https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-46425950
A female member of Australia's Parliament is protesting a rule preventing her from sleeveless outfits showing her bare arms or shoulders. This has been called sexist by her supporters on social media.
This rule also applies to men. Is this really sexist?
@vivify saidWell, if it applies to men and women... uh, it can’t really be sexist...
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-46425950
A female member of Australia's Parliament is protesting a rule preventing her from sleeveless outfits showing her bare arms or shoulders. This has been called sexist by her supporters on social media.
This rule also applies to men. Is this really sexist?
@shavixmir saidI don't have a really strong opinion about this, but I suppose one could argue that more women's clothing is sleeveless and so a "must be sleeved" rule effectively discriminates against women.
Well, if it applies to men and women... uh, it can’t really be sexist...
@deepthought saidBut women's clothing is more often sleeveless due to a sexist society.
I don't have a really strong opinion about this, but I suppose one could argue that more women's clothing is sleeveless and so a "must be sleeved" rule effectively discriminates against women.
Forbidding sleeveless tops is protecting women from the fashion nazis.
But seriously.
A ban on bras would be sexist.
A ban on skirts would not.
Anyone who misses that difference is a dinosaur.
@wolfgang59 saidSo women must be inconvenienced to avoid sexism?
But women's clothing is more often sleeveless due to a sexist society.
Forbidding sleeveless tops is protecting women from the fashion nazis.
But seriously.
A ban on bras would be sexist.
A ban on skirts would not.
Anyone who misses that difference is a dinosaur.
@deepthought saidIt is your prerogative to come to stupid illogical conclusions.
So women must be inconvenienced to avoid sexism?
But please don't use question marks unless you are asking a question.
@wolfgang59 saidIt was a rhetorical question, so the question mark was a syntactic necessity.
It is your prerogative to come to stupid illogical conclusions.
But please don't use question marks unless you are asking a question.
@deepthought saidAgreed. Someone would do something just to make the point. 😀
A ban on trousers in the Australian Parliament would definitely have more comedy value than one on skirts.
Seriously, why do women have to worry about dress codes anyway? In the corporate world here the norm is a businesslike jacket-skirt or jacket-pants combination looking very much like what corporate men wear. The Parliament is not a place for nose-rings, see-through tops or budgie smugglers, it's a workplace.
Dressing formally or semi-formally is good because it shows you care about looking professional.
I understand how different occupations have different standards...
But if you are literally the elected representative of hundreds of thousands or millions of people, and you are there to represent their interests when deciding policies that affect the course of the nation, you need to look like it's an important day every single time you go out there.
It's about showing respect to your constituents by respecting the gravitas of the office and the position.
