Congress Dress Code Discussion

[Farrar]

I agree, women's dress is less clear.

I suspect some people think of that as an advantage.

 

I'm not sure I'd want to be the person asked to tighten it up.

 

It's only an advantage until you get caught in it and banned from the hall, unable to do your job. I guess some women might think it's still an advantage overall - women can "get away" with a more broad array of choices a large percent of the time. But when they don't, it's harder to know what to argue.

 

I definitely wouldn't want to be the person tightening it up. I don't think it needs to be tightened up - it would be nice if it were loosened up. But either way, I think clarity would be the best policy.

[Bluegoat]

But in the U.S. male politicians and the men who work with and for them and around them don't wear clothes that are special or more formal.  They wear the same suits and ties that many many other men wear to work.  

 

Um, the suits are what is more formal, or the women's equivalent

 

.  Yes, some other jobs also wear the same kind of clothing.  Generally for similar reasons - they want it to lend some weight or gravity to their job.

[Daria]

Um, the suits are what is more formal, or the women's equivalent

 

.  Yes, some other jobs also wear the same kind of clothing.  Generally for similar reasons - they want it to lend some weight or gravity to their job.

 

I think that's what we're arguing, whether sleeveless dresses and open toed shoes are the women's equivalent of suits.

 

My point is that women are disadvantaged when expectations for them aren't standardized for them.  When they can't get dressed and know that their clothing won't get them kicked out.  

 

In most professional settings where men wear suits, women can wear sleeveless shift dresses, for example.  So, setting up a situation where a man's regular clothes are accepted, when a woman has to have different special clothes for going to Congress when a man can wear his regular day to day clothes, is unequal.  

[Bluegoat]

I think that's what we're arguing, whether sleeveless dresses and open toed shoes are the women's equivalent of suits.

 

My point is that women are disadvantaged when expectations for them aren't standardized for them.  When they can't get dressed and know that their clothing won't get them kicked out.  

 

In most professional settings where men wear suits, women can wear sleeveless shift dresses, for example.  So, setting up a situation where a man's regular clothes are accepted, when a woman has to have different special clothes for going to Congress when a man can wear his regular day to day clothes, is unequal.  

 

Well, I said I thought sleeveless shirts for women could be professional.  Not sure about open toed shoes - a lot of them do seem to read as more casual.  I'd tend to say sleeveless would need to be specifically mentions f they intended it to be avoided.

 

I think it would be fine to have a very clear uniform for women's clothes, like men's.  I suspect instituting that would be a political minefield.

[MommyLiberty5013]

It is a special place, but it's also very much a place where important business is conducted, and it's important to keep that in the front of people's minds.

 

There are thousands of people in Washington who go to work each morning and could conceivably be called to the Senate floor.  Maybe they're a college student interning in some office who is asked to run an errand.  Maybe they're a specialist working behind the scenes on a specific issue who might be called by a Senator or Congressman to answer a question.  Maybe they're a journalist with expertise in a specific issue who gets called in to cover an unexpected speech on the floor.  

 

Should the women in these categories be expected to purchase new wardrobes, so that they're always ready to go on the House and Senate floors?  Should they expect the business of Congress to wait while they change?  Should they send their male colleagues in their place?  

 

The reality is that politics is a fast paced business.  Being 5 minutes late to deliver a piece of paper because you were changing clothing; or missing one quote because you were grabbing a wrap; or missing the opportunity for a face to face moment with your Senator because you dressed for the Cabinet room or the briefing room at State on the wrong day, all these things can impact someone's career.  But expecting women to spend a lot of money to avoid these things by replacing clothing that had been allowed in the past doesn't seem like a fair solution.

Well, of course. This is splitting hairs though. Obviously, times arise during which not every one can make a quick clothing change - that would be ridiculous and wasteful of time. This should be the exception, not the rule. IMHO. Just because I desire certain places to be set apart as special in times of dress, does not mean I fail to realize reality and fast-paced work places. A very professional dress code can exist and still meet the demands of a quick acting group.

[Pam in CT]

No strong opinions on OP, just popping in to reaffirm this...

 

....

 

Also, let's not even touch the fact that men can wear the same suit every day for years and no one will bat an eye (a news anchor tried this as an experiment - he really wore the same suit for a year straight, on camera, and no one noticed till he announced he'd done it), but a woman needs a new outfit every day.  So yeah, we need a selection, not just one outfit with sleeves.

 

 

... which was was hands down my favorite story of 2014 from Down Under.

 

:lol:

 

[Reefgazer]

I agree with the poster you responded to, and since you asked why, I'll offer my take on it.  Professional dress is conservative dress, and conservative dress commands respect and consideration that casual dress does not, even if that is not fair play.  If I have a lawyer or financial planner or other professional negotiating or working on my behalf, it is important that I take he or she seriously, but it is more important that the person he is negotiating with take him seriously, and professional dress commands that respect.  Even in my business casual environment (adjunct at a community college) I dress conservatively and professionally because doing so non-verbally establishes my authority in the classroom.  I noticed a few other professors who wear flip flops and jeans to class often have behavioral issues in their classrooms; their students do not see them as authority figures, but as peers, and treat them as such.  I have a few male professors/friends in the department who always wear jackets and ties for the same reason.  We've actually discussed this and agreed that it is an important aspect of establishing professional respect.  Women, who are often not in positions of power as men are, should be able to see the value of professional and conservative dress clearly.

 

ETA:  When I worked for a small biotech company in my pre-mom days, I worked in a lab and often covered my clothing with a lab coat.  Several people there dressed very casually, but when a potential investor in the business came by, or reps from the parent company, or company lawyers appeared, you bet your ass we were expected to dress professionally, right down to the shoes and jewelry (if we wore it).  If you didn't, you were guaranteed to be pulled aside and talked to about the infraction, and it would definitely affect your prospects for promotion, simply because your judgment would be suspect.  That wasn't because the CEO of the company doubted that we would be unable to do our jobs in sneakers, it was because he knew that at least some of the people visiting the company would judge us (fairly or not) and that could affect our prospects for funding or whatever else we were after.  So people who are in conservative professions and who work with the public on a daily basis (congress) should be "camera-ready" at all times for those reasons.  There are plenty of people out there who would feel that if their doctor or lawyer or banker didn't have enough respect for to dress professionally, they would rather take their business to someone who would.  And most businesses don't want to lose a client in this environment on account of dress.

 

 

 

 

May I ask why you feel this way?  I don't really understand.  What is it about arms that is inappropriate for a professional setting?  What is so different between a professional dress with short sleeves or sleeveless?

 

Also to clarify, I know many men who wear suits, but remove their jackets.  They either have short sleeves or long sleeves, which is fine. Arms in general aren't an issue of professionalism, either with men or women.  When I say suits, I'm not necessarily thinking they have to wear the jacket all the time in order to be professional.  

 

Edited July 16, 2017 by reefgazer

[Reefgazer]

One word:  A shrug.  OK, that was 2 words.

I have old lady arms. It's not just professional attire. Yesterday I went shopping for a dress for my cousin's wedding next month. All of the dresses are were either sleeveless or long sleeved. No way am I wearing long sleeves in Florida in August (no, not even with A/C). I finally found one with a sort of attached sheer cape. If I didn't find that one and had to choose sleeveless I would have worn a shrug or shawl over it. 

 

Sleeveless seems to be the thing now in women's fashion for all occasions (dressy, professional, and casual). If you don't like it too bad, apparently. 

 

Edited July 16, 2017 by reefgazer

[Matryoshka]

One word: A shrug. OK, that was 2 words.

So, a shrug is now the answer for professional dress? I don't think of a shrug as professional office wear.

 

No one has taken up my challenge. ;) Where are these unicorn sleeved professional dresses sold? Links, please. :)

 

Or are we ladies supposed to go back to sewing our own clothes? And also designing our own patterns, because -news flash- commercial dress patterns follow fashion, and they also don't have sleeves anymore.

 

Really. I *want* sleeves. Show me the sleeves!

[Reefgazer]

Oh, I know sleeves are hard to find.  I have fat arms; I don't do sleeveless.  Never.  I was looking at the shrug as a solution to lack of sleeves, even if it's not ideal.  But a quick perusal of the Talbot's site and Nordstrom's site showed several short sleeved dresses and sweaters.  I'm having trouble linking, but this blouse:  Nordstrom's Ainsley blouse is a short sleeved, silk shell that is perfect under a summer suit.  Comes in multiple colors, because a simple suit needs a decent shell in different colors and that's it.  It's an easy uniform to put together.

 

 A suit jacket for an office would solve your professional-dress problem.  If not, a shrug (or any sweater, really) fits the bill.

So, a shrug is now the answer for professional dress? I don't think of a shrug as professional office wear.

No one has taken up my challenge. ;) Where are these unicorn sleeved professional dresses sold? Links, please. :)

Or are we ladies supposed to go back to sewing our own clothes? And also designing our own patterns, because -news flash- commercial dress patterns follow fashion, and they also don't have sleeves anymore.

Really. I *want* sleeves. Show me the sleeves!

 

Edited July 16, 2017 by reefgazer

[Daria]

So, a shrug is now the answer for professional dress? I don't think of a shrug as professional office wear.

 

No one has taken up my challenge. ;) Where are these unicorn sleeved professional dresses sold? Links, please. :)

 

Or are we ladies supposed to go back to sewing our own clothes? And also designing our own patterns, because -news flash- commercial dress patterns follow fashion, and they also don't have sleeves anymore.

 

Really. I *want* sleeves. Show me the sleeves!

 

I'm sure you'll find them here:

 

http://www.dillards.com/brand/Ivanka+Trump/women-dresses

 

Maybe that blue denim one in the third row?

[Reefgazer]

The guy heading to congress will fall back on the standard pinstriped suit/ red tie combo and be on point every time.  The woman heading to congress can also fall back on the suit and blouse option and be on point every time.  It's a standard uniform that's not hard to figure out.

To me there are two different issue here.  One is whether a sleeveless dress or a pair of crocs is unprofessional.  I don’t have much of an opinion on that topic. 

 

But the other issue is the way we police women’s clothing.  The rule that this reporter broke was both unwritten, and inconsistently enforced.  A young male journalist who finds himself assigned Washington, D.C. can watch C-Span for 30 seconds, ask any random person on the street, or simply walk into the men’s department and say “I need to go to Congress tomorrow, what should I wear?†and I can guarantee he’ll end up with an outfit that passes muster.  In addition, he’ll be able to wear that same outfit when he goes to the State Department, or the White House press room, or when he meets a source for coffee at Starbucks.  Chances are that he won't even have to pay for this outfit, because he'll have one hanging in his closet.

 

On the other hand, a young female reporter who is preparing to work in the U.S. Capitol could read every written rule, watch a ton of C-Span (including coverage of the President's immediate family), investigate to see what her female colleagues are wearing, and then go to the professional section of a well known store to choose her clothing, and still be prevented from doing her job because some man has decided that her clothing is “unprofessionalâ€.   

 

[Bluegoat]

This thing about women's choices being wider.

 

I am not sure that this was always quite so much the case.  A woman's suit with a fairly man-like shirt was pushed a lot at one time, especially for the really conservative careers like banking.

 

I think some of the loosening up of the implied dress code was pushed by fashion magazines - I remember for a while there it felt like there were constant articles about how to get away with wearing something a little less like a uniform.

[Farrar]

If a woman made herself a uniform of just a handful of suits, she'd get hammered for her poor style. I simply cannot imagine a woman getting away with being in the public eye with half a dozen suits, much less a single one like the anchorman in the video above. And it wouldn't be appropriate for some evening events, where men could wear their same suits but women are expected to be in dresses.

 

If the women's dress code needs to be more encompassing, it's because part of dressing professionally for women is having more variety.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

If a woman made herself a uniform of just a handful of suits, she'd get hammered for her poor style. I simply cannot imagine a woman getting away with being in the public eye with half a dozen suits, much less a single one like the anchorman in the video above. And it wouldn't be appropriate for some evening events, where men could wear their same suits but women are expected to be in dresses.

 

If the women's dress code needs to be more encompassing, it's because part of dressing professionally for women is having more variety.

 

I was just going to post this same thing. Didn't Hilary Clinton get hammered all throughout the recent election for her suits and blah/drab/"manly" attire in general? For pete's sake, women just cannot win. Literally!

Edited July 16, 2017 by ILiveInFlipFlops

[zoobie]

Women couldn't even wear pants in Congress (well, Senate) until 1993. http://mentalfloss.com/article/93384/why-women-couldnt-wear-pants-senate-floor-until-1993

 

I guess female reporters could find some nice, puffy sleeved cult dresses somewhere that would be acceptable.

[Matryoshka]

I'm sure you'll find them here:

 

http://www.dillards.com/brand/Ivanka+Trump/women-dresses

 

Maybe that blue denim one in the third row?

 

 

LOL.  They're practically *all sleeveless* - except that Denim one.  Because Denim is the epitome of professional wear.  Maybe this should be the new suit for men? 

 

 

But, Ivanka should get on the stick and revise her line with sleeves.  Because there is obviously a market, and money to be made! 

[zoobie]

LOL. They're practically *all sleeveless* - except that Denim one. Because Denim is the epitome of professional wear. Maybe this should be the new suit for men?

 

 

But, Ivanka should get on the stick and revise her line with sleeves. Because there is obviously a market, and money to be made!

There's an Anne Klein denim suit for women that's actually pretty sharp looking. ;)

http://m.shop.nordstrom.com/s/anne-klein-twill-one-button-jacket/4418430?cm_mmc=google-_-productads-_-34014200299__Mobile-_-95671545&rkg_id=h-37f6dfc2ece9fcbdc3e1edf333e27772_t-1500217767&adpos=1o5&creative=145518921028&device=m&network=g&gclid=CLun_NeKjtUCFcq2wAodCowLhA

 

I wouldn't wear it to court for a hearing, but it would be great for dressier than random office days. (In my hypothetical job right now, lol.)

[Matryoshka]

There's an Anne Klein denim suit for women that's actually pretty sharp looking. ;)

http://m.shop.nordstrom.com/s/anne-klein-twill-one-button-jacket/4418430?cm_mmc=google-_-productads-_-34014200299__Mobile-_-95671545&rkg_id=h-37f6dfc2ece9fcbdc3e1edf333e27772_t-1500217767&adpos=1o5&creative=145518921028&device=m&network=g&gclid=CLun_NeKjtUCFcq2wAodCowLhA

 

I wouldn't wear it to court for a hearing, but it would be great for dressier than random office days. (In my hypothetical job right now, lol.)

 

But it's not denim.  It's 'denim-colored' Twill.  (aka dark blue twill)

[Lady Florida.]

LOL.  They're practically *all sleeveless* - except that Denim one.  Because Denim is the epitome of professional wear.  Maybe this should be the new suit for men? 

 

 

But, Ivanka should get on the stick and revise her line with sleeves.  Because there is obviously a market, and money to be made! 

 

 

Yep. And the ones that do have sleeves are off the shoulder. Or cut out. Or lace sleeves. All are also not professional. Which means no one has yet shown that there's an abundance of business attire for women that has sleeves.

[Amy in NH]

Well, the opinion piece referenced in the OP is a little silly. It's possible to update one or a few things without people appearing in congress in crocks. FWIW, I think women's professional dress can include certain sleeveless blouses. I also don't care if men's and women's conventions aren't identical.

 

As far as professional dress - I think there are reasons for it, but in this case, I think the issue goes beyond being professional - I think public officials wear special or more formal clothes because they are taking on a special role. Lawyers and judges here wear robes, for example, in court. It isn't because somehow this makes them smarter or better. But it is a reminder, to themselves and the public, that they are no longer acting simply as private individuals. They are working in the interests of justice, for some higher good, and to some extent they are being asked to leave self behind.

 

While some would like to believe that symbols of institutions or ideals may be meaningless, and perhaps in some sort of ideal world they would, I think human nature is such that we require reminders and physical manifestations of principles.

 

In the case of members of the government engaged in the work of government, there are any number of traditions and symbols intended to remind of the importance and gravity of that work for all of us. Getting dressed in a more formal way is one for each individual member.

Well, there's the solution. Maybe everyone should wear robes on the floor of the House or Senate.

[goldberry]

Women couldn't even wear pants in Congress (well, Senate) until 1993. http://mentalfloss.com/article/93384/why-women-couldnt-wear-pants-senate-floor-until-1993

 

Wow.  I didn't realize that.

[Reefgazer]

But you can't say she was ever inappropriately dressed, and she wouldn't have been denied admission anywhere because of her attire.

I was just going to post this same thing. Didn't Hilary Clinton get hammered all throughout the recent election for her suits and blah/drab/"manly" attire in general? For pete's sake, women just cannot win. Literally!

 

Edited July 16, 2017 by reefgazer

[Guest]

I fail to see why wearing a short sleeve shirt or polo would make a man less professional (if women can wear sleeveless, and I am all for it, it seems ridiculous that men should have to wear long sleeves). It's not what one wears, it's how one behaves and speaks. High profile people have said and done unbelievably unprofessional things wearing tailored suits.

Maybe it is time to reevaaluate the entire dress code, for males and females. I have seen no evidence that dressing in suits makes people more productive. Perhaps this is an anachronism that should be thrown out altogether. There are fields that do just fine without one.

I wish I could like this twice. Amen, sister.

 

Although I don't think any gender should wear Crocs for any reason. *ducks flying tomatoes*

[FaithManor]

If a woman made herself a uniform of just a handful of suits, she'd get hammered for her poor style. I simply cannot imagine a woman getting away with being in the public eye with half a dozen suits, much less a single one like the anchorman in the video above. And it wouldn't be appropriate for some evening events, where men could wear their same suits but women are expected to be in dresses.

 

If the women's dress code needs to be more encompassing, it's because part of dressing professionally for women is having more variety.

I have no idea what would happen in the political arena, but when I go back to work this fall, this is exactly what I am doing. The dress code for the company I work for is business dress, in the office, though I will be working for school districts with much looser employee dress codes. I have one out in that I will be a SME for STeam and working in a lab environment though not working chemistry. So I have two pairs of black dress pants, two pairs of grey dress pants, one pair of navy, mix and match professional looking sleeveless shells in neutral colors, and will always have on a lab coat or a blazer/jacket that matches the pants.

 

Boring but professional, and less expensive than having a bigger, varied wardrobe. Hopefully I can get away with it by varying accessories here and there.

 

Flat closed toed shoes with lots of support since I will be standing a lot.

 

I have a feeling that if women in congress banded together to do this, it would not take all that long to become the new norm. It does require a deviation from societal norms for women.

[Daria]

I have no idea what would happen in the political arena, but when I go back to work this fall, this is exactly what I am doing. The dress code for the company I work for is business dress, in the office, though I will be working for school districts with much looser employee dress codes. I have one out in that I will be a SME for STeam and working in a lab environment though not working chemistry. So I have two pairs of black dress pants, two pairs of grey dress pants, one pair of navy, mix and match professional looking sleeveless shells in neutral colors, and will always have on a lab coat or a blazer/jacket that matches the pants.

 

Boring but professional, and less expensive than having a bigger, varied wardrobe. Hopefully I can get away with it by varying accessories here and there.

 

Flat closed toed shoes with lots of support since I will be standing a lot.

 

I have a feeling that if women in congress banded together to do this, it would not take all that long to become the new norm. It does require a deviation from societal norms for women.

 

I'd dress exactly the same way in your situation, but I work in education.  A field that doesn't put a lot of value on how a woman dresses.  I would love it if the whole world worked that way

 

The women who were recently banned from the Speaker's Lobby weren't Members of Congress or Senators, they were journalists.  Realistically, a woman who appears on TV for a living is not going to be able to deviate from societal norms to that degree.  Even a print journalist is going to have difficulty if she's asked to wear an outfit that she won't be able to wear to her next appointment without sticking out. 

 

I also think we need to think about Congressional staffers, many of whom are either unpaid interns or seriously underpaid.   Asking a college student intern coming to Washington for 3 months to purchase a new wardrobe, one that wouldn't have been appropriate at her previous job, nor at her next one, is a burden.

 

We also need to think about people who are called to testify.  Let's say, for example, that a mother of a child with special needs is asked to testify for the Medicaid hearings.  Should she need to purchase a new outfit if the one nice dress in her closet happens to be sleeveless?  What about the widow of a coal miner, testifying about Worker's Comp.  If her one nice pair of shoes is open toed, should she just stay home? 

 

I don't really have a problem with the idea of a dress code for the Members themselves.   But, as we've seen from recent events, they aren't the ones the security guards are stopping.  I do have a problem with a policy that makes it more difficult, or more expensive for members of one group to participate in our government.

[FaithManor]

Well, we might think of the logistics of these things, but I think that the privileged with money individuals who tend to inhabit congress, do not really care if one can afford to dress the way they dictate or not. Sad but true.

 

And yes it again is a haves and have not thing that makes it difficult for a portion of our population to access and participate in government on equal footing. But, I do not think this is of any concern to the powers that be. Just like the jury duty issue, if it was important to them to have a dress code AND equal opportunity, then they would provide a robe/uniform for jurors which would eliminate the disparity in dress norms and spending/ability to spend.

 

To be honest though, a journalist covering the Capitol Building should take the time to find out how to dress, and keep an outfit on hand that works. To some degree, this is part and parcel of any career. From working at the bank to the hospital, one acquaints oneself with the work wear requirements.

 

Now that said, I do have to wonder if these same security guards would stop a male journalist wearing khakis, birkenstocks, and a collarless shirt.

[Daria]

Well, we might think of the logistics of these things, but I think that the privileged with money individuals who tend to inhabit congress, do not really care if one can afford to dress the way they dictate or not. Sad but true.

 

And yes it again is a haves and have not thing that makes it difficult for a portion of our population to access and participate in government on equal footing. But, I do not think this is of any concern to the powers that be. Just like the jury duty issue, if it was important to them to have a dress code AND equal opportunity, then they would provide a robe/uniform for jurors which would eliminate the disparity in dress norms and spending/ability to spend.

 

 

It seems that some Members of Congress do care about this, as some Members of Congress have been intentionally drawing attention to this issue, by choosing sleeveless clothing, and by referencing this issue when speaking on the floor.

 

https://twitter.com/chelliepingree/status/885888369611472896

 

To be honest though, a journalist covering the Capitol Building should take the time to find out how to dress, and keep an outfit on hand that works. To some degree, this is part and parcel of any career. From working at the bank to the hospital, one acquaints oneself with the work wear requirements.

 

 

To me, a big part of the issue is that the rules are unwritten, and seem to be enforced intermittently.  A woman could take the time to figure out how to dress, by watching C-Span, or by looking at what other women wear on the House Floor, or by reading all the written rules, and still find out that her outfit isn't accepted.

 

In addition, I think its important to understand that it's very common for professionals in Washington to live pretty far from work, and to travel to and from work, or between the parts of their job by public transportation.  It's easy to imagine someone starting their day covering the White House or to find themselves called unexpectedly called to the Speakers' Lobby.   

 

So, while I agree that a female reporter who covers the Capitol, or hopes to cover the Capitol, should play it safe by owning something with sleeves, that doesn't mean that it won't be at her office in Arlington, or her apartment in Gaithersburg when she suddenly needs it.

 

Now that said, I do have to wonder if these same security guards would stop a male journalist wearing khakis, birkenstocks, and a collarless shirt.

 

 

A collarless shirt and birkenstocks are not the equivalent of the dresses in question.  Look at these outfits worn by Michelle Obama,  and Ivanka Trump at recent State of the Union addresses.  Whether or not one believes the outfits were appropriate for the floor of the House of Representatives, neither dress is as casual as a pair of birkenstocks.

[Farrar]

Well, we might think of the logistics of these things, but I think that the privileged with money individuals who tend to inhabit congress, do not really care if one can afford to dress the way they dictate or not. Sad but true.

 

And yes it again is a haves and have not thing that makes it difficult for a portion of our population to access and participate in government on equal footing. But, I do not think this is of any concern to the powers that be. Just like the jury duty issue, if it was important to them to have a dress code AND equal opportunity, then they would provide a robe/uniform for jurors which would eliminate the disparity in dress norms and spending/ability to spend.

 

To be honest though, a journalist covering the Capitol Building should take the time to find out how to dress, and keep an outfit on hand that works. To some degree, this is part and parcel of any career. From working at the bank to the hospital, one acquaints oneself with the work wear requirements.

 

Now that said, I do have to wonder if these same security guards would stop a male journalist wearing khakis, birkenstocks, and a collarless shirt.

 

The dress code is based on who's manning the door. It's completely unwritten. Thus what passes for weeks may suddenly be disallowed. You could work there for a year, think you've got it down, and then suddenly be barred. And because it's less clear for women than men, I think it's much more likely to happen to a woman. A man who approached the door in birks who had worked on the Hill for a year would know he wasn't getting in. A woman who had gone in three times in that exact, tailored, professional looking dress might suddenly be barred. I think that's the issue.

[historically accurate]

By coincidence, I just got an advert in my email for the new monthly box for professional women - M. M. LeFleur. Where they got my account I have no idea. Dresses run $165-$425, so these would definitely be the type of clothing that people would wear on the floor of Congress. 14 out of the 33 dresses featured on their website have sleeves, so less than half. Some of those I am counting as sleeves may not actually be considered sleeves in the dress code (hard to decide if they're really short "cap sleeves" or really wide straps). 

 

https://mmlafleur.com/shop/dresses

[G5052]

The reality is that D.C. is as conservative as any when it comes to dress. When I initially went from a research lab to a sabbatical position there, they actually gave me a clothing allowance because they knew that the dress would be so different. 

 

When I switched to a federal job and worked right downtown 20 years ago and sometimes went to Capital Hill, my cabinet department dictated only black, gray, or subtle dark patterned skirt suits for women and black shoes. Men were supposed to wear a dark suit as well with a white shirt and conservative tie. I had to go to a seminar on Capital Hill dress and protocol and was frequently escorted by a member of the Government Affairs staff unless I was just meeting with a Congressional staffer, not a hearing or formal meeting with one or members of Congress present. They always had me meet them in their offices before we went over, and one of them told me that they kept a wardrobe of black jackets in case someone forgot. This was during the Clinton administration, and I remember some discussion about Mrs. Clinton's colored pant suits.

 

I understand from friends that are still in that department that they do allow pant suits for women and more flexibility in color, but still say that you must have a jacket if you are representing the department.

 

I always thought it was all a bit silly, but the formality of dress is very ingrained, I'm afraid.

[MommyLiberty5013]

If a woman made herself a uniform of just a handful of suits, she'd get hammered for her poor style. I simply cannot imagine a woman getting away with being in the public eye with half a dozen suits, much less a single one like the anchorman in the video above. And it wouldn't be appropriate for some evening events, where men could wear their same suits but women are expected to be in dresses.

 

If the women's dress code needs to be more encompassing, it's because part of dressing professionally for women is having more variety.

Kate Middleton rewears several of her frocks. People are kind of shocked, but then opinion settles to "that's cool."

[AmandaVT]

The guy heading to congress will fall back on the standard pinstriped suit/ red tie combo and be on point every time.  The woman heading to congress can also fall back on the suit and blouse option and be on point every time.  It's a standard uniform that's not hard to figure out.

 

One thing I love about Rachel Maddow is that every night on her show she wears a black suit with a shell underneath. Men do it all the time on their shows and I'm glad there's a woman doing it too. 

[EmseB]

I really don't understand the big deal about a woman putting on a blazer/suit jacket? Isn't that pretty standard in a professional wardrobe? Isn't it also pretty equitable since the men are required to do the same, plus tie? Why would a woman be slammed for owning one or two suits with alternating blouses underneath? If I had to go build a business wardrobe right now, that's what I'd do.  That's what I see women who work out of the home wearing, by and large.  What am I missing about why that's an egregious requirement?

 

Then again, I wore an actual uniform to work the entire time I was in a career, so I'm probably not a good judge of these things.

 

[EmseB]

The dress code is based on who's manning the door. It's completely unwritten. Thus what passes for weeks may suddenly be disallowed. You could work there for a year, think you've got it down, and then suddenly be barred. And because it's less clear for women than men, I think it's much more likely to happen to a woman. A man who approached the door in birks who had worked on the Hill for a year would know he wasn't getting in. A woman who had gone in three times in that exact, tailored, professional looking dress might suddenly be barred. I think that's the issue.

 

But the bare arms thing has been in place for 10+ years, right? Or did I read that wrong somewhere?

Edited July 17, 2017 by EmseB

[Farrar]

But the bare arms thing has been in place for 10+ years, right? Or did I read that wrong somewhere?

 

There is no policy about bare arms. There is no clearly delineated policy at all beyond the whole "professional" thing. Several times women have worn bare arms, though it has generally been the rule. But again, it's an unwritten rule. And, again, unevenly enforced.

[Farrar]

Kate Middleton rewears several of her frocks. People are kind of shocked, but then opinion settles to "that's cool."

 

I think that's just a near apples to oranges comparison. She's seen as a fashion trendsetter, she's not an elected official, she's younger and relies on her image a lot more than higher up politicians who are usually older... all these things are different from being a politician. And she doesn't have a small set of clothes she's wearing all the time. She wears the same outfit for big events occasionally. For a prominent female politician, I think this is already routine behavior. I mean, I'm guessing Susan Collins and Claire McCaskill (or pick two female senators of your own choice) rewear things and no one bats an eye. It's the idea that one of them could get away with having half a dozen outfits - something that was suggested that women can do "just like men" that I'm objecting to. I don't think they could. I think people would mock them. I also think it would be logistically more difficult since men can wear a suit to a speech, a prayer breakfast, a K Street lunch, a speech on the floor, and an evening fundraiser. But for women, I think the same suit may feel out of place at many evening events. And even if it would be "okay" - a suit is a generally acceptable thing that doesn't convey anything in particular whereas women are expected to have a more diverse wardrobe that includes dresses, skirt suits, pant suits, etc.

 

And, in response to a few other people, yes, if you are someone outside the public eye, not in sales where you see the same clients constantly, then you can probably not only rewear things sometimes, but can have a pretty small set of mix and match items successfully.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Farrar

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

But you can't say she was ever inappropriately dressed, and she wouldn't have been denied admission anywhere because of her attire.

 

Yes, that's my point. She was never inappropriately dressed. Her arms were covered, and she wore full suits. And she was mocked for it. So women can't win. Try to look "feminine" and wear what the industry (and the country at large) has decided are the current professional styles and you're inappropriate. Try to do what men do and wear simple suits that completely cover you and don't highlight your "assets" and you're mannish and drab. 

[Pam in CT]

I wear sleeveless sheaths all the time personally, but I agree that it's not a particularly big deal to carry a jacket to throw on top when called for (either "too much A/C" or "a room where there's a defined code").  And I also agree that Congress is a place that warrants a degree of professionalism, not cargo shorts and Birks for example.

 

For me it's the "unwritten" code bit that is troubling.  *Plenty* of professional women in government in WDC wear tailored sleeveless dresses all the time, including, recently, both Kellyanne Conway and Ivanka Trump, for both of whom the sleeveless sheath is something of a signature look.  And both of whom present professionally.

 

If there's a code, spell it out.  To say "dress professionally" and thereafter to leave it to the gatekeeper to make one-off assessments about who's in compliance and who's not is to invite arbitrary and unequal treatment.  And *that* IS a problem.

[SparklyUnicorn]

No.  They are a decent choice for a surgeon because they are easily cleaned/sterilized.

 

Also, surgeons wear scrubs.  In a typical non-medical setting, scrubs would be *far* from professional.

 

I've seen everyone in a medical setting wearing scrubs.  Front desk people, back office people, etc.  People who don't touch anyone ever.  Maybe it's the "uniform" of the place.  Or they can get away with it.  No clue.  It's not a big deal though. 

[Reefgazer]

She was mocked because she was a controversial figure, not because of her clothes; the clothes were just an excuse to mock.  She ignored the mocking and carried on, which is what I would expect a professional woman to do. 

Yes, that's my point. She was never inappropriately dressed. Her arms were covered, and she wore full suits. And she was mocked for it. So women can't win. Try to look "feminine" and wear what the industry (and the country at large) has decided are the current professional styles and you're inappropriate. Try to do what men do and wear simple suits that completely cover you and don't highlight your "assets" and you're mannish and drab. 

 

[Reefgazer]

Slightly off topic, but related....I am no stranger to lab coats, as I worked in a lab for years and wore them to protect my clothing from chemicals, blood, etc...  I now live in a walkable neighborhood with a medical school nearby and see medical professionals and students wearing their lab coats home, taking afternoon walks, etc... in their lab coats.  It annoys me to no end because I know the purpose of a lab coat is to protect clothing from bodily fluids and chemicals, and by taking your lab coat home with you, you are passing the fluids around to your family and neighbors.  They should not be removed from the lab, should be laundered professionally within the institution, and some hospital administrator ought to crack down on that practice.

I've seen everyone in a medical setting wearing scrubs.  Front desk people, back office people, etc.  People who don't touch anyone ever.  Maybe it's the "uniform" of the place.  Or they can get away with it.  No clue.  It's not a big deal though. 

 

[EmseB]

There is no policy about bare arms. There is no clearly delineated policy at all beyond the whole "professional" thing. Several times women have worn bare arms, though it has generally been the rule. But again, it's an unwritten rule. And, again, unevenly enforced.

 

Then something I read was incorrect.  I do not support a randomly enforced haphazard policy - if you're going to have a dress code, have a specific dress code - but I also can't see how all of a sudden it's a big huge deal and reflective of some inherent misogyny having to do with women not being able to show their arms (which is how the story has been framed in several places, including a photo of a bunch of women standing sleeveless in front of the capitol after the "repeal" of the unwritten rule). I mean, yay for their arms and all, but I also can't see the big deal about putting on a blazer or jacket over attire that is otherwise appropriate for work. That's how men have operated for decades in professional workplaces.

 

Is there now a specific written policy now that allows for some things and disallows others and mandates others?  Or is it still all unwritten and unevenly enforced?

[Daria]

Then something I read was incorrect.  I do not support a randomly enforced haphazard policy - if you're going to have a dress code, have a specific dress code - but I also can't see how all of a sudden it's a big huge deal and reflective of some inherent misogyny having to do with women not being able to show their arms (which is how the story has been framed in several places, including a photo of a bunch of women standing sleeveless in front of the capitol after the "repeal" of the unwritten rule). I mean, yay for their arms and all, but I also can't see the big deal about putting on a blazer or jacket over attire that is otherwise appropriate for work. That's how men have operated for decades in professional workplaces.

 

Is there now a specific written policy now that allows for some things and disallows others and mandates others?  Or is it still all unwritten and unevenly enforced?

 

The rule is unwritten and has always simply stated that dress must be professional.    It has also always been unevenly enforced.  It appears that the Speaker is the one who decides how or whether it will be enforced, and the security guards are the ones who enforce it.  It was enforced, at least some of the time, under Nancy Pelosi, but doesn't appear to have been enforced under John Boehner.  It has only been enforced recently under Paul Ryan, and without any kind of warning.  

 

Recently, this has lead to women arriving at the Capitol to do a job, wearing clothing they've worn before or that is similar to clothing that other people worn before, and being turned away and prevented from doing their work, while men who arrived were allowed to work.  

[Ravin]

I think it's pretty simple. The modern women's professional dress is generally made to be paired with a jacket. They should have the jacket on in the same circumstances men should have their suit jacket on. If men are allowed in the speaker's lobby in shirt sleeves, women should be allowed there in sleeveless dresses. If men must wear suit jackets, women should also be expected to wear suit jackets, unless they are wearing something equivalent with sleeves not meant to be paired with a separate jacket.

 

The open vs. closed toe thing, on the other hand, is kind of stupid. Sandals are perhaps less formal, but I can think of plenty of examples of women's pumps that have an open toe that aren't necessarily less formal/dressy/appropriate. Again, there is so much more variety in women's shoes vs. men's, it should perhaps not be policed too closely, because who really cares if a few manicured toenails are visible? 

[EmseB]

The rule is unwritten and has always simply stated that dress must be professional.    It has also always been unevenly enforced.  It appears that the Speaker is the one who decides how or whether it will be enforced, and the security guards are the ones who enforce it.  It was enforced, at least some of the time, under Nancy Pelosi, but doesn't appear to have been enforced under John Boehner.  It has only been enforced recently under Paul Ryan, and without any kind of warning.  

 

Recently, this has lead to women arriving at the Capitol to do a job, wearing clothing they've worn before or that is similar to clothing that other people worn before, and being turned away and prevented from doing their work, while men who arrived were allowed to work.  

 

Right, laxity in enforcement is a problem because it creates ambiguity, even among those enforcing the rules. And if the rules are ambiguous themselves, then that is an even bigger problem.

 

However, if knew the rule was X, even if it was haphazardly enforced I'd probably err on the side of caution so that there would be no chance of me being unable to do my job. My "warning" would be that it had been enforced in the past, so I would not know when it might be enforced again. If I'm worried about being able to do my job, this seems like the most responsible course of action to take. Then again, like I said, I find it absolutely no big deal to put on a suit jacket with professional attire in a setting like that.

Edited July 17, 2017 by EmseB

[Daria]

Right, laxity in enforcement is a problem because it creates ambiguity, even among those enforcing the rules. And if the rules are ambiguous themselves, then that is an even bigger problem.

 

However, if knew the rule was X, even if it was haphazardly enforced I'd probably err on the side of caution so that there would be no chance of me being unable to do my job. My "warning" would be that it had been enforced in the past, so I would not know when it might be enforced again. If I'm worried about being able to do my job, this seems like the most responsible course of action to take. Then again, like I said, I find it absolutely no big deal to put on a suit jacket with professional attire in a setting like that.

 

Everything I read indicates that this unwritten rule was last enforced under Pelosi, who left office in 2011.  Would you really carry something around with you to all your appointments for 6 years in case you needed to go to the Capitol, and they suddenly enforced an unwritten rule again?

[Mom-ninja.]

If a woman made herself a uniform of just a handful of suits, she'd get hammered for her poor style. I simply cannot imagine a woman getting away with being in the public eye with half a dozen suits, much less a single one like the anchorman in the video above. And it wouldn't be appropriate for some evening events, where men could wear their same suits but women are expected to be in dresses.

 

If the women's dress code needs to be more encompassing, it's because part of dressing professionally for women is having more variety.

 

Why is it that women are targeted for consumerism?  

 

Well, there's the solution. Maybe everyone should wear robes on the floor of the House or Senate.

Get back to the roots of democracy...togas. :)

[SparklyUnicorn]

Slightly off topic, but related....I am no stranger to lab coats, as I worked in a lab for years and wore them to protect my clothing from chemicals, blood, etc...  I now live in a walkable neighborhood with a medical school nearby and see medical professionals and students wearing their lab coats home, taking afternoon walks, etc... in their lab coats.  It annoys me to no end because I know the purpose of a lab coat is to protect clothing from bodily fluids and chemicals, and by taking your lab coat home with you, you are passing the fluids around to your family and neighbors.  They should not be removed from the lab, should be laundered professionally within the institution, and some hospital administrator ought to crack down on that practice.

 

I see this too.  Squicks me out. 

 

Growing up I had a good friend and her mother was a nurse.  She'd often come home with the uniform on, fall asleep with it on, go back to work the next day with it on.  I mean what the....

 

I just try not to overthink this stuff, but just...ewww.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Why is it that women are targeted for consumerism?  

 

I don't get this either.

 

I had one job where I wore suits.  I owned 2 suits and wore them over and over.  I didn't see the point in owning more than that.  I guess I am not a real woman.