Datasets:

---

innovation-hacking2

/

shitposting_dataset1

like 0

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA)." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair)." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all.", ">\n\nOnce again the Republicans take a step closer to becoming the American Taliban, surprising absolutely no one." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all.", ">\n\nOnce again the Republicans take a step closer to becoming the American Taliban, surprising absolutely no one.", ">\n\nHow many decades are we going to turn the clock back? I remember my first job post-college (1979) required me to wear pantyhose and although not outright prohibited they frowned heavily on women wearing slacks." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all.", ">\n\nOnce again the Republicans take a step closer to becoming the American Taliban, surprising absolutely no one.", ">\n\nHow many decades are we going to turn the clock back? I remember my first job post-college (1979) required me to wear pantyhose and although not outright prohibited they frowned heavily on women wearing slacks.", ">\n\nWorth noting: \n\nMen also have a dress code to abide by in the chamber, but there were no proposed updates to their dress code on Wednesday. The men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.” \n\nDoesn't make the state any less backwards, but context makes it an iota less prone to sensationalization." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all.", ">\n\nOnce again the Republicans take a step closer to becoming the American Taliban, surprising absolutely no one.", ">\n\nHow many decades are we going to turn the clock back? I remember my first job post-college (1979) required me to wear pantyhose and although not outright prohibited they frowned heavily on women wearing slacks.", ">\n\nWorth noting: \n\nMen also have a dress code to abide by in the chamber, but there were no proposed updates to their dress code on Wednesday. The men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.” \n\nDoesn't make the state any less backwards, but context makes it an iota less prone to sensationalization.", ">\n\nNo it do doesn’t. It’s still bullshit." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all.", ">\n\nOnce again the Republicans take a step closer to becoming the American Taliban, surprising absolutely no one.", ">\n\nHow many decades are we going to turn the clock back? I remember my first job post-college (1979) required me to wear pantyhose and although not outright prohibited they frowned heavily on women wearing slacks.", ">\n\nWorth noting: \n\nMen also have a dress code to abide by in the chamber, but there were no proposed updates to their dress code on Wednesday. The men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.” \n\nDoesn't make the state any less backwards, but context makes it an iota less prone to sensationalization.", ">\n\nNo it do doesn’t. It’s still bullshit.", ">\n\nYes, it's still bullshit in a bullshit state. No disagreement there. \nBut I do disagree that it doesn't make an iota of difference. I think that difference is easier to see if the men's dress code didn't already require coats and ties. If such a requirement were unilaterally placed upon women -- with no corresponding imposition on men -- then its level of bullshit would be substantially higher than it is. \nAgain, I don't disagree that it's bullshit, I just think the pre-existing parallel requirement for men puts it on a very slightly different place on the spectrum as a starting point (and subject to other contextual elements)." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all.", ">\n\nOnce again the Republicans take a step closer to becoming the American Taliban, surprising absolutely no one.", ">\n\nHow many decades are we going to turn the clock back? I remember my first job post-college (1979) required me to wear pantyhose and although not outright prohibited they frowned heavily on women wearing slacks.", ">\n\nWorth noting: \n\nMen also have a dress code to abide by in the chamber, but there were no proposed updates to their dress code on Wednesday. The men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.” \n\nDoesn't make the state any less backwards, but context makes it an iota less prone to sensationalization.", ">\n\nNo it do doesn’t. It’s still bullshit.", ">\n\nYes, it's still bullshit in a bullshit state. No disagreement there. \nBut I do disagree that it doesn't make an iota of difference. I think that difference is easier to see if the men's dress code didn't already require coats and ties. If such a requirement were unilaterally placed upon women -- with no corresponding imposition on men -- then its level of bullshit would be substantially higher than it is. \nAgain, I don't disagree that it's bullshit, I just think the pre-existing parallel requirement for men puts it on a very slightly different place on the spectrum as a starting point (and subject to other contextual elements).", ">\n\nThank you! I work in a job that puts me adjacent to people at the House of Representatives in my atate. The men's dress code is extremely restrictive, and the women's is relatively forgiving. \nOf course, if you want to pass a better dress code, that doesn't mean you make women's more restrictive. It means you give men more options and let women keep what's working for them. My buddy should be allowed to wear a nice sweater instead of a full suit." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all.", ">\n\nOnce again the Republicans take a step closer to becoming the American Taliban, surprising absolutely no one.", ">\n\nHow many decades are we going to turn the clock back? I remember my first job post-college (1979) required me to wear pantyhose and although not outright prohibited they frowned heavily on women wearing slacks.", ">\n\nWorth noting: \n\nMen also have a dress code to abide by in the chamber, but there were no proposed updates to their dress code on Wednesday. The men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.” \n\nDoesn't make the state any less backwards, but context makes it an iota less prone to sensationalization.", ">\n\nNo it do doesn’t. It’s still bullshit.", ">\n\nYes, it's still bullshit in a bullshit state. No disagreement there. \nBut I do disagree that it doesn't make an iota of difference. I think that difference is easier to see if the men's dress code didn't already require coats and ties. If such a requirement were unilaterally placed upon women -- with no corresponding imposition on men -- then its level of bullshit would be substantially higher than it is. \nAgain, I don't disagree that it's bullshit, I just think the pre-existing parallel requirement for men puts it on a very slightly different place on the spectrum as a starting point (and subject to other contextual elements).", ">\n\nThank you! I work in a job that puts me adjacent to people at the House of Representatives in my atate. The men's dress code is extremely restrictive, and the women's is relatively forgiving. \nOf course, if you want to pass a better dress code, that doesn't mean you make women's more restrictive. It means you give men more options and let women keep what's working for them. My buddy should be allowed to wear a nice sweater instead of a full suit.", ">\n\nYall Qeida strikes again" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all.", ">\n\nOnce again the Republicans take a step closer to becoming the American Taliban, surprising absolutely no one.", ">\n\nHow many decades are we going to turn the clock back? I remember my first job post-college (1979) required me to wear pantyhose and although not outright prohibited they frowned heavily on women wearing slacks.", ">\n\nWorth noting: \n\nMen also have a dress code to abide by in the chamber, but there were no proposed updates to their dress code on Wednesday. The men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.” \n\nDoesn't make the state any less backwards, but context makes it an iota less prone to sensationalization.", ">\n\nNo it do doesn’t. It’s still bullshit.", ">\n\nYes, it's still bullshit in a bullshit state. No disagreement there. \nBut I do disagree that it doesn't make an iota of difference. I think that difference is easier to see if the men's dress code didn't already require coats and ties. If such a requirement were unilaterally placed upon women -- with no corresponding imposition on men -- then its level of bullshit would be substantially higher than it is. \nAgain, I don't disagree that it's bullshit, I just think the pre-existing parallel requirement for men puts it on a very slightly different place on the spectrum as a starting point (and subject to other contextual elements).", ">\n\nThank you! I work in a job that puts me adjacent to people at the House of Representatives in my atate. The men's dress code is extremely restrictive, and the women's is relatively forgiving. \nOf course, if you want to pass a better dress code, that doesn't mean you make women's more restrictive. It means you give men more options and let women keep what's working for them. My buddy should be allowed to wear a nice sweater instead of a full suit.", ">\n\nYall Qeida strikes again", ">\n\nUnder His Eye" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all.", ">\n\nOnce again the Republicans take a step closer to becoming the American Taliban, surprising absolutely no one.", ">\n\nHow many decades are we going to turn the clock back? I remember my first job post-college (1979) required me to wear pantyhose and although not outright prohibited they frowned heavily on women wearing slacks.", ">\n\nWorth noting: \n\nMen also have a dress code to abide by in the chamber, but there were no proposed updates to their dress code on Wednesday. The men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.” \n\nDoesn't make the state any less backwards, but context makes it an iota less prone to sensationalization.", ">\n\nNo it do doesn’t. It’s still bullshit.", ">\n\nYes, it's still bullshit in a bullshit state. No disagreement there. \nBut I do disagree that it doesn't make an iota of difference. I think that difference is easier to see if the men's dress code didn't already require coats and ties. If such a requirement were unilaterally placed upon women -- with no corresponding imposition on men -- then its level of bullshit would be substantially higher than it is. \nAgain, I don't disagree that it's bullshit, I just think the pre-existing parallel requirement for men puts it on a very slightly different place on the spectrum as a starting point (and subject to other contextual elements).", ">\n\nThank you! I work in a job that puts me adjacent to people at the House of Representatives in my atate. The men's dress code is extremely restrictive, and the women's is relatively forgiving. \nOf course, if you want to pass a better dress code, that doesn't mean you make women's more restrictive. It means you give men more options and let women keep what's working for them. My buddy should be allowed to wear a nice sweater instead of a full suit.", ">\n\nYall Qeida strikes again", ">\n\nUnder His Eye", ">\n\nAre men allowed to show their arms?" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all.", ">\n\nOnce again the Republicans take a step closer to becoming the American Taliban, surprising absolutely no one.", ">\n\nHow many decades are we going to turn the clock back? I remember my first job post-college (1979) required me to wear pantyhose and although not outright prohibited they frowned heavily on women wearing slacks.", ">\n\nWorth noting: \n\nMen also have a dress code to abide by in the chamber, but there were no proposed updates to their dress code on Wednesday. The men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.” \n\nDoesn't make the state any less backwards, but context makes it an iota less prone to sensationalization.", ">\n\nNo it do doesn’t. It’s still bullshit.", ">\n\nYes, it's still bullshit in a bullshit state. No disagreement there. \nBut I do disagree that it doesn't make an iota of difference. I think that difference is easier to see if the men's dress code didn't already require coats and ties. If such a requirement were unilaterally placed upon women -- with no corresponding imposition on men -- then its level of bullshit would be substantially higher than it is. \nAgain, I don't disagree that it's bullshit, I just think the pre-existing parallel requirement for men puts it on a very slightly different place on the spectrum as a starting point (and subject to other contextual elements).", ">\n\nThank you! I work in a job that puts me adjacent to people at the House of Representatives in my atate. The men's dress code is extremely restrictive, and the women's is relatively forgiving. \nOf course, if you want to pass a better dress code, that doesn't mean you make women's more restrictive. It means you give men more options and let women keep what's working for them. My buddy should be allowed to wear a nice sweater instead of a full suit.", ">\n\nYall Qeida strikes again", ">\n\nUnder His Eye", ">\n\nAre men allowed to show their arms?", ">\n\nNo. The men’s dress code is much stricter\n\nThe men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nAll this does it make the dress code equivalent for everyone" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all.", ">\n\nOnce again the Republicans take a step closer to becoming the American Taliban, surprising absolutely no one.", ">\n\nHow many decades are we going to turn the clock back? I remember my first job post-college (1979) required me to wear pantyhose and although not outright prohibited they frowned heavily on women wearing slacks.", ">\n\nWorth noting: \n\nMen also have a dress code to abide by in the chamber, but there were no proposed updates to their dress code on Wednesday. The men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.” \n\nDoesn't make the state any less backwards, but context makes it an iota less prone to sensationalization.", ">\n\nNo it do doesn’t. It’s still bullshit.", ">\n\nYes, it's still bullshit in a bullshit state. No disagreement there. \nBut I do disagree that it doesn't make an iota of difference. I think that difference is easier to see if the men's dress code didn't already require coats and ties. If such a requirement were unilaterally placed upon women -- with no corresponding imposition on men -- then its level of bullshit would be substantially higher than it is. \nAgain, I don't disagree that it's bullshit, I just think the pre-existing parallel requirement for men puts it on a very slightly different place on the spectrum as a starting point (and subject to other contextual elements).", ">\n\nThank you! I work in a job that puts me adjacent to people at the House of Representatives in my atate. The men's dress code is extremely restrictive, and the women's is relatively forgiving. \nOf course, if you want to pass a better dress code, that doesn't mean you make women's more restrictive. It means you give men more options and let women keep what's working for them. My buddy should be allowed to wear a nice sweater instead of a full suit.", ">\n\nYall Qeida strikes again", ">\n\nUnder His Eye", ">\n\nAre men allowed to show their arms?", ">\n\nNo. The men’s dress code is much stricter\n\nThe men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nAll this does it make the dress code equivalent for everyone", ">\n\nWhy is their House chamber so….. ugly? Looks like a FEMA response center." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all.", ">\n\nOnce again the Republicans take a step closer to becoming the American Taliban, surprising absolutely no one.", ">\n\nHow many decades are we going to turn the clock back? I remember my first job post-college (1979) required me to wear pantyhose and although not outright prohibited they frowned heavily on women wearing slacks.", ">\n\nWorth noting: \n\nMen also have a dress code to abide by in the chamber, but there were no proposed updates to their dress code on Wednesday. The men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.” \n\nDoesn't make the state any less backwards, but context makes it an iota less prone to sensationalization.", ">\n\nNo it do doesn’t. It’s still bullshit.", ">\n\nYes, it's still bullshit in a bullshit state. No disagreement there. \nBut I do disagree that it doesn't make an iota of difference. I think that difference is easier to see if the men's dress code didn't already require coats and ties. If such a requirement were unilaterally placed upon women -- with no corresponding imposition on men -- then its level of bullshit would be substantially higher than it is. \nAgain, I don't disagree that it's bullshit, I just think the pre-existing parallel requirement for men puts it on a very slightly different place on the spectrum as a starting point (and subject to other contextual elements).", ">\n\nThank you! I work in a job that puts me adjacent to people at the House of Representatives in my atate. The men's dress code is extremely restrictive, and the women's is relatively forgiving. \nOf course, if you want to pass a better dress code, that doesn't mean you make women's more restrictive. It means you give men more options and let women keep what's working for them. My buddy should be allowed to wear a nice sweater instead of a full suit.", ">\n\nYall Qeida strikes again", ">\n\nUnder His Eye", ">\n\nAre men allowed to show their arms?", ">\n\nNo. The men’s dress code is much stricter\n\nThe men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nAll this does it make the dress code equivalent for everyone", ">\n\nWhy is their House chamber so….. ugly? Looks like a FEMA response center.", ">\n\nThey got plastic fold out tables in there? What in the wide world of trash is that?" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all.", ">\n\nOnce again the Republicans take a step closer to becoming the American Taliban, surprising absolutely no one.", ">\n\nHow many decades are we going to turn the clock back? I remember my first job post-college (1979) required me to wear pantyhose and although not outright prohibited they frowned heavily on women wearing slacks.", ">\n\nWorth noting: \n\nMen also have a dress code to abide by in the chamber, but there were no proposed updates to their dress code on Wednesday. The men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.” \n\nDoesn't make the state any less backwards, but context makes it an iota less prone to sensationalization.", ">\n\nNo it do doesn’t. It’s still bullshit.", ">\n\nYes, it's still bullshit in a bullshit state. No disagreement there. \nBut I do disagree that it doesn't make an iota of difference. I think that difference is easier to see if the men's dress code didn't already require coats and ties. If such a requirement were unilaterally placed upon women -- with no corresponding imposition on men -- then its level of bullshit would be substantially higher than it is. \nAgain, I don't disagree that it's bullshit, I just think the pre-existing parallel requirement for men puts it on a very slightly different place on the spectrum as a starting point (and subject to other contextual elements).", ">\n\nThank you! I work in a job that puts me adjacent to people at the House of Representatives in my atate. The men's dress code is extremely restrictive, and the women's is relatively forgiving. \nOf course, if you want to pass a better dress code, that doesn't mean you make women's more restrictive. It means you give men more options and let women keep what's working for them. My buddy should be allowed to wear a nice sweater instead of a full suit.", ">\n\nYall Qeida strikes again", ">\n\nUnder His Eye", ">\n\nAre men allowed to show their arms?", ">\n\nNo. The men’s dress code is much stricter\n\nThe men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nAll this does it make the dress code equivalent for everyone", ">\n\nWhy is their House chamber so….. ugly? Looks like a FEMA response center.", ">\n\nThey got plastic fold out tables in there? What in the wide world of trash is that?", ">\n\nThe GOP needs to be cleansed from our politics." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all.", ">\n\nOnce again the Republicans take a step closer to becoming the American Taliban, surprising absolutely no one.", ">\n\nHow many decades are we going to turn the clock back? I remember my first job post-college (1979) required me to wear pantyhose and although not outright prohibited they frowned heavily on women wearing slacks.", ">\n\nWorth noting: \n\nMen also have a dress code to abide by in the chamber, but there were no proposed updates to their dress code on Wednesday. The men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.” \n\nDoesn't make the state any less backwards, but context makes it an iota less prone to sensationalization.", ">\n\nNo it do doesn’t. It’s still bullshit.", ">\n\nYes, it's still bullshit in a bullshit state. No disagreement there. \nBut I do disagree that it doesn't make an iota of difference. I think that difference is easier to see if the men's dress code didn't already require coats and ties. If such a requirement were unilaterally placed upon women -- with no corresponding imposition on men -- then its level of bullshit would be substantially higher than it is. \nAgain, I don't disagree that it's bullshit, I just think the pre-existing parallel requirement for men puts it on a very slightly different place on the spectrum as a starting point (and subject to other contextual elements).", ">\n\nThank you! I work in a job that puts me adjacent to people at the House of Representatives in my atate. The men's dress code is extremely restrictive, and the women's is relatively forgiving. \nOf course, if you want to pass a better dress code, that doesn't mean you make women's more restrictive. It means you give men more options and let women keep what's working for them. My buddy should be allowed to wear a nice sweater instead of a full suit.", ">\n\nYall Qeida strikes again", ">\n\nUnder His Eye", ">\n\nAre men allowed to show their arms?", ">\n\nNo. The men’s dress code is much stricter\n\nThe men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nAll this does it make the dress code equivalent for everyone", ">\n\nWhy is their House chamber so….. ugly? Looks like a FEMA response center.", ">\n\nThey got plastic fold out tables in there? What in the wide world of trash is that?", ">\n\nThe GOP needs to be cleansed from our politics.", ">\n\nDamn that Senator from Minnesota has a sexy pair of…..armpits." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all.", ">\n\nOnce again the Republicans take a step closer to becoming the American Taliban, surprising absolutely no one.", ">\n\nHow many decades are we going to turn the clock back? I remember my first job post-college (1979) required me to wear pantyhose and although not outright prohibited they frowned heavily on women wearing slacks.", ">\n\nWorth noting: \n\nMen also have a dress code to abide by in the chamber, but there were no proposed updates to their dress code on Wednesday. The men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.” \n\nDoesn't make the state any less backwards, but context makes it an iota less prone to sensationalization.", ">\n\nNo it do doesn’t. It’s still bullshit.", ">\n\nYes, it's still bullshit in a bullshit state. No disagreement there. \nBut I do disagree that it doesn't make an iota of difference. I think that difference is easier to see if the men's dress code didn't already require coats and ties. If such a requirement were unilaterally placed upon women -- with no corresponding imposition on men -- then its level of bullshit would be substantially higher than it is. \nAgain, I don't disagree that it's bullshit, I just think the pre-existing parallel requirement for men puts it on a very slightly different place on the spectrum as a starting point (and subject to other contextual elements).", ">\n\nThank you! I work in a job that puts me adjacent to people at the House of Representatives in my atate. The men's dress code is extremely restrictive, and the women's is relatively forgiving. \nOf course, if you want to pass a better dress code, that doesn't mean you make women's more restrictive. It means you give men more options and let women keep what's working for them. My buddy should be allowed to wear a nice sweater instead of a full suit.", ">\n\nYall Qeida strikes again", ">\n\nUnder His Eye", ">\n\nAre men allowed to show their arms?", ">\n\nNo. The men’s dress code is much stricter\n\nThe men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nAll this does it make the dress code equivalent for everyone", ">\n\nWhy is their House chamber so….. ugly? Looks like a FEMA response center.", ">\n\nThey got plastic fold out tables in there? What in the wide world of trash is that?", ">\n\nThe GOP needs to be cleansed from our politics.", ">\n\nDamn that Senator from Minnesota has a sexy pair of…..armpits.", ">\n\nReason #2954 why Centrists are not Conservatives." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all.", ">\n\nOnce again the Republicans take a step closer to becoming the American Taliban, surprising absolutely no one.", ">\n\nHow many decades are we going to turn the clock back? I remember my first job post-college (1979) required me to wear pantyhose and although not outright prohibited they frowned heavily on women wearing slacks.", ">\n\nWorth noting: \n\nMen also have a dress code to abide by in the chamber, but there were no proposed updates to their dress code on Wednesday. The men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.” \n\nDoesn't make the state any less backwards, but context makes it an iota less prone to sensationalization.", ">\n\nNo it do doesn’t. It’s still bullshit.", ">\n\nYes, it's still bullshit in a bullshit state. No disagreement there. \nBut I do disagree that it doesn't make an iota of difference. I think that difference is easier to see if the men's dress code didn't already require coats and ties. If such a requirement were unilaterally placed upon women -- with no corresponding imposition on men -- then its level of bullshit would be substantially higher than it is. \nAgain, I don't disagree that it's bullshit, I just think the pre-existing parallel requirement for men puts it on a very slightly different place on the spectrum as a starting point (and subject to other contextual elements).", ">\n\nThank you! I work in a job that puts me adjacent to people at the House of Representatives in my atate. The men's dress code is extremely restrictive, and the women's is relatively forgiving. \nOf course, if you want to pass a better dress code, that doesn't mean you make women's more restrictive. It means you give men more options and let women keep what's working for them. My buddy should be allowed to wear a nice sweater instead of a full suit.", ">\n\nYall Qeida strikes again", ">\n\nUnder His Eye", ">\n\nAre men allowed to show their arms?", ">\n\nNo. The men’s dress code is much stricter\n\nThe men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nAll this does it make the dress code equivalent for everyone", ">\n\nWhy is their House chamber so….. ugly? Looks like a FEMA response center.", ">\n\nThey got plastic fold out tables in there? What in the wide world of trash is that?", ">\n\nThe GOP needs to be cleansed from our politics.", ">\n\nDamn that Senator from Minnesota has a sexy pair of…..armpits.", ">\n\nReason #2954 why Centrists are not Conservatives.", ">\n\nWhen will Gym Jordan iron his shirt? Or take a shower? Or wear a jacket?" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all.", ">\n\nOnce again the Republicans take a step closer to becoming the American Taliban, surprising absolutely no one.", ">\n\nHow many decades are we going to turn the clock back? I remember my first job post-college (1979) required me to wear pantyhose and although not outright prohibited they frowned heavily on women wearing slacks.", ">\n\nWorth noting: \n\nMen also have a dress code to abide by in the chamber, but there were no proposed updates to their dress code on Wednesday. The men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.” \n\nDoesn't make the state any less backwards, but context makes it an iota less prone to sensationalization.", ">\n\nNo it do doesn’t. It’s still bullshit.", ">\n\nYes, it's still bullshit in a bullshit state. No disagreement there. \nBut I do disagree that it doesn't make an iota of difference. I think that difference is easier to see if the men's dress code didn't already require coats and ties. If such a requirement were unilaterally placed upon women -- with no corresponding imposition on men -- then its level of bullshit would be substantially higher than it is. \nAgain, I don't disagree that it's bullshit, I just think the pre-existing parallel requirement for men puts it on a very slightly different place on the spectrum as a starting point (and subject to other contextual elements).", ">\n\nThank you! I work in a job that puts me adjacent to people at the House of Representatives in my atate. The men's dress code is extremely restrictive, and the women's is relatively forgiving. \nOf course, if you want to pass a better dress code, that doesn't mean you make women's more restrictive. It means you give men more options and let women keep what's working for them. My buddy should be allowed to wear a nice sweater instead of a full suit.", ">\n\nYall Qeida strikes again", ">\n\nUnder His Eye", ">\n\nAre men allowed to show their arms?", ">\n\nNo. The men’s dress code is much stricter\n\nThe men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nAll this does it make the dress code equivalent for everyone", ">\n\nWhy is their House chamber so….. ugly? Looks like a FEMA response center.", ">\n\nThey got plastic fold out tables in there? What in the wide world of trash is that?", ">\n\nThe GOP needs to be cleansed from our politics.", ">\n\nDamn that Senator from Minnesota has a sexy pair of…..armpits.", ">\n\nReason #2954 why Centrists are not Conservatives.", ">\n\nWhen will Gym Jordan iron his shirt? Or take a shower? Or wear a jacket?", ">\n\nWhat, no burka?" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all.", ">\n\nOnce again the Republicans take a step closer to becoming the American Taliban, surprising absolutely no one.", ">\n\nHow many decades are we going to turn the clock back? I remember my first job post-college (1979) required me to wear pantyhose and although not outright prohibited they frowned heavily on women wearing slacks.", ">\n\nWorth noting: \n\nMen also have a dress code to abide by in the chamber, but there were no proposed updates to their dress code on Wednesday. The men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.” \n\nDoesn't make the state any less backwards, but context makes it an iota less prone to sensationalization.", ">\n\nNo it do doesn’t. It’s still bullshit.", ">\n\nYes, it's still bullshit in a bullshit state. No disagreement there. \nBut I do disagree that it doesn't make an iota of difference. I think that difference is easier to see if the men's dress code didn't already require coats and ties. If such a requirement were unilaterally placed upon women -- with no corresponding imposition on men -- then its level of bullshit would be substantially higher than it is. \nAgain, I don't disagree that it's bullshit, I just think the pre-existing parallel requirement for men puts it on a very slightly different place on the spectrum as a starting point (and subject to other contextual elements).", ">\n\nThank you! I work in a job that puts me adjacent to people at the House of Representatives in my atate. The men's dress code is extremely restrictive, and the women's is relatively forgiving. \nOf course, if you want to pass a better dress code, that doesn't mean you make women's more restrictive. It means you give men more options and let women keep what's working for them. My buddy should be allowed to wear a nice sweater instead of a full suit.", ">\n\nYall Qeida strikes again", ">\n\nUnder His Eye", ">\n\nAre men allowed to show their arms?", ">\n\nNo. The men’s dress code is much stricter\n\nThe men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nAll this does it make the dress code equivalent for everyone", ">\n\nWhy is their House chamber so….. ugly? Looks like a FEMA response center.", ">\n\nThey got plastic fold out tables in there? What in the wide world of trash is that?", ">\n\nThe GOP needs to be cleansed from our politics.", ">\n\nDamn that Senator from Minnesota has a sexy pair of…..armpits.", ">\n\nReason #2954 why Centrists are not Conservatives.", ">\n\nWhen will Gym Jordan iron his shirt? Or take a shower? Or wear a jacket?", ">\n\nWhat, no burka?", ">\n\nOne of the guys needs to show up in drag toting an AR-15. The qanon nuts in the GOP don't know what to do with that, if it works to keep drag queen storytime safe it'll work here too." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all.", ">\n\nOnce again the Republicans take a step closer to becoming the American Taliban, surprising absolutely no one.", ">\n\nHow many decades are we going to turn the clock back? I remember my first job post-college (1979) required me to wear pantyhose and although not outright prohibited they frowned heavily on women wearing slacks.", ">\n\nWorth noting: \n\nMen also have a dress code to abide by in the chamber, but there were no proposed updates to their dress code on Wednesday. The men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.” \n\nDoesn't make the state any less backwards, but context makes it an iota less prone to sensationalization.", ">\n\nNo it do doesn’t. It’s still bullshit.", ">\n\nYes, it's still bullshit in a bullshit state. No disagreement there. \nBut I do disagree that it doesn't make an iota of difference. I think that difference is easier to see if the men's dress code didn't already require coats and ties. If such a requirement were unilaterally placed upon women -- with no corresponding imposition on men -- then its level of bullshit would be substantially higher than it is. \nAgain, I don't disagree that it's bullshit, I just think the pre-existing parallel requirement for men puts it on a very slightly different place on the spectrum as a starting point (and subject to other contextual elements).", ">\n\nThank you! I work in a job that puts me adjacent to people at the House of Representatives in my atate. The men's dress code is extremely restrictive, and the women's is relatively forgiving. \nOf course, if you want to pass a better dress code, that doesn't mean you make women's more restrictive. It means you give men more options and let women keep what's working for them. My buddy should be allowed to wear a nice sweater instead of a full suit.", ">\n\nYall Qeida strikes again", ">\n\nUnder His Eye", ">\n\nAre men allowed to show their arms?", ">\n\nNo. The men’s dress code is much stricter\n\nThe men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nAll this does it make the dress code equivalent for everyone", ">\n\nWhy is their House chamber so….. ugly? Looks like a FEMA response center.", ">\n\nThey got plastic fold out tables in there? What in the wide world of trash is that?", ">\n\nThe GOP needs to be cleansed from our politics.", ">\n\nDamn that Senator from Minnesota has a sexy pair of…..armpits.", ">\n\nReason #2954 why Centrists are not Conservatives.", ">\n\nWhen will Gym Jordan iron his shirt? Or take a shower? Or wear a jacket?", ">\n\nWhat, no burka?", ">\n\nOne of the guys needs to show up in drag toting an AR-15. The qanon nuts in the GOP don't know what to do with that, if it works to keep drag queen storytime safe it'll work here too.", ">\n\nMissouri, truly the asscrack of the lower 48" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all.", ">\n\nOnce again the Republicans take a step closer to becoming the American Taliban, surprising absolutely no one.", ">\n\nHow many decades are we going to turn the clock back? I remember my first job post-college (1979) required me to wear pantyhose and although not outright prohibited they frowned heavily on women wearing slacks.", ">\n\nWorth noting: \n\nMen also have a dress code to abide by in the chamber, but there were no proposed updates to their dress code on Wednesday. The men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.” \n\nDoesn't make the state any less backwards, but context makes it an iota less prone to sensationalization.", ">\n\nNo it do doesn’t. It’s still bullshit.", ">\n\nYes, it's still bullshit in a bullshit state. No disagreement there. \nBut I do disagree that it doesn't make an iota of difference. I think that difference is easier to see if the men's dress code didn't already require coats and ties. If such a requirement were unilaterally placed upon women -- with no corresponding imposition on men -- then its level of bullshit would be substantially higher than it is. \nAgain, I don't disagree that it's bullshit, I just think the pre-existing parallel requirement for men puts it on a very slightly different place on the spectrum as a starting point (and subject to other contextual elements).", ">\n\nThank you! I work in a job that puts me adjacent to people at the House of Representatives in my atate. The men's dress code is extremely restrictive, and the women's is relatively forgiving. \nOf course, if you want to pass a better dress code, that doesn't mean you make women's more restrictive. It means you give men more options and let women keep what's working for them. My buddy should be allowed to wear a nice sweater instead of a full suit.", ">\n\nYall Qeida strikes again", ">\n\nUnder His Eye", ">\n\nAre men allowed to show their arms?", ">\n\nNo. The men’s dress code is much stricter\n\nThe men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nAll this does it make the dress code equivalent for everyone", ">\n\nWhy is their House chamber so….. ugly? Looks like a FEMA response center.", ">\n\nThey got plastic fold out tables in there? What in the wide world of trash is that?", ">\n\nThe GOP needs to be cleansed from our politics.", ">\n\nDamn that Senator from Minnesota has a sexy pair of…..armpits.", ">\n\nReason #2954 why Centrists are not Conservatives.", ">\n\nWhen will Gym Jordan iron his shirt? Or take a shower? Or wear a jacket?", ">\n\nWhat, no burka?", ">\n\nOne of the guys needs to show up in drag toting an AR-15. The qanon nuts in the GOP don't know what to do with that, if it works to keep drag queen storytime safe it'll work here too.", ">\n\nMissouri, truly the asscrack of the lower 48", ">\n\nThe taint" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all.", ">\n\nOnce again the Republicans take a step closer to becoming the American Taliban, surprising absolutely no one.", ">\n\nHow many decades are we going to turn the clock back? I remember my first job post-college (1979) required me to wear pantyhose and although not outright prohibited they frowned heavily on women wearing slacks.", ">\n\nWorth noting: \n\nMen also have a dress code to abide by in the chamber, but there were no proposed updates to their dress code on Wednesday. The men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.” \n\nDoesn't make the state any less backwards, but context makes it an iota less prone to sensationalization.", ">\n\nNo it do doesn’t. It’s still bullshit.", ">\n\nYes, it's still bullshit in a bullshit state. No disagreement there. \nBut I do disagree that it doesn't make an iota of difference. I think that difference is easier to see if the men's dress code didn't already require coats and ties. If such a requirement were unilaterally placed upon women -- with no corresponding imposition on men -- then its level of bullshit would be substantially higher than it is. \nAgain, I don't disagree that it's bullshit, I just think the pre-existing parallel requirement for men puts it on a very slightly different place on the spectrum as a starting point (and subject to other contextual elements).", ">\n\nThank you! I work in a job that puts me adjacent to people at the House of Representatives in my atate. The men's dress code is extremely restrictive, and the women's is relatively forgiving. \nOf course, if you want to pass a better dress code, that doesn't mean you make women's more restrictive. It means you give men more options and let women keep what's working for them. My buddy should be allowed to wear a nice sweater instead of a full suit.", ">\n\nYall Qeida strikes again", ">\n\nUnder His Eye", ">\n\nAre men allowed to show their arms?", ">\n\nNo. The men’s dress code is much stricter\n\nThe men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nAll this does it make the dress code equivalent for everyone", ">\n\nWhy is their House chamber so….. ugly? Looks like a FEMA response center.", ">\n\nThey got plastic fold out tables in there? What in the wide world of trash is that?", ">\n\nThe GOP needs to be cleansed from our politics.", ">\n\nDamn that Senator from Minnesota has a sexy pair of…..armpits.", ">\n\nReason #2954 why Centrists are not Conservatives.", ">\n\nWhen will Gym Jordan iron his shirt? Or take a shower? Or wear a jacket?", ">\n\nWhat, no burka?", ">\n\nOne of the guys needs to show up in drag toting an AR-15. The qanon nuts in the GOP don't know what to do with that, if it works to keep drag queen storytime safe it'll work here too.", ">\n\nMissouri, truly the asscrack of the lower 48", ">\n\nThe taint", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all.", ">\n\nOnce again the Republicans take a step closer to becoming the American Taliban, surprising absolutely no one.", ">\n\nHow many decades are we going to turn the clock back? I remember my first job post-college (1979) required me to wear pantyhose and although not outright prohibited they frowned heavily on women wearing slacks.", ">\n\nWorth noting: \n\nMen also have a dress code to abide by in the chamber, but there were no proposed updates to their dress code on Wednesday. The men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.” \n\nDoesn't make the state any less backwards, but context makes it an iota less prone to sensationalization.", ">\n\nNo it do doesn’t. It’s still bullshit.", ">\n\nYes, it's still bullshit in a bullshit state. No disagreement there. \nBut I do disagree that it doesn't make an iota of difference. I think that difference is easier to see if the men's dress code didn't already require coats and ties. If such a requirement were unilaterally placed upon women -- with no corresponding imposition on men -- then its level of bullshit would be substantially higher than it is. \nAgain, I don't disagree that it's bullshit, I just think the pre-existing parallel requirement for men puts it on a very slightly different place on the spectrum as a starting point (and subject to other contextual elements).", ">\n\nThank you! I work in a job that puts me adjacent to people at the House of Representatives in my atate. The men's dress code is extremely restrictive, and the women's is relatively forgiving. \nOf course, if you want to pass a better dress code, that doesn't mean you make women's more restrictive. It means you give men more options and let women keep what's working for them. My buddy should be allowed to wear a nice sweater instead of a full suit.", ">\n\nYall Qeida strikes again", ">\n\nUnder His Eye", ">\n\nAre men allowed to show their arms?", ">\n\nNo. The men’s dress code is much stricter\n\nThe men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nAll this does it make the dress code equivalent for everyone", ">\n\nWhy is their House chamber so….. ugly? Looks like a FEMA response center.", ">\n\nThey got plastic fold out tables in there? What in the wide world of trash is that?", ">\n\nThe GOP needs to be cleansed from our politics.", ">\n\nDamn that Senator from Minnesota has a sexy pair of…..armpits.", ">\n\nReason #2954 why Centrists are not Conservatives.", ">\n\nWhen will Gym Jordan iron his shirt? Or take a shower? Or wear a jacket?", ">\n\nWhat, no burka?", ">\n\nOne of the guys needs to show up in drag toting an AR-15. The qanon nuts in the GOP don't know what to do with that, if it works to keep drag queen storytime safe it'll work here too.", ">\n\nMissouri, truly the asscrack of the lower 48", ">\n\nThe taint", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous.", ">\n\nHow so?" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all.", ">\n\nOnce again the Republicans take a step closer to becoming the American Taliban, surprising absolutely no one.", ">\n\nHow many decades are we going to turn the clock back? I remember my first job post-college (1979) required me to wear pantyhose and although not outright prohibited they frowned heavily on women wearing slacks.", ">\n\nWorth noting: \n\nMen also have a dress code to abide by in the chamber, but there were no proposed updates to their dress code on Wednesday. The men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.” \n\nDoesn't make the state any less backwards, but context makes it an iota less prone to sensationalization.", ">\n\nNo it do doesn’t. It’s still bullshit.", ">\n\nYes, it's still bullshit in a bullshit state. No disagreement there. \nBut I do disagree that it doesn't make an iota of difference. I think that difference is easier to see if the men's dress code didn't already require coats and ties. If such a requirement were unilaterally placed upon women -- with no corresponding imposition on men -- then its level of bullshit would be substantially higher than it is. \nAgain, I don't disagree that it's bullshit, I just think the pre-existing parallel requirement for men puts it on a very slightly different place on the spectrum as a starting point (and subject to other contextual elements).", ">\n\nThank you! I work in a job that puts me adjacent to people at the House of Representatives in my atate. The men's dress code is extremely restrictive, and the women's is relatively forgiving. \nOf course, if you want to pass a better dress code, that doesn't mean you make women's more restrictive. It means you give men more options and let women keep what's working for them. My buddy should be allowed to wear a nice sweater instead of a full suit.", ">\n\nYall Qeida strikes again", ">\n\nUnder His Eye", ">\n\nAre men allowed to show their arms?", ">\n\nNo. The men’s dress code is much stricter\n\nThe men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nAll this does it make the dress code equivalent for everyone", ">\n\nWhy is their House chamber so….. ugly? Looks like a FEMA response center.", ">\n\nThey got plastic fold out tables in there? What in the wide world of trash is that?", ">\n\nThe GOP needs to be cleansed from our politics.", ">\n\nDamn that Senator from Minnesota has a sexy pair of…..armpits.", ">\n\nReason #2954 why Centrists are not Conservatives.", ">\n\nWhen will Gym Jordan iron his shirt? Or take a shower? Or wear a jacket?", ">\n\nWhat, no burka?", ">\n\nOne of the guys needs to show up in drag toting an AR-15. The qanon nuts in the GOP don't know what to do with that, if it works to keep drag queen storytime safe it'll work here too.", ">\n\nMissouri, truly the asscrack of the lower 48", ">\n\nThe taint", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous.", ">\n\nHow so?", ">\n\nAt least not as bad as the Taliban - that is the bar they're going for now." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all.", ">\n\nOnce again the Republicans take a step closer to becoming the American Taliban, surprising absolutely no one.", ">\n\nHow many decades are we going to turn the clock back? I remember my first job post-college (1979) required me to wear pantyhose and although not outright prohibited they frowned heavily on women wearing slacks.", ">\n\nWorth noting: \n\nMen also have a dress code to abide by in the chamber, but there were no proposed updates to their dress code on Wednesday. The men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.” \n\nDoesn't make the state any less backwards, but context makes it an iota less prone to sensationalization.", ">\n\nNo it do doesn’t. It’s still bullshit.", ">\n\nYes, it's still bullshit in a bullshit state. No disagreement there. \nBut I do disagree that it doesn't make an iota of difference. I think that difference is easier to see if the men's dress code didn't already require coats and ties. If such a requirement were unilaterally placed upon women -- with no corresponding imposition on men -- then its level of bullshit would be substantially higher than it is. \nAgain, I don't disagree that it's bullshit, I just think the pre-existing parallel requirement for men puts it on a very slightly different place on the spectrum as a starting point (and subject to other contextual elements).", ">\n\nThank you! I work in a job that puts me adjacent to people at the House of Representatives in my atate. The men's dress code is extremely restrictive, and the women's is relatively forgiving. \nOf course, if you want to pass a better dress code, that doesn't mean you make women's more restrictive. It means you give men more options and let women keep what's working for them. My buddy should be allowed to wear a nice sweater instead of a full suit.", ">\n\nYall Qeida strikes again", ">\n\nUnder His Eye", ">\n\nAre men allowed to show their arms?", ">\n\nNo. The men’s dress code is much stricter\n\nThe men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nAll this does it make the dress code equivalent for everyone", ">\n\nWhy is their House chamber so….. ugly? Looks like a FEMA response center.", ">\n\nThey got plastic fold out tables in there? What in the wide world of trash is that?", ">\n\nThe GOP needs to be cleansed from our politics.", ">\n\nDamn that Senator from Minnesota has a sexy pair of…..armpits.", ">\n\nReason #2954 why Centrists are not Conservatives.", ">\n\nWhen will Gym Jordan iron his shirt? Or take a shower? Or wear a jacket?", ">\n\nWhat, no burka?", ">\n\nOne of the guys needs to show up in drag toting an AR-15. The qanon nuts in the GOP don't know what to do with that, if it works to keep drag queen storytime safe it'll work here too.", ">\n\nMissouri, truly the asscrack of the lower 48", ">\n\nThe taint", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous.", ">\n\nHow so?", ">\n\nAt least not as bad as the Taliban - that is the bar they're going for now.", ">\n\nThen they will restrict dancing and Kevin bacon will show up and the rest is history" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all.", ">\n\nOnce again the Republicans take a step closer to becoming the American Taliban, surprising absolutely no one.", ">\n\nHow many decades are we going to turn the clock back? I remember my first job post-college (1979) required me to wear pantyhose and although not outright prohibited they frowned heavily on women wearing slacks.", ">\n\nWorth noting: \n\nMen also have a dress code to abide by in the chamber, but there were no proposed updates to their dress code on Wednesday. The men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.” \n\nDoesn't make the state any less backwards, but context makes it an iota less prone to sensationalization.", ">\n\nNo it do doesn’t. It’s still bullshit.", ">\n\nYes, it's still bullshit in a bullshit state. No disagreement there. \nBut I do disagree that it doesn't make an iota of difference. I think that difference is easier to see if the men's dress code didn't already require coats and ties. If such a requirement were unilaterally placed upon women -- with no corresponding imposition on men -- then its level of bullshit would be substantially higher than it is. \nAgain, I don't disagree that it's bullshit, I just think the pre-existing parallel requirement for men puts it on a very slightly different place on the spectrum as a starting point (and subject to other contextual elements).", ">\n\nThank you! I work in a job that puts me adjacent to people at the House of Representatives in my atate. The men's dress code is extremely restrictive, and the women's is relatively forgiving. \nOf course, if you want to pass a better dress code, that doesn't mean you make women's more restrictive. It means you give men more options and let women keep what's working for them. My buddy should be allowed to wear a nice sweater instead of a full suit.", ">\n\nYall Qeida strikes again", ">\n\nUnder His Eye", ">\n\nAre men allowed to show their arms?", ">\n\nNo. The men’s dress code is much stricter\n\nThe men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nAll this does it make the dress code equivalent for everyone", ">\n\nWhy is their House chamber so….. ugly? Looks like a FEMA response center.", ">\n\nThey got plastic fold out tables in there? What in the wide world of trash is that?", ">\n\nThe GOP needs to be cleansed from our politics.", ">\n\nDamn that Senator from Minnesota has a sexy pair of…..armpits.", ">\n\nReason #2954 why Centrists are not Conservatives.", ">\n\nWhen will Gym Jordan iron his shirt? Or take a shower? Or wear a jacket?", ">\n\nWhat, no burka?", ">\n\nOne of the guys needs to show up in drag toting an AR-15. The qanon nuts in the GOP don't know what to do with that, if it works to keep drag queen storytime safe it'll work here too.", ">\n\nMissouri, truly the asscrack of the lower 48", ">\n\nThe taint", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous.", ">\n\nHow so?", ">\n\nAt least not as bad as the Taliban - that is the bar they're going for now.", ">\n\nThen they will restrict dancing and Kevin bacon will show up and the rest is history", ">\n\nThat would make me want to buy a black leather jacket and go full Fonzie on the House floor." ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all.", ">\n\nOnce again the Republicans take a step closer to becoming the American Taliban, surprising absolutely no one.", ">\n\nHow many decades are we going to turn the clock back? I remember my first job post-college (1979) required me to wear pantyhose and although not outright prohibited they frowned heavily on women wearing slacks.", ">\n\nWorth noting: \n\nMen also have a dress code to abide by in the chamber, but there were no proposed updates to their dress code on Wednesday. The men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.” \n\nDoesn't make the state any less backwards, but context makes it an iota less prone to sensationalization.", ">\n\nNo it do doesn’t. It’s still bullshit.", ">\n\nYes, it's still bullshit in a bullshit state. No disagreement there. \nBut I do disagree that it doesn't make an iota of difference. I think that difference is easier to see if the men's dress code didn't already require coats and ties. If such a requirement were unilaterally placed upon women -- with no corresponding imposition on men -- then its level of bullshit would be substantially higher than it is. \nAgain, I don't disagree that it's bullshit, I just think the pre-existing parallel requirement for men puts it on a very slightly different place on the spectrum as a starting point (and subject to other contextual elements).", ">\n\nThank you! I work in a job that puts me adjacent to people at the House of Representatives in my atate. The men's dress code is extremely restrictive, and the women's is relatively forgiving. \nOf course, if you want to pass a better dress code, that doesn't mean you make women's more restrictive. It means you give men more options and let women keep what's working for them. My buddy should be allowed to wear a nice sweater instead of a full suit.", ">\n\nYall Qeida strikes again", ">\n\nUnder His Eye", ">\n\nAre men allowed to show their arms?", ">\n\nNo. The men’s dress code is much stricter\n\nThe men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nAll this does it make the dress code equivalent for everyone", ">\n\nWhy is their House chamber so….. ugly? Looks like a FEMA response center.", ">\n\nThey got plastic fold out tables in there? What in the wide world of trash is that?", ">\n\nThe GOP needs to be cleansed from our politics.", ">\n\nDamn that Senator from Minnesota has a sexy pair of…..armpits.", ">\n\nReason #2954 why Centrists are not Conservatives.", ">\n\nWhen will Gym Jordan iron his shirt? Or take a shower? Or wear a jacket?", ">\n\nWhat, no burka?", ">\n\nOne of the guys needs to show up in drag toting an AR-15. The qanon nuts in the GOP don't know what to do with that, if it works to keep drag queen storytime safe it'll work here too.", ">\n\nMissouri, truly the asscrack of the lower 48", ">\n\nThe taint", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous.", ">\n\nHow so?", ">\n\nAt least not as bad as the Taliban - that is the bar they're going for now.", ">\n\nThen they will restrict dancing and Kevin bacon will show up and the rest is history", ">\n\nThat would make me want to buy a black leather jacket and go full Fonzie on the House floor.", ">\n\nRepublicans for the past 3 years: \"The government can't tell me what to wear!\"\nRepublicans for the past 50 years: \"The government can definitely tell women what to wear.\"" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all.", ">\n\nOnce again the Republicans take a step closer to becoming the American Taliban, surprising absolutely no one.", ">\n\nHow many decades are we going to turn the clock back? I remember my first job post-college (1979) required me to wear pantyhose and although not outright prohibited they frowned heavily on women wearing slacks.", ">\n\nWorth noting: \n\nMen also have a dress code to abide by in the chamber, but there were no proposed updates to their dress code on Wednesday. The men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.” \n\nDoesn't make the state any less backwards, but context makes it an iota less prone to sensationalization.", ">\n\nNo it do doesn’t. It’s still bullshit.", ">\n\nYes, it's still bullshit in a bullshit state. No disagreement there. \nBut I do disagree that it doesn't make an iota of difference. I think that difference is easier to see if the men's dress code didn't already require coats and ties. If such a requirement were unilaterally placed upon women -- with no corresponding imposition on men -- then its level of bullshit would be substantially higher than it is. \nAgain, I don't disagree that it's bullshit, I just think the pre-existing parallel requirement for men puts it on a very slightly different place on the spectrum as a starting point (and subject to other contextual elements).", ">\n\nThank you! I work in a job that puts me adjacent to people at the House of Representatives in my atate. The men's dress code is extremely restrictive, and the women's is relatively forgiving. \nOf course, if you want to pass a better dress code, that doesn't mean you make women's more restrictive. It means you give men more options and let women keep what's working for them. My buddy should be allowed to wear a nice sweater instead of a full suit.", ">\n\nYall Qeida strikes again", ">\n\nUnder His Eye", ">\n\nAre men allowed to show their arms?", ">\n\nNo. The men’s dress code is much stricter\n\nThe men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nAll this does it make the dress code equivalent for everyone", ">\n\nWhy is their House chamber so….. ugly? Looks like a FEMA response center.", ">\n\nThey got plastic fold out tables in there? What in the wide world of trash is that?", ">\n\nThe GOP needs to be cleansed from our politics.", ">\n\nDamn that Senator from Minnesota has a sexy pair of…..armpits.", ">\n\nReason #2954 why Centrists are not Conservatives.", ">\n\nWhen will Gym Jordan iron his shirt? Or take a shower? Or wear a jacket?", ">\n\nWhat, no burka?", ">\n\nOne of the guys needs to show up in drag toting an AR-15. The qanon nuts in the GOP don't know what to do with that, if it works to keep drag queen storytime safe it'll work here too.", ">\n\nMissouri, truly the asscrack of the lower 48", ">\n\nThe taint", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous.", ">\n\nHow so?", ">\n\nAt least not as bad as the Taliban - that is the bar they're going for now.", ">\n\nThen they will restrict dancing and Kevin bacon will show up and the rest is history", ">\n\nThat would make me want to buy a black leather jacket and go full Fonzie on the House floor.", ">\n\nRepublicans for the past 3 years: \"The government can't tell me what to wear!\"\nRepublicans for the past 50 years: \"The government can definitely tell women what to wear.\"", ">\n\nLet’s throw it in reverse and back our way into the 1950s" ]

[ "The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day Wednesday to tighten the dress code for female legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone.\nThe changes were spearheaded by state Rep. Ann Kelley (R), a co-sponsor who was among the Republicans seeking to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. She was met by swift opposition from Democrats who called it “ridiculous.”\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.", ">\n\nIt is kinda shit to be required to wear a suit and tie on the floor as a guy while women have many more options than that", ">\n\nDon't wear a suit. What frickin century are these people in?", ">\n\nWell thats whats required in a lot of professional settings.\nSuch as the Missouri House of Representatives", ">\n\nI don't see a dress code for our legislature.", ">\n\nFor Men:\n“Proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots,” according to the House rules. \nAnd the new rule:\nThe new dress code for women says: “Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nWith cardigans added as an addition.", ">\n\nIt needs to be challenged on religious grounds. People can't tell you what to wear anymore. BTW. I don't see a dress code for our state legislature (WA).", ">\n\n\nMissouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day\n\nPriorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you", ">\n\nHol up, let’s check the priorities: \n\nHelp the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)\nDisenfranchise people of color\nLimit women’s rights\nLimit / remove the rights of the LGBT community \nHurt the poor\nFuck over the Democrats\nOwn the Libs\n\nYep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list. They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s", ">\n\nI heard an interview last year on KC's NPR station with a Republican member of the state house in MO saying voters should vote down rec cannabis legalization, and let the state legislature handle it. I was screaming in my car \"your party is in power and you're doing absolutely nothing about it!\"", ">\n\n\"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything.\"", ">\n\nEvery single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale.", ">\n\nIt does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code", ">\n\n\nShe proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nIt would not", ">\n\nAs long as they put a jacket on over it. Gotta have two layers of fabric over the arms!", ">\n\nYou mean exactly like the rule for men?", ">\n\nThe argument was over the definition of a blazer made of ponte knit fabric. Ms. Kelley wanted it defined as a “cardigan” and not allowed under the existing dress code. Ponte knit is very commonly used for women’s suiting. Eventually they got her to add “cardigan” to the dress code so they could continue wearing their knit blazers.", ">\n\nVery important context. A shame that the article has 0 mentions of “ponte”.", ">\n\nCorrect. This article doesn’t mention ponte.", ">\n\nAround a year ago I heard an interview with a Republican (don't remember who though) who said they are pushing for a return to traditional gender roles and clothing. He said women need to be in dresses and heels - no pants or athletic shoes, ever, and shouldn't be allowed to work more than 25 hours/week. This will encourage every woman to find a man to get married to, because she'll need the financial support he can provide.", ">\n\nSometimes I just imagine how miserable these peoples' marriage must be that they think this is a \"normal\" way for things to be. I couldn't imagine being attracted to and in love with a partner who I know was completely subservient to me, and likewise couldn't imagine myself in the position of being completely dependent on the whims of my spouse.\nMarriage is a partnership with a shared goal. Treating it like a master/slave relationship is disgusting unless that is your (shared) kink, to which I say: don't involve non-consenting others into your kink by legislating it on us.", ">\n\nThere is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. \nPeople keep voting Republican or not voting at all. \nWomen are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years.", ">\n\nI am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens.", ">\n\nThey will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. \nThey will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. \nThey will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - \nWhile women die -", ">\n\nIf you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying \"I really don't care do u?\"", ">\n\nMissouri: They don't pronounce it \"Misery\" for no reason.", ">\n\nMissouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time", ">\n\nI was raised in a Christian household in the Midwest. I voted Republican, I voted for George Bush while in college. I’m sorry. If you vote Republican today you are a fucking idiot. I used my brain and got out of all that bullshit a long time ago, so can anyone else. There is no excuse anymore. If you think Republicans are doing any good for this country you are simply a stupid asshole.", ">\n\nYou are me! Nice to meet you.", ">\n\nMe too!", ">\n\nHandmaid’s Tale incoming.", ">\n\nNot quite.", ">\n\nAm I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law?", ">\n\nNo you aren't...you and the rest of this thread is filled with people that jumped on this stupid headline and article without even questioning what the mens dress code actually was...and it turns out that the womens dress code after this amendment still provides them more options on what to wear.\nNow I think the Republicans are absolute shit and I don't give a fuck about dress codes too, but this is you general clickbait outrage \"news\" set to divide people by pretending it has made the situation worse for women than it is for men when it has just brought their dress code closer to the restrictive level that the mens code has always been at.\nYou and many others here fell for it, the lesson that should be learned from headlines like this is, question the agenda of those that wrote the story before jumping to conclusions based on their inference.", ">\n\nWomen already had to wear two layers over their arms. Previous rules allowed “sweaters.”\nMs. Kelley wanted to remove the word “sweaters.”\nThe compromise was to change the word “sweater” to “cardigan.”\nPullover sweaters are no-no’s, but button from sweaters and knit blazers are still allowed.", ">\n\nThis is obviously due to lobbying from the button industry /j", ">\n\nMissouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s", ">\n\nIf BoBo, child rapist Gaetz, Marge Three Names, et al can barge through House security without any repercussions, then female Missouri Reps can do the same.\n/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany.", ">\n\nJust don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it?", ">\n\nTalibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. \nSeriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!?", ">\n\nAlito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. \nThat is pre-American Revolution. \nThat is pre-French revolution. \nThat is pre-enlightenment. \nThat means - he thinks God is in royal blood and the peasants are servants of God. Peasants serve the Lords and have no rights at all. Lords are royalty. \nPay attention to what happens to Fantine in Les Miserables. That is what they want for women. Zero way to support yourself financially. Zero options for mercy. \nPay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. \nAnd people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. \nWhich is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy.", ">\n\nLet’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first!", ">\n\nGuess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News.", ">\n\nRepublicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas", ">\n\nThey will demand bonnets. A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings.", ">\n\nOr we could go the route of the Hasidic Jewish community, where you cover your hair with a wig of new hair (often made from human hair).", ">\n\nHijabs will be next.", ">\n\nA Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the \"Fourth of July Short-Shorts\" sketch", ">\n\nFor rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced \"Missourah,\" just like cousin is pronounced \"wife.\"", ">\n\nThey also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s", ">\n\nThe purpose of the St. Louis Arch is to give God a convenient handle to lift the state of Missouri out of the ground and fling it into the sun.", ">\n\nI hope there's advance warning so I can leave first.", ">\n\nIdeological purity. \nCompromise as weakness. \nA fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. \nDenying science. \nUnmoved by facts. \nUndeterred by new information. \nA hostile fear of progress. \nA demonization of education. \nA need to control women's bodies. \nSevere xenophobia. \nTribal mentality. \nIntolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.\nThey call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. \nBut we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.\nNewsroom", ">\n\nIt went from:\n\"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”\nTo:\nProper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”\nUnder the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before.", ">\n\nIt’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it.", ">\n\nY'all Qaida", ">\n\nThe GOP has become the Puritan party. Let's go back to 1620 and bring those hypocritical values with us. I'm surprised they aren't voting to take away women's rights period.", ">\n\nGive 'em time and they most surely will.", ">\n\nSounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House", ">\n\nWhat fucking disgusting state.", ">\n\nEverything else aside. How did you gather that conclusion from this article?", ">\n\nI hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears.", ">\n\nHmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear!", ">\n\nChristian taliban rising up", ">\n\nThe difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only", ">\n\nBut Missouri is the Show Me state", ">\n\nThey are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times.", ">\n\n\nThe state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.\n\nConcealed arms? Did they think this was an open carry debate?", ">\n\nAll Democrats men and women need to show up wearing the red cape and the hood of the handmaid’s tale. At least it would get some press.", ">\n\nNo more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all.", ">\n\nThat’s only at family reunions.", ">\n\nGotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies?", ">\n\nAre the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s", ">\n\nThat isn't sarcasm for Republicans. The Southern Baptist Church is the \"morality police\" and if they had the power to do so, they would enforce it.", ">\n\nHijabs coming soon.", ">\n\nI went to Catholic grade school in St. Louis. It was in the 70s and the boys wore a collared shirt and dress pants and the girls wore uniforms. The rationale was that girls would tear each other down for their outfits because there were income disparities. We were allowed to serve Mass and they were not. Sometime later, they all went to uniforms and they all could serve Mass. Republicans are taking us back and taking rights away from people that they should’ve had the whole time.", ">\n\nWelcome to Missouristan y’all.", ">\n\nOnce again the Republicans take a step closer to becoming the American Taliban, surprising absolutely no one.", ">\n\nHow many decades are we going to turn the clock back? I remember my first job post-college (1979) required me to wear pantyhose and although not outright prohibited they frowned heavily on women wearing slacks.", ">\n\nWorth noting: \n\nMen also have a dress code to abide by in the chamber, but there were no proposed updates to their dress code on Wednesday. The men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.” \n\nDoesn't make the state any less backwards, but context makes it an iota less prone to sensationalization.", ">\n\nNo it do doesn’t. It’s still bullshit.", ">\n\nYes, it's still bullshit in a bullshit state. No disagreement there. \nBut I do disagree that it doesn't make an iota of difference. I think that difference is easier to see if the men's dress code didn't already require coats and ties. If such a requirement were unilaterally placed upon women -- with no corresponding imposition on men -- then its level of bullshit would be substantially higher than it is. \nAgain, I don't disagree that it's bullshit, I just think the pre-existing parallel requirement for men puts it on a very slightly different place on the spectrum as a starting point (and subject to other contextual elements).", ">\n\nThank you! I work in a job that puts me adjacent to people at the House of Representatives in my atate. The men's dress code is extremely restrictive, and the women's is relatively forgiving. \nOf course, if you want to pass a better dress code, that doesn't mean you make women's more restrictive. It means you give men more options and let women keep what's working for them. My buddy should be allowed to wear a nice sweater instead of a full suit.", ">\n\nYall Qeida strikes again", ">\n\nUnder His Eye", ">\n\nAre men allowed to show their arms?", ">\n\nNo. The men’s dress code is much stricter\n\nThe men’s dress code in the House states that “proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.”\n\nAll this does it make the dress code equivalent for everyone", ">\n\nWhy is their House chamber so….. ugly? Looks like a FEMA response center.", ">\n\nThey got plastic fold out tables in there? What in the wide world of trash is that?", ">\n\nThe GOP needs to be cleansed from our politics.", ">\n\nDamn that Senator from Minnesota has a sexy pair of…..armpits.", ">\n\nReason #2954 why Centrists are not Conservatives.", ">\n\nWhen will Gym Jordan iron his shirt? Or take a shower? Or wear a jacket?", ">\n\nWhat, no burka?", ">\n\nOne of the guys needs to show up in drag toting an AR-15. The qanon nuts in the GOP don't know what to do with that, if it works to keep drag queen storytime safe it'll work here too.", ">\n\nMissouri, truly the asscrack of the lower 48", ">\n\nThe taint", ">\n\nThis is ridiculous.", ">\n\nHow so?", ">\n\nAt least not as bad as the Taliban - that is the bar they're going for now.", ">\n\nThen they will restrict dancing and Kevin bacon will show up and the rest is history", ">\n\nThat would make me want to buy a black leather jacket and go full Fonzie on the House floor.", ">\n\nRepublicans for the past 3 years: \"The government can't tell me what to wear!\"\nRepublicans for the past 50 years: \"The government can definitely tell women what to wear.\"", ">\n\nLet’s throw it in reverse and back our way into the 1950s", ">\n\nBy having a dress code…… you do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s. Literally be one single outfit they can wear….." ]