were trying to accomplish with the character to put her in something else, given the time period in which the show was produced. Two decades later, however, there was no such excuse for it.

-Withers-​

 

Some of them also walk around, delivering beverages and having superior officers sign things. Not everyone on a starship is a "big damn action hero".

Only the ones who's names are in the opening credits.

 

That's refreshing. One line out of a 3 paragraph quote. Whew... I'm glad I enjoy this.

How often was Enterprise in a tactical situation? Or a situation where the ship suddenly dropped out of warp, flung everyone on board from one side of the ship to the other, or lost power disabling turbo lifts requiring the use of jeffries tubes for access to other parts of the ship?

I don't have instant recall but I'm thinking that happened at least once or twice, right? Yeah. So they didn't need to be assigned to tactical (though Tasha was) or be "action heroes" in order to be in danger from random explosions (things were always spraying sparks all over the place), debris (I don't even know what the 'rocks' were coming from but they sure lined the carpet every time the ship was hit by enemy weapon fire), or sliced up appendages. By nature of being on the Flag Ship a certain level of precaution (i.e. covering the legs of crew members and enabling them to work more efficiently without requiring them to change clothes) would be expected from any reasonable person.


Summarily- all one had to be was on a star ship assigned to anything outside the Sol system to be in danger from the impracticalities formerly mentioned about the Skant variant. (The use of emoticons was cute by the way. I always know people are serious business when they use them.)

-Withers-​

 

That's also why the Enterprise-D didn't have children aboard.

Oh, wait...

 

Again, the one-line response, verrrry refreshing. But okay, I can go with that.


Let's start here; The existence of Stupid Thing B in no way diminishes or detracts from the stupidity of Stupid Thing A. Families on board Enterprise D was a stupid idea for largely the same reasons the Skant was a stupid idea only worse in every way I can imagine off the top of my head because rather than putting officers unnecessarily in harms way, having families aboard put civilians unnecessarily in harms way. And before you tell me to "blame the creators and not you" they agree-

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Galaxy_class

So, just because they were playing fast and loose with lives in other aspects of the show, doesn't negate they were playing fast and loose in regard to Officer efficiency and safety when it came to the Skant. Having civilians aboard was a stupid decision but this show had room for at least two because the Skant Uniform was a stupid decision too.

-Withers-​

 

So, just as the experiment with children on-board didn't pan out, so too did the great skant experiment. So what's the problem?

(And should I apologize in advance if that response doesn't meet your arbitrary word count quota? )

 

It's a good thing no one in the military ever works with arms and legs exposed in real life. That would just be stupid.

 

I just had this very same argument on the last page but alright- we can do it again.

First of all I'll point out that the duties of a Starfleet Officer aboard a ship exploring unknown regions of outer space is considerably different and poses greater risk thanks to the unknown than the United States Navy could possibly be facing atop the ocean, on Earth, in the 21st century (Find me a woman dressed like that on a submarine and I'll eat my words.)

Secondly, look how low that skirt goes- it isn't anywhere near as high as Tasha's or 'the dudes' Skant uniform is and while I find the odds of her wearing that uniform when there's even any potential for a dangerous situation to arise (which on board Enterprise would be practically 24/7) extraordinarily low, it's at least something.

Thirdly, ask yourself if she's wearing that same thing to work in. Is she climbing up things, on her knees, bending, flexing and contorting wearing the skirt or is there a more practical uniform for the job? Since Tasha, Troi, and 'the dude' weren't in dress uniform one has to wonder what the reason for wearing such a uniform might be if there were a more practical version available that covered the potential for more eventualities.

Finally, if the idea of certain clothing items being less practical than others is still some how eluding your grasp, make it simple on yourself; no one would mountain climb wearing a ball gown and conversely no one would go dancing with two casts on their feet.

There isn't one. I pointed out why it was stupid and you threw your hat in the ring to say maybe it wasn't... though I guess you capitulated so what the problem is is a question I should be asking you.

No, because I don't have a word count, but to counter- I don't think you actually have a point.

-Withers-​

 

The idea that everyone onboard a ship at some point (not even at some point by your estimation... it's "forever", lol) crawls through access crawlways or climbs ladders is ludicrous. Those areas are for maintenance. For engineers and technicians. Who wear long pants, btw. There are people on a ship who are nothing but administrators, supply people, or in food and beverage service. There's even a barber. Their jobs involve nothing more physical than walking around. And as has been discussed ad naseum since it was first glimpsed, the Enterprise-D is not akin to a modern-day battleship. It is more like a cruise ship with weapons. If you want to pick nits, why not get to the bottom of why flaming rocks shoot out of the walls every time the ship is jostled, not why people wear comfortable uniforms in which to do their comfortable jobs.

Really.

It certainly seems to harm your sense of self worth to get terse replies. Maybe this quote-reply-quote-reply-quote-reply format of this note will make you feel better.

Since it seems to have gone flying right over your head, the point is that you are taking the costuming on a sci-fi television show way too seriously. Especially for a costume that was barely around long enough to be seen.

 

To which I said this (preemptively apparently):

My sense of self worth? Don't flatter yourself. It only bothers me to get one line replies because you're taking up space from someone who might actually put more than 10 seconds into a post with a valid point someone didn't make on the previous page.

This is my favorite argument. "I don't have anything left to say so I'm going to say you're taking things too seriously" We're on a forum, dedicated to Trek, in a thread about a show that has been off the air since I was 8 years old. But talking about the Skant Variant uniform in any detail is where you draw the line? Oooohhkay.

So... did you have a point? Or were your esoteric one liners of such immense gravitas I should consult the Dean at Harvard law?

-Withers-​

 

First, none of the women in any of those pictures are actually doing work: the first two are on break, the second is just demonstrating an acceptable uniform, and the third are doing the traditional activity of women in skirts, standing around and looking pretty.

As I said above, those uniforms are vestigial, and they are "stupid". And I doubt you'll find anyone dressed that way on a ship.