AIBU to question criticism of a female MP’s outfit in maiden speech?

[Browningpers]

Spectator article asking whether Hannah Spencer’s outfit detracted from her maiden speech. Seen similar elsewhere too.

I can’t ever recall the same being asked of a male politician.

Article by a woman too.

AIBU?

If a male MP looked like he was off to audition as a children’s TV presenter job it would raise some eyebrows!

I’ve only ever met one guy who openly admitted this was his main source of news and he was an absolute cockwomble, totally patronising and condescending and very obviously far-right leaning so like I’d expect no less from this dishrag.

Anyway, Spectator aside, men do come under fire sometimes. Corbyn did often for not wearing a tie for example. But yes women are disproportionately targeted. Reminds me of Tracey Brabin with her shoulders out in Parliament a couple of years ago and how much furore that caused! Hannah’s suit is fine, it’s just a bit Cbeebies presenter colour wise.

I do see your point. But theres a reason, for example, that in court people are dressed soberly and its not the place to showcase bright fashion. Nothing to do with what sex you are. Its so as not to allow clothing or appearance to detract from serious issues in a serious place. I happen to agree with that. Same as school uniform. One advantage is that you dont have to spend time thinking about what you wear but more on why you are here. Parliament is not a fashion show.

I LOVE her outfits. She looks fresh and clean, and the clothes fit well. Definitely she is wearing them, rather than them wearing her.
Also, the ensembles pictured are smart and business appropriate.
What a load of judgemental horseshit some people talk. Women who feel able to express their sartorial individuality should not be criticised.

I don't think Hannah will be too depressed. How many politicians get a column in the Spectator and a thread on Mumsnet for their maiden speech? And yes, I'm sure she realises people will remember what she wore rather than what she said, but that's clearly the choice she made when she got dressed that morning. She got herself noticed and sent out a clear message that she's a different kind of politician. Whether she really is, well I have my doubts, but time will tell.

True. The white suit was supposed to be symbolic of his lack of corruption iirc, and yet here we are so many years later. I'll have a listen to her speech, thanks for highlighting.

She's dressing exactly like how people would expect a female Green MP to dress. She essentially ran on a platform of Being A Person Who Dresses Like This, with the accompanying views one might expect of a person who dresses like that. Like Farage and his signet rings and flat caps - they're giving the(ir) people what they want.

The Spectator has a wide range of excellent thoughtful contributers and its articles are generally really good. Yes right of centre. But that doesnt automatically mean it's no good. I wouldnt usually read the Guardian but I can admit at least that it is a good source for left wing people

A clear message that shes a different kind of politician by dressing like a child? God we really are in trouble.

I think Keir was criticised for not paying for his suits.

If appropriate is a grey suit then It's time for a new kind of appropriate.

What do you suggest?

That people wear what they like, something that conveys their individual style and the time in which we live. Something that resonates with the people they represent and also something in which they are comfortable.

Your toxic nephew's description.

Does your family encourage that type of talk about women?

We might be, yes. I'm not a supporter of the Green party but I'm still interested in how people dress, regardless of their politics, and it's pretty obvious that Hannah uses her clothes to signal messages. She did the same during her campaign too, e.g I very much doubt she just happened to be wearing a keffiyeh the day she posed for photos outside an Islamic Centre.

You might not like or agree with the message but there's nothing child-like or unconsidered about what's she's doing.

Here's Hannah being listed as one of the best dressed at Glastonbury.

She has her own style, she's always had style why should she compromise that to suit anyone/conform to outdated standards set by men?

As long as she'd doing a good job (plumbing or politics) why would someone care?

www.theguardian.com/fashion/2013/jul/01/glastonbury-2013-best-dressed-in-pictures

The court analogy is not a good one. Barristers and judges wear robes and wigs to disidentify themselves. In court they are there to represent the law, and so they dress to erase their personal characteristics, which includes a specific requirement to wear dark clothing (in criminal law at least. In the Supreme Court where robes are not worn, the dress code is different.) This is both traditional and a formal requirement.

And school uniform is an even worse analogy, given it requires children to dress identically.

That’s not the case in the Commons, where Members are both adults and there to represent their party and constituents, and the formal dress code doesn’t specify colours. Many wear the red, blue, yellow, green or turquoise of their party. Many women also wear other bright colours, or even white. Just as many women in business do.

The ultimate guardian of the rules is the Speaker, who could refuse to allow Hannah Spencer to speak if she dressed or behaved inappropriately. They did not, so anyone else’s opinion on her clothing is irrelevant, and any journalist writing about it is scrabbling around for pebbles to throw.

Oh dear, I regret responding to you seriously now. She is clearly not dressed like a child, even if it’s not to your personal taste.

What about trying to incarnate the responsibility bestowed on them by their voters or the seriousness of their function? Radical notion, I know.

I dislike female politicians who seem to mistake their position for a catwalk opportunity or a chance to express their oh so precious identity. I like my politicians to appear too busy with work to edit outfits, and to look less vain and self centered. Especially as women, it really gives a ditsy vibe that does them no favour.

There is a male US senator getting flack for wearing board shorts and t-shirts in the House btw.

Just listened to it, it was a stonking speech & I wish her well. Seems it was an IWD debate, in a very empty chamber. 😶The woman getting up after Hannah started well too (mentioned that plumbing & plastering skills could be handy in the crumbling Westminster Palace). Will go down the rabbit hole of the rest of the debates there later I think.

Deeds not clothes.

Always vote for someone who is busy with work (plumber/politician) AND still has time to put interesting and individual outfits together.

That's your choice but for me, I always like a politician who tries to navigate a path between dressing for their job and dressing to express themselves. It's a tricky path to pick out between our opposing views, and I admire them for trying even when I don't subscribe to their politics.

And, as I've already said, I don't think Hannah is only dressing to please herself. I'm sure she only wears clothes she likes but there's no way she won't have thought about what impact they'll have. I guess she's chosen to risk disapproval from some quarters if it means some people will look at her and think, 'Ooh she looks a bit different for a politician'.

So what?

And ties etc. Craig Mackinlay, who lost limbs to sepsis, had to seek permission from the speaker to not wear a tie and trainers.

I think the main reason it would never happen to a man is because the rules for men's fashion are easy.

Important or formal occasion, wear a suit and tie, job done. If I turned up to the house of commons to give a speech in jeans and T-shirt, then I'd likely get a good kicking in the press for it, so it's just not something a man would ever do.

The rules for women are different, and nebulous and difficult. Which of course is a form of patriarchy and misogyny all by itself.