Missouri republicans legislators go all Islamic Republic &

[rickgthf]

 Insist that women "cover their arms".  

  Truly, there is precious little difference between Missouri Republicans and the Taliban, no matter what they say.

   It all springs from the same source, the idea that women can never be equal or truly free.

[Edmund55]

(Insist that women "cover their arms".)  

From ricki and the ftx-fettercrats that required "covering of faces" for 2 years.

Hopefully hillary or pelosi will wear a sleeveless for you every so often there ricki so you can ogle at their arms.

[bruce MN]

What a truly sick xxxx you are. 

[ACX66895171]

Just shows there is no limit to what some assume gives men a woodie

[BA Deere]

A point was being made that men were forced to wear a suit & tie or be gaveled out.  This illustrates the absurdity.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/13/politics/missouri-dress-code-lawmakers-house/index.html   

snip:

Kelley, speaking on the House floor, said she felt compelled to offer the change that “cleans up some of the language … by mirroring the language in the gentleman’s dress code.”

“Men are required to wear a jacket, a shirt and a tie, correct? And if they walked in here without a tie, they would get gaveled down in a heartbeat. If they walked in without a jacket, they would get gaveled down in a heartbeat. So, we are so interested in being equal,” Kelley said on Wednesday during the floor debate.

Women hold less than a third of the seats in the Missouri House, which is made up of 116 men and 43 women, according to the state House site.

The dress code amendment was passed in a voice vote and the rules package was later adopted by the GOP-controlled legislature in a 105-51 vote, but not without pushback and debate from House Democrats.

[WCMO]

Yes, BA.  Totally blown out of proportion.  Nobody was "doubling down on controlling women", as was stated by a female Democrat freshman representative (AOC wannabe maybe?).  The dress code has been in place for many years.  A female Republican representative asked for clarification and suggested that the dress code for men and women should be similarly stated, and wasn't actually much of a change.  Understandable and not a big deal, especially since the dress code is essentially just a requirement the House members place upon themselves, to project a more professional image and respect for the office which they hold.  

I'm not much of a fan of dress codes in general, but that has more to do with being "forced" to wear clothes that are not comfortable, more expensive, or that I normally would not purchase because of such limited "need" to wear it that it seems each time it's "needed" I would need to update.  Though my "funeral suit" does seem to be used a lot more as I get older.  Most of that does not apply to daily business wear, been there and done that, not a big deal.

The dress code now reads:

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 business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots. For the purposes of this rule, "jacket" shall include blazers, cardigans, and knit blazers. This rule shall apply to all members and staff on the floor of the House and lower gallery.

[rickgthf]

It was the republicans who first used the words "cover the arms" in the original version.  Their meaning  & intentions were crystal clear.  "You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig", to use your American Taliban vernacular.

   In the context of Iranian women being killed for not covering their hair, your "cover the arms" just sounds completely tone deaf.

[WCMO]

I wasn't there, so I don't really know (and don't care) who first used the phrase "cover your arms" -- yet the previous dress code also required women to wear "jackets or sweaters" (implying the arms should be covered) and the updated version previously posted was mostly intended simply to make the dress code worded more similarly between the men and the women.  It was a simple update, not much of a change from before, blown out of proportion by Democrats and the media.  Personally, I'm surprised the uni-dress code doesn't ban visible (or at least excessive) jewelry, tattoos, or piercings, along with pant-legs above the ankles, hair length below the shoulders, skirts/dresses above the knee, and hairpieces.  😃

[rsbs]

if you wish to be taken seriously, you need to work a little harder. You can look at this discussion and understand why you are a fruit loop, right?

if not, maybe sit a few plays out, and reflect on why your shallow observations fail.

Once the background is presented, it seems pretty clear and innocuous as to the why and where of the rule clarification, and how it was treating men and women equally. 

[BA Deere]

Barbra Eden in the Harper Valley PTA show had her arms covered, doubt anyone would notice until I brought it up  😀