good. dress codes are pointless and often discriminatory. we should judge the "dignity" of Congresspeople based on their actions, not based on what they're wearing. if they were serious about this...
Exemplary
good. dress codes are pointless and often discriminatory. we should judge the "dignity" of Congresspeople based on their actions, not based on what they're wearing.
Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who joked to reporters that she planned to “wear a bikini” on Tuesday.
...
Sen. Tommy Tuberville, who once coached football at Auburn University, joked that he would don a “coaching outfit” the next time he appears on the Senate floor.
if they were serious about this rather than bringing it up as bad-faith trolling, I would completely support them.
After Maryland’s Barbara Mikulski led the “Pantsuit Rebellion of 1993” by urging colleagues to wear trousers one day on the notoriously stuffy Senate floor, dresses and skirts were no longer required. Pants became acceptable in the House about five years later.
...
Until 2017, sleeveless dresses and open-toed shoes were strictly forbidden on the House floor. After a revolt that summer, then-speaker Paul Ryan finally gave women the right to bare arms (and toes).
We should also be putting Collins on blast for having more of an issue about a fucking dress code than she did about Trump at all. She was the one who voted against his impeachments.
We should also be putting Collins on blast for having more of an issue about a fucking dress code than she did about Trump at all. She was the one who voted against his impeachments.
yep, absolutely. for another example: Kyrsten Sinema wore a denim vest to preside over the Senate not just voting on the floor, but up on the dais presiding over it. and that was two years ago....
if you were a schoolchild learning about the US government, or a citizen of another country doing the same, which action would cause you to lose more respect for Congress?
I mean, congressional republicans are obviously not serious people, but I’m a little confused by your comment. You say at the top that dress codes are pointless but then say you’d support the...
I mean, congressional republicans are obviously not serious people, but I’m a little confused by your comment. You say at the top that dress codes are pointless but then say you’d support the republicans in opposing the dress code changes if they were more serious people. After reading your comment I went back to the article to double check, but if I am understanding it correctly the democrats are loosening the dress code and the republicans are planning to wear bikinis or whatever to protest the less-strict dress code. So wouldn’t that mean you’d oppose them regardless? They want the dress code to remain formal.
no, I'm saying I'd support the Republicans wearing "casual" or "informal" clothes, including a bikini or an Auburn University tracksuit, if they actually wanted to do so. but all they're doing is...
You say at the top that dress codes are pointless but then say you’d support the republicans in opposing the dress code changes if they were more serious people.
no, I'm saying I'd support the Republicans wearing "casual" or "informal" clothes, including a bikini or an Auburn University tracksuit, if they actually wanted to do so. but all they're doing is making jokes about it as an attempted reductio ad absurdum.
Relaxing a dress-code will not change the fundamental nature of politics, imho what will happen is that everyone will show up cosplaying as their perceived core demographic. Oh I got elected by...
Relaxing a dress-code will not change the fundamental nature of politics, imho what will happen is that everyone will show up cosplaying as their perceived core demographic.
Oh I got elected by rural Texans, ye-haw cowboy hat and boots.
Oh I got elected by blue-collar workers, check out my overalls.
This is off topic. I have noticed that you don't capitalize your sentences, but you do capitalize words within a sentence. There is an increasing number of contributions with idiosyncratic...
This is off topic.
I have noticed that you don't capitalize your sentences, but you do capitalize words within a sentence.
There is an increasing number of contributions with idiosyncratic capitalization on Tildes. Is there a reason for that?
I don't think there's one common reason for it. the reason I personally do it is I think it makes writing feel a bit less "formal". I also think it's fun to write with otherwise excellent grammar,...
I don't think there's one common reason for it. the reason I personally do it is I think it makes writing feel a bit less "formal".
I also think it's fun to write with otherwise excellent grammar, but with one "rule" intentionally broken. it's a subtle reminder that all these rules are just arbitrary.
That's fine. I understand. I wouldn't say capitalization is entirely arbitrary because it makes it easier for my eye to navigate sentences, especially given my ADHD. So your writing is slightly...
That's fine. I understand. I wouldn't say capitalization is entirely arbitrary because it makes it easier for my eye to navigate sentences, especially given my ADHD.
So your writing is slightly uncomfortable for me to read.
Putting this in a parent comment because I think it would be unfair to reply to anyone with this thought. The last time I saw people making this much noise about clothing, especially a hoodie, was...
Exemplary
Putting this in a parent comment because I think it would be unfair to reply to anyone with this thought.
The last time I saw people making this much noise about clothing, especially a hoodie, was when Trayvon Martin was murdered. That was their repeated defense of why his murderer was remotely justified. A black teen walking down the street in a hoodie which meant he was signalling trouble. The implication is if this 14 year old kid dressed "better" (i.e. more upscale), he would not be perceived as a threat and therefore would not be murdered in the street.
This whole snafu is not dissimilar enough. Again, this article has pictures of other Senators showing up in sweaty, gross gym clothes to the Senate. Nobody raised an eye. But now because the rule is getting changed and there's a Dem who prominently wears casual clothes, we're all of a sudden ruffling our feathers and shaking our jewelery about the idea of a Senator dressing like a poor.
Clothes don't make someone a good person. Clothes don't mean someone should be murdered. Clothes don't mean someone is good at their job. The people huffing and puffing about this dress code in this article have done horrendous things to Americans and yet they're getting a pass because they dress in cheap suits while doing it and everyone goes after Fetterman for dressing badly even though he hasn't done any horrendous things to Americans.
Never forget, Obama wore a tan suit. TAN!! He took so much flack for that mainly because he was black. They also trotted out the thinly veiled racism for that too.
Never forget, Obama wore a tan suit.
TAN!!
He took so much flack for that mainly because he was black. They also trotted out the thinly veiled racism for that too.
Here in Florida our school boards are being co-opted by moms for liberty aka right wing extremism that has no basis in education. They are using these same arguments (as the republicans in the...
Here in Florida our school boards are being co-opted by moms for liberty aka right wing extremism that has no basis in education. They are using these same arguments (as the republicans in the article) to make stricter dress codes to protect innocent boys from being distracted by bikini wearing harlots in the classroom. It really sounds like a “she deserved it because of the way she was dressed” argument flipped around and dressed up
My response is, perhaps a counter to all the, I'm sure, good faith responses of "but what about decorum"; this tracks with what the majority of people I know consider "work attire". No one wears...
My response is, perhaps a counter to all the, I'm sure, good faith responses of "but what about decorum"; this tracks with what the majority of people I know consider "work attire". No one wears suits any more to work (if at all possible) and for those of us in tech, most of us don't even wear slacks and a polo any more (if at all possible). None of us could give two shits if our representative or senator wore a suit if they actually represented us at the federal level.
Plus all the claims of decorum kind of went out the proverbial window years ago with the "You lie!" screaming at the State of the Union address. Who cares what you're wearing if you're going to be a boorish buffoon?
This is the most important part. I don't care what you wear as long as ***you do your damn job. *** Peope seem to forget that we have been in a "dressing down" in society, and this is just another...
This is the most important part. I don't care what you wear as long as ***you do your damn job. ***
Peope seem to forget that we have been in a "dressing down" in society, and this is just another shift.
Wearing the right clothes doesn't automatically mean you're giving respect to a proceeding. That's a shallow, outdated idea. There are plenty of US Senators who have shown far less respect for the...
Wearing the right clothes doesn't automatically mean you're giving respect to a proceeding. That's a shallow, outdated idea. There are plenty of US Senators who have shown far less respect for the institution while wearing suits than Fetterman has in his hoodie and shorts. He clearly is not choosing his outfit to mock the Senate. That is what should matter here as to whether his dress should be controlled by its rules, not what exactly he wears.
I guess not seeing beyond the surface-level appearance and the optics has always been a problem in politics, though...
I guess my first question is why does Fetterman get a pass, and why are the rules changing for him? I'm not sure clinical depression generally leads to dress code exceptions. This seems sort of...
I guess my first question is why does Fetterman get a pass, and why are the rules changing for him? I'm not sure clinical depression generally leads to dress code exceptions.
This seems sort of odd, and with strangely far-reaching implications for how seemingly mundane senatorial dress code is.
I generally think we overvalue formalwear and professional attire, but rules generally need a reason to change and I don't see it here.
he doesn't, and they're not. this article, linked from the one in this topic, goes into more detail: and further details from an Axios article that 2nd article linked to: all they're doing is...
why does Fetterman get a pass, and why are the rules changing for him?
he doesn't, and they're not.
this article, linked from the one in this topic, goes into more detail:
The Senate has operated with an informal dress code enforced by the sergeant-at-arms, which requires men and women to dress in business attire.
But because the standard is not a formal or written policy, senators at times have been seen on the Senate floor wearing gym clothes, golf attire, denim vests, shoes without socks and colorful wigs, among other unconventional attire.
and further details from an Axios article that 2nd article linked to:
But senators fresh off a plane or from the gym could circumvent the dress code by voting from the edge of the Senate floor, with one foot still in the cloakroom.
They could hold their thumb up or down to indicate their vote and then step back out of the chamber. Technically, they weren't considered to be in violation of the floor's dress code. Fetterman and other senators have voted this way.
all they're doing is taking an informal, unwritten rule that was never strictly or universally enforced, and removing it.
And our wonderful mass media is taking this non-story and using it as another means to give the GOP a mouthpiece to say their typical stupid shit, and people are likewise parroting it. How...
all they're doing is taking an informal, unwritten rule that was never strictly or universally enforced, and removing it.
And our wonderful mass media is taking this non-story and using it as another means to give the GOP a mouthpiece to say their typical stupid shit, and people are likewise parroting it. How frustrating.
"Democrats want to wear hoodies, Republicans wear suits," while our oceans boil.
The informal rule change reflects the trend in the broader economy, particularly in the tech sector, toward more casual attire in the workplace.
The most obvious beneficiary would be first-term Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), who often sports his trademark hoodie in the Capitol but until now hasn’t been allowed under the informal dress code to walk onto the Senate floor without a coat and tie.
“Senators are able to choose what they wear on the Senate floor. I will continue to wear a suit,” Schumer said in a statement shared with The Hill.
The way this one is written, it doesn't leave you with the impression that it was done specifically for Fetterman, but rather it is noteworthy to mention him because for whatever reason he seemed to not wear the attire in situations others did, in situations where it wasn't required. Now it's not required on the Senate floor, so these articles seem to be highlighting his name for the same reason. If he's one of the only ones walking around in informal clothing, then presumably he's having to change into a suit and tie just to join everyone on the Senate floor, so the news outlets seem to think its newsworthy to mention him as someone who benefits from it in a unique way.
Basically it doesn't seem like it was done specifically for Fetterman. As for the importance of it and decorum, of course Republicans are turning it into some kind of spectacle. Also from the Hill article
Other senators also enjoy coming to work in more casual attire.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) was spotted last week walking into Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) office wearing a burnt orange collared short-sleeved shirt with the Texas Longhorns logo.
I'm not sure how one should feel about it, I do believe there's evidence that shows dressing a certain way, having certain routines etc. can help people maintain a certain mindset, so it might help some people to get up and shower and get dressed for work even if they're working from home rather than sitting in their pajamas laying in bed with a laptop or such. To what extent that translates to the Senate, who knows.
The clothes make the man to a point, but it's more about how you feel, I think. Thanks for the context, there seemed to be a missing piece, but The Hill is implying there isn't even a puzzle, at...
The clothes make the man to a point, but it's more about how you feel, I think.
Thanks for the context, there seemed to be a missing piece, but The Hill is implying there isn't even a puzzle, at least beyond the general dissolution of formal dress codes in various contexts.
The only reason I would "dress up" in any of those situations (funeral, date, wedding, etc) are because of having to "respect" the unrealistic expectations we've set as a society in the first...
The only reason I would "dress up" in any of those situations (funeral, date, wedding, etc) are because of having to "respect" the unrealistic expectations we've set as a society in the first place. Thankfully funerals and weddings in my family haven't had incredibly strange and specific expectations and we don't measure respect in clothing. Pair of jeans and a button down shirt (even a t-shirt sometimes) is plenty for all of them and if it's cold outside and I cover that in a hoodie and wear it TO the event- that's been fine too. Some of it is personal preference and I get not everyone feels that way- these days I'd only marry someone that would be okay with an absolutely non-formal wedding (even for the wedding party) - maybe even to the level of Slayer shirts.
I don't wear suits or ties to job interviews and will not work anywhere that requires them or has those expectations from interviewees. Heck even the current place I work at essentially made a note of it in the interview: "oh don't worry, we're reasonable here".
I think it's all BS honestly. It only projects "elegance" and "self respect" because we've been inundated with and taught that's what those things visually mean, IMHO. To me it's all BS. It's like our vapid "beauty standards" for human beings, but applied to clothing. I get that the idea is still quite prevalent, so I have to abide by those expectations at the minimum acceptable level I can.
That said I do not own a suit and will gladly not attend any occasion or situation that would require one. And for a date in particular? I just want to be me, not project some BS "ideal"- if you cant take me for what I actually am, the date shouldn't be happening in the first place.
If others want to dress up big time for these life events, that's fine- I'm not saying the option shouldn't be there- I'm just saying that I vehemently loathe the social expectations and will only comply with them at a bare minimum, and the more that we tear down those expectations permanently in society, including (and maybe especially) in places of power and control, the better.
Like sure- do I think an expectation that people wear SOME form of clothing is fine? It's okay IMO to draw a line, but only at a very reasonable minimum expectation (like "wearing clothes")
I disagree that the point of dressing up for important events is arbitrary. It reflects effort. It says "this is important to me, so I put effort into it". Maybe there are other ways you've shown...
I disagree that the point of dressing up for important events is arbitrary. It reflects effort. It says "this is important to me, so I put effort into it". Maybe there are other ways you've shown effort for that event, or for that person, that make this particular expression unnecessary, but for most people, getting dressed will be about half the effort they put in.
For congress, I support removing the dress code for a corollary reason. The effort isn't real. They don't actually care or take it seriously, they aren't putting their full effort in. I don't care if they look like they do or not.
That is fine, we can continue to disagree on that point. It would not affect my perception of someone attending any big life events of mine and I know at least for some events I've gone to, it has...
That is fine, we can continue to disagree on that point.
It would not affect my perception of someone attending any big life events of mine and I know at least for some events I've gone to, it has not seemed to affect others' perception of me (especially given the fact that they often themselves weren't dressed up either or had other attendees that were even less dressed "up" than myself). That said, these days, even knowing this, I would not change my behavior based on their expectation aside from bare minimums that avoid causing a scene or whatever.
I will do the minimum necessary to fulfill this social requirement (especially in cases where it has a significant effect, like a job interview)- enough that their attention is not on such a pointless thing.
There's just so many other things that are far more important that it seems for the events I've attended, no brain power was spent on worrying about what people wore and any job interviews where they seemed stuffy and uptight about dress code and looks- turned out to be places where I'm glad I didn't choose to work.
I can agree that some people perceive it as a reflection of effort- and I don't think they should, and I am okay with anyone with that view seeing me as not putting in the effort.
How can you argue that it's only a perception of a reflection of effort? How could anyone not perceive it that way? It literally takes more effort to put on nice clothes than casual clothes....
How can you argue that it's only a perception of a reflection of effort? How could anyone not perceive it that way? It literally takes more effort to put on nice clothes than casual clothes. That's the primary difference between them. If you're wearing a t-shirt and cargo shorts rather than a button down shirt and slacks to an event, it's not erroneous for someone to believe that you put less effort into getting ready for the event. You did put in less effort.
Putting on full cosplay, or full body makeup art would be even more effort. So that has more value? Men aren't dressing like The Sun King and women arent wearing sixteen layers of petticoats. I...
Putting on full cosplay, or full body makeup art would be even more effort. So that has more value?
Men aren't dressing like The Sun King and women arent wearing sixteen layers of petticoats. I don't see anyone putting hours of mendhi on for the office. Or being sewn into their clothes.
This is a weird hill to die on. It's all culturally driven and it's only because some guy thought (European) men's clothing needed to be boring that we even think of the modern suit as fashionable. @0x29a seems doing fine socially, at work and with their family. Why are you insisting on telling them that this isn't ok?
Sometimes! But usually, no. That doesn't negate my point. In most social situations there's a certain amount of effort that is considered acceptable, and while less is disappointing, too much can...
Sometimes! But usually, no. That doesn't negate my point. In most social situations there's a certain amount of effort that is considered acceptable, and while less is disappointing, too much can also be a problem. You don't want your date to talk over you, but you also don't want them making spreadsheets about you and taking your measurements. You want your friend to give you a nice birthday gift, you don't want them to go into debt to do it. There's an acceptable amount of effort, and too much can be worse than not enough.
I'm not telling @0x29a that their behavior isn't okay. It's absolutely fine. I'm telling them that objectively, what they're doing is less effort, and it's okay for people to value that effort, even if they and the people they surround themselves with don't.
I agree that it's ok to value the effort. But I also think that it's entirely arbitrary how much effort someone considers acceptable or not. The value is entirely up to the people involved. And...
I agree that it's ok to value the effort. But I also think that it's entirely arbitrary how much effort someone considers acceptable or not. The value is entirely up to the people involved.
And we're making a lot of assumptions in general about how much effort it takes someone to get dressed in the morning. For a wide variety of reasons that isn't a static amount based on clothing item. (And same for, say, social interactions and such). Dressing stylishly may be easy for someone with societally preferred body type, sufficient cash, education, class, cultural background, and ability. Even disregarding those factors, there's always a mix of things going on in an encounter so a perceived lack of effort in one could be balanced by increased effort in other.
And for all that I think it isn't about effort, but about societal conformity. Because the same amount of effort with something that wasn't Western business formal attire wouldn't be appreciated the same. And someone who wears a suit with ease and comfort is appreciated as much as others.
It's as reasonable to think the whole thing is a pointless charade as it is to think the whole thing is entirely crucial but I think it matters to get that it's arbitrary. And in that arbitrariness I think it's always worth challenging why we think there's value in what we're used to. It works for 0x29a and I don't fault them for wanting to be judged on the things they consider important and not on the things they don't. I think we all do.
Yeah I think this is definitely a big part of it. As with many things in life, there's likely not one particular factor but many, but even when there's many sometimes one of them does loom larger...
And for all that I think it isn't about effort, but about societal conformity. Because the same amount of effort with something that wasn't Western business formal attire wouldn't be appreciated the same. And someone who wears a suit with ease and comfort is appreciated as much as others.
Yeah I think this is definitely a big part of it. As with many things in life, there's likely not one particular factor but many, but even when there's many sometimes one of them does loom larger than the others.
As I was reading what you had written, it had me reflecting on my own experience with clothing, and the effort of putting on the clothes perhaps isn't always that effortsome, but the effort of understanding the circumstances and the people you'll be around seem to be the real effort, as I notice that is often where I struggle when it comes with understanding style. Even more so for situations I've been unfamiliar with.
You mentioned a lot of criteria that help enable someone to dress stylishly, and another comment in this thread used the word "signaling" and it's starting to paint a clearer picture to me. Even if I have the money to buy the expensive clothing, it can go beyond that to understanding what to buy and when to wear it. Of course it's arbitrary in some sense, like when to wear a tan suit, the effort comes in by having to maintain connections to specific people in certain groups or paying for subscriptions to magazines (more back in the day type thing than it is relative modern day), otherwise having a suit isn't good enough because you might get called out for wearing a tan suit when it was not considered appropriate.
So in many way, yes it's arbitrary, but it also seems to be a way social groups use to signal their status, whether they're one of the group or not, whether they maintain the effort of following the same news or talking to similar types of people or going to similar types of stores. In a way, in various circumstances it could be classist or racist or any other element of discriminating, which you and many other people in here have already stated in some way or another.
What I find interesting though is that it keeps being simplified to it being "arbitrary" or focusing on the more illegal or obviously harmful discrimination but discrimination between humans isn't necessarily arbitrary and not always obviously harmful. Not that there's necessarily some scientifically supported rationale behind some discrimination, but there's reasons. Not just illegal discrimination, but legal and sometimes socially approved discrimination. The idea of "red flags" is discrimination, but it's rational discrimination for reasons, generally not based on any kind of illegal discrimination, and in this way I find that it's not really that arbitrary. I think that's why clothing is so ingrained in culture, because people want ways to be able to size you up at a glance. It's not significantly different than having to identify as a liberal or conservative or left/right etc. in politics because people just want to be able to neatly place you in a box within their mind and move on.
If you imagine everyone starts out with no clothing at all and some crafty individuals manage to come up with something, you might get a certain perception of people who wear a leaf with some string over people who aren't wearing anything at all, and it evolves from there.
I think you said a lot of good things here and I don't disagree with you broadly. I think it is a human cultural thing to decorate our bodies in a variety of ways - hair color, makeup, tattoos,...
I think you said a lot of good things here and I don't disagree with you broadly. I think it is a human cultural thing to decorate our bodies in a variety of ways - hair color, makeup, tattoos, piercings, clothes, scents, etc.
But I think this very human trait has been shoved into an arbitrarily small number of boxes. And perhaps it's the queerness in me but I rather object to limiting boxes and then judging people by where they fall into the arbitrary number of boxes.
I'm neurodivergent, bi/pan and non-binary which absolutely influences my opinion on this. I find my clothing options constraining - a mix of all those factors mean the clothing I'm supposed to wear to work isn't comfortable or interesting to me. I don't even get decent sized pockets. And so I end up putting the minimal amount of effort into my work clothing - it's perfectly appropriate, but I don't care about it at all. Give me the task of dressing up for a Renaissance Faire and I'll hyper-fixated on the right layers and color combos. But that isn't acceptable work attire. And I don't have the money for bespoke clothes that would make me feel "good" when I'm not even 100% sure what that would be.
People who are passionate about clothing should absolutely go for it. But I think it's worth challenging whether this category of discrimination is actually saying anything meaningful. If it could be effort or money or class or education or gender or body type or ability or any combination of those things or our own implicit or explicit bias... are we doing anything useful?
I rambled so sorry if that comes out incoherent, but I prefer to humanize over generalize and while humans are going to categorize, I think we're better when we are critical about societal behavior.
I agree that's one of the key questions to ask about it. I don't know if anyone could really know the answer to that, and likely there's some small situations where someone does get something...
People who are passionate about clothing should absolutely go for it. But I think it's worth challenging whether this category of discrimination is actually saying anything meaningful. If it could be effort or money or class or education or gender or body type or ability or any combination of those things or our own implicit or explicit bias... are we doing anything useful?
I agree that's one of the key questions to ask about it. I don't know if anyone could really know the answer to that, and likely there's some small situations where someone does get something useful out of it and many others where it does nothing at all but people think it tells them something and then many more situations where it's just outright harmful and wrong. For example, while it's not clothing but it is appearance, the box someone might have in their mind for a person who has a patchy beard that's not trimmed and also has hair growing on what's perceived as their neck, more commonly stated as a neckbeard, that box conjures up a lot of images and perceptions about what such a person might be like. Is it useful for people to discriminate on that basis? I don't know, I wouldn't know how to even determine that. Maybe it's not specific enough, but if they're wearing a stained and faded Metallica shirt or something, maybe then it's more specific and more useful to someone. Or maybe it's harmful that people think that way.
But I think this very human trait has been shoved into an arbitrarily small number of boxes. And perhaps it's the queerness in me but I rather object to limiting boxes and then judging people by where they fall into the arbitrary number of boxes.
I don't know that the number of boxes is that arbitrary, people can only hold so much information. I'd say it's arbitrary, but in the same way that 18 years old being the age of majority is arbitrary. Unless having any preconceived notions about anyone or anything at all based on some amount of criteria overall is worthless, then presumably at some point it's worthwhile to have boxes, and to have boxes means there will be a limit of boxes people are capable of mentally sorting through in their mind. But again, as you questioned before, boxes for clothing or general appearance things may not be the boxes worth keeping.
A button-down shirt and slacks takes zero extra time for me to put on than a t-shirt and cargo shorts, so I'm not sure I follow. Sorry. In all cases I just wear what's most comfortable and what...
A button-down shirt and slacks takes zero extra time for me to put on than a t-shirt and cargo shorts, so I'm not sure I follow. Sorry. In all cases I just wear what's most comfortable and what meets minimum expectations and generally all the ways I dress, whether up or down, are approximately equal in effort. Clearly any increase in effort there is perceived not actual. The amount of actual difference in effort is so negligibly minimal that I can't see how it's anything other than a perception.
Very formal wear, maybe, because of having to straighten up ties and get details right and all that? But even then it's minimal in actual effort, regardless of if it's perceived as a massive extra effort.
But even then, okay, let's say it DOES reflect effort in some way- I do not care, it's sort of beside the entire point, even granting that? It reflects... effort regarding clothing? It's not an actual display of anything worthwhile and doesn't reflect at all how much effort I'll exert except when I'm... putting clothes on? The perception (whether innate or not) that it means more is the problem.
My whole point is- what is considered a "socially acceptable amount of effort" (particularly in regards to clothing, if we change to another topic, this can vary) is very often bullshit. A social expectation DOES exist, I do not deny that, it's just that the expectation exists at all and the method by which that expectation is measured as being "complied with" is THE problem
This is true but I think it's disingenuous to pretend that this directly applies to the actual issue at hand: wearing a traditional Western suit. Babies being responsive to the attractiveness of...
Significant research suggest human beings are hard-wired to respond to how people and objects look.
This is true but I think it's disingenuous to pretend that this directly applies to the actual issue at hand: wearing a traditional Western suit. Babies being responsive to the attractiveness of faces is very different to assuming that a traditional Western suit and tie is inherently better than wearing a hoodie. What clothing is considered appropriate in which situations is not remotely innate and is highly cultural. Whether a hoodie or a suit is more appropriate attire is already highly context-dependent even if you limit it to modern US culture, much less if you look at other human cultures now and throughout history.
As a heterosexual woman, I just really cannot agree with this. Maybe some suits accentuate the male form, but the suits that Senators commonly wear today are pretty loose and shapeless. They don't...
I think most people who are attracted to men would tell you that, for example, a shirt with rolled-up sleeves is substantially more attractive than a suit jacket. Yet this is considered a more casual and less respectful mode of dress.
Suits are one of many types of clothing that do this though, unless you think the modern western European suit is the epitome of centuries of fashion evolution. People can look very attractive in...
Suits are one of many types of clothing that do this though, unless you think the modern western European suit is the epitome of centuries of fashion evolution.
People can look very attractive in suits. People can also look very attractive in a salwar kameez which also centuries of cultural evolution. Personally pajama pants can be pretty attractive.
Concepts of "beauty" change so much over the centuries, and millennia, pretending we as humans are fully "hardwired" to do anything feels like we ignore the fact that we're not operating on instinct and we're deeply culturally influenced. One time period's unhealthy trait is another's sign of prosperity. One time period's height of fashion looks utterly foreign and even silly to us. But those heels made the king's calves look fine AF.
You're absolutely extrapolating the data far beyond what it calls for. Even if it can be extrapolated out to general physical attractiveness -- something that most scientists would only...
While I understand your point the concerning the research on facial beauty you are being much to restrictive in your thinking. The data can, theoretically, be extrapolated out to general attractiveness.
You're absolutely extrapolating the data far beyond what it calls for. Even if it can be extrapolated out to general physical attractiveness -- something that most scientists would only hypothesize about without further research based on this result -- there is an absolute chasm between any innate response to another human's general physical attractiveness and any response to specific culturally-relevant items of clothing.
A well-fitting suit can definitely accentuate a man's attractiveness, but it's absolutely untethered from reality to claim this is why suits are mandated in certain formal contexts in our culture. This influences how suits are designed for sure, but it's not the reason they hold their current position in our culture -- and plenty of clothing styles extremely dissimilar from modern Western suits have held the same cultural position in other cultures. I acknowledge that the innate reactions you mention do exist, but you need to acknowledge that the entire field of sociology exists. Culture is playing a much larger role here than any innate response to attractive people.
And if you think this is somehow unique to suits over casual clothing, you're definitely not hanging out with many people who are attracted to men. A well-fitting suit can definitely accentuate a guy's attractiveness, but so can a wife-beater and grey sweatpants. I honestly hear more from straight women about grey sweatpants than I do about suits lol.
Also, because the appropriateness of a given item of clothing is culturally conditioned and context dependent, there are absolutely situations where a suit will not only be inappropriate for the situation but absolutely turn people off around you. I can think of plenty of clubs (gay and otherwise) where this would be the case.
I get what you're saying I just think we should fight it anyway, whether or not it is innate. I think the power of humans is that we've evolved far enough that we can, to some extent, curb innate...
I get what you're saying I just think we should fight it anyway, whether or not it is innate. I think the power of humans is that we've evolved far enough that we can, to some extent, curb innate things that are negative, or at least, build social and other forms of structures around protecting ourselves and others against those innate problems. Or even, at least to some extent, moderate/alter in some ways what is a "good" appearance, and maybe over time that can have lasting effects on an innate perception. I will not consign myself to a fatalist idea that it's completely unchangeable.
I'm not going to throw up my hands in resignation and say "well if you never match society's expectations for beauty or dress code, you're screwed!" - even if that is seemingly/currently true, it very quickly can become ableist/etc. and we should do our best to overcome it. Especially in the perception of "beauty" as that deals with more (physical body, hair, appearance, etc) than our original topic- clothing, which can be altered much more easily (to an extent)
I'd like to see this "significant research", particularly how the researchers relate it to day to day life. Beauty is not a universal thing - it doesn't take much to see that different people are...
I'd like to see this "significant research", particularly how the researchers relate it to day to day life. Beauty is not a universal thing - it doesn't take much to see that different people are attracted to different things based on where they live and what they're taught.
In that sense, I find it disingenuous to claim that we are somehow biologically inclined to think that these specific values are beautiful.
These are a set of very strange and frankly a little concerning points. We evolved an enjoyment of beauty but there's nothing in our genes telling us what is beautiful. I saw in another comment you mentioned how suits accentuate the male form, and it made me wonder what makes you think that everyone necessarily cares for the male form?
You say others are restrictive in their thinking but then try to claim our biology compels us to act a certain way, so we're better off not fighting the "human algorithm".
Yeah and I'm not claiming that The Hill is some naturally superior source or anything, I simply searched and picked one article out of a bunch of them and read it to see if it had the same...
Yeah and I'm not claiming that The Hill is some naturally superior source or anything, I simply searched and picked one article out of a bunch of them and read it to see if it had the same implications this NBC one did.
What sparked that for me in the NBC article was this
The rule change will allow Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., to wear his trademark hoodie and shorts on the Senate floor. Fetterman, a first-term senator who has often been seen wearing casual clothes around Capitol Hill following treatment for clinical depression this year, wore a suit to his swearing-in ceremony in January.
There's no attribution made to this, not referring to any comments specifically that said it was about Fetterman etc., but it is key in how they form context in the readers mind. So when I saw this, I suspected that they wrote it poorly, whether it was intentional or not who knows, but it clearly misleads the readers.
I agree completely. I think looking 'good' is overvalued and completely pointless - but I'd also say that I think shorts and hoodies aren't really capitol hill attire... maybe for a tour. But, at...
I agree completely. I think looking 'good' is overvalued and completely pointless - but I'd also say that I think shorts and hoodies aren't really capitol hill attire... maybe for a tour.
But, at the same time, I also really don't care. I think maybe it opens the door for people to abuse it, I know Senator Collins in a bikini won't up CSPANs numbers any, but as long as the code opposes graphic tees with profanity she such, who really cares? The US does have bigger issues than what brand of suit they're wearing. I've already seen reports of people mixing more casual sneakers into their suits so, at that point, forget the suits altogether!
Who really cares if I think that Fetterman dresses in a way that makes him look like my stereotypes say a certain person dresses? He's a senator! That's more accomplished in the political sphere than anything I've done!
Tbh I felt silly writing that comment, but if the party I generally back is getting up to what appears to be some sort of foolishness I'd like to understand why. @Grumble4681 found another source...
Tbh I felt silly writing that comment, but if the party I generally back is getting up to what appears to be some sort of foolishness I'd like to understand why. @Grumble4681 found another source that seemed more detailed and showed there doesn't seem to be much to it, it's just a step following a broader trend that Fetterman happens to benefit from with his shorts and sweater.
According to this article, he's far from the first to get a "pass": (The article has links to these examples) If anything, this is just a formalization of something that has already been...
According to this article, he's far from the first to get a "pass":
But because the standard is not a formal or written policy, senators at times have been seen on the Senate floor wearing gym clothes, golf attire, denim vests, shoes without socks and colorful wigs, among other unconventional attire.
(The article has links to these examples)
If anything, this is just a formalization of something that has already been happening. This was an unofficial, unwritten rule after all. It's the most casual kind of rule. Rules don't need a reason for change in every single case, especially when it comes to such subjective things like fashion. We didn't all stop wearing hats and suits every time we leave the house just because there was some reason. People wear white after Labor Day now. Heels used to be for men, then not for men at all, and now for everyone. Tastes change, styles change, formalities change. And when there are reasons, they're not always good. We don't do the second button on our jackets because Henry VIII didn't do it after he gained weight.
Further, the history of dress codes is classist. Undoing it is more "for the people" than maintaining them, and as long as there is decorum what does it even matter? And considering the behaviour of some other Senators and Congress people, how one dresses is far from the worst offenses of decorum in the last decade.
The furor and handwringing over this change is the most overvaluation given to business attire in a long time.
That could be reason enough, but it seemed there was a missing incident that caused the re-evaluation, and the posted article seemed to be framing it as if it were Fetterman. Rules seldom just...
That could be reason enough, but it seemed there was a missing incident that caused the re-evaluation, and the posted article seemed to be framing it as if it were Fetterman. Rules seldom just change because we feel like changing them, something sparks the need for a change, however small the spark may be.
It could be that Fetterman's style led the Democrats to want to change it, but considering the bigger picture across articles that have been shared here it seems he is not the sole reason.
Some Republicans took advantage of the rule change with different wardrobes on the Senate floor.
Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri walked onto the floor in jeans and cowboy boots to vote. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski lingered for a bit longer on the floor in her “travel clothes,” which included black pants, a quarter zip and sneakers.
Media distraction at it's best. The country is facing so many issues yet the news cycle will be dominated by people making bad faith arguments over a non-official policy being changed. "Ignore the...
Media distraction at it's best. The country is facing so many issues yet the news cycle will be dominated by people making bad faith arguments over a non-official policy being changed. "Ignore the fact that we've been obstructing everything from military promotions and basic government! The real reason nothing is getting done is because THAT guy is wearing a t-shirt!!~~!!oneone!~!elventy!" they'll all screech. The best part is that no one is saying that people can't still dress up if they choose. Is Mitch going to stop wearing his suits because Fetterman can "officially" wear a hoodie?
As usual, the Democrats will take the "high road" and ignore the screeching instead of pointing out the hypocrisy/stupidity of it all. Advertise things like "The other side cares more about dress codes than the military!" and point to things like Tuberville and specific (unanimous or near unanimous) votes on the matter. "Now they care about decorum" and show clips of MTG acting trashy (jeering in session, confronting the Parkland survivor, when she tried to trip that activist kid, etc), Boebert's public gropes, 'We're all domestic terrorists', etc.
I have never and will never vote republican in my entire life. I like Fetterman. I think the dress codes for Congress should be upheld. People like Boebert, MTG, Trump, etc have already done...
I have never and will never vote republican in my entire life. I like Fetterman.
I think the dress codes for Congress should be upheld.
People like Boebert, MTG, Trump, etc have already done enough to lower the dignity and standards of the U.S. government.
I wonder if this is some residual fallout from Fetterman's mental health issues and Schumer is trying to cover for him by changing the rules.
Is it more dignified to be forced to wear the clothing that somebody else thinks is appropriate, or to be yourself given the freedom and responsibility to decide what is most suitable?
Is it more dignified to be forced to wear the clothing that somebody else thinks is appropriate, or to be yourself given the freedom and responsibility to decide what is most suitable?
To devils advocate a little bit, should that mean we're all free to walk around with no clothes on wherever we choose? We are just animals after all, and all other animals on this planet are free...
To devils advocate a little bit, should that mean we're all free to walk around with no clothes on wherever we choose? We are just animals after all, and all other animals on this planet are free to do so. To drop the devils advocate a bit, I understand that there's some valid arguments for the idea that people shouldn't have to wear clothes, and there's also valid arguments that people should.
I think asking the question I did as a devils advocate generally might net a response from someone that would lead to the conclusion that there is some standard that you could likely defend to impose on others, but it doesn't tell you where that line is. But it does negate your question if it's not dignified to have some kind of clothing standard imposed on people.
Yes. Yes we should let people wear whatever they want (including nothing) whenever they want. I can understand a dress code that helps with health and safety. I can see a reasonable arguement for...
Yes. Yes we should let people wear whatever they want (including nothing) whenever they want.
I can understand a dress code that helps with health and safety. I can see a reasonable arguement for wearing underpants in public in order to avoid poop particles getting on everything. Wearing hard hats and boots in construction sites makes sense.
But a hoodie vs a suitjacket? Banning being topless in summer outdoors? Thats just stupid arbitrary bullshit rules that lets one group of people feel stupidly superior than other people just because their clothes and boobs have different shapes.
I am imagining construction sites with just hard hats and boots and I suspect there's an unsurprising amount of material out there exploring that option. But clothes are just so generally needed...
I am imagining construction sites with just hard hats and boots and I suspect there's an unsurprising amount of material out there exploring that option.
But clothes are just so generally needed to keep our various parts from getting injured and uncomfortable. Most people don't walk around nude all the time even when they could because it's uncomfortable
This is a terrible idea. What are the dems thinking? It will turn off the moderates, and it will further erode decorum which is hanging by a thread. We may as well make a horse proconsul at this...
This is a terrible idea. What are the dems thinking? It will turn off the moderates, and it will further erode decorum which is hanging by a thread. We may as well make a horse proconsul at this point.
Why and how is business attire so important to the fabric of democracy? How is decorum already not out the window with the behaviour of people like Greene and Boebert and their actions in recent...
Why and how is business attire so important to the fabric of democracy? How is decorum already not out the window with the behaviour of people like Greene and Boebert and their actions in recent years? What is it that hoodies that damages decorum so much more than heckling the President during the State of the Union?
I don't understand how a "moderate" would see casual attire and immediately adopt partisanry.
It's the year 2023, the majority of people have been living in their pajamas for the last 3 years. There is no reason someone can't be seen a professional based on what they wear. It's also...
It's the year 2023, the majority of people have been living in their pajamas for the last 3 years. There is no reason someone can't be seen a professional based on what they wear. It's also historically discriminatory. Dress codes are often enforced more strictly against women and people of color. loosening of dress codes only serves to make the political scene seem more accessible and understanding without discrimination.
I think that people are too quick to dismiss fashion and clothing as shallow and pointless. Fashion is all about signaling, and signaling is everything. I wrote a past comment where Judith Donath,...
I think that people are too quick to dismiss fashion and clothing as shallow and pointless. Fashion is all about signaling, and signaling is everything.
I wrote a past comment where Judith Donath, HCI scholar, discusses fashion and signaling.
The Democrats who support this are out of touch. It stands to gain little and lose much.
This is a faulty idea that suggests that the only signals to be sent is by dressing in a certain way. It's the classist argument that started dress codes in the first place, as if doing something...
This is a faulty idea that suggests that the only signals to be sent is by dressing in a certain way. It's the classist argument that started dress codes in the first place, as if doing something bad in a suit is inherently better than doing that same thing in a bowling shirt. I once again ask: what does a hoodie do that's so much worse than heckling the President during the State of the Union?
Yes, fashion and clothes are very important about sending subconscious visual cues and signals out. I'm not one to discount it, I'm considered to be highly fashionable in real life, for outfits ranging from streetwear to black tie formal. I regularly have to think about my outfits so I do not send the wrong impressions in real life. I hate it when I see people walking around with sweatpants as everyday clothing wear. I'm one of the last people who would be suggesting that clothes don't matter and never should.
However, the notion that clothes are more important than anything else, especially behaviour and attitude? That a hoodie and shorts means our civilization is collapsing? That's nonsense. It's also pointless to turn this into a Democrat vs. Republican issue when it's just more of the inane contrarianism we've seen the Republicans engaging in repeatedly since Obama took office, especially when this article has pictures of prominent Republicans who have shown up in actual sweaty gym gear for much less than a medically diagnosed condition. I'm pretty sure Fetterman washes his hoodie and shorts before he'll show up in the Senate wearing them.
I'm not even a fan of long sleeves and shorts, and I think it is odd to willingly show up to the Senate floor in anything less than business attire, but the arguments against this rule change are ridiculous and reaching some kind of nebulous conditional consequences. Like, who are they supposedly out of touch with here? Republicans? That's by the GOP's own design. The average voter? They don't care. Moderates who will now support the GOP? They definitely weren't very moderate to begin with if this is their make or break issue.
In terms of political plays, consider that in this day and age, a place that has a strict upscale dress code is the one that's seen to be out of touch. Let the Republicans dress up in their best conservative power suits while the Dems dress more and more like the average voter. Optics are more important than ever in this post-truth US society. If one group decides to dress like a Jack Donaghy cosplay convention and the other dresses in actually fashionable ways, then this will play out in a whole other way. It's only willful jerks who think the loosening of the dress code means it's time to show up in bikinis and swim shorts and ripped up jeans. Most people, who do not have such strict dress codes in their work places, knows it means they can dress more like how they please than before, and opens up the options to dress more fashionably. Let the minorities in the Senate come dress in clothes that are of their culture, yet don't meet western business standards, and watch the racist mudslinging from FOX News and the right wing social media networks start flying.
I'm far more inclined to believe the average person will do the same thing I do when I see people with sweatpants in my own professional, business casual baseline workplace: let them be, and dress the way I prefer to.
So, I'm from NC, which gives me a particular perspective. There are a lot of people here who are generally supportive of core Democratic party tenets, but who get turned off by antics. They are...
So, I'm from NC, which gives me a particular perspective. There are a lot of people here who are generally supportive of core Democratic party tenets, but who get turned off by antics. They are unlikely to vote for the Greene's and the Boeberts, but will vote for the Budd's and the Tillis's. And between a Budd, and a candidate who has more or less the right values but appears to focus on sowing discord, which is how this move will be interpreted, they will vote Budd.
Some people like this attend my very progressive church. I show up in shorts and t-shirt, and they give me side-eyes. I don't care, because they do need to get over it. But this is just some dude in church. Also, those church members will vote dem even if the candidate is Divine, dressing like she did in her prime. But there are others, at the less progressive church down the street, who might choose to stay home for a candidate who is making this kind of change.
Now that I'm thinking about it, it will also turn off black voters, probably a lot. Black voters work very hard to appear "respectable" in a white dominated society. Sure, there's some black celebrities who talk hard about getting black culture to be more accepted, and it certainly should be. But it's still not. And I'm talking about the older folks who worked on the poor people's campaign, and their kids, and people who work at the Toyota factory. These folks believe it matters to dress up for church, and for going to court, and expect their representive to show that it matters to them, and that they value all the effort these folks have made to be accepted in white-dominated culture. These kind of moves piss them off a lot, and they will be likely to stay home.
I suspect Black voters already have a keen understanding of respectability politics, long before Fetterman donned his first hoodie. do you have any evidence for this?
Now that I'm thinking about it, it will also turn off black voters, probably a lot. Black voters work very hard to appear "respectable" in a white dominated society.
I suspect Black voters already have a keen understanding of respectability politics, long before Fetterman donned his first hoodie.
These kind of moves piss them off a lot, and they will be likely to stay home.
That's my point exactly. And it will piss them off that the white folks in charge just change the rules on what is respectable dress casually and on a dime. I doubt I have any evidence you would...
I suspect Black voters . . .
That's my point exactly. And it will piss them off that the white folks in charge just change the rules on what is respectable dress casually and on a dime.
I doubt I have any evidence you would accept, but I am intimate with a lot of black folks and have been for a long time, and I would never dare go to most black churches without wearing a suit and tie. There are exceptions in some cities like Charlotte and Raleigh, but you better believe they dress up at the AME chapel. Why don't you try it and report back?
Given that the Senate isn't a black church, this seems like a pretty silly comparison. I wouldn't wear my easter dress to work or the Senate either. And in any case, no one is forcing politicians...
Given that the Senate isn't a black church, this seems like a pretty silly comparison. I wouldn't wear my easter dress to work or the Senate either.
And in any case, no one is forcing politicians from NC to dress in hoodies. Senator Fetterman (most famous hoodie-wearer among the Senate atm) is from Pennsylvania. This change is removing an informal rule that wasn't consistently followed anyway, and it doesn't magically mean all democratic candidates are going to be wearing jeans to the Senate.
Folks don't wear Easter Best on any given Sunday, but they do wear their Sunday Best, and they would consider Senate floor activities to be similar to church, and also to court, to graduation, and...
Folks don't wear Easter Best on any given Sunday, but they do wear their Sunday Best, and they would consider Senate floor activities to be similar to church, and also to court, to graduation, and more.
But you miss the bigger point. If black (and other moderate voters) perceive that leaders are not respecting their roles and institutions, they will stop participating. I also think most black voters will intepret both this rule change, and more casual attire among leaders, as disrespecting them. But don't take my word for it. Ask your black friends.
I just don't see how removing an informal rule that was never enforced results in more casual attire among THEIR leaders. Black people in North Carolina don't vote for Pennsylvania senators. Black...
I just don't see how removing an informal rule that was never enforced results in more casual attire among THEIR leaders. Black people in North Carolina don't vote for Pennsylvania senators. Black people in Pennsylvania do and those who have already voted for Fetterman (and the overwhelming majority of black Pennsylvanians did) are clearly fine with his casual attire, given that it's not exactly a new development. North Carolina senators and candidates are perfectly free to continue dressing as they always have. This doesn't practically change anything, particularly given that the dress code wasn't enforced anyway, so I see no reason even for those who want their representatives to dress up to be outraged over this change. It seems like a stretch to claim that black folks are driven away by their senators being allowed to dress more casually regardless of what those senators actually end up wearing. Senators with constituencies who care about dressing up will continue to dress up and those whose constituencies don't care won't.
it's kind of weird to not quote what I said, and then claim that I made your point exactly? the actual point I was making is that I think most Black people are familiar with the respectability...
I suspect Black voters . . .
That's my point exactly.
it's kind of weird to not quote what I said, and then claim that I made your point exactly?
the actual point I was making is that I think most Black people are familiar with the respectability politics of "you must dress and act a certain way in order to be taken seriously". they can probably recognize when a slightly different flavor of respectability politics is used in an attempt to discredit someone like John Fetterman.
I don't want us to be two non-Black people discussing how Black people view dress codes. instead, here are two articles written by Black women that I think address the issue well:
you better believe they dress up at the AME chapel. Why don't you try it and report back?
if I were invited to a Black church, you're correct that I would very likely dress up.
the reason being that a) I would be a guest in someone else's space, and b) I would be there as a one-off or for a special occasion of some kind. so I would follow the advice of whoever invited me, about what to wear as well as about etiquette in general. (I'd do the same if I was a visitor to a predominantly-white church for whatever reason)
in the context of this Congressional dress code, this is people deciding on the dress code of their own space. they're not visitors the way I would be at a Black church. and it's the dress code for their everyday workplace, rather than any sort of special occasion.
I think the fundamental mistake you're making is that you're speculating about how "Black voters" will respond as if they're a monolithic group. I know enough Black people to know that isn't true - but that's also a truism that I could recognize even if I knew exactly zero Black people.
their opinions about this dress code change will be as varied as anyone else's. older, more religious, or more conservative Black people might disapprove of it. younger, less religious, or more liberal people probably don't care or don't have a problem with it.
if there's an op-ed from a Black commentator specifically about their opinions of the Congressional dress code changes, I'd love to read it. a poll of people's opinions about the change that included demographic data would also be interesting. but in the absence of that, I don't think you should appoint yourself as some sort of representative or spokesperson for "Black people will have the following opinion about this..."
In this political atmosphere your options is a sane party who has supported policies that help people and an insane one that is actively trying to hurt people with theirs. If a moderate is tipped...
In this political atmosphere your options is a sane party who has supported policies that help people and an insane one that is actively trying to hurt people with theirs. If a moderate is tipped over to vote for the insane party because of dress code changes, they probably weren't going to vote for the sane one to begin with.
If after all of the news that has come out surrounding January 6th hasn't already convinced you voting Republican is a vote to destroy this country, this issue is so minor in the grand scheme in convincing folks who to vote for.
Suits and other similar attire are expensive to attain and even pricier to get fitted properly. It is a hidden form of classissm serving as a barrier to entry to those who can't afford to "fit in." I identify more with Fetterman's attire than those who wear suits.
I don't disagree with your assessment of the consequences of suiting. But you seem to overlook the third, problematic option: probable dem voters might stay home. And it would not be just this...
I don't disagree with your assessment of the consequences of suiting.
But you seem to overlook the third, problematic option: probable dem voters might stay home. And it would not be just this issue, but this issue might be just the thing that tips the scale for them, or it might add to it.
Even so, what is gained here? Surely the dems knew this would cause a kerfuffle, and for what? It seems the better strategy would be to wait for a time that Fetterman gets excluded, and then make a big ado about the classicism etc. Or just leave it the thell alone, and focus on more important problems.
Also, if the dems didn't recognize that this would break controversially, we're all in worse shape than I thought, and I already thought we're in pretty bad shape.
Frank Thorp V and Zoë Richards Related - Majority Leader Chuck Schumer loosens Senate's informal dress code by Julie Tsirkin, Frank Thorp V and Summer Concepcion
Frank Thorp V and Zoë Richards
The rule change will allow Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., to wear his trademark hoodie and shorts on the Senate floor. Fetterman, a first-term senator who has often been seen wearing casual clothes around Capitol Hill following treatment for clinical depression this year, wore a suit to his swearing-in ceremony in January.
Republicans on Monday ridiculed Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's loosening of the upper chamber's dress code that will allow for recreation-like clothing on the Senate floor.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia called the relaxed rules “terrible,” South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said he’s “not a big fan,” and Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa simply said, “It stinks.”
The candid reviews of the new rules, which went into effect Monday, even included mockery from Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who joked to reporters that she planned to “wear a bikini” on Tuesday.
“I think there is a certain dignity that we should be maintaining in the Senate, and to do away with the dress code, to me, debases the institution,” Collins added.
Sen. Tommy Tuberville, who once coached football at Auburn University, joked that he would don a “coaching outfit” the next time he appears on the Senate floor.
“It bothers me big time,” Tuberville said of the amended dress code. “You got people walking around in shorts, that don’t fly with me.”
"Aren’t there more important things we should be talking about rather than if I dress like a slob?" Fetterman said in an interview on MSNBC.
The Senate sergeant-at-arms and relevant congressional staff members have been notified about changes to the informal dress code, which will go into effect Monday.
good. dress codes are pointless and often discriminatory. we should judge the "dignity" of Congresspeople based on their actions, not based on what they're wearing.
if they were serious about this rather than bringing it up as bad-faith trolling, I would completely support them.
we should be judging Tuberville for holding up military promotions because he disagrees with the US military's abortion policy. I don't care if he wears a 3-piece suit or a tracksuit or a "banana hammock" while doing it.
from A Brief History of How Maddening Capitol Hill Culture Is for Women (Still):
women have only been allowed to wear pants in Congress for 25-30 years. there are several sitting Congresspeople who have been in Congress for longer than that.
We should also be putting Collins on blast for having more of an issue about a fucking dress code than she did about Trump at all. She was the one who voted against his impeachments.
yep, absolutely. for another example:
Kyrsten Sinema wore a denim vest to preside over the Senate
not just voting on the floor, but up on the dais presiding over it.
and that was two years ago. has the "dignity" of the Senate diminished as a result?
and meanwhile, here's Sinema (a Democrat, in theory) giving a thumbs-down to a $15/hr federal minimum wage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNo_U7PTGzk
if you were a schoolchild learning about the US government, or a citizen of another country doing the same, which action would cause you to lose more respect for Congress?
I mean, congressional republicans are obviously not serious people, but I’m a little confused by your comment. You say at the top that dress codes are pointless but then say you’d support the republicans in opposing the dress code changes if they were more serious people. After reading your comment I went back to the article to double check, but if I am understanding it correctly the democrats are loosening the dress code and the republicans are planning to wear bikinis or whatever to protest the less-strict dress code. So wouldn’t that mean you’d oppose them regardless? They want the dress code to remain formal.
no, I'm saying I'd support the Republicans wearing "casual" or "informal" clothes, including a bikini or an Auburn University tracksuit, if they actually wanted to do so. but all they're doing is making jokes about it as an attempted reductio ad absurdum.
They're also being hypocritical about this rule change.
Got it, thanks for clarifying
Relaxing a dress-code will not change the fundamental nature of politics, imho what will happen is that everyone will show up cosplaying as their perceived core demographic.
Oh I got elected by rural Texans, ye-haw cowboy hat and boots.
Oh I got elected by blue-collar workers, check out my overalls.
Maybe C-SPAN will be watchable with some decent cosplay on...
This is off topic.
I have noticed that you don't capitalize your sentences, but you do capitalize words within a sentence.
There is an increasing number of contributions with idiosyncratic capitalization on Tildes. Is there a reason for that?
I don't think there's one common reason for it. the reason I personally do it is I think it makes writing feel a bit less "formal".
I also think it's fun to write with otherwise excellent grammar, but with one "rule" intentionally broken. it's a subtle reminder that all these rules are just arbitrary.
That's fine. I understand. I wouldn't say capitalization is entirely arbitrary because it makes it easier for my eye to navigate sentences, especially given my ADHD.
So your writing is slightly uncomfortable for me to read.
But hey, you do you buddy ;)
Putting this in a parent comment because I think it would be unfair to reply to anyone with this thought.
The last time I saw people making this much noise about clothing, especially a hoodie, was when Trayvon Martin was murdered. That was their repeated defense of why his murderer was remotely justified. A black teen walking down the street in a hoodie which meant he was signalling trouble. The implication is if this 14 year old kid dressed "better" (i.e. more upscale), he would not be perceived as a threat and therefore would not be murdered in the street.
This whole snafu is not dissimilar enough. Again, this article has pictures of other Senators showing up in sweaty, gross gym clothes to the Senate. Nobody raised an eye. But now because the rule is getting changed and there's a Dem who prominently wears casual clothes, we're all of a sudden ruffling our feathers and shaking our jewelery about the idea of a Senator dressing like a poor.
Clothes don't make someone a good person. Clothes don't mean someone should be murdered. Clothes don't mean someone is good at their job. The people huffing and puffing about this dress code in this article have done horrendous things to Americans and yet they're getting a pass because they dress in cheap suits while doing it and everyone goes after Fetterman for dressing badly even though he hasn't done any horrendous things to Americans.
Never forget, Obama wore a tan suit.
TAN!!
He took so much flack for that mainly because he was black. They also trotted out the thinly veiled racism for that too.
Here in Florida our school boards are being co-opted by moms for liberty aka right wing extremism that has no basis in education. They are using these same arguments (as the republicans in the article) to make stricter dress codes to protect innocent boys from being distracted by bikini wearing harlots in the classroom. It really sounds like a “she deserved it because of the way she was dressed” argument flipped around and dressed up
My response is, perhaps a counter to all the, I'm sure, good faith responses of "but what about decorum"; this tracks with what the majority of people I know consider "work attire". No one wears suits any more to work (if at all possible) and for those of us in tech, most of us don't even wear slacks and a polo any more (if at all possible). None of us could give two shits if our representative or senator wore a suit if they actually represented us at the federal level.
Plus all the claims of decorum kind of went out the proverbial window years ago with the "You lie!" screaming at the State of the Union address. Who cares what you're wearing if you're going to be a boorish buffoon?
This is the most important part. I don't care what you wear as long as ***you do your damn job. ***
Peope seem to forget that we have been in a "dressing down" in society, and this is just another shift.
Politics aside: if you look at the average age in Congress, it's not a huge surprise they are advocating an ancient dress code.
Wearing the right clothes doesn't automatically mean you're giving respect to a proceeding. That's a shallow, outdated idea. There are plenty of US Senators who have shown far less respect for the institution while wearing suits than Fetterman has in his hoodie and shorts. He clearly is not choosing his outfit to mock the Senate. That is what should matter here as to whether his dress should be controlled by its rules, not what exactly he wears.
I guess not seeing beyond the surface-level appearance and the optics has always been a problem in politics, though...
I guess my first question is why does Fetterman get a pass, and why are the rules changing for him? I'm not sure clinical depression generally leads to dress code exceptions.
This seems sort of odd, and with strangely far-reaching implications for how seemingly mundane senatorial dress code is.
I generally think we overvalue formalwear and professional attire, but rules generally need a reason to change and I don't see it here.
he doesn't, and they're not.
this article, linked from the one in this topic, goes into more detail:
and further details from an Axios article that 2nd article linked to:
all they're doing is taking an informal, unwritten rule that was never strictly or universally enforced, and removing it.
And our wonderful mass media is taking this non-story and using it as another means to give the GOP a mouthpiece to say their typical stupid shit, and people are likewise parroting it. How frustrating.
"Democrats want to wear hoodies, Republicans wear suits," while our oceans boil.
I think it's the way that this article is written that is misleading people about what this is.
For example, if you look at this one
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4209368-schumer-loosens-senates-informal-dress-code/
The way this one is written, it doesn't leave you with the impression that it was done specifically for Fetterman, but rather it is noteworthy to mention him because for whatever reason he seemed to not wear the attire in situations others did, in situations where it wasn't required. Now it's not required on the Senate floor, so these articles seem to be highlighting his name for the same reason. If he's one of the only ones walking around in informal clothing, then presumably he's having to change into a suit and tie just to join everyone on the Senate floor, so the news outlets seem to think its newsworthy to mention him as someone who benefits from it in a unique way.
Basically it doesn't seem like it was done specifically for Fetterman. As for the importance of it and decorum, of course Republicans are turning it into some kind of spectacle. Also from the Hill article
I'm not sure how one should feel about it, I do believe there's evidence that shows dressing a certain way, having certain routines etc. can help people maintain a certain mindset, so it might help some people to get up and shower and get dressed for work even if they're working from home rather than sitting in their pajamas laying in bed with a laptop or such. To what extent that translates to the Senate, who knows.
The clothes make the man to a point, but it's more about how you feel, I think.
Thanks for the context, there seemed to be a missing piece, but The Hill is implying there isn't even a puzzle, at least beyond the general dissolution of formal dress codes in various contexts.
The only reason I would "dress up" in any of those situations (funeral, date, wedding, etc) are because of having to "respect" the unrealistic expectations we've set as a society in the first place. Thankfully funerals and weddings in my family haven't had incredibly strange and specific expectations and we don't measure respect in clothing. Pair of jeans and a button down shirt (even a t-shirt sometimes) is plenty for all of them and if it's cold outside and I cover that in a hoodie and wear it TO the event- that's been fine too. Some of it is personal preference and I get not everyone feels that way- these days I'd only marry someone that would be okay with an absolutely non-formal wedding (even for the wedding party) - maybe even to the level of Slayer shirts.
I don't wear suits or ties to job interviews and will not work anywhere that requires them or has those expectations from interviewees. Heck even the current place I work at essentially made a note of it in the interview: "oh don't worry, we're reasonable here".
I think it's all BS honestly. It only projects "elegance" and "self respect" because we've been inundated with and taught that's what those things visually mean, IMHO. To me it's all BS. It's like our vapid "beauty standards" for human beings, but applied to clothing. I get that the idea is still quite prevalent, so I have to abide by those expectations at the minimum acceptable level I can.
That said I do not own a suit and will gladly not attend any occasion or situation that would require one. And for a date in particular? I just want to be me, not project some BS "ideal"- if you cant take me for what I actually am, the date shouldn't be happening in the first place.
If others want to dress up big time for these life events, that's fine- I'm not saying the option shouldn't be there- I'm just saying that I vehemently loathe the social expectations and will only comply with them at a bare minimum, and the more that we tear down those expectations permanently in society, including (and maybe especially) in places of power and control, the better.
Like sure- do I think an expectation that people wear SOME form of clothing is fine? It's okay IMO to draw a line, but only at a very reasonable minimum expectation (like "wearing clothes")
I disagree that the point of dressing up for important events is arbitrary. It reflects effort. It says "this is important to me, so I put effort into it". Maybe there are other ways you've shown effort for that event, or for that person, that make this particular expression unnecessary, but for most people, getting dressed will be about half the effort they put in.
For congress, I support removing the dress code for a corollary reason. The effort isn't real. They don't actually care or take it seriously, they aren't putting their full effort in. I don't care if they look like they do or not.
That is fine, we can continue to disagree on that point.
It would not affect my perception of someone attending any big life events of mine and I know at least for some events I've gone to, it has not seemed to affect others' perception of me (especially given the fact that they often themselves weren't dressed up either or had other attendees that were even less dressed "up" than myself). That said, these days, even knowing this, I would not change my behavior based on their expectation aside from bare minimums that avoid causing a scene or whatever.
I will do the minimum necessary to fulfill this social requirement (especially in cases where it has a significant effect, like a job interview)- enough that their attention is not on such a pointless thing.
There's just so many other things that are far more important that it seems for the events I've attended, no brain power was spent on worrying about what people wore and any job interviews where they seemed stuffy and uptight about dress code and looks- turned out to be places where I'm glad I didn't choose to work.
I can agree that some people perceive it as a reflection of effort- and I don't think they should, and I am okay with anyone with that view seeing me as not putting in the effort.
How can you argue that it's only a perception of a reflection of effort? How could anyone not perceive it that way? It literally takes more effort to put on nice clothes than casual clothes. That's the primary difference between them. If you're wearing a t-shirt and cargo shorts rather than a button down shirt and slacks to an event, it's not erroneous for someone to believe that you put less effort into getting ready for the event. You did put in less effort.
Putting on full cosplay, or full body makeup art would be even more effort. So that has more value?
Men aren't dressing like The Sun King and women arent wearing sixteen layers of petticoats. I don't see anyone putting hours of mendhi on for the office. Or being sewn into their clothes.
This is a weird hill to die on. It's all culturally driven and it's only because some guy thought (European) men's clothing needed to be boring that we even think of the modern suit as fashionable. @0x29a seems doing fine socially, at work and with their family. Why are you insisting on telling them that this isn't ok?
Sometimes! But usually, no. That doesn't negate my point. In most social situations there's a certain amount of effort that is considered acceptable, and while less is disappointing, too much can also be a problem. You don't want your date to talk over you, but you also don't want them making spreadsheets about you and taking your measurements. You want your friend to give you a nice birthday gift, you don't want them to go into debt to do it. There's an acceptable amount of effort, and too much can be worse than not enough.
I'm not telling @0x29a that their behavior isn't okay. It's absolutely fine. I'm telling them that objectively, what they're doing is less effort, and it's okay for people to value that effort, even if they and the people they surround themselves with don't.
I agree that it's ok to value the effort. But I also think that it's entirely arbitrary how much effort someone considers acceptable or not. The value is entirely up to the people involved.
And we're making a lot of assumptions in general about how much effort it takes someone to get dressed in the morning. For a wide variety of reasons that isn't a static amount based on clothing item. (And same for, say, social interactions and such). Dressing stylishly may be easy for someone with societally preferred body type, sufficient cash, education, class, cultural background, and ability. Even disregarding those factors, there's always a mix of things going on in an encounter so a perceived lack of effort in one could be balanced by increased effort in other.
And for all that I think it isn't about effort, but about societal conformity. Because the same amount of effort with something that wasn't Western business formal attire wouldn't be appreciated the same. And someone who wears a suit with ease and comfort is appreciated as much as others.
It's as reasonable to think the whole thing is a pointless charade as it is to think the whole thing is entirely crucial but I think it matters to get that it's arbitrary. And in that arbitrariness I think it's always worth challenging why we think there's value in what we're used to. It works for 0x29a and I don't fault them for wanting to be judged on the things they consider important and not on the things they don't. I think we all do.
Yeah I think this is definitely a big part of it. As with many things in life, there's likely not one particular factor but many, but even when there's many sometimes one of them does loom larger than the others.
As I was reading what you had written, it had me reflecting on my own experience with clothing, and the effort of putting on the clothes perhaps isn't always that effortsome, but the effort of understanding the circumstances and the people you'll be around seem to be the real effort, as I notice that is often where I struggle when it comes with understanding style. Even more so for situations I've been unfamiliar with.
You mentioned a lot of criteria that help enable someone to dress stylishly, and another comment in this thread used the word "signaling" and it's starting to paint a clearer picture to me. Even if I have the money to buy the expensive clothing, it can go beyond that to understanding what to buy and when to wear it. Of course it's arbitrary in some sense, like when to wear a tan suit, the effort comes in by having to maintain connections to specific people in certain groups or paying for subscriptions to magazines (more back in the day type thing than it is relative modern day), otherwise having a suit isn't good enough because you might get called out for wearing a tan suit when it was not considered appropriate.
So in many way, yes it's arbitrary, but it also seems to be a way social groups use to signal their status, whether they're one of the group or not, whether they maintain the effort of following the same news or talking to similar types of people or going to similar types of stores. In a way, in various circumstances it could be classist or racist or any other element of discriminating, which you and many other people in here have already stated in some way or another.
What I find interesting though is that it keeps being simplified to it being "arbitrary" or focusing on the more illegal or obviously harmful discrimination but discrimination between humans isn't necessarily arbitrary and not always obviously harmful. Not that there's necessarily some scientifically supported rationale behind some discrimination, but there's reasons. Not just illegal discrimination, but legal and sometimes socially approved discrimination. The idea of "red flags" is discrimination, but it's rational discrimination for reasons, generally not based on any kind of illegal discrimination, and in this way I find that it's not really that arbitrary. I think that's why clothing is so ingrained in culture, because people want ways to be able to size you up at a glance. It's not significantly different than having to identify as a liberal or conservative or left/right etc. in politics because people just want to be able to neatly place you in a box within their mind and move on.
If you imagine everyone starts out with no clothing at all and some crafty individuals manage to come up with something, you might get a certain perception of people who wear a leaf with some string over people who aren't wearing anything at all, and it evolves from there.
I think you said a lot of good things here and I don't disagree with you broadly. I think it is a human cultural thing to decorate our bodies in a variety of ways - hair color, makeup, tattoos, piercings, clothes, scents, etc.
But I think this very human trait has been shoved into an arbitrarily small number of boxes. And perhaps it's the queerness in me but I rather object to limiting boxes and then judging people by where they fall into the arbitrary number of boxes.
I'm neurodivergent, bi/pan and non-binary which absolutely influences my opinion on this. I find my clothing options constraining - a mix of all those factors mean the clothing I'm supposed to wear to work isn't comfortable or interesting to me. I don't even get decent sized pockets. And so I end up putting the minimal amount of effort into my work clothing - it's perfectly appropriate, but I don't care about it at all. Give me the task of dressing up for a Renaissance Faire and I'll hyper-fixated on the right layers and color combos. But that isn't acceptable work attire. And I don't have the money for bespoke clothes that would make me feel "good" when I'm not even 100% sure what that would be.
People who are passionate about clothing should absolutely go for it. But I think it's worth challenging whether this category of discrimination is actually saying anything meaningful. If it could be effort or money or class or education or gender or body type or ability or any combination of those things or our own implicit or explicit bias... are we doing anything useful?
I rambled so sorry if that comes out incoherent, but I prefer to humanize over generalize and while humans are going to categorize, I think we're better when we are critical about societal behavior.
I agree that's one of the key questions to ask about it. I don't know if anyone could really know the answer to that, and likely there's some small situations where someone does get something useful out of it and many others where it does nothing at all but people think it tells them something and then many more situations where it's just outright harmful and wrong. For example, while it's not clothing but it is appearance, the box someone might have in their mind for a person who has a patchy beard that's not trimmed and also has hair growing on what's perceived as their neck, more commonly stated as a neckbeard, that box conjures up a lot of images and perceptions about what such a person might be like. Is it useful for people to discriminate on that basis? I don't know, I wouldn't know how to even determine that. Maybe it's not specific enough, but if they're wearing a stained and faded Metallica shirt or something, maybe then it's more specific and more useful to someone. Or maybe it's harmful that people think that way.
I don't know that the number of boxes is that arbitrary, people can only hold so much information. I'd say it's arbitrary, but in the same way that 18 years old being the age of majority is arbitrary. Unless having any preconceived notions about anyone or anything at all based on some amount of criteria overall is worthless, then presumably at some point it's worthwhile to have boxes, and to have boxes means there will be a limit of boxes people are capable of mentally sorting through in their mind. But again, as you questioned before, boxes for clothing or general appearance things may not be the boxes worth keeping.
A button-down shirt and slacks takes zero extra time for me to put on than a t-shirt and cargo shorts, so I'm not sure I follow. Sorry. In all cases I just wear what's most comfortable and what meets minimum expectations and generally all the ways I dress, whether up or down, are approximately equal in effort. Clearly any increase in effort there is perceived not actual. The amount of actual difference in effort is so negligibly minimal that I can't see how it's anything other than a perception.
Very formal wear, maybe, because of having to straighten up ties and get details right and all that? But even then it's minimal in actual effort, regardless of if it's perceived as a massive extra effort.
But even then, okay, let's say it DOES reflect effort in some way- I do not care, it's sort of beside the entire point, even granting that? It reflects... effort regarding clothing? It's not an actual display of anything worthwhile and doesn't reflect at all how much effort I'll exert except when I'm... putting clothes on? The perception (whether innate or not) that it means more is the problem.
My whole point is- what is considered a "socially acceptable amount of effort" (particularly in regards to clothing, if we change to another topic, this can vary) is very often bullshit. A social expectation DOES exist, I do not deny that, it's just that the expectation exists at all and the method by which that expectation is measured as being "complied with" is THE problem
This is true but I think it's disingenuous to pretend that this directly applies to the actual issue at hand: wearing a traditional Western suit. Babies being responsive to the attractiveness of faces is very different to assuming that a traditional Western suit and tie is inherently better than wearing a hoodie. What clothing is considered appropriate in which situations is not remotely innate and is highly cultural. Whether a hoodie or a suit is more appropriate attire is already highly context-dependent even if you limit it to modern US culture, much less if you look at other human cultures now and throughout history.
As a heterosexual woman, I just really cannot agree with this. Maybe some suits accentuate the male form, but the suits that Senators commonly wear today are pretty loose and shapeless. They don't accentuate the male form so much as they hide it.
I think most people who are attracted to men would tell you that, for example, a shirt with rolled-up sleeves is substantially more attractive than a suit jacket. Yet this is considered a more casual and less respectful mode of dress.
This is not to say that sexy men's suits don't exist, but they might not be exactly appropriate for the Senate floor.
Suits are one of many types of clothing that do this though, unless you think the modern western European suit is the epitome of centuries of fashion evolution.
People can look very attractive in suits. People can also look very attractive in a salwar kameez which also centuries of cultural evolution. Personally pajama pants can be pretty attractive.
Concepts of "beauty" change so much over the centuries, and millennia, pretending we as humans are fully "hardwired" to do anything feels like we ignore the fact that we're not operating on instinct and we're deeply culturally influenced. One time period's unhealthy trait is another's sign of prosperity. One time period's height of fashion looks utterly foreign and even silly to us. But those heels made the king's calves look fine AF.
You're absolutely extrapolating the data far beyond what it calls for. Even if it can be extrapolated out to general physical attractiveness -- something that most scientists would only hypothesize about without further research based on this result -- there is an absolute chasm between any innate response to another human's general physical attractiveness and any response to specific culturally-relevant items of clothing.
A well-fitting suit can definitely accentuate a man's attractiveness, but it's absolutely untethered from reality to claim this is why suits are mandated in certain formal contexts in our culture. This influences how suits are designed for sure, but it's not the reason they hold their current position in our culture -- and plenty of clothing styles extremely dissimilar from modern Western suits have held the same cultural position in other cultures. I acknowledge that the innate reactions you mention do exist, but you need to acknowledge that the entire field of sociology exists. Culture is playing a much larger role here than any innate response to attractive people.
And if you think this is somehow unique to suits over casual clothing, you're definitely not hanging out with many people who are attracted to men. A well-fitting suit can definitely accentuate a guy's attractiveness, but so can a wife-beater and grey sweatpants. I honestly hear more from straight women about grey sweatpants than I do about suits lol.
Also, because the appropriateness of a given item of clothing is culturally conditioned and context dependent, there are absolutely situations where a suit will not only be inappropriate for the situation but absolutely turn people off around you. I can think of plenty of clubs (gay and otherwise) where this would be the case.
I get what you're saying I just think we should fight it anyway, whether or not it is innate. I think the power of humans is that we've evolved far enough that we can, to some extent, curb innate things that are negative, or at least, build social and other forms of structures around protecting ourselves and others against those innate problems. Or even, at least to some extent, moderate/alter in some ways what is a "good" appearance, and maybe over time that can have lasting effects on an innate perception. I will not consign myself to a fatalist idea that it's completely unchangeable.
I'm not going to throw up my hands in resignation and say "well if you never match society's expectations for beauty or dress code, you're screwed!" - even if that is seemingly/currently true, it very quickly can become ableist/etc. and we should do our best to overcome it. Especially in the perception of "beauty" as that deals with more (physical body, hair, appearance, etc) than our original topic- clothing, which can be altered much more easily (to an extent)
I'd like to see this "significant research", particularly how the researchers relate it to day to day life. Beauty is not a universal thing - it doesn't take much to see that different people are attracted to different things based on where they live and what they're taught.
In that sense, I find it disingenuous to claim that we are somehow biologically inclined to think that these specific values are beautiful.
These are a set of very strange and frankly a little concerning points. We evolved an enjoyment of beauty but there's nothing in our genes telling us what is beautiful. I saw in another comment you mentioned how suits accentuate the male form, and it made me wonder what makes you think that everyone necessarily cares for the male form?
You say others are restrictive in their thinking but then try to claim our biology compels us to act a certain way, so we're better off not fighting the "human algorithm".
Yeah and I'm not claiming that The Hill is some naturally superior source or anything, I simply searched and picked one article out of a bunch of them and read it to see if it had the same implications this NBC one did.
What sparked that for me in the NBC article was this
There's no attribution made to this, not referring to any comments specifically that said it was about Fetterman etc., but it is key in how they form context in the readers mind. So when I saw this, I suspected that they wrote it poorly, whether it was intentional or not who knows, but it clearly misleads the readers.
I agree completely. I think looking 'good' is overvalued and completely pointless - but I'd also say that I think shorts and hoodies aren't really capitol hill attire... maybe for a tour.
But, at the same time, I also really don't care. I think maybe it opens the door for people to abuse it, I know Senator Collins in a bikini won't up CSPANs numbers any, but as long as the code opposes graphic tees with profanity she such, who really cares? The US does have bigger issues than what brand of suit they're wearing. I've already seen reports of people mixing more casual sneakers into their suits so, at that point, forget the suits altogether!
Who really cares if I think that Fetterman dresses in a way that makes him look like my stereotypes say a certain person dresses? He's a senator! That's more accomplished in the political sphere than anything I've done!
Tbh I felt silly writing that comment, but if the party I generally back is getting up to what appears to be some sort of foolishness I'd like to understand why. @Grumble4681 found another source that seemed more detailed and showed there doesn't seem to be much to it, it's just a step following a broader trend that Fetterman happens to benefit from with his shorts and sweater.
According to this article, he's far from the first to get a "pass":
(The article has links to these examples)
If anything, this is just a formalization of something that has already been happening. This was an unofficial, unwritten rule after all. It's the most casual kind of rule. Rules don't need a reason for change in every single case, especially when it comes to such subjective things like fashion. We didn't all stop wearing hats and suits every time we leave the house just because there was some reason. People wear white after Labor Day now. Heels used to be for men, then not for men at all, and now for everyone. Tastes change, styles change, formalities change. And when there are reasons, they're not always good. We don't do the second button on our jackets because Henry VIII didn't do it after he gained weight.
Further, the history of dress codes is classist. Undoing it is more "for the people" than maintaining them, and as long as there is decorum what does it even matter? And considering the behaviour of some other Senators and Congress people, how one dresses is far from the worst offenses of decorum in the last decade.
The furor and handwringing over this change is the most overvaluation given to business attire in a long time.
Haven’t you stated the reason enough? We overvalue formalwear and professional attire.
That could be reason enough, but it seemed there was a missing incident that caused the re-evaluation, and the posted article seemed to be framing it as if it were Fetterman. Rules seldom just change because we feel like changing them, something sparks the need for a change, however small the spark may be.
It could be that Fetterman's style led the Democrats to want to change it, but considering the bigger picture across articles that have been shared here it seems he is not the sole reason.
The horror.
Media distraction at it's best. The country is facing so many issues yet the news cycle will be dominated by people making bad faith arguments over a non-official policy being changed. "Ignore the fact that we've been obstructing everything from military promotions and basic government! The real reason nothing is getting done is because THAT guy is wearing a t-shirt!!~~!!oneone!~!elventy!" they'll all screech. The best part is that no one is saying that people can't still dress up if they choose. Is Mitch going to stop wearing his suits because Fetterman can "officially" wear a hoodie?
As usual, the Democrats will take the "high road" and ignore the screeching instead of pointing out the hypocrisy/stupidity of it all. Advertise things like "The other side cares more about dress codes than the military!" and point to things like Tuberville and specific (unanimous or near unanimous) votes on the matter. "Now they care about decorum" and show clips of MTG acting trashy (jeering in session, confronting the Parkland survivor, when she tried to trip that activist kid, etc), Boebert's public gropes, 'We're all domestic terrorists', etc.
I have never and will never vote republican in my entire life. I like Fetterman.
I think the dress codes for Congress should be upheld.
People like Boebert, MTG, Trump, etc have already done enough to lower the dignity and standards of the U.S. government.
I wonder if this is some residual fallout from Fetterman's mental health issues and Schumer is trying to cover for him by changing the rules.
Is it more dignified to be forced to wear the clothing that somebody else thinks is appropriate, or to be yourself given the freedom and responsibility to decide what is most suitable?
To devils advocate a little bit, should that mean we're all free to walk around with no clothes on wherever we choose? We are just animals after all, and all other animals on this planet are free to do so. To drop the devils advocate a bit, I understand that there's some valid arguments for the idea that people shouldn't have to wear clothes, and there's also valid arguments that people should.
I think asking the question I did as a devils advocate generally might net a response from someone that would lead to the conclusion that there is some standard that you could likely defend to impose on others, but it doesn't tell you where that line is. But it does negate your question if it's not dignified to have some kind of clothing standard imposed on people.
Yes. Yes we should let people wear whatever they want (including nothing) whenever they want.
I can understand a dress code that helps with health and safety. I can see a reasonable arguement for wearing underpants in public in order to avoid poop particles getting on everything. Wearing hard hats and boots in construction sites makes sense.
But a hoodie vs a suitjacket? Banning being topless in summer outdoors? Thats just stupid arbitrary bullshit rules that lets one group of people feel stupidly superior than other people just because their clothes and boobs have different shapes.
I am imagining construction sites with just hard hats and boots and I suspect there's an unsurprising amount of material out there exploring that option.
But clothes are just so generally needed to keep our various parts from getting injured and uncomfortable. Most people don't walk around nude all the time even when they could because it's uncomfortable
And that's the point. People will wear clothes if they want to, there's hardly any need to regulate it.
Fully agreed. You need to from a safety perspective only really.
Yes.
I expect many here will seek well thought out and lengthy discourse on the matter, but honestly, just my two cents: Who gives a shit?
This is a terrible idea. What are the dems thinking? It will turn off the moderates, and it will further erode decorum which is hanging by a thread. We may as well make a horse proconsul at this point.
Why and how is business attire so important to the fabric of democracy? How is decorum already not out the window with the behaviour of people like Greene and Boebert and their actions in recent years? What is it that hoodies that damages decorum so much more than heckling the President during the State of the Union?
I don't understand how a "moderate" would see casual attire and immediately adopt partisanry.
It's the year 2023, the majority of people have been living in their pajamas for the last 3 years. There is no reason someone can't be seen a professional based on what they wear. It's also historically discriminatory. Dress codes are often enforced more strictly against women and people of color. loosening of dress codes only serves to make the political scene seem more accessible and understanding without discrimination.
"It's your fault if you get raped while you're wearing that skirt"
Everything that's wrong with society summed up in one sentance IMO.
I think that people are too quick to dismiss fashion and clothing as shallow and pointless. Fashion is all about signaling, and signaling is everything.
I wrote a past comment where Judith Donath, HCI scholar, discusses fashion and signaling.
The Democrats who support this are out of touch. It stands to gain little and lose much.
This is a faulty idea that suggests that the only signals to be sent is by dressing in a certain way. It's the classist argument that started dress codes in the first place, as if doing something bad in a suit is inherently better than doing that same thing in a bowling shirt. I once again ask: what does a hoodie do that's so much worse than heckling the President during the State of the Union?
Yes, fashion and clothes are very important about sending subconscious visual cues and signals out. I'm not one to discount it, I'm considered to be highly fashionable in real life, for outfits ranging from streetwear to black tie formal. I regularly have to think about my outfits so I do not send the wrong impressions in real life. I hate it when I see people walking around with sweatpants as everyday clothing wear. I'm one of the last people who would be suggesting that clothes don't matter and never should.
However, the notion that clothes are more important than anything else, especially behaviour and attitude? That a hoodie and shorts means our civilization is collapsing? That's nonsense. It's also pointless to turn this into a Democrat vs. Republican issue when it's just more of the inane contrarianism we've seen the Republicans engaging in repeatedly since Obama took office, especially when this article has pictures of prominent Republicans who have shown up in actual sweaty gym gear for much less than a medically diagnosed condition. I'm pretty sure Fetterman washes his hoodie and shorts before he'll show up in the Senate wearing them.
I'm not even a fan of long sleeves and shorts, and I think it is odd to willingly show up to the Senate floor in anything less than business attire, but the arguments against this rule change are ridiculous and reaching some kind of nebulous conditional consequences. Like, who are they supposedly out of touch with here? Republicans? That's by the GOP's own design. The average voter? They don't care. Moderates who will now support the GOP? They definitely weren't very moderate to begin with if this is their make or break issue.
In terms of political plays, consider that in this day and age, a place that has a strict upscale dress code is the one that's seen to be out of touch. Let the Republicans dress up in their best conservative power suits while the Dems dress more and more like the average voter. Optics are more important than ever in this post-truth US society. If one group decides to dress like a Jack Donaghy cosplay convention and the other dresses in actually fashionable ways, then this will play out in a whole other way. It's only willful jerks who think the loosening of the dress code means it's time to show up in bikinis and swim shorts and ripped up jeans. Most people, who do not have such strict dress codes in their work places, knows it means they can dress more like how they please than before, and opens up the options to dress more fashionably. Let the minorities in the Senate come dress in clothes that are of their culture, yet don't meet western business standards, and watch the racist mudslinging from FOX News and the right wing social media networks start flying.
I'm far more inclined to believe the average person will do the same thing I do when I see people with sweatpants in my own professional, business casual baseline workplace: let them be, and dress the way I prefer to.
So, I'm from NC, which gives me a particular perspective. There are a lot of people here who are generally supportive of core Democratic party tenets, but who get turned off by antics. They are unlikely to vote for the Greene's and the Boeberts, but will vote for the Budd's and the Tillis's. And between a Budd, and a candidate who has more or less the right values but appears to focus on sowing discord, which is how this move will be interpreted, they will vote Budd.
Some people like this attend my very progressive church. I show up in shorts and t-shirt, and they give me side-eyes. I don't care, because they do need to get over it. But this is just some dude in church. Also, those church members will vote dem even if the candidate is Divine, dressing like she did in her prime. But there are others, at the less progressive church down the street, who might choose to stay home for a candidate who is making this kind of change.
Now that I'm thinking about it, it will also turn off black voters, probably a lot. Black voters work very hard to appear "respectable" in a white dominated society. Sure, there's some black celebrities who talk hard about getting black culture to be more accepted, and it certainly should be. But it's still not. And I'm talking about the older folks who worked on the poor people's campaign, and their kids, and people who work at the Toyota factory. These folks believe it matters to dress up for church, and for going to court, and expect their representive to show that it matters to them, and that they value all the effort these folks have made to be accepted in white-dominated culture. These kind of moves piss them off a lot, and they will be likely to stay home.
I suspect Black voters already have a keen understanding of respectability politics, long before Fetterman donned his first hoodie.
do you have any evidence for this?
That's my point exactly. And it will piss them off that the white folks in charge just change the rules on what is respectable dress casually and on a dime.
I doubt I have any evidence you would accept, but I am intimate with a lot of black folks and have been for a long time, and I would never dare go to most black churches without wearing a suit and tie. There are exceptions in some cities like Charlotte and Raleigh, but you better believe they dress up at the AME chapel. Why don't you try it and report back?
Given that the Senate isn't a black church, this seems like a pretty silly comparison. I wouldn't wear my easter dress to work or the Senate either.
And in any case, no one is forcing politicians from NC to dress in hoodies. Senator Fetterman (most famous hoodie-wearer among the Senate atm) is from Pennsylvania. This change is removing an informal rule that wasn't consistently followed anyway, and it doesn't magically mean all democratic candidates are going to be wearing jeans to the Senate.
Folks don't wear Easter Best on any given Sunday, but they do wear their Sunday Best, and they would consider Senate floor activities to be similar to church, and also to court, to graduation, and more.
But you miss the bigger point. If black (and other moderate voters) perceive that leaders are not respecting their roles and institutions, they will stop participating. I also think most black voters will intepret both this rule change, and more casual attire among leaders, as disrespecting them. But don't take my word for it. Ask your black friends.
I just don't see how removing an informal rule that was never enforced results in more casual attire among THEIR leaders. Black people in North Carolina don't vote for Pennsylvania senators. Black people in Pennsylvania do and those who have already voted for Fetterman (and the overwhelming majority of black Pennsylvanians did) are clearly fine with his casual attire, given that it's not exactly a new development. North Carolina senators and candidates are perfectly free to continue dressing as they always have. This doesn't practically change anything, particularly given that the dress code wasn't enforced anyway, so I see no reason even for those who want their representatives to dress up to be outraged over this change. It seems like a stretch to claim that black folks are driven away by their senators being allowed to dress more casually regardless of what those senators actually end up wearing. Senators with constituencies who care about dressing up will continue to dress up and those whose constituencies don't care won't.
it's kind of weird to not quote what I said, and then claim that I made your point exactly?
the actual point I was making is that I think most Black people are familiar with the respectability politics of "you must dress and act a certain way in order to be taken seriously". they can probably recognize when a slightly different flavor of respectability politics is used in an attempt to discredit someone like John Fetterman.
I don't want us to be two non-Black people discussing how Black people view dress codes. instead, here are two articles written by Black women that I think address the issue well:
Don’t play respectability politics with Black women over their fashion choices
A high school’s dress code for parents sparked backlash. The principal is standing by it. Critics say the code smacks of respectability politics.
if I were invited to a Black church, you're correct that I would very likely dress up.
the reason being that a) I would be a guest in someone else's space, and b) I would be there as a one-off or for a special occasion of some kind. so I would follow the advice of whoever invited me, about what to wear as well as about etiquette in general. (I'd do the same if I was a visitor to a predominantly-white church for whatever reason)
in the context of this Congressional dress code, this is people deciding on the dress code of their own space. they're not visitors the way I would be at a Black church. and it's the dress code for their everyday workplace, rather than any sort of special occasion.
I think the fundamental mistake you're making is that you're speculating about how "Black voters" will respond as if they're a monolithic group. I know enough Black people to know that isn't true - but that's also a truism that I could recognize even if I knew exactly zero Black people.
their opinions about this dress code change will be as varied as anyone else's. older, more religious, or more conservative Black people might disapprove of it. younger, less religious, or more liberal people probably don't care or don't have a problem with it.
if there's an op-ed from a Black commentator specifically about their opinions of the Congressional dress code changes, I'd love to read it. a poll of people's opinions about the change that included demographic data would also be interesting. but in the absence of that, I don't think you should appoint yourself as some sort of representative or spokesperson for "Black people will have the following opinion about this..."
In this political atmosphere your options is a sane party who has supported policies that help people and an insane one that is actively trying to hurt people with theirs. If a moderate is tipped over to vote for the insane party because of dress code changes, they probably weren't going to vote for the sane one to begin with.
If after all of the news that has come out surrounding January 6th hasn't already convinced you voting Republican is a vote to destroy this country, this issue is so minor in the grand scheme in convincing folks who to vote for.
Suits and other similar attire are expensive to attain and even pricier to get fitted properly. It is a hidden form of classissm serving as a barrier to entry to those who can't afford to "fit in." I identify more with Fetterman's attire than those who wear suits.
I don't disagree with your assessment of the consequences of suiting.
But you seem to overlook the third, problematic option: probable dem voters might stay home. And it would not be just this issue, but this issue might be just the thing that tips the scale for them, or it might add to it.
Even so, what is gained here? Surely the dems knew this would cause a kerfuffle, and for what? It seems the better strategy would be to wait for a time that Fetterman gets excluded, and then make a big ado about the classicism etc. Or just leave it the thell alone, and focus on more important problems.
Also, if the dems didn't recognize that this would break controversially, we're all in worse shape than I thought, and I already thought we're in pretty bad shape.
Frank Thorp V and Zoë Richards
Related - Majority Leader Chuck Schumer loosens Senate's informal dress code
by Julie Tsirkin, Frank Thorp V and Summer Concepcion