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?

You make a good point about the apprentice, also the drag queen eyelashes for office wear trend.
I'm not sure why Kate ex-Middleton wears skyscraper heels either, she's already a tall woman and could save her feet & joints.

Target audience??😶

At this point I'm viewing this thread as a sort of opinions collider where you can assess how opinions change after collision dependent on the speed they come at each other and how weighty they are.

IANANP (I am not a nuclear physicist)

She has made her clothes the thing that is most interesting about her for most people.

There’s such a petty bitterness to this, it’s really quite sad.

Nothing wrong with having standards.

Not a fan of commenting on women's clothes but comparison to men is a bit meh as don't they all usually wear grey/navy suits and a tie?

Its not "petty bitterness". It's a perfectly valid viewpoint. It just differs from yours.

@Floisme
I care about not giving the signal that women are looks-obsessed and vain to men and the general public.
And I care that a love of clothes is so often disparaged and looked down on in a way that other creative interests are not.

Ok, let's call it a creative interest. At a stretch.

Let's suppose your creative interest is pottery. I would say that your maiden speech at the HoC is not the place to bring the spotlight on your love of pottery just because it matters to you. Not the place, not the time, not important.

And we're not even touching the reinforcement of sexist stereotypes.

Disagree all you like. "Even if they don’t dress for the male gaze anymore, they still dress for the gaze somehow" is your anti feminist opinion based on what you imagine to be the case for women.

Your post also made assumptions about posters e.g. age, sex, influences - that are purely drawn from your imagination.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-politics-of-clothes-in-the-house-of-commons/

Absolutely, and if your standard is ‘I can’t follow what someone is saying if I don’t like what they’re wearing’ then that’s up to you. I find that rather a sad thing, likely to deprive the thinker of a lot of nice experiences, but each to their own.

To quote Ben Elton.

Doorman at a club
"Come on in Hitler, lovely shiny boots."
"Sorry, not you Jesus. No sandals allowed."

I don't think that was the point. I think you're putting the onus on the person listening to the MP not to be distracted by statement clothing, rather than the MP presenting themselves in a way where what they say is more important than whatever statement clothing they may be wearing. It's a shame the Green MP didn't prioritise that really.

Hence why a huge amount of articles focus on her Vicky Pollard hair and gaily coloured outfits.I'm not saying I necessarily agree with those articles. It's just a shame her verbal message has been obscured by herself. A wiser person wouldn't have done it. Now she's just the mad dresser in Parliament to many people.

A maiden speech is literally the time to introduce oneself, add personal and local touches and set out your stall, politically and in terms of your approach. It’s the only time it is about that, so if your love of pottery was part of the story, it’s the right time to mention it. Her outfit would arguably have been questionable in a debate on assisted dying, but for a maiden speech which was likely to be reported on, it made absolute sense. In much the same way that Rishi Sunak talking about his upbringing, or Jess Phillips taking about her work with DV survivors or even Maureen Colquhoun coming out.

No-one cares if you liked it or not, but the posts repeatedly describing her outfit as inappropriate have not (imo) paid attention to the culture of the Commons or the purpose of the maiden speech. Just lots of people desperate to disparage a young working class woman whose politics are different to their own.

I think you're putting the onus on the person listening to the MP not to be distracted by statement clothing,

Well yes, I am. I think it’s entirely reasonable to expect an educated adult to be able to listen to what someone is saying regardless of what clothes they are wearing. That seems like an extremely low bar, are you saying that’s not a fair expectation? It’s ok if you struggle with it, but don’t paint the rest of us with the same (dull coloured) brush.

Her words are not in any way objectively obscured by her outfit or hairstyle, but some people seem gleefully keen to allow themselves to be distracted by the media -that has a vested interest in distracting them - talking about her clothes and hairstyle. The fact that is even possible is testament to the poor media and political education children have hitherto received, rather than a scalloped waistcoat of any colour.

Something else I don't appreciate is being @'d after I'd specifically said I was taking a break from the thread. I'm responding as a courtesy and in case you hadn't noticed I'd said that, but if you tag me again I shall ignore you,

Although in all honesty, I'm not sure why you think the pottery analogy is so compelling as one of the best things about loving clothes is that it's an interest that you can incorporate into your whole life. As far as I'm concerned, it's neither here nor there that you can't do the same with all creative interests, although Hannah could, for example, have fed a love of poetry or other literature into her speech and might even have been praised for it.

The trick - and I gave up on the thread largely because I was getting bored repeating myself - is in keeping your expressiveness appropriate to the occasion. I don't think she crossed a line as the only really striking thing about her outfit was the colour choice. You disagree.

I don't however think it's misogynistic to discuss her choice of outfit. I think an article picking over the appearance of a female MP who prefers to wear an anonymous suit would be unacceptable, but I think it's safe to conclude that Hannah knew exactly what kind of impact her outfit would have. I have no doubt that part of her intention was to signal that she intended to be a different kind of MP. She appears to have succeeded in that, at least for now.

All of this I have repeated several times throughout the thread, which is why I felt it was time to take a break.

If you use that approach to Parliament which is making life and death decisons regarding deployment or decisions affecting the lives of all of us, often negatively, presumably you must logically disagree with anyone dressing in a particular way for any occasion however sombre or requiring respect. And anyone who choses to dress like a gaily coloured child to make some sort of statement is not responsible for themselves or for the reaction people may have. A form of dress that a man would be unlikely to use and once again women are using their appearance to make a point at the expense of people taking them seriously. Imagine her standing next to European leaders, representing the UK. You might think she looks serious. I think you might be in the minority.

We will have to agree to disagree on this I'm afraid.

@Allisnotlost1 A coming out story or talking about one's work on DV are not on the same level compared to a quirky outfit, sorry.

@Floisme You decide to stop posting, ignore me and move on whenever you feel like, I respect that, but I still have the right to respond if you bring forward a new line of reasoning, as you just did. Either you want to prolong the discussion or you want it to stop, but you can't have both. Like your feminism, I find your position is a bit contradictory, but I'll leave you to it.

If you use that approach to Parliament which is making life and death decisons regarding deployment or decisions affecting the lives of all of us, often negatively, presumably you must logically disagree with anyone dressing in a particular way for any occasion however sombre or requiring respect.

This simply makes no sense. There was nothing disrespectful about her outfit. There is no colour requirement in the HoC dress code. There are plenty of women who wear bright colours in the chamber. Usually only one or two at a time, but still. The Speaker has the final say on dress and demeanour and can refuse the MP if they consider them in breach. Therefore, she was dressed appropriately for the activity. You’ve seen examples of men dressed similarly in Parliament. You simply don’t like her outfit, and that’s ok. But you’re trying hard to make your opinion more meaningful than that. Her outfit is not ‘at the expense of people taking her seriously’ because anyone with half a brain is able to see beyond the trousers someone is wearing and listen to what they’re saying.

Of course they’re not the same, but all are examples of personal touches which you seem to think are outlawed.

You don't understand what the issue is which is fine. Let's leave it there.

I do not understand what your issue is, no.

The fact you can't understand the other perspective at all is a sad indictment of today's political discourse and possibly a lack of imagination. At least I can see the other side (wear what you want, when you want and in whatever circumstances you chose). I just don't agree with it. But at least I understand where people are coming from

I shall allow you the last word (if you wish) in this peculiar argument.

I do understand your perspective - you’ve been very clear. I don’t understand quite how you got there is all. The alternate isn’t ’wear whatever you want’ it’s more nuanced than that, so I guess you haven’t really followed it as well as you think. I don’t mind who has ‘the last word’ because we’re not going to to agree regardless.

She looked like what she is. A woke idiot.
Her outfit and hairstyle was the MP version of blue (or green/purple/ rainbow) hair, a nose ring, a tattoo and a trans flag shirt.
It was a deliberate choice intended to signal her values to a certain demographic.

The end result was that she looked as if she got dressed in the dark in clothes laid out for her by a six year old.

It was, by anyone's standards, an objectively bad outfit.