Shaming Ocasio-Cortez for her clothes is a classic ruse to deflect attention from real issues


I still like the idea of forcing congress critters to wear sponsor jackets at all public appearances. Kinda like they do for Nascar.


In the case of Dems like Ocasio-Cortez, the specific policy is that the federal government would guarantee a job with a living wages and health benefits to any unemployed American who’s willing to contribute labour to a public works or public service project. Since the government spends money on these initiatives anyhow (or, in the case of infrastructure, needs to), the idea is that they might as well provide employment opportunities.


So why haven’t women created a default dress code then? What’s stopping them? Not men. They are stopping each other.

As for default men’s dress code, ever been to a big lawfirm? Women seem to have no problem adapting and adopting it as a dress code. Whether that was a good choice is a different question. Since so many politicians come from law, why the change in how women dress, but not men? Seriously, why?





Bingo! 100% agree! I want the same for women. Trying to stand out by wearing red is not helping.


Because success in law firms is not so dependent on grabbing attention. Politics today (or what passes for it) demands that attention is grabbed. Without attention you can do no politics (apparently) - or will find it more difficult to make progress as a politician.


They have. In Congress it involves women’s business attire in a variety of colours (because, hey, if you’re creating your own dress code why not have fun with it?).

I have, including white-shoe firms. Their business suits have a wider colour palette than the men’s, red included.

Perhaps they’re just wearing a colour they like. Or perhaps they’re trying to get attention in a way men don’t have to. Or perhaps both. The point is that they didn’t choose the rules of this Kobayashi Maru scenario – the dress codes they develop are a reaction to it.


The last time I served on jury duty, both lawyers were women. One was dressed to the nines in a skirt suit, makeup, artfully curled hair, heels. The other one had her frizzy hair pulled into a low ponytail and was in a pantsuit that was fairly masculine in cut.

Guess which one the men on the jury thought “seemed more professional?”


What the fuck are you talking about? Many places of business have a dress code and people have to stick by it. Women often do stick by it. Unless it’s a business run by a woman, it’s likely MEN making that dress code!

Again, what are you talking about? How are women in congress NOT already doing that by wearing suits (pants suits or suits with skirts). AOC was very much wearing a professional business suit and PEOPLE CALLED HER OUT FOR NOT LOOKING POOR ENOUGH… What are you actually talking about that women in congress are doing differently from men?

WHO IS DOING THAT? Not the person in question at all. Her suit was navy blue. And there is nothing stopping men from wearing suits other than dark colors. Nothing.

Well, why didn’t the other women in the jury beat the first one until she conformed to the proper way to dress to be taken seriously as a human being… it’s al lour fault after all! /s


Tragically, our forewoman also wondered why Lawyer #2 couldn’t “at least wear a little makeup.”




Actually to blend in they should all wear hi-vis vests. With one of those and a tool belt and clipboard you can go anywhere and do anything and nobody sees you - you are invisible. So a uniform like the other pic you posted, but with hi-vis coloured vests, covered in sponsor logos - that’s the best solution, eh? :wink:


Even assuming there was really some secret ruling council of women who could create and implement such a thing, how would that NOT be “making a political statement through fashion?”


Also, even if all women met these standards for “not standing out”, they would still be asked “How can you afford that standard uniform when I heard you were struggling?”


I can’t help but agree. There seems to be at least a few posters in this thread who have no clue how expectations shape the lives of women in whatever their professions, and how little control we actually have over those expectations. And they’re entirely unwilling to listen to women who have experienced the effects of those expectations. All I can think is that they literally don’t care.


Also, because unpatterned or very lightly patterned grey and navy blue basically go together with anything. It’s extremely easy to look reasonably good with that kind of a suit, as long as you don’t go out of your way to pick extra-garish ties, loud shirts and likewise.


People are proving the title of the article.

Anyone who says, “I’d respect that woman as a politician if she dressed differently,” is not telling a true thing.

closed #189


This topic has degenerated into posters shouting past each other, while simultaneously becoming a case of ”if you disagree with my stance you are acting in bad faith” nonsense.

I have repeatedly explained how to react to posters you believe are posting contrary to the guidelines, but instead, many individuals continue to make more work for the mod team by, themselves, posting rebuttals that are also 1) outside the guidelines and 2) serve to do little else but exacerbate the problem further by goading the original poster in the first place.

The end result is this topic is a dumpster fire, and I’m closing it instead of what would have been the far better outcome of removing a few flagged posts.