Washington Post (May 22) reported the victory of the 35-year-old Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky Democratic primary to position her as the challenger to 72-year-old Senate’s GOP leader, Mitch McConnell in November election.
It says;
Alison Lundergan Grimes says it everywhere she goes. She said it at
dozens of stops in Kentucky over the past week. She said it at her
victory speech here Tuesday night after securing the Democratic
nomination for Senate. And she plans to say it again all the way to
November. She’s not an “empty dress.”“I am not an empty dress, I am not a rubber stamp, and I am not a
cheerleader,” she said in a speech Tuesday night after she and
McConnell each easily defeated primary opponents and officially began
what is shaping up to be one of the year’s most heated political
battles.
– Source
None of OED, CED, Merriam-Webster carries “empty dress.” Google Ngram shows existence of the word since mid 19 century, but at a very low incidence ratio (0.0000002% in 2008)
Urban dictionary defines it as “Usually used in regards a woman. After you get past all the glamour and glitz, there is nothing worth staying for.”
Does it mean ‘outdated and unattractive woman without substance’? What is an alternative short word to “empty dress” used in the context of Alison Grimes’ victory speech? What is the men’s version of “empty dress”?
Best Answer
Yoichi, I swear, there should be a term (perhaps "Yoichi-question-ism!") for (A) when in English we further play on a common figure of speech.
But then, more critically, there should be a term (B) (perhaps "faux-yoichi-question-ism!") for when writers incorrectly mess-up a common figure of speech, and or pathetically accidentally mix one or more together in a meaningless way.
{Aside: For me, these "B" cases are an extremely important and noteworthy social phenomenon in current English-speaking countries: for me it's an absolutely critical pointer to the a hugely significant socio-historic phenomenon playing out currently: a combination of (i) staggering decrease in learned literacy {due to decades of a certain overarching political situation} and amazing decrease in physical native intelligence {due to carbohydrate poisoning}, coupled with (ii) a (rather terrifying) desire to be seen as humorously-pseudo-intellectual. In short, illiteracy + risible peurile pretentiousness == phenomenon "B".}
(A) and (B) are quite distinct, and you in particular very often bring to the fore examples of these. Many of your questions prove to be about (A) (harmless and happy incidents in English) and many are about (B) (which for me are socially disturbing and point to imminent Lord-of-the-Flies -esque societal collapse, on the Jaynesian scale). (!)
In this particular case, it is very much (A). ("Phew!")
A critical point for me is that in the case of yoichi-isms, and more critically, faux-yoichi-isms, answers sometimes confusingly "explain" the phrase without pointing out the overwhelming factor, that it is an (A) {or even (B)} situation.
(So for example, IMO, GMB's answer above is unclear: it relates the situation as if it is a figure-of-speech as such, rather than an "A".)