|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
anecdotally D.C. is a consistently over dressed city and fairly conservative in this regard. as part of the work culture such a rule being enforced doesn't strike me as anything newsworthy.
On July 08 2017 02:41 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2017 02:39 Falling wrote:On July 08 2017 02:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 08 2017 02:25 Falling wrote:On July 08 2017 02:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That's such a dumb rule. Now shoulders are taboo? If you want a sense of decorum in the House and not want people to show up in beach wear or sweat pants, a line must be drawn somewhere. Where ever the line is, it may seem silly, but without the line you can be sure people are going to sink to the lowest common denominator. Apparently, they have things like 'ties of shame'. So it's not like they are after one gender on dress code. That's fair, although I don't think the reporter was trying to wear a bikini. No, but you draw the line way before that point. As to Mohdoo- I don't think anyone suffered, maybe embarrassed, but next time she'll remember to wear a sweater over top and it'll be all good. But I am asking what value the sweater would serve. How can the sweater be directly justified?
it serves as an option to meet the dress code. that's the justification. she may also choose not to wear the sweater, and consequently not to wear that particular outfit to work. your appeal to weather falls flat- men typically suffer worse in this regard. wearing a full suit and tie and all.
i see you had later added you think this too is unnecessary. well, no argument here. but that's not the culture around the whitehouse. optics are generally very important.
|
On July 08 2017 02:16 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2017 02:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That's such a dumb rule. Now shoulders are taboo? I don't know how appropriate 'now' is since it's been the rule for decades/centuries.
What the actual fuck? Why are you expressing that you doubt that showing shoulders is taboo is modern day USA?
|
On July 08 2017 02:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2017 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On July 08 2017 02:16 Danglars wrote:On July 08 2017 02:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That's such a dumb rule. Now shoulders are taboo? I don't know how appropriate 'now' is since it's been the rule for decades/centuries. Appeal to tradition isn't entirely compelling. Don't forget marriage used to mean property. Saying "now shoulders are taboo" in an article that says "women now need" and a post that says "apparently it is Paul Ryan's policy" implies recent malicious sexist change. Can you read it again and conclude that this is a false charge given its longevity? For the sake of agreeing upon facts prior to opinion?
At its core I think they word it wrong, but since the house sets its rules at the start of each term they are technically correct that it is a Paul Ryan policy. The fact that he is basing his policy on the policies of past speakers should be more readily available though.
|
On July 08 2017 02:41 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2017 02:39 Falling wrote:On July 08 2017 02:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 08 2017 02:25 Falling wrote:On July 08 2017 02:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That's such a dumb rule. Now shoulders are taboo? If you want a sense of decorum in the House and not want people to show up in beach wear or sweat pants, a line must be drawn somewhere. Where ever the line is, it may seem silly, but without the line you can be sure people are going to sink to the lowest common denominator. Apparently, they have things like 'ties of shame'. So it's not like they are after one gender on dress code. That's fair, although I don't think the reporter was trying to wear a bikini. No, but you draw the line way before that point. As to Mohdoo- I don't think anyone suffered, maybe embarrassed, but next time she'll remember to wear a sweater over top and it'll be all good. But I am asking what value the sweater would serve. How can the sweater be directly justified?
how can not wearing a bikini be directly justified? in the same way
|
On July 08 2017 02:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2017 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:On July 08 2017 02:30 Danglars wrote:On July 08 2017 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On July 08 2017 02:16 Danglars wrote:On July 08 2017 02:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That's such a dumb rule. Now shoulders are taboo? I don't know how appropriate 'now' is since it's been the rule for decades/centuries. Appeal to tradition isn't entirely compelling. Don't forget marriage used to mean property. Saying "now shoulders are taboo" in an article that says "women now need" and a post that says "apparently it is Paul Ryan's policy" implies recent malicious sexist change. Can you read it again and conclude that this is a false charge given its longevity? For the sake of agreeing upon facts prior to opinion? I'm being lazy, sorry. I was just chucking my thought of "that's some stupid shit" over the fence. I'm not saying Paul Ryan or republicans are seeking to harm women or something like that. All I am saying is that women should be allowed to display their shoulders at work. On July 08 2017 02:31 Plansix wrote:On July 08 2017 02:27 Mohdoo wrote:On July 08 2017 02:24 Plansix wrote:I don't have a huge objection to the rule. Men have to wear suit jackets. I think the rules are super dated and they should update them to account for the heat. On July 08 2017 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On July 08 2017 02:16 Danglars wrote:On July 08 2017 02:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That's such a dumb rule. Now shoulders are taboo? I don't know how appropriate 'now' is since it's been the rule for decades/centuries. Appeal to tradition isn't entirely compelling. Don't forget marriage used to mean property. That is the standard dress code for most law firms I've worked at, with the exception of open toed shoes for women. Yeah, I suppose I am just taking the perspective that whenever someone actually suffers for things like this, it is worth pointing out that its stupid and should change. I'm saying the rule is dumb, not that the rule isn't real. It is literally outside the well of Congress. I think the women's attire could use a little updating(like make rules for women's jackets and allow open toed shoes, maybe change rule for jackets during the summer), but people should be expected to dress for business. I suppose I find myself wondering what purpose it serves other than ceremony. Dress jackets are ridiculous in any context unless you are cold. It feels like being required to wear a kimono. It just doesn't serve a purpose. That dress code doesn’t sound any different that the dress code for attorneys at court, man or woman. Suits and business dresses. I’ve had to talk to some of our clients about how not to appear in court, since they seemed to think that a button up shirt with jeans and sneakers would be cool.
So in the case of going to court, I can see the clear benefit where someone would be well served to put as strong an image out there as they can. The same is of course also true at people's jobs. It is one thing for something to be a good idea. It is a different thing for it to be required and for someone to be denied entry or what have you as a result of improper dress. In court, you hurt your case or whatever. I am saying there would be no material disadvantage to women being permitted to show their shoulders. Same with men being able to take off their ridiculous jackets.
On July 08 2017 02:44 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2017 02:41 Mohdoo wrote:On July 08 2017 02:39 Falling wrote:On July 08 2017 02:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 08 2017 02:25 Falling wrote:On July 08 2017 02:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That's such a dumb rule. Now shoulders are taboo? If you want a sense of decorum in the House and not want people to show up in beach wear or sweat pants, a line must be drawn somewhere. Where ever the line is, it may seem silly, but without the line you can be sure people are going to sink to the lowest common denominator. Apparently, they have things like 'ties of shame'. So it's not like they are after one gender on dress code. That's fair, although I don't think the reporter was trying to wear a bikini. No, but you draw the line way before that point. As to Mohdoo- I don't think anyone suffered, maybe embarrassed, but next time she'll remember to wear a sweater over top and it'll be all good. But I am asking what value the sweater would serve. How can the sweater be directly justified? how can not wearing a bikini be directly justified? in the same way
Irrelevant nonsense. I am not discussing a bikini. I am discussing a dress that reveals shoulders. We should be able to adjust dress codes without saying people can just show up to work naked.
|
On July 08 2017 02:36 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2017 02:30 Danglars wrote:On July 08 2017 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On July 08 2017 02:16 Danglars wrote:On July 08 2017 02:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That's such a dumb rule. Now shoulders are taboo? I don't know how appropriate 'now' is since it's been the rule for decades/centuries. Appeal to tradition isn't entirely compelling. Don't forget marriage used to mean property. Saying "now shoulders are taboo" in an article that says "women now need" and a post that says "apparently it is Paul Ryan's policy" implies recent malicious sexist change. Can you read it again and conclude that this is a false charge given its longevity? For the sake of agreeing upon facts prior to opinion? I don't think anybody is arguing this is a rule at this point, at least here. What I'm curious about is has this rule been violated before and just not acted upon? Or has everybody just known and put up with it or happened to coincidentally never run afoul of it.
Mohdoo clarified what he actually meant, so nobody is arguing that it was a modern invention and targeted.
|
On July 08 2017 02:41 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2017 02:30 Danglars wrote:On July 08 2017 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On July 08 2017 02:16 Danglars wrote:On July 08 2017 02:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That's such a dumb rule. Now shoulders are taboo? I don't know how appropriate 'now' is since it's been the rule for decades/centuries. Appeal to tradition isn't entirely compelling. Don't forget marriage used to mean property. Saying "now shoulders are taboo" in an article that says "women now need" and a post that says "apparently it is Paul Ryan's policy" implies recent malicious sexist change. Can you read it again and conclude that this is a false charge given its longevity? For the sake of agreeing upon facts prior to opinion? seems like fake news to me
Do you have reason to believe the story was manufactured in Eastern European news article mills? 
|
On July 08 2017 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2017 02:42 Plansix wrote:On July 08 2017 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:On July 08 2017 02:30 Danglars wrote:On July 08 2017 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On July 08 2017 02:16 Danglars wrote:On July 08 2017 02:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That's such a dumb rule. Now shoulders are taboo? I don't know how appropriate 'now' is since it's been the rule for decades/centuries. Appeal to tradition isn't entirely compelling. Don't forget marriage used to mean property. Saying "now shoulders are taboo" in an article that says "women now need" and a post that says "apparently it is Paul Ryan's policy" implies recent malicious sexist change. Can you read it again and conclude that this is a false charge given its longevity? For the sake of agreeing upon facts prior to opinion? I'm being lazy, sorry. I was just chucking my thought of "that's some stupid shit" over the fence. I'm not saying Paul Ryan or republicans are seeking to harm women or something like that. All I am saying is that women should be allowed to display their shoulders at work. On July 08 2017 02:31 Plansix wrote:On July 08 2017 02:27 Mohdoo wrote:On July 08 2017 02:24 Plansix wrote:I don't have a huge objection to the rule. Men have to wear suit jackets. I think the rules are super dated and they should update them to account for the heat. On July 08 2017 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On July 08 2017 02:16 Danglars wrote:On July 08 2017 02:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That's such a dumb rule. Now shoulders are taboo? I don't know how appropriate 'now' is since it's been the rule for decades/centuries. Appeal to tradition isn't entirely compelling. Don't forget marriage used to mean property. That is the standard dress code for most law firms I've worked at, with the exception of open toed shoes for women. Yeah, I suppose I am just taking the perspective that whenever someone actually suffers for things like this, it is worth pointing out that its stupid and should change. I'm saying the rule is dumb, not that the rule isn't real. It is literally outside the well of Congress. I think the women's attire could use a little updating(like make rules for women's jackets and allow open toed shoes, maybe change rule for jackets during the summer), but people should be expected to dress for business. I suppose I find myself wondering what purpose it serves other than ceremony. Dress jackets are ridiculous in any context unless you are cold. It feels like being required to wear a kimono. It just doesn't serve a purpose. That dress code doesn’t sound any different that the dress code for attorneys at court, man or woman. Suits and business dresses. I’ve had to talk to some of our clients about how not to appear in court, since they seemed to think that a button up shirt with jeans and sneakers would be cool. So in the case of going to court, I can see the clear benefit where someone would be well served to put as strong an image out there as they can. The same is of course also true at people's jobs. It is one thing for something to be a good idea. It is a different thing for it to be required and for someone to be denied entry or what have you as a result of improper dress. In court, you hurt your case or whatever. I am saying there would be no material disadvantage to women being permitted to show their shoulders. Same with men being able to take off their ridiculous jackets.
This is the literally House of Representatives in congress, the seat of ½ of a branch of government. If you have no problem with attorney wearing suits to district court shoved in the corner of a strip mall, I don’t know how you have a problem with it here.
|
On July 08 2017 02:18 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2017 02:16 Danglars wrote:On July 08 2017 02:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That's such a dumb rule. Now shoulders are taboo? I don't know how appropriate 'now' is since it's been the rule for decades/centuries. Where the hell can I find this rule of shoulders being taboo?
You can see where to find further info and the extent to which its origin is documented in the article, which has been changed/extended since original publication.
|
On July 08 2017 02:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2017 02:16 Danglars wrote:On July 08 2017 02:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That's such a dumb rule. Now shoulders are taboo? I don't know how appropriate 'now' is since it's been the rule for decades/centuries. What the actual fuck? Why are you expressing that you doubt that showing shoulders is taboo is modern day USA?
See my response to Mohdoo.
On July 08 2017 02:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2017 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On July 08 2017 02:16 Danglars wrote:On July 08 2017 02:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That's such a dumb rule. Now shoulders are taboo? I don't know how appropriate 'now' is since it's been the rule for decades/centuries. Appeal to tradition isn't entirely compelling. Don't forget marriage used to mean property. Saying "now shoulders are taboo" in an article that says "women now need" and a post that says "apparently it is Paul Ryan's policy" implies recent malicious sexist change. Can you read it again and conclude that this is a false charge given its longevity? For the sake of agreeing upon facts prior to opinion?
I don't think it's appropriate given the implication I expanded on in the response. Do you deny that implication exists for the casual reader? I mean nothing more and I doubt we have an argument (and seriously how can you conclude I'm talking about societal taboos when I highlight the word 'now' to contrast with writing about historical perspective from the actual House and not public, modern day America?)
|
On July 08 2017 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2017 02:42 Plansix wrote:On July 08 2017 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:On July 08 2017 02:30 Danglars wrote:On July 08 2017 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On July 08 2017 02:16 Danglars wrote:On July 08 2017 02:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That's such a dumb rule. Now shoulders are taboo? I don't know how appropriate 'now' is since it's been the rule for decades/centuries. Appeal to tradition isn't entirely compelling. Don't forget marriage used to mean property. Saying "now shoulders are taboo" in an article that says "women now need" and a post that says "apparently it is Paul Ryan's policy" implies recent malicious sexist change. Can you read it again and conclude that this is a false charge given its longevity? For the sake of agreeing upon facts prior to opinion? I'm being lazy, sorry. I was just chucking my thought of "that's some stupid shit" over the fence. I'm not saying Paul Ryan or republicans are seeking to harm women or something like that. All I am saying is that women should be allowed to display their shoulders at work. On July 08 2017 02:31 Plansix wrote:On July 08 2017 02:27 Mohdoo wrote:On July 08 2017 02:24 Plansix wrote:I don't have a huge objection to the rule. Men have to wear suit jackets. I think the rules are super dated and they should update them to account for the heat. On July 08 2017 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On July 08 2017 02:16 Danglars wrote:On July 08 2017 02:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That's such a dumb rule. Now shoulders are taboo? I don't know how appropriate 'now' is since it's been the rule for decades/centuries. Appeal to tradition isn't entirely compelling. Don't forget marriage used to mean property. That is the standard dress code for most law firms I've worked at, with the exception of open toed shoes for women. Yeah, I suppose I am just taking the perspective that whenever someone actually suffers for things like this, it is worth pointing out that its stupid and should change. I'm saying the rule is dumb, not that the rule isn't real. It is literally outside the well of Congress. I think the women's attire could use a little updating(like make rules for women's jackets and allow open toed shoes, maybe change rule for jackets during the summer), but people should be expected to dress for business. I suppose I find myself wondering what purpose it serves other than ceremony. Dress jackets are ridiculous in any context unless you are cold. It feels like being required to wear a kimono. It just doesn't serve a purpose. That dress code doesn’t sound any different that the dress code for attorneys at court, man or woman. Suits and business dresses. I’ve had to talk to some of our clients about how not to appear in court, since they seemed to think that a button up shirt with jeans and sneakers would be cool. So in the case of going to court, I can see the clear benefit where someone would be well served to put as strong an image out there as they can. The same is of course also true at people's jobs. It is one thing for something to be a good idea. It is a different thing for it to be required and for someone to be denied entry or what have you as a result of improper dress. In court, you hurt your case or whatever. I am saying there would be no material disadvantage to women being permitted to show their shoulders. Same with men being able to take off their ridiculous jackets. Show nested quote +On July 08 2017 02:44 IgnE wrote:On July 08 2017 02:41 Mohdoo wrote:On July 08 2017 02:39 Falling wrote:On July 08 2017 02:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 08 2017 02:25 Falling wrote:On July 08 2017 02:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That's such a dumb rule. Now shoulders are taboo? If you want a sense of decorum in the House and not want people to show up in beach wear or sweat pants, a line must be drawn somewhere. Where ever the line is, it may seem silly, but without the line you can be sure people are going to sink to the lowest common denominator. Apparently, they have things like 'ties of shame'. So it's not like they are after one gender on dress code. That's fair, although I don't think the reporter was trying to wear a bikini. No, but you draw the line way before that point. As to Mohdoo- I don't think anyone suffered, maybe embarrassed, but next time she'll remember to wear a sweater over top and it'll be all good. But I am asking what value the sweater would serve. How can the sweater be directly justified? how can not wearing a bikini be directly justified? in the same way Irrelevant nonsense. I am not discussing a bikini. I am discussing a dress that reveals shoulders. We should be able to adjust dress codes without saying people can just show up to work naked.
oh so the rule "dont show up naked" is facially valid? who says? you can't imagine a circumstance where it might make sense to show up in a bathing suit? maybe the reporter was at the pool and had to rush to work for a quote but didn't want to stop to put on a dress. it was a hot day so why bother changing? what about cut-off jorts?
don't show up naked is justified (how?) but the rule about requiring full dress for women that covers the shoulders is suspect because a sweater might serve no purpose (what do you mean by purpose here)?
the point is that "justification" language is the wrong kind of languge. i think maybe we need to consider the nature of norms and rules. i don't hear a whole lot from you about requirements to wear a jacket for men. sure, we can adjust rules, but the only justification for purely norms-based rules is that the decider prefers the norm.
|
On July 08 2017 02:42 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2017 02:30 Danglars wrote:On July 08 2017 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On July 08 2017 02:16 Danglars wrote:On July 08 2017 02:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That's such a dumb rule. Now shoulders are taboo? I don't know how appropriate 'now' is since it's been the rule for decades/centuries. Appeal to tradition isn't entirely compelling. Don't forget marriage used to mean property. Saying "now shoulders are taboo" in an article that says "women now need" and a post that says "apparently it is Paul Ryan's policy" implies recent malicious sexist change. Can you read it again and conclude that this is a false charge given its longevity? For the sake of agreeing upon facts prior to opinion? At its core I think they word it wrong, but since the house sets its rules at the start of each term they are technically correct that it is a Paul Ryan policy. The fact that he is basing his policy on the policies of past speakers should be more readily available though.
I agree with your core conclusion.
|
Canada11350 Posts
I am saying there would be no material disadvantage to women being permitted to show their shoulders.
We could flip it around. What material advantage is there to women showing their shoulders in a place where laws are made? I mean, you realize we aren't even comparing similar things? Men perhaps being able lay off the suit jacket... and not men also being able to wear sleeveless shirts. Our society in general slides to the casual informal. It's not such a bad thing to hold off in the place where laws are made. We have a similar standard for female teachers in the private schools at least.
|
I missed the Poland speech, does anyone have any highlights? How was it received? Can I go back in this thread and see something on it?
|
On July 08 2017 03:12 IyMoon wrote:
I missed the Poland speech, does anyone have any highlights? How was it received? Can I go back in this thread and see something on it?
Depending on your source, it was Reagan rhetoric reborn or alt right dogwhistling. Lots of talk on western civ against its enemies. Well received by the audience there, but I haven't read anything yet on the country at large (polling will be published later anyways).
|
On July 08 2017 03:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2017 03:12 IyMoon wrote:
I missed the Poland speech, does anyone have any highlights? How was it received? Can I go back in this thread and see something on it? Depending on your source, it was Reagan rhetoric reborn or alt right dogwhistling. Lots of talk on western civ against its enemies. Well received by the audience there, but I haven't read anything yet on the country at large (polling will be published later anyways).
That was the problem I had, read two things and they were vastly different.
|
On July 08 2017 03:12 IyMoon wrote:
I missed the Poland speech, does anyone have any highlights? How was it received? Can I go back in this thread and see something on it?
White nationalists and neo Nazis were ecstatic (this is a fact).
|
|
|
On July 08 2017 03:32 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2017 03:12 IyMoon wrote:
I missed the Poland speech, does anyone have any highlights? How was it received? Can I go back in this thread and see something on it? White nationalists and neo Nazis were ecstatic (this is a fact).
It was a Bannon/Miller special. Western Civilization under siege from the middle east and from within(aka, multiculturalism).
|
They probably said something like "A man as well educated and smart and deliberate as you can clearly see we had nothing to do with the election interference" and then Trump just ate it up because the sentence contained praise of him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
