I think the insidious part of the rules regarding what men and women should wear in the hunt field is the implied ostracism if you fail to meet the standards of dress. Acquired a frock by accident? Can’t afford to take a financial hit by consigning it and buying a new one? Well, you can’t join OUR club. You’re too disrespectful. And if you dare to disagree with our rules, then we’ll whip out the Tradition card and claim that you just don’t “get it.” Also, you might be ill-bred.
And hey, it’s a private club, and private clubs can set their own rules, and I don’t dispute that or disagree with that right, but I’m absolutely going to sit on top of my big white horse and wonder who the rules really serve.
From a sociological perspective–understand that I am not claiming a grand conspiracy–I think that the enforcement of rules regarding male and female dress is a lingering impulse to categorize and segregate people as a way to concentrate and identify control and power. When I hear the argument that things should be done a certain way because it’s “tradition” and it’s “not hurting anyone” I always think that that’s what is really going on–when the attire rules have no practical application, then insisting on adherence to them is ultimately about bending an entire class of people to the will of a few.
Which is why I find it wrong, from a moral standpoint. But from a practical standpoint, I don’t really care.
Of all the hunting attire rules, the ones I would grouse about are 1) Patent leather tops for women with colors (patent leather is ugly; I’d rather have brown tops), 2) Frock coats being reserved for women with colors (they would be much more flattering on my figure, and look more comfortable), and 3) Stock ties being made of scratchy things (ok, mine hasn’t come yet, but all the cotton ones in pictures and video LOOK scratchy, and silk was out as we have a history of not getting along). Of those, stock ties being firm probably has best practical application–if you’re going to use it as a sling, you want it to be sturdy. I would complain about it being uncomfortable, but not unfair, because it’s not a gender-based rule.
Aaaaand none of this matters, because I’m going out formally for the first time on the 12th.
Also! If we wanted to get really crazy with this debate about attire and function, then why the call for muted colors? We’re predators, and when you’re following hounds, you’re not exactly a stealth predator. It would be far more natural for the whole field to be dressed in scarlet, astride loudly spotted horses.
When I win the lottery, I’ll get my own pack, and require that everybody wear blaze orange frocks. I will call it a safety measure, and I will ridicule anyone who dares to wear anything but a large and ornate stock pin–extra points for vulgarity. But I won’t un-invite rule breakers, because at the end of the day, all I will care about is that I got to spend it on horseback, following hounds, viewing a fox, in country that is still open, and that all parties returned home safely. And anybody who agrees with me will be welcome, regardless of the way their coat is cut or what it’s cut from, because there are precious few people like that remaining.
ETA: Regarding that matrix of turnout options, did you notice that if the turnout rules for juniors are the same as the turnout rules for an adult, then it is “Same as Lady”? It’s tantamount to saying that an adult woman’s parallel . . . is a child.