Congress Dress Codes

Is it really the women who are the “victims” of a “sexist” dress code?

It is astonishing how dress codes are always portrayed as being sexist to the disadvantage of women. With apologies to the gentleman standing with Michelle Obama and Jill Biden, I have no idea who he is is: nevertheless he illustrates nicely the outrageous nature of the claim that women are hard-done-by when it comes to dress codes. The dress code is, indeed, sexist, but it is the men who are the victims.

Apparently, the dress worn by the woman on Michelle’s left is acceptable, because it has sleeves, but Michelle’s dress is not, because it is sleeveless. Congresswomen and reporters are claiming that this is sexist because dresses like that worn by Jill Biden are unbearably hot in the summer. However, compare the comfort of the outfits worn by both these women to that of the men, who are forced to wear not only a shirt (the equivalent of a dress with sleeves), but, in addition, a heavy jacket and a tie. The difference in comfort between the two women is undeniably trivial compared to the difference between either woman and any of the men in the audience. Even if a man is an unspeakably evil rebel and takes off his jacket and rolls up his sleeves, he is still no better off than a woman in a dress like Jill Biden’s!

Please can we lose the constant political correctness and get some sense of reality in the dress code debate? Women always have more freedom, flexibility and comfort than men when it comes to what they are allowed to wear at work, whether in Congress or anywhere else. By all means let the women wear sleeveless dresses, but also allow the men to ditch their jackets and ties. Gender equality should by now be sufficiently entrenched to allow men and women the same degree of freedom and comfort in what they wear, whether in Congress or elsewhere.

The Tie Fetish

Updated 8th August 2017

Q: What makes otherwise sane, normal, caring people persist in trying to force men to spend the whole of their working lives with a noose around their neck?
A:  Fetish (Merriam-Webster): an object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion.

Embed from Getty Images

When the House of Commons Speaker, John Bercow, allowed Tom Brake MP to speak in the Chamber without wearing a tie, it made news around the world. For a time, MPs forgot about Brexit and concentrated on Necks-it instead. Shortly afterwards, there was a similar move in the French Assemblée Nationale, as well as a minor rebellion in the House of Lords. The vast majority of men have stopped wearing ties in their private lives, except for special occasions when both men and women dress up: why should they be forced to wear one at work? Those who continue to deny that Necks-it is happening should learn to accept that men, like women, are entitled to make their own choices and should stop trying to inflict their own dress sense on others.

I have nothing against ties per se, but I have long thought that the blind insistence that they are the one and only means by which a man can look smart, is irrational and, frankly, somewhat odd. With the rather obvious exceptions of the wimple and the dog-collar, no other item of clothing today, for either men or women, is treated as an almost religious symbol of piety and virtue in quite the same way as the tie. The mere wearing of a badly tied and dubiously stained tie bestows on its wearer, in the eyes of many, an unassailable aura of probity and sartorial elegance, while its absence plunges the hapless, though comfortable, non-wearer into the abyss of lazy, incompetent ineptitude.

It seems that the tie almost rivals the wimple and dog-collar in the unassailable aura of probity and sanctity it confers on its wearer.



I have been closely following the arguments in the media on this subject and have come to the conclusion that, if we discount the theory that the tie is a substitute religious vestment, the insistence on others wearing one can only be regarded as fetishism. I looked up “fetish” on the Oxford and Merriam-Webster online dictionaries. Being of a charitable nature, I put the definitions involving sartorially-related sexual habits on the back burner for the moment, but, even if we discount these, the following two definitions seem to sum up quite well the irrational, illogical and objectively unjustifiable attitude of the “tie-or-die” brigade.

Fetish (Oxford): An excessive and irrational devotion or commitment to a particular thing.

Fetish (Merriam-Webster): an object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion.

The arguments in favour of forcing men to wear ties are always subjective, usually pompous and opinionated, and often downright nonsensical. I have tried to summarise some of the comments I have come across in blogs on the subject, with my response:

“I just think they look nice”
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and, as in the case with Granny here, may succeed in charming others into giving in. That’s fine, but not all men like to be treated like children.



…and in a similar vein… “I think they are sooooo sexy…”

OK – perhaps even ties have their good points.



“Today, the tie is largely a workplace accessory, used to neatly demarcate work and leisure time”

Sorry, this is nonsense: if a man needs a tie to tell whether or not he is at work, he has bigger problems than his dress sense. I wonder what on earth the poor women are supposed to do, since they no longer have any compulsory items of work wear to help them decide if they are in the office or at home?


The argument that I find the most pathetic, though, is “wearing a tie shows respect for the other person“.
I find the idea that a man has to show respect by tying a leash about his neck almost feudal in its expectation of servility. Must a man also touch his forelock to show respect? Should we still expect women to curtsy and look down demurely at the floor as a token of respect? I am afraid that if your only way of recognising respect involves the other person wearing a tie, psychiatric help may be in order.

If we accept this argument, how on Earth do women manage to show respect? They rarely wear a suit, even more rarely a tie, and would certainly shout “sexism” at the top of their voices if they were forced to dress as uniformly as men.

By all means wear a tie if you want to, but don’t try to force others to do so using the false argument of “showing respect”.

To come back to my original thesis, there is absolutely no logical reason to insist on men wearing ties. Those who do insist are merely trying to inflict their own tastes and stereotypes on others. The three Wimbledon officials below are all dressed identically except, of course, for the man, who, contrary to all common sense, is obliged to wear a tie while trying to concentrate in the summer sun. There is absolutely no objective reason for this particular bit of sartorial nonsense.
Embed from Getty ImagesThe fact that some folk place so much value on such a meaningless piece of cloth, and judge themselves and others on that basis, is a clear example of a fetish: an excessive and irrational devotion or commitment to a particular thing.

So, by all means complain every time you see a male politician or news presenter in an open-necked shirt. Whine about the good old days of doublet and hose. Remember with nostalgia the days when men were men, and women made the coffee. Don’t think, though, that you have the moral high ground. At the end of the day, insisting that a man wears a tie is no different to insisting that a woman wears a skirt or make-up. Both serve no purpose other than to reinforce preconceived gender stereotypes.

Are men finally shunning the noose? – another nail in the coffin of the tie

Have the media at last stopped worrying about what politicians wear?

This election has been one of the most amusing and close-fought for many years and, hopefully, we can expect a good turnout on Polling Day. I am not the most sartorially aware of men, but I have noticed a significant change in the media this year. So often in the past, the media has seemed to comment on the way politicians dress, rather than their policies. This year, perhaps because they have found an abundance of other subjects to talk about, dress has taken a back seat. I know that it is a common complaint from feminists that women politicians are unfairly targeted by the media when it comes to their appearance: I have made it clear in other posts that I believe this is due to the fact that they are allowed to to choose what they wear while the men are forced to wear their school uniform. It will come as no surprise, then, that the most significant aspect of this for me is that the men have not received a constant barrage of criticism for daring to appear in public without a tie. This contrasts greatly to the last election when the appearance of David Cameron or Gordon Brown in an open-necked shirt prompted a whole string of outraged invective in the media. Why the change?

Another nail in the coffin of the noose!

Since the last election, the relentless demise of the tie has continued apace, with more and more men coming to regard it as an optional fashion accessory rather than an obligatory discomfort to be endured until heat stroke is imminent. If you think this is an exaggeration, remember that the first thing you are taught on a first aid course is to remove a man’s tie so that he stands a chance of breathing freely!

High heels vie with ties as the most pointless items of clothing (Guess who is in these shoes)

Lets face it, the two most useless items of clothing in everyday use are the tie for men and high heels for women ( the difference being, of course, that high heels are always a choice, whereas ties are still often forced on men). It is a mystery why men have accepted the imposition of the tie for so long, when women have gradually been allowed so much more flexibility in what they wear. It is not only politicians leading the way in the struggle to show that men are quite capable, if they choose, of working successfully without the constraint of a leash!

BBC current affairs and news presenters are also more frequently seen sans corde on television than was the case in the past, the most notable, perhaps, being Evan Davis. Mr Davis treats the tie for what it is – a fashion accessory, to be worn when the mood dictates, rather than following a dictate of the producer. His predecessor, Jeremy Paxman, did not have Evan’s strength of character and bottled out after his foray into tielessness led to complaints to the BBC.

Perhaps one of the funniest political moments of the year was the absolute incredulity of the British and European political establishment when the newly elected Prime Minister of Greece dared to meet them without the benefit of his full uniform. When Mr Alexis Tsipras was inaugurated earlier this year, every radio news broadcast started with words along the lines of “Mr Alexis Tsipras, who was not wearing a tie…”

Senior European politicians were completely taken aback by the barefaced (or, perhaps, barenecked) cheek of a man who succeeded in being elected to high office despite refusing to follow their dress code. They clearly thought that the world as they know it was about to come to an end, trials and tribulations would beset the oligarchy of Brussels and Strasbourg, and the one island of stability in the ever-changing ocean of European politics, the ironically comfortable uniformity of the obligatory male tie, was about to sink beneath the waves for ever. One of them even publicly offered him a tie to wear, which Mr Tsipras accepted with good humour: no doubt it is now in the bin. There is still a long way to go until men have the freedom to dress as they please: a freedom enjoyed by women for decades. Nevertheless, good luck to all those high profile men, who don’t see why they should be trussed up like turkeys for the whole of their working lives.

No Noose is Good News – say goodbye to the tie

I like ties: I really do! I have about 120 of them and I wear them voluntarily to work on average two or three days a week. I get up in the morning and make a decision on which shirt to wear and whether or not I want to wear a tie with it. I imagine that a woman goes through pretty much the same process when she decides whether to wear a skirt or trousers. I treat them like any other fashion accessory, which is their correct status. Unfortunately, there are those who still insist on trying to maintain for the tie an iconic status, forcing men to wear them in a way which would be widely considered unacceptable for any item of clothing for women.

This may have been acceptable in the dim, distant and gender discriminatory past, but should no longer be considered appropriate today.

Fifty years ago, my father would wear an open-necked shirt around the house, but would put on a tie to go shopping. It was part of everyday wear for men, and it was reasonable to expect men to wear a tie for work. My mother would wear slacks around the house (women didn’t wear trousers in those days), but would change into a dress or skirt before leaving the house.

Since then, two things have changed: you can verify this for yourself next time you go shopping in you local town centre. You will see virtually no men wearing ties except for those working in shops, banks etc and forced to do so by their employers. You will see that many women wear trousers, but that a very significant proportion still wear skirts or dresses. Despite the fact that ties have virtually disappeared outside the workplace, tribunals still often describe them as being conventional male dress. On the other hand, it is a brave employer today who insists on women wearing skirts, despite the fact that the skirt is just as “conventional” as the tie, and is still much more widely worn than the tie outside the workplace. As the photograph below shows, there is no objective reason why a woman should be said to look smart without a tie, but a man does not.

They both look equally smart, or not, but to say that one looks smart and the other does not says more about preconditioning and gender stereotyping in the eye of the viewer than it does about the actual appearance of the man and woman.

The tie, for men only of course, is the only item of clothing that is defended by the old guard as being a sine qua non for being smartly dressed. Everyone has an opinion on what “smart” means, but the tie is the only article that is still forced on millions of men, whether they want to wear it or not. It is true that there are still some employers who make women wear skirts, but they are few and far between. There are also a few courageous, but misguided, employers who insist on women wearing make-up. There are even some employers who still insist on men having short hair, whereas women can have it as long as they like and are allowed to tie it up if necessary.

The only answer is to change the law so that gender-specific dress codes are illegal. This won’t, despite the fears of the Colonel Fortescue-Smythes of this world, lead to a large number of men turning up to work in skirts! Why should it, when very few, if any, current dress codes actually insist on men wearing trousers? If one man did, so what, the world wouldn’t end. The  banning of gender-discriminatory dress codes would prevent employers insisting on make-up or skirts for women and on short hair or ties for men. The current law is vague and says that neither gender must be “disadvantaged”. This is too open to interpretation: how can a man forced to wear a tie on a hot summer’s day not be disadvantaged compared to the woman working next to him in a t-shirt?

The solution is simple: ban gender-specific dress codes. By choice, many men will still wear ties. By choice, many women will still wear skirts. The difference is that both genders will be treated equally and there will be another nail in the coffin of gender stereotyping.

Why are female politicians criticised for what they wear?

attribution:Presidenza della Repubblica [Attribution], via Wikimedia Commons

This comes up time and time again. Newspapers and other media are vilified by feminists for commenting on the way female politicians, newsreaders and others are dressed, whilst leaving the men in peace. Why is this? Is it an example of the “objectification” of women, as we are led to believe?

I would suggest that, if you take off the women-are-always-the-victims blinkers for a moment, the  reason is obvious. In terms of dress, the women are treated like adults and given great freedom in what they wear. If you have choice, you can expect to attract comment. The men in the photograph above, however, are forced, either by gender stereotyped dress codes, or by social pressure, to wear their school uniform. Look closely at the photograph and the uniform is evident: dark suit, light shirt, and, of course, tie. Even the most desperate of newspaper editors can’t criticise someone for wearing their school uniform.

Now let us look at another example. This is a photograph of the G8 Summit of 2013. Perhaps you can remember what the media had to say about the natty little number that Angela Merkel is wearing.


The answer, of course, is that she was completely ignored. The men, however, were vilified. Why? They were mauled by the press because this group of the most economically powerful men in the world got together the night before and said something along the lines of “it’s going to be hot tomorrow, lads, let’s not wear ties”!

This brings us to the point of this post. Male politicians escape being criticised for their dress only if they toe the line and stick scrupulously to the school uniform. The moment they stray, however slightly, from the stereotyped image of the uniform male, they are berated like children.

We saw the same thing more recently following the Greek election. On my way home from work, I heard four different radio news items, each of which started off with words to the effect of “the new Greek Prime Minister, who was not wearing a tie…” And again when the Greek Finance Minister met George Osborne, there was a photograph on the front page of at least one national broadsheet with a caption pointing out, not the subject of the meeting, but the fact that he was wearing a leather jacket and black boots. And, of course, no tie.


There are many other examples of cases where high-profile men have been criticised for simply not wearing a tie. The simple fact of the matter is that the different treatment of men and women by the media, at least as far as dress goes, arises not from sexism victimising women, but from the deep-rooted discrimination leading to the fact that “serious” men are given no freedom of choice and are expected to dress more formally and uniformly than women. This discrimination extends way beyond politicians and is still evident in many workplaces.

If female politicians all wore a dark suit and smart blouse, or men were allowed the freedom of choice given to women, there would, after a brief period of hysterical astonishment, be no issue.

Finally, it is worth remembering that women MPs can, and do, wear pretty much what they like in the House of Commons. My MP, a man, can be thrown out and prevented from representing me in parliament if he doesn’t wear a jacket and tie. So much for democracy and equality.