Not that we are in for a “casual Friday” Congress — just, maybe, you know, one that is less mired in a last-century definition of “appropriate dress” that treats the female arm like an erogenous zone, the way an ankle was at the turn of the 20th century.
Exactly when the new rules would go into effect or what they would be was not specified. And Mr. Ryan admittedly has a lot on his plate, so the dress code is unlikely to be a top priority.
Still, while he may have seen this as an easy win, electorate-wise, it may prove to be a thornier problem than he was anticipating. Dress code issues have become a cause that resonates far beyond the borders of whatever institution or industry is in question, and one that unites people across political parties and national borders. And sports preferences!
Indeed, we’ve been in something of a dress code revolt for the last few years. There was, for example, the British woman who was sent home from work for wearing flat shoes, only to incite such an uproar on social media that there was an inquiry overseen by two parliamentary committees. And the time State Senator Mitch Holmes of Kansas, chairman of the Senate Ethics and Elections Committee in Topeka, had to apologize for including a guideline that women appearing before the state panel could not wear “low-cut necklines and miniskirts.”
Then there was the whole no-leggings-on-airplanes-for-employees furor at United Airlines this year. And the great male skirt rebellion, in which British schoolboys and French bus drivers wore skirts to protest dress codes banning tailored shorts, despite high temperatures and even though their female peers could wear the airier garments. Even the British Parliament bowed to current reality, with John Bercow, the speaker of the House of Commons, telling members it was no longer necessary to wear a tie, acknowledging that looking “businesslike” did not have to involve neckwear.