skirtcafe.org

Senate leader Chuck Schumer had ditched the Senate dress code to accomodate Sen John Fetterman who likes to wear hoodies and shorts to sessions.

https://nypost.com/2023/09/18/fetterman ... stitution/

While I disagree with Fetterman's lack of decorum in the Senate chamber, I think the code should also apply to women who appear in the senate exposing bare legs sans hosiery. Again we have a double standard.

Good for him. Time to put the high brow over expensive suits to rest.

If I had to wear a coat and tie I would make it a skirt suit with heels, nylons, makeup, painted nails, and plenty of bling.
I don't mind wearing a man's.coat and.tie when I feel like it but I resent being told I have to.

I do think John Fetterman's attire is.totally inappropriate; he could at least wear business casual or a dress.

And when I wear a dress on Sunday mornings to.church I always wear hosiery along with heels. Otherwise I wear a man's coat and tie outfit. I'm sick.and tired of.seeing men and women wearing jeans and gym shoes to church.

John

If the "clothes make the man" then the Senate has convinced me I don't want to be the man. Sorry guys, "decorum" is another of those outdated rules of conformity that reduce our thinking and opinions to nothing but empty values. In fact, the notion of spending gargantuan sums on clothing to impress others of your worth, worthiness, genius, or power gives me all the wrong messages as to your inherent value as a human being. I doubt any of the Gods give a hoot about what you wear on the outside, but they might be concerned with the fabric of your being.

This isn't about dressing to impress others It is about respect for the situation and, in a democratically elected assembly, respect for the people who put you there. If you do not treat others with respect they will not respect you. There are exceptions. Because the young Richard Branson refused to wear a tie in business situations his competitors didn't take him seriously. The rest is history. But if you break the rules of the cub you better be SO much better at whatever it is than they are and the odds are you aren't. This guy is going to put the people who elected him at a disadvantage and that is unacceptable. Before he did the gender thing Eddie Izzard said that if he was elected t Parliament he would wear what women wear - a dress or a smart skirt suit. Crossing the gender divide with clothing isn't the same as dressing down. But there are still situations where you owe it to others to dress in a gender-conforming way to ensure the issue you represent is taken seriously - it isn't just about you and your clothing rights.

rivegauche wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 8:33 am Crossing the gender divide with clothing isn't the same as dressing down. But there are still situations where you owe it to others to dress in a gender-conforming way to ensure the issue you represent is taken seriously - it isn't just about you and your clothing rights.

Agreed Rivegauche!
Apart from the clothes aspect, life in it's widest meaning does not revolve around any one individual.
If I don't feel able to conform when expected to I will simply be absent from the situation in question.
As for shorts, it has already been shown in men and womenswear that they can look as "dressed" as a trouser or skirt/dress combo so why should there have been a problem?
The hoody part really does suggest that casual was going a tad too far and in certain areas, like politics, decorum still has a valid role.
Steve

For those who want to force men to wear coats and ties, maybe we ought to add powdered wigs as an additional requirement.
I think it would be sufficient to specify business attire for both genders.

Those scumbag senators chose to force male visitors to continue to wear coats and ties. There's a saying: "Rules for thee but not for me".

Brad wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 5:31 pmWhile I disagree with Fetterman's lack of decorum in the Senate chamber, I think the code should also apply to women who appear in the senate exposing bare legs sans hosiery. Again we have a double standard.

Personally, I find the scuttling of the US Senate dress code appropriate given the nature of the modern assembly and the quality of characters that make it up. Quite simply, if they want to dress like the thugs that they are, LET 'EM. It'll point up their quality-of-character to the electorate.

Wearing "sweats" is not what I call casual wear.
Even for Senator Fetterman - the Big & Tall shops can and do offer suitable casual wear.

crfriend wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 2:50 pm

Brad wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 5:31 pmWhile I disagree with Fetterman's lack of decorum in the Senate chamber, I think the code should also apply to women who appear in the senate exposing bare legs sans hosiery. Again we have a double standard.

Personally, I find the scuttling of the US Senate dress code appropriate given the nature of the modern assembly and the quality of characters that make it up. Quite simply, if they want to dress like the thugs that they are, LET 'EM. It'll point up their quality-of-character to the electorate.

I think members of Congress should be required to wear patches (decals) showing the lobbyists and sponsors that benefit them, just like race car drivers. Then the voters can see who are influencing their representatives and senators.

An option would be to put the patches on a sash or a vest.

John

I think members of Congress should be required to wear patches (decals) showing the lobbyists and sponsors that benefit them, just like race car drivers. Then the voters can see who are influencing their representatives and senators.

An option would be to put the patches on a sash or a vest.

John, I think you nailed it!

JohnH wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 3:43 pmAn option would be to put the patches on a sash or a vest.

Methinks that tattoos would be best, After all, in the modern world an "honest" politician is the one that stays bought. Tattoos would help to winnow out the worst of 'em (or at least the gross opportunists).

A great idea crfriend.
It's great to think out loud about these things, but in reality the people we need to pass these laws are the ones who would have to live by them, So just like reasinable term limits or ethics clauses these are all DOA. About the only thing we can expect to see any agreement on is another payraise for them selves.

rivegauche wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 8:33 am This isn't about dressing to impress others It is about respect for the situation and, in a democratically elected assembly, respect for the people who put you there. If you do not treat others with respect they will not respect you. There are exceptions. Because the young Richard Branson refused to wear a tie in business situations his competitors didn't take him seriously. The rest is history. But if you break the rules of the cub you better be SO much better at whatever it is than they are and the odds are you aren't. This guy is going to put the people who elected him at a disadvantage and that is unacceptable. Before he did the gender thing Eddie Izzard said that if he was elected t Parliament he would wear what women wear - a dress or a smart skirt suit. Crossing the gender divide with clothing isn't the same as dressing down. But there are still situations where you owe it to others to dress in a gender-conforming way to ensure the issue you represent is taken seriously - it isn't just about you and your clothing rights.

How is 'formal', 'business', 'casual' or come as you are any different than any other dictate -- be it gender normal, with or without tie, below your knees, or anything else? RESPECT should NOT evolve from what someone wears. It should not be based on total conformity -- that stifles growth, thought, and honors dictatorship.

I knew I'd step on more than a few 'taken for granted dictums' with my post, but apply a little logic, a touch of philosophical inquiry about regimentation and decisions based on surface presentations versus underlying merit -- the inevitable revelation reveals how shallow respect based on appearance, or conformity, truly is.

Sticking to clothing, it serves primarily two purposes: Protection from the elements, and decor. The former as has been discussed here may legitimately be dictated for safety from machinery, et al -- but decor is the freedom SC is essentially supporting. Agreed upon rules that relate to safely (Stop Signs) or impacts upon others (Theft) have intrinsic integrity. Dictating clown suits or Brooks Brothers, merely says -- "if you don't look like me" you don't count -- diversity be damned. I concur this "isn't just about you and your clothing rights" -- it is about putting people in boxes; it is about what meaningfully defines "respect". Changing these common limitations will not be so easy as a dress code change -- at school for kids, or in the Senate -- but let's not allow mere commonality to blind us to our debilitating misanthropic behaviors.

In an ideal world all these arguments about freedom and refusing to conform to other people's rules are true. Obviously none of us live there. If you go to the senate/boardroom/meeting with clients in clothing that breaks 'their' rules you are not just being a non-conformist. You are making the meeting about you and your freedom of choice instead of promoting the idea/cause you are being paid to promote. Accept that you may be dealing with people with fixed opinions on clothing you disagree with - but by wearing non-conforming clothing you are giving people an excuse to regard you - and more importantly (by association) your pitch - as too weird to be acceptable. An employer who was sympathetic to your clothing choice might very quickly reverse that opinion if it affected business. Being professional means acting in the interest of those you represent up to the level of being immoral or illegal. Wearing conformist clothing hardly comes into either category. Other people being wrong does not necessarily make you right.