Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKansas Lawmaker imposes dress code on female witnesses
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kansas-lawmaker-imposes-dress-code-on-female-witnesses/ar-BBozNIN?ocid=ansmsnnews11TOPEKA, Kan. A dress code imposed by a Kansas Senate committee chairman that prohibits women testifying on bills from wearing low-cut necklines and miniskirts is drawing bipartisan ridicule from female legislators.
Sen. Mitch Holmes' 11-point code of conduct does not include any restrictions on men, who he said needed no instruction on how to look professional, The Topeka Capital-Journal reported.
"Oh, for crying out loud, what century is this?" Sen. Laura Kelly, a Topeka Democrat, said Thursday.
Holmes, a 53-year-old Republican from St. John who is chairman of the Senate Ethics and Elections Committee, said he wrote the instruction because provocatively dressed women are a distraction. The guidelines don't detail a minimum skirt length or a permissible neckline for blouses.
"It's one of those things that's hard to define," Holmes said. "Put it out there and let people know we're really looking for you to be addressing the issue rather than trying to distract or bring eyes to yourself."
Holmes said he considered requiring men to wear suits and ties during testimony but decided males didn't need any guidance. He expects lobbyists to understand the rules when interacting with his committee, although he acknowledged infrequent visitors to the Statehouse might be unaware.
Sen. Mitch Holmes' 11-point code of conduct does not include any restrictions on men, who he said needed no instruction on how to look professional, The Topeka Capital-Journal reported.
"Oh, for crying out loud, what century is this?" Sen. Laura Kelly, a Topeka Democrat, said Thursday.
Holmes, a 53-year-old Republican from St. John who is chairman of the Senate Ethics and Elections Committee, said he wrote the instruction because provocatively dressed women are a distraction. The guidelines don't detail a minimum skirt length or a permissible neckline for blouses.
"It's one of those things that's hard to define," Holmes said. "Put it out there and let people know we're really looking for you to be addressing the issue rather than trying to distract or bring eyes to yourself."
Holmes said he considered requiring men to wear suits and ties during testimony but decided males didn't need any guidance. He expects lobbyists to understand the rules when interacting with his committee, although he acknowledged infrequent visitors to the Statehouse might be unaware.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
7 replies, 950 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (6)
ReplyReply to this post
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kansas Lawmaker imposes dress code on female witnesses (Original Post)
Ken Burch
Jan 2016
OP
montana_hazeleyes
(3,424 posts)1. How did I know this nut was Republican?
And I wonder why they seem to be so obsessed with sex?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)2. If he doesn't back down on this
There should be an agreement that, at the next committee meeting this guy chairs, every male witness will show up in a low-cut top and a tight skirt.
demtenjeep
(31,997 posts)3. yea
Frisco Hillboy
(16 posts)4. American Sharia /
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)5. Legal term for this law is "void for vagueness".
Like the laws against saggy pants they were passing a few years ago. These idiots don't understand that you can't just pass a badly written law (or regulation in this case) and have people obey it.
Like the idiot said "Hard to define". That's the problem, as well as it being a stupid idea in the first place.
They need Freddie rockin' a miniskirt and fishnets like this:
leftyladyfrommo
(18,868 posts)6. The Kansas lawmakers right now are about 50 years
Behind the times. It's just one jaw dropping thing after another.
Pretty soon the Westboro people are going to be mainstream.
eppur_se_muova
(36,263 posts)7. Just hand out blindfolds to the DOM. nt