The House Has a 'No Sleeveless' Dress Code for Women

[HarryPotterFan]

"According to numerous reporters, women have been barred from the Speaker’s lobby for wearing sleeveless dresses and blouses. CBS reports that recently, “a young, female reporter” tried to enter the Speaker’s lobby—a room outside of the House chamber where reporters generally ask legislators questions—but was turned away because the sleeveless dress she was wearing “was considered inappropriate because her shoulders weren’t covered.

The unnamed reporter, apparently desperate to simply do her job, “ripped out pages from her notebook and stuffed them into her dress’s shoulder openings to create sleeves,” CBS reports. Her improvised outfit was still deemed unacceptable and she was turned away. At least three reporters confirmed that they had received a warning about the apparently arbitrary dress code. One report, Independent Journal Review’s Haley Byrd told CBS that she was kicked out of the Speaker’s lobby in May—the same day House Republicans passed their health care bill—for wearing a sleeveless dress. On Twitter, two reporters confirmed that either they or colleagues had been barred or warned for daring to bare their shoulders.

CBS reports that the House’s dress code is largely a matter of interpretation left, in this case, to the whim of House Speaker Paul Ryan. The only written rule simply states that women should wear “appropriate attire,” and leaves the interpretation of that phrase, as well as its enforcement, to the Speaker of the House. According to Ryan, that means that women—reporters, lawmakers and staff alike—should cover their toes and well as their shoulders. Open-toed shoes, like sleeveless dresses and blouses, are both now banned in the Speaker’s lobby. Those rules do not apply to the Senate."

More in the link, which includes an image of Ivanka in a sleeveless dress. 

http://theslot.jezebel.com/the-house-has-a-new-no-sleeveless-dress-code-for-women-1796680020
 

Women's shoulders stir up desires that cannot be righteously fulfilled in the House! And apparently Paul Ryan has a toe kink.

[GreyhoundFan]

Oh, for pity sake. Is Ryan going to start demanding that women cover their heads next?  I can see saying no tank tops or shorts, but sleeveless dresses and dressy sandals? This will probably be next:

[mamallama]

Here it is, just like they predicted:  Sharia Law!

[HeathenBlondie]

This is so fucking ridiculous! I'm sure the men won't have any limits to what they can and can't wear though (even though most probably wear suits anyway).

[candygirl200413]

Those scandalous shoulders just hinder process that needs to be made in the house

Also the humidity in DC is the ABSOLUTE worst, I'm also someone who sweats horribly just sitting in the summer so I can't imagine being in a setting like that and just drench in sweat in essentially a longsleeved

[Childless]

9 hours ago, HeathenBlondie said:

This is so fucking ridiculous! I'm sure the men won't have any limits to what they can and can't wear though (even though most probably wear suits anyway).

Some members of Congress have shown up to vote in their gym clothes.  Apparently, that's ok because penises.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Is sleeveless appropriate for Capitol Hill? The problem is no one knows what ‘appropriate’ means."

Spoiler

It’s surprising that in 2017 there are still places in Washington where the powers-that-be feel it’s wise and worthwhile to play fashion police. But up on Capitol Hill, the fashion savants in the House still deem sleeveless dresses, sneakers and open-toe shoes verboten.

A recent story from CBS News has a reporter explaining that she was stopped from entering the Speaker’s Lobby, where journalists often buttonhole members of Congress for interviews, because her shoulders were bare. Men are not exempt from the fashion watchdogs, either. They are expected to wear jackets and ties.

The policy is nothing new, according to some Hill veterans, though enforcement has sometimes been inconsistent. These traditions apply to lawmakers and their staff, as well as journalists — but apparently not to first ladies or first daughters.

These fashion requirements, enforced by security guards, are specific enough that they stir rumblings of sexism but vague enough that they cannot possibly account for the myriad permutations of modern fashion. After all, there’s a significant difference in tone between a tailored sheath worn with peep-toe pumps and a sundress paired with gladiator sandals. And what, for example, makes a sneaker a sneaker? Is it the rubber sole, the laces, a Swoosh, the Air Max technology? The modern “sneaker” comes in everything from gold metallic leather to gray wool tweed. Some have wedge heels. Some slide on. Plenty of them look a heck of a lot better than a pair of salt-stained leather loafers that could use a cobbler’s attention — shoes that would not be forbidden in the House but probably ought to be if you care about aesthetics.

The crux of the House fashion rules, however, are not really about naked shoulders or tie-less men in shirt sleeves. A statement from House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) decrees that “members should wear appropriate business attire during all sittings of the House, however brief their appearance on the floor may be.” The goal is to show “mutual and institutional respect.” (Ah respect! So elusive these days.)

But what exactly is appropriate? Fifty years, 30 years, 15 years ago, most folks could probably agree on the definition of “appropriate.” There were actual sections in department stores called “career dressing.” People bought “work clothes” and changed out of them when they got home at the end of the day. In the age before leggings as pants, flip-flips as shoes and backpacks as an acceptable professional carry-all, everyone was on the same page sartorially. Mostly.

And then along came casual Friday, Silicon Valley, telecommuting, the gig economy. Business attire as a mutually agreed upon aesthetic began to disintegrate. The fashion industry declared there were no rules. Moguls began dressing like 12-year-old boys. Women embraced the comfort and ease of leggings. Individuality bloomed. People began wearing pajamas on the street. With designer slippers. And we accepted this as normal.

It’s not that people have forgotten what’s appropriate. They know. They simply choose to ignore it. They refuse to be appropriate. And they feel entitled to their refusal. They see it as a sign of freedom, liberation and personal identity. Hipness. When someone announces that an event is business attire, people know exactly what that means — suit and tie, modest dress, nice trousers — but they still spend significant time fretting about how they might get around what they know to be correct.

Why is it that when people receive an invitation that says black tie, they ask whether they have to wear a tuxedo? That’s the definition of black tie. What they are really asking is, “How can I get out of dressing appropriately?” Adults know what they are supposed to do. They simply choose not to do it.

The culture has lost another bit of common ground. So wrongheaded people attempt to mandate propriety. And perfectly good fashion takes a hit.

I like the pictures that show both Michelle Obama and Ivanka appearing in sleeveless dresses in the house chamber.

[GrumpyGran]

Uh-oh, is Ryan secretly Gothard?

[turquoise]

I don't get the concern about sleeveless dresses at all.  When did women's shoulders and upper arms become scandalous? They'll be measuring skirt length next.

Here's a link to a long sleeve blouse:

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Autumn-Long-Sleeve-Stretch-T-Shirt-Female-2016-Sexy-Deep-V-neck-Button-Fashion-Front-Pocket/32742510895.html?spm=2114.search0302.4.110.CBdqEF

And here's one for a sleeveless dress:

https://www.maitaiwholesale.com/collections/clothing/products/grey-sleeveless-high-neck-maxi-dress-with-round-hemline

Which one is more suggestive?

[Maggie Mae]

2 hours ago, turquoise said:

Which one is more suggestive?

They are both too "casual" for my workplace, but I obv see your point. 

Maybe we can just stop worrying about what other people are wearing and instead do our jobs without judgement? 

[JMarie]

4 hours ago, turquoise said:

I don't get the concern about sleeveless dresses at all.  When did women's shoulders and upper arms become scandalous? They'll be measuring skirt length next.

Here's a link to a long sleeve blouse:

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Autumn-Long-Sleeve-Stretch-T-Shirt-Female-2016-Sexy-Deep-V-neck-Button-Fashion-Front-Pocket/32742510895.html?spm=2114.search0302.4.110.CBdqEF

And here's one for a sleeveless dress:

https://www.maitaiwholesale.com/collections/clothing/products/grey-sleeveless-high-neck-maxi-dress-with-round-hemline

Which one is more suggestive?

Hey, that's not fair about the long-sleeved shirt!  Neither Ivanka nor Melania have boobs that big.  And didn't Melania wear a sleeveless dress yesterday while meeting the Polish president? (yeah, I know she was in Europe, but she's worn a lot of sleeveless dresses here in the U. S.)

[Cartmann99]

How about a compromise on the sleeveless dress issue? If your sleeveless dress is modestly cut like the one Melania Trump is wearing in the link below, you can enter the Speaker’s lobby. C'mon Speaker Ryan, why not?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4294666/Melania-hosts-International-Women-s-Day-lunch.html?ITO=1490

[GrumpyGran]

8 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

How about a compromise on the sleeveless dress issue? If your sleeveless dress is modestly cut like the one Melania Trump is wearing in the link below, you can enter the Speaker’s lobby. C'mon Speaker Ryan, why not?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4294666/Melania-hosts-International-Women-s-Day-lunch.html?ITO=1490

As long as you're Republican or a fan of the Donald, sure. If you're a reporter or a Democrat, NO! Your shoulders and toes are FAKE NEWS!

[HarryPotterFan]

1 hour ago, GrumpyGran said:

As long as you're Republican or a fan of the Donald, sure. If you're a reporter or a Democrat, NO! Your shoulders and toes are FAKE NEWS!

Gotta be related to Trump to wear something sleeveless!