BY: STEFANIE AWRONSKI
“For crying out loud, what century is this?”
Republican state Senator Mitch Holmes, who leads the Kansas Senate Ethics and Elections Committee, is under fire for an 11-point guideline he wrote for the committee. The guideline contained rules for etiquette and for witnesses testifying on ethics bills or elections. What really pisses people off about this guideline is the ridiculously outdated and sexist second rule of the guideline, which reads, “Conferees should be dressed in professional attire. For ladies, low-cut necklines and miniskirts are inappropriate.” Yes, this rule was written only three years ago and not thirty.
Fellow female politicians are going against Holmes’ “faux pas.” Democrat Rep. Barbara Ballard told CNN affiliate KWCH, “It’s hard enough to get people to come and testify as it is, and now we’re giving them a particular dress.”
Wichita Senator Oletha Faust-Goudeau, who is the ranking Democrat on the Senate’s elections and ethics committee, shared, “In my 13 years of legislature, that’s the first time I’ve ever read anything like that. I thought it was a little strange.”
Senator Mitch Holmes is receiving criticism after making a sexist rule about dress code three years ago.
Democratic State Senator Laura Kelly’s remarks perfectly summed up what we are all thinking. “I think my first thought was, ‘For crying out loud, what century is this?’ …There was no suggestion that men needed any help deciding what to put on in the morning.”
Even when it comes to support from his own party, Holmes is up the creek and without a paddle. Republican Rep Peggy Mast said, “An individual is an individual and I don’t judge what other people would choose to feel is appropriate.”
Holmes shared to KWCH that his rule is not sexist and that it does apply to men too. “First off, there’s a misunderstanding that I have a rule that only applies to women. And that’s just not the case. The rule says all conferees should be dressed in professional attire.” Holmes added the second rule to his guideline after a lobbyist’s inappropriate attire. He ridiculously stated that, “[She] had a low-cut that extended way down almost to the navel.” He has since stated that he was thinking of adding some phrasing concerning appropriate attire for men.
Holmes says his rule, which singled out Conferee women’s attire, is not sexist, and he is considering adding phrasing about men’s attire.
Holmes is incredulous as to why his guideline is attracting so much ire over social media. He adds further to KWCH, “A particular reporter, one known for not joining in the Pledge of Allegiance, decided to make an issue of the committee rules I use.”
Bowing down to obvious public pressure, Holmes issued a written public apology this past Tuesday. “My failure to clearly specify that all conferees, regardless of gender, should strive to present themselves professionally is unacceptable. I apologize and meant no offense. I have decided to retract the conferee guideline.”
That so many conversations about a woman’s attire still need to be had is disheartening.
Image sourcing: cjonline.com, glassceiling.com