Posted on 03/28/2026 6:42:05 AM PDT by DoodleBob
Several years ago, I joined some friends on a trip to Mackinac Island, a place famous for its Victorian culture and ban on automobiles.
After bicycling around the island, we decided to splurge and have tea at The Grand Hotel, which is as polished as its name sounds. Before trooping in for tea, however, we stopped in a nearby restroom to exchange our sports clothes for something a little classier, for the hotel requires its patrons to dress up before entering its domain. Such a change was a bit of a bother, but in the long run, it made me value my experience far more. Because my outward appearance was more polished, my inward self could relax and savor both the food and my surroundings.
The good ol’ Grand Hotel isn’t alone in its dress standards anymore. Ruth’s Chris Steak House recently announced a new dress code for its patrons, posting the following on its website:
BUSINESS CASUAL – PROPER ATTIRE REQUIRED PLEASE.
Kindly remove all hats when entering the restaurant. Guests wearing ball caps are asked to dine in the bar/lounge.
The following attire is not permitted in our dining rooms:
Gym wear, pool attire, tank tops, clothing with offensive graphics or language, revealing clothing or exposed undergarments.
The famous steakhouse was mocked for these (rather minimal) standards by fellow restaurant chain Chili’s, which claimed that you only have to be dressed in order to enter their restaurant.
It’s an admittedly touché response … but does it really win Chili’s any points in the long run? Put differently, if money were no object, would we rather go to the trouble of dressing up to sit and enjoy the upscale Ruth’s Chris than go to Chili’s just so we can bum around in our shorts and t-shirts? Most would choose the former without question.
Some might consider this snobbery. The dress controversy between Chili’s and Ruth’s Chris, however, is really a microcosm of the larger culture war which has raged over of how we present ourselves to the world for years.
The viewpoint of Chili’s is the one toward which our society has been slouching for many years. “Come as you are,” they say, “we won’t judge!” Thus, what once was considered acceptable dinner attire – a nice dress for women and a sport coat for men – gradually morphed into jeans and a blouse, then booty shorts, crop tops, or sweatshirts and pajama pants.
Americans cling to such clothes, loving the comfort that they bring above all else. Yet at the same time, we also complain about how difficult it is to get ahead in the world and how hard it is to get others to respect us. What if the two are related? Might we see more success in our relationships, jobs, and other aspects of life if we didn’t cling so obstinately to the Chili’s dress code of “anything goes”?
Famed Hollywood costumer Edith Head would have said yes. In her book, “How to Dress for Success,” Head wrote, “No matter in which direction your strivings for success are pointed, what you wear and how you look can make the difference between moving steadily toward your goal or just rocking back and forth in the same spot.” In other words, if you want monotony and stagnation, keep choosing those casual, comfortable clothes when you go shopping, dine at restaurants, attend church, or even go to the office.
But those who want to move forward in life should consider a different tactic. Although it sounds a bit crass, Head encourages us to think of ourselves “as a product” that needs selling. And in order to sell that product, one must seriously consider how to improve it.
“The difference between ‘packaging’ you and a static product like a can of beans is considerable,” Head goes on to explain. “The beans are going only one place. You are going many places, and the way you look in each special situation, at different times of the day and on varied locations calls for a variety of looks, a number of moods and a diversified wardrobe.”
If we can control nothing else, we can always decide how we dress, Head says. “When you know what you want out of life—the areas of success you desire—then it is easy to dress ‘in character’ to create the most exciting, pleasing, attractive appearance for your audience.”
Yet so many of us do the exact opposite. What, after all, do our sweats, ripped jeans, and skimpy shorts and shirts say about us? Do they signal that we are a “product” that is clean, neat, alert, responsible, and quality material worthy of advancement … or do they signal that we are dumpy slobs, more interested in lazing through life and getting by with minimal effort?
It’s completely our own choice as to which of these options we’ll follow … but just remember, that choice may be the difference between a Ruth’s Chris or a Chili’s life.
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
“...tea at The Grand Hotel, which is as polished as its name sounds.”
It is a gorgeous venue. I’ve had High Tea there with my Grandma back in the day. I love all of Mackinac Island. It’s magical. :)
My wardrobe consists of mainly work/farm clothes, then my ‘town’ clothes for basic errands and then two sets each of Wedding and Funeral clothes; two for Spring/Summer and two for Fall/Winter.
Easy Peasy. ;)
I remember wearing suits to work.
And I loved it.
I did not need to think about what to wear, and I liked to look professional!
I wear nice cloth to church and to better restaurants.
I am with Ruth!
Thing is, a well cut suit with suspenders can be much more comfortable than casual wear.
I hate when men wear ball caps inside, period.
Always wear natural fibers and closed leather shoes on a plane. If there's a fire, synthetics will melt and and adhere to the skin even if you are far enough from the heat to not suffer severe thermal injury.
Agreed.
“Cajun” pasta, lol.
“I remember wearing suits to work. And I loved it. I did not need to think about what to wear, and I liked to look professional! I wear nice cloth to church and to better restaurants.”
Ditto for me. It was great when ladies in the office tried to out-do each other when it came to “the look”. And it makes you feel so GOOD to look nice.
But I have to say that I was thrilled to have hit 2008 and could ditch the high heels, panty hose, and the morning ritual of perfect makeup.
For church ... definitely dress up. With a dress. So many ladies wear pant to church now. The Gen Z urchins who sit in the pew in front of us wear jeans. And bring their bottles of water. For Pete’s sake, a human will not die of dehydration missing water for one hour.
You keep posting pictures of Democrats wearing suits. It appears as though you are attempting to attack the premise of the article and defend slovenly attire. If so, your logoc is completely flawed. Just because bad people may do a good thing, that doesn’t make the good thing itself bad. Even if every leftist wore a suit, you would still be a slob
I asked them and they assured me it met the minimum daily requirement. So you can rest easy there.
In slob culture, a suit is a costume.
I wear cargo pants to church. Makes concealed carry easier. Used to wear jeans. Been going to church for 50 years without wearing a suit. At least 95% of the congregation is dressed like me.
The dress codes popping up largely target fat black women wearing thongs.
Dang! I’ve been a Gen Z Urchin since 1972! I don’t carry a water bottle but do carry a gun…..
Sheeeeeyit. I used to work at a church. One of our Pastors wore sandals and Hawaiian looking shirts. The only time he was seen wearing anything remotely formal was when the church sent the staff on their annual cruise and they pisted pics of themselves wearing tuxedos to dinner on Formal Dress Night. Guts would attend weddings and funerals wearing t-shirts and shorts and flip flops. Girls would dress like they were going clubbing. Disgraceful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.