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.", ">\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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code 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", ">\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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of 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.", ">\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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban." ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them." ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get 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.", ">\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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white 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.", ">\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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those 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.", ">\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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had 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", ">\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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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.”" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons." ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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.”" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place." ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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.”" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks." ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie." ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's 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", ">\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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like." ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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.”" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap." ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote." ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well." ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default." ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors 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", ">\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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles." ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something", ">\n\n\"Under his eye\"...\nRepublicans are embracing the oppression at this point." ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something", ">\n\n\"Under his eye\"...\nRepublicans are embracing the oppression at this point.", ">\n\nThe y’allQaeda at it 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", ">\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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something", ">\n\n\"Under his eye\"...\nRepublicans are embracing the oppression at this point.", ">\n\nThe y’allQaeda at it again.", ">\n\nHijab phaps?" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something", ">\n\n\"Under his eye\"...\nRepublicans are embracing the oppression at this point.", ">\n\nThe y’allQaeda at it again.", ">\n\nHijab phaps?", ">\n\nThey don't even care about the optics." ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something", ">\n\n\"Under his eye\"...\nRepublicans are embracing the oppression at this point.", ">\n\nThe y’allQaeda at it again.", ">\n\nHijab phaps?", ">\n\nThey don't even care about the optics.", ">\n\nI guess chastity belts will be part of the attire." ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something", ">\n\n\"Under his eye\"...\nRepublicans are embracing the oppression at this point.", ">\n\nThe y’allQaeda at it again.", ">\n\nHijab phaps?", ">\n\nThey don't even care about the optics.", ">\n\nI guess chastity belts will be part of the attire.", ">\n\n“You were serious about 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.", ">\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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something", ">\n\n\"Under his eye\"...\nRepublicans are embracing the oppression at this point.", ">\n\nThe y’allQaeda at it again.", ">\n\nHijab phaps?", ">\n\nThey don't even care about the optics.", ">\n\nI guess chastity belts will be part of the attire.", ">\n\n“You were serious about that?”", ">\n\nSexy Reps sell better. Trying to even the playing field. Lol" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something", ">\n\n\"Under his eye\"...\nRepublicans are embracing the oppression at this point.", ">\n\nThe y’allQaeda at it again.", ">\n\nHijab phaps?", ">\n\nThey don't even care about the optics.", ">\n\nI guess chastity belts will be part of the attire.", ">\n\n“You were serious about that?”", ">\n\nSexy Reps sell better. Trying to even the playing field. Lol", ">\n\nTiny half sweaters like Caroline Rea wore on teh first season of Biggest Loser it is!" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something", ">\n\n\"Under his eye\"...\nRepublicans are embracing the oppression at this point.", ">\n\nThe y’allQaeda at it again.", ">\n\nHijab phaps?", ">\n\nThey don't even care about the optics.", ">\n\nI guess chastity belts will be part of the attire.", ">\n\n“You were serious about that?”", ">\n\nSexy Reps sell better. Trying to even the playing field. Lol", ">\n\nTiny half sweaters like Caroline Rea wore on teh first season of Biggest Loser it is!", ">\n\nThe supreme leader would like Missouri to be his ambassador in America" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something", ">\n\n\"Under his eye\"...\nRepublicans are embracing the oppression at this point.", ">\n\nThe y’allQaeda at it again.", ">\n\nHijab phaps?", ">\n\nThey don't even care about the optics.", ">\n\nI guess chastity belts will be part of the attire.", ">\n\n“You were serious about that?”", ">\n\nSexy Reps sell better. Trying to even the playing field. Lol", ">\n\nTiny half sweaters like Caroline Rea wore on teh first season of Biggest Loser it is!", ">\n\nThe supreme leader would like Missouri to be his ambassador in America", ">\n\nSkirt below the knee and simple string of pearls?" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something", ">\n\n\"Under his eye\"...\nRepublicans are embracing the oppression at this point.", ">\n\nThe y’allQaeda at it again.", ">\n\nHijab phaps?", ">\n\nThey don't even care about the optics.", ">\n\nI guess chastity belts will be part of the attire.", ">\n\n“You were serious about that?”", ">\n\nSexy Reps sell better. Trying to even the playing field. Lol", ">\n\nTiny half sweaters like Caroline Rea wore on teh first season of Biggest Loser it is!", ">\n\nThe supreme leader would like Missouri to be his ambassador in America", ">\n\nSkirt below the knee and simple string of pearls?", ">\n\nThey took away their right to bare 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", ">\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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something", ">\n\n\"Under his eye\"...\nRepublicans are embracing the oppression at this point.", ">\n\nThe y’allQaeda at it again.", ">\n\nHijab phaps?", ">\n\nThey don't even care about the optics.", ">\n\nI guess chastity belts will be part of the attire.", ">\n\n“You were serious about that?”", ">\n\nSexy Reps sell better. Trying to even the playing field. Lol", ">\n\nTiny half sweaters like Caroline Rea wore on teh first season of Biggest Loser it is!", ">\n\nThe supreme leader would like Missouri to be his ambassador in America", ">\n\nSkirt below the knee and simple string of pearls?", ">\n\nThey took away their right to bare arms", ">\n\nThose red wraps with the starched white caps look great" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something", ">\n\n\"Under his eye\"...\nRepublicans are embracing the oppression at this point.", ">\n\nThe y’allQaeda at it again.", ">\n\nHijab phaps?", ">\n\nThey don't even care about the optics.", ">\n\nI guess chastity belts will be part of the attire.", ">\n\n“You were serious about that?”", ">\n\nSexy Reps sell better. Trying to even the playing field. Lol", ">\n\nTiny half sweaters like Caroline Rea wore on teh first season of Biggest Loser it is!", ">\n\nThe supreme leader would like Missouri to be his ambassador in America", ">\n\nSkirt below the knee and simple string of pearls?", ">\n\nThey took away their right to bare arms", ">\n\nThose red wraps with the starched white caps look great", ">\n\nDoes this mean men can walk in naked?" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something", ">\n\n\"Under his eye\"...\nRepublicans are embracing the oppression at this point.", ">\n\nThe y’allQaeda at it again.", ">\n\nHijab phaps?", ">\n\nThey don't even care about the optics.", ">\n\nI guess chastity belts will be part of the attire.", ">\n\n“You were serious about that?”", ">\n\nSexy Reps sell better. Trying to even the playing field. Lol", ">\n\nTiny half sweaters like Caroline Rea wore on teh first season of Biggest Loser it is!", ">\n\nThe supreme leader would like Missouri to be his ambassador in America", ">\n\nSkirt below the knee and simple string of pearls?", ">\n\nThey took away their right to bare arms", ">\n\nThose red wraps with the starched white caps look great", ">\n\nDoes this mean men can walk in naked?", ">\n\nMissouri: Giving Mississippi a run for its money!" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something", ">\n\n\"Under his eye\"...\nRepublicans are embracing the oppression at this point.", ">\n\nThe y’allQaeda at it again.", ">\n\nHijab phaps?", ">\n\nThey don't even care about the optics.", ">\n\nI guess chastity belts will be part of the attire.", ">\n\n“You were serious about that?”", ">\n\nSexy Reps sell better. Trying to even the playing field. Lol", ">\n\nTiny half sweaters like Caroline Rea wore on teh first season of Biggest Loser it is!", ">\n\nThe supreme leader would like Missouri to be his ambassador in America", ">\n\nSkirt below the knee and simple string of pearls?", ">\n\nThey took away their right to bare arms", ">\n\nThose red wraps with the starched white caps look great", ">\n\nDoes this mean men can walk in naked?", ">\n\nMissouri: Giving Mississippi a run for its money!", ">\n\nSounds very much like the timeline in the book and tv show: ‘hand maid tales.’" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something", ">\n\n\"Under his eye\"...\nRepublicans are embracing the oppression at this point.", ">\n\nThe y’allQaeda at it again.", ">\n\nHijab phaps?", ">\n\nThey don't even care about the optics.", ">\n\nI guess chastity belts will be part of the attire.", ">\n\n“You were serious about that?”", ">\n\nSexy Reps sell better. Trying to even the playing field. Lol", ">\n\nTiny half sweaters like Caroline Rea wore on teh first season of Biggest Loser it is!", ">\n\nThe supreme leader would like Missouri to be his ambassador in America", ">\n\nSkirt below the knee and simple string of pearls?", ">\n\nThey took away their right to bare arms", ">\n\nThose red wraps with the starched white caps look great", ">\n\nDoes this mean men can walk in naked?", ">\n\nMissouri: Giving Mississippi a run for its money!", ">\n\nSounds very much like the timeline in the book and tv show: ‘hand maid tales.’", ">\n\nGet out the ruler" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something", ">\n\n\"Under his eye\"...\nRepublicans are embracing the oppression at this point.", ">\n\nThe y’allQaeda at it again.", ">\n\nHijab phaps?", ">\n\nThey don't even care about the optics.", ">\n\nI guess chastity belts will be part of the attire.", ">\n\n“You were serious about that?”", ">\n\nSexy Reps sell better. Trying to even the playing field. Lol", ">\n\nTiny half sweaters like Caroline Rea wore on teh first season of Biggest Loser it is!", ">\n\nThe supreme leader would like Missouri to be his ambassador in America", ">\n\nSkirt below the knee and simple string of pearls?", ">\n\nThey took away their right to bare arms", ">\n\nThose red wraps with the starched white caps look great", ">\n\nDoes this mean men can walk in naked?", ">\n\nMissouri: Giving Mississippi a run for its money!", ">\n\nSounds very much like the timeline in the book and tv show: ‘hand maid tales.’", ">\n\nGet out the ruler", ">\n\nSo this definitely violates the Equal Protection Clause." ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something", ">\n\n\"Under his eye\"...\nRepublicans are embracing the oppression at this point.", ">\n\nThe y’allQaeda at it again.", ">\n\nHijab phaps?", ">\n\nThey don't even care about the optics.", ">\n\nI guess chastity belts will be part of the attire.", ">\n\n“You were serious about that?”", ">\n\nSexy Reps sell better. Trying to even the playing field. Lol", ">\n\nTiny half sweaters like Caroline Rea wore on teh first season of Biggest Loser it is!", ">\n\nThe supreme leader would like Missouri to be his ambassador in America", ">\n\nSkirt below the knee and simple string of pearls?", ">\n\nThey took away their right to bare arms", ">\n\nThose red wraps with the starched white caps look great", ">\n\nDoes this mean men can walk in naked?", ">\n\nMissouri: Giving Mississippi a run for its money!", ">\n\nSounds very much like the timeline in the book and tv show: ‘hand maid tales.’", ">\n\nGet out the ruler", ">\n\nSo this definitely violates the Equal Protection Clause.", ">\n\nIsn't this blatantly illegal?" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something", ">\n\n\"Under his eye\"...\nRepublicans are embracing the oppression at this point.", ">\n\nThe y’allQaeda at it again.", ">\n\nHijab phaps?", ">\n\nThey don't even care about the optics.", ">\n\nI guess chastity belts will be part of the attire.", ">\n\n“You were serious about that?”", ">\n\nSexy Reps sell better. Trying to even the playing field. Lol", ">\n\nTiny half sweaters like Caroline Rea wore on teh first season of Biggest Loser it is!", ">\n\nThe supreme leader would like Missouri to be his ambassador in America", ">\n\nSkirt below the knee and simple string of pearls?", ">\n\nThey took away their right to bare arms", ">\n\nThose red wraps with the starched white caps look great", ">\n\nDoes this mean men can walk in naked?", ">\n\nMissouri: Giving Mississippi a run for its money!", ">\n\nSounds very much like the timeline in the book and tv show: ‘hand maid tales.’", ">\n\nGet out the ruler", ">\n\nSo this definitely violates the Equal Protection Clause.", ">\n\nIsn't this blatantly illegal?", ">\n\nWatch the video of the exchange between them (I don’t know the names off the top of my head). If it wasn’t so scary, sad, infuriating and insane it would make a fantastic Arrested Development bit…\nShould the lady in the $1200 suit…COME ON!" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something", ">\n\n\"Under his eye\"...\nRepublicans are embracing the oppression at this point.", ">\n\nThe y’allQaeda at it again.", ">\n\nHijab phaps?", ">\n\nThey don't even care about the optics.", ">\n\nI guess chastity belts will be part of the attire.", ">\n\n“You were serious about that?”", ">\n\nSexy Reps sell better. Trying to even the playing field. Lol", ">\n\nTiny half sweaters like Caroline Rea wore on teh first season of Biggest Loser it is!", ">\n\nThe supreme leader would like Missouri to be his ambassador in America", ">\n\nSkirt below the knee and simple string of pearls?", ">\n\nThey took away their right to bare arms", ">\n\nThose red wraps with the starched white caps look great", ">\n\nDoes this mean men can walk in naked?", ">\n\nMissouri: Giving Mississippi a run for its money!", ">\n\nSounds very much like the timeline in the book and tv show: ‘hand maid tales.’", ">\n\nGet out the ruler", ">\n\nSo this definitely violates the Equal Protection Clause.", ">\n\nIsn't this blatantly illegal?", ">\n\nWatch the video of the exchange between them (I don’t know the names off the top of my head). If it wasn’t so scary, sad, infuriating and insane it would make a fantastic Arrested Development bit…\nShould the lady in the $1200 suit…COME ON!", ">\n\nI’m not as upset upon reading the new rule. If the men need to wear suits, it’s fair to require women to wear business formal as well. And old school women business formal was 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?", ">\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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something", ">\n\n\"Under his eye\"...\nRepublicans are embracing the oppression at this point.", ">\n\nThe y’allQaeda at it again.", ">\n\nHijab phaps?", ">\n\nThey don't even care about the optics.", ">\n\nI guess chastity belts will be part of the attire.", ">\n\n“You were serious about that?”", ">\n\nSexy Reps sell better. Trying to even the playing field. Lol", ">\n\nTiny half sweaters like Caroline Rea wore on teh first season of Biggest Loser it is!", ">\n\nThe supreme leader would like Missouri to be his ambassador in America", ">\n\nSkirt below the knee and simple string of pearls?", ">\n\nThey took away their right to bare arms", ">\n\nThose red wraps with the starched white caps look great", ">\n\nDoes this mean men can walk in naked?", ">\n\nMissouri: Giving Mississippi a run for its money!", ">\n\nSounds very much like the timeline in the book and tv show: ‘hand maid tales.’", ">\n\nGet out the ruler", ">\n\nSo this definitely violates the Equal Protection Clause.", ">\n\nIsn't this blatantly illegal?", ">\n\nWatch the video of the exchange between them (I don’t know the names off the top of my head). If it wasn’t so scary, sad, infuriating and insane it would make a fantastic Arrested Development bit…\nShould the lady in the $1200 suit…COME ON!", ">\n\nI’m not as upset upon reading the new rule. If the men need to wear suits, it’s fair to require women to wear business formal as well. And old school women business formal was a jacket…", ">\n\nInner city STL is like California and DC, similar to other progressive minded places. The capital and the rural population is effectively Y'all Queda due to drugs and being sandwiched within the bible belt. I don't miss it one bit, it was shocking how different the states are if you traveled for work. It in my mind was a clear representation of America with the Urban vs Rural cultural hypocrisy. We can only hope more Americans get tired of the conservative fascist leaning undertones in the coming decades. May Americans have enough food and work struggle that we have the same kind of union/labor push which happened 100 years ago." ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something", ">\n\n\"Under his eye\"...\nRepublicans are embracing the oppression at this point.", ">\n\nThe y’allQaeda at it again.", ">\n\nHijab phaps?", ">\n\nThey don't even care about the optics.", ">\n\nI guess chastity belts will be part of the attire.", ">\n\n“You were serious about that?”", ">\n\nSexy Reps sell better. Trying to even the playing field. Lol", ">\n\nTiny half sweaters like Caroline Rea wore on teh first season of Biggest Loser it is!", ">\n\nThe supreme leader would like Missouri to be his ambassador in America", ">\n\nSkirt below the knee and simple string of pearls?", ">\n\nThey took away their right to bare arms", ">\n\nThose red wraps with the starched white caps look great", ">\n\nDoes this mean men can walk in naked?", ">\n\nMissouri: Giving Mississippi a run for its money!", ">\n\nSounds very much like the timeline in the book and tv show: ‘hand maid tales.’", ">\n\nGet out the ruler", ">\n\nSo this definitely violates the Equal Protection Clause.", ">\n\nIsn't this blatantly illegal?", ">\n\nWatch the video of the exchange between them (I don’t know the names off the top of my head). If it wasn’t so scary, sad, infuriating and insane it would make a fantastic Arrested Development bit…\nShould the lady in the $1200 suit…COME ON!", ">\n\nI’m not as upset upon reading the new rule. If the men need to wear suits, it’s fair to require women to wear business formal as well. And old school women business formal was a jacket…", ">\n\nInner city STL is like California and DC, similar to other progressive minded places. The capital and the rural population is effectively Y'all Queda due to drugs and being sandwiched within the bible belt. I don't miss it one bit, it was shocking how different the states are if you traveled for work. It in my mind was a clear representation of America with the Urban vs Rural cultural hypocrisy. We can only hope more Americans get tired of the conservative fascist leaning undertones in the coming decades. May Americans have enough food and work struggle that we have the same kind of union/labor push which happened 100 years ago.", ">\n\nYou couldn't invent a more on-brand message for Republicans." ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something", ">\n\n\"Under his eye\"...\nRepublicans are embracing the oppression at this point.", ">\n\nThe y’allQaeda at it again.", ">\n\nHijab phaps?", ">\n\nThey don't even care about the optics.", ">\n\nI guess chastity belts will be part of the attire.", ">\n\n“You were serious about that?”", ">\n\nSexy Reps sell better. Trying to even the playing field. Lol", ">\n\nTiny half sweaters like Caroline Rea wore on teh first season of Biggest Loser it is!", ">\n\nThe supreme leader would like Missouri to be his ambassador in America", ">\n\nSkirt below the knee and simple string of pearls?", ">\n\nThey took away their right to bare arms", ">\n\nThose red wraps with the starched white caps look great", ">\n\nDoes this mean men can walk in naked?", ">\n\nMissouri: Giving Mississippi a run for its money!", ">\n\nSounds very much like the timeline in the book and tv show: ‘hand maid tales.’", ">\n\nGet out the ruler", ">\n\nSo this definitely violates the Equal Protection Clause.", ">\n\nIsn't this blatantly illegal?", ">\n\nWatch the video of the exchange between them (I don’t know the names off the top of my head). If it wasn’t so scary, sad, infuriating and insane it would make a fantastic Arrested Development bit…\nShould the lady in the $1200 suit…COME ON!", ">\n\nI’m not as upset upon reading the new rule. If the men need to wear suits, it’s fair to require women to wear business formal as well. And old school women business formal was a jacket…", ">\n\nInner city STL is like California and DC, similar to other progressive minded places. The capital and the rural population is effectively Y'all Queda due to drugs and being sandwiched within the bible belt. I don't miss it one bit, it was shocking how different the states are if you traveled for work. It in my mind was a clear representation of America with the Urban vs Rural cultural hypocrisy. We can only hope more Americans get tired of the conservative fascist leaning undertones in the coming decades. May Americans have enough food and work struggle that we have the same kind of union/labor push which happened 100 years ago.", ">\n\nYou couldn't invent a more on-brand message for Republicans.", ">\n\nAre there any Republicans who are like \"hey HEY! I became a republican because I want to make it easier for rich people to not pay taxes and I like thumping my chest so other people's kids go to war and die. But this whole dress code for women thing is fucking WEIRD man!!\"?" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something", ">\n\n\"Under his eye\"...\nRepublicans are embracing the oppression at this point.", ">\n\nThe y’allQaeda at it again.", ">\n\nHijab phaps?", ">\n\nThey don't even care about the optics.", ">\n\nI guess chastity belts will be part of the attire.", ">\n\n“You were serious about that?”", ">\n\nSexy Reps sell better. Trying to even the playing field. Lol", ">\n\nTiny half sweaters like Caroline Rea wore on teh first season of Biggest Loser it is!", ">\n\nThe supreme leader would like Missouri to be his ambassador in America", ">\n\nSkirt below the knee and simple string of pearls?", ">\n\nThey took away their right to bare arms", ">\n\nThose red wraps with the starched white caps look great", ">\n\nDoes this mean men can walk in naked?", ">\n\nMissouri: Giving Mississippi a run for its money!", ">\n\nSounds very much like the timeline in the book and tv show: ‘hand maid tales.’", ">\n\nGet out the ruler", ">\n\nSo this definitely violates the Equal Protection Clause.", ">\n\nIsn't this blatantly illegal?", ">\n\nWatch the video of the exchange between them (I don’t know the names off the top of my head). If it wasn’t so scary, sad, infuriating and insane it would make a fantastic Arrested Development bit…\nShould the lady in the $1200 suit…COME ON!", ">\n\nI’m not as upset upon reading the new rule. If the men need to wear suits, it’s fair to require women to wear business formal as well. And old school women business formal was a jacket…", ">\n\nInner city STL is like California and DC, similar to other progressive minded places. The capital and the rural population is effectively Y'all Queda due to drugs and being sandwiched within the bible belt. I don't miss it one bit, it was shocking how different the states are if you traveled for work. It in my mind was a clear representation of America with the Urban vs Rural cultural hypocrisy. We can only hope more Americans get tired of the conservative fascist leaning undertones in the coming decades. May Americans have enough food and work struggle that we have the same kind of union/labor push which happened 100 years ago.", ">\n\nYou couldn't invent a more on-brand message for Republicans.", ">\n\nAre there any Republicans who are like \"hey HEY! I became a republican because I want to make it easier for rich people to not pay taxes and I like thumping my chest so other people's kids go to war and die. But this whole dress code for women thing is fucking WEIRD man!!\"?", ">\n\nMight as well ban women from voting, maybe ban them from having jobs or an education, you know what? have them cover themself! how scandalous! cover from head to toe, one's should only reserve their beauty for her husband, just as the founding fathers intended." ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something", ">\n\n\"Under his eye\"...\nRepublicans are embracing the oppression at this point.", ">\n\nThe y’allQaeda at it again.", ">\n\nHijab phaps?", ">\n\nThey don't even care about the optics.", ">\n\nI guess chastity belts will be part of the attire.", ">\n\n“You were serious about that?”", ">\n\nSexy Reps sell better. Trying to even the playing field. Lol", ">\n\nTiny half sweaters like Caroline Rea wore on teh first season of Biggest Loser it is!", ">\n\nThe supreme leader would like Missouri to be his ambassador in America", ">\n\nSkirt below the knee and simple string of pearls?", ">\n\nThey took away their right to bare arms", ">\n\nThose red wraps with the starched white caps look great", ">\n\nDoes this mean men can walk in naked?", ">\n\nMissouri: Giving Mississippi a run for its money!", ">\n\nSounds very much like the timeline in the book and tv show: ‘hand maid tales.’", ">\n\nGet out the ruler", ">\n\nSo this definitely violates the Equal Protection Clause.", ">\n\nIsn't this blatantly illegal?", ">\n\nWatch the video of the exchange between them (I don’t know the names off the top of my head). If it wasn’t so scary, sad, infuriating and insane it would make a fantastic Arrested Development bit…\nShould the lady in the $1200 suit…COME ON!", ">\n\nI’m not as upset upon reading the new rule. If the men need to wear suits, it’s fair to require women to wear business formal as well. And old school women business formal was a jacket…", ">\n\nInner city STL is like California and DC, similar to other progressive minded places. The capital and the rural population is effectively Y'all Queda due to drugs and being sandwiched within the bible belt. I don't miss it one bit, it was shocking how different the states are if you traveled for work. It in my mind was a clear representation of America with the Urban vs Rural cultural hypocrisy. We can only hope more Americans get tired of the conservative fascist leaning undertones in the coming decades. May Americans have enough food and work struggle that we have the same kind of union/labor push which happened 100 years ago.", ">\n\nYou couldn't invent a more on-brand message for Republicans.", ">\n\nAre there any Republicans who are like \"hey HEY! I became a republican because I want to make it easier for rich people to not pay taxes and I like thumping my chest so other people's kids go to war and die. But this whole dress code for women thing is fucking WEIRD man!!\"?", ">\n\nMight as well ban women from voting, maybe ban them from having jobs or an education, you know what? have them cover themself! how scandalous! cover from head to toe, one's should only reserve their beauty for her husband, just as the founding fathers intended.", ">\n\nI don't see any reason for Missouri's dress code to be stricter than the U.S. Senate's.\nThe way that WaPo framed this headline is infuriating, though. Needlessly dividing the sexes.\nThe only way to make the men's dress code stricter would be to require hats, bow ties, or pocket squares. Let me know when the women have to wear neckties." ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something", ">\n\n\"Under his eye\"...\nRepublicans are embracing the oppression at this point.", ">\n\nThe y’allQaeda at it again.", ">\n\nHijab phaps?", ">\n\nThey don't even care about the optics.", ">\n\nI guess chastity belts will be part of the attire.", ">\n\n“You were serious about that?”", ">\n\nSexy Reps sell better. Trying to even the playing field. Lol", ">\n\nTiny half sweaters like Caroline Rea wore on teh first season of Biggest Loser it is!", ">\n\nThe supreme leader would like Missouri to be his ambassador in America", ">\n\nSkirt below the knee and simple string of pearls?", ">\n\nThey took away their right to bare arms", ">\n\nThose red wraps with the starched white caps look great", ">\n\nDoes this mean men can walk in naked?", ">\n\nMissouri: Giving Mississippi a run for its money!", ">\n\nSounds very much like the timeline in the book and tv show: ‘hand maid tales.’", ">\n\nGet out the ruler", ">\n\nSo this definitely violates the Equal Protection Clause.", ">\n\nIsn't this blatantly illegal?", ">\n\nWatch the video of the exchange between them (I don’t know the names off the top of my head). If it wasn’t so scary, sad, infuriating and insane it would make a fantastic Arrested Development bit…\nShould the lady in the $1200 suit…COME ON!", ">\n\nI’m not as upset upon reading the new rule. If the men need to wear suits, it’s fair to require women to wear business formal as well. And old school women business formal was a jacket…", ">\n\nInner city STL is like California and DC, similar to other progressive minded places. The capital and the rural population is effectively Y'all Queda due to drugs and being sandwiched within the bible belt. I don't miss it one bit, it was shocking how different the states are if you traveled for work. It in my mind was a clear representation of America with the Urban vs Rural cultural hypocrisy. We can only hope more Americans get tired of the conservative fascist leaning undertones in the coming decades. May Americans have enough food and work struggle that we have the same kind of union/labor push which happened 100 years ago.", ">\n\nYou couldn't invent a more on-brand message for Republicans.", ">\n\nAre there any Republicans who are like \"hey HEY! I became a republican because I want to make it easier for rich people to not pay taxes and I like thumping my chest so other people's kids go to war and die. But this whole dress code for women thing is fucking WEIRD man!!\"?", ">\n\nMight as well ban women from voting, maybe ban them from having jobs or an education, you know what? have them cover themself! how scandalous! cover from head to toe, one's should only reserve their beauty for her husband, just as the founding fathers intended.", ">\n\nI don't see any reason for Missouri's dress code to be stricter than the U.S. Senate's.\nThe way that WaPo framed this headline is infuriating, though. Needlessly dividing the sexes.\nThe only way to make the men's dress code stricter would be to require hats, bow ties, or pocket squares. Let me know when the women have to wear neckties.", ">\n\nRepublican women did this 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", ">\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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something", ">\n\n\"Under his eye\"...\nRepublicans are embracing the oppression at this point.", ">\n\nThe y’allQaeda at it again.", ">\n\nHijab phaps?", ">\n\nThey don't even care about the optics.", ">\n\nI guess chastity belts will be part of the attire.", ">\n\n“You were serious about that?”", ">\n\nSexy Reps sell better. Trying to even the playing field. Lol", ">\n\nTiny half sweaters like Caroline Rea wore on teh first season of Biggest Loser it is!", ">\n\nThe supreme leader would like Missouri to be his ambassador in America", ">\n\nSkirt below the knee and simple string of pearls?", ">\n\nThey took away their right to bare arms", ">\n\nThose red wraps with the starched white caps look great", ">\n\nDoes this mean men can walk in naked?", ">\n\nMissouri: Giving Mississippi a run for its money!", ">\n\nSounds very much like the timeline in the book and tv show: ‘hand maid tales.’", ">\n\nGet out the ruler", ">\n\nSo this definitely violates the Equal Protection Clause.", ">\n\nIsn't this blatantly illegal?", ">\n\nWatch the video of the exchange between them (I don’t know the names off the top of my head). If it wasn’t so scary, sad, infuriating and insane it would make a fantastic Arrested Development bit…\nShould the lady in the $1200 suit…COME ON!", ">\n\nI’m not as upset upon reading the new rule. If the men need to wear suits, it’s fair to require women to wear business formal as well. And old school women business formal was a jacket…", ">\n\nInner city STL is like California and DC, similar to other progressive minded places. The capital and the rural population is effectively Y'all Queda due to drugs and being sandwiched within the bible belt. I don't miss it one bit, it was shocking how different the states are if you traveled for work. It in my mind was a clear representation of America with the Urban vs Rural cultural hypocrisy. We can only hope more Americans get tired of the conservative fascist leaning undertones in the coming decades. May Americans have enough food and work struggle that we have the same kind of union/labor push which happened 100 years ago.", ">\n\nYou couldn't invent a more on-brand message for Republicans.", ">\n\nAre there any Republicans who are like \"hey HEY! I became a republican because I want to make it easier for rich people to not pay taxes and I like thumping my chest so other people's kids go to war and die. But this whole dress code for women thing is fucking WEIRD man!!\"?", ">\n\nMight as well ban women from voting, maybe ban them from having jobs or an education, you know what? have them cover themself! how scandalous! cover from head to toe, one's should only reserve their beauty for her husband, just as the founding fathers intended.", ">\n\nI don't see any reason for Missouri's dress code to be stricter than the U.S. Senate's.\nThe way that WaPo framed this headline is infuriating, though. Needlessly dividing the sexes.\nThe only way to make the men's dress code stricter would be to require hats, bow ties, or pocket squares. Let me know when the women have to wear neckties.", ">\n\nRepublican women did this too.", ">\n\nMen already only have one option how much more strict could they get!?" ]

[ "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…..", ">\n\n\nBy having a dress code……\n\nYes.\n\nyou do realize the men’s dress code is even stricter than the woman’s.\n\nWhich does not make this okay.\n\nLiterally be one single outfit they can wear…..\n\nAlright, so get rid of the men's dress code too.", ">\n\nAny paywall free version?", ">\n\nWhat happens if the women break the rule? A fine?", ">\n\nEthno-religious Nationalism", ">\n\nJust incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time.", ">\n\nNext thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban.", ">\n\nThis demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them.", ">\n\nAre they allowed to wear a Handmaiden outfit? If so then that's what they should wear for awhile to the legislative sessions. Although I'm not sure the Republican law makers would get it.", ">\n\nBare arms are too distracting to old white men", ">\n\nSo the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie?", ">\n\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\nThe men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men", ">\n\nI think it’s crazy what they are doing but…. That’s what I thought what the men had to wear", ">\n\nYou think it’s crazy to make the dress code the same for men and women?\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\nAs a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday. What a bunch of ignorant morons.", ">\n\nWould you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? \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\nIt’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire", ">\n\nPlease tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in?", ">\n\nWhy is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?\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.”\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\nAnother step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...\nBunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place.", ">\n\nIt’s literally just making the women’s dress code equivalent to that for men\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\nThis change would simply make paste attire required for everyone \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\nI mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter?", ">\n\nBut if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? \nBare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me! Goodness this place sucks.", ">\n\nMen’s dress code is suit and tie.", ">\n\nEnd viagra! It is god's will.", ">\n\nVery Taliban-like.", ">\n\nA law suit over discrimination", ">\n\nOn what basis? The men’s dress code is currently stricter than that for women\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\nIf anything, this change reduces discrimination \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\nThey could just get rid of or loosen the men's dress code instead of doing this crap.", ">\n\nI see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote.", ">\n\nMay the Lord open", ">\n\nThe humerus bone is the erogenous zone and therefore pornography change my mind", ">\n\nNext week, headscarf, then veil, then burka, then banned from office", ">\n\nBriefs to granny panties coming soon as well.", ">\n\nRun in those, Hawley", ">\n\nMake a rule that baldies have to wear hair pieces", ">\n\nThey do by default.", ">\n\nCame here hoping it would be a codpiece", ">\n\nSo I guess women must wear muted colors too.", ">\n\nRepublicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles.", ">\n\nshowing a lot of ankle. we better do something", ">\n\n\"Under his eye\"...\nRepublicans are embracing the oppression at this point.", ">\n\nThe y’allQaeda at it again.", ">\n\nHijab phaps?", ">\n\nThey don't even care about the optics.", ">\n\nI guess chastity belts will be part of the attire.", ">\n\n“You were serious about that?”", ">\n\nSexy Reps sell better. Trying to even the playing field. Lol", ">\n\nTiny half sweaters like Caroline Rea wore on teh first season of Biggest Loser it is!", ">\n\nThe supreme leader would like Missouri to be his ambassador in America", ">\n\nSkirt below the knee and simple string of pearls?", ">\n\nThey took away their right to bare arms", ">\n\nThose red wraps with the starched white caps look great", ">\n\nDoes this mean men can walk in naked?", ">\n\nMissouri: Giving Mississippi a run for its money!", ">\n\nSounds very much like the timeline in the book and tv show: ‘hand maid tales.’", ">\n\nGet out the ruler", ">\n\nSo this definitely violates the Equal Protection Clause.", ">\n\nIsn't this blatantly illegal?", ">\n\nWatch the video of the exchange between them (I don’t know the names off the top of my head). If it wasn’t so scary, sad, infuriating and insane it would make a fantastic Arrested Development bit…\nShould the lady in the $1200 suit…COME ON!", ">\n\nI’m not as upset upon reading the new rule. If the men need to wear suits, it’s fair to require women to wear business formal as well. And old school women business formal was a jacket…", ">\n\nInner city STL is like California and DC, similar to other progressive minded places. The capital and the rural population is effectively Y'all Queda due to drugs and being sandwiched within the bible belt. I don't miss it one bit, it was shocking how different the states are if you traveled for work. It in my mind was a clear representation of America with the Urban vs Rural cultural hypocrisy. We can only hope more Americans get tired of the conservative fascist leaning undertones in the coming decades. May Americans have enough food and work struggle that we have the same kind of union/labor push which happened 100 years ago.", ">\n\nYou couldn't invent a more on-brand message for Republicans.", ">\n\nAre there any Republicans who are like \"hey HEY! I became a republican because I want to make it easier for rich people to not pay taxes and I like thumping my chest so other people's kids go to war and die. But this whole dress code for women thing is fucking WEIRD man!!\"?", ">\n\nMight as well ban women from voting, maybe ban them from having jobs or an education, you know what? have them cover themself! how scandalous! cover from head to toe, one's should only reserve their beauty for her husband, just as the founding fathers intended.", ">\n\nI don't see any reason for Missouri's dress code to be stricter than the U.S. Senate's.\nThe way that WaPo framed this headline is infuriating, though. Needlessly dividing the sexes.\nThe only way to make the men's dress code stricter would be to require hats, bow ties, or pocket squares. Let me know when the women have to wear neckties.", ">\n\nRepublican women did this too.", ">\n\nMen already only have one option how much more strict could they get!?", ">\n\n… ok?" ]

[]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents." ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents" ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes" ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos" ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos", ">\n\nIt's part of the joke..." ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos", ">\n\nIt's part of the joke...", ">\n\nPotatoes is the correct spelling of the plural." ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos", ">\n\nIt's part of the joke...", ">\n\nPotatoes is the correct spelling of the plural.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should use potato in the singular by saying “potatoe commodities” or something" ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos", ">\n\nIt's part of the joke...", ">\n\nPotatoes is the correct spelling of the plural.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should use potato in the singular by saying “potatoe commodities” or something", ">\n\nWait. Couldn't Obama have declassified them by thinking about it?" ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos", ">\n\nIt's part of the joke...", ">\n\nPotatoes is the correct spelling of the plural.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should use potato in the singular by saying “potatoe commodities” or something", ">\n\nWait. Couldn't Obama have declassified them by thinking about it?", ">\n\nI’m pretty sure he could" ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos", ">\n\nIt's part of the joke...", ">\n\nPotatoes is the correct spelling of the plural.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should use potato in the singular by saying “potatoe commodities” or something", ">\n\nWait. Couldn't Obama have declassified them by thinking about it?", ">\n\nI’m pretty sure he could", ">\n\nI’m starting to think that many past presidents likely have some number of classified documents in their office or in their home.\nThe difference, however, is that Biden found the documents and turned them into the national archives. Then he found more in his house. He turned those in as well. And as far as we know, he only had a few. Trump had hundreds of classified documents spread across dozens of boxes and fought giving them back to the archives when requested. He ignored subpoenas. He did not cooperate and broke the law." ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos", ">\n\nIt's part of the joke...", ">\n\nPotatoes is the correct spelling of the plural.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should use potato in the singular by saying “potatoe commodities” or something", ">\n\nWait. Couldn't Obama have declassified them by thinking about it?", ">\n\nI’m pretty sure he could", ">\n\nI’m starting to think that many past presidents likely have some number of classified documents in their office or in their home.\nThe difference, however, is that Biden found the documents and turned them into the national archives. Then he found more in his house. He turned those in as well. And as far as we know, he only had a few. Trump had hundreds of classified documents spread across dozens of boxes and fought giving them back to the archives when requested. He ignored subpoenas. He did not cooperate and broke the law.", ">\n\nNobody seems to be mention that Biden is the acting President right now\niirc executive privilege was basically Trump's whole defense" ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos", ">\n\nIt's part of the joke...", ">\n\nPotatoes is the correct spelling of the plural.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should use potato in the singular by saying “potatoe commodities” or something", ">\n\nWait. Couldn't Obama have declassified them by thinking about it?", ">\n\nI’m pretty sure he could", ">\n\nI’m starting to think that many past presidents likely have some number of classified documents in their office or in their home.\nThe difference, however, is that Biden found the documents and turned them into the national archives. Then he found more in his house. He turned those in as well. And as far as we know, he only had a few. Trump had hundreds of classified documents spread across dozens of boxes and fought giving them back to the archives when requested. He ignored subpoenas. He did not cooperate and broke the law.", ">\n\nNobody seems to be mention that Biden is the acting President right now\niirc executive privilege was basically Trump's whole defense", ">\n\nWhile I think that this specific issue is wildly overblown, it's important to note that Biden wouldn't have had the security clearance to have those documents in his possession from 2016-2021. So it would've definitely been a security infraction at the time.\nOf course Biden forgetting to return these documents still isn't comparable to Trump intentionally stealing documents and obstructing the US government from retrieving them when they asked for those documents back." ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos", ">\n\nIt's part of the joke...", ">\n\nPotatoes is the correct spelling of the plural.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should use potato in the singular by saying “potatoe commodities” or something", ">\n\nWait. Couldn't Obama have declassified them by thinking about it?", ">\n\nI’m pretty sure he could", ">\n\nI’m starting to think that many past presidents likely have some number of classified documents in their office or in their home.\nThe difference, however, is that Biden found the documents and turned them into the national archives. Then he found more in his house. He turned those in as well. And as far as we know, he only had a few. Trump had hundreds of classified documents spread across dozens of boxes and fought giving them back to the archives when requested. He ignored subpoenas. He did not cooperate and broke the law.", ">\n\nNobody seems to be mention that Biden is the acting President right now\niirc executive privilege was basically Trump's whole defense", ">\n\nWhile I think that this specific issue is wildly overblown, it's important to note that Biden wouldn't have had the security clearance to have those documents in his possession from 2016-2021. So it would've definitely been a security infraction at the time.\nOf course Biden forgetting to return these documents still isn't comparable to Trump intentionally stealing documents and obstructing the US government from retrieving them when they asked for those documents back.", ">\n\nWhere is your proof he forgot to return the documents as opposed to intentionally taking them?" ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos", ">\n\nIt's part of the joke...", ">\n\nPotatoes is the correct spelling of the plural.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should use potato in the singular by saying “potatoe commodities” or something", ">\n\nWait. Couldn't Obama have declassified them by thinking about it?", ">\n\nI’m pretty sure he could", ">\n\nI’m starting to think that many past presidents likely have some number of classified documents in their office or in their home.\nThe difference, however, is that Biden found the documents and turned them into the national archives. Then he found more in his house. He turned those in as well. And as far as we know, he only had a few. Trump had hundreds of classified documents spread across dozens of boxes and fought giving them back to the archives when requested. He ignored subpoenas. He did not cooperate and broke the law.", ">\n\nNobody seems to be mention that Biden is the acting President right now\niirc executive privilege was basically Trump's whole defense", ">\n\nWhile I think that this specific issue is wildly overblown, it's important to note that Biden wouldn't have had the security clearance to have those documents in his possession from 2016-2021. So it would've definitely been a security infraction at the time.\nOf course Biden forgetting to return these documents still isn't comparable to Trump intentionally stealing documents and obstructing the US government from retrieving them when they asked for those documents back.", ">\n\nWhere is your proof he forgot to return the documents as opposed to intentionally taking them?", ">\n\nThe fact that he turned them over as soon as he found them, rather than trying to hide them, would seem to be evidence that it was not deliberate." ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos", ">\n\nIt's part of the joke...", ">\n\nPotatoes is the correct spelling of the plural.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should use potato in the singular by saying “potatoe commodities” or something", ">\n\nWait. Couldn't Obama have declassified them by thinking about it?", ">\n\nI’m pretty sure he could", ">\n\nI’m starting to think that many past presidents likely have some number of classified documents in their office or in their home.\nThe difference, however, is that Biden found the documents and turned them into the national archives. Then he found more in his house. He turned those in as well. And as far as we know, he only had a few. Trump had hundreds of classified documents spread across dozens of boxes and fought giving them back to the archives when requested. He ignored subpoenas. He did not cooperate and broke the law.", ">\n\nNobody seems to be mention that Biden is the acting President right now\niirc executive privilege was basically Trump's whole defense", ">\n\nWhile I think that this specific issue is wildly overblown, it's important to note that Biden wouldn't have had the security clearance to have those documents in his possession from 2016-2021. So it would've definitely been a security infraction at the time.\nOf course Biden forgetting to return these documents still isn't comparable to Trump intentionally stealing documents and obstructing the US government from retrieving them when they asked for those documents back.", ">\n\nWhere is your proof he forgot to return the documents as opposed to intentionally taking them?", ">\n\nThe fact that he turned them over as soon as he found them, rather than trying to hide them, would seem to be evidence that it was not deliberate.", ">\n\nBiden had no part in returning the documents. He has stated that he found out they were returned after the fact." ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos", ">\n\nIt's part of the joke...", ">\n\nPotatoes is the correct spelling of the plural.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should use potato in the singular by saying “potatoe commodities” or something", ">\n\nWait. Couldn't Obama have declassified them by thinking about it?", ">\n\nI’m pretty sure he could", ">\n\nI’m starting to think that many past presidents likely have some number of classified documents in their office or in their home.\nThe difference, however, is that Biden found the documents and turned them into the national archives. Then he found more in his house. He turned those in as well. And as far as we know, he only had a few. Trump had hundreds of classified documents spread across dozens of boxes and fought giving them back to the archives when requested. He ignored subpoenas. He did not cooperate and broke the law.", ">\n\nNobody seems to be mention that Biden is the acting President right now\niirc executive privilege was basically Trump's whole defense", ">\n\nWhile I think that this specific issue is wildly overblown, it's important to note that Biden wouldn't have had the security clearance to have those documents in his possession from 2016-2021. So it would've definitely been a security infraction at the time.\nOf course Biden forgetting to return these documents still isn't comparable to Trump intentionally stealing documents and obstructing the US government from retrieving them when they asked for those documents back.", ">\n\nWhere is your proof he forgot to return the documents as opposed to intentionally taking them?", ">\n\nThe fact that he turned them over as soon as he found them, rather than trying to hide them, would seem to be evidence that it was not deliberate.", ">\n\nBiden had no part in returning the documents. He has stated that he found out they were returned after the fact.", ">\n\nThe first documents were found and turned over by his staff. Biden found out about that after the fact. The subsequent documents were found and turned over by his staff, after they conducted a search ordered by...?" ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos", ">\n\nIt's part of the joke...", ">\n\nPotatoes is the correct spelling of the plural.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should use potato in the singular by saying “potatoe commodities” or something", ">\n\nWait. Couldn't Obama have declassified them by thinking about it?", ">\n\nI’m pretty sure he could", ">\n\nI’m starting to think that many past presidents likely have some number of classified documents in their office or in their home.\nThe difference, however, is that Biden found the documents and turned them into the national archives. Then he found more in his house. He turned those in as well. And as far as we know, he only had a few. Trump had hundreds of classified documents spread across dozens of boxes and fought giving them back to the archives when requested. He ignored subpoenas. He did not cooperate and broke the law.", ">\n\nNobody seems to be mention that Biden is the acting President right now\niirc executive privilege was basically Trump's whole defense", ">\n\nWhile I think that this specific issue is wildly overblown, it's important to note that Biden wouldn't have had the security clearance to have those documents in his possession from 2016-2021. So it would've definitely been a security infraction at the time.\nOf course Biden forgetting to return these documents still isn't comparable to Trump intentionally stealing documents and obstructing the US government from retrieving them when they asked for those documents back.", ">\n\nWhere is your proof he forgot to return the documents as opposed to intentionally taking them?", ">\n\nThe fact that he turned them over as soon as he found them, rather than trying to hide them, would seem to be evidence that it was not deliberate.", ">\n\nBiden had no part in returning the documents. He has stated that he found out they were returned after the fact.", ">\n\nThe first documents were found and turned over by his staff. Biden found out about that after the fact. The subsequent documents were found and turned over by his staff, after they conducted a search ordered by...?", ">\n\nNo one knows when they were found or if Biden knew about them. All we know is at some point his lawyers turned them in when it was clear no one was looking for them. \nTotally possible he forgot about them, they were secured since he received them, and his lawyers stumbled upon them and immediately turned them over. No evidence yet against that. \nBut this is why a special counsel is warranted. We have no reason to give Biden the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, giving him the benefit of the doubt sets precedent for fascists to abuse. \nIt's painfully clear what trump did was far and away worse than what Biden did. And it's not false equivalency to say this is worth investigating, and that any appropriate charges be taken to court.\nAnd on the level of realpolitik, as opposed to \"right vs wrong\" is that it will remove some of the more desperate arguments from trump's base /against/ trump facing charges for this shit. \nWhat Biden did, as it stands now, to me appears the equivalent of driving on pain medication vs trump possibly having hit someone while driving drunk and tried to get rid of the car at a scrapyard and acting like he isn't an alcoholic who habitually drives home from the bar and but maybe someone stole his car and hit a deer. \nHold Biden accountable. It'll make trump getting locked in a padded cell that much more delicious." ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos", ">\n\nIt's part of the joke...", ">\n\nPotatoes is the correct spelling of the plural.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should use potato in the singular by saying “potatoe commodities” or something", ">\n\nWait. Couldn't Obama have declassified them by thinking about it?", ">\n\nI’m pretty sure he could", ">\n\nI’m starting to think that many past presidents likely have some number of classified documents in their office or in their home.\nThe difference, however, is that Biden found the documents and turned them into the national archives. Then he found more in his house. He turned those in as well. And as far as we know, he only had a few. Trump had hundreds of classified documents spread across dozens of boxes and fought giving them back to the archives when requested. He ignored subpoenas. He did not cooperate and broke the law.", ">\n\nNobody seems to be mention that Biden is the acting President right now\niirc executive privilege was basically Trump's whole defense", ">\n\nWhile I think that this specific issue is wildly overblown, it's important to note that Biden wouldn't have had the security clearance to have those documents in his possession from 2016-2021. So it would've definitely been a security infraction at the time.\nOf course Biden forgetting to return these documents still isn't comparable to Trump intentionally stealing documents and obstructing the US government from retrieving them when they asked for those documents back.", ">\n\nWhere is your proof he forgot to return the documents as opposed to intentionally taking them?", ">\n\nThe fact that he turned them over as soon as he found them, rather than trying to hide them, would seem to be evidence that it was not deliberate.", ">\n\nBiden had no part in returning the documents. He has stated that he found out they were returned after the fact.", ">\n\nThe first documents were found and turned over by his staff. Biden found out about that after the fact. The subsequent documents were found and turned over by his staff, after they conducted a search ordered by...?", ">\n\nNo one knows when they were found or if Biden knew about them. All we know is at some point his lawyers turned them in when it was clear no one was looking for them. \nTotally possible he forgot about them, they were secured since he received them, and his lawyers stumbled upon them and immediately turned them over. No evidence yet against that. \nBut this is why a special counsel is warranted. We have no reason to give Biden the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, giving him the benefit of the doubt sets precedent for fascists to abuse. \nIt's painfully clear what trump did was far and away worse than what Biden did. And it's not false equivalency to say this is worth investigating, and that any appropriate charges be taken to court.\nAnd on the level of realpolitik, as opposed to \"right vs wrong\" is that it will remove some of the more desperate arguments from trump's base /against/ trump facing charges for this shit. \nWhat Biden did, as it stands now, to me appears the equivalent of driving on pain medication vs trump possibly having hit someone while driving drunk and tried to get rid of the car at a scrapyard and acting like he isn't an alcoholic who habitually drives home from the bar and but maybe someone stole his car and hit a deer. \nHold Biden accountable. It'll make trump getting locked in a padded cell that much more delicious.", ">\n\nMan that's fast." ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos", ">\n\nIt's part of the joke...", ">\n\nPotatoes is the correct spelling of the plural.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should use potato in the singular by saying “potatoe commodities” or something", ">\n\nWait. Couldn't Obama have declassified them by thinking about it?", ">\n\nI’m pretty sure he could", ">\n\nI’m starting to think that many past presidents likely have some number of classified documents in their office or in their home.\nThe difference, however, is that Biden found the documents and turned them into the national archives. Then he found more in his house. He turned those in as well. And as far as we know, he only had a few. Trump had hundreds of classified documents spread across dozens of boxes and fought giving them back to the archives when requested. He ignored subpoenas. He did not cooperate and broke the law.", ">\n\nNobody seems to be mention that Biden is the acting President right now\niirc executive privilege was basically Trump's whole defense", ">\n\nWhile I think that this specific issue is wildly overblown, it's important to note that Biden wouldn't have had the security clearance to have those documents in his possession from 2016-2021. So it would've definitely been a security infraction at the time.\nOf course Biden forgetting to return these documents still isn't comparable to Trump intentionally stealing documents and obstructing the US government from retrieving them when they asked for those documents back.", ">\n\nWhere is your proof he forgot to return the documents as opposed to intentionally taking them?", ">\n\nThe fact that he turned them over as soon as he found them, rather than trying to hide them, would seem to be evidence that it was not deliberate.", ">\n\nBiden had no part in returning the documents. He has stated that he found out they were returned after the fact.", ">\n\nThe first documents were found and turned over by his staff. Biden found out about that after the fact. The subsequent documents were found and turned over by his staff, after they conducted a search ordered by...?", ">\n\nNo one knows when they were found or if Biden knew about them. All we know is at some point his lawyers turned them in when it was clear no one was looking for them. \nTotally possible he forgot about them, they were secured since he received them, and his lawyers stumbled upon them and immediately turned them over. No evidence yet against that. \nBut this is why a special counsel is warranted. We have no reason to give Biden the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, giving him the benefit of the doubt sets precedent for fascists to abuse. \nIt's painfully clear what trump did was far and away worse than what Biden did. And it's not false equivalency to say this is worth investigating, and that any appropriate charges be taken to court.\nAnd on the level of realpolitik, as opposed to \"right vs wrong\" is that it will remove some of the more desperate arguments from trump's base /against/ trump facing charges for this shit. \nWhat Biden did, as it stands now, to me appears the equivalent of driving on pain medication vs trump possibly having hit someone while driving drunk and tried to get rid of the car at a scrapyard and acting like he isn't an alcoholic who habitually drives home from the bar and but maybe someone stole his car and hit a deer. \nHold Biden accountable. It'll make trump getting locked in a padded cell that much more delicious.", ">\n\nMan that's fast.", ">\n\nMerrick was able to line those ducks up really fast." ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos", ">\n\nIt's part of the joke...", ">\n\nPotatoes is the correct spelling of the plural.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should use potato in the singular by saying “potatoe commodities” or something", ">\n\nWait. Couldn't Obama have declassified them by thinking about it?", ">\n\nI’m pretty sure he could", ">\n\nI’m starting to think that many past presidents likely have some number of classified documents in their office or in their home.\nThe difference, however, is that Biden found the documents and turned them into the national archives. Then he found more in his house. He turned those in as well. And as far as we know, he only had a few. Trump had hundreds of classified documents spread across dozens of boxes and fought giving them back to the archives when requested. He ignored subpoenas. He did not cooperate and broke the law.", ">\n\nNobody seems to be mention that Biden is the acting President right now\niirc executive privilege was basically Trump's whole defense", ">\n\nWhile I think that this specific issue is wildly overblown, it's important to note that Biden wouldn't have had the security clearance to have those documents in his possession from 2016-2021. So it would've definitely been a security infraction at the time.\nOf course Biden forgetting to return these documents still isn't comparable to Trump intentionally stealing documents and obstructing the US government from retrieving them when they asked for those documents back.", ">\n\nWhere is your proof he forgot to return the documents as opposed to intentionally taking them?", ">\n\nThe fact that he turned them over as soon as he found them, rather than trying to hide them, would seem to be evidence that it was not deliberate.", ">\n\nBiden had no part in returning the documents. He has stated that he found out they were returned after the fact.", ">\n\nThe first documents were found and turned over by his staff. Biden found out about that after the fact. The subsequent documents were found and turned over by his staff, after they conducted a search ordered by...?", ">\n\nNo one knows when they were found or if Biden knew about them. All we know is at some point his lawyers turned them in when it was clear no one was looking for them. \nTotally possible he forgot about them, they were secured since he received them, and his lawyers stumbled upon them and immediately turned them over. No evidence yet against that. \nBut this is why a special counsel is warranted. We have no reason to give Biden the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, giving him the benefit of the doubt sets precedent for fascists to abuse. \nIt's painfully clear what trump did was far and away worse than what Biden did. And it's not false equivalency to say this is worth investigating, and that any appropriate charges be taken to court.\nAnd on the level of realpolitik, as opposed to \"right vs wrong\" is that it will remove some of the more desperate arguments from trump's base /against/ trump facing charges for this shit. \nWhat Biden did, as it stands now, to me appears the equivalent of driving on pain medication vs trump possibly having hit someone while driving drunk and tried to get rid of the car at a scrapyard and acting like he isn't an alcoholic who habitually drives home from the bar and but maybe someone stole his car and hit a deer. \nHold Biden accountable. It'll make trump getting locked in a padded cell that much more delicious.", ">\n\nMan that's fast.", ">\n\nMerrick was able to line those ducks up really fast.", ">\n\nTerrible choice for AG, it's stupid to choose people Republicans will \"accept\" just to be bipartisan." ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos", ">\n\nIt's part of the joke...", ">\n\nPotatoes is the correct spelling of the plural.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should use potato in the singular by saying “potatoe commodities” or something", ">\n\nWait. Couldn't Obama have declassified them by thinking about it?", ">\n\nI’m pretty sure he could", ">\n\nI’m starting to think that many past presidents likely have some number of classified documents in their office or in their home.\nThe difference, however, is that Biden found the documents and turned them into the national archives. Then he found more in his house. He turned those in as well. And as far as we know, he only had a few. Trump had hundreds of classified documents spread across dozens of boxes and fought giving them back to the archives when requested. He ignored subpoenas. He did not cooperate and broke the law.", ">\n\nNobody seems to be mention that Biden is the acting President right now\niirc executive privilege was basically Trump's whole defense", ">\n\nWhile I think that this specific issue is wildly overblown, it's important to note that Biden wouldn't have had the security clearance to have those documents in his possession from 2016-2021. So it would've definitely been a security infraction at the time.\nOf course Biden forgetting to return these documents still isn't comparable to Trump intentionally stealing documents and obstructing the US government from retrieving them when they asked for those documents back.", ">\n\nWhere is your proof he forgot to return the documents as opposed to intentionally taking them?", ">\n\nThe fact that he turned them over as soon as he found them, rather than trying to hide them, would seem to be evidence that it was not deliberate.", ">\n\nBiden had no part in returning the documents. He has stated that he found out they were returned after the fact.", ">\n\nThe first documents were found and turned over by his staff. Biden found out about that after the fact. The subsequent documents were found and turned over by his staff, after they conducted a search ordered by...?", ">\n\nNo one knows when they were found or if Biden knew about them. All we know is at some point his lawyers turned them in when it was clear no one was looking for them. \nTotally possible he forgot about them, they were secured since he received them, and his lawyers stumbled upon them and immediately turned them over. No evidence yet against that. \nBut this is why a special counsel is warranted. We have no reason to give Biden the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, giving him the benefit of the doubt sets precedent for fascists to abuse. \nIt's painfully clear what trump did was far and away worse than what Biden did. And it's not false equivalency to say this is worth investigating, and that any appropriate charges be taken to court.\nAnd on the level of realpolitik, as opposed to \"right vs wrong\" is that it will remove some of the more desperate arguments from trump's base /against/ trump facing charges for this shit. \nWhat Biden did, as it stands now, to me appears the equivalent of driving on pain medication vs trump possibly having hit someone while driving drunk and tried to get rid of the car at a scrapyard and acting like he isn't an alcoholic who habitually drives home from the bar and but maybe someone stole his car and hit a deer. \nHold Biden accountable. It'll make trump getting locked in a padded cell that much more delicious.", ">\n\nMan that's fast.", ">\n\nMerrick was able to line those ducks up really fast.", ">\n\nTerrible choice for AG, it's stupid to choose people Republicans will \"accept\" just to be bipartisan.", ">\n\nYeah I'm getting pretty sick and tired of seeing the \"appeasement\" strategy myself." ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos", ">\n\nIt's part of the joke...", ">\n\nPotatoes is the correct spelling of the plural.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should use potato in the singular by saying “potatoe commodities” or something", ">\n\nWait. Couldn't Obama have declassified them by thinking about it?", ">\n\nI’m pretty sure he could", ">\n\nI’m starting to think that many past presidents likely have some number of classified documents in their office or in their home.\nThe difference, however, is that Biden found the documents and turned them into the national archives. Then he found more in his house. He turned those in as well. And as far as we know, he only had a few. Trump had hundreds of classified documents spread across dozens of boxes and fought giving them back to the archives when requested. He ignored subpoenas. He did not cooperate and broke the law.", ">\n\nNobody seems to be mention that Biden is the acting President right now\niirc executive privilege was basically Trump's whole defense", ">\n\nWhile I think that this specific issue is wildly overblown, it's important to note that Biden wouldn't have had the security clearance to have those documents in his possession from 2016-2021. So it would've definitely been a security infraction at the time.\nOf course Biden forgetting to return these documents still isn't comparable to Trump intentionally stealing documents and obstructing the US government from retrieving them when they asked for those documents back.", ">\n\nWhere is your proof he forgot to return the documents as opposed to intentionally taking them?", ">\n\nThe fact that he turned them over as soon as he found them, rather than trying to hide them, would seem to be evidence that it was not deliberate.", ">\n\nBiden had no part in returning the documents. He has stated that he found out they were returned after the fact.", ">\n\nThe first documents were found and turned over by his staff. Biden found out about that after the fact. The subsequent documents were found and turned over by his staff, after they conducted a search ordered by...?", ">\n\nNo one knows when they were found or if Biden knew about them. All we know is at some point his lawyers turned them in when it was clear no one was looking for them. \nTotally possible he forgot about them, they were secured since he received them, and his lawyers stumbled upon them and immediately turned them over. No evidence yet against that. \nBut this is why a special counsel is warranted. We have no reason to give Biden the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, giving him the benefit of the doubt sets precedent for fascists to abuse. \nIt's painfully clear what trump did was far and away worse than what Biden did. And it's not false equivalency to say this is worth investigating, and that any appropriate charges be taken to court.\nAnd on the level of realpolitik, as opposed to \"right vs wrong\" is that it will remove some of the more desperate arguments from trump's base /against/ trump facing charges for this shit. \nWhat Biden did, as it stands now, to me appears the equivalent of driving on pain medication vs trump possibly having hit someone while driving drunk and tried to get rid of the car at a scrapyard and acting like he isn't an alcoholic who habitually drives home from the bar and but maybe someone stole his car and hit a deer. \nHold Biden accountable. It'll make trump getting locked in a padded cell that much more delicious.", ">\n\nMan that's fast.", ">\n\nMerrick was able to line those ducks up really fast.", ">\n\nTerrible choice for AG, it's stupid to choose people Republicans will \"accept\" just to be bipartisan.", ">\n\nYeah I'm getting pretty sick and tired of seeing the \"appeasement\" strategy myself.", ">\n\nGood. No one is above the law. You know what we haven't seen? Biden railing and calling the Special Counsel names and whining that he's a Republican that hates him because he was nominated by Trump. \nI'm looking forward to everyone seeing the differences in temperament between these two men and the differences between these two cases becoming readily apparent." ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos", ">\n\nIt's part of the joke...", ">\n\nPotatoes is the correct spelling of the plural.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should use potato in the singular by saying “potatoe commodities” or something", ">\n\nWait. Couldn't Obama have declassified them by thinking about it?", ">\n\nI’m pretty sure he could", ">\n\nI’m starting to think that many past presidents likely have some number of classified documents in their office or in their home.\nThe difference, however, is that Biden found the documents and turned them into the national archives. Then he found more in his house. He turned those in as well. And as far as we know, he only had a few. Trump had hundreds of classified documents spread across dozens of boxes and fought giving them back to the archives when requested. He ignored subpoenas. He did not cooperate and broke the law.", ">\n\nNobody seems to be mention that Biden is the acting President right now\niirc executive privilege was basically Trump's whole defense", ">\n\nWhile I think that this specific issue is wildly overblown, it's important to note that Biden wouldn't have had the security clearance to have those documents in his possession from 2016-2021. So it would've definitely been a security infraction at the time.\nOf course Biden forgetting to return these documents still isn't comparable to Trump intentionally stealing documents and obstructing the US government from retrieving them when they asked for those documents back.", ">\n\nWhere is your proof he forgot to return the documents as opposed to intentionally taking them?", ">\n\nThe fact that he turned them over as soon as he found them, rather than trying to hide them, would seem to be evidence that it was not deliberate.", ">\n\nBiden had no part in returning the documents. He has stated that he found out they were returned after the fact.", ">\n\nThe first documents were found and turned over by his staff. Biden found out about that after the fact. The subsequent documents were found and turned over by his staff, after they conducted a search ordered by...?", ">\n\nNo one knows when they were found or if Biden knew about them. All we know is at some point his lawyers turned them in when it was clear no one was looking for them. \nTotally possible he forgot about them, they were secured since he received them, and his lawyers stumbled upon them and immediately turned them over. No evidence yet against that. \nBut this is why a special counsel is warranted. We have no reason to give Biden the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, giving him the benefit of the doubt sets precedent for fascists to abuse. \nIt's painfully clear what trump did was far and away worse than what Biden did. And it's not false equivalency to say this is worth investigating, and that any appropriate charges be taken to court.\nAnd on the level of realpolitik, as opposed to \"right vs wrong\" is that it will remove some of the more desperate arguments from trump's base /against/ trump facing charges for this shit. \nWhat Biden did, as it stands now, to me appears the equivalent of driving on pain medication vs trump possibly having hit someone while driving drunk and tried to get rid of the car at a scrapyard and acting like he isn't an alcoholic who habitually drives home from the bar and but maybe someone stole his car and hit a deer. \nHold Biden accountable. It'll make trump getting locked in a padded cell that much more delicious.", ">\n\nMan that's fast.", ">\n\nMerrick was able to line those ducks up really fast.", ">\n\nTerrible choice for AG, it's stupid to choose people Republicans will \"accept\" just to be bipartisan.", ">\n\nYeah I'm getting pretty sick and tired of seeing the \"appeasement\" strategy myself.", ">\n\nGood. No one is above the law. You know what we haven't seen? Biden railing and calling the Special Counsel names and whining that he's a Republican that hates him because he was nominated by Trump. \nI'm looking forward to everyone seeing the differences in temperament between these two men and the differences between these two cases becoming readily apparent.", ">\n\nNarrator: they wont" ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos", ">\n\nIt's part of the joke...", ">\n\nPotatoes is the correct spelling of the plural.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should use potato in the singular by saying “potatoe commodities” or something", ">\n\nWait. Couldn't Obama have declassified them by thinking about it?", ">\n\nI’m pretty sure he could", ">\n\nI’m starting to think that many past presidents likely have some number of classified documents in their office or in their home.\nThe difference, however, is that Biden found the documents and turned them into the national archives. Then he found more in his house. He turned those in as well. And as far as we know, he only had a few. Trump had hundreds of classified documents spread across dozens of boxes and fought giving them back to the archives when requested. He ignored subpoenas. He did not cooperate and broke the law.", ">\n\nNobody seems to be mention that Biden is the acting President right now\niirc executive privilege was basically Trump's whole defense", ">\n\nWhile I think that this specific issue is wildly overblown, it's important to note that Biden wouldn't have had the security clearance to have those documents in his possession from 2016-2021. So it would've definitely been a security infraction at the time.\nOf course Biden forgetting to return these documents still isn't comparable to Trump intentionally stealing documents and obstructing the US government from retrieving them when they asked for those documents back.", ">\n\nWhere is your proof he forgot to return the documents as opposed to intentionally taking them?", ">\n\nThe fact that he turned them over as soon as he found them, rather than trying to hide them, would seem to be evidence that it was not deliberate.", ">\n\nBiden had no part in returning the documents. He has stated that he found out they were returned after the fact.", ">\n\nThe first documents were found and turned over by his staff. Biden found out about that after the fact. The subsequent documents were found and turned over by his staff, after they conducted a search ordered by...?", ">\n\nNo one knows when they were found or if Biden knew about them. All we know is at some point his lawyers turned them in when it was clear no one was looking for them. \nTotally possible he forgot about them, they were secured since he received them, and his lawyers stumbled upon them and immediately turned them over. No evidence yet against that. \nBut this is why a special counsel is warranted. We have no reason to give Biden the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, giving him the benefit of the doubt sets precedent for fascists to abuse. \nIt's painfully clear what trump did was far and away worse than what Biden did. And it's not false equivalency to say this is worth investigating, and that any appropriate charges be taken to court.\nAnd on the level of realpolitik, as opposed to \"right vs wrong\" is that it will remove some of the more desperate arguments from trump's base /against/ trump facing charges for this shit. \nWhat Biden did, as it stands now, to me appears the equivalent of driving on pain medication vs trump possibly having hit someone while driving drunk and tried to get rid of the car at a scrapyard and acting like he isn't an alcoholic who habitually drives home from the bar and but maybe someone stole his car and hit a deer. \nHold Biden accountable. It'll make trump getting locked in a padded cell that much more delicious.", ">\n\nMan that's fast.", ">\n\nMerrick was able to line those ducks up really fast.", ">\n\nTerrible choice for AG, it's stupid to choose people Republicans will \"accept\" just to be bipartisan.", ">\n\nYeah I'm getting pretty sick and tired of seeing the \"appeasement\" strategy myself.", ">\n\nGood. No one is above the law. You know what we haven't seen? Biden railing and calling the Special Counsel names and whining that he's a Republican that hates him because he was nominated by Trump. \nI'm looking forward to everyone seeing the differences in temperament between these two men and the differences between these two cases becoming readily apparent.", ">\n\nNarrator: they wont", ">\n\nI mean, we're seeing it already through Biden's absolute silence. I guarantee we won't get weekly news updates about Biden trying to fire the Special Counsel." ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos", ">\n\nIt's part of the joke...", ">\n\nPotatoes is the correct spelling of the plural.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should use potato in the singular by saying “potatoe commodities” or something", ">\n\nWait. Couldn't Obama have declassified them by thinking about it?", ">\n\nI’m pretty sure he could", ">\n\nI’m starting to think that many past presidents likely have some number of classified documents in their office or in their home.\nThe difference, however, is that Biden found the documents and turned them into the national archives. Then he found more in his house. He turned those in as well. And as far as we know, he only had a few. Trump had hundreds of classified documents spread across dozens of boxes and fought giving them back to the archives when requested. He ignored subpoenas. He did not cooperate and broke the law.", ">\n\nNobody seems to be mention that Biden is the acting President right now\niirc executive privilege was basically Trump's whole defense", ">\n\nWhile I think that this specific issue is wildly overblown, it's important to note that Biden wouldn't have had the security clearance to have those documents in his possession from 2016-2021. So it would've definitely been a security infraction at the time.\nOf course Biden forgetting to return these documents still isn't comparable to Trump intentionally stealing documents and obstructing the US government from retrieving them when they asked for those documents back.", ">\n\nWhere is your proof he forgot to return the documents as opposed to intentionally taking them?", ">\n\nThe fact that he turned them over as soon as he found them, rather than trying to hide them, would seem to be evidence that it was not deliberate.", ">\n\nBiden had no part in returning the documents. He has stated that he found out they were returned after the fact.", ">\n\nThe first documents were found and turned over by his staff. Biden found out about that after the fact. The subsequent documents were found and turned over by his staff, after they conducted a search ordered by...?", ">\n\nNo one knows when they were found or if Biden knew about them. All we know is at some point his lawyers turned them in when it was clear no one was looking for them. \nTotally possible he forgot about them, they were secured since he received them, and his lawyers stumbled upon them and immediately turned them over. No evidence yet against that. \nBut this is why a special counsel is warranted. We have no reason to give Biden the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, giving him the benefit of the doubt sets precedent for fascists to abuse. \nIt's painfully clear what trump did was far and away worse than what Biden did. And it's not false equivalency to say this is worth investigating, and that any appropriate charges be taken to court.\nAnd on the level of realpolitik, as opposed to \"right vs wrong\" is that it will remove some of the more desperate arguments from trump's base /against/ trump facing charges for this shit. \nWhat Biden did, as it stands now, to me appears the equivalent of driving on pain medication vs trump possibly having hit someone while driving drunk and tried to get rid of the car at a scrapyard and acting like he isn't an alcoholic who habitually drives home from the bar and but maybe someone stole his car and hit a deer. \nHold Biden accountable. It'll make trump getting locked in a padded cell that much more delicious.", ">\n\nMan that's fast.", ">\n\nMerrick was able to line those ducks up really fast.", ">\n\nTerrible choice for AG, it's stupid to choose people Republicans will \"accept\" just to be bipartisan.", ">\n\nYeah I'm getting pretty sick and tired of seeing the \"appeasement\" strategy myself.", ">\n\nGood. No one is above the law. You know what we haven't seen? Biden railing and calling the Special Counsel names and whining that he's a Republican that hates him because he was nominated by Trump. \nI'm looking forward to everyone seeing the differences in temperament between these two men and the differences between these two cases becoming readily apparent.", ">\n\nNarrator: they wont", ">\n\nI mean, we're seeing it already through Biden's absolute silence. I guarantee we won't get weekly news updates about Biden trying to fire the Special Counsel.", ">\n\nI’m curious why they were there, but at the end of the day, Biden and his group turned them over as soon as they found them and have been cooperative. Trump fought them the whole way and purposely stole the documents. We’re talking hundreds as well which is way more than they found with Biden. Big difference." ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos", ">\n\nIt's part of the joke...", ">\n\nPotatoes is the correct spelling of the plural.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should use potato in the singular by saying “potatoe commodities” or something", ">\n\nWait. Couldn't Obama have declassified them by thinking about it?", ">\n\nI’m pretty sure he could", ">\n\nI’m starting to think that many past presidents likely have some number of classified documents in their office or in their home.\nThe difference, however, is that Biden found the documents and turned them into the national archives. Then he found more in his house. He turned those in as well. And as far as we know, he only had a few. Trump had hundreds of classified documents spread across dozens of boxes and fought giving them back to the archives when requested. He ignored subpoenas. He did not cooperate and broke the law.", ">\n\nNobody seems to be mention that Biden is the acting President right now\niirc executive privilege was basically Trump's whole defense", ">\n\nWhile I think that this specific issue is wildly overblown, it's important to note that Biden wouldn't have had the security clearance to have those documents in his possession from 2016-2021. So it would've definitely been a security infraction at the time.\nOf course Biden forgetting to return these documents still isn't comparable to Trump intentionally stealing documents and obstructing the US government from retrieving them when they asked for those documents back.", ">\n\nWhere is your proof he forgot to return the documents as opposed to intentionally taking them?", ">\n\nThe fact that he turned them over as soon as he found them, rather than trying to hide them, would seem to be evidence that it was not deliberate.", ">\n\nBiden had no part in returning the documents. He has stated that he found out they were returned after the fact.", ">\n\nThe first documents were found and turned over by his staff. Biden found out about that after the fact. The subsequent documents were found and turned over by his staff, after they conducted a search ordered by...?", ">\n\nNo one knows when they were found or if Biden knew about them. All we know is at some point his lawyers turned them in when it was clear no one was looking for them. \nTotally possible he forgot about them, they were secured since he received them, and his lawyers stumbled upon them and immediately turned them over. No evidence yet against that. \nBut this is why a special counsel is warranted. We have no reason to give Biden the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, giving him the benefit of the doubt sets precedent for fascists to abuse. \nIt's painfully clear what trump did was far and away worse than what Biden did. And it's not false equivalency to say this is worth investigating, and that any appropriate charges be taken to court.\nAnd on the level of realpolitik, as opposed to \"right vs wrong\" is that it will remove some of the more desperate arguments from trump's base /against/ trump facing charges for this shit. \nWhat Biden did, as it stands now, to me appears the equivalent of driving on pain medication vs trump possibly having hit someone while driving drunk and tried to get rid of the car at a scrapyard and acting like he isn't an alcoholic who habitually drives home from the bar and but maybe someone stole his car and hit a deer. \nHold Biden accountable. It'll make trump getting locked in a padded cell that much more delicious.", ">\n\nMan that's fast.", ">\n\nMerrick was able to line those ducks up really fast.", ">\n\nTerrible choice for AG, it's stupid to choose people Republicans will \"accept\" just to be bipartisan.", ">\n\nYeah I'm getting pretty sick and tired of seeing the \"appeasement\" strategy myself.", ">\n\nGood. No one is above the law. You know what we haven't seen? Biden railing and calling the Special Counsel names and whining that he's a Republican that hates him because he was nominated by Trump. \nI'm looking forward to everyone seeing the differences in temperament between these two men and the differences between these two cases becoming readily apparent.", ">\n\nNarrator: they wont", ">\n\nI mean, we're seeing it already through Biden's absolute silence. I guarantee we won't get weekly news updates about Biden trying to fire the Special Counsel.", ">\n\nI’m curious why they were there, but at the end of the day, Biden and his group turned them over as soon as they found them and have been cooperative. Trump fought them the whole way and purposely stole the documents. We’re talking hundreds as well which is way more than they found with Biden. Big difference.", ">\n\nMy best guess is extremely careless movers." ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos", ">\n\nIt's part of the joke...", ">\n\nPotatoes is the correct spelling of the plural.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should use potato in the singular by saying “potatoe commodities” or something", ">\n\nWait. Couldn't Obama have declassified them by thinking about it?", ">\n\nI’m pretty sure he could", ">\n\nI’m starting to think that many past presidents likely have some number of classified documents in their office or in their home.\nThe difference, however, is that Biden found the documents and turned them into the national archives. Then he found more in his house. He turned those in as well. And as far as we know, he only had a few. Trump had hundreds of classified documents spread across dozens of boxes and fought giving them back to the archives when requested. He ignored subpoenas. He did not cooperate and broke the law.", ">\n\nNobody seems to be mention that Biden is the acting President right now\niirc executive privilege was basically Trump's whole defense", ">\n\nWhile I think that this specific issue is wildly overblown, it's important to note that Biden wouldn't have had the security clearance to have those documents in his possession from 2016-2021. So it would've definitely been a security infraction at the time.\nOf course Biden forgetting to return these documents still isn't comparable to Trump intentionally stealing documents and obstructing the US government from retrieving them when they asked for those documents back.", ">\n\nWhere is your proof he forgot to return the documents as opposed to intentionally taking them?", ">\n\nThe fact that he turned them over as soon as he found them, rather than trying to hide them, would seem to be evidence that it was not deliberate.", ">\n\nBiden had no part in returning the documents. He has stated that he found out they were returned after the fact.", ">\n\nThe first documents were found and turned over by his staff. Biden found out about that after the fact. The subsequent documents were found and turned over by his staff, after they conducted a search ordered by...?", ">\n\nNo one knows when they were found or if Biden knew about them. All we know is at some point his lawyers turned them in when it was clear no one was looking for them. \nTotally possible he forgot about them, they were secured since he received them, and his lawyers stumbled upon them and immediately turned them over. No evidence yet against that. \nBut this is why a special counsel is warranted. We have no reason to give Biden the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, giving him the benefit of the doubt sets precedent for fascists to abuse. \nIt's painfully clear what trump did was far and away worse than what Biden did. And it's not false equivalency to say this is worth investigating, and that any appropriate charges be taken to court.\nAnd on the level of realpolitik, as opposed to \"right vs wrong\" is that it will remove some of the more desperate arguments from trump's base /against/ trump facing charges for this shit. \nWhat Biden did, as it stands now, to me appears the equivalent of driving on pain medication vs trump possibly having hit someone while driving drunk and tried to get rid of the car at a scrapyard and acting like he isn't an alcoholic who habitually drives home from the bar and but maybe someone stole his car and hit a deer. \nHold Biden accountable. It'll make trump getting locked in a padded cell that much more delicious.", ">\n\nMan that's fast.", ">\n\nMerrick was able to line those ducks up really fast.", ">\n\nTerrible choice for AG, it's stupid to choose people Republicans will \"accept\" just to be bipartisan.", ">\n\nYeah I'm getting pretty sick and tired of seeing the \"appeasement\" strategy myself.", ">\n\nGood. No one is above the law. You know what we haven't seen? Biden railing and calling the Special Counsel names and whining that he's a Republican that hates him because he was nominated by Trump. \nI'm looking forward to everyone seeing the differences in temperament between these two men and the differences between these two cases becoming readily apparent.", ">\n\nNarrator: they wont", ">\n\nI mean, we're seeing it already through Biden's absolute silence. I guarantee we won't get weekly news updates about Biden trying to fire the Special Counsel.", ">\n\nI’m curious why they were there, but at the end of the day, Biden and his group turned them over as soon as they found them and have been cooperative. Trump fought them the whole way and purposely stole the documents. We’re talking hundreds as well which is way more than they found with Biden. Big difference.", ">\n\nMy best guess is extremely careless movers.", ">\n\nProbably not far from the truth. I mean, he was vice president at the time. Even after that, he’s got staffers and other people that move stuff around. He’s not doing that on his own. A lot of people that you have to trust when you’re in that position. Trump blatantly stole things and then tried to keep them." ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos", ">\n\nIt's part of the joke...", ">\n\nPotatoes is the correct spelling of the plural.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should use potato in the singular by saying “potatoe commodities” or something", ">\n\nWait. Couldn't Obama have declassified them by thinking about it?", ">\n\nI’m pretty sure he could", ">\n\nI’m starting to think that many past presidents likely have some number of classified documents in their office or in their home.\nThe difference, however, is that Biden found the documents and turned them into the national archives. Then he found more in his house. He turned those in as well. And as far as we know, he only had a few. Trump had hundreds of classified documents spread across dozens of boxes and fought giving them back to the archives when requested. He ignored subpoenas. He did not cooperate and broke the law.", ">\n\nNobody seems to be mention that Biden is the acting President right now\niirc executive privilege was basically Trump's whole defense", ">\n\nWhile I think that this specific issue is wildly overblown, it's important to note that Biden wouldn't have had the security clearance to have those documents in his possession from 2016-2021. So it would've definitely been a security infraction at the time.\nOf course Biden forgetting to return these documents still isn't comparable to Trump intentionally stealing documents and obstructing the US government from retrieving them when they asked for those documents back.", ">\n\nWhere is your proof he forgot to return the documents as opposed to intentionally taking them?", ">\n\nThe fact that he turned them over as soon as he found them, rather than trying to hide them, would seem to be evidence that it was not deliberate.", ">\n\nBiden had no part in returning the documents. He has stated that he found out they were returned after the fact.", ">\n\nThe first documents were found and turned over by his staff. Biden found out about that after the fact. The subsequent documents were found and turned over by his staff, after they conducted a search ordered by...?", ">\n\nNo one knows when they were found or if Biden knew about them. All we know is at some point his lawyers turned them in when it was clear no one was looking for them. \nTotally possible he forgot about them, they were secured since he received them, and his lawyers stumbled upon them and immediately turned them over. No evidence yet against that. \nBut this is why a special counsel is warranted. We have no reason to give Biden the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, giving him the benefit of the doubt sets precedent for fascists to abuse. \nIt's painfully clear what trump did was far and away worse than what Biden did. And it's not false equivalency to say this is worth investigating, and that any appropriate charges be taken to court.\nAnd on the level of realpolitik, as opposed to \"right vs wrong\" is that it will remove some of the more desperate arguments from trump's base /against/ trump facing charges for this shit. \nWhat Biden did, as it stands now, to me appears the equivalent of driving on pain medication vs trump possibly having hit someone while driving drunk and tried to get rid of the car at a scrapyard and acting like he isn't an alcoholic who habitually drives home from the bar and but maybe someone stole his car and hit a deer. \nHold Biden accountable. It'll make trump getting locked in a padded cell that much more delicious.", ">\n\nMan that's fast.", ">\n\nMerrick was able to line those ducks up really fast.", ">\n\nTerrible choice for AG, it's stupid to choose people Republicans will \"accept\" just to be bipartisan.", ">\n\nYeah I'm getting pretty sick and tired of seeing the \"appeasement\" strategy myself.", ">\n\nGood. No one is above the law. You know what we haven't seen? Biden railing and calling the Special Counsel names and whining that he's a Republican that hates him because he was nominated by Trump. \nI'm looking forward to everyone seeing the differences in temperament between these two men and the differences between these two cases becoming readily apparent.", ">\n\nNarrator: they wont", ">\n\nI mean, we're seeing it already through Biden's absolute silence. I guarantee we won't get weekly news updates about Biden trying to fire the Special Counsel.", ">\n\nI’m curious why they were there, but at the end of the day, Biden and his group turned them over as soon as they found them and have been cooperative. Trump fought them the whole way and purposely stole the documents. We’re talking hundreds as well which is way more than they found with Biden. Big difference.", ">\n\nMy best guess is extremely careless movers.", ">\n\nProbably not far from the truth. I mean, he was vice president at the time. Even after that, he’s got staffers and other people that move stuff around. He’s not doing that on his own. A lot of people that you have to trust when you’re in that position. Trump blatantly stole things and then tried to keep them.", ">\n\nYeah, I'm not sure why people are thinking that Biden himself had anything to do with what documents were moved. He has people who do that for him." ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos", ">\n\nIt's part of the joke...", ">\n\nPotatoes is the correct spelling of the plural.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should use potato in the singular by saying “potatoe commodities” or something", ">\n\nWait. Couldn't Obama have declassified them by thinking about it?", ">\n\nI’m pretty sure he could", ">\n\nI’m starting to think that many past presidents likely have some number of classified documents in their office or in their home.\nThe difference, however, is that Biden found the documents and turned them into the national archives. Then he found more in his house. He turned those in as well. And as far as we know, he only had a few. Trump had hundreds of classified documents spread across dozens of boxes and fought giving them back to the archives when requested. He ignored subpoenas. He did not cooperate and broke the law.", ">\n\nNobody seems to be mention that Biden is the acting President right now\niirc executive privilege was basically Trump's whole defense", ">\n\nWhile I think that this specific issue is wildly overblown, it's important to note that Biden wouldn't have had the security clearance to have those documents in his possession from 2016-2021. So it would've definitely been a security infraction at the time.\nOf course Biden forgetting to return these documents still isn't comparable to Trump intentionally stealing documents and obstructing the US government from retrieving them when they asked for those documents back.", ">\n\nWhere is your proof he forgot to return the documents as opposed to intentionally taking them?", ">\n\nThe fact that he turned them over as soon as he found them, rather than trying to hide them, would seem to be evidence that it was not deliberate.", ">\n\nBiden had no part in returning the documents. He has stated that he found out they were returned after the fact.", ">\n\nThe first documents were found and turned over by his staff. Biden found out about that after the fact. The subsequent documents were found and turned over by his staff, after they conducted a search ordered by...?", ">\n\nNo one knows when they were found or if Biden knew about them. All we know is at some point his lawyers turned them in when it was clear no one was looking for them. \nTotally possible he forgot about them, they were secured since he received them, and his lawyers stumbled upon them and immediately turned them over. No evidence yet against that. \nBut this is why a special counsel is warranted. We have no reason to give Biden the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, giving him the benefit of the doubt sets precedent for fascists to abuse. \nIt's painfully clear what trump did was far and away worse than what Biden did. And it's not false equivalency to say this is worth investigating, and that any appropriate charges be taken to court.\nAnd on the level of realpolitik, as opposed to \"right vs wrong\" is that it will remove some of the more desperate arguments from trump's base /against/ trump facing charges for this shit. \nWhat Biden did, as it stands now, to me appears the equivalent of driving on pain medication vs trump possibly having hit someone while driving drunk and tried to get rid of the car at a scrapyard and acting like he isn't an alcoholic who habitually drives home from the bar and but maybe someone stole his car and hit a deer. \nHold Biden accountable. It'll make trump getting locked in a padded cell that much more delicious.", ">\n\nMan that's fast.", ">\n\nMerrick was able to line those ducks up really fast.", ">\n\nTerrible choice for AG, it's stupid to choose people Republicans will \"accept\" just to be bipartisan.", ">\n\nYeah I'm getting pretty sick and tired of seeing the \"appeasement\" strategy myself.", ">\n\nGood. No one is above the law. You know what we haven't seen? Biden railing and calling the Special Counsel names and whining that he's a Republican that hates him because he was nominated by Trump. \nI'm looking forward to everyone seeing the differences in temperament between these two men and the differences between these two cases becoming readily apparent.", ">\n\nNarrator: they wont", ">\n\nI mean, we're seeing it already through Biden's absolute silence. I guarantee we won't get weekly news updates about Biden trying to fire the Special Counsel.", ">\n\nI’m curious why they were there, but at the end of the day, Biden and his group turned them over as soon as they found them and have been cooperative. Trump fought them the whole way and purposely stole the documents. We’re talking hundreds as well which is way more than they found with Biden. Big difference.", ">\n\nMy best guess is extremely careless movers.", ">\n\nProbably not far from the truth. I mean, he was vice president at the time. Even after that, he’s got staffers and other people that move stuff around. He’s not doing that on his own. A lot of people that you have to trust when you’re in that position. Trump blatantly stole things and then tried to keep them.", ">\n\nYeah, I'm not sure why people are thinking that Biden himself had anything to do with what documents were moved. He has people who do that for him.", ">\n\nGeorge W. is scrambling." ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos", ">\n\nIt's part of the joke...", ">\n\nPotatoes is the correct spelling of the plural.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should use potato in the singular by saying “potatoe commodities” or something", ">\n\nWait. Couldn't Obama have declassified them by thinking about it?", ">\n\nI’m pretty sure he could", ">\n\nI’m starting to think that many past presidents likely have some number of classified documents in their office or in their home.\nThe difference, however, is that Biden found the documents and turned them into the national archives. Then he found more in his house. He turned those in as well. And as far as we know, he only had a few. Trump had hundreds of classified documents spread across dozens of boxes and fought giving them back to the archives when requested. He ignored subpoenas. He did not cooperate and broke the law.", ">\n\nNobody seems to be mention that Biden is the acting President right now\niirc executive privilege was basically Trump's whole defense", ">\n\nWhile I think that this specific issue is wildly overblown, it's important to note that Biden wouldn't have had the security clearance to have those documents in his possession from 2016-2021. So it would've definitely been a security infraction at the time.\nOf course Biden forgetting to return these documents still isn't comparable to Trump intentionally stealing documents and obstructing the US government from retrieving them when they asked for those documents back.", ">\n\nWhere is your proof he forgot to return the documents as opposed to intentionally taking them?", ">\n\nThe fact that he turned them over as soon as he found them, rather than trying to hide them, would seem to be evidence that it was not deliberate.", ">\n\nBiden had no part in returning the documents. He has stated that he found out they were returned after the fact.", ">\n\nThe first documents were found and turned over by his staff. Biden found out about that after the fact. The subsequent documents were found and turned over by his staff, after they conducted a search ordered by...?", ">\n\nNo one knows when they were found or if Biden knew about them. All we know is at some point his lawyers turned them in when it was clear no one was looking for them. \nTotally possible he forgot about them, they were secured since he received them, and his lawyers stumbled upon them and immediately turned them over. No evidence yet against that. \nBut this is why a special counsel is warranted. We have no reason to give Biden the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, giving him the benefit of the doubt sets precedent for fascists to abuse. \nIt's painfully clear what trump did was far and away worse than what Biden did. And it's not false equivalency to say this is worth investigating, and that any appropriate charges be taken to court.\nAnd on the level of realpolitik, as opposed to \"right vs wrong\" is that it will remove some of the more desperate arguments from trump's base /against/ trump facing charges for this shit. \nWhat Biden did, as it stands now, to me appears the equivalent of driving on pain medication vs trump possibly having hit someone while driving drunk and tried to get rid of the car at a scrapyard and acting like he isn't an alcoholic who habitually drives home from the bar and but maybe someone stole his car and hit a deer. \nHold Biden accountable. It'll make trump getting locked in a padded cell that much more delicious.", ">\n\nMan that's fast.", ">\n\nMerrick was able to line those ducks up really fast.", ">\n\nTerrible choice for AG, it's stupid to choose people Republicans will \"accept\" just to be bipartisan.", ">\n\nYeah I'm getting pretty sick and tired of seeing the \"appeasement\" strategy myself.", ">\n\nGood. No one is above the law. You know what we haven't seen? Biden railing and calling the Special Counsel names and whining that he's a Republican that hates him because he was nominated by Trump. \nI'm looking forward to everyone seeing the differences in temperament between these two men and the differences between these two cases becoming readily apparent.", ">\n\nNarrator: they wont", ">\n\nI mean, we're seeing it already through Biden's absolute silence. I guarantee we won't get weekly news updates about Biden trying to fire the Special Counsel.", ">\n\nI’m curious why they were there, but at the end of the day, Biden and his group turned them over as soon as they found them and have been cooperative. Trump fought them the whole way and purposely stole the documents. We’re talking hundreds as well which is way more than they found with Biden. Big difference.", ">\n\nMy best guess is extremely careless movers.", ">\n\nProbably not far from the truth. I mean, he was vice president at the time. Even after that, he’s got staffers and other people that move stuff around. He’s not doing that on his own. A lot of people that you have to trust when you’re in that position. Trump blatantly stole things and then tried to keep them.", ">\n\nYeah, I'm not sure why people are thinking that Biden himself had anything to do with what documents were moved. He has people who do that for him.", ">\n\nGeorge W. is scrambling.", ">\n\nHe disposed of it all on 9/11. /s" ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos", ">\n\nIt's part of the joke...", ">\n\nPotatoes is the correct spelling of the plural.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should use potato in the singular by saying “potatoe commodities” or something", ">\n\nWait. Couldn't Obama have declassified them by thinking about it?", ">\n\nI’m pretty sure he could", ">\n\nI’m starting to think that many past presidents likely have some number of classified documents in their office or in their home.\nThe difference, however, is that Biden found the documents and turned them into the national archives. Then he found more in his house. He turned those in as well. And as far as we know, he only had a few. Trump had hundreds of classified documents spread across dozens of boxes and fought giving them back to the archives when requested. He ignored subpoenas. He did not cooperate and broke the law.", ">\n\nNobody seems to be mention that Biden is the acting President right now\niirc executive privilege was basically Trump's whole defense", ">\n\nWhile I think that this specific issue is wildly overblown, it's important to note that Biden wouldn't have had the security clearance to have those documents in his possession from 2016-2021. So it would've definitely been a security infraction at the time.\nOf course Biden forgetting to return these documents still isn't comparable to Trump intentionally stealing documents and obstructing the US government from retrieving them when they asked for those documents back.", ">\n\nWhere is your proof he forgot to return the documents as opposed to intentionally taking them?", ">\n\nThe fact that he turned them over as soon as he found them, rather than trying to hide them, would seem to be evidence that it was not deliberate.", ">\n\nBiden had no part in returning the documents. He has stated that he found out they were returned after the fact.", ">\n\nThe first documents were found and turned over by his staff. Biden found out about that after the fact. The subsequent documents were found and turned over by his staff, after they conducted a search ordered by...?", ">\n\nNo one knows when they were found or if Biden knew about them. All we know is at some point his lawyers turned them in when it was clear no one was looking for them. \nTotally possible he forgot about them, they were secured since he received them, and his lawyers stumbled upon them and immediately turned them over. No evidence yet against that. \nBut this is why a special counsel is warranted. We have no reason to give Biden the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, giving him the benefit of the doubt sets precedent for fascists to abuse. \nIt's painfully clear what trump did was far and away worse than what Biden did. And it's not false equivalency to say this is worth investigating, and that any appropriate charges be taken to court.\nAnd on the level of realpolitik, as opposed to \"right vs wrong\" is that it will remove some of the more desperate arguments from trump's base /against/ trump facing charges for this shit. \nWhat Biden did, as it stands now, to me appears the equivalent of driving on pain medication vs trump possibly having hit someone while driving drunk and tried to get rid of the car at a scrapyard and acting like he isn't an alcoholic who habitually drives home from the bar and but maybe someone stole his car and hit a deer. \nHold Biden accountable. It'll make trump getting locked in a padded cell that much more delicious.", ">\n\nMan that's fast.", ">\n\nMerrick was able to line those ducks up really fast.", ">\n\nTerrible choice for AG, it's stupid to choose people Republicans will \"accept\" just to be bipartisan.", ">\n\nYeah I'm getting pretty sick and tired of seeing the \"appeasement\" strategy myself.", ">\n\nGood. No one is above the law. You know what we haven't seen? Biden railing and calling the Special Counsel names and whining that he's a Republican that hates him because he was nominated by Trump. \nI'm looking forward to everyone seeing the differences in temperament between these two men and the differences between these two cases becoming readily apparent.", ">\n\nNarrator: they wont", ">\n\nI mean, we're seeing it already through Biden's absolute silence. I guarantee we won't get weekly news updates about Biden trying to fire the Special Counsel.", ">\n\nI’m curious why they were there, but at the end of the day, Biden and his group turned them over as soon as they found them and have been cooperative. Trump fought them the whole way and purposely stole the documents. We’re talking hundreds as well which is way more than they found with Biden. Big difference.", ">\n\nMy best guess is extremely careless movers.", ">\n\nProbably not far from the truth. I mean, he was vice president at the time. Even after that, he’s got staffers and other people that move stuff around. He’s not doing that on his own. A lot of people that you have to trust when you’re in that position. Trump blatantly stole things and then tried to keep them.", ">\n\nYeah, I'm not sure why people are thinking that Biden himself had anything to do with what documents were moved. He has people who do that for him.", ">\n\nGeorge W. is scrambling.", ">\n\nHe disposed of it all on 9/11. /s", ">\n\nOr he rolled it up into joints." ]

[ "Someone needs to visit Pence, Bush, Obama, Dick Cheney's homes and check for documents.", ">\n\nWhy let Carter off the hook so easy? Could be Top Secret peanut farming related documents", ">\n\nYou should probably look into Dan Quayle too. We know he's got some kind of top secret reports on potatoes", ">\n\n*potatos", ">\n\nIt's part of the joke...", ">\n\nPotatoes is the correct spelling of the plural.", ">\n\nPerhaps we should use potato in the singular by saying “potatoe commodities” or something", ">\n\nWait. Couldn't Obama have declassified them by thinking about it?", ">\n\nI’m pretty sure he could", ">\n\nI’m starting to think that many past presidents likely have some number of classified documents in their office or in their home.\nThe difference, however, is that Biden found the documents and turned them into the national archives. Then he found more in his house. He turned those in as well. And as far as we know, he only had a few. Trump had hundreds of classified documents spread across dozens of boxes and fought giving them back to the archives when requested. He ignored subpoenas. He did not cooperate and broke the law.", ">\n\nNobody seems to be mention that Biden is the acting President right now\niirc executive privilege was basically Trump's whole defense", ">\n\nWhile I think that this specific issue is wildly overblown, it's important to note that Biden wouldn't have had the security clearance to have those documents in his possession from 2016-2021. So it would've definitely been a security infraction at the time.\nOf course Biden forgetting to return these documents still isn't comparable to Trump intentionally stealing documents and obstructing the US government from retrieving them when they asked for those documents back.", ">\n\nWhere is your proof he forgot to return the documents as opposed to intentionally taking them?", ">\n\nThe fact that he turned them over as soon as he found them, rather than trying to hide them, would seem to be evidence that it was not deliberate.", ">\n\nBiden had no part in returning the documents. He has stated that he found out they were returned after the fact.", ">\n\nThe first documents were found and turned over by his staff. Biden found out about that after the fact. The subsequent documents were found and turned over by his staff, after they conducted a search ordered by...?", ">\n\nNo one knows when they were found or if Biden knew about them. All we know is at some point his lawyers turned them in when it was clear no one was looking for them. \nTotally possible he forgot about them, they were secured since he received them, and his lawyers stumbled upon them and immediately turned them over. No evidence yet against that. \nBut this is why a special counsel is warranted. We have no reason to give Biden the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, giving him the benefit of the doubt sets precedent for fascists to abuse. \nIt's painfully clear what trump did was far and away worse than what Biden did. And it's not false equivalency to say this is worth investigating, and that any appropriate charges be taken to court.\nAnd on the level of realpolitik, as opposed to \"right vs wrong\" is that it will remove some of the more desperate arguments from trump's base /against/ trump facing charges for this shit. \nWhat Biden did, as it stands now, to me appears the equivalent of driving on pain medication vs trump possibly having hit someone while driving drunk and tried to get rid of the car at a scrapyard and acting like he isn't an alcoholic who habitually drives home from the bar and but maybe someone stole his car and hit a deer. \nHold Biden accountable. It'll make trump getting locked in a padded cell that much more delicious.", ">\n\nMan that's fast.", ">\n\nMerrick was able to line those ducks up really fast.", ">\n\nTerrible choice for AG, it's stupid to choose people Republicans will \"accept\" just to be bipartisan.", ">\n\nYeah I'm getting pretty sick and tired of seeing the \"appeasement\" strategy myself.", ">\n\nGood. No one is above the law. You know what we haven't seen? Biden railing and calling the Special Counsel names and whining that he's a Republican that hates him because he was nominated by Trump. \nI'm looking forward to everyone seeing the differences in temperament between these two men and the differences between these two cases becoming readily apparent.", ">\n\nNarrator: they wont", ">\n\nI mean, we're seeing it already through Biden's absolute silence. I guarantee we won't get weekly news updates about Biden trying to fire the Special Counsel.", ">\n\nI’m curious why they were there, but at the end of the day, Biden and his group turned them over as soon as they found them and have been cooperative. Trump fought them the whole way and purposely stole the documents. We’re talking hundreds as well which is way more than they found with Biden. Big difference.", ">\n\nMy best guess is extremely careless movers.", ">\n\nProbably not far from the truth. I mean, he was vice president at the time. Even after that, he’s got staffers and other people that move stuff around. He’s not doing that on his own. A lot of people that you have to trust when you’re in that position. Trump blatantly stole things and then tried to keep them.", ">\n\nYeah, I'm not sure why people are thinking that Biden himself had anything to do with what documents were moved. He has people who do that for him.", ">\n\nGeorge W. is scrambling.", ">\n\nHe disposed of it all on 9/11. /s", ">\n\nOr he rolled it up into joints.", ">\n\nI'm a Democrat who voted for Biden. This is good and he needs to be held accountable, same as any other President who was in office who has been caught in the same situation. Classified documents need to be kept in the respectful, safe, secure places." ]