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.
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.
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.
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.
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-
) 
).
