On Jan. 11, 2023, the single-handedly most “pressing” and utterly ridiculous news broke out of the Missouri State House.
In a vote of 105-51, Missouri lawmakers adopted a new dress code that targets women in the State House. According to Vanity Fair, the “proper attire for women” is “business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.” Essentially, if a woman decides to wear a dress, she must have a second layer covering her shoulders and arms.
Rep. Ann Kelley described this as an attempt to “always maintain a formal and professional atmosphere” while the men’s dress code remains unchanged. According to CNN, the male dress code requires men to “wear a jacket, shirt and tie.”
Honestly, thank goodness we have politicians on top of such a minor subject because who else will ensure that all arms and shoulders are covered?
This has caused an uproar from both the affected female politicians as well as on social media. “Handmaid’s Tale” has been trending on Twitter all week, full of people furious by this blatant discrimination.
The Handmaid’s Tale comparison stems from the idea that women’s rights are being taken away by men, first with the reversal of Roe v. Wade and now this.
The book by Margaret Atwood was supposed to be fictional, yet we are seeing it come to life.
According to these policies, men are required to wear a jacket, dress shirt and a tie; what would happen if a man showed up without a tie? Would he be scrutinized and sexualized, or would it be recognized as an honest mistake?
Some of the 43 women in the House spoke out online in real-time, stating how they feel about these rules and offering different perspectives on how they negatively affect women.
Rep. Raychel Proudie spoke about how this time could have been spent differently, and yet it was used to put women down.
“There are some very serious things that are in this rule package that I think we should be debating, but instead, we are fighting, again, for a women’s right to choose something. And this time, it is how she covers herself,” said Proudie, according to an AP News article.
Proudie also spoke out about how these new rules affect pregnant women.
“They don’t make jackets or blazers for women who are pregnant. That could be very uncomfortable, particularly in a pro-life state.”
Missouri Democrat Rep. Jamie Johnson also commented on Twitter, stating that these rules are about more than just sexism — they are about classism.
“Just finished floor debate explaining why knit blazers do not include cardigans on an amendment restricting what women can wear in the House. Why would we need additional class barriers to the idea that anyone could represent the people,” she questions.
Rep. Ashley Aune commented on how irrelevant this debate is and how men should not be left to decide what is deemed appropriate for a woman to wear.
“I’ve seen a lot of lack of decorum in this room in my two years here, and not once has that lack of decorum spurred from someone’s blazer or lack thereof. There are lots of ways we could break decorum in this room. But a woman, what she’s wearing, that is ridiculous,” she said, according to AP News.
Despite this outcry, there are women in the House who support this decision and believe it is not a matter of sexism.
Kelley was one of the biggest supporters of these changes and brought the matter up because she believed there was more clarification needed as to what attire is appropriate.
“Isn’t it essential to always maintain a formal and professional atmosphere on the House floor? And to ensure this happens, I have felt compelled to offer this amendment, which cleans up some of the language in rule ninety-eight by mirroring the previous language and gentleman’s dress code,” said Kelley when speaking on the House floor.
Rep. Brenda Shields also said that the only motivation behind this change was to “clarify what we already have.”
It is 2023, so you would think and believe that these kinds of events would be a thing of the past or, at the very least, minimally important. Has humanity not learnt from its mistakes and progressed forward? The state of Missouri has bigger issues to worry about, and yet it is hyper-focused on women’s arms and shoulders.
According to World Population Review, Missouri currently has the sixth highest rate of gun violence in the United States. It also ranks sixth highest in death rates and, in 2019, had the seventh highest “gun deaths per capita.” Not to mention Missouri’s murder rate is one of 9.3 per 100,000 persons and the fourth highest in the United States, according to 247 Wall St.
The Dividends Diversify also states that some other cons to living in Missouri include below-average wages and low quality of life.
All of these are prominent issues, yet these politicians are concerned about the “right to bear arms.” Seriously? What is the point of discriminating against and diminishing female politicians when there is more important work to be done?
We are supposed to be living in a world where gender stereotypes are being combated and where the important issues that darken the world are put at the forefront of our attention. Yet here we are.
When are we going to grow up and realize that women are not the problem, but rather the issues are the stereotypes that hold them back? Until our world realize that, The Handmaid’s Tale is only going to become more realistic.