An Etiquette Question

R

ralphsulser

Well, I guess Iagree with Wes to an extent, sometimes you just need cut cut some slack for people. We can't hold such rigid standards when none are expected or required. Look at the big picture not the petty details, unless you are implementing TS16949 of course :bonk:
 
C

Craig H.

I am going to ask a question that will confirm to some that I am, indeed' off of my rocker, but here goes.

I, too. live in the South. I was also taught the oft-ignored hat rules of etiquette. That said, when you go into a restaurant, office, or other public indoor place, where is the hatstand? If someone sits down to eat, and places their hat on the table, is that not also a faux pas?

So, as a practical matter, it may be that "following the rules" is, in some cases, much more difficult that it once was. This may not be the only example, either.
 

Wes Bucey

Prophet of Profit
Craig H. said:
I am going to ask a question that will confirm to some that I am, indeed' off of my rocker, but here goes.

I, too. live in the South. I was also taught the oft-ignored hat rules of etiquette. That said, when you go into a restaurant, office, or other public indoor place, where is the hatstand? If someone sits down to eat, and places their hat on the table, is that not also a faux pas?

So, as a practical matter, it may be that "following the rules" is, in some cases, much more difficult that it once was. This may not be the only example, either.
I do recall a time when upscale restaurants had coat rooms for hats and coats and mid-scale restaurants had hat and coat racks at every booth, but nothing for tables in the middle of the room.

Perhaps we need to re-examine the cultural biases which originally dictated the wearing (or doffing) of certain apparel on a task by task basis.

Certainly, military rules of etiquette are different from civilian rules.
Churches have changed many "rules" in recent years, least among them "dress codes" for attending worship services.

Certainly, I don't mean to launch a Crusade for either side of the dress code question any more than I mean to launch a Crusade for or against the use of the term "irregardless."

It is the nature of Nature to evolve. Sometimes evolution appears to branch off into dead ends; other times the evolutionary changes seem to make the changed life forms better adapted to survive in the also-changed environment.

Ah well - interesting input from everyone.
 
L

little__cee

Off Topic

:topic: Wes's mention of Church brought to mind a recent "letter to the editor" in our local paper. The gentleman's letter focused on the fact that many attending his church wear "flip-flops" and "beachwear" and he found this offensive.

This one letter has sparked NUMEROUS rebuttal letters - including one from a Pastor explaining that he doesn't really care what his parishioners wear as long as they attend his service!

Basically there were two camps of letter-writers -- the old guard who thought you should only show up wearing your Sunday best and the folks who thought that what you wear does not matter as long as you attend. I guess I'm more middle ground - important to be there, less important what is worn, but should be respectful (which is open to interpretation I'm sure).

Oh well - no sense in starting a religious discussion I just thought it was an interesting topic that got a flood of letters in the local paper. :topic:
 
C

Craig H.

Wes Bucey said:
It is the nature of Nature to evolve. Sometimes evolution appears to branch off into dead ends; other times the evolutionary changes seem to make the changed life forms better adapted to survive in the also-changed environment.

Wes:

Interesting thought. True, too, IMO.

Again IMO, there are some things (hats) that have become something of a gray area - the social norm is in some cases becoming unclear, for better or worse.

One of the things about golf that I think is appealing to many (include me in this group) is that none of the players, even the "greats", seem to try to be bigger than the game itself, and there is still a very strong sense of sportsmanship (and sportswomanship???). This includes a very nice dose of (un)common courtesy.

I hope that the evolution of social norms will look kindly on the parts of the norms that describe how we actually behave towards our fellow man. Open doors for others? Absolutely. Please and thank you? Basic and essential. Respectful towards all? Yes. Respectful of self? Actually the very basis for all of the rest.

I have seen Mr. Vijay in action (on television, anyway) and I cannot believe for a minute he meant any disrespect. In this case, in every case, I do think that to take one small deed out of context is a mistake. Have his behavior and achievements earned our respect?

In my opinion, absolutely.
 
R

Rachel

Wes Bucey said:
...any more than I mean to launch a Crusade for or against the use of the term "irregardless."

Wes...what can I say...you make me chuckle.
Cheers to you,
-R.
 
C

Charmed

See Tiger here

Thanks a lot for all the inputs here. Now, do take a look at the photograph of Tiger shaking hands with Vijay, after Vijay had won the event where he became the World's No. 1 Golfer. The photograph is in a word file that I had saved after the event. Unfortunately, I did not save the URL.

I took a look at it again today, thanks to all the discussion here.

Like DScott says, Vijay still has his putter in his hand when Mike Weir came to shake hands with him. In this photograph though we see Tiger has his putter and his hat clutched together in one hand while he is shaking hands with Vijay. This tells me that Tiger did think about this and made a conscious effort to remove his hat before shaking hands with Vijay.

But look also at Vijay's expression. Does it look like someone who is disrespectful? I have seen Vijay (on TV, of course) and he never came across as being disrespectful. But, Tiger has certainly made that extra effort to take his hat off. Many golf fans seem to think Vijay not removing his hat IS a BIG DEAL. Of course, this is much too emotional an issue, with golf fans at least, and I am going to leave it at that. But, if I do meet Vijay, I will surely talk about this. Thanks.

Charmed
 

Attachments

  • VJNO1.doc
    244 KB · Views: 146
C

Carl Keller

Maybe they should not even shake hands. That way neither would offend the other by leaving their hat on.

Carl-
 
J

jaimezepeda

Craig H. said:
Again IMO, there are some things (hats) that have become something of a gray area - the social norm is in some cases becoming unclear, for better or worse.
Not only are hats a gray area, they are a rather rare area. It is rare to see a man wearing a hat nowadays other than a baseball cap or cowboy hat.

My hobby prompts me to research old photographs (late 19th century to depression era) taken outdooors and almost every man in almost every photograph is wearing a hat.

I cannot recall any man in our office ever wearing a hat as they arrive at work except when it was snowing outside and they needed to keep their head warm.

Why is it that men do not wear hats as much as they used to?

Jaime
 
C

Craig H.

jaimezepeda said:
Not only are hats a gray area, they are a rather rare area. It is rare to see a man wearing a hat nowadays other than a baseball cap or cowboy hat.

My hobby prompts me to research old photographs (late 19th century to depression era) taken outdooors and almost every man in almost every photograph is wearing a hat.

I cannot recall any man in our office ever wearing a hat as they arrive at work except when it was snowing outside and they needed to keep their head warm.

Why is it that men do not wear hats as much as they used to?

Jaime


Jamie:

Would you also say that there were a lot more coats and ties in those old photos? I think style and decorum have changed (see Wes' post below on evolution). We (and Americans especially, I suspect) tend to do what is expedient at whatever moment in time we occupy. As a result, we dress more casually. Frankly, ties are a lot of trouble, and those jackets can be a little hot.

The hats in your pictures are the old straw hats, bowlers, derbys, and whatever you call those stylish men's hats of the 1950s, right?

How many have an advertising logo on them? The fact that we accept advertising almost everywhere has made many people the modern equivalent of sandwich board wearers, at less cost to the advertiser. Imagine. Many times the caps are "free" to the wearer, but often they are purchased by the end user, and a licensing fee is tacked on for the logo. This fee is then paid to the person doing the advertising. What a concept.

The cowboy hat also makes a social statement ("all hat and no cattle" jokes aside).

So, while many of us take the expedient route in deciding what to wear, that in itself may, in my mind, be taken as a sign of the "relaxing of the rules" in general, irregardless of the fact that I would like to continue wearing no coat and no tie to work.

(Sorry, Wes. Using that word is clumsy, isn't it?)

Wingtips are out of the question.

So, if my perception is true, it begs the question: Does less formal attire mean less formal interaction? I don't know of any studies, but I do have anecdotal evidence from some bar owner friends; Make people wear decent clothes and they at least act like like they have more sense, and/or many of the real troublemakers won't bother getting into decent clothes so that they can frequent such an establishment. If you have seen the movie Roadhouse, you know what I mean.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top Bottom