A couple of days ago, the Labour frontbencher Tracy Brabin caused a bit of a storm in the House of Commons. Unveiling a radical policy, like stopping people starving to death due to Universal Credit? Saying a “controversial” comment, like pointing out the mass lying of our Prime Minister? Revealing the blatant callousness in the Government’s immigration policy? Nope. It was the resulting backlash due to her attire; wearing what appears to be a an off-the-shoulder evening affair in the chamber.
Double Standards?
As ever, I found the reactions to this much more interesting than the event itself. First, the various dicks and cunts online who threw at Ms Brabin a load of insults; if you judged the dress on their reactions alone, you’d think she turned up wearing a skimpy number suited for doing hostess work at a private *cough* “gentleman’s club”. I’ve looked at the offending item, and while I think it was inappropriate for the locale, hardly warranted said “storm”. However, the one person who gave me the impetus of writing this post was the spokesperson from the “Women’s Equality Party” who I heard on LBC regarding it.
To this spokesperson, all the insults were completely and utterly sexist. Yeah, I agree on that one – well, enough to make any disagreements here a task of hair-splitting. Then she went off the rails; making the assertion that no male would ever have that levelled at them and ending with the point that “no woman should be judged on her ability at work by her attire”. The LBC presenter prodded this point further, asking whether this applied to all circumstances; that if (say) Ms Brabin had attended the Commons clad like a contestant on Love Island that nobody should bat an eyelid, let alone comment. The resulting answer from the spokeswoman was a clear Yes.
Firstly, “no male would have this levelled at them” for as a rule male “office dress codes” are still pretty restrictive. In my opinion, the proclaimed “death of the suit” is still way away; on my London commuter trains, I’d guestimate half are suited-and-booted in a manner which would have been acceptable in the ’90s. Perhaps another quarter are in “quasi-suits”; normally a jacket-chinos affair, though the occasional breakout of the polo-necks can be spotted. One thing is clear, though; the tie is rapidly dying out in my completely anecdotal, unrepresentative example.
Necessity Or Choice?
However, women can be forgiven in thinking that men choose to dress like this. Male wardrobes are pretty restrictive, period; once you hit your thirties and (hopefully) put away your teenage-student wearables, there’s not actually that many directions you can go. You’ve got the bog-standard “Jeremy Clarkson” (jeans, collared shirt) which if you’re a bit of a peacock can slide into the “Alfie Moon” variant of shirtage. Then there’s the “Steve Jobs” (dress trousers and roll-necks) which is a godsend for males who don’t like “the Clarkson” but don’t want to be suited. And there’s always the suit; from the old-school “Rees-Mogg” look to the rather eccentric weirdness of the “Jarvis Cocker”. You could go in for the form-fitting athletic wear I suppose, but that’s a look only a few males over thirty could pull off – and everybody would think you were a bike courier or something.
That’s it. You can tinker around with the edges – cuts, colours, the adding or subtraction of neckwear, swapping Oxfords for ankle-boots or trainers, perhaps ditching the standard twill overcoat for a true trench or greatcoat – but for the vast majority of males, the palette is limited indeed (and thus much less likely to fuck up). Don’t believe me, my female readers? Next time you’re in an old-school department store, take a look in the Men’s department and check out the selection. Or lack of it.
We also have to remember that the Houses of Parliament is one of the “stuffier” ends of the employment spectrum; along with legal firms, accountants and banking. After all, it was only in ’17 in which it was decreed that tie-wearing was not mandatory for male MPs. Such organisations also set their tone from their current membership; and the vast majority of Members are over fifty.
The Logical Conclusion…
The most interesting part, however is “no woman should be judged on her ability at work by her attire”; mainly for the natural conclusion this statement leads to – that dress codes should be abolished. That very morning, millions of people put on the mandatory clothing. My nephew, for example was forced to wear a suit, tie and dress shoes every day he went to sixth form. Did that bit of textile around his neck improve his “work” ability? How about a teacher I used to know who was disciplined for they wore trainers instead of “proper shoes”? Clearly, the children wouldn’t listen to her lessons from the wrong footwear! Or the hordes of children who shove on the school uniform, for that matter? I could continue almost indefinitely; hell, I could be dressed in attire fit for a Royal Garden Party or in a skimpy top and thong as I type this and it wouldn’t make one jot of difference in my writing / bitching ability.
Yes, people shouldn’t be judged on their ability to work by their attire. But they are. It’s why folk “dress up” for job interviews, why some big companies give “wardrobe advice” to new employees (esp young ones coming straight out of university) and why advertising companies shove actors into white coats to flog us toothpaste. We would not do these things if it didn’t work.
However, I say all this with one caveat; codes which are either implicitly racist, sexist or damaging to health should be flouted and attacked as much as possible – prime examples including “hair codes” which can’t handle “black hair” and the request women wear make-up and/or high-heels. Otherwise, I advocate the Fabian strategy; to find the limit of said dress code, plonk yourself on the edge of it and slowly push the window of “acceptable attire” wider. After all, it’s the way it’s been done for over a century – did you know what we currently call “the suit” was considered casual wear in the Edwardian Era?
As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions.
Tales From The Minority 