Alexandra Petri is a humorist who writes for the Washington Post. Here she puts tongue in cheek to praise the Missouri Legislature’s bold stance on its female dress code.
On Wednesday, the Republican-dominated Missouri House of Representatives decided to spend its one wild and precious legislative life focusing, laser-like, on the issues that matter most to the people of the state: the dress code for female legislators. All I can say is: Thank goodness!
The good people of the state of Missouri had been cowering for months in a state of panic, knowing that unless prompt, legislative action was taken on the very first day of the new session, some Missourian lawgiver might, without any warning, see a woman’s shoulder. I almost do not want to type it! I am sorry that you had to read the word, which may have forced you to picture one in your mind and derailed your legislative business for the month. Sh***der. That is better. I have already done too much harm.
Imagine the shock and horror of seeing a shoulder that belonged to a woman who was using it at the time! The mind reels. The jaw drops to the floor. I can think of nothing less respectful. A shoulder, covered not with a blazer, but with some sort of unstructured wrap — unthinkable! An abomination in the eyes of the law, and of all right-thinking citizens!
The new rule states that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.” Sweaters, formerly permitted, are right out! Cardigans were a subject of debate on the floor — could one possibly be adequate to do the duty of a blazer? After all, this is the Missouri legislature, not a Taylor Swift album! They had to think of the consequences.
I once saw a woman’s shoulder — in fact, two shoulders — not covered by a blazer. She was in a dress, supplemented by a drape of some kind, but that, as the legislators wisely noted in their statute, was not enough. It was a statue, on the top of the United States Capitol; I do not know what sick, disrespectful pervert put it there, but I am still recovering from the ordeal.
I thank the gods that I am not a male legislator (the ones most devastatingly affected by such sights). I read a story that one saw the Venus de Milo by mistake (he heard it was art) and is still in a hospital, groaning in agony.
We all know how many male legislators have suffered this fate, thanks to a previous dress code that did not pause for a moment to consider them as people. Those legions of men glimpsed a wrap, sliding precipitously down a human shoulder in the Missouri Capitol, and have had to give up public life entirely to spend their days screaming and staring at the wall.
Sometimes, at night, I still hear them, howling. Their lives, as they know them, have ended. So many lives, taken completely out of their owners’ hands and made to serve the whims of a legislature that didn’t think it was a big deal to allow shawls and sweaters, that didn’t take into account the impact on people’s lives of their careless words.
The people of Missouri sat there last year in the midst of major flash floods worrying: “Are my legislators going to protect their eyes from sh***ders? They had better focus on that,” they thought, “rather than the infrastructure. I know it is also important to try to make it more difficult to change the state constitution by ballot initiative, since the voice of the people might be heard, and that could be very awkward. But first! First, they must look to swaddling all those hideous, loathsome appendages and hiding them from view! Ugh, ugh!”
You would think that people so horrified by the sight of an innocent shoulder would not want to, voluntarily, delve any deeper into other people’s bodies and enact cruel, dehumanizing restrictions about their medical choices, but — you would be wrong.
The banter back and forth that I’ve had with fellow Show Me Staters, and others, is not “family friendly” and therefore not proper for repeating here. . .
. . . except what my retired teacher sister said: “What about cleavage?”
Your sister is smart. The female legislators could show up in long-sleeved ball gowns with provocative cleavage, and deep slits on the skirts. #MissouriTaliban
The xtian theocrats are no different in kind from the Islamic Taliban.
Democrats need to develop new political tactics to point out the absurdity of republican-blocked and -driven policies. This is why we need, for example, something like “Body-Armor Fridays” when state legislators and staff come to work in body armor to highlight the absurdity of more than 85% of Americans supporting gun registration laws. Sleeveless Wednesdays would be a great thing for Missouri male state legislators as well.
Now you’re talkin!
But I don’t trust that the Dims can think in those terms.
I suspect the subject of cleavage where geology is concerned might disturb some who are sure the earth’s age is umder 7000.
If the elected women of the Missouri House have any cojones at all they will all show up on Monday with bared shoulders.
Duane, let’s hope.
Why do women need to “cojones” to act assertively? This is related to this post. Do we need rules or claims of political correctness or is it rational and appropriate? Not condemning, Duane, just sayin’ it points out the need for self-imposed constraints depending on the audience and not the need for rules governing either.
Just like the recent post on profanity on this blog. Do we need rules if truth is being expressed and some are offended? Do those standards change with time and experience? Do we need explicit rules or is there a time and place? After all, there are times when only profanity and inconvenient language can only accurately express anger, joy, and actual reality.
Cojones? Can you say satire/metaphor? I almost wrote “cajones” which is how I’ve seen it spelled here many times. By the way “cajones” means boxes, so maybe that would be appropriate. (Please note the crudeness of the term box as a substitute for vagina-do I need to explain everything? Hey at least there is no profanity in this particular post of mine.)
To answer your questions: 1st para: Because it’s a metaphor, no/no 2nd para: No, Yes, No/Yes.
Overall I agree with what you are saying.
I have a feeling cussing would crowd out other words if we have had a face-to-face conversation! I want to believe that there is a strong correlation between knowledge of cuss words and intelligence.
That correlation is probably a strong one. . . at least in terms of educational/sociological studies. . . ya know like a .4 or .5.
For those reading along at home that is a tongue in cheek (TiC) comment. Maybe I should put a TiC after many of my comments so people know.
I’m not sure that you should advertise that you have a tic. Bad marketing! (TiC)
Ain’t no marketing that will help me so. . . .
Greg; regarding your cursing and intelligence:
When I was a boy there was a man who worked in the local lumber yard. Whether he was intelligent or not is beyond my understanding, but he used four letter words so often that it took him much longer to speak than the average guy. He modified even the most innocuous noun (trust me, innocuous nouns are the rule in a lumber yard) with a string of expletives often lasting near five seconds, notwithstanding his rapid utterance of the string.
So when I was studying grammar in college somewhat later, I recalled this bucolic gentleman when the author of the book suggested that some words were often used to such excess that they became “linguistic sawdust.” It made me wonder if Roberts, the author, had not been to my lumber yard.
One of the reasons it takes Southern cussers more time to speak is because what are one syllable words in most of the the country are two-to-three syllables in Southern speech. Example: Shee-ye-it. Or the word “that”: tha-ye-et.
Greg: Aw hay- ul, at ain’t so 😆
Quite seriously, one of the southern dialects is very fast-talking. This is attained by clipping words in places to achieve a running noise like a constant run-sentence.
The Morality Police Strike Again …
Missouri Legislature is NUTS.
Has Missouri become the Taliban?
INSANIITY!
Republicans just aren’t serious legislators.
😆
Thanks. Being from Missouri, I’m in need of postings like this. Heaven help us!
Good morning Diane and everyone,
If students can come to school in their pajamas and slippers (which they do all the time), I don’t see why women can’t wear a sleeveless blouse in the legislature.
I wish, as another reader suggested, that all the female legislators came to work in sleeveless dresses. But of course the GOP women will dress as Handmaids.
It is absolutely amazing that Trump can talk about women they way he does and tell the world what he can do to women and not a word from the Republicans.
God forbid if man see a bare shoulder. Wouldn’t want those old farts in the Missouri legislature having a heart attack because of a bare shoulder or two.
The next step will be to have women in the legislature forced to have their dresses/skirts measured for proper length; must wear a certain type of shoe; will have to wear dark clothing; preferable black; be required to wear blouses or shirts that button up just below the chin in order to make sure that absolutely no cleavage is visible; their hair will have to be a certain length, no make-up, and their faces covered except for the eyes.
One step closer to National/State Christian government.
“Wouldn’t want those old farts in the Missouri legislature having a heart attack because of a bare shoulder or two.”
As a fellow Missourian pointed out: “More likely than not a bare shoulder won’t excite them as they are into little boys.”
Bear shoulders — especially grizzly bear shoulders — should be more of a concern in the legislature.
In schools too.
At least Betsy DeVos got that much right.
Dead and Shoulders
A shoulder can be deadly
Especially when it’s bear
Cuz just in front is headly
With grizzly teeth that bare
Bear arms or bare arms. . .
. . . take your pick. . .
. . . or both. . .
. . . damn, wordpress bars me from copying pics of bare armed woman baring arms.
woman bearing arms.
Good ol wordpress not allowing editing after the fact.
Perhaps this is really what the cartoon series “We Bare Bears” must be all about.
What is the penalty for shoulder-barring?
Attachable/detachable sleeves will be make available in the lobby in order to avoid that scenario. Hopefully there will be no wardrobe mishaps. In case there are, there will be an appropriation for emergency tailors on the floor. To further keep the legislature in stitches, so to speak.
Barring the whole body from the legislative chambers for shoulder baring.
Barred for Barely Bare
Even barely bare
Is not a thing to dare
Since bare is simply barred
And punishment is hard
Arms: yes for guns, no for show (especially them women!).
It’s time for women in Missouri to step up and run for office in the state and “show” the men how democracy works.
The xtian theocratic males don’t need no stinkin advice from their god’s ordained weaker sex.
It’s in the Constitution, the right to bear (or bare) arms shall not be infringed and also the 1st amendment right to freedom of expression. The GOP men in the Missouri House of Representatives are from another century, 12th?
“The GOP men in the Missouri House of Representatives are from another century. . . .
The bill was introduced by State Rep. Ann Kelley (R-127) which passed by a 105-51 vote as part of a rules package.
District 127 is in the far southwest corner of Missouri, just north of Joplin and west of Springfield. If that isn’t Bible Belt country I don’t know what is.
From the Missouri House of Representatives web site: Prior to her legislative service, Kelley worked as an educator. For 13 years she worked as a middle school English Language Arts teacher with the Lamar School District. She also has owned and operated a licensed daycare.
Kelley is a member of the Chambers of Commerce for Barton County, Sarcoxie, Lockwood, and Greenfield. She also is a member of the NRA, Missouri Farm Bureau, and the Missouri State Teachers Association. end quote
She must have been a hoot as a teacher, yikes. I’m surprised she joined the MSTA, the teachers’ union or did she act as a mole, an embedded crypto-scab in the MSTA?
MSTA is actually an organization dominated by rural adminimals with a few rural teachers. Not that I have anything against rural living/being. I do have many things against adminimals, no matter their professional affiliations. And the NEA isn’t that different from MSTA in regards to being advocates for the educational malpractice implementations for the last quarter century.
Jersey Joe,
I wish Alexandra Petra had thought of the right to bare arms!
The dress code reflects the attire that men popularized, matched jackets and pants and suits. It’s standard in the halls of power for women to be required to fit the mold adopted by men.
It reminds of the incident with Mike Pence who did not think women should wear sleeveless clothes in Congress. It also reminds me of the antiquated Biblical idea that places a burden on women not tempt men.
Yes
Conservative religion aims to keep women in 2nd class citizenship and to rob women of their agency. All who support churches that demonstrate anti-woman bias are complicit. They know the congregants’ money is used politically against LGBTQ and women’s’ rights (and, stem cell research). They know their churches model patriarchy.
The liberals among them usually take their children to those same churches while claiming to teach them otherwise at home. It guarantees a pipeline of
opposition to modernism in favor of continued bigotry.
Their view- as long as I psychologically benefit from the hocus pocus, society’s advancement be damned
Republicans like the so-called House Freedom Caucus make the most noise about “freedom” while introducing legislation that takes away freedoms.
I think the only freedoms the US Taliban (aka: the House Unfreedom Chaos Cult, ALEC libertarians, et al.) want is the freedom to own firearms and shoot anyone they think is a threat to their thinking, never pay taxes, make money anyway possible, ignore all laws they don’t like so they can do whatever they want, pollute the environment, infect others with lethal viruses, control what we wear, say, and think (by chipping our brains to monitor what we think with help from Elon Musk), while being free to smoke tobacco in public.
I love the part about the statue. And could someone do something about that guy from St. Paris–NOT Urbana, my friends say–Ohio who NEVER WEARS A JACKET while on duty as a member of Congress. James Jordan is, I think, his name. Same yellow tie, day after day, NO JACKET! Shudder…
So you’re suggesting that JJ is prima facia evidence for the need of a dress code?
In 1924, a bronze statue of the Roman goddess Ceres was installed on the top of the Missouri capitol dome, recognizing the importance of agriculture to the Missouri economy. A few years ago, it was sent to a cleaning company. A legislator objected to the reinstalling of the statue of the pagan goddess.
I am now looking for a sleeveless burka, or at the very least, one of those Handmaiden outfits I can cut the sleeves off of.
❤ the allusion to Mary Oliver. Blessed be her memory and legacy!
While we were talking about this, I bet they made themselves rich somehow at our expense.
As Missouri Representative Peter Merideth pointed out, the guys that fiercely opposed pandemic mask wearing are micromanaging what women wear.
Meredith might be the only ethical legislator in the whole legislature and/or executive branch of Missouri
Representative Ashley Aune was also vocal about the female dress code.
All women should wear masks at all times
What else would we expect from Missouri?
The former AG (now a U.S. Senator who defeated the run-out-of-office Governor in the primary) who sued school districts for mask mandates thankfully is still being counter-sued by a school district.
Another year and another onslaught of bills filed prohibiting teaching CRT and any lessons that claim racism is systemic in governance and culture – although nothing is more “systemic” than the Missouri Compromise when Congress admitted Missouri to the union as a slave state.
They should all show up (yes, men, too – that would really tick of the right) in Hillary long sleeve pantsuits.
If there is to be a dress code, I think it should adopt equal standards for everyone, and that is why the Missouri rules don’t bother me. Women are insisting on a double standard, and that’s not a good look. People are arguing that sleeveless garments are sufficiently professional for women, but why not for men? People are assuming that the baring arms issue is about sex, but I think it is about gender.
Anne,
If you are a woman and not a cat fishing man (GOP men are proven liars), show respect for your fellow women. Stop defending the rigged system that enables a male majority to impose rules that are discriminatory. When we allow male bastions to continue looking like the patriarchy, the cause of women’s equality is not advanced.
So, a woman who has a difference of opinion, is considered a “cat fishing man?” If the issue is that a male majority is making rules for women, then I agree that there needs to be an egalitarian way of defining “professional attire” (if there is a need for such a definition, which I’m not convinced there is). If the issue is that we women should be able to maintain the privileges of feminine attire–such as sleeveless tops–then I wonder if we (women) are wanting to have our cake and eat it too. A modest proposal: let them all wear robes.