Mitch Holmes, a Republican committee chairman in the Kansas senate, has imposed a dress code for those testifying on elections or ethics bills. But here’s the catch: the rule in his 11-point code of conduct is only directed towards women, with no mention of any restrictions or guidelines for men.
Holmes, the chairman of the Senate Elections and Ethics Committee, explained that he implemented this dress code because he had observed provocatively dressed females at the Capitol and that “revealing too much of the body during testimony to the Senate committee is a distraction.”
Rule number two in the code of conduct reads: “For ladies, low-cut necklines and mini-skirts are inappropriate.” But just as one would expect from this type of caveman mentality, Holmes didn’t set a minimum skirt length or appropriate neckline recommendations.
To add insult to injury, Holmes actually admitted that he contemplated including dress code guidelines specific to men, but concluded that males didn’t need the instructions on how to look professional. Females though? I guess we just need that extra reminder.
“It’s one of those things that’s hard to define,” he bemoaned, “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.”
He just knows it’s distracting when those dadgum evil women come in with their legs and their breasts and keep him from using his brain for stuff. It’s that black magic, I tell you what. And it just ain’t fair.
I’m not even sure what the takeaway is here: is he insinuating that women use their bodies as manipulation tools to get what they want on the Senate floor, or is he conceding that men lack the ability to control themselves? Should men not be personally responsible for getting distracted by a woman’s legs in a skirt? Do they really lack the self-control to look somewhere else, say, I don’t know, her face?
This is the kind of idiot who gives credence to the “war on women” liberals consistently use against conservatives. This is why their argument is effective. Republican men, here is the moral of the story: do not be Mitch Holmes.