Judge Tells Women to Dress Appropriately in Courtroom

[MiM]

It's not anything negative about women here - it's just a fact. Women have always had more clothing options, and men have always been more restricted in what is permitted to be worn. And, it isn't that women look horrible with these other options. They often look very, very nice indeed. It just is what it is.

Ever heard about Humes Guillotine? "There is no ought from is"

Sure, but I did not suggest that there was an ought from an is.

So, if that "status quo" argument of yours isn't an argument for why men have to wear suits and ties, then what other arguments are there?

[Coito ergo sum]

It's not anything negative about women here - it's just a fact. Women have always had more clothing options, and men have always been more restricted in what is permitted to be worn. And, it isn't that women look horrible with these other options. They often look very, very nice indeed. It just is what it is.

Ever heard about Humes Guillotine? "There is no ought from is"

Sure, but I did not suggest that there was an ought from an is.

So, if that "status quo" argument of yours isn't an argument for why men have to wear suits and ties, then what other arguments are there?

I didn't make a status quo argument. I simply stated that it seems reasonable to me for the judge to set a rule that treats men and women equivalently.

I also think it's not sexist (which is what some of those objecting to the judge's rule have said or implied) for him to suggest that women wearing sleeveless shirts and such ought to dress in suits because that is what men wear. It doesn't seem to be sexist to treat people equivalently. The choice would be, it seems, either let men come to work with calves and thighs exposed and wearing sleeveless shirts and such, without ties or jackets, or make everyone where the standard legal garb.

[Azathoth]

I have found that intellectuality is directly proportional to shabbiness of dress. The truly brilliant don't give a fuck.

The lawyer you want is not the most "brilliant." The lawyer you want is the one that wins.

So given the choice between some crusty old law professor with patches on his elbows who knows more about the law than the judge or some young flashy guy in an armani suit which would you go for?

[MiM]

I didn't make a status quo argument. I simply stated that it seems reasonable to me for the judge to set a rule that treats men and women equivalently.

If you refer only to the OP, yes. But this thread has not been much about the OP, which admittedly is partly my fault.

[Coito ergo sum]

I have found that intellectuality is directly proportional to shabbiness of dress. The truly brilliant don't give a fuck.

The lawyer you want is not the most "brilliant." The lawyer you want is the one that wins.

So given the choice between some crusty old law professor with patches on his elbows who knows more about the law than the judge or some young flashy guy in an armani suit which would you go for?

Depends on the task at hand. I would not want a crusty old law professor to handle a trial if that professor never saw the inside of a courtroom, or had not seen the inside of a courtroom in many years. I would love to have the crusty old law professor teach me about the law, write a law book, or consult on the case on matters of law.

If the flashy guy in the Armani suit wins his cases, then I'd want him to try my case. I wouldn't want necessarily want him to teach a law course or consult on the law, though.

Trial work involves much more than merely knowing the minutia of the law.

[Coito ergo sum]

I didn't make a status quo argument. I simply stated that it seems reasonable to me for the judge to set a rule that treats men and women equivalently.

If you refer only to the OP, yes. But this thread has not been much about the OP, which admittedly is partly my fault.

I at no time made a status quo argument and you referred to me making such an argument. In relation to the issue raised in the OP, the lawyers dress code -- the "status quo" appears to be rather murky. Is the status quo that women can wear sleevless shirts and sun dresses to court? Or, is the status quo that they can't?

I don't know what other status quo you're referring to, so if you can elaborate as to what status quo you think I've argued for, that might help.

[MiM]

I didn't make a status quo argument. I simply stated that it seems reasonable to me for the judge to set a rule that treats men and women equivalently.

If you refer only to the OP, yes. But this thread has not been much about the OP, which admittedly is partly my fault.

I at no time made a status quo argument and you referred to me making such an argument. In relation to the issue raised in the OP, the lawyers dress code -- the "status quo" appears to be rather murky. Is the status quo that women can wear sleevless shirts and sun dresses to court? Or, is the status quo that they can't?

I don't know what other status quo you're referring to, so if you can elaborate as to what status quo you think I've argued for, that might help.

"It's just a fact. Women have always had more clothing options, and men have always been more restricted in what is permitted to be worn."

Taken in the context of the discussion here, that statement sounded very much like saying "because it's just a fact it should continue to be so". Maybe you didn't mean that, but in that case I don't believe the fault in getting the correct message through lies completely at the receiving end.

[Coito ergo sum]

I didn't make a status quo argument. I simply stated that it seems reasonable to me for the judge to set a rule that treats men and women equivalently.

If you refer only to the OP, yes. But this thread has not been much about the OP, which admittedly is partly my fault.

I at no time made a status quo argument and you referred to me making such an argument. In relation to the issue raised in the OP, the lawyers dress code -- the "status quo" appears to be rather murky. Is the status quo that women can wear sleevless shirts and sun dresses to court? Or, is the status quo that they can't?

I don't know what other status quo you're referring to, so if you can elaborate as to what status quo you think I've argued for, that might help.

"It's just a fact. Women have always had more clothing options, and men have always been more restricted in what is permitted to be worn."

Taken in the context of the discussion here, that statement sounded very much like saying "because it's just a fact it should continue to be so". Maybe you didn't mean that, but in that case I don't believe the fault in getting the correct message through lies completely at the receiving end.

No, certainly isn't "because it has been, so it should be."

However, the status quo is that women have always had more clothing options than men, so to suggest that in a particular arena they should not have more clothing options than men is neither (a) advocating the status quo, or (b) in any way being sexist or singling out women.

Communication is always a two way street, so while I do not think I stated or implied that I thought a particular status quo "should be", I won't quibble about whose at fault. You thought that's what I was saying - I've now clarified that it isn't what I meant.

[MiM]

I still would like to hear arguments about why men have to wear a suit and a tie, that does not go against Humes Guillotine, though (from anyone, who have advocated that kind of dress code here).

[Coito ergo sum]

I still would like to hear arguments about why men have to wear a suit and a tie, that does not go against Humes Guillotine, though (from anyone, who have advocated that kind of dress code here).

There is no argument other than custom, fashion, and culture. There isn't any reason or purpose in wearing the suit and tie, other than that in our culture people view it as professional attire and it tends to convey a certain message of respect, knowledge, power, competence, etc. At bottom it's no different than pink being a color people tend to put in girls' bedrooms. It's culture.

I would imagine in a Saudi courtroom, suits and ties aren't viewed the same way, but a nice set of flowing robes and appropriate headgear have the same effect.

The reality is that in our culture, if everyone showed up to court dressed in surfer garb, the attitudes of the people involved and their general demeanor would be different. It's the same effect that employers often report about casual day. They find that casual day breeds casual work.

[Sean Hayden]

One problem with it is that loads of folks who don't look good in a suit, don't know anything about a suit, still end up wearing suits because suits are professional. You end up with a bunch of suits with weird looking men trapped inside them.

When the wearer looks good in one it's fine. When it is just assumed that a suit presents professionalism/seriousness then hell no, not even -maybe especially not- for people appearing before a judge as a defendant in a criminal case.

Of course this problem doesn't go away just because you change the dress code. We'd just have weird people wearing different clothes badly.

[JimC]

I still would like to hear arguments about why men have to wear a suit and a tie, that does not go against Humes Guillotine, though (from anyone, who have advocated that kind of dress code here).

There is no argument other than custom, fashion, and culture. There isn't any reason or purpose in wearing the suit and tie, other than that in our culture people view it as professional attire and it tends to convey a certain message of respect, knowledge, power, competence, etc. At bottom it's no different than pink being a color people tend to put in girls' bedrooms. It's culture.

I would imagine in a Saudi courtroom, suits and ties aren't viewed the same way, but a nice set of flowing robes and appropriate headgear have the same effect.

The reality is that in our culture, if everyone showed up to court dressed in surfer garb, the attitudes of the people involved and their general demeanor would be different. It's the same effect that employers often report about casual day. They find that casual day breeds casual work.

Again, you are setting up a straw man, by comparing "surfer garb" with a suit and tie. In a serious situation such as a court, I think no one would be advocating ridiculously casual gear like this. It is possible to dress in a way that reflects a situation without automatically going for one, rigid option.

You said yourself earlier that the reason for suits and ties was no more than custom and tradition. As the zeitgeist changes, so do they. I'm expecting/hoping for a steady, moderate reduction in the rigidity of cultural expectations in western societies, so that a suit and tie will no longer be automatically a requirement in formal situations.

[Coito ergo sum]

I still would like to hear arguments about why men have to wear a suit and a tie, that does not go against Humes Guillotine, though (from anyone, who have advocated that kind of dress code here).

There is no argument other than custom, fashion, and culture. There isn't any reason or purpose in wearing the suit and tie, other than that in our culture people view it as professional attire and it tends to convey a certain message of respect, knowledge, power, competence, etc. At bottom it's no different than pink being a color people tend to put in girls' bedrooms. It's culture.

I would imagine in a Saudi courtroom, suits and ties aren't viewed the same way, but a nice set of flowing robes and appropriate headgear have the same effect.

The reality is that in our culture, if everyone showed up to court dressed in surfer garb, the attitudes of the people involved and their general demeanor would be different. It's the same effect that employers often report about casual day. They find that casual day breeds casual work.

Again, you are setting up a straw man, by comparing "surfer garb" with a suit and tie. In a serious situation such as a court, I think no one would be advocating ridiculously casual gear like this. It is possible to dress in a way that reflects a situation without automatically going for one, rigid option.

That isn't a strawman, because I haven't mischaracterized someone else's argument and sought to defeat that mischaracterization. I used the surfer garb/suit dichotomy to illustrate the point that manner of dress can impact demeanor in groups of people.

Yes, it is possible to dress in a way that reflects the situation without automatically going for one, rigid option, but the more vague the manners of dress allowed, the more difficult it is to write and enforce a dress code. The judge doesn't want to spend time arguing with people over whether their manner of dress fit the dress code. It needs to be clear as to what is allowed and not allowed.

There is no inherent reason that the dress code can't be looser, but I think equal protection of the laws dictates that it would have to be equivalently loose for both men and women. If women can wear clothing that exposes lower thigh to ankle, and sleeveless or spaghetti strap tops, then ought not men be also allowed?

You said yourself earlier that the reason for suits and ties was no more than custom and tradition. As the zeitgeist changes, so do they. I'm expecting/hoping for a steady, moderate reduction in the rigidity of cultural expectations in western societies, so that a suit and tie will no longer be automatically a requirement in formal situations.

I'm not suggesting that courts couldn't loosen their dress codes if they want -- just that they ought not be prohibited from holding women and men to equivalent standards. The main objection to what this judge did in his court was that he was committing some sexist wrong against women by not permitting sleeveless shirts and such. However, that objection must be taken in light of the fact that men do not have that right.

If I had my druthers, I'd be showing up in my Tommy Bahama garb. HOWEVER, that being said, I feel the culture is still such that people take an attorney more seriously if he's in a decent suit.

[Coito ergo sum]

One problem with it is that loads of folks who don't look good in a suit, don't know anything about a suit, still end up wearing suits because suits are professional. You end up with a bunch of suits with weird looking men trapped inside them.

When the wearer looks good in one it's fine. When it is just assumed that a suit presents professionalism/seriousness then hell no, not even -maybe especially not- for people appearing before a judge as a defendant in a criminal case.

Of course this problem doesn't go away just because you change the dress code. We'd just have weird people wearing different clothes badly.

I think it's fair to say that any man who doesn't look good in a suit isn't going to suddenly look handsome in other clothes. A well-fitted suit makes almost any guy look better.

[Twoflower]

At my work the dress code is business casual. Basically we can west whatever we want as long as it's not offensive and doesn't have holes or rips.