No Right to Bare Arms?
To ensure its women are properly attired, the great state of Missouri has outlawed their bare arms in the legislature.
In order to understand this perplexing need to police “professionalism inside the chamber,” I did a little research. This was the brainchild of Representative Ann Kelley, who said, “You would think that all you would have to do is say, ‘Dress professionally,’ and women could handle it.” I gather she was implying women can’t or won’t be professional without policing. It was her contention that the new rules for women would mirror the dress code for men.
Hmmm. If it’s a gender equality issue, allowing men to take off their jackets would be a more sensible solution. It would kill two birds with one stone. Since it’s finally an accepted fact that climate change should compel us to use energy wisely, allowing all legislators to bare their arms in warm weather makes sense — rather than chilling the chamber artificially with what must be a massive air-conditioning system. (I’ve never been to the Missouri Legislature, but I’d bet it’s pretty frosty when the outdoor temperature rises.)
And while we’re at it, why not let the men take off their ties, too? Ties reportedly began in the 17th century with Croatian mercenaries who wore traditional knotted neckerchiefs around their necks as part of their uniform to hold their jackets together at the top. It was a functional clothing item.
But in 1646, seven-year-old French King Louis XIV took a liking to these ties, and they became a fashion trend primarily worn by nobles to project power and wealth. Their shape and size evolve, but the connection with status remains.
Well, I’m not too keen on my elected officials flaunting their affluence. I’d rather my statesmen were of the people. Ties are unnecessary.
All this bother got my son and me talking about dress codes. Why have them at all? Do folks who have the wherewithal to get elected to office actually require rules for dressing? I suggested that perhaps people are afraid legislators will show up naked. My son didn’t really see the problem—as long as they could legislate. I suggested there might be health issues if a person is barefoot. He agreed. Okay. Legislators must wear shoes.
My son then pondered the possible spread of germs if people’s behinds are bare. So, we imposed the use of underpants. But of course, if bare butts and feet can cross-contaminate surfaces, surely naked fingers can do likewise. So, we might consider gloves. And folks who are sniffling or sneezing should probably wear a mask.
Oh wait! The Missouri legislature declined the use of masks back during the height of Covid-19! In essence, they can’t compel their compatriots to wear masks during a pandemic, but they can make women cover up their arms for no good reason other than somebody finds arms unprofessional.
We should be guaranteed the right to bare arms. All of us. (I certainly don’t think the right to bare arms should be gender specific.) But this is the opinion of a woman who got thrown out of high school for wearing pants at a time when girls were mandated to wear dresses. I was trying to push the boundaries of the female dress code.
It worked. I was allowed back in school after a few days—and so were pants on all students.
I fully support the right of legislators to bare their arms. Regardless of gender.