this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
589 points (91.8% liked)

politics

18866 readers
21 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A horde of trailer-park visigoths can sack the Capitol and Republicans say "what's the big deal?" But let one guy show up in casual clothes and they lose their goddamn minds.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I just think it's interesting that the previous dress code was so much more restrictive for men than for women.

Men had one and only one choice: a suit and tie.

Women could wear suits (also called "pantsuits" for some odd reason -- why not call the alternative a "skirtsuit?"), they could wear dresses with short or long sleeves, they could wear skirts, just not miniskirts. The jacket was optional, although many women wore one. They could wear flat shoes or high heels.

In terms of colours, men had to wear dark colours. Women could wear red, maroon, checked patterns, the variations were huge. They could wear ties, but they didn't have to. Many wore necklaces instead, often with an open-necked shirt. Can you imagine a man being allowed to wear an open-necked shirt, no tie and chains?

I just hate suits and ties. I think they look stupid, and hate that that look is associated with "business wear" for men. If the Senate does go back to having a dress code, men should have as many options as women for a "professional" look that doesn't include suits. (And yes, open necked shirts with chains should be part of that.)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

People that give a fuck what anyone else looks like literally at all have no place in government, ideally.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People are upright apes, and looks matter to apes. There's a reason that presidents have historically been significantly taller than the average citizen.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

If you can't get past your base animal instincts, you have no fucking right voting or legislating.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Did you make a ~~type~~ typo there lmao

Edit: I literally typo'd typo what is wrong with me

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

I did in fact make a typo "can" has been corrected to "can't ". Thanks lol. Important distinction..

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You sound angry, which is a base animal instinct.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Me: uses the word "fucking"

You: YOU SOUND ANGRY

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It seems to have bothered you.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Me: uses caps to signify a change in contextual tone without use of a narrator agent

You: YOU SURE SEEM BOTHERED

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Calm down, buddy.