General Politics Thread

Well, that's not something one sees everyday when logging back in to this site...

Anyway, on De Marquis' earlier question on if formal wear being gendered is good or bad, it is good to realize that a lot of these old conventions and traditions presume a gender binary. Since gender, well, isn't, the result is they don't actually leave room for non-binary people, or any kind of deviation from gender norms. So, my personal view is that its a bad thing.

Not bad so much as outdated.

What's bad is forcing people to wear gendered formal wear they don't want to wear because it's not their gender.

I mean, even still one could go further and argue that gendered formal wear in general still forces people to conform to gender presentations that they might not feel is right. Like, to pick an example that pops into the news every so often, guys should be able to wear skirts if they so choose.

Remove those pressures, it will be easier to normalize gender-nonconformity in general. It would also help dismantle the systems that attempt to force a binary view on gender onto a world that doesn't work like that. I mean, what really is the point of having binary-gendered formal wear, when we could remove the restrictions based on gender and allow people to choose the formal wear that is right for them? As a neat bonus, it would allow Trans/non-binary people and those questioning their gender identity to experiment with gender expression more openly without potentially outing themselves.^note Sorry if this is incoherent, I need to get some rest for now...

The resulting discussion is exactly why I picked that example. It's classist and it's heteronormative and above all even if it wasn't, it's still coercive.

And yet people defend it, even expect it, because it's been traditional so long it's become normalised.

Nothing wrong with requiring a dress code for professionals. Only the gender restrictive part is wrong.

That's your opinion, you're allowed to have that opinion. Kinda disappointed you present it as a fact that's set in stone rather than something that can be discussed, though.

Going “that is just your opinion” when I never said it as a fact in the first place is pretty rude of you.

Edited by M84 on Aug 24th 2019 at 7:04:38 PM

One thing I think people might be missing here is that clothes convey a message about the person wearing them. Even if the traditional business suit was eliminated, even if traditional gender norms for clothing were eliminated, people in positions of power would still want to wear something that projected professionalism.

It’s the uniform effect, and business wear is in essence a uniform.

Edited by archonspeaks on Aug 24th 2019 at 4:27:47 AM

Precisely.

Magistrates wield immense power when in office — they shouldn't look like ordinary people when they mantle such authority. They should be attired in such a way that this is reflected. Whether that means the traditional business suit, specific ethnic or cultural garb, a goddamned toga, I don't really care, but people should, I believe, dress in a way that reflects the business of the state.

Now I'm imagining Modern World.Leaders wearing togas.

That's a hilarious mental picture.

Toga's would be pretty awesome not gonna lie.

And America already has a Rome fetish so it would make sense.

.*Quickly looks up what women wore in Ancient Rome*

Well, this just leaves us with yet another gendered dress code. I think I could warm up to wearing a Stola (Maybe? Wikipedia says that's for married women only, but it doesn't say what unmarried women are supposed to wear, so who knows?) with time, but I think I'd prefer the fashions of the last bunch of decades myself... (^_^;;

x3: Yeah, championing hierarchies as a reason for formal wear is probably counter-productive, considering how this conversation started...

Edited by AzurePaladin on Aug 24th 2019 at 2:35:47 PM

Alright then I'll bite. Please convince me.

Why is it ok to require a dress code to show 'professionalism'?

What's the added value of forcing people to dress a certain way as some kind of purity test?

Which data or, hell, anecdotal evidence, do you have that how someone dresses is actually a reliable indicator of their commitment or ability to perform their job?

Edited by Robrecht on Aug 24th 2019 at 4:19:21 PM

You’re halfway there.

The whole point of a uniform or standardized clothing is that it’s an indicator of someone’s abilities or characteristics.

I’ll use an easy example: when you see someone wearing a police uniform, what assumptions do you make about them? About how they might act or what they might be like?

Well, to be fair, in the case of a uniform for police, you're talking a very specific appearance for a specific purpose. A police uniform's primary job is to tell everyone that the person is a police officer.

To answer Robretch's question, though: When I am feeling lazy, I do not pay attention to what I'm wearing and don't wear especially formal clothing. When I am feeling even a little ambitious, I typically dress in a way that's semi-formula. Though to be fair, I'm probably an outlier here-I'm a bit of a Cloud Cuckoolander who has a trademark quirk of dressing somewhat too formally. It started because I find blue denim jeans too rough so I began wearing dressy-pants made of softer fabric, then I started hanging around my mom's fancy tea shop and she suggested I dress nicely for it. It just sort of stuck since then.

Also, you have to keep in mind that the issue the "dress code" is built around is kind of unavoidable. Politicians dress to play with a person's subconscious prejudices. If a politician is dressed casually, it means they want you to think of them as a member of the lower economic class.

In fact, come to think of it, I'm not entirely sure there is a dress code per se. It's not uncommon for a politician to wear casual clothing, and people usually like it when they do. Indeed, most of the backlash I've seen toward it is that it's manipulative on their part.

Edited by Protagonist506 on Aug 24th 2019 at 8:06:11 AM

Exactly!

A uniform’s purpose is to give a quick outward impression of the person wearing it. The same is true of all clothes, really. A business suit tells people who see you something about you. The troper I was replying to was close, but it’s not a matter of clothes proving something but rather clothes showing something.

Now, a gendered dress standard is something that should be done away with. The concept of a dress standard as a whole though, not so much. I mean, I’m all for eliminating actual rules on what you can wear, but I’d imagine even without outlined rules basically all politicians would wear “professional” attire, because they’re trying to project a certain image.

Edited by archonspeaks on Aug 24th 2019 at 8:13:52 AM

The purpose of formal wear as a dress code for the professional classes is to act as a symbolic gesture of assurance that the person, who holds a position of power in society (a doctor, teacher, lawyer, or what have you) will nevertheless act in accordance with society's norms regarding that position. It's a purely symbolic gesture of course, what one wears can't stop someone from abusing their position for personal gain, but ordinary human beings want their symbolic gestures of reassurance (that's why standard conversational greetings between strangers are so important). People just feel more comfortable when in the presence of someone who might have positional power over them if they dress in what is considered a conventional way.

I suppose it's an interesting question whether and whom gendered dress codes are meant to assure.

Also, suit are practical because it denote power without Being gaudy and have More or less stay the same, rather than Being trendy.

Yeah, whenever a politician dresses "casual" in public appearances, it's almost always a calculated move.

Side note but, sans ~Tropers/raziel365 ...we really don't have non American (as USA) Right Wingers?

Maybe is me reacting at global trends rightfully or maybe is just my paranoia taking out the best of me. But...it feels weird living in the only region with Left Wing populism yet all the news being about Right Wing populism.

It's weird because Hispanoamerica is such a weird region where basically, everyone has a chance. From Progressives with hilariously bad economic programs to outright Far Right.

Or to put in another way. I've become so used to discuss Right Wing Evils that I tend to downplay present Left Wing issues by saying "Hey, the Right could be worse".

My most shameful moment was when I worried "How bad would be the Right Wing Backlash after Venezuela manages to overcome Maduro?" rather than, well, actually worrying about their current collapse. Yikes.

It doesn't help we also have our Culture Wars that aren't different from the American ones, and the Left do have reason regarding Social Issues...as long they can claim moral superiority with it, then apologia it's free game (That's also why I ask the Right Wing tropers about their views on Social Issues, because I really wonder how the Right could work in the future after being related with multiple types of bigotry).

TLDR. Hispanoamerica (to excluse Brazil) is weird in that it's facing Left Wing Populism that is economically disastrous while having Socially Progressive demagoguery while the rest of the world is having Clean Cut casss of Right Wing Populists that don't even bother to put a Well Intentioned facade, which leads to me having Bizarre Attitudes that really don't make sense to have in my Local Area.

A thing it's usually said is, When Left Wingers are ill intentioned, it's because they betrayed the ideology. When Right Wingers act in inmoral ways, it's because they are following the ideology.

What I tend to forget it's that the person saying that it's always a Left Winger.

Edited by KazuyaProta on Aug 25th 2019 at 2:21:38 PM

Not really, it tells them something about my employer (that they want me to wear a suit), it doesn’t identify me the way an actual uniform does, the business suit has lost most of its utility by being so generic, everyone wears them.

There is plenty of good logic behind specific uniforms, for either a profession or a role, I’ve worn plenty myself, but the business suit isn’t a uniform, it’s to generic.

You can’t tell a banker, a doctor, a politician or a civil servant apart due to their dress, because they’re all wearing the same business suit, thus making the suit worthless for identifying people.

I now work in an office environment where 90% of the people don’t wear a business suit, we wear whatever smart casual clothes we want (I personally tend to wear a suit because I like suit trousers and like jackets), the other 10% have a uniform that they wear, they are clearly identifiable to a specific role that they do.

But nobody is made to wear a generic business suits, because it’s not useful for identifying people and it’s not the only thing that is practical and non-distracting.

We don’t have a ton of non-Americans here, we do have one or two European right-wingers hanging around though.

Edited by Silasw on Aug 25th 2019 at 10:29:59 AM

Well, it does still say something about you. It says what kind of job you have. White collar, blue collar, service industry, etc

Right or wrong, people will make assumptions about your status in society based on clotehs and then act upon those assumptions.

Edited by GoldenKaos on Aug 25th 2019 at 1:39:20 PM

Let's be honest here — would any of us be able to take seriously a politician who makes public appearances wearing a tank top and beach trunks or something?

Sure, the sheer chutzpah might impress some people, but most would be put off.

Edited by M84 on Aug 25th 2019 at 8:47:31 PM

Women's fashion is highly impractical. Heels are certainly a problem. So are pockets and neck lines.

Women are often raised to think of heels as attire women should aspire to wear, which is why so many women gravitate towards them: it's not an innate female preference, it's cultural conditioning. (Disclaimer: that isn't to say it's wrong for women to like such fashion if that is their choice and personal preference, of course.)

When women trying to resit that, we find that in certain circumstances we're forced to wear heels: in the retail industry, for example, where shop floor assistants can find heels of a certain height or higher being built into the dress code and they could be at risk of losing their job if they don't comply.

That's getting better, but it's still an existing issue.

Likewise, certain formal events that require women to wear dresses of a certain length and 'appropriate footwear' has to be heels of a certain height or higher.

I don't do heels, so I've run into this problem a few times. In 2015, in my (supposedly progressive) place of work, I was a witness to a man telling a woman she would have done better in her job interview if she'd worn heels and a skirt (she wore a smart suit and smart, but flat, shoes).

Heels as dress code in the work place has become a political issue as a result. It's still fighting a tide, but it's getting stronger.

Pockets in women's clothing tend to either be non-existent or too small for anything to stay in without falling out (women don't want to mess up their silhouette, didn't you know?).

Also, winter clothing such as jumpers (that's sweaters for Americans), will still have plunging necklines because, apparently, women would rather expose their cleavage to the elements than wrap up warm.

I'm a woman, and I'm extremely cynical of women's fashion. I'm not alone. Women's fashion frustrates a lot of women. But, often, we have no choice because the fashion options are dictated for us and we either don't have access to alternative choices, or we can't afford the alternative choices.

It is. Just as heels in the workplace has become a political issue in the UK, forcing men to wear full suits during heatwaves (or in hot weather generally) has also become a political issue.

The culture of 'must wear x' to 'choose your own sensible, comfortable, smart attire' is slow, but it does now have political movement behind it — a little bit, at any rate.

Disclaimer: obviously, I'm not discussing the issue of uniform wear in certain industries (such as policing). However, even there, the gender aspect is being relaxed (if only because it's more practical for a policewoman to be able to wear trousers and flat shoes if she's going to be expected to run after a suspect).