>

As a woman of average height who shops - good luck finding skirts and dresses that are not either three inches above the knee or midi to maxi length. Pickings are slim. I hope pants are allowed.
But wearing a mask was a restriction of their freedom. >

Same in schools. Parents were threatening school board members, administrators,  and teachers for enforcing mask mandates but had no issue with making a girl put on a giant sweatshirt if she had a visible bra strap. >

The policing of girls clothing in schools is crazy >

The policing of girls in general is crazy. It’s like giving people the green light to blame a child for the way she dressed when she gets raped. I can already hear the “well if her skirt wasn’t 3 inches above the knee” line already >

I remember a rape case a while ago in the US where the defense was since the young woman was wearing a certain kind of underwear, then she clearly consented to sex. 
There was a similar defense in Ireland a few years ago.  I don't know if either was a successful argument,  but still pretty stunning to even present to a court. >

There's been all sorts of crazy things like that. Like saying if she didn't want it, then there was no way that her blue jeans could've been removed. (I think that was from a judge, but my memory is fuzzy.) Or if it was an actual rape then she wouldn't get pregnant. (That was a Republican congressman.) >

"If it's legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down"
That shithead is dead now, and the world is a better place for it >

When people say stuff like that I always wonder if they really believe it or if it's a deliberate lie to push their agenda. Cause it gives the impression they've never actually met a human woman
Edit :: this comment has turned out to be somewhat controversial and I'm just gonna throw it out there, if you disagree with what I'm saying please say why cause I am fascinated who I offended here >

With Republicans;


voter: actually believe it


representative: deliberate lies to push agenda >

If you show up "improperly dressed" does the state legislature have to call your mom to bring you more appropriate clothing or do you just get sent home for the day? >

Can't speak for the legislature but I know in law school I was coached that if I applied for any jobs in the south, I would be expected to wear a skirt suit and pantyhose and if I tried to wear a pantsuit or went without hose I would likely not get a job if it was an interview, or be sent home by the judge without hearing my case if it was a court appearance. I went to law school and nyc and even for the job market there I was coached on how to dress "conservatively" and had many classmates instruct me on where to buy hose that were worth the money if I was going to wear a skirt. It was such a culture shock after moving out of the pacific northwest especially since I don't even shave my legs or armpits which is frankly taken in stride in the pnw.
I interned for a male judge in brooklyn for a while who once complimented a young female lawyer's cardigan during a motion hearing and she intimated that the cardigan had gotten her thrown out of a couple courtrooms for being "unprofessional." It was the middle of summer and swelteringly hot outside but freezing in the court room bc of the air conditioning. A suit jacket would be unreasonable for the weather but the cardigan was perfect layering for the courtroom and very professional looking. My judge commisserated and turned to me and the other intern (both of us women) and told us solemnly that some judges are stuck in the past but that we should never be ashamed of needing a cardigan if it's cold. And it says more about those judges than it does about us if a judge shames a woman attorney for being chilly in the courtroom. >

I was coached the same way in some of the pre law classes that I took while I was getting my bachelors degree. My professor even mentioned that she’d had a judge call her unprofessional for wearing pants in a court room before. I can’t guarantee that that actually happened but I do live in Florida so I wouldn’t be surprised. >

There are still SO many judges who can't handle women wearing pants >

This paragraph really gets it:

We do applaud the impulse to look more professional in the House. Acting more professional, though, is the real trick. One way to do that: Quit wasting time on the transparently cynical “woke” wars pushed by Gov. DeSantis in his quest for the White House and focus on the real needs of the people. Stuff like affordable housing, a solution to the escalating property-insurance crisis, rising seas, diversifying an economy too dependent on tourism.

Florida, quite literally, is promoting style over substance in their legislature! >

Walter Benjamin and many critics of fascism in the 1930s and 40s said that a key component of fascism was the 'aestheticization' of politics. That is, prioritizing political style and the appearance of politics over actual politics. The culture wars are a fantastic example of this, and while both democrats and republicans are guilty of this, the republicans have taken it to extreme levels. >

So you're saying Hitler was the original tiktok influencer? >

Hitler's crew were styled by Hugo Boss...so that tracks >

And Chanel, she was a known nazi >

This comment section Bill Burrs 👍 >

When you vote to turn your state into a theocratic shithole to own the libs.
Great fun all around >


to own the libs

It's not this anymore. That ended around 2020. Now it's simply control over women. >

Oki fair. I'm apparently no really keeping up with the times. >

Medieval times, it would appear. >

I have been to medieval times.   Ate some chicken,  had a giant Stein of beer and watched a bunch of dudes on horses fight for the Queens pleasure.  I think the green knight won when I was there.   Definitely way more progressive than anything a conservative has to offer.   Don't sully Medievil Times with such mean comparisons! >

Seriously.  Pre-gaming while hanging out with a semi-legit blacksmith, enthusiastically yelling for "your" knight and watching people encounter soup with no spoon = hilarious evening, even without all the horses and swords and stuff. >

Do they still sell the light-up pacifiers in the gift shop? (The ones for grownups, not babies) >

It's funny how the same people that run around screaming people are "TaKinG AwaY MuH FreeDomZ" Are literally the ones taking people's freedom away. >

My freedoms mean “fundemental rights.”  My freedoms are fundamental.  Yours are not.  
Mine are based on truth.  Yours are not. >

Uh... /s?
Rights aren't based in truth. They not a real thing, they're just guarantees that are supposed to be upheld. There's no such thing as a fundamental right, it's just something we made up and collectively decided to follow. >

Try to explain that to them. >

How is this going to solve any problems real people are facing? >

Well, for Republicans it solves a problem because they are constantly at war with women, and continually need to flaunt it. >

There’s no fucking way that map is accurate. Iowa is 96% white and voted republican. And there’s a disclaimer at the bottom saying that no matter how he broke it down, all non white votes in every state went democrat. >

It's an old post I think from the 2012 election >

So not really relevant at all. Especially with that being Obama’s cycle. >

Under His Eye. >

When the walls fell >

Temba, his arms wide >

I'll be honest I only remember parts without refreshing memory but I knew you chads would absolutely come out of the woodwork in solidarity haha >

These conservative men who yell about Sharia law telling American women to cover up. >

Their problem with Sharia is that it comes from a competitor religion. They don't care about the quality of evidence or lack there of for why people should follow it, or the impediment on rights. >

If it wasn’t for different beliefs the extremists of every religion would love eachother. >

Florida Republicans admit they are unable to control themselves if they happen to see the slightest bit of lower femur. >

Its like Borat saying Pence can't be left alone with a woman because he's such a hound. >

Men's dress code is much stricter. Nothing above the ankle. >

Also bullshit. IDC if my rep is wearing shorts as long as they pass laws that actually benefit people rather than arguing over stuff like this. >

To be enforced by nuns with measuring tape and paddles >

But concealed guns are OK - Amiright >

Gotta keep them lady-parts well concealed too! >

Small government party folks. >

The whole goal is to drive women out of political discourse and high school athletics.
The right wing hates Title IX so they instituted the menstrual rule.  Now they are trying to make being a women in politics a burden. 
The GOP and the right wing are a theocratic crazy land. >

Republican men can force you to birth.  You better believe they can tell you how to dress.  If ya keep voting republican, pretty soon you will lose the right to vote.  But y'all go ahead and keep drooling at the polls...... >

Next up - All women representatives must make sandwiches for everyone's lunch >

and always be prepared to assume any position of subservience..... >

Please refresh my memory, this is the party that champions personal freedom? >

Ohio did this too. Women aren't allowed to show their arms, among other restrictions. >

Missouri did the same. >

Gilead did the same. >

Also no spaghetti strap tank tops. Violations will result in you having to wear your PE clothes for the rest of the school day. Your parents can collect your clothes at the end of the day. >

Was this a problem that needed fixing?  Were members showing up in mini skirts, low cut tops, swim suits, or some other overly revealing clothes? >

It was if you are a misogynist. >

Florida sounds like a right shithole. >

It is literally and figuratively America’s cock and balls. >

It is also hot and sweaty down there too! >

If I were a member, I'd show up every day in a men's suit and tie.  Fuck these creeps. >

Oklahoma just did this too.  Concerted effort between red States. >

The GOP want women in the kitchen making dinner. They’re incrementally reestablishing their control over them with rules like this. >

They will be sent to reeducation cooking camps, until they master the art of Salisbury steak. I mean I hope s/ >

Tucker Swanson Carlson loves a good Salisbury steak. He can probably eat as many TV dinners as he wants. >

You KNOW he's all about those Hungry Man TV dinners. >

I just envision him walking the factory floor just grabbing free TV dinners right off the assembly line. I wonder if he eats the little brownie first while he waits for the mashed potatoes that get nuclear hot to cool down? >

I remember they'd make the girls kneel on the floor and use a dollar bill as measurement. >

That's a little too on the nose >

It's what they did, though. >

As said before - guns have more rights, than females in Florida >

Agree, women should have the right to bare arms. >

Well in this case *bare more legs >

Oh right…that’s Missouri
Why Are Women Now Required to Cover Their Arms in the Missouri State House? >

But this will expose ankles! >

Do people really care that they're instituting a pretty standard business dress code? I mean, no sleeveless shirts and nothing too short seems pretty boringly usual for so many things I just can't bring myself to have an issue with it if the majority of the legislature wants it that way. >

I see nothing wrong wit this and Florida’s government antics usually pisses me off >

Right?
I feel weird arguing that Florida didn't do anything weird or wrong here, but this time it's just a building/employee dress code that has everyone talking about The Handmaid's Tale. >

You should look professional. >

Lol can't wear shoes without socks, they probably think it makes you look gay.
You can tell someone over the age of 50/60 thought this up >

It’s official, formal government business— should everyone just show up in t-shirts and sweatpants? >

American Taliban >

Tells me how priveleged you are if you think having a less restrictive dress code than men is oppression, and not being allowed to wear a mini-skirt at work is equivalent to wearing a burka and not being allowed to work. >

This is pretty much standard professional attire dress code. Don’t really see the big issue here. >

Are there restrictions for men? Because if men are required to wear a suit and tie I think it should be no different for women - literally also wearing a suit and tie. However if they’re just pulling rules out their ass for no reason then yeah fuck all of them and let those women skirt. >

it pretty much just says like men women have to wear the suit and tie equivalent >

Professionalism a problem? Men having less options not? >

Males should all show up wearing jean shorts above knee. >

Of all the things to complain about regarding republicans ...I don't think this is one worth the wasted time.
While I'm not a fan of dress codes in general... It's fairly established for the past billion years to have professional standards in terms of dress codes. I would say that any Congressional place of business would qualify as a professional place of business. This is a nothing burger to create faux outrage.  Focus the anger on abortion rights, education, and ethics.... Not a version of something that every white collar job has to put up with. >

And unfortunately, when we show full outrage over something like this that's actually pretty reasonable, it reduces our credibility when it comes time to talk about an issue that deserves outrage. >

Isn’t this just a workplace dress-code? Women in my company cannot wear skirts that are too short. >

This is considerably more restrictive than standard "business casual" guidelines, though - especially for Florida, where it's hot as hell so sleeveless tops/dresses for women and polo shirts for men are standard even in government/professional work environments.  
Although it seems like these new rules apply equally to men and women, the banned items that are commonly worn by men (patterned suits, t-shirts, jeans with holes, shoes without socks) are rarely encountered in a professional workplace.  The banned items that are commonly worn by women (skirts above the knee, leggings) are very common in "business casual" workplaces, though.  The ban on "low cut" tops also causes problems because a top that's modest on a small-busted woman might expose a little bit of cleavage on a large-busted woman. >

I will admit I did not consider the heat element. Besides this, I am ashamed to admit that I don’t consider these guidelines as overly restrictive. But I’m open to the possibility of being an antiquated fart. >

I don't think it's totally unreasonable to have stricter guidelines in the House chamber, since legislative sessions are formal events in an air conditioned environment.  A "business formal" dress code is probably okay, if a little old-fashioned.
The problem is that these rules also extend to what legislators are allowed to wear in their offices and what they're allowed to wear when meeting constituents out in the community.  Under these rules, a male legislator wouldn't be allowed to wear a promotional t-shirt while appearing at a charity 5k run, and a female legislator would have to wear a high-collared, knee-length dress to a summer festival.  A male legislator wouldn't be allowed to wear sandals to an event on the beach, and a female legislator wouldn't be allowed to wear shorts or a tennis skirt to an event at a country club.  Legislators would have to wear jackets even when meeting with colleagues or staffers in their own offices.  In 2023, in Florida of all places, these rules make no sense, and they're designed in a way that will impact women more than men. >

I appreciate you giving a more thorough explanation. Admittedly, I did not understand that this extended to when legislators meet constituents and I can see how that would be overly restrictive. >

American Taliban >

It’s just political theater. >

My line of Star Spangled Burquas is about ready! >

But they still want all the hotties to come down and fornicate nearly naked on the beaches because spring break is great for the economy.
Such hypocrisy.
There is nothing Christian about any of the nonsense perpetuated by state or federal government. >

Pretty sure this dress code is only for in the Capitol building, not when they're on their free time at the beach or whatever. It's a business dress code. >

So at 2 inches every dude gets a boner? >

No jeans with holes.  Is that all it says?  How would you even put them on if there were no holes? >

Desantis is a disgrace. >

It's always been about controlling women >

Went to an all girl Catholic high school . I know about uniform enforcement. It’s all about control. >

Maybe they should consider having women cover their faces too.  That is a novel idea….  What a wonderful regressive society built on greed and power to control others. >

Meanwhile my nieces who go to school in Florida: “it’s non of their fucking business how I dress or my last cycle.” >

I'd make a joke about the party of small government focused on real problems, but that might be pulling on a loose thread. >

Now, in the interest of fairness, I think that the House should post weekly pictures of all male representatives and staff and let their constituents decide if their attire is appropriate.  Then there should be a public plebiscite on a male dress code for this work.  After all, they are public servants... >

It's a dress code for a professional job. Congressmen have a dress code too. Guess what, so do many other jobs. >

Is that a typo? Surely they meant "ankle" and "an inch below"??? >

Feverishly hoping there’s a male rep with a dad bod and a shred of decency left, who’ll come rocking into session on a sleeveless blouse and skorts. And dress shoes, cause ain’t no guy who wants to fuck w/heels. >

I mean let’s be honest this is more restrictive for men than women. Men have to even wear socks. So is the argument that we should do away with dress codes completely? Because I’m not sure that’s the best idea either. You know some Q fan would be rocking a conspiracy t-shirt. >

Regardless of gender, everyone should be wearing business attire.  The end.  Specifying skirt length is redundant. >

Do the men get to wear shorts? >

The blue boxes represent allowed styles but don't (explicitly) mention that only a specific gender must wear a specific form of clothing. It looks like men could rock in in a slacks and a red cardigan and women would wear a tailored business suit. >

Conservative men have shown themselves incapable of controlling their urges around women, and don’t value women except as brood mares. Conservative men don’t care to honor a woman’s bodily autonomy, don’t care if they die during childbirth, don’t care if they’re raped. Rules like this are a clear warning to women to be careful around these assholes. The men they will work with are clearly little boys who can’t control their pee pees, and feel entitled to have their way with any woman who dares arouse them. >

It’s a dumb rule, but it’s crazy how many people think a pretty normal dress code for business is the next step to Gilead. >

It’s called dressing professional. Lol >

You are arguing with people who apparently think dressing up for anything, even government business, is too much… well, if it’s asking women to dress up. Not a peep about the fact that men are stuck with slacks, a jacket, and a tie— no dresses or skirts allowed for them. >

Haha great point. I would love to kick the suit and dress shoes, but it’s a part of growing up-dressing professional and being an adult. >

That is too much for reddit and r/politics you see >

What I don’t understand: are people here really saying mini-skirts are appropriate for representatives?  Maybe also super low-cut top with lots of breast on display?  Maybe the men should also roll in in t-shirts and flip-flops, or unbuttoned dress shirt with chest hair on full view? >

Can men wear shorts?  Serious question.  I have no problem with dress codes as long as they are applied equally. >

No men have to wear s suit. The dresscode is just becoming more equal. Outcry for literally nothing like usual >

Equally idiotic. The outcry is well deserved IMO. >

maybe but this isn’t a gender thing if both sides are held to the same standard even a strict one we can argue if men and women should have looser rules but to claim it is unequal is incorrect >

When future historians review the past 5 years they’re going to be so confused how we slid backwards so fast… >

Assuming the sliding stops. If it doesn't, the historians will start erasing the fact that we ever had rights to begin with. >

Unpopular opinion:
I consider myself pretty lax about office dress codes. I often bend the rules and get away with it, and I work in federal government.
With that said, our dress code here is not suit and tie for men - it used to be. I would hate that.
However, the acceptable dress code for men in elected positions is suit and tie, even if someone like Gym Jordan refuses to wear the jacket, which he has been called out on.
If there is a standard for men, there should be a standard for women. If something as restrictive as a suit and tie is required for men, then something equally restrictive should apply to women.
Why should there be a difference?
While I’m going to get downvotes anyway, a man who chooses to wear a dress should be allowed to and should adhere to the one-inch-above-the-knee policy as well. >

This is basically the dress code we had as doctors pre-COVID. Except for instead of a jacket or suit coat, we wore white coats (some would omit it but we weren’t supposed to). Men wore a shirt and tie, women wore a skirt or something like a pantsuit. 
As a man, I always envied the women and their option to wear a skirt. I’d have loved to have worn shorts on a 100° day, rather than be stuck wearing long pants. 
Seems like a pretty standard workplace dress code here. Of course, given who’s implementing it, it raises eyebrows. Seems like a pattern. But by itself it’s not a huge deal. >

But this is r/ politics so it's always "Republicans bad" >

I wonder what happens if you break the dress code. Will security physically prevent you from entering the chamber to vote? Or is it a verbal reprimand? Stripped of committee assignments? What happens? >

Yeah that’s what I’m wondering, constitutionally I don’t think they could stop any member from voting, committee assignments and fines could be a thing but in Florida they’re not paid a ton (more than other states, but unless you’re taking bribes… which they are… you aren’t making a living off of it) so it might not matter >

I just want to know when it will become ok for guys to wear shorts the same way women can wear skirts.
I don't like being hot all the time just cus that's how people dressed 100 years ago. >

Welcome to Gilead >

the future left them behind and now they are trying to hurt people before they become a footnote in 20 - 30 years >

In Florida where its hot af in the spring, fall and summer? >

Do they not have air conditioning in the Capitol building? >

Lol this was the rule at my catholic high school. >

Well putting in a exact measurement is just odd.  But I agree there should be a dress code.  Usually 'Business Attire' gets the job done.  
I mean , are you going to have someone with a ruler ? >

Like the author of the article, I applaud wanting to look more professional while on the job, but acting more professional would further our needs. >

Lmao what a shithole >

Wow..just wow....but a simple solution presents itself.  You know all those idiotic dresses shown on runways in Paris?   Find some styles that fit the criteria of no shoulders visible, length, etc and wear those instead.  I promise that after 1 day of all these women showing up looking like a Salvador Dahi nightmare they will retreat from this insanity. >

The men should wear those skirts also. >

Are you tired of having to make all those silly decisions all day? 
What should I wear?
Anyone read any good books lately?
How can I take care of my body?
Well look no further. We're here for all your personal needs. We'll tell you what books are good to read, what to do with that body of your's (especially you gals ;-) ), when to support the police and when to look away.  Yessir,next election just vote GOP and all your worries will be washed away. 
Brought to you by the Republican Taliban Action committee >

A male democrat legislator should dress in fully compliant women’s clothing just to piss all of the republicans off and demonstrate how ridiculous these rules are. >

It's not about morality or religion. It's about power, that's it. >

Short shorts ok for anyone ✅ >

Republicans are always scared at “impure” thoughts they’ll have anyway. >

Yes, but it’s written, “the year of our Lord, 2023.” >

How many new rules did they adopt for men? >

Y'all Quaeda in the House. >

I feel like this is unconstitutional. >

How so? >

Afghanistan here we come!!
Hope you guys like your women more than they do.... 
....fight for their freedoms with them. They are your mothers, sisters, wives, daughters.... fellow americans. >

And sharia law creeps forward. >

And a " jock strap made of rocks 
for all the pricks in favor - may they finally know what its like to get their rocks off "  💋 >

“And guys, no bellbottoms or you will be sent home!” >

If I worked there I’d be showing up there with a kilt above my knees >

Clown shoes are not only allowed, but required. >

Imagine showing up as just a grateful dead shirt?! >

Hey, remember all the Republicans who screeched/still screech about the Burka? Funny how they then turn around and want to control how much skin women here can show.
All the talk of "slippery slopes" when it comes to gun laws, but no talk of it when it comes to restricting clothing for women.
It's almost like they're cut from the exact same cloth. It's almost like conservatism and religious fundamentalism have no borders and are the same shitty beast no matter where they attempt to restrict the rights of others. >

I thought Republicans were supposed to be the party of less government in our lives? >

In this case, ALL women should wear a Hijab - covers EVERYTHING . >

Good ole American Taliban flexing >

What next, no bare arms? >

Gilead >

Ron DeSantis proudly leading us into the 1950s >

Aren’t all those in the house voted in? So if they violate this dress code they, what, get a write up? They can’t be fired, right? >

Brought to you from 1962. WTF >

The Repubs won a decade ago. They let things be for the interim and are now putting their religious takeover into action. >

Just another episode of The Handmaiden Tale. >

I went to Catholic school.  They would take two fingers and place them above your knee.  If the skirt/dress was higher than that detention.  The male teachers loved doing this.  
Guys had no such dress code.  The responsibility of morality essentially fell on to the young ladies.  It's a stupid and outdated way of thinking.  Just forcing people to comply with rules that don't affect anything but their need for control over others. Even over the most mundane things. >

Sounds like the perfect law to be ignored or broken >

Time to start wearing booty shorts. >

Yeah, but Missouri just changed it's rule as well. Women cannot wear sleeveless shirts/ dresses/ tops. 
Right to bare arms my ass..... >

Same generation who put dress code in schools wants to control people on the house as well... not surprised. Fucking boomers are the worst >

As a Muslim, I approve. Thank you for passing Sharia law.
Conservatives made such a hullabaloo against Sharia law, I never thought they'd full on start adopting it. So it must have been jealousy all along? 
So when you guys insult the Prophet Muhammad...calling him a pedophile, does that mean that's what you are yourselves? Are you going to start lowering the age of marriage for women specifically? >

Not one FOX new host would pass this >

If I was working among those perverts, I will probably only wear pants. >

This is about control over women. Make sure that she is always being watched. >

Republican woman how much more of this are you going to just accept and or ignore >

No, it's 1957. >

Role them up as soon as you go through thru the skirt checkpoint.  Girls at my Catholic school always knew how to role skirts up or down depending on who was teaching the class.  Fighting fascism with skirt rolling has been a long tradition. >

Start wearing formal dresses and start complain that the men are'nt well/properly dressed >

Even when they're being deliberately sexist, conservative still manage to ruin things for everyone from both sexes! >

Chastity belts next >

What do you think; Should men be required to wear codpieces to conceal their MASSIVE erections provoked by a nude female ankle?
BTW: Dresses should be floor length… with bustles. >

I can't wait 'til they codify House rules that specify if a woman member is sexually assaulted it's because their clothing was too revealing and it made the guys all worked up and they just couldn't help themselves. >

Yallqueda striking again >

I mean. Can men wear shorts then? I think some of them have sexy legs. BUT they can't be bushy like a forest of trees. >

While an example of foolish Puritanism, this is really minor compared to what Gilead has in mind for the USA. >

I had an employer that tried this.  Where does "above the knee" start? >

What if I were to pull a Gym Jordan and refuse to wear my jacket as some sort of performative masculinity thing? >

But when they get their gif on Fox News, skirts must be 5” above the knee