comment: >
  
  The Missouri House, decking the legislative floor with folding tables and stackable chairs, is worried about the appearance of their lawmakers. smh
context: It seems very weird that the Missouri House is mandating formal wear for representatives who appear to be seated at the same type of cheap folding table my church uses for potlucks. >
  
  Not to defend the MO GOP’s focus on this issue, but both chambers of our legislature are undergoing extensive renovations. That’s likely why they’re using folding tables in the photo above. >
  
  Interesting,  thanks >
  
  No bigger fish to fry I assume? I'll say that if the men have to wear a blazer, then okay, the women have to as well. That being said, who the fuck cares. As long you are fully clothed what is the big deal? In my profession we've gone from suits to business casual to Jeans and casual tops. No one died. >
  
  Culture war cannon fodder, they have no idea how bad it makes them look. It’s like hiring a CEO, only to watch them only change the wall colors in the office >
  
  No, it is a rules change due to the start of a new session because there was felt to be ambiguity in the previous iteration of the dress code that needed resolving.
  It became culture war fodder because out of context the headline sounds bad. >
  
  You didn’t see the videos, did you? >
  
  If you mean the videos from the floor then yes, I did, you clearly didn't. >
  
  Okay? What mentioned here do you think even remotely supports your point. >
  
  It being brought to vote in the first place, for one. That the argument that rules were actually broken, secondly. That the amendment maker believes that historical rules and culture changes have no relationship, third. You’re leaning into the specific arguments you watched from the floor. Bringing it to the floor in the first place was the culture war shot that you’re missing, assuming it somehow was a necessity. >
  
  
  It being brought to vote in the first place, for one.
  
  No, that doesn't mean it is just culture war fodder.
  
  That the argument that rules were actually broken, secondly.
  
  This doesn't support your point. How does that make it culture war fodder?
  
  That the amendment maker believes that historical rules and culture changes have no relationship, third.
  
  Still doesn't mean it is culture war fodder.
  
  You’re leaning into the specific arguments you watched from the floor. Bringing it to the floor in the first place was the culture war shot that you’re missing, assuming it somehow was a necessity. 
  
  No, it isn't a "culture war shot" just to bring it to the floor, and this makes no sense to have linked the video if this is your argument.
  Literally nothing you have argued, even if taken at face value, remotely supports the notion that this was just a culture war move, especially given that there are arguments espoused that are explicitly not about this.
  You have to deliberately ignore what was actually said on the floor. >
  
  I haven't watched the video, but I believe I can clarify the point here, as it has to do with how legislatures function.
  It is rare, exceedingly rare, for a vote on something, whether it be a rule or whatnot, to make it to the floor of any legislature without very deliberate effort and a fair investment of time and political capital.
  While I'm not familiar with how the legislature in Missouri in specific is run, the Federal Congress is a pretty good model for this. In that instance it would have to endorsed by a committee, approved by the speaker for floor time, and whipped by the caucus, all before it actually reached the floor.
  The objection to this is that legislature's historical enemy is time. They move slowly and each term effectively limits the amount of time they have to accomplish anything. That means that spending time on this, something that provides little value or benefit, does real damage by taking away time that could be spent on things of much more value.
  So if someone is spending their legislative time on this we have to ask why? This can't be dismissed as unimportant simply because of the level of investment required to make it happen. So why? Why spend your time writing and enforcing such a rule?
  If you can think of a good answer for that question then let us know. For my part, the only gain I can see is the one pointed out - this is somehow scoring political points among conservatives by exerting control. Who those points would be scored with or why, I have no idea, but there it is.
  Thats kind of the definition of culture war - a political fight against a group of people on purely ethical grounds, with no hope of advancing any greater good or right cause. >
  
  I think we’re at the point they just need to say fuck off and ignore it like the GOP handled masks during Covid and metal detectors. >
  
  GOP members got their pay docked for refusing to go through the metal detectors. Presumably Democrats could do the same if they felt strongly enough about it. It would make an even better headline; "Republicans fine women for not covering arms". >
  
  “For bearing arms” would be more catchy. >
  
  For baring arms. >
  
  The Missouri House, decking the legislative floor with folding tables and stackable chairs, is worried about the appearance of their lawmakers. smh >
  
  I don't give a fuck how the rules for men compare.
  Because if there's a stupid and useless dress code for men, then the solution for that is to get rid of the stupid and useless dress code for men.
  Not invent even more stupid and useless dress codes for women. >
  
  Yeah people supporting it saying "they're just making it more equal", ignoring they can easily do that by loosening the rules on the mens dress code rather than making it stricter for women. Guys don't need a jacket or tie to still look/act professional either. >
  
  What happened to the right to bare arms?? >
  
  Why does this joke keep getting repeated ad nauseam.. it's fucking driving me crazy. >
  
  Not even trying to be dramatic here, but isn’t this shit like what the Taliban does? So far out of last year’s midterms I’ve seen smoking be reintroduced indoors, women are losing more rights, ethics committee being gutted, and our tax enforcers being stripped of funding. What world do republicans live in? I want out. >
  
  It does not matter what the rules for men are. Much of the population of Missouri is held captive to the country club set and the rabid Christotaliban preachers scamming for money. >
  
  Boomer Conservatives forcing everyone to dress how they dress. >
  
  You can paint a turd golden, is still a turd >
  
  They tried that. It came out orange. >
  
  American sharia law >
  
  So what happens if these representatives decide to ignore this stupid dress code? >
  
  Can we just do away with the "professional attire" bullshit altogether? They can legislate just as well in jeans and a t shirt as they can in a suit. It's like rejecting nurses because they have natural black hair or tattoos. It's antiquated and tacky. >
  
  Must suck to be a woman in Missouri that votes for herself to be a 2nd class citizen. And yet they vote to be lesser humans over and over. >
  
  What?
  This makes dress code more equal. If a man went in to the house with a t shirt on, they'd be removed >
  
  Are tee shirts business wear? The previous guidelines already called for business wear. >
  
  In Missouri, we technically approve of tuxedo tshirts as formal wear. >
  
  GOP man, wild as the Taliban >
  
  hey now, these men are allowing women to wear pants. in public. how dare you call this a regressive, antiquated or sexist.  /s >
  
  The male dress code is stricter. Seems this is more about equality.
  Also, men didn't push for this. Female Republicans did >
  
  Female Republicans are not pro woman.  Never have been.  Of they can't have fun, they don't want anyone else to. >
  
  Yes. Real handmaidens tale to say "can't wear sweaters to work, rest of the rules are unchanged. Okay let's add cardigans to replace the sweater". >
  
  A cardigan is a sweater. It actually makes sort of less sense imo.  You can have formal sweaters and informal cardigans.  Regardless, the rules were written for men, if the guys want to get rid of the suit requirement they should. >
  
  Welcome back to the turn of the last century where women weren’t even allowed to wear pants or ride a bicycle because men were worried it would drive them mad with power.
  There’s a Dollop on it. >
  
  Missouri Taliban >
  
  Why should there be a dress code? Can’t the GOP pass laws restricting women’s rights wearing their overalls or sheets? >
  
  Don't these women know their place? 
  /s >
  
  Same thing with Missouri's open and blatant no-pretense discrimination aimed at half the population again. Imagine the shops had a "no old white republicans" sign at the window. And that we pushed burkas on them at the house. How would you react ? >
  
  Burkas sound far more comfortable than a suit and tie, which men are currently forced to wear. Vision is impeded somewhat of course but the advantage is you can make your staff go vote for you. >
  
  Maybe people should decide what they find is confortable for themselves, because they have different tastes and ideas for their own lives.
  Let people wear the clothing they want ffs. What is it with US conservative nutcases trying to state impose specific clothing. Party of "small government and freedom" strikes again. >
  
  Yes absolutely, remove the dress code entirely and let everyone wear whatever they think is appropriate to represent their constituents. 
  But that’s not what Democrats are arguing for. They should, but for some reason they seem to think dress codes for men are fine but a female equivalent (even with considerably more flexibility) is a massive sexist imposition designed to oppress and control women. 
  Either remove the dress code or have one that requires equal formality for both men and women. Those are two perfectly fair options. >
  
  Remember when they said "Islam is right about women"?
  This should be no surprise. >
  
  As a Missouri resident, this is stupid. If I were voted in, doesn't matter male or female, I'd wear whatever I want. Back when our state was formed, I'm sure there wasn't a dress code. >
  
  If more men gave a shit about women this would never happen. And that includes who they vote for to begin with. >
  
  Missouri voting pop is roughly 51% women. Stop blaming just men. Plenty of women carrying the water. >
  
  If I was a woman on the Missouri House floor I would be looking at the women of Iran as inspiration and a guide. >
  
  make everyone just wears robes like a judge? strip the individualism of the members when they are on the floor. >
  
  Maybe the point is they ought to just ditch gendered rules and require everyone wears a jacket or sweater? This is all so stupid. We have actual problems that need solving. >
  
  Along those lines, perhaps the house should pass a law that denies the state the ability to prevent women from seeking any medical procedure they need, since there’s no such law for men. >
  
  What sense does that make?
  Part of the goal here is a more equivalent dress code for everyone. If you let women come in without jackets, just because other women agree, then it makes no sense to say "no man can come in without a jacket because the people who also have dicks say no". >
  
  I think this says a lot about the sexy guns these ladies must be packin if the men can’t handle seeing them. >
  
  Are they in fact forcing female lawmakers to wear mens’ clothes??? It’s the trans agenda being forced down our throats by the GOP! /s >
  
  
  While the new rule does not address what men should wear, House rules already require men to wear “business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.
  
  Sounds like they're just bringing expectations for women in line with expectations for men. If you wanna argue the dress code is stupid, that's fine by me, but this has nothing to do with sexism. >
  
  Dress code for men: silence Dress code for women that is essentially equal to that of men: oppression! >
  
  By this standard, gym jordan and marge the arms green are such tarts. Who knew? >
  
  I can see that woman's ankles, it's making me have dirty thoughts! /S >
  
  Time to make it so all men must be clean shaven >
  
  Men already have a dress code pretty much equivalent to this… >
  
  For a bunch of dudes that claim to be anti gay sure don’t like to see women too much. Just kinda weird. >
  
  One woman showing up in a burka would get them to change this code real quick >
  
  A Burka with a blazer. >
  
  So they want women to cover up, eh? Why not take this ridiculous rule to its logical extreme and wear a balaclava to the sessions. If somebody objects, you can just say, “you wanted women to cover up, so we covered up..” >
  
  Hmmm don’t the taliban require that their woman dress a certain way? >
  
  I thought Missourians would be in favor of the right to bare arms. >
  
  But they are ok with working off of plastic folding tables. >
  
  Some serious issues being tackled in 2023. Glad the citizens are paying for an argument about dress code. >
  
  Their ultimate goal is to ban women from holding political office, or voting, driving, working, attending school, leaving their home without a male chaperone, surviving childbirth..... >
  
  Missouri Repigs going full Iran. >
  
  It will all be okay, burka law coming next…/s >
  
  Much like with ethics boards that investigate elected officials, these people shouldn't have the ability to dictate rules about the appearance of other elected officials. >
  
  This is like the dress code for girls back in the 60’s. Girls had to wear dresses, but not too short! >
  
  If I were a legislator with any respect for women in the Missouri legislature, I’d show up wearing THIS >
  
  They are in fucking suits… >
  
  It seems very weird that the Missouri House is mandating formal wear for representatives who appear to be seated at the same type of cheap folding table my church uses for potlucks. >
  
  Not to defend the MO GOP’s focus on this issue, but both chambers of our legislature are undergoing extensive renovations. That’s likely why they’re using folding tables in the photo above. >
  
  Interesting,  thanks >
  
  No bigger fish to fry I assume? I'll say that if the men have to wear a blazer, then okay, the women have to as well. That being said, who the fuck cares. As long you are fully clothed what is the big deal? In my profession we've gone from suits to business casual to Jeans and casual tops. No one died. >
  
  Culture war cannon fodder, they have no idea how bad it makes them look. It’s like hiring a CEO, only to watch them only change the wall colors in the office >
  
  No, it is a rules change due to the start of a new session because there was felt to be ambiguity in the previous iteration of the dress code that needed resolving.
  It became culture war fodder because out of context the headline sounds bad. >
  
  You didn’t see the videos, did you? >
  
  If you mean the videos from the floor then yes, I did, you clearly didn't. >
  
  Okay? What mentioned here do you think even remotely supports your point. >
  
  It being brought to vote in the first place, for one. That the argument that rules were actually broken, secondly. That the amendment maker believes that historical rules and culture changes have no relationship, third. You’re leaning into the specific arguments you watched from the floor. Bringing it to the floor in the first place was the culture war shot that you’re missing, assuming it somehow was a necessity. >
  
  
  It being brought to vote in the first place, for one.
  
  No, that doesn't mean it is just culture war fodder.
  
  That the argument that rules were actually broken, secondly.
  
  This doesn't support your point. How does that make it culture war fodder?
  
  That the amendment maker believes that historical rules and culture changes have no relationship, third.
  
  Still doesn't mean it is culture war fodder.
  
  You’re leaning into the specific arguments you watched from the floor. Bringing it to the floor in the first place was the culture war shot that you’re missing, assuming it somehow was a necessity. 
  
  No, it isn't a "culture war shot" just to bring it to the floor, and this makes no sense to have linked the video if this is your argument.
  Literally nothing you have argued, even if taken at face value, remotely supports the notion that this was just a culture war move, especially given that there are arguments espoused that are explicitly not about this.
  You have to deliberately ignore what was actually said on the floor. >
  
  I haven't watched the video, but I believe I can clarify the point here, as it has to do with how legislatures function.
  It is rare, exceedingly rare, for a vote on something, whether it be a rule or whatnot, to make it to the floor of any legislature without very deliberate effort and a fair investment of time and political capital.
  While I'm not familiar with how the legislature in Missouri in specific is run, the Federal Congress is a pretty good model for this. In that instance it would have to endorsed by a committee, approved by the speaker for floor time, and whipped by the caucus, all before it actually reached the floor.
  The objection to this is that legislature's historical enemy is time. They move slowly and each term effectively limits the amount of time they have to accomplish anything. That means that spending time on this, something that provides little value or benefit, does real damage by taking away time that could be spent on things of much more value.
  So if someone is spending their legislative time on this we have to ask why? This can't be dismissed as unimportant simply because of the level of investment required to make it happen. So why? Why spend your time writing and enforcing such a rule?
  If you can think of a good answer for that question then let us know. For my part, the only gain I can see is the one pointed out - this is somehow scoring political points among conservatives by exerting control. Who those points would be scored with or why, I have no idea, but there it is.
  Thats kind of the definition of culture war - a political fight against a group of people on purely ethical grounds, with no hope of advancing any greater good or right cause. >
  
  I think we’re at the point they just need to say fuck off and ignore it like the GOP handled masks during Covid and metal detectors. >
  
  GOP members got their pay docked for refusing to go through the metal detectors. Presumably Democrats could do the same if they felt strongly enough about it. It would make an even better headline; "Republicans fine women for not covering arms". >
  
  “For bearing arms” would be more catchy. >
  
  For baring arms.