>

The state needs to update and Americanize its name to Misery.
Missouri House of Representatives used its session’s opening day

Priorities in Missouri... Sucks to be you >

Hol up, let’s check the priorities: 

Help the wealthy (with a focus on GQP donors)
Disenfranchise people of color
Limit women’s rights
Limit / remove the rights of the LGBT community 
Hurt the poor
Fuck over the Democrats
Own the Libs

Yep, limiting women’s rights and Fuck over the Democrats, two items on their list.   They are good, no idea why anyone is complaining. /s >

I 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!" >

"Let us states handle it...so we can keep it illegal and make zero progress in anything." >

In this timeline, zero progress would be an achievement.
Republicans are actively trying to pull us back into the 1950s. >

1950s implies a strong economy. The GOP would probably prefer the 1930s. >


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.
The 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.”
The state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed. >

What happened to the right to bare arms? >

American Taliban >

I'm old enough to remember the days when Republicans were afraid that Muslims wanted to come over here and enforce Sharia law.
Now the Republicans are doing it for them. >

The democrats should all wear burkas in protest, even the guys. >

No go the other way, tank tops and shorts. >

I like it, but there's a tactical weakness with that approach.
I'm guessing the republicans would be happy to detain them or some shit for not being up to dress code.
The best move is malicious compliance.
Maybe they should all be in tank tops and shorts under the burkas, then when the pubs are going nuts and order that they take off the burkas. Bam! Beach party. 
After ordering them to take off the burkas, it wouldn't be justifiable to hold them to the dress code. >

Detaining political opponents is literal fascism. Not even hypocritical, hey this extremism is taking us down a dangerous road, but actual holyshit we already had a bierhall putsch and now we are approaching krystalnacht. >

The Oklahoma legislature adopted a rule allowing them to strip representatives ability to vote over dress code violations >

Around 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. >

Sometimes 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.
Marriage 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. >

There is no reasoning with religious zealots. They want women back home. 
People keep voting Republican or not voting at all. 
Women are likely to lose birth control, IVF, Title 9 and bank account access in the coming years. >

I am not advocating or attempting to encourage violence but surely there will be some reaction from over 50% of the population before that happens. >

They will do it slowly. They like a slow boil so people think it isn’t as bad as it is. 
They will get rid of the statistics about birth rates and deaths. 
They will make the information disappear. And they will make people think things are just fine - 
While women die - >

Missouri ranks 41st in healthcare so like Huckabee in Arkansas they have nothing else pressing to do with their time >

41st in healthcare sitting on a $6 billion surplus. Ah, capitalism. >

They gonna do like Florida and give it to homeowners. Solidify that suburban, white base. >

Shit, I’d take that over hoarding it for bragging rights. I’d love a reduction in property taxes or literally anything helpful at this point. >

The 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. >

I hope there's advance warning so I can leave first. >

The fuck are you waiting for, exactly? >

Cities have decent incomes for a lot of us in a low low cost of living state. It’s pretty nice still. >

If you're a Missouri silkscreener you might consider a line of tank tops saying "I really don't care do u?" >

Missouri: They don't pronounce it "Misery" for no reason. >

Every single female democrat should show up wearing the outfits from Handmaids Tale. >

It does cover the arms so it fits within the new dress code >


She proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.”

It would not >

Oh it’s business attire, alright. >

It was written to match the wording of the men’s dress code

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.”

What exactly were you expecting >

It’s business time >

If 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.
/welcome to the 1820's folks... That and Nazi Germany. >

Just don’t do it. Doesn’t Boebert walk into work strapped despite rules against it? >

Yes. Her amongst others.
Fun fact - she no longer owns her bar and it will be a Mexican restaurant >

Missouri legislators, ashamed of their bare arm boners, pass laws to help their awkward situation. / s >

I 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. >

You are me!  Nice to meet you. >

Me too! >

Me three! >

Republicans are 10 years away from demanding burqas >

They will demand bonnets.  A lot of Pentecostals and Independent Fundamental Baptists require their women to wear head coverings. >

Or 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). >

Am I the only one who is noticing the terrifying irony that this is effectively playing towards leaning into Sharia law? >

No it fucking isn’t. 

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.”

This just brings the level of formality required for women in line with that which is required for men. 

She proposed dress code language be 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 big issue was whether a ponte knit blazer was acceptable.  That required the addition of “cardigan” into the wording, because Ms. Kelley refused to accept ponte knit as a suit fabric.  Even though it is. >

As a sewist, I love how nit picky they are getting! I do think knits are less formal than wovens, so a ponte blazer wouldn't be at the same level as a woven suit fabric.
Let's not stop there though! Let's dissect the fabric composition itself. No polyester blends or any easy care type fabrics. Strictly wool for suits. /s >

And no superwash, neither!  Harris tweed or nothing! >

Let’s get the super important stuff for our constituents out of the way first! >

Guess they are going to have to stop watching Fox News. >

This demands malicious compliance: Someone get these women suit jackets with photo prints of someone else’s bare arms on them. >

Talibangelicals, coming soon to a state legislature near you. 
Seriously, did I slip, hit my head, and wake up in the 1820s?!!? >

Alito actually quoted political theory from the 1400s in his Dobbs defense where he overturned Roe. 
That is pre-American Revolution. 
That is pre-French revolution. 
That is pre-enlightenment. 
That 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. 
Pay 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. 
Pay attention to Jean Valjean. That is what they want for men. Long prison sentences for menial crimes. Zero options for mercy. 
And people keep voting Republican and/or don’t show up to vote. 
Which is how we got out of that situation over the years - Voting and democracy. >

Are the going to have Morality Police out to enforce the new Hijab rules? /s >

That 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. >

Welcome to Missouristan y’all. >

Handmaid’s Tale incoming. >

Not quite. >

It went from:
"dresses or skirts or slacks worn with a blazer or sweater and appropriate dress shoes or boots”
To:
Proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks, and dress shoes or boots.”
Under the guise of maintaining formality & professionalism as if the GOP has ever really cared about that before. >

It’s all about whether a cardigan sweater is an appropriate garment in the chamber. That’s it. >

But see a sweater and a cardigan can be two different things >

Are men allowed to show their arms? >

Only the manly ones who can rip the sleeves off their suit jackets. >

Sounds like it’s time for any reasonable male representatives to wear sleeveless dresses to the House >

Hmmm. Covered arms and 2 layers… still can wreak havoc with inappropriate attire. Let’s get the Superman look going, undies as outerwear! >

Christian taliban rising up >

Y'all Qaida >

The 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. >

Give 'em time and they most surely will. >

What fucking disgusting state. >

Why is their House chamber so….. ugly? Looks like a FEMA response center. >

Damn that Senator from Minnesota has a sexy pair of…..armpits. >

Are men allowed to show bare arms? Seems a work place dress code is a tad different than Sharia law. Feel free to explain why I'm wrong. I'm no conference, but this seems reasonable assuming that a similar rule is in place for men.
Now if we want to talk about abolishing work place dress codes, I'm all for having that discussion. >

The story here is that men always had to wear a dress coat and now they want to make women have a similarly stringent requirement, but in the end they bent the rule and allowed sweaters for women, but not men. 
The least sexist thing is either dress coats for everyone or dress coats for none. Anyone arguing that one gender should have to wear a dress coat while the other shouldn’t is the sexist. >

All 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. >

I hope every freedom lover comes to work in a tank top tomorrow. Fuck those puritanical zealots right in their ears. >

I 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. >

When will Gym Jordan iron his shirt? Or take a shower? Or wear a jacket? >

Republicans for the past 3 years: "The government can't tell me what to wear!"
Republicans for the past 50 years: "The government can definitely tell women what to wear." >

How 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. >

Ethno-religious Nationalism >

Are 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. >

Bare arms are too distracting to old white men >

Keep voting Republican! We will be a christofascist country in no time! >

Can they just ignore the rules and any associated fines?  The same way Republicans have been doing for year?  Like is there an actual way for the GOP to enforce arm coverings? >

I used to be friends with a wealthy lesbian couple, one in banking and the other a professor of economics who used to work high up in the treasury dept. And, i kid you not, they were both staunch Republicans who often complained about Michelle Obama wearing sleeveless outfits. Never mind Nancy Reagan's chicken arms always being exposed. >

Redneck Taliban, coming for your rights ladies. Cannot fucking believe any woman votes for these backwards misogynistic pieces of shit. >

"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
Bullshit like this always reminds me of that quote. Clearly, the application here is not literal. The reason so much of this bullshit is allowed to fester is because so many people - even people who appear quite reasonable most of the time - are terrified about what might happen if we collectively gave up the power to police people's personal expression entirely. "Oh no! What if somebody wears embarrassing leather bondage gear while doing their office job?! What if my lawyer doesn't wear a fancy suit?! What if I have to see lots of skin flashed by uggos?!"
End of the day, many of the very same people who mock the phrase "won't anyone please think of the children?" retreat to it long, long before it's truly an issue. Spoiler: it's because they're still the children, kinda-sorta, and they want their preferences catered to. They're just sinister enough to understand that you don't want to appear as though you're a selfish, spoiled child. You have to work the room, and get a mob to agree with you that your preferences are more than mere preferences.
Well, this is what you get. How much do you care about being a hypocrite? Probably not much. Luxury of being fairly in sync with the mob. Enjoy... until one distinction or the other bites you. >


The state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still requires women’s arms to be concealed.

Concealed arms?  Did they think this was an open carry debate? >

The difference between these people and the Taliban is in name only >

For rural Missouri Republicans, it's pronounced "Missourah," just like cousin is pronounced "wife." >

Im so confused. Can someone explain the outrage? It seems like the dress codes between men and women are about equivalent, and the dress code for women is just.. business formal?
Are you guys falling for the click bait title unintentionally? Or do you choose to fall for it because it makes you angry about what you want to be angry about? Have some introspective. >

Hijabs will be next. >

A Democratic male House member needs to come in dressed like Will Ferrell in the "Fourth of July Short-Shorts" sketch >

But they'd be in violation of the male dress code requiring dress trousers and coat. >

Assless chaps and a fringed leather jacket. >

No more halter tops and Daisy Dukes, y’all. >

That’s only at family reunions. >

Gotta show what yo mamma gave at dem tings… how else you gonna meet someone and make inbred babies? >

They got plastic fold out tables in there? What in the wide world of trash is that? >

showing a lot of ankle. we better do something >

Reason #2954 why Centrists are not Conservatives. >

One 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. >

Missouri, truly the asscrack of the lower 48 >

The taint >

They don't even care about the optics. >

At least not as bad as the Taliban - that is the bar they're going for now. >

Then they will restrict dancing and Kevin bacon will show up and the rest is history >

Sexy Reps sell better. Trying to even the playing field. Lol >

Tiny half sweaters like Caroline Rea wore on teh first season of Biggest Loser it is! >

The supreme leader would like Missouri to be his ambassador in America >

Let’s throw it in reverse and back our way into the 1950s >

Skirt below the knee and simple string of pearls? >

Just incredible how low the republicans are willing to go. What a colossal waste of time. >

Next thing you know they won’t be able to get an education, neo-taliban. >

Missouri as a whole is haunted and should be plowed under and left alone for ever >

Does the Missouri House really conduct business on foldable plastic tables? >

Republicans' Iran envy. >

But Missouri is the Show Me state >

They are showing you that they're stuck a century or two behind the times. >

Ideological purity. 
Compromise as weakness. 
A fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism. 
Denying science. 
Unmoved by facts. 
Undeterred by new information. 
A hostile fear of progress. 
A demonization of education. 
A need to control women's bodies. 
Severe xenophobia. 
Tribal mentality. 
Intolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the US government.
They call themselves the 'Tea Party'. They can call themselves 'Conservatives', and they can even call themselves 'Republicans', though Republicans certainly shouldn't. 
But we should call them what they are - The American Taliban.
Newsroom >

Worth noting: 

Men 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.”   

Doesn't make the state any less backwards, but context makes it an iota less prone to sensationalization. >

No it do doesn’t. It’s still bullshit. >

How exactly is it bullshit? 
Is this a “everything republicans do is evil” situation, where the facts are irrelevant? >

I was reading this thread, and I do think just about everything republicans do of late is BS.. but I don't see how this is remotely like people are describing.  This is no slippery slope towards control.  Put another way:

The long established dress code requires a full suit and tie.  Women are permitted a number of alternatives because of prevailing attitudes towards formal women's clothing and a different body shape then men.  All that's at question here is if a cardigan is sufficiently formal to allow it to be a gender-specific substitution for a jacket.

Personally, I think the gendered requirements are unnecessary and the dress code is too stuffy, but I don't think it's out of line either.  An alternative would be to phrase as a universal requirement with exceptions. >

I’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… >

I mean.. men’s formal wear is one out fit… how could it get more stricter? >

Yall Qeida strikes again >

Under His Eye >

Came here hoping it would be a codpiece >

Republicans believe women should be required to wear a skirt in public no higher than her ankles. >

What, no burka? >

I guess chastity belts will be part of the attire. >

“You were serious about that?” >

That would make me want to buy a black leather jacket and go full Fonzie on the House floor. >

Any paywall free version? >

What happens if the women break the rule? A fine? >

Missouri: Giving Mississippi a run for its money! >

Are these fuckers from Iran?! >

Iran is arguably moving in the opposite direction. >

Bunch of chauvinistic pieces of shit >

LoL Women should protest by breaking the dress code (⁠ ͡⁠°⁠ ͜⁠ʖ⁠ ͡⁠°⁠) >

Surprisingly you basically never hear about Republicans doing anything important. >


The state House eventually approved a modified version of Kelley’s 
proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets, but still 
requires women’s arms to be concealed. 

Bit by bit. Before very long, head covering will be required. And you think the Taliban are bad. Give the Republicans time. >

That’s the House of Representatives chamber in Missouri??? It looks like a barn…Oh yeah Missouri. I forgot. >

Time to show up in string bikinis. With a basket of dildos under the arm. >

Men can be on the floor with short sleeves, or no sleeves, showing off their guns. >

So. Fucking. Dumb.
On so many levels. >

Business attire for women does conventionally require covered shoulders. I'm not really seeing the problem. 
The male dress code is for a jacket and tie. For the equivalent female code to require sleeves isn't groundbreaking. >

It’s not. This is stupid culture war flame fanning. Why does anyone give a flying fuck about a state legislature’s dress code? Just to be angry and somehow equate to the taliban. >

...but just for women... because the dress code for men was already strict?
Seems like much ado about nothing >

Shithole state >

So men can have bare arms?  I thought they were also required to have on sleeves and suit coats? >

They also passed legislation to allow men to wear jorts /s >

So the guys don’t have to wear a coat and tie? >


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.”

The men already have to wear business attire. This change just makes the rules for women equivalent to those for men >

Hijabs coming soon. >

Men already only have one option how much more strict could they get!? >

Conservatives are despicable filth. >

The Midwest shall now be referred to as the Middle East >

Democratic men should show up to work wearing dresses. >

I see no problem with a suit jacket for both sexes being the required dress. Personal vote. >

End viagra!  It is god's will. >

Another step toward vanilla taliban. Ladies, get your headscarves ready. Good job RepubliQans for truly putting American citizens first...
Bunch of trash bags need to be thrown out, they're sticking up the place. >

The goal is to make sure women don't want to run for office and then they can start denying them education. >

This is ridiculous. >

How so? >

Well, obviously, the only thing that can be done is for the women to wear cardigans that have accurate photographs of breasts printed onto them >

If your top priority as a new hire is gatekeeping what your coworkers are wearing maybe your paycheck should come from something that involves "mall" and "cash register" rather than "legislation." >

Burkas next. >


“The caucus that lost their minds over the suggestion that they should wear masks during a pandemic to respect the safety of others is now spending its time focusing on the fine details of what women have to wear (and specifically how many layers must cover their arms) to show respect in this chamber,” Merideth tweeted.

I wonder if one day I will see a Republican that actually snaps out of  this fever dream and admits how incredibly stupid these kinds of things look. >

well if a man showed up in anything other than a suit, there would be an issue. so men actually have a stricter dress code already. >


“I spent $1,200 on a suit, and I can’t wear it in the People’s House because someone who doesn’t have the range tells me that it’s inappropriate.”

She's throwing haymakers >

Short sleeves and short skirts out of protest. Every. Single. Day. 
They won’t comply with actual logic and sensible laws, so no one should comply with this stupid ass law. Or rules. Or whatever.
RESIST WHITE NATIONALIST FASCISM! >

Don’t men already have a stricter dress code? >

I’d show up in a bikini. Fuck that Taliban bullshit! >

Considering that men have only ever had one option, suit and tie, it’s not like they could have made men’s more strict.  
Nice try on that headline, tho >

taliban >

Oh, like the Taliban…that are doing it now….you know, the terrorist organization that we fought for decades….yea, those people. >

If I were a member of the Missouri state legislature I would 100% be coming to work in suits with the arms ripped off just to drive the absurdity of the exposed arm grievance into the ground. >

But if a man wants to show up in shorts and flip flops that’s okay? 
Bare arms turn men on in Missouri? News to me!  Goodness this place sucks. >

Men’s dress code is suit and tie. >

As a male, I would encourage my female counter parts to break that dress code everyday.  What a bunch of ignorant morons. >

Would you do your part by coming to work in a tank top yourself? 

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.”

It’s literally just making the dress code the same for everyone, as men already require to wear standard business attire >

Very Taliban-like. >

Please tell me this is a joke? Please tell me this isn’t the reality we’re in? >

Why is it distressing to you that the women’s dress code would become equivalent to the men’s dress code?

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.”
She proposed dress code language be tweaked so that “proper attire for women shall be business attire, including jackets worn with dresses, skirts, or slacks and dress shoes or boots.” >

Misleading headline WaPo >

The GOP needs to be cleansed from our politics. >

Good. >

Hijab phaps? >

Does this mean men can walk in naked? >

Sounds very much like the timeline in the book and tv show: ‘hand maid tales.’ >

Watch 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…
Should the lady in the $1200 suit…COME ON! >

You couldn't invent a more on-brand message for Republicans. >

Are 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!!"? >

Might 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.