It's 2020 folks. 2020!

[aliasundercover]

www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/04/i-am-not-a-slapper-labour-mp-tracy-brabin-defends-her-commons-attire

The pic in the story is very disappointing. I thought she was going to be wearing a basque or something

I think oh there's a woman in the house of commons showing rather more shoulder than is generally appropriate for work. And that's it.

But you are just asserting it without looking for the root of what makes it inappropriate for work.

There is constantly this very weird split where some feminists are quite happy to talk about the sexualisation of women in the media, in fashion, about how it is exploitative, how it warps our images of ourselves, how it warps young girls images and the way young boys think about women.

But as soon as someone says, in a setting like an office or a school - wearing the clothing that is designed to do that, designed to sexualise us - isn't appropriate, they back right up. All of a sudden it's not about that at all. Somehow, as soon as they go on an actual woman's body, the clothing loses all that, it's just a piece of cloth, just a style, just fashion. It has no influence on anyone and if some men think it's sexualising it's just their own pervyness, and if some women think it's sexualising they are some sort of traitors to their sex.

Maybe the reason a lot of women object is that they are tired of being seen as sexual objects and they know it isn't just magazine photos that create that atmosphere, cause if no one was taken in by them and bought the clothes there really wouldn't be that much effect. Men don't mind so much because they don't have to live with those expectations.

Certainly when I rolled my skirt up I did it because that's what we all did. I absolutely did not want to be followed, ogled, stared at etc by adult men.

Yes, perhaps you were trying to be cool like the other girls, that's common and all the more reason kids that age need some adult direction and boundaries. But the poster upthread was talking about herself. And I can say the same thing, there absolutely are girls who are very much dressing for the male gaze when they get to high school, and often well into their 20's. I kind of find it difficult to believe that someone could not realise that. I would suggest that for many, they are basically victims of our culture's obsession with women's sexual availability. I can't decide if people think this should be ignored because the poor women are too dumb to realise what the fashion industry does, or because they think it's empowering so long as they choose it.

Oh for god's sake she looks fine. How despressing that anyone is still getting worked up about a few inches of female shoulder in 2020. Fuckssake we're going backwards! Good on her for tackling the petty insults head on though. She sounds cool.

It is unprofessional because it flouts the dress code for what is considered professional day wear. Yet it would be perfectly acceptable to wear an off the shoulder dress at a smart evening event.

The issue is that she looks like she is going to a cocktail party not representing a political party. If she were being criticised purely for dressing inappropriately for the occasion, that would be fine. The issue is that her "morality" is being questioned because she made a social faux pas - "only a slapper would wear evening dress in the day."

No man's sexual morality has ever been questioned because of what he wore. And, let's be honest, there isn't even an equivalent negative word for a man who shags someone over the bins or puts it around a bit.

Anyway, to me it's clearly not office attire. It might work for a cocktail event after work. A cardigan or something possibly could have made it work for both.

I think though it probably looks a lot worse from the camera angle in the HoC, though, and maybe she didn't realise it would have that "looking down your top" effect. Lots of people occasionally make a wardrobe error where something doesn't come off quite the way they thought when they left home.

Interesting that a woman who says they just think oh there's a woman in the hoc showing a bit more shoulder than is generally considered appropriate for work gets pulled up

But not the woman who says she looks at that pic and thinks oh she looks like she's just been fucked in an alleyway

Interesting.

I was very surprised to see what she was wearing in the HoC. But having read the paper today it seems she had been at a music event and then rushed to the Commons and also had a broken ankle so was standing awkwardly.

I her position I would probably have donned a jacket, or a nice comfy cardy.

Women's clothing decisions are fraught with difficulty tbh

So much store is set by them, in a way it's just not for men. Loads of judgements about the motives in putting them on, assumptions about her sexuality, how many sex partners she has etc.

Most women just want to look 'nice' don't they, according to the current fashions which yes of course pander to male gaze. But the individuals putting the clothes on aren't usually trying to send specific messages about sexual availability etc. Even though so many men and some women (much of society in general) say they are.

It's a really complicated area and one that women and girls, in society as it is, generally will be deemed to be doing something wrong whatever they do!

No man's sexual morality has ever been questioned because of what he wore.

You have to be careful with making this the equivalence though. In our culture men's attire has rarely been designed to have the same kind of effect. If you think of cases where it has, it's instructive of the gap - Burt Reynolds with his short shorts and shirt half open. Possibly Daniel Craig or Sean Connery as Bond in a bathing suit - at the beach. But generally if you see a picture of a man billed as super-sexy, even at something like an awards event, he's probably wearing something like a great suit. Going the Burt Reynolds route sometimes even leads to speculations that the person is trying to appeal to gay males.

The issue is that she looks like she is going to a cocktail party not representing a political party.

But isn't this in part because it's considered ok to up the sexiness level a little at that sort of event? Whereas the office is considered to be where that should be the most restrained (and properly so given all the very serious downsides of office sexual politics.)

Most women just want to look 'nice' don't they, according to the current fashions which yes of course pander to male gaze. But the individuals putting the clothes on aren't usually trying to send specific messages about sexual availability etc. Even though so many men and some women (much of society in general) say they are.

I think this is all the more reason not to let those boundaries be eaten away, though, not to say "oh whatever." If it's pretty clear that certain things aren't appropriate, as it is for men most f the time, it makes life a lot simpler.

Although I would argue about it being rare for women to be interested in using appearance and clothing to signal sexual availability, or to have a particular effect. I think women are often just as interested in that sort of thing as men are, and most of them past about age 25 are clued in enough to understand what clothes send what signals.

Idea that girls are sexually knowing and actively looking to incite lust in males is just off the mark

No it's not off the mark, unless you are talking about "all girls".
It's perfectly normal, and extremely common, for 14/15yo teenagers to want to and try to attract the opposite sex.
Stop bringing 10 yos being ogled by old men into it.

I didn't say it was rare

And we're talking about schoolgirls

I simply dispute that girls who roll their skirts up are always seeking to get a sexual response from males.

Lots just do it because it's the done thing.
The idea that girls are sexually knowing etc is very damaging. It excuses men some really awful behaviour.

Seriously. I wanted to be a biker's girlfriend when I was 14. It's kind of the height of hormonal craziness but before real ability to predict consequences and see deeper issues sets in.

Why are you saying 14/15?

We rolled skirts up all through secondary school.

When mini skirts are in fashion loads of girls of all ages wear them.

To say oh but I only meant this specific sort of girl in this specific sort of situation when it wasn't in the original post is a bit weird.

Ok I don't think all 14/ 15 yo girls are looking for sexual attention from men of they roll up their skirts either and I also think they are still very young to have adult ideas about sexual behaviour put on them. A large part of the reason so many men like girls that age is they are naive, vulnerable, easy to manipulate.

I simply dispute that girls who roll their skirts up are always seeking to get a sexual response from males.

Again, you keep inserting words like always.
You think 14/15yo girls aren't sexually knowing?
I don't know what the average age of losing viginity is, but I had friends who were sexually active at 14 and 15.

'You think 14/15yo girls aren't sexually knowing?'

Wow.

Having had sex young =/= sexually knowing.

She looks ridiculous. It is not a work outfit and the comparison with a man turning up in shorts is apt.

She seems to be the one using sexist language.

TheProdigalKittensReturn

Saying "that's not professional clothing" is fine. The rest of it is just sexism. If she was in a more casual environment it would be fine, and none of anyone else's business

Absolutely. The dress would be fine in a bar/ on a night out but not at work. She looks daft.

It reminds me of this: www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3500857/RACHEL-JOHNSON-got-Theresa-flaunt-power-mean.html. Apparently, if you've got it (and you're a Tory) , flaunt it.

@Goosefoot No man's sexual morality has ever been questioned because of what he wore

I was wrong to say ever. You are correct, a man's sexuality might have been questioned because of what he wore in the past. But no one would accept that kind of homophobia now yet we accept this kind of misogyny. She is dressed like a woman who came from (as it now transpires) a music awards ceremony not like a hooker. Inappropriate, maybe unprofessional (although it's not unheard of for MPs to appear in the HoC dressed for another event) but she does not look she has been working the streets.

More importantly, what was she saying? Let's talk about that. Who cares if her dress is too casual for the HoC? It's good that she's there.

But no one would accept that kind of homophobia now yet we accept this kind of misogyny.

Hmm, I wonder.

I have to say, men who are dolled up to be appealing to gay men do not necessarily look like men who are dolled up to appeal to women. Rather like Playgirl, when it was still around, had as many, or more, male customers than female ones.

Ok I don't think all 14/ 15 yo girls are looking for sexual attention from men of they roll up their skirts either and I also think they are still very young to have adult ideas about sexual behaviour put on them. A large part of the reason so many men like girls that age is they are naive, vulnerable, easy to manipulate.

It's hard to see what your original point was though. The comments you objected to were that some clothing is sexualised, and even used intentionally for male attention, including by teenagers.

We all know that some teens and maybe even adult women don't have that intent. You seemed to think it was foolish, and also slightly gross, to suggest that any do. No girls want to be ogled by men and all that. Now you say you realise that some may, so it's hard to say why you objected to anyone saying that in the first place.

Really, @Goosefoot?

If I tweeted right now that MP Tracy Brabin looks like a slapper who has been shagging someone round the back of the bins, do you think I would be banned?

What about if I tweeted a male MP looked like he'd just come back from a spot of cottaging? I'm pretty sure I'd be (quite rightly) banned.

A woman can’t show a shoulder in one of our finest institutions, but a man in drag can cavort with young children in another and that’s totally fine.