Previous post
Next post
Missouri lawmakers are distracted, and instead of taking care of any real business, Missouri is talking about what women should wear in the House.
Allow me to present the situation first –
Republican state Rep. Ann Kelley proposed an amendment that would require women to wear jackets, defined as both blazers and knit blazers, with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots. Kelley stated that the update is necessary because “it is essential to always maintain a formal and professional atmosphere.” – Fox News
So what is happening here? Sadly, this is not the first time this has been discussed.
The Missouri House of Representatives 101st General Assembly adopted a dress code in January 2021 –
Rule 98. At all times when the House is seated, proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots. Proper attire for women shall be dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots. This rule shall apply to all members and staff on the floor of the House and lower gallery. – House.Mo.Gov
You will have to scroll nearly to the bottom of the above link, and the Dress Code resides between the Roll Call Votes and Eating, Smoking, Distracting Activities paragraphs.
So here we are at the start of a new General Assembly where the Missouri lawmakers come together to hash out and change some things. During this General Assembly, Rep. Ann Kelley brought up the motion to change the dress code or the dress code wording.
Representative Kelley (127) offered House Amendment No. 2.
House Amendment No. 2
AMEND House Committee Substitute for House Resolution No. 11, Page 72, Lines 1894-1896, by deleting all of said lines and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
“trousers, and dress shoes or boots. Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses [or], skirts, or slacks [worn with a blazer or sweater], and [appropriate] dress shoes or boots. For the purposes of this rule, “jacket” shall include blazers and knit blazers. This rule shall apply to all “; and
Further amend said bill by amending the title, enacting clause, and intersectional references accordingly.
Representative Shields offered House Amendment No. 1 to House Amendment No. 2.
House Amendment No. 1
to
House Amendment No. 2
AMEND House Amendment No. 2 to House Committee Substitute for House Resolution No. 11, Page 1, Line 6, by inserting after the word “blazers” the word “cardigans,”; and
Further amend said bill by amending the title, enacting clause, and intersectional references accordingly.
***[LINK]***
I know, that’s a lot about nothing, and I do feel bad for having made you read it, sort of. And I promise I do have a sense of humor in this somewhere.
Basically, women can now substitute a blazer with a cardigan. That’s it; that’s what all the hoopla is about people.
But I wanted to put all this here so you can see what is happening in the Missouri House of Representatives. The taxpayers of Missouri should be so thankful.
However, the media and Missouri Democrats want you to think that the Republicans of The Handmaids Tale want women to cover their bodies. Don’t fall for it.
It is not a stricter dress code. Women were always to wear a jacket or blazer of some type. But now you can add a third option, a sweater or cardigan.
‘Do you know what it feels like to have a bunch of men … looking at your top trying to decide whether it’s appropriate?’ — Despite pushback from Missouri Democrats, Republicans in the state’s House of Representatives approved a new stricter dress code for women lawmakers pic.twitter.com/OmZbAt0tpH
— NowThis (@nowthisnews) January 14, 2023
In reality, the dress code was relaxed. It was not made stricter. It was relaxed so that you can wear a cardigan in place of a blazer ladies. That’s it, nothing more.
Some folks on Twitter are getting this label thrown on their misleading tweets:
Missing important context: The rules changes by Missouri legislators Ann Kelley and Brenda Shields actually relaxed dress code requirements for women by allowing cardigans to be counted as blazers.
I wanted this to be a fun post, but honestly, I think this whole thing is sad. And somehow the old saying, “Can’t see the forest for the trees” seems lost on this ridiculousness.
Quite frankly, this whole debate back and forth is embarrassing to me as a woman. I can tell you right now that all the men are not looking at you and deciding what you can or can’t wear.
If you are so inclined, you can watch all 30 minutes of the discussion here:
Why are we getting bogged down in the minutia? This seems to be the new playbook lately, with everyone and about every single subject matter.
Roads are racist; don’t you dare use the word FIELD anymore; Lizzo; renaming of buildings; all the movie villains are played by white men. I mean is this really where we are now?
Democrats are doing what they do best — making a mountain out of a molehill. Their honed skill of making a distraction and diversion, or is it gaslighting?
I’m not even going to go to the business of Democrats being outraged by a Republican-suggested dress code when it was the Democrats forcing the new dress code of the face mask. Shut up.
At first, I thought this blog post might be about women being “allowed” to show their arms in a professional setting. I mean look at all the women on Fox News. I consider that a professional setting.
But yes, I think professional and appropriate attire for women Or men should be business professional, including a blouse and blazer/sweater for women and a coat and tie for men. Because I don’t want to look at men walking around the Capitol building showing off their arms and shoulders wearing tank tops. No thanks.
The move was decried as sexist as the men’s dress code was left unchanged. Men also must adhere to a dress code in the Chambers with male lawmakers required to wear “business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.” Fox News
So how is this sexist? Men have to adhere to a dress code too. Men need to wear coats – and coats cover shoulders. I should also note that I need to be happy they are only talking about two genders here. Men and women. Male and female.
The United States has lost its common sensibility, no? Can Missouri move on to more critical and pressing issues, please?
Welcome, Instapundit Readers!
Feature Image: Bess Georgette, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
John C. says: Does that mean men can’t wear kilts?
Carol Marks says: Okay. I’ll admit that is something I might like to see.
Lloyd says: Don’t all Americans have a right to Bare Arms ?
Carol Marks says: I see what you did there.
Milwaukee says: What about skirt length and amount of exposed cleavage? Unfortunately, there are always some pushing limits of rules, and others pushing enforcement. In England, a 6th student told me about lower grades…If the rule is 1 inch ear rings, someone will have an ear rings at 1 1/8 inch, and some teacher will be walking around with a ruler.
At one high school in my past, a rotund, busty female vice principal was cracking down on cleavage exposure by well endowed students. My headline suggestion to the advisor of the student newspaper was “Busting the busted.”. She informed me that if a even hinted that went to the editors, my car tires would be slashed.
John Murdoch says: I second the gentleman’s question, above, about the wearing of kilts. This is either an intentional example of ethnic hostility to a major ethnic group in the United States; or it is an unthinking expression of “everybody is just like me.”
Either position is unacceptable. The legislature must immediately–immediately–recognize formal dress of other cultures, and specifically the wearing of kilts.
(Remember: we’re the people who redress our grievances by getting naked, painting ourselves blue, and charging with wooden pikes. Be afraid.)
askeptik says: Burkhas!
.jpg){kind=link}
7 Comments