Similar Posts

Leave a Reply to IdeaSmith Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

4 Comments

    1. @Eccentricspeak: 🙂 Indeed. I believe my post aligns with this article. Also, since I didn’t reply to your earlier comment before, here are my thoughts:

      ‘For a ‘brand’, they want to be associated with a certain level of class of clientele…. if they turn away business on that basis, well, that’s their choice! ‘
      – True. My personal opinion (and this is mine only) is that this behaviour indicates a class snobbery and on principle, even if I do fit into their required ‘class of clientele’, I’ll choose not to give them business to show my non-support. This stems not from a textbook definition of protest but the fact that I’ve seen stores & service staff be indifferent, even rude to family and friends who are dressed in Indian wear and/or not in full make-up & fashionable regalia. I don’t believe anybody, least of all an employee of a business that solicits the custom of people who can afford their services, has any place behaving this way. This is discrimination, which is just the uglier (and dare I say, more realistic) side of ‘class’ differentiation.

      ‘Specifically on your picture, hooded jumpers and trainers have a different connotation in England…..that being of football fanatics and hooligans (or chavs!) … I guess it makes sense for restaurants to want to ‘avoid trouble’ (& these characters).’
      – The picture was an auto-suggestion and the one that fit best with the tone of the post. I guess I can see the logic there. On the other hand, doesn’t it also sound a lot like the attacks on turbanned people in the US, post the twin towers crash? It is discrimination to profile somebody based on what they wear. ‘Discrimination’ is treated as the ugly word it is but I’ll be the first to admit that it is an extremely grey area. If I were stranded alone in a strange place, I might be likelier to trust a person of a certain gender, age and dressed a certain way, than someone else. We make our judgements based on certain narrow experiences & associations from our past, not all of which are true or fair.

  1. I went through my grad years in Xaviers with fines and other implications of not adhering to the dress code. In all fairness, the boys couldn’t get away with anything shorter than ankle length trousers either. Exceptions being, sports and Malhar (obv!)

    Regarding your second pt about dress codes, I don’t agree with you on that. I think it’s okay for a restaurant / pub/ bar to define dress codes…We’ve already been doing this for decades for occasions like festivals, weddings and funerals. For a ‘brand’, they want to be associated with a certain level of class of clientele…. if they turn away business on that basis, well, that’s their choice!

    Specifically on your picture, hooded jumpers and trainers have a different connotation in England…..that being of football fanatics and hooligans (or chavs!) … I guess it makes sense for restaurants to want to ‘avoid trouble’ (& these characters).

    On a personal level, it’s not someone’s (or your own!) house — respect their wants if you want to be there….and anyway, whats wrong in scrubbing up and dressing it up a little to go out?