Butchart Gardens? More like Butthurt Gardens, amirite?
7 Likes
The website does specifically mention a ban historical/period clothing… in some tiny text off in a corner that nobody’s going to notice, and nobody would even think to look for because why would anyone expect a garden to have a dress code?
Also, where’s the line drawn for “historical” clothing? I mean, jeans aren’t exactly a recent innovation in clothing…
1 Like
I was in the Black Forest the last 2 weeks, and we went to a museum park where timber-framed farm houses of a variety of style, purposes, and periods, have been collected, reassembled and maintained. It’s a great place to visit, especially as they run many of the old water-driven machines occasionally (Including the sawmill, yikes!) and have craftspeople doing demonstrations and things like that.
Anyway, what I’m getting at is that there was a small group of Amish (homesick, perhaps?) visiting, while I was there, and speaking to each other in that funny dialect of Low German that they have. The young man was not very impressed when my friend had to breastfeed.
Anyway, I would suggest that there’s a difference between the cultural dress of the Amish (and the rules and limitations that they impose upon themselves) and those of a couple who were not born in a particular period adopting the dress and technology of that era so that they can blog about it, presumably using some kind of Babbage engine derived technology, combined with a telegraph machine and somehow patched into their local exchange in a way that drives their local network engineers insane…
1 Like
That isn’t clear at all. The couple was told that they would be granted admittance if they would wear staff uniforms, which rather dramatically increases the chances that they would, in fact, be confused for staff.
And why is that a concern, exactly?
[visitors pass a couple in Victorian garb]
“Excuse me, where is the nearest washroom, and when does the gift shop close.”
“Oh, I’m sorry, we don’t know. We don’t work here.”
“Oh, my mistake, I was confused by your period costume.”
“Quite all right.”
EXPERIENCE DETRACTED. DAY RUINED FOR EVERYONE. OH THE HORROR.
[visitors pass a couple in Victorian garb]
“Excuse me, where is the nearest washroom?”
“Oh, it’s to the left.”
[visitors travel left and find no washroom, for they had been cruelly misled and misinformed]
EXPERIENCE DETRACTED. DAY RUINED FOR EVERYONE. OH THE HORROR.
“Damn you, Butchart Gardens! I shall sue!”
BUT WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?!
(Pretty sure not Butchart Gardens.)
12 Likes
Well… the Way Back Machine prior to March 30, 2016 does not have that reference about period pieces/costumes on their Rates webpage - Between November 18th, 2015 and March 4th, 2016 the Garden Etiquette was added to that section.
While the Main Webpage has linked the Garden Etiquette PDF between July 10th and the 17th, 2016.
July 10th: https://web.archive.org/web/20160710064016/http://www.butchartgardens.com/
July 17th: https://web.archive.org/web/20160717032056/http://www.butchartgardens.com/
Read that as “naturalist” resort at first. In which case I can see the objection to any costume.
8 Likes
Sure. The reason for the discussion is not a question of whether the policy is legal. (It is.) The reason for the discussion is the question of whether the policy is stupid.
The Gardens offers no clear guidelines as to what does or does not constitute a “costume”, and as the debate on this thread suggests, there is no common-sense consensus answer to that point.
The Gardens offers no clear rationale for why the policy is needed. Banning costumes on the grounds that costumed individuals might be mistaken for staff is clearly bullshit, because they were willing to let the woman in if she removed her hat (hat = staff, no hat = obviously not staff?) and were willing to let them in if they wore staff uniforms. Banning costumes on the grounds that costumes might diminish the visitor experience is also bullshit. Lots of things can diminish my experience at the Gardens: loud whiny children, boorish patrons who have not recently bathed, inclement weather, my phone battery running out, large and frightening dogs. They have no policies banning those things. A couple in Victorian garb is not going to disrupt my precious tranquil sensibilities.
If their real concern is vampire cosplayers freaking out other visitors, then the policy should be “Visitors must conduct themselves in a respectful manner. Anyone who demonstrates disruptive behavior or undertakes activities unsuitable to The Gardens may be required to leave the premises.” OH WAIT IT ALREADY SAYS THAT. So what’s the point of the costume ban, exactly?
The policy is legal. The policy is also dumb.
9 Likes
If you saw this woman wearing her hat, it would be entirely reasonable to think that she was a costumed employee. (And your tranquil experience of the Gardens would be ruined forever.) If you saw this woman without her hat, you would never suspect that she was a costumed employee.
Seems legit.
2 Likes
“Legal” and “not stupid” are different things. It’s legal in BC to deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change, or hope that Trump wins the election, or be an asshole. I’m still going to call out people who do those things. They can make whatever rules they like, but if the rules are stupid, they should expect to be called out on it.
4 Likes
For me, the idea of costume is inextricably tied to the idea of pretense.
An actor performing on stage is in costume, even if that person would wear the same thing on an average day walking down the street. For example, I once played a part in a dinner theatre murder mystery. My costume was a black t-shirt and jeans, with the black T-shirt having the logo of a fictional record company on it. When I was pretending to be an employee of that record company, I was in costume. I’ve taken that shirt home and I’ve worn it with jeans since then, but I wasn’t “in costume” because at that point, it was just a t-shirt.
So, I’d say that whether these people are “in costume” is dependent entirely on whether they’re wearing the clothing because it looks good on them and suits their personality (like any other clothing), or because they’re doing so under the pretense that they’re people from the actual Victorian period.
Of course, the problem with this definition is that it’s entirely internal. By my definition, it’s nearly impossible to tell whether this couple was in costume or not; I can’t tell, even after reading the article, if it’s a pretense or just a fashion choice.
So yes, I’m all for having the rules spelled out more clearly, as the line between “costume” and “style” is not an easy one to draw without telepathy.
3 Likes
As an anti-globalist (though pro-internationalist), I would not dream of attempting to take your job. Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains!
3 Likes
Butchart gardens is a lame, expensive tourist trap. Next time you head to Victoria, BC, I highly recommend that you avoid it. Instead, spend your time at the way more entertaining and informative Victoria Bug Zoo and Miniature World. Both of which are surprisingly entertaining for both big nerds and little nerds.
7 Likes
So… name the number of grains of sand it takes to make a “pile.”
Your demand that there be a specific boundary in order for the category to exist is a fallacy.
Again, you say that as if wearing something every day makes it not a costume.
1 Like
Damn hipsters… get off my lawn!
3 Likes
If your sole objection is that you don’t see the purpose of the rule, that’s fine. It’s been my experience that most rules are put in place, because of some asshole who decided to see how far he and/or she could push the envelope. I strongly doubt that these two are the first to show up in costumes.
I’d suggest reading a book called “The Rules of Baseball”. While the book is exactly that, the codified rules of MLB, it also explains the backstory of the many of these rules. More often than not, they came about because of someone trying to get around the system or exploit loophole (hiring little people so the strike zone would be so small that they’d always draw a walk, for example).
Two, as long as they’re touching. But, more seriously, as to the following:
I don’t think that @Skeptic is looking for a specific boundary, but rather, using the question to point out that there is no reasonable clear-cut boundary between the idea of a “costume” and the idea of an “outfit”.
5 Likes
One man’s asshole is another man’s creative thinker. Progress often happens because somebody looks at a rule invented by the tribal elders to control people, and asks the awkward question “Is there a way around this?” Physics, for instance, tends to advance because somebody asks questions like “but does that law apply under all conditions?”
Rules are necessary in games because they are such artificial environments, and because it is desirable they stop short of open warfare. They are needed in commerce and banking because of trust issues. But many other rules, especially social ones, are there as proxies for something else that can’t be stated. Many clothing rules fall in this category. And many of them are eventually discarded as obsolete. Gentlemen no longer wear bowler hats in the City of London. Those rules often get discarded because someone found a loophole and the sky did not fall in.
You do realise, don’t you, that women in Saudi Arabia are constantly looking for little loopholes to exploit in order to wind up the authorities without them being able to take action?
7 Likes
Because SARS never happened there? Because the speak that they do ain’t English? Because if it isn’t all Nudist Beach from Kill la Kill and people who grew their damn blouse from modified palps there next week, that guideline is horrible garbage. Dial it to ‘divisive uniform’ and you have yourself some verbiage.
Gingham café tablecloth with a cross-stitch hoop hat? Put a bird on it, come on in.
4 Likes
Gabriel and Sarah Chrisman were not wearing costumes.
Gabriel and Sarah Chrisman were wearing clothes.
7 Likes
