RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,364
Posts: 5,356,016
Members: 24,625
Currently online: 697
Newest member: 3d gird

TrekToday headlines

Borg Cube Fridge
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Free Enterprise Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Siddig To Join Game Of Thrones
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Sci-Fried To Release New Album
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek into Darkness Soundtrack
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Horse 1, Shatner 0
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Drexler TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Jul 26

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > The Next Generation

The Next Generation All Good Things come to an end...but not here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 13 2010, 03:06 AM   #46
Mr. Adventure
Admiral
 
Mr. Adventure's Avatar
 
Location: Mr. Adventure
Re: Guy in Gown

Withers wrote: View Post
And didn't anyone watch The Crocodile Hunter? There's no action that can't be performed in shorts.
You really want to bring the Crocodile Hunter into this? Well... okay, look how well being reckless worked out for him. (I'm sorry... I know that point might have been made in poor taste but its the truth. Awesome guy for whom I have nothing but respect but c'mon- touting him as an example of how people can flout common sense and get away with it simply won't fly.)

-Withers-
He didn't get stung in the legs...
Mr. Adventure is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 13 2010, 03:42 AM   #47
Withers
Captain
 
Location: On a boat
View Withers's Twitter Profile Send a message via AIM to Withers Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Withers
Re: Guy in Gown

Mr. Adventure wrote: View Post
Withers wrote: View Post
And didn't anyone watch The Crocodile Hunter? There's no action that can't be performed in shorts.
You really want to bring the Crocodile Hunter into this? Well... okay, look how well being reckless worked out for him. (I'm sorry... I know that point might have been made in poor taste but its the truth. Awesome guy for whom I have nothing but respect but c'mon- touting him as an example of how people can flout common sense and get away with it simply won't fly.)

-Withers-
He didn't get stung in the legs...

Talk about the song that never ends...

Yes, I know he wasn't stung in the legs. The point is he was being somewhat reckless when he died (and when he wrestled alligators and when he grabbed poisonous snakes by the tail.) My point was that looking to The Crocodile Hunter (the name alone should tell you to find another role model) as an example of how to conduct oneself (either in practice or manner of dress) isn't really very wise for an ordinary person. If I'm not mistaken that was one of the shows that came with the disclaimer "Do not try this at home."

"Connect that to the Skant please Withers." Okay, the connection is that saying The Crocodile Hunter did it and therefore Starfleet Officers should do it is silly since that attitude of recklessness led to his untimely and unfortunate demise and my presumption is that people in Starfleet want to remain alive (less seriously injured as opposed to more etc.)

(Note: The last time the page changed we ended up rehashing the same argument from the page before it. For clarity we've already seen the following arguments: The Romans did it, Dress Uniforms from Navy/Air Force cadets, Civilians doing it, the difference between a passenger jet and the Enterprise D, and that you have to be assigned to tactical to be in any danger. I think that covers all of them... though its hard to say for certain.)



-Withers-
Withers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 13 2010, 05:15 AM   #48
Mr. Adventure
Admiral
 
Mr. Adventure's Avatar
 
Location: Mr. Adventure
Re: Guy in Gown

Sorry, I just couldn't resist the opening, and I don't think I'm taking this as serious as you. However, I don't think we've ever been shown that a Starfleet unifrom protects you from much of anything.
Mr. Adventure is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 13 2010, 02:06 PM   #49
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Taipei
Re: Guy in Gown

Withers wrote: View Post
Mr. Adventure wrote: View Post
Withers wrote: View Post
You really want to bring the Crocodile Hunter into this? Well... okay, look how well being reckless worked out for him. (I'm sorry... I know that point might have been made in poor taste but its the truth. Awesome guy for whom I have nothing but respect but c'mon- touting him as an example of how people can flout common sense and get away with it simply won't fly.)

-Withers-
He didn't get stung in the legs...

Talk about the song that never ends...

Yes, I know he wasn't stung in the legs. The point is he was being somewhat reckless when he died (and when he wrestled alligators and when he grabbed poisonous snakes by the tail.) My point was that looking to The Crocodile Hunter (the name alone should tell you to find another role model) as an example of how to conduct oneself (either in practice or manner of dress) isn't really very wise for an ordinary person. If I'm not mistaken that was one of the shows that came with the disclaimer "Do not try this at home."

"Connect that to the Skant please Withers." Okay, the connection is that saying The Crocodile Hunter did it and therefore Starfleet Officers should do it is silly since that attitude of recklessness led to his untimely and unfortunate demise and my presumption is that people in Starfleet want to remain alive (less seriously injured as opposed to more etc.)

(Note: The last time the page changed we ended up rehashing the same argument from the page before it. For clarity we've already seen the following arguments: The Romans did it, Dress Uniforms from Navy/Air Force cadets, Civilians doing it, the difference between a passenger jet and the Enterprise D, and that you have to be assigned to tactical to be in any danger. I think that covers all of them... though its hard to say for certain.)



-Withers-
Withers, I'm with you on this one.
There's something I've found on this board...you could bring up something you think is rather cut and dried and you'll find many people disagreeing.
I seem to remember the "skant" coming up in many other threads and it's always universally derided without argument. It's always been a given that it was a nice try at showing what the future may be like and how people in the future will be open to different things than we are used to, but that it just ended up looking silly, or like they were 'trying too hard'.
Now this thread has people trying to defend it so that they don't look closed-minded or something like that.
I sometimes think that people will see how a thread is proceeding and then jump on the side that has more support.
Nardpuncher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 13 2010, 11:12 PM   #50
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Guy in Gown

__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 13 2010, 11:22 PM   #51
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: Guy in Gown

Withers wrote: View Post
You really want to bring the Crocodile Hunter into this?

It wasn't my quote.
It was Mr. Adventure's quote. You simply added it to your rebuttal as if it was my quote.

But yeah, Steve Irwin is a great example. But when he died he was wearing a wetsuit. I don't know if he was wearing a long legged wetsuit or a short legged wetsuit - bare legs didn't matter a damn - because that stingray's barb hit him in the chest.

Lost only happened once. How many times was the Enterprise in a dangerous situation? Yeah.
Well, I was chatting to a friend who is a Qantas steward and he knows flight attendants who've survived plane crashes. He was saying he didn't think anyone flying in a plane should wear open shoes, let alone shorts or skirts or nylon stockings, since many plane evacuees suffer terrible burns and lacerations to their feet and legs getting off a burning plane in a hurry. But there aren't any laws (yet) about dress codes for passengers. People seem more concerned with comfort during a flight than the risk of burns in the rare case of an accident.

I wasn't discussing "Lost", though. I was discussing actual plane flights. We see the "Enterprise" in danger on TV because they want to make the show exciting. (Actually, we also see bare legs on women in TV because they want to make the shows exciting.) When a TV show or movie centres on a plane, it, too, is usually in danger. The various "Airport" movies, the comedy "Airplane" (aka "Flying High"), and many, many others. With bare-legged flight attendants involved in dangerous emergencies.

You've named off a bunch of civilian activities and civilians doing them.
I think the flight attendant is actually a good example. They are people highly trained in how to evacuate people in an emergency, there is a real danger of flying sparks during a crash. But that is an occupation where shirt uniforms have been an option, or the only option (in days gone by), for women. An 20th or 21st century plane is similar to a 23rd century starship in that everything goes swimmingly - until something goes wrong.

When did I become the fashion police?
Dunno. When you started losing the argument?

Regular people can wear whatever they want to wear in any situation they choose.
But I was also discussing people who are given a compulsory uniform and yet have a potentially dangerous job. People like army and navy personnel, flight attendants, police officers... and skirts are offered to the women, or have even been insisted upon at times.
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/

Last edited by Therin of Andor; April 13 2010 at 11:44 PM. Reason: formatting
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 13 2010, 11:45 PM   #52
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: Guy in Gown

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Actually, I've had a full night's sleep. All this happened while I was in bed.
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 14 2010, 01:07 AM   #53
Withers
Captain
 
Location: On a boat
View Withers's Twitter Profile Send a message via AIM to Withers Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Withers
Re: Guy in Gown

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
But yeah, Steve Irwin is a great example.
To which I (apparently preemptively) said this:


Yes, I know he wasn't stung in the legs. The point is he was being somewhat reckless when he died (and when he wrestled alligators and when he grabbed poisonous snakes by the tail.) My point was that looking to The Crocodile Hunter (the name alone should tell you to find another role model) as an example of how to conduct oneself (either in practice or manner of dress) isn't really very wise for an ordinary person. If I'm not mistaken that was one of the shows that came with the disclaimer "Do not try this at home."

"Connect that to the Skant please Withers." Okay, the connection is that saying The Crocodile Hunter did it and therefore Starfleet Officers should do it is silly since that attitude of recklessness led to his untimely and unfortunate demise and my presumption is that people in Starfleet want to remain alive (less seriously injured as opposed to more etc.)
That was on this page by the way.
Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
Well, I was chatting to a friend who is a Qantas steward and he knows flight attendants who've survived plane crashes. He was saying he didn't think anyone flying in a plane should wear open shoes, let alone shorts or skirts or nylon stockings, since many plane evacuees suffer terrible burns and lacerations to their feet and legs getting off a burning plane in a hurry.
Here's my point; 21st century airlines aren't exploring they unknown. They aren't on assignments of exploration in any capacity. They aren't routinely facing the possibility of weapons fire, of unknown anomalies in the air, of the random appearance of dangerous beings once they depart, of random explosions, sudden and unexpected decreases in speed, or loss of power that would result in having the passengers and crew maneuver through the bowels of the plane. Of course there are examples of that happening they aren't common enough for anyone to board a plane and expect any one of those things to happen. "Welcome aboard American Airlines Flight 131; this is likely to be your coffin, have a pleasant flight."

Enterprise D was regularly in said situations. One if not two or three of those things happened during almost every episode that wasn't Data's Day-esque. If you can't wrap your brain around the difference in expectation of a ship exploring space in the 24th century and a passenger jet delivering people from A to B in the 21st and how one warrants a different sort of preparation than the other I can't help make that clear.

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
army and navy personnel, flight attendants, police officers... and skirts are offered to the women, or have even been insisted upon at times.
Yes, and as has now been pointed out three times by three different posters those uniforms are A.) dress uniforms and B.) wholly inappropriate for manual labor. Every picture that has shown up of anybody wearing a skirt as a uniform has been either a stock picture of what a dress uniform should look like or has been what is obviously a photo op for whatever military it is thanks to the fact that the soldiers are standing and posing- as opposed to working. The fact of the matter is people don't do strenuous labor in skirts nor do they wear them when there is any reasonable possibility of danger or complication.

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post

Actually, I've had a full night's sleep. All this happened while I was in bed.
If you really think I didn't have a full nights sleep over this (as the loaded statement with the italicized "I've" would imply) I'd say go get a cup of coffee with the guy who thinks this has something to do with my sense of self worth; you can have a long discussion about how you "Pwn'd" me and how I'm probably writing on the walls in an attempt to get revenge. : | A response to these arguments takes no more than a handful of minutes and being self congratulatory is a horrible trait in people who have lost.


So now that we've rehashed your arguments for the second time... is there any other reason the Skant Uniform seems practical and logical as a uniform in a potentially hazardous environment or were the unfortunately deceased Crocodile Hunter and 21st century airline attendants pretty much it?


Nardpuncher wrote: View Post
Withers, I'm with you on this one.
There's something I've found on this board...you could bring up something you think is rather cut and dried and you'll find many people disagreeing.
I seem to remember the "skant" coming up in many other threads and it's always universally derided without argument. It's always been a given that it was a nice try at showing what the future may be like and how people in the future will be open to different things than we are used to, but that it just ended up looking silly, or like they were 'trying too hard'.
Now this thread has people trying to defend it so that they don't look closed-minded or something like that.
I sometimes think that people will see how a thread is proceeding and then jump on the side that has more support.

This maybe the single dumbest thing I've seen anyone make an honest attempt at refuting. "Skirts aren't practical duty uniforms." And yet, here we are, page 3 of a debate that has included everything from the Romans did it to people mow their lawns barefoot. Truly amazing. And you know, now that you bring it up, if they had put Quark or Jake or Westley (when he was in civilian clothing) or anybody else in a skirt, I'd have had no problem with it. Yeah, it would have looked kinda of odd, but it would have accomplished their goal of trying to say that 'fashions change over time' and whatever. That would have been cool. But to have an Officer in such a thing was unreasonable. For their to be that sort of uniform as a standard duty uniform? Unreasonable. Stupid.







-Withers-

Last edited by Withers; April 14 2010 at 01:57 AM. Reason: Added a picture
Withers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 14 2010, 06:12 AM   #54
SpyOne
Commander
 
Re: Guy in Gown

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
But yeah, Steve Irwin is a great example. But when he died he was wearing a wetsuit. I don't know if he was wearing a long legged wetsuit or a short legged wetsuit - bare legs didn't matter a damn - because that stingray's barb hit him in the chest.
Okay, I didn't watch a lot of the guy's show - I liked it fine, but didn't watch it much.
There is one episode I saw three or four times: they are chasing camels in the outback, IIRC, and Steve is hanging out the open door of a Land Rover while his wife drives. She cuts a little too close to a tree and clips it with the door, which of course slams into the side of Steve's head, and he loses part of his ear.

The man was practically the poster child for not taking proper safety precautions.
A lot of the time he was gambling that he could manage the risk, and a lot of the time he was right. "The SAFE way to handle a dangerous snake is to hold it behind the head, so it can't bite you, but I can hold it by the tail and just snap my wrist if its head gets too close to my leg."
While the manner of his death was not particularly high risk or reckless, the manner of his life was. I often used to say of him, "the man annoys dangerous wildlife for a living".

Therefore, the fact that he wore shorts is in no way evidence that shorts are adequate protective attire.

The fact that just about every wildlife expert on TV for like 50 years has worn shorts might be, however. I am not sure I have seen Jack Hanna wear long pants except for a trip to Alaska I saw him do where he wore waders to go fly fishing. Marlin Perkins wore shorts, as did his more adventurous sidekick Jim. In African savannahs, and jungles just about anywhere, the experts seem to wear shorts.

Seems to me that if there are things like razor grass and mosquitos in my environment, I'd place a high value on long pants, but the experts seem to be against me. The best I've got is a recent article about a guy who studies primates in Brazil who favors those pants where the legs attach with zippers so you can turn them into shorts in the field.
SpyOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 14 2010, 06:49 AM   #55
Withers
Captain
 
Location: On a boat
View Withers's Twitter Profile Send a message via AIM to Withers Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Withers
Re: Guy in Gown

SpyOne wrote: View Post
Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
But yeah, Steve Irwin is a great example. But when he died he was wearing a wetsuit. I don't know if he was wearing a long legged wetsuit or a short legged wetsuit - bare legs didn't matter a damn - because that stingray's barb hit him in the chest.
Okay, I didn't watch a lot of the guy's show - I liked it fine, but didn't watch it much.
There is one episode I saw three or four times: they are chasing camels in the outback, IIRC, and Steve is hanging out the open door of a Land Rover while his wife drives. She cuts a little too close to a tree and clips it with the door, which of course slams into the side of Steve's head, and he loses part of his ear.

The man was practically the poster child for not taking proper safety precautions.
A lot of the time he was gambling that he could manage the risk, and a lot of the time he was right. "The SAFE way to handle a dangerous snake is to hold it behind the head, so it can't bite you, but I can hold it by the tail and just snap my wrist if its head gets too close to my leg."
While the manner of his death was not particularly high risk or reckless, the manner of his life was. I often used to say of him, "the man annoys dangerous wildlife for a living".

Therefore, the fact that he wore shorts is in no way evidence that shorts are adequate protective attire.
Thank you.

SpyOne wrote: View Post
50 years has worn shorts might be, however. I am not sure I have seen Jack Hanna wear long pants except for a trip to Alaska I saw him do where he wore waders to go fly fishing. Marlin Perkins wore shorts, as did his more adventurous sidekick Jim. In African savannahs, and jungles just about anywhere, the experts seem to wear shorts.
I agree... that is more reasonable and of course readily apparent; those guys are always sporting shorts on Discovery, PBS, National Geographic and TLC. In regard to that validating the Skant uniform I (naturally) have a few things to point out.

1.) There is a reason for the shorts whereas there is no reason for the skirt. One assumes it is very hot and the possibility of dehydration is real and outweighs the need for covering ones legs to protect against razor grass, mosquito bites and other such hazards. I assume that no such environmental hazard existed on Enterprise D. While I don't know my assumption was that it was climate controlled (at least to the point dehydration would be off the table.) Of course I could be wrong.

2.) The guys marching through the Amazon and Outback are civilians. They could wear whatever they wanted to wear. It was their choice to go bare legged (when they did). No one required them to wear shorts. Whether or not it was the smartest decision was addressed in point one (maybe it was for them but those sorts of environmental concerns would be completely absent aboard a climate controlled star ship.)

3.) Equipment for dangerous tasks is not universal. Proper gear for climbing Mount Everest is not proper gear for diving with Great Whites. So, assuming the shorts were proper gear for romps through the jungles of the 20th and 21st century on Earth does not ergo that skirts make proper uniforms aboard a star ship exploring unknown space in the 24th century. One hazard is completely different than the other and suggesting that what works for one should work for the other is no different than the "Romans did it" argument, just the opposite direction in history.






-Withers-
Withers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 14 2010, 07:04 AM   #56
Mr. Laser Beam
Fleet Admiral
 
Mr. Laser Beam's Avatar
 
Location: The visitor's bullpen
View Mr. Laser Beam's Twitter Profile
Re: Guy in Gown

I thought the skants were a horrible idea. Typical early-TNG wishy-washy psychobabble, IMHO. (The same reasoning that gave us the concept of a 'ship's counselor.') I did think they looked silly. I'd be embarrassed as all get out if I had to wear something like that. (I never, and I do mean never, wear shorts in public. No way is anyone getting to look at my pasty white 40 year old legs! )

I realize that fashions do change. But this show was being *made* by people in the present, even though it wasn't set there. And in this present, men don't wear dresses. Unless the phrase "toga party" is involved (do frats even still have those? ).
__________________
In labor news: Longshoremen walked off the piers today. Rescue operations are continuing.
Mr. Laser Beam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 14 2010, 07:06 AM   #57
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: Guy in Gown

Withers wrote: View Post
is there any other reason the Skant Uniform seems practical and logical as a uniform in a potentially hazardous environment
I'm confused.

Please present some examples from 24th century "Star Trek" where skant-wearing Starfleet officers or security guards were sent into hazardous situations.

I can think of Troi, the unarmed counselor, in "Encounter at Farpoint" who ended up in some dank caves that turned out to be the inside of a giant jellyfish. And... that's all.
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 14 2010, 12:41 PM   #58
LaBarre
Commander
 
LaBarre's Avatar
 
Location: Earth
Re: Guy in Gown

Withers, you've been all over the shop on this one but it's been very entertaining.

Yet the fact is that not only have men performed manual labour in "skirts" and "gowns", gone to war in them, ruled empires in them, in the past, but they are still digging ditches and building bridges and farming and serving in all manner of roles in all the world's major religions today, and you can find quite a few currently playing the stockmarkets as Masters of the Universe. They were wearing them in 1987 in lots of places all across the world and they are wearing them now. They don't consider themselves "silly" or "ridiculous" for doing so.

You maintain that the idea of having men or women in a skirt in the ST universe is wrong not on the basis of fashion but as a matter of utilitarianism: "the notion of working in a skirt. ... The notion of working in a skirt is silly...not because of how it looks (though it does look pretty stupid) but because of the practical limitations and the unnecessary exposure to risk working in such a uniform would have and cause."

This is an interesting supposition, but so far you haven't provided us with evidence sufficient to undermine the opposite notion that working in a skirt IS NOT inherently "silly."

And in the Star Trek universe there are lots of examples of the males of various species wearing variations of skirts or gowns and managing to get along just fine.

What you have provided is your dislike of skirts in many and varied contexts: men in skirts, women in skirts, airline staff in skirts, military personnel (including cadets) in skirts, anyone performing manual labour in a skirt, or doing calisthenics in a skirt, or being on a desert planet in a skirt, or piloting an F-18 in a skirt, or parachuting while wearing one, or mountain-cycling or mountain climbing in a skirt, or God forbid, that anyone is wearing one anywhere near "dangerous situations."

Have you ever caught sight of a women's netball match, or basketball, or hockey or lacrosse? Those are really, short, skimpy, skirts those gals are wearing. And they are engaged in some fairly strenuous physical activity - a type of "combat," if you will.

They seem to manage these activities well enough, don't you agree? Tennis anyone? Ballet? Circus trapeze artist?

And then, as if things weren't going badly enough, you find yourself in full support of SpyOne's antipathy to shorts too. Neither of you like shorts; not on Steve Irwin, not on anyone else it appears.

But if you lived in a climate that is friendlier to the nether regions, you will find that the entire building industry is served by men and women wearing shorts (and often little else) - carpenters, bricklayers, plumbers, labourers, in some "easily hazardous situation(s)."

You will also find that the males off the entire public (civil) service proudly wear shorts, as do many women in positions as varied as postmen/women, dogcatchers, garbage collectors, deputy chief executive of the Planning Department...you get my point.

Withers, I'm taking the mickey obviously, but if your argument is really about form v function, you haven't made it yet.
LaBarre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 14 2010, 05:36 PM   #59
Withers
Captain
 
Location: On a boat
View Withers's Twitter Profile Send a message via AIM to Withers Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Withers
Re: Guy in Gown

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post

I'm confused.

Please present some examples from 24th century "Star Trek" where skant-wearing Starfleet officers or security guards were sent into hazardous situations.

I can think of Troi, the unarmed counselor, in "Encounter at Farpoint" who ended up in some dank caves that turned out to be the inside of a giant jellyfish. And... that's all.
Well, you named one specific situation. I would never have taken it that far but thanks for doing some of the leg work for me. The point I was making was this; the potential for hazards involved in space travel that were encountered by the Enterprise D on a fairly regular basis (i.e. hostile aliens, unknown phenomenon, instances where the ship lost power, where explosions happened, where climbing up or through jeffries tubes was required or any time the ship suddenly dropped out of warp or flung the crew from one side of the ship to the other) make the notion of wearing a skirt as a uniform somewhat silly. You want specific examples and those are it; we assume those people were on board when any of those things happened. Did the creators of the show go out of their way to show that wearing a skirt as a duty uniform could be hazardous? No, of course not. They simply stopped showing them. Expectation of the creators pointing out their own misguided application of uniform styles is unreasonable. That it disappeared is all the evidence one should require of their feelings on the matter.


Alright... next we have what is going to largely be a recap. I'm about to quote myself and not just a little bit. Having made my arguments on the points that follow once if not multiple times I don't think a re-write will help anything so I'm just going to quote myself. What I'll add is this; I don't have a problem with skirts or shorts or anyone wearing them now or in the future (I went so far as to suggest Quark wearing a skirt wouldn't have been out of place to me) with the exception of one being forced to wear one as a duty uniform. So the argument wherein I'm labeled a "short hater" is invalid. I do not hate shorts (or skirts.) So here we go.



LaBarre wrote: View Post
Withers, you've been all over the shop on this one but it's been very entertaining.

Yet the fact is that not only have men performed manual labour in "skirts" and "gowns", gone to war in them, ruled empires in them, in the past, but they are still digging ditches and building bridges and farming and serving in all manner of roles in all the world's major religions today, and you can find quite a few currently playing the stockmarkets as Masters of the Universe. They were wearing them in 1987 in lots of places all across the world and they are wearing them now. They don't consider themselves "silly" or "ridiculous" for doing so.
My thoughts on people of the past wearing skirts, civilians wearing skirts, and the notion that what is practical gear for one dangerous task isn't necessary practical for every dangerous task was covered in the following quotes (in order of the aforementioned list.)


To justification by way of Ancient Civilizations utilization of skirts:
"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.
and to the notion of airline attendants and other various current skirts at work in the 21st century:

Yes, and as has now been pointed out three times by three different posters those uniforms are A.) dress uniforms and B.) wholly inappropriate for manual labor. Every picture that has shown up of anybody wearing a skirt as a uniform has been either a stock picture of what a dress uniform should look like or has been what is obviously a photo op for whatever military it is thanks to the fact that the soldiers are standing and posing- as opposed to working. The fact of the matter is people don't do strenuous labor in skirts nor do they wear them when there is any reasonable possibility of danger or complication.
and...

1.) There is a reason for the shorts whereas there is no reason for the skirt. One assumes it is very hot and the possibility of dehydration is real and outweighs the need for covering ones legs to protect against razor grass, mosquito bites and other such hazards. I assume that no such environmental hazard existed on Enterprise D. While I don't know my assumption was that it was climate controlled (at least to the point dehydration would be off the table.) Of course I could be wrong.
To the notion of civilians wearing skirts as a justification for the Skant I said this:

Regular people can wear whatever they want to wear in any situation they choose. I could go mountain climbing in ball gown if I felt like, it'd be stupid, but that would be my right as an individual person. If I joined the military, however, and expected them to let me wear the plugs in my ears, the barbell in my tongue, and the giant baggy jeans while I went on duty I'd be crazy wouldn't I? (I don't dress like that by the way- just an example.) You've named off a bunch of civilian activities and civilians doing them. Had I said Guinan shouldn't be wearing skirts/dresses it would be different but I didn't say that; my objection is to their standard uniform (not dress uniform- regular uniform) being a skirt that would be impractical and easily dangerous given the situation to work in.
And this...

2.) The guys marching through the Amazon and Outback are civilians. They could wear whatever they wanted to wear. It was their choice to go bare legged (when they did). No one required them to wear shorts. Whether or not it was the smartest decision was addressed in point one (maybe it was for them but those sorts of environmental concerns would be completely absent aboard a climate controlled star ship.)
And to the notion that just because it might be a good idea for one hazardous job it should good for all hazardous jobs, I said this:

3.) Equipment for dangerous tasks is not universal. Proper gear for climbing Mount Everest is not proper gear for diving with Great Whites. So, assuming the shorts were proper gear for romps through the jungles of the 20th and 21st century on Earth does not ergo that skirts make proper uniforms aboard a star ship exploring unknown space in the 24th century. One hazard is completely different than the other and suggesting that what works for one should work for the other is no different than the "Romans did it" argument, just the opposite direction in history.
LaBarre wrote: View Post
What you have provided is your dislike of skirts in many and varied contexts:
Absolutely not. What I have provided you are the impracticalities of wearing a skirt or the differences between wearing a skirt in said situation and wearing one on the Enterprise. How you misinterpret this into my having a dislike for skirts is somewhat odd considering how much time I've put in to distancing myself from the very notion that this is somehow about me not liking men in skirts. If my arguments had ever boiled down to "it just looks stupid," you might have a point. But as I've pointed out over and over again, the Enterprise-D was a hazardous situation unlike any that has been or exists currently on the Earth. A certain level of precaution, including the covering of legs, would be a reasonable expectation aboard a ship doing what that ship was.

And now for a summary (I just can't bring myself to dig for the quotes anymore but they're there.);

1.) You bring up athletes playing sports in shorts and skirts. Fine. First of all the hazards of their "jobs" do not in anyway equate to the potential hazards aboard Enterprise. Likening any of those sports to combat is...a gross exaggeration. Likening the game of basketball to duty aboard a 24th century starship just isn't rational. Secondly, you touch on the point mentioned above which is that what works for one job doesn't work for them all. A Ballet dancer and a trapeze artist, while I guess dangerous occupations, have"costumes" involved more than uniforms.

2.) You bring up warmer climates (in the most foul way I can imagine without breaking the rules) and how there exists an entire industry that performs manual labor in shorts. Well, again, Enterprise D wasn't exactly the tropics (one assumes it was climate controlled... you know, like my Corolla.) Secondly, I would hardly equate brick laying with life aboard the Enterprise and the potential hazards that existed there. I cannot stress that enough; there's a difference between building a house on Earth in the heat in the 21st century and exploring unknown space in the 24th century. Seriously... can't stress it enough.

3.)... it's just a bunch of other jobs that people wear shorts to perform (though I've never seen a garbage man wearing shorts). So as not to just reiterate the point I made twice in a row I'll bring up a new one for this (though they other would have easily sufficed); just because one person faces a potentially hazardous job with somewhat reckless abandon in the present does not mean the practice should be carried for into the future. So, assuming dogcatching really is a dangerous job one can liken to facing down the Borg, dealing with Q, having exploding consoles erupt every time the ship is hit with anything et all, that the dog catcher wears shorts doesn't mean that people in the future should.


LaBarre wrote: View Post
Withers, I'm taking the mickey obviously, but if your argument is really about form v function, you haven't made it yet.
I don't think there's an argument in regard to the impracticality of the Skant uniform I haven't made at least once. I have refuted every single argument that has been made of this uniform as practical and reasonable because it is as plain as the nose on my face that it isn't. Obviously, I'm not making the point very clear, or... what Nardpuncher said.

Nardpuncher wrote: View Post
Now this thread has people trying to defend it so that they don't look closed-minded or something like that.
I sometimes think that people will see how a thread is proceeding and then jump on the side that has more support.

So... yeah. (Seriously... no idea where the personal dislike of shorts notion came from. That was just...weird.)



-Withers-
Withers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 14 2010, 05:44 PM   #60
SpyOne
Commander
 
Re: Guy in Gown

LaBarre wrote: View Post
And then, as if things weren't going badly enough, you find yourself in full support of SpyOne's antipathy to shorts too. Neither of you like shorts; not on Steve Irwin, not on anyone else it appears.
This really misstates my position. I am not particularly anti-short: I wear them when the weather is hot. I complain that changes in fashion mean I can't buy actual shorts anymore: they almost always come to my knee.
I said that "Steve Irwin wore it" is not a good argument in favor of anything being proper protective gear for whatever Steve Irwin was doing at the moment, as the man habitually took risks and skipped the proper protective equipment. I stand by that.

I also gave my reasons for supposing that people who do jobs like Steve Irwin's would want long pants, but noted that they are the experts, not me, and that they clearly disagree with me.

I like shorts on lots of people, and not just for cosmetic reasons. I think today's professional basketball players have forgotten why they are wearing shorts in the first place: if they hadn't, the baggy knee-length things they wear would look as ridiculous to them as they do to me. What advantage is there in having your socks visible? Either wear shorts or wear long pants, don't go for the worst of both worlds.

If I was given the choice between a skin-tight jumpsuit and that skant-thing, you'd probably get to see me in a skirt. Neither is very practical for physical activity (unless wind resistance is a major issue for you), which is why TNG switched to a 2-piece uniform by the third season: the actors complained about the jumpsuits doing what jumpsuits do when you try to move a lot.

And the skant uniform turned up most often (on extras) in emergency situations: guys directing the evacuation of civilians to to saucer, for example. I think when the ship goes to Yellow Alert, "Go put on some pants" would be fairly high on everyone's priorities.
SpyOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
silly

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.