"Suits, therefore, homogenize men’s bodies, making variations of weight, even height, less noticeable, focusing attention on the face. Men’s suits say 'we are heads, not bodies.'... Women are still the adorned, visible, bodily sex whose physicality gets staged by clothes. Accordingly, women’s fashion — including even business attire — requires a near-infinity of daily micro-decisions from head to toe.... Leisure wear for women risks depriving them of gravitas, making them look 'off duty,' and hence outside the space of authority.... [W]omen’s dignity and authority remain, alas, more socially precarious than men’s — harder to construct sartorially and far easier to lose. Taking away the dress code might exacerbate this inequity. What’s more, formal business attire offers some of the most gender-neutral fashion options, thereby enhancing sartorial equity for nonbinary individuals...."
I understand that to mean that John Fetterman's dressing in a sweatshirt and shorts is an exercise of male privilege.
पोस्ट्स
६५ टिप्पण्या:
It's a clean sweatshirt, which means his wife participates in his choices.
Vegetable Privilege
"I understand that to mean that John Fetterman's dressing in a sweatshirt and shorts is an exercise of male privilege."
Why this need to tar all men? Fetterman is an inconsiderate slob. That's on him. I reject any responsibility for it.
Democrats have abandoned history, morality and decency. What's the big deal about a dress code?
I understand that to mean that John Fetterman's dressing in a sweatshirt and shorts is an exercise of male privilege.
I would say 'surly teenage boy privilege', but that's just me.
So when one of the Republicans yelling loudest about “decorum” showed up on the House floor to display huge posters showing the private parts and sexual acts of a private citizen, was she actually making her recommendations for updating the dress code?
The masculine gender edges of the male sex vs feminine gender curves of the female sex and social sensibilities. Equal in rights and complementary in Nature.
It's kind of hilarious that women's fashion is decided about 95% by gay men.
If I were a young lad starting out in business I would pick women's fashion or Broadway musicals.
So many hot women and so few heterosexual men.
Like shooting fish in a barrel : )
I like the way she writes here. Is the obligatory Trump reference buried in a later ‘graf? Or did she do the Voldemort thing like Biden and his staff do and make a sly Trump dig? This clearly written excerpt is puzzling!
>I understand that to mean that John Fetterman's dressing in a sweatshirt and shorts is an exercise of male privilege.<
Yeah, definitely a male thing - all the guys are doing it...
It is a genderless exercise of idiot give-a-shit slob privilege.
"Allowing senators to wear what they please on the Senate floor may seem like liberation, but abandoning the dress code could wind up symbolizing the failure to achieve consensus"
Post-60s liberation always symbolized the lack of "consensus" and undermined the need for shared norms, as old school battles over miniskirts illustrate.
I guess suits make men "easily readable," but they don't necessarily draw the gaze to the face only, do they? Isn't fussing over fashion and wardrobe an example of female privilege? (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
A man Fetterman's size probably can't find a suit off the rack, and he doesn't have the insouciance to wear a bespoke suit. He relies on his street slob persona, which is inappropriate. Hell, yeah, he's been granted permission to flex his privilege. Either he's a grown-up who can adapt to the requirements of his job or he should retire.
I worked in semiconductor cleanroom factories for over a decade. These "fabs" require workers to wear protective clothing from head to toe, "cleanroom suits" to prevent our bodies from shedding clothing particles and skin particles that can contaminate the machinery and semiconductor chips being manufactured. We were all white blobs with arms and legs, our faces covered with safety glasses and breath masks.
I worked with people for years, getting to know them well, and I never saw their faces, because operators started shift at 6 and us engineers at 7:30. I'd hear a familiar voice sometimes in the hallways and not know who it came from.
Two facts pertinent to the post arise from this experience. First, of the 1500 people who worked in that factory, about half male, half female, there were exactly 2 who looked "good" in their cleanroom garb. Very nice female figures, despite lack of any detail at all other than their silhouette. All other women and all the men wearing the unflattering garb looked sorta like saggy white dough blobs, despite being perfectly normal in body shape and looks. Second, it was impossible to tell the race of most people without closely inspecting their eyes through the safety glasses, the only skin visible in the fab.
These two facts led to this being the most diverse yet equitable workplace I have ever experienced. The way you get to fairness is indeed by being color blind to race, unconscious of sex, and to do work based on competence and reward work on merit.
Take from this what lesson you will. I say women should wear pantsuits with ties at corporate jobs. And Fetterman? Who cares!
I bow down to the NYT and its column-bot. Which responded heroically to the request, “Produce a column with the highest conceivable concentration of utter bullshit.”
"Suits, therefore, homogenize men’s bodies, making variations of weight, even height, less noticeable, focusing attention on the face. Men’s suits say 'we are heads, not bodies.'
Robert Mapplethorp's photo "Man in Polyester Suit" not withstanding.
Andy Rooney said it most simply and best. “I like there to be some question where the clothes stop and I begin.”
But if you’re talking privilege in dress codes, the privilege is all women’s. I’ve never seen a dress code that didn’t allow for much more flexibility and choice for women than for men.
It does sound kind of socially-constructed.
Ah, yes. In the NYT privilege must always be “white privilege,” or “male privilege” or “cisgender privilege.” There is no such thing any longer as the privilege of rank, even though the Senate has made it absolutely clear this is about the privilege of rank. Senators may wear whatever they like. The staff must sweat in ties and pantyhose no matter how hot and humid it gets in DC.
The problem with the USA is we are ruled by a corrupt, selfish, often alien, power elite. But people stil respect them. Old habits die hard. This isn't a Senate full of Bob tafts and JFKs.
These people are killer clowns in hock to the Big Donors. Or greedy Multi-millionaries more concerned about the Donbass then Detroit. The West bank not East Palastine.
So now they just want to dress the part. I say "bring in the clowns". Lets see Schumer and Mitch in shorts and a t-shirt. Tennis shoes and black socks. Maybe it allow some people to recognized the truth.
John Fetterman's dressing in a sweatshirt and shorts is an exercise of RICH Kid's privilege.
DOES anyone think a person that was brought up poor would dress like that?
Fetteredman doesn't just wear shorts (SHORTS!!!) while working.. He wore them while Presiding
That is called: DISRESPECT
Seriously.. If Mayra Flores was a Senator.. And SHE got her 1st chance to Preside.. Do you think she'd wear sweat pants? And i'm NOT saying that she'd dress up 'cause she's a woman.. I'm saying she'd dress up because she'd be HONORED to
To be Fair.... What Sen Fetteredman should be wearing is a hospital gown
Free the moob!
Not a lot of SEC fans here, but there's no better argument for the suit or sports coat than Sam Pittman at Arkansas. I will spare you the image.
"sartorial equity for nonbinary individuals"
Found under the dictionary examples for the definition of "first-world problems."
When I worked in a place that had a casual Friday back in the 70's, the person who loathed it most was a young male Black accountant.
She's acknowledging that women have an advantage in a wider set of socially acceptable clothing, and she doesn't want to lose that.
The idea that non-binary individuals benefit from being required to wear a suit is absurdly regressive.
Suits, ties, shoes, etc together are a uniform. One of the reasons that most women shouldn’t buy their husbands dress ware is that most of them miss the cues. Color, cut, and texture of the suit is important. Ties say something, as do shirts and esp shoes. The book “Dress for Success” suggests that men not wear the clothes that most of their wives or GFs pick out for them, because they tend to dress them for other women, and not for men. Last time I was on the Hill, a decade ago, most all of male Congress members still dressed as successful upper middle class businessmen or attorneys.
If you want to really want to see the male uniform versus female plumage, go to a formal. The men are mostly dressed in black tuxes, with some variation in vests and ties, but mostly a sea of black, while the women glitter in all their colors. It has been suggested that the purpose of this male uniform is to show off the women.
Abandoning the dress code in the case of Fetterman is a classic case of tyranny by the minority. I don’t think it has anything to do with male privilege. It was, after all, Majority Leader Schumer’s decision, cajoled by Fetterman’s rebellious slob style. Why he would want Fetterman’s presence on the floor regardless of dress is beyond me. He needs rehab and rehaberdashery.
He probably can’t button his shits or tie a tie without help. Plus he gets to say fuck you to all. In the manner of Zuckerberg et al.
I think every Republican Senator should show up similarly or more outrageously attired. Plus bring takeout to eat at their desks.
I think John Fetterman(D) is the perfect face and body --- of the modern Democrat party.
He's one giant walking middle finger to the US population.
You rarely saw WI Senate Candidate Mandela Barnes in a suit, and I thought it made him lack gravitas. And he lost (to Ron Johnson!)
Oh, Fetterman could find something that fits at the big and tall shop if he tried. I am only somewhat big and tall, and the racks are full of clothes made for much larger men than me.
But then, when you're out to wreck the country, why mess up nice clothes?
Dress code relaxed in senate to support a slob of a man; women hardest hit.
Althouse writes, "I understand that to mean that John Fetterman's dressing in a sweatshirt and shorts is an exercise of male privilege."
Althouse is correct, and that framing of the issue reveals Rhonda Garelick to be fundamentally unserious about the deleterious consequences of Schumer's trashing of the Senatorial dress code. The problem of dress and outward display of due respect for vital and enduring institutions is ancient and important. For instance, take the word candidate. Have you ever considered its etymology? It descends from the Latin candidus which means bright white, clear, or unmarked. Candidus was used to describe the white togas a candidate for a magistracy was required to wear when appearing before the Assembly. Whether standing for the lofty office of consul or a lowly quaestorship the office-seeker was required to hide his status and wealth behind bleached wool without costly dyes, adornments, or badges of rank. The candidate was to be judged on his words and deeds alone, not his wealth. Attired in the plainest of garments he was unlikely to communicate unspoken offers of rewards or threats of revenge in payment for the voters' support or rejection.
The French Republic under the Directory prescribed identical robes and caps for its senators for similar reasons. Attire is subliminal communication that can unify a group of individuals or amplify their differences. Deliberative bodies work better without such amplification.
The Wilhelmine Reichstag had a dress code, but the reformed Weimar Reichstag did not, the founding deputies regarded such rule to be too aristocratic for the new egalitarian German republic. The burgeoning National Socialists exploited that absence of rules years before Hitler's chancellorship to intimidate the opposition by wearing their SA uniforms and daggers in the chamber itself while votes were being cast. The implied threats worked to advance the Nazi program even when the Nazis were a small minority in the parliament.
The important thing about menswear is that no one is supposed to notice you're wearing the same clothes over and over, hence similar styles and non-descript colors. Womenswear is burdened by the opposite--if you look distinctive, and you must, you can't wear it again and again.
"You rarely saw WI Senate Candidate Mandela Barnes in a suit, and I thought it made him lack gravitas. And he lost (to Ron Johnson!)"
I think Ron Johnson has been a pretty good Senator.
Fetterman reminds me of someone from the movie Idiocracy, which was supposed to be a cautionary tale, not a how-to guide.
It's a clothesdemic. Potato sacks for everyone. Stat!
Michael said…
“He probably can’t button his shits…”
LOL! Thanks for the typo.
Role and ability confer authority, far more than appearance does. Still, there is a kernel of truth in how clothes make the man or the woman.
No respect... know what I mean?
Yeah, maybe they don't make shirts in his size with Velcro closures.
Clip on ties, on the other hand...
Althouse:
Writes Rhonda Garelick, in "What We Lose When We Loosen Dress Codes/Allowing senators to wear what they please on the Senate floor may seem like liberation, but abandoning the dress code could wind up symbolizing the failure to achieve consensus" (NYT).
I understand that to mean that John Fetterman's dressing in a sweatshirt and shorts is an exercise of male privilege.
*** \
Not a surprise, but how? Understanding she used 'senators' as a non-gendered noun.
The only senators with fashion privilege are female.
The dress code issue is a lovely way to distract from what a complete failure Fetterman is. If he's such a strong character, he should just stand up and insist that this, the hoodie and shorts, is his personal brand. So then why is Chuck Schumer running interference for him? How come Big John can't speak for himself and defend his case?
Oh, that's right, I forgot. Big John can't string a sentence together. Big John couldn't use a MacDonald's Drive Thru to place a Kids Meal order, that's how bad his ability to communicate is. Whatever combination of drugs, personal abuse, ignoring skyrocketing blood pressure and other health issues for years, this is the result. At the UAW strike last week, showing his wardrobe solidarity with the workers he has no other connection to, Big John sputtered out a word salad of gibberish that was completely incoherent, but contained 'How Many Yachts' salted in there, in the middle.
Lets steer the conversation back to what Big John actually has accomplished during his signature freshman term, in dorm wear. Tell us, John. Let's debate on the merits.
“My father just died” - Shiv Roy
Turning a perceived “disadvantage” into an advantage. We might’ve the world’s best at it.
the social is political… and viceversa
When personal integrity is not as important, because it takes value judgement, something fraught with risk, symbolism emerges strong. That’s kind of reason why certain symbols like the swastika won’t die. We have become captives to symbolism.
I suppose there was a time when a Member of Parliament, who was supposed to appear in white tie and tails (or some such) to address his fellow MPs (almost always "fellows") but didn't on one occasion. The member would apologize and ask the Body to excuse his failure to follow such rules. I am sure the Congress of the USA is able to deal with that kind of situation.
But in our Congress, whatever your gender, you should dress appropriately. Of course, there may be excuses. If Sen./Rep. so-and-so shows up for a vote in sweaty tennis togs, he/she would apologize, and everyone would understand.
The problem with Fetterman is that he has gone far, FAR beyond that. He demands special rules for him forever. If he isn't able to comply with the rules that apply to other senators he should resign. Has he asked for a temporary exception from the rules? Or is he claiming that the rules don't apply to him?
“[Fetterman] probably can’t button his shits…”
But he wants to.
Caligula sent his horse to the Senate to demonstrate his authority: a power play.
Pennsylvania, stupid Pennsylvania, sent just the horse’s hind end.
The problem with Fetterman is that he has gone far, FAR beyond that. He demands special rules for him forever. If he isn't able to comply with the rules that apply to other senators he should resign. Has he asked for a temporary exception from the rules? Or is he claiming that the rules don't apply to him?
The Democratic leadership has changed the rules for him...but only for Senators, guests and staff still have to dress appropriately.
I feel as little sympathy for Fetterman here. I'm pretty sure that when he wears a suit he looks like Peter Boyle singing "Putting on the Ritz".
Breezy said...
Why he would want Fetterman’s presence on the floor regardless of dress is beyond me.
51-49 makes Fetteredman's presence PRETTY necessary. ESPECIALLY considering Diane Feinstein
It displays a lack of respect for the institution, the people around him- those he works with and those who work for him and other Senators. It shows a complete lack of respect for the history of the place, and for the solemn and serious job that he so coveted. He's making a mockery of it. But why not? He and his party made a mockery of the entire election. He's a rutabaga dressed as a slovenly 16 year old man/boy, thinking he's sticking it to the man- or someone- by not wearing his suit to work. But the only thing he's showing to the world is that he's exactly the piece of shit we saw in him when he was playing Mayor of the broken town of Braddock, PA, or the Lt. Governor of the broken State of PA.
Male privilege? More likely Fetterman privilege. This man should never have held public office before his medical misfortune, being a mediocrity at best, and now in his reduced state he obviously cannot carry out the necessary duties, but yet the Democrats have decided that he cannot be moved.
Maybe next election they can replace him with a mannequin.
A traditional suit, properly cut, is as comfortable as wearing a pair of pajamas.
I understand that to mean that John Fetterman's dressing in a sweatshirt and shorts is an exercise of male privilege.
Nope. It’s Lefty privilege. Lefties like to dress to stick a finger on people’s eyes.
The PGA has a stricter dress code for both the participants and spectators to its sanctioned tournaments than the US Senate currently has for its floor and committee rooms. Humiliation awaits Schumer and Fetterman. The Senate as a whole votes on its rules. The Majority Leader does not possess the power of the Speaker of the House, and can not act unilaterally. Opposition to Schumer's move to accommodate Fetterman's sloth and immaturity is bipartisan. So expect Schumer to walk back the rule change to avoid a vote on the dress code by the full Senate.
Fetterman's appearance and attire are an exercise in bad taste in every sense. He comes from a well-off Bucks County family and has never had a real job--he is the idiot son kept on the payroll so that he avoids destitution. He knows little, and his stroke has incapacitated him further. Braddock, PA? The place is on a long, downhill slide, and Fetterman did nothing to arrest it. He couldn't. He dresses like a child. He can't talk, but if he could, he has nothing to say. And yet, he is Sen. Fetterman.
That Dr. Oz could not beat Fetterman says a lot about PA voters. Oz won the GOP primary, but never laid to rest his tenuous contact with PA, something that has never troubled PA's neighbors in New York (Sen RFK? Sen. Hillary?). Oz's loss with Trump support also says a lot about Trump.
If the Republicans knew how to win a political battle and could muster any political will, they would find a way to get the cameras on John Fetterman and leave them there.
In fact, I recall one lefty, blogging on this blog, who sixty or so years later still celebrates how she stuck it to her school’s dress code by wearing micro-mini skirts to class, showing off her panties to the boys. Lefty privilege.
Haven’t read the comments yet, I’m sure it’s already been said, but…
Weren’t dress codes sexist and misogynistic because reasons. And now, the senate may be doing away with it for ONE (Male) senator - because of health issues. But the response is that it’ll make things harder for women? Just when they were starting to break through too I guess.
So again, women and minorities hardest hit?
Perhaps we can blame climate change too…
Bruce Hayden has got it right. A man's suit is a uniform and that makes it easy in the mourning. The only choice is shirt and tie, maybe shoes. If you are lucky enough to find a good chaulk and alteration person, it's like wearing pajamas to work.
Bought a 14-cup Cuisinart from Dayton's for my sister as a wedding gift. She opened the box, and a smaller model was inside. I went back to the mall because I needed something else from Sears so I was dressed like a blue-collar worker that day. Since I was already at the mall, I stopped into Dayton's without the item in hand and started to explain to the salespeople what had happened and if that had ever happened before. They took one look at me and immediately assumed I was scamming them. I got the sense they were about to call security, so I told them I'd come back.
About two weeks later, my sister gave me back the Cuisinart so I could return it, only this time, I showed up at Dayton's in my actual work clothes -- a black Perry Ellis pinstriped suit and power-tie with matching pocket-square. Not recognizing me from my previous visit two weeks earlier, they fawned all over me and quickly corrected things. Funny how that works.
@FMWYW--
Maybe the critical variable wasn't dress, but not having the item with you.
Festerman has no regard for his colleagues. Maybe we shouldn't either.
"Nothin suits me like a suit." - Barney Stinson
Youtube it.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा