Could you respect a woman in the female uniform?

[Mr. Adventure]

Mr. Ripped-Shirt himself...

Yeoman! Show a little respect, I'm your captain.

Heh, when I read Gotham Central's "gym shorts" comment, I thought of that same gym scene. So I'll just post this:

Stewie Griffin voice: "No big deal, just a captain walkin' thru the corridors of his starship with his oiled chest. Y'know, haaangin' out... keepin' it cool."

I think that guy behind him might be going on a fishing trip.

 

[JustKate]

I do believe 'womens lib' was what inspired women of the 60s to wear clothing that was socially unacceptable. Mini-skirts got you kicked out of school. You couldn't wear it to work, etc. Women who did were considered whores. But by the late 60s, sure, it was starting to be less shocking to the 'Mad Men' public. Sure, it became fashion and Star Trek was a part of the mainstreaming of it into mere fashion, but that wasn't why women started wearing them. Certainly bra burning (a dubious idea, I'm sure!) was also about women's liberation. Such was the times, as far as I know.

The early to mid 60s were incredibly conservative. The rule in school was, above the knee... you're out! Haven't you ever heard of this?

The fact such things are soon swallowed by the mainstream consumer culture as fashion is typical. Such things are always taken up by corporations to sell whatever is popular. I feel this is why you miss the social political beginnings of such things and only see them as normalized mainstream culture.

Therin of Andor's post earlier demonstrates the feminist aspect of the mini-skirt during those times well. He's always a fountain of info!

First of all, I have to say that yes, Therin most certainly is always a fountain of information. And I'm sure Grace is sincere in what she says - I think it's fascinating that she equates those silly uniforms with feminism. And I won't say there is no connection between feminism and fashion - I mean, a miniskirt pretty much has to be more liberating than a hoop skirt.

But I will say that it is very easy to overstate it, and I think that's what's happened here. There are a number of problems with the "oh, it's feminism" approach to fashion. The major problem specific to our discussion here is that even if miniskirts might have been considered revolutionary at one time, by the time TOS debuted, miniskirts were entering the mainstream - they weren't quite there, but they were extremely common, particularly for girls and young women, and by the time it went off the air, they were totally mainstream. It only took a couple of years. I won't say every parent of a teenage daughter was thrilled to bits - can't blame them, really - and some employers no doubt still resisted for a while, but to refer to miniskirts as "socially unacceptable" is just flat-out incorrect. They were haute couture that disseminated down to the masses with incredible rapidity.

If they had been that shocking would the network have allowed microminis on one of its primetime shows? I don't think so.

It actually took a lot longer for slacks to be socially acceptable for women than it did for short skirts - that is, outside of the most casual of events. Even well into the 1970s, there were upscale restaurants that wouldn't seat women who were wearing slacks, and long after workplaces had given up on controlling skirt length, they still didn't let female employees wear slacks.

So if TPTB at Trek really wanted to show how liberated the women were, why not have them wear slacks to work? That was actually pretty daring then - almost unheard of. And it remained daring well after the show went off the air, too.

Thus, I don't think TPTB really were nearly as interested in showing liberated women - they wanted to show beautiful women, including their legs. Which is OK, I just wish they wouldn't obfuscate with all this pseudo-sociology.

Yes, I remember rules about how short skirts could be. It is what we call "a dress code." Is this concept really that shocking? Although I was affected by dress codes only in the 1960s (when I was in elementary school) and the 1970s (when I was in junior high and high school), I am reliably informed by women older than me that there were dress codes during earlier eras, too, including those that didn't have a whole lot of feminism going on.

And there are dress codes NOW, this very minute.

So what makes the ones the 1960s and 1970s that much more historically significant? Why is "Your skirt must touch your knee" so much more monumental than "Your shirt must have a collar and it must be tucked in," which was the rule for boys when my older brother started junior high?

The larger problem with the "sexy = liberated" theory of fashion is that it simply doesn't fit in well with most of fashion history. Sex has been in style during lots of periods, including those when women had zero power.

I mean, in Georgian England, ladies dampened their underclothing so that their dresses would cling very closely to their bodies - the really daring ones dispensed with petticoats entirely, but that was considered very shocking and downright slutty. So ladies who didn't want to be slutty just took steps to minimize the volume of their underclothing - the idea was to show just about every curve, and with the shear fabrics that were in style then, you could, too. Was this done out of feminism? I don't think so.

In the 1840s, ladies wore dresses that bared just about their entire chests, with the nipples just barely covered. Was this done out of feminism? I don't think so.

I think what makes a fashion choice liberating or not has nothing to do with short skirts or slacks or sexiness...it has to do with having a choice. Having to wear a miniskirt is no more liberating than having to wear hoops if you are wearing it because you think you have to.

 

[T'Bonz]

It actually took a lot longer for slacks to be socially acceptable for women than it did for short skirts - that is, outside of the most casual of events. Even well into the 1970s, there were upscale restaurants that wouldn't seat women who were wearing slacks, and long after workplaces had given up on controlling skirt length, they still didn't let female employees wear slacks.

Yep. As a kid, up 'til around 1970, it was *mandatory* for women to wear dresses/skirts to most places. I remember going to school in the winter and freezing. My winter coat was a maxi (thank God those were in style!) but my dress was a mini and one had to wear pantyhose, the invention of satan.

The boss at my first professional job back in 1980 told me how her company reacted negatively to a matched pantsuit when she wore one into the office in the early 1970s. She said rather sarcastically, "Do you want me to take off the slacks?" They preferred that. Her top was micro-mini length but they preferred that a woman show off her underpants rather than she wear slacks. Ridiculous.

Having to wear a miniskirt is no more liberating than having to wear hoops if you are wearing it because you think you have to.

Precisely. I didn't find the mini liberating, I found it a damned nuisance. No, I didn't mind being sexy. That's why low-cut tops were invented. But to me, female liberation via clothing was being allowed to wear slacks, not being obliged to wear a mini-skirt/dress.

I was glad when hemlines dropped a bit. I could look good in a dress, yet not have worries for my modesty. Still - and to this day, I only wear a dress/skirt under duress. I much prefer either shorts or slacks.

 

[JustKate]

Precisely. I didn't find the mini liberating, I found it a damned nuisance. No, I didn't mind being sexy. That's why low-cut tops were invented. But to me, female liberation via clothing was being allowed to wear slacks, not being obliged to wear a mini-skirt/dress.

I was glad when hemlines dropped a bit. I could look good in a dress, yet not have worries for my modesty. Still - and to this day, I only wear a dress/skirt under duress. I much prefer either shorts or slacks.

Oh, you are so right - I had almost forgotten what a total pain miniskirts were until I read your post, T'Bonz, and it all came rushing back.

They were not liberating. They were fussy, and inconvenient, and distracting -for the people wearing them, even. They did do wonders for one's posture, though, since you couldn't bend down for any reason whatsoever, including picking up a pencil or patting a dog, without showing your underwear. There couldn't be the least tiny little hint of a breeze, or you'd show your underwear. God forbid you should want to drink from a drinking fountain or run for a bus, that's all I can say. Isn't liberation supposed to be more comforable than that?

 

[Vonstadt]

To be honest if she could perform well at her job I wouldn't care if she wore a paper bag, a uniform similar to mine or a miniskirted variation. In my opinion it is up to the wearer if that is the accepted norm of the day. *shrugs*

I never based respect on the appearance of an indivual, I was burned by doing that way too often in my misguided youth.

I never saw the mini's as being demeaning, but then I am a guy. I've know women who prefer them and I've known women who can't stand em.

I wouldn't think less of a male coworker in a kilt if as stated before he was good at his job. Respect is earned by doing not just showing up.

Just my two cents.

Vons

 

[T'Bonz]

They were not liberating. They were fussy, and inconvenient, and distracting -for the people wearing them, even. They did do wonders for one's posture, though, since you couldn't bend down for any reason whatsoever, including picking up a pencil or patting a dog, without showing your underwear. There couldn't be the least tiny little hint of a breeze, or you'd show your underwear. God forbid you should want to drink from a drinking fountain or run for a bus, that's all I can say. Isn't liberation supposed to be more comfortable than that?

Heh! That's it exactly. They were uncomfortable. If I wanted to show sexy legs, that's what hotpants were for. Remember the velvet hotpants circa early 1970s? Couldn't wear them up north past summer, of course.

I have to admit, I knew girls who thought that part of the thrill of minis weren't just showing off the legs, but seeing how short they could wear them without getting in trouble by adults. These girls didn't mind their underwear being shown. Thank God we didn't wear thongs back in the days.

 

[Captain Robert April]

And the inevitable follow-up question - can you respect a man in this uniform?

I'd find it odd and perhaps humorous to see a man dressed like that, but only because I've been raised in a culture where men wearing skirts is not the norm. If I came from a culture where it was accepted, it would simply not be an issue.

My respect for someone is mostly influenced by how they behave and do their job. Their clothing has some relevance to how I perceive them, but it's hardly the defining factor.

Actually, it's sort of a Magnus: Robot Fighter vibe to it...

 

[JustKate]

^ Yeah, we were, like, so innocent. And I'm actually being somewhat sincere here.

I do remember the hotpants, but my mother didn't let me wear them. Not entirely a bad thing, now that I look back on it. She wouldn't let me get white go-go boots, either.

I had a friend whose mother made these wonderful clothes - as good as a professional dressmaker could - but the shortest she'd make the skirts was about 3 inches above the knee. That wasn't short enought for Jana, of course, so she'd wear her tops slightly loose so that she could roll the waistband of the skirt up until that thing was maybe covering her underwear, but really more by gravity and a prayer than by adequate fabric. Assuming God answers prayers about skirt length.

But yes, young women who have never worn a true mini and guys who have never worn any kind of skirt - they were ridiculously uncomfortable. Amazingly fashionable, and we all wore them, but stupid.

 

[T'Bonz]

LOL. I spent all summer in halter tops, tube tops and short shorts. God, youth was grand.

 

[number6]

People's perception of the mini-skirt reflect 40 years of hindsight and an era of political correctness. For women in the 60s, the miniskirt was considered liberating and independent. Of course, it represented something entirely different in the years that would follow.

 

[T'Bonz]

Again, *at the time,* it was *not* considered liberating for all women. Heck, not even *most* women, I would wager.

Don't mistake the comments of a few Hollywood starlets of the time for the sentiment of the rest of us.

 

[number6]

Again, *at the time,* it was *not* considered liberating for all women. Heck, not even *most* women, I would wager.

Don't mistake the comments of a few Hollywood starlets of the time for the sentiment of the rest of us.

Actually it was my mum. (not a Hollywood Starlet)

 

[JustKate]

Again, *at the time,* it was *not* considered liberating for all women. Heck, not even *most* women, I would wager.

Don't mistake the comments of a few Hollywood starlets of the time for the sentiment of the rest of us.

Actually it was my mum. (not a Hollywood Starlet)

T'Bonz just said that she believes "most" women didn't consider them liberating, so that leaves room for your mother being one of the ones who did, Number6.

But I have to agree with T'Bonz - she and I (along with Mama Number6 ) are apparently both veterans of that social/fashion experiment known as The Great Miniskirt Era. Slacks were (and are) waaaaaaay more liberating. Not having to worry about that damn skirt (of any length) blowing up to my armpits, not having to worry about pantyhose or whether my legs were tanned enough so that I could go bare legged, not having to worry about the skirt or the panyhose when I was running or something, not having to worry about a slip showing...

It was GREAT.

 

[Cakes488]

Could you imagine Jim Kirk wearing tiny gym shorts and a tank top to work?

Actually yes.

Mr. Ripped-Shirt himself...

Starfleet is too evolved to bother worrying about miniskirts.

Well they ain't evolved yet LOL, with the new movie coming out the women's skirts are shorter than ever!

 

[sbk1234]

^^^And God bless 'em for it!

 

[WendellM]

Slacks were (and are) waaaaaaay more liberating.

I'll second that (as a male). I like my Scottish heritage and all, and even own a sash o' the tartan, but I'd be majorly uncomfortable in a kilt. We're a bipedal species, so pants make eminent sense. I like/enjoy seeing the TOS skirts just fine, but I do consider them a bit silly from a functional standpoint.

Could I respect a superior, female officer in a skirt? Yes. But it'd probably be slightly easier if she were wearing pants (just as it'd be easier if she didn't have a parrot on her head).

 

[number6]

Slacks were (and are) waaaaaaay more liberating.

I'll second that (as a male). I like my Scottish heritage and all, and even own a sash o' the tartan, but I'd be majorly uncomfortable in a kilt. We're a bipedal species, so pants make eminent sense. I like/enjoy seeing the TOS skirts just fine, but I do consider them a bit silly from a functional standpoint.

Could I respect a superior, female officer in a skirt? Yes. But it'd probably be slightly easier if she were wearing pants (just as it'd be easier if she didn't have a parrot on her head).

There is much more about respect than what someone wears.

 

[number6]

There is much more about respect than what someone wears.

Indeed. That's why I mentioned the parrot. Once could have the utmost respect for, say, a professor. But if he chose to have a parrot on his head (worse, one that screeched, "The professor is a stupid git!"), it'd perhaps be a little bit more difficult, no? That's how I view wearing impractical clothing (whether male or female). Respect can certainly transcend it, but some outfits make that easier.

That's an unrealistic analogy. No one wears a parrot on their head that screeches rude things.

I have worked with women who dress "professionally" and some who dress less so.

At the end of the day, it's how people conduct themselves and how they perform their tasks that matter more than how they dress. It's just how I was brought up. It is and has always been a non issue to me.

 

[WendellM]

There is much more about respect than what someone wears.

Indeed. That's why I mentioned the parrot. Once could have the utmost respect for, say, a professor. But if he chose to have a parrot on his head (worse, one that screeched, "The professor is a stupid git!"), it'd perhaps be a little bit more difficult, no? That's how I view wearing impractical clothing (whether male or female). Respect can certainly transcend it, but some outfits make that easier.

That's an unrealistic analogy. No one wears a parrot on their head that screeches rude things.

Then omit the screeching. Would you respect someone who chose to wear a parrot on his/her head the same as someone who didn't? Why or why not? How does wearing a parrot compare to wearing impractical clothing?

I have worked with women who dress "professionally" and some who dress less so.

At the end of the day, it's how people conduct themselves and how they perform their tasks that matter more than how they dress. It's just how I was brought up. It is and has always been a non issue to me.

I can respect that. However, I must ask you as a fellow man, didn't you notice the legs of those co-workers in skirts (as opposed to the legs which you couldn't see?) Did seeing those exposed legs ever lead you, however briefly, into a bit of a reverie of a sexual nature? (If not, I offer my apologies [and condolences ].) Was that pro or con to the business situation at hand from a purely practical point of view?

Geez, I have to say that in reviewing this, I find that I could be considered as sort of arguing for Arabic-type dress codes, which isn't what I intended at all. I find that enlightening and maybe I need to re-examine my perspective. What I was trying to get at was that men are easily distracted, so it's practical for professional women to dress not to fall into that realm. But, when considered objectively, where does that line lie? And to what degree should the fault/decision lie with the women (as opposed to the men)? Thank you, number6 for making me aware of that aspect of my thinking - I don't think this is where the thread was going at all, but it's interesting...

As for our disagreement... I applaud your professionalism, but I think that you can still understand that it matters how a woman dresses (for the "less-evolved males" among us, if you prefer to think of it that way). And I think that women also know all about that. Which is what leads to the question of "how much to show."

 

[number6]

I can understand it, but also understand that wearing a miniskirt isn't the same as wearing a parrot on your head..not even remotely.

I am turned on by many things... There's a lot to be said about a woman in uniform as well as someone with a great pair of legs or something that shows cleavage or whatever.. and sure I've been distracted by that.. I am a red blooded horny guy.. But I also work in an environment where people often dress somewhat unconventionally and I am there to do a job and not to worry about my boner. I would expect that people in the 23rd century would be more evolved. It's not just about how a woman dresses. A man can dress provocatively as well. Again, in a work environment it comes down to work ethic. You don't need to be buttoned down to have great skills. Fortunately I work in an environment where ideas and energy matter more than a perception of how someone should dress. I never want to have to wear a suit to work, nor would I impose that on anyone else, male or female. Creativity comes from within.

That's why it's a non issue.

Hopefully we as a species can evolve to a point where it's a non issue for everyone else.