It's 2020 folks. 2020!

Unimpressed by the ageism here as well - is her shoulder more offensive because she's middle aged?

And weird slagging off of older women for wearing high heels - why on earth does it bother you? Heels for that age group are very much a smart and conservative norm. I hope my back, hips and knees can still take it!

I think she just made a very bad fashion error. If you would t wear it to an office you shouldn’t wear it in the House of Commons. What makes is a feminism issue is the fact that she was called a slapper etc, like getting her shoulder out was more than bad fashion judgement and some immoral flesh showcase. She wore an outfit more suited to a restaurant to work. That’s all.

I don't think that Tracy Brabin's outfit was appropriate for a work environment, although the camera angle is unfortunate. All the sexist comments are appalling, especially the ones here, on a feminist board.
Justhadathought
Yes, but if you will dress in clothing that is specifically designed to reveal your female shape..then you can probably expect responses which are sexist......If you wear plunging necklines and push-up bras do you really expect people not to notice or comment.
Please point out where her push up bra is or is it in the same place as her plunging neckline. Nowhere to be seen.

Russel Brand always looks like his eyeballs are going to pop out.

@HorseFlyOfExtraordinaryLength
Just for you. Russell Brand in the HOC (well, Portcullis House) baring both shoulders:
www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/news/120424-drugs-oral-ev/

Imagine Russell Brand in the HOC
I'm not keen on him but that'd be funny

The thing about the photo angle, and the meaning forward- MPs know that the cameras are often from above, and as a shadow front bencher- she's going to be leaning forward on the despatch box.
Personally I think it was an inappropriate outfit for the occasion. Doesn't matter where she'd been beforehand.
MPs in parliament should look professional, and I don't think she did.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that wearing obviously sexually alluring/provocative clothing is without meaning or intention, on the part of the wearer, though. Obviously no-one is suggesting that women are responsible fro men's actions, but women do have choices and responsibility too.

That's a pretty low bar to be considered "sexually provocative" you've set there. It's 2020 in the UK, bare shoulders aren't really considered scandalous any more (though as I said earlier, the HOC defaults to suit type outfits so the dress wasn't ideal for that reason).

Also, blaming women for men's actions doesn't somehow become not blaming just because you say "I'm not blaming the though". There's a reason why so many people are taking your comments that way.

On another point that's been mentioned, of course there are men's clothes that are considered sexy, though current men's fashion is a bit dull in that regard. Look back at the arse and crotch hugging trousers of the 70s for an example. Even now there are men (Russell Brand springs to mind as an example) who often dress in a "sexy" way. It's just that they don't get shamed for it or blamed for the way others respond to it in the way women do.

I'm not sure what is " vile" about suggesting I'm not one for following the crowd

Now thats funny

see i was Referring to the other Posters talking about the sexist, vile and misogynistic comments in the daily mail and other social media

Fuck all to do with you

They just don't

yeah, but it's not because people are giving them a pass.

I could understand this line of reasoning I suppose if the people who used it also thought that women weren't sexualised in a different way than men are, but mostly thy don't.

The glaringly obvious point here is thatmostmen don't have to give it very much thought at all. In most 'professional' situations (whatever that is supposed to mean!), men just wear a suit, shirt, tie, job done

Anything departing from a suit etc. will get short shrift.

I don't see what is so difficult to understand that wearing an evening dress to the office is going to look peculiar.

Perhaps she wanted publicity and ttrolling in order to raise her "public profile". It detracted badly from the motion she was debting.

What I objected to was her grinning ear to ear on TV this morning defending the BBC license fee by happily stating that only five people were actually jailed last year for non payment. I'd have thought Labour shoud be defending the poor and in debt being relentlessly hassled for non payment. The world has "turned updside down"

@Goosefoot You commented that there is no direct equivalent for men because men's clothes aren't considered "sexy" (I'm paraphrasing). My reply was that there is a direct historical equivalent, if men dressed flamboyantly, it would have been acceptable to make critical comments suggesting that they look gay. No one would accept that kind of homophobic comment now yet it is still acceptable to suggest that a woman looks like a slapper or she has been shagging someone behind the bins because of the way she is dressed. Your response was "Hmm, I wonder."

What she wore was inappropriate for the situation.

The response was highly sexist.

I once worked in a casual dress office, one lad came in wearing a revealing vest and high cut shorts in summer. We immediately made sure his manager told him to cover up.

I've yet to see anybody point out that the photograph was was taken from a very poor angle. Any off-the-shoulder dress is going to look more revealing than it really is when the wearer is being viewed from above and leaning forward.
Her dress would almost cdertainly look perfectly decent to anyone looking straight at her.

goingovergroud

What's your point? I didn't say any of that or comment on those kinds of charachterisations. I commented on people thinking her clothes were inappropriate for where she was.

The glaringly obvious point here is that most men don't have to give it very much thought at all. In most 'professional' situations (whatever that is supposed to mean!), men just wear a suit, shirt, tie, job done. They might try to be inventive as regards colour of socks, colour of shirt, colour of tie, pinstripe or can I get away with blue, can I wear a waistcoat with that, but that is it. And they don't have to worry about what bits of flesh they are showing most of the time, apart from bulgy shirt fronts and too much hairy tummy........ They just don't......

Whereas women? A TOTAL mine-field. Add in make-up, who might be looking, what age they are, and it should be totally obvious that it just is a totally different situation for women presenting themselves in a public space. From little girls wearing modesty shorts so they can do cartwheels without showing their knickers, to government ministers (remember the focus on Theresa May's shoes?), women are still not free to just be in public spaces. Because those public spaces and what is deemed appropriate attire was never designed for them.....

And then chaps say that they can't choose pretty colours, or wear skimpy clothes in hot summers, or enjoy being gazed at cos they are pretty, and pretend it is somehow equivalent.

And we're still having these discussions over two centuries since Amelia Bloomer was born. Because public spaces still aren't our spaces, as every leering, cat-calling male reminds us................(until you become older and invisible, and unemployable by the BBC in a news-reading capacity...........).

I would echo what many other posters have said, nice dress, shouldn’t be worn in a professional setting, no need for vile comments

I'm not sure what is " vile" about suggesting I'm not one for following the crowd, and i don't care for being politically correct, if I think otherwise.

The response cam after someone had suggested I'd been a bit 'naughty and inappropriate in my comments' ( " yes, I'm looking at you justa thought...."). I'm not a child, nor a pack animal.

Its a shame that this has got more coverage than some of the more ridiculous or dangerous comments that are made.

But girls and women get looked at, stared at, followed and worse no matter what they wear

Yes, but that doesn't mean that wearing obviously sexually alluring/provocative clothing is without meaning or intention, on the part of the wearer, though. Obviously no-one is suggesting that women are responsible fro men's actions, but women do have choices and responsibility too.

The problem is that many women are just so accustomed to dressing to attract sexual interest or flattering comments - that they do it unconsciously. Being seen as attractive in stereotypically 'sexy' ways has become part of their identity.

(Sorry, 5 'somes' there)

And sadly, no matter what we wear some creep gets turned on. We could be wearing boiler suits but some fetishist would still be curious as to what we were wearing underneath. No doubt, some man gets off on boiler suits too!

Some men are aroused by young girls and it doesn't matter what they wear, some monster like Huntley will prey on them regardless.

I'm not a pack animal

I would echo what many other posters have said, nice dress, shouldn’t be worn in a professional setting, no need for vile comments

*But girls and women get looked at, stared at, followed and worse no matter what they wear.

If certain clothes could stop it all, an awful lot of women would be wearing them!*

Yup. I pointed this out upthread based on my experience today when a young woman working in uniform was still perved on by a middle aged man.