s/o - modesty and culture

[FaithManor]

I am strictly observant, the school one of my daughters is going to is Chassidic, and my stylish eldest daughter and her stringently observant but accepting, open-hearted in-laws are Chassidic.

 

Misogyny can be found in many forms and places, but level of religious intensity and observance do not intrinsically imply negative approaches to women and/or sexuality.

 

...not that you were saying otherwise... but I did want to clarify.

Oh, I agree! I'm sorry that I didn't state it more clearly. I didn't mean that Chassidic was misogynist, just not for many, the mainstream form of Judaism that many encounter just like Islam, not nearly as homogenous in thought and interpretation as outsiders might think. Sometimes when one encounters one form of any religion, the assumption is that it is the only form of that religion.

 

Sorry I wasn't more clear. I hope I didn't offend you.

[marbel]

It's everywhere here because the predominate religion heavily, heavily pushes (especially female) modesty and "virtue." I was born and raised in this religion and I have witnessed the modesty/virtue rhetoric ramp up in the past decade or so. It disturbs me quite a lot. It's a benevolently patriarchal religion: Women are placed on pedestals and told how spiritually superior they are to men while this supposed spiritual superiority is also used as justification for male-only ordination (because ordination elevates the men to the level of women--if women were ordained, the men would never catch up). There's also doublespeak about husbands and wives being equal while the husband is still the leader/presider of the home. My husband is a believer in most aspects of the religion (including some body and sex-shaming aspects that greatly concern and disturb me), but he does not adopt the husband-as-the-leader model. I could not survive a patriarchal marriage.

 

I'm not saying this as in "I don't believe you" but honestly I have never ever heard of such a thing.  This is a large, mainstream belief?    Maybe I've never encountered it simply because of the places I've lived (large metropolitan areas on the east and west coasts of the US).  That just sounds strange to me, and of course completely unbiblical.  

 

Again, I don't doubt what you're saying.  I'm just sort of stunned that this is a major belief somewhere.  Well, maybe I am wrong in assuming you are in the US.

 

[Katy]

I'm not saying this as in "I don't believe you" but honestly I have never ever heard of such a thing.  This is a large, mainstream belief?    Maybe I've never encountered it simply because of the places I've lived (large metropolitan areas on the east and west coasts of the US).  That just sounds strange to me, and of course completely unbiblical.  

 

Again, I don't doubt what you're saying.  I'm just sort of stunned that this is a major belief somewhere.  Well, maybe I am wrong in assuming you are in the US.

 

 

While I can't speak for this poster, yes, I'd say it is quite common for Nondenominational, Charismatic, Pentacostal, and/or some sorts of Baptist churches in the Midwest and parts of the South here in the US.  So if you grew up sort of marginally Christian and decided to become more devout, it is quite easy to accidentally find yourself in the midst of people who teach exactly that sort of thing.

[Veritaserum]

I'm not saying this as in "I don't believe you" but honestly I have never ever heard of such a thing. This is a large, mainstream belief? Maybe I've never encountered it simply because of the places I've lived (large metropolitan areas on the east and west coasts of the US). That just sounds strange to me, and of course completely unbiblical.

 

Again, I don't doubt what you're saying. I'm just sort of stunned that this is a major belief somewhere. Well, maybe I am wrong in assuming you are in the US.

 

I am in Utah.

[Crimson Wife]

There is a large Muslim population in the city where I reside.  They, for the most part, wear complete covering.  I'm pretty sure they aren't of the liberal or mainstream type.  And there are a lot of them. 

 

If I never bothered to learn stuff about places outside of mine, I'd be led to conclude they are quite common and representative of Muslims. 

 

A lot of the younger Muslim women I've seen near me wear skin-tight long-sleeve shirts and jeans. Their choice but I've often thought to myself that it's a funny type of "modesty" to insist on covering hair, forearms, and legs below the knee while allowing the b00ks and backside to be prominently displayed.

[marbel]

I've never encountered it either, but like you I've not lived in areas where I'm likely to encounter it.

 

The US is apparently way more diverse than we imagined.

 

Yes, you are surely correct in that.  I like to think I am fairly well-read and know at least a little about what's going on in the world but then I see stuff like this and I realize that I am in more of a bubble than I thought. 

[marbel]

A lot of the younger Muslim women I've seen near me wear skin-tight long-sleeve shirts and jeans. Their choice but I've often thought to myself that it's a funny type of "modesty" to insist on covering hair, forearms, and legs below the knee while allowing the b00ks and backside to be prominently displayed.

 

I remember a girl from a swimming class my daughter took.  Most of the girls were in one-piece suits with swim shorts over, or in tankinis with swim shorts.  But there was a girl who wore a skin-tight neck-to-ankle suit.   Because it was so tight, it was much more revealing even though the other girls showed more skin.

[SKL]

If it is a church or religious organization (or clearly connected therewith), then I don't understand being surprised or upset by this.  I think we all know that different churches have different views on this, and "modesty" talk (along with other patriarchal stuff) is fair game within that setting.  That's the great thing about living in a country with lots of different ways to worship.  Or not worship.

 

If it makes some people happy to think that their high neck lines are preparing their way to heaven, more power to them, I say.  We are adults, we can ignore them / walk away.  It's no different from people in professional circles insisting that I have to dress and primp a certain way in order to be successful on earth.

[Aelwydd]

Unpopular answer:

 

I think "modesty" as used in this context (context of dress and behavior) is a buzzword that functions to encourage women to internalize a particular patriarchal ideology. It's a means of introducing shame in response to natural sexuality, regardless of intent or behavior. Just the mere presence of existing sexuality is enough to inspire the concept. If one looks to various cultures, one will find different notions of what is socially appropriate dress and behavior in public, what features inspire a sexual attraction. There exists no universal understanding, no universal law that explains it. It is simply, and only, an attempt at control. 

 

I found this article, written by an awesome young woman, Madison Kimrey, to be spot. freakin. on.

 

In part:

 

 

This summarizes my friends, my husband, my children. I wish others could feel this security with their friends. I wish boys didn't grow up being taught that thighs are a conduit through which sin enters the soul. I wish girls didn't grow up conditioned to think their every step is being scrutinized by everyone. I wish young adults didn't feel guilty for having unconventional sexual fantasies. I wish older adults didn't miss out on enriching, exciting, inspiring sexual behaviors because conforming to patriarchal standards keep the convenient, but unnecessarily and unethically imposed, guilt at a safe distance. 

 

I had a conversation with a few of my coworkers the other day, both of whom have young daughters.  They were discussing how they would be super protective of their daughters as they got older, to keep them from being mistreated by boys.  There was a bit of a mention about how they would be permitted to dress, present themselves, etc., or rather, how they would not be allowed to dress.  This was all in the context of keeping their girls "out of trouble."

 

At one point, I interjected and said, "You know the biggest thing parents can do to prevent girls getting into trouble like that?  It's what I'm teaching my ds now.  Respect girls and women.  Don't you dare do anything to threaten or harm them.  If you were to ever do something to a girl like that, you would lose my respect and my support--I will not tolerate or excuse anything like that from you, EVER."

 

They were quiet for a second (being men, they were thinking that through) and another coworker, a woman, chimed in, "She's right.  Teach boys how they should treat girls and women, ALL women, not just the ones who are sober and covered up."

 

The guys got the point, and they did agree. 

 

Here's the thing-- no skimpy dressed girl or woman, no "slutty" dress, has EVER PHYSICALLY COMPELLED A MAN TO RAPE SOMEONE.  Being turned on, or experiencing lust, does not override a man's decision-making ability.  He does not lose his ability to choose where to put his penis--it's a WILLFUL act.

 

I don't care if he's surrounded by naked women; in order to engage in sex, he has to make a conscious decision to move toward someone, put his hands on her, and to copulate.  He's not an automaton.

 

This whole modesty thing sidesteps that fundamental truth. And the fact that girls and women who are covered from head to toe, the world over, are subjected to sexual harassment and assault, demonstrates that the correlation between a female's clothing and a male's willingness to harass or rape her is weak at best.

 

Instead of focusing on that, there should be focus on the relationship between how egalitarian a society is, and the relative freedom women enjoy from being sexually harassed.  The more patriarchal a society is, the more emphasis there is on male power and female submission, the more privilege is afforded men, and the more that emphasis is put upon the provocation (feminine) versus the initiative and action (male), the more prevalent sexual assault is.

 

Probably the biggest reason that led to my dissatisfaction with most religion is its intrinsic patriarchy. Any system that teaches that one sex or one group of people are automatically afforded more authority, and therefore more power, over another group, is inherently unequal.  It is dishonest, and it is unethical.  I say dishonest, because it teaches people to see each other through the lens of prescribed behavior, instead of seeing each other as they really are, endowed with their own unique abilities and talents, granted by the providence of DNA and random selection, rather than by divine edicts.  It is unethical because it has led to so much abuse and suppression, and contributed to a great deal of misery, as people are pigeon-holed into roles based upon strictures from questionable sources.

 

If patriarchy, and modesty, and all these rules pressed upon women are really good, then the fruit of such should be good.  I see no evidence, throughout the history of humankind, of how putting these kinds of rules upon girls and women have accomplished or produced a better, fairer, more perfect society.  A more educated and more enlightened society.  A progressive society.

 

Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

 

 

 

[Crimson Wife]

 If I saw a person in a retro dress, I would look and it would be more than a passing glance.

 

This is definitely a regional thing because the Modcloth/Bettie Page/'retro" look is pretty popular out here in S.F. There are several boutiques selling that type of clothing in the city.

[Aelwydd]

I have an hourglass figure as well. I prefer fitted/tailored clothing as looser fits leave me feeling unkempt and fat. However, I've been shamed for wearing fitted clothing (not tight) because my bOOks, waist, and hips were not obscured. Eventually I determined that what I wear is my own business and I cannot control other people's reactions or opinions of my attire. Someone could look at me and think "elegant" or "sexy" or "pretty" or "ugly" or "weird" or whatever without having any understanding of what adjective I would use to describe myself in a particular outfit. I dress to please myself. And it's liberating. :-)

 

Wish I could like this 5 more times.

[Crimson Wife]

While I can't speak for this poster, yes, I'd say it is quite common for Nondenominational, Charismatic, Pentacostal, and/or some sorts of Baptist churches in the Midwest and parts of the South here in the US.  So if you grew up sort of marginally Christian and decided to become more devout, it is quite easy to accidentally find yourself in the midst of people who teach exactly that sort of thing.

 

I've run into the attitude a bit among more devout/orthodox Catholics. I was involved for a bit with a Catholic HS support group when we first started HSing and noticed it. It wasn't so much direct criticism/shaming but more an indirect judging of how Catholic a person was by the length of her hemline (and also the number of her children but that's another issue). I wore my more conservative outfits to that group and actually got a comment the first time I went that I "looked like a Catholic HSer" (I was in an ankle-length skirt and a flowy 3/4 sleeve blouse). One time I ran into that same lady at the mall while I was wearing shorts and a sleeveless shirt and she made a comment about how she didn't recognize me at first. Way to stay classy!

[FaithManor]

Oh, that makes sense.  Sorry I misunderstood.  ...and you are so right.

 

And, no, you didn't offend me at all!

Oh good! Eliana, I really respect you and it would have hurt my heart if I had hurt you.

[Aelwydd]

If you are going to be careful in stating a "particular brand" of Christianity, should you not also say a "particular brand" of Muslim?  Muslims are not unanimous in their beliefs towards modesty.

 

 

 

Kate, I understand this, and I agree that there are different groups.  However, I do think that monotheistic religions, especially, seem to share a very common trait--a large subset of fundamentalists who exhibit misogyny as a common theme.  As much I respect the right of Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim, or other religious women to cover themselves, sometimes completely--there is still a part of me that cringes at the thought of the natural rights she has ceded, to honor what has been taught as a spiritual law.

 

The natural rights I speak of are fairly mundane--but all the more essential to me.  Hold my head up, and feel the sun in my hair, the unimpeded wind on my face.  Go to the beach, without concerning myself if my attire covers me enough to enjoy the salt water and the waves.  Ride bareback on my horse, in my tattered old jeans and tee shirt, and feel so free. Lift my face to the stars at night, and feel completely natural, at one with the cosmos, as I am, and without regard to who may see me, as I am.  Listen to the music, and move my body to the beat of life.

 

There are many things like this, that I have observed some of my fellow religious women--mostly Christian, but also of Islamic and other religious traditions--avoid, decline, hold back or turn aside from.  It's not appropriate, or it's too sensual, or it's not in keeping with the prescribed order for them to do such things as kick off their shoes, roll up their sleeves and jeans, pull off their hats, and jump into the sprinkler with a bunch of kids on a hot day.

 

I used to belong to a very conservative Anglican parish, and while it did not go so far as to prescribe covering my head 24/7, avoiding touching unrelated men, etc., it was bad enough to induce depression.  I respect that there are women who are at peace with their faith, and wouldn't have it any other way. 

 

But I do feel for their daughters, who may never know any other way.

[SKL]

Kate, I understand this, and I agree that there are different groups.  However, I do think that monotheistic religions, especially, seem to share a very common trait--a large subset of fundamentalists who exhibit misogyny as a common theme.  As much I respect the right of Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim, or other religious women to cover themselves, sometimes completely--there is still a part of me that cringes at the thought of the natural rights she has ceded, to honor what has been taught as a spiritual law.

 

So non-monotheistic religions (such as Hinduism) are never associated with what you'd interpret as misogyny?

 

The fact is that materialistic details such as dress are cultural, not religious.  That is why people who have identical religious beliefs have very different beliefs about what is OK to wear to church or in public.  And also, people from very different religions but shared cultures (such as the Muslims and Hindus in Hyderabad, India) dress almost the same way for basically the same reasons.

[Aelwydd]

So non-monotheistic religions (such as Hinduism) are never associated with what you'd interpret as misogyny?

 

The fact is that materialistic details such as dress are cultural, not religious.  That is why people who have identical religious beliefs have very different beliefs about what is OK to wear to church or in public.  And also, people from very different religions but shared cultures (such as the Muslims and Hindus in Hyderabad, India) dress almost the same way for basically the same reasons.

 

I didn't say "never."  That is your word, not mine.  I said "monotheistic religions, especially...", which is not the same as exclusively.

 

Rules for dress are both cultural and religious.  Since many cultures derive many of their values from a set of dominant religious beliefs, it would be disingenuous to pretend that religious beliefs have no bearing or sway on what people may or may not wear.  Especially as most Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu women who keep to a set dress code would cite their religious beliefs, and not their culture, as the reason for why they cover certain parts of themselves.

[SKL]

I didn't say "never."  That is your word, not mine.  I said "monotheistic religions, especially...", which is not the same as exclusively.

 

Rules for dress are both cultural and religious.  Since many cultures derive many of their values from a set of dominant religious beliefs, it would be disingenuous to pretend that religious beliefs have no bearing or sway on what people may or may not wear.  Especially as most Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu women who keep to a set dress code would cite their religious beliefs, and not their culture, as the reason for why they cover certain parts of themselves.

 

Well, roughly half of the world is in China, India, and thereabouts and does not follow a "monotheistic" religion, yet there is plenty of misogyny to be found in their cultures.  I'm not sure if I need to elaborate or not.  I think it is completely disingenuous to suggest that monotheistic religions are the source or the most significant source of misogyny.  Most of the countries where women have achieved relatively equal opportunities are majority Christian.  That is not to say that sexual equality is traceable to Christianity.  I'm just saying the link to religion is dubious at best - except when you're talking about tiny minority fringe religions like a few sub-sub-sects being referenced above.

 

Some people who don't know much about the world may think these rules originated in their religion, but that's because they are misinformed.  Were they there when Mohammad was composing the surahs?  People blame a lot of things on religion because it's convenient to do so.

[Aelwydd]

Do Hindus have clothing rules?  I've know a few Hindus.  Except that they wore the long flowing sash dress things (whatever they are called) that was all there was too it.  I thought it was just a type of dress they were used to.  It didn't strike me as particularly modest and looked comfy.  I'm referring to women.  I only knew some Hindu women.  In fact one I knew flipped beef burgers all day (rather ironic). 

 

But I don't know squat about Hinduism.

 

Actually, I was informed by a Hindi friend, that she was permitted to show her midriff, but shoulders (I think?) were not allowed.  I admire some of the saris that Indian and Pakistani women don. (Some of the dresses that Muslim Malaysian women wear, and the long flowing head scarves that I've seen some Egyptian women wear are also quite beautiful.)

[FaithManor]

Off topic, but I've seen some GORGEOUS sari's that I coveted greatly with the green eyed monster of envy!

[SKL]

Do Hindus have clothing rules?  I've know a few Hindus.  Except that they wore the long flowing sash dress things (whatever they are called) that was all there was too it.  I thought it was just a type of dress they were used to.  It didn't strike me as particularly modest and looked comfy.  I'm referring to women.  I only knew some Hindu women.  In fact one I knew flipped beef burgers all day (rather ironic). 

 

But I don't know squat about Hinduism.

 

No, not as a religion.  They may sense that their desire for modesty has a link to their religion, but people without religion usually like to be modest as well.

 

The sari can be sexy or dowdy.  It's really an awesome article of clothing.  It looks good on any kind of woman (size, shape, color, age....).

 

But most Hindus in the US who are able to sport US fashions do so.  (Older women often prefer their traditional garb because it is looser and cooler and easier to fit.)

[albeto.]

Off topic, but I've seen some GORGEOUS sari's that I coveted greatly with the green eyed monster of envy!

 

ME TOO!

[Word Nerd]

Off topic, but I've seen some GORGEOUS sari's that I coveted greatly with the green eyed monster of envy!

 

Some of the skirts and scarves that the Somali women in our area wear are gorgeous.

[albeto.]

Kate, I understand this, and I agree that there are different groups.  However, I do think that monotheistic religions, especially, seem to share a very common trait--a large subset of fundamentalists who exhibit misogyny as a common theme.  As much I respect the right of Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim, or other religious women to cover themselves, sometimes completely--there is still a part of me that cringes at the thought of the natural rights she has ceded, to honor what has been taught as a spiritual law.

 

The natural rights I speak of are fairly mundane--but all the more essential to me.  Hold my head up, and feel the sun in my hair, the unimpeded wind on my face.  Go to the beach, without concerning myself if my attire covers me enough to enjoy the salt water and the waves.  Ride bareback on my horse, in my tattered old jeans and tee shirt, and feel so free. Lift my face to the stars at night, and feel completely natural, at one with the cosmos, as I am, and without regard to who may see me, as I am.  Listen to the music, and move my body to the beat of life.

 

There are many things like this, that I have observed some of my fellow religious women--mostly Christian, but also of Islamic and other religious traditions--avoid, decline, hold back or turn aside from.  It's not appropriate, or it's too sensual, or it's not in keeping with the prescribed order for them to do such things as kick off their shoes, roll up their sleeves and jeans, pull off their hats, and jump into the sprinkler with a bunch of kids on a hot day.

 

I used to belong to a very conservative Anglican parish, and while it did not go so far as to prescribe covering my head 24/7, avoiding touching unrelated men, etc., it was bad enough to induce depression.  I respect that there are women who are at peace with their faith, and wouldn't have it any other way. 

 

But I do feel for their daughters, who may never know any other way.

 

I just heard about #stealthfreedom. It means taking off the hijab when it's safe to do so, and posting pics on facebook to celebrate this [secret] freedom.

 

"Despite the fact that going out in public without a hijab can get women imprisoned for 60 days and 70 lashes, a surprising number of brave hearts in Iran are ditching their headscarves on Facebook."

 

 

 

 

And people use "balls" to denote courage.

 

:glare:

[Xuzi]

 

 

And people use "balls" to denote courage.

 

:glare:

I prefer "ovarian fortitude" myself.

[SKL]

And people use "balls" to denote courage.

 

:glare:

 

LOL, I remember a male colleague telling me "you have bigger balls than I have" after I told off our boss.  I took that as a compliment.  Ironic, though.  It does sound better than "bigger boobs" or whatever.....

[Aura]

It's everywhere here because the predominate religion heavily, heavily pushes (especially female) modesty and "virtue." I was born and raised in this religion and I have witnessed the modesty/virtue rhetoric ramp up in the past decade or so. It disturbs me quite a lot. It's a benevolently patriarchal religion: Women are placed on pedestals and told how spiritually superior they are to men while this supposed spiritual superiority is also used as justification for male-only ordination (because ordination elevates the men to the level of women--if women were ordained, the men would never catch up). There's also doublespeak about husbands and wives being equal while the husband is still the leader/presider of the home. My husband is a believer in most aspects of the religion (including some body and sex-shaming aspects that greatly concern and disturb me), but he does not adopt the husband-as-the-leader model. I could not survive a patriarchal marriage.

 

I haven't caught up with all the replies yet, but this has been my experience as well, to some degree. Not as much the spiritually superior part, (though I have seen that, too) but being put on a pedestal. And the doublespeak about being equal, but the men are still the leaders, etc.

 

Women are "vessels of honor" and compared to fine china. Women are above the "dirty work" of leadership. "Behind every good man is a great woman." Etc.

 

It makes patriarchy a little more palatable for many, and it also feeds the "holier than thou" mindset that many women in patriarchy show.

[Aelwydd]

Well, roughly half of the world is in China, India, and thereabouts and does not follow a "monotheistic" religion, yet there is plenty of misogyny to be found in their cultures.  I'm not sure if I need to elaborate or not.  I think it is completely disingenuous to suggest that monotheistic religions are the source or the most significant source of misogyny.  Most of the countries where women have achieved relatively equal opportunities are majority Christian.  That is not to say that sexual equality is traceable to Christianity.  I'm just saying the link to religion is dubious at best - except when you're talking about tiny minority fringe religions like a few sub-sub-sects being referenced above.

 

Some people who don't know much about the world may think these rules originated in their religion, but that's because they are misinformed.  Were they there when Mohammad was composing the surahs?  People blame a lot of things on religion because it's convenient to do so.

 

I didn't not say that monotheistic religions are "the" source, or the "most significant" source of misogyny, either.  I did not say anything about misogyny being "traceable" to any religion. 

 

Religion didn't invent misogyny; it merely distilled it to its most potent form, and then disseminated it, with vigor.

 

To your other points, I have not made any qualifying statements about how misogynistic other religions are, because I have not had long experience with them. I have not studied them to the same extent.  I am not focusing on them, but on monotheism.  Whether or not I have experienced misogyny under other religions has no bearing on the veracity of my observations of misogynistic behavior in the monotheistic religions I have been heavily exposed to. (Although, technically, it may be argued that Christianity is actually not monotheistic, but polytheistic.)

 

What I have experienced, my entire life, is heavy association with monotheistic religions, mostly Christian variants.  And in each of those religions, I have noted an especially consistent emphasis throughout their religious texts, and their traditions, on the natural supremacy of men over women, both spiritually and legally. 

 

To recognize that is not to deny that misogyny exists elsewhere; it is it say that it happens to exist with a noted prominence in these religions. 

 

The countries that are closest to egalitarianism are post-Christian.  Countries, such as Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc., and are much more secular than countries like the U.S. or even the U.K.  And their laws, their political leadership, and their protections on reproductive rights, family leave, free daycare, etc. reflect that. 

 

The more religious a country is, the more restrictive the rules on women's dress, reproductive functions, marriage/ divorce, education, career, finances, etc. Men's too, btw, though usually to a lessor degree.

[Aelwydd]

I just heard about #stealthfreedom. It means taking off the hijab when it's safe to do so, and posting pics on facebook to celebrate this [secret] freedom.

 

"Despite the fact that going out in public without a hijab can get women imprisoned for 60 days and 70 lashes, a surprising number of brave hearts in Iran are ditching their headscarves on Facebook."

 

 

 

 

And people use "balls" to denote courage.

 

:glare:

 

Love that picture, albeto!

 

 

[FaithManor]

What a beautiful picture! I hope none of those ladies gets caught. My heart bleeds when I hear about lashings and imprisonment etc. But, man can I celebrate their courage and their willingness to risk life and limb in the pursuit of the greater good for the women of their nation. Their moral courage is extraordinary.

[SKL]

I didn't not say that monotheistic religions are "the" source, or the "most significant" source of misogyny, either.  I did not say anything about misogyny being "traceable" to any religion. 

 

Religion didn't invent misogyny; it merely distilled it to its most potent form, and then disseminated it, with vigor.

 

To your other points, I have not made any qualifying statements about how misogynistic other religions are, because I have not had long experience with them. I have not studied them to the same extent.  I am not focusing on them, but on monotheism.  Whether or not I have experienced misogyny under other religions has no bearing on the veracity of my observations of misogynistic behavior in the monotheistic religions I have been heavily exposed to. (Although, technically, it may be argued that Christianity is actually not monotheistic, but polytheistic.)

 

What I have experienced, my entire life, is heavy association with monotheistic religions, mostly Christian variants.  And in each of those religions, I have noted an especially consistent emphasis throughout their religious texts, and their traditions, on the natural supremacy of men over women, both spiritually and legally. 

 

To recognize that is not to deny that misogyny exists elsewhere; it is it say that it happens to exist with a noted prominence in these religions. 

 

The countries that are closest to egalitarianism are post-Christian.  Countries, such as Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc., and are much more secular than countries like the U.S. or even the U.K.  And their laws, their political leadership, and their protections on reproductive rights, family leave, free daycare, etc. reflect that. 

 

The more religious a country is, the more restrictive the rules on women's dress, reproductive functions, marriage/ divorce, education, career, finances, etc. Men's too, btw, though usually to a lessor degree.

 

And I'm saying it isn't religion that makes up definitions and rules about modesty.  It's culture, and sometimes religion is convenientely blamed.

 

If you don't have experience with any other than monotheistic religions, then I don't know how you can make any statements regarding distinguishing qualities of monotheistic religions.  I'm not saying the "religion" followed in China (which is mostly Atheism, btw, but there are others) is the source of misogynistic values there.  I'm saying it's culture.  Same thing in India.  Same thing in the USA.  Most people running around in string bikinis in the USA were raised in a Christian home.

 

The few religions in the US that actually seek to control what women wear are distorting "religion" to meet their own earthly ends (i.e., controlling people, feeling better than others).  Why give them the time of day?  I don't understand.  It's like, if you are heterosexual, then why go to a gay bar and complain about what they are doing there?  Is there no other way to satisfy your spiritual needs than to attend a church that tells you what to wear?

 

I don't see where you are finding a consistent emphasis in the Bible about the superiority of men over women.  Most of the differences you see in the Bible are a natural reflection of cultural realities of those times.  The gender disparities were essentially the same in Jewish and Roman / Egyptian / etc. homes.

[albeto.]

What a beautiful picture! I hope none of those ladies gets caught. My heart bleeds when I hear about lashings and imprisonment etc. But, man can I celebrate their courage and their willingness to risk life and limb in the pursuit of the greater good for the women of their nation. Their moral courage is extraordinary.

 

Yeah, the funny thing for me is seeing this same "moral courage" being identified as "skankiness" in our culture. It takes a kind of moral courage to be confident with your sense of self, even sexuality, in public and in private. For the same reason many of us don't see "skankiness" in a woman whose head is not covered, many of us don't see "skankiness" in a woman wearing short shorts or a form fitting outfit. It's all relative, I guess.

[albeto.]

The few religions in the US that actually seek to control what women wear are distorting "religion" to meet their own earthly ends (i.e., controlling people, feeling better than others).  Why give them the time of day?  I don't understand. 

 

Because it doesn't end at the perimeter of the religious circle. This idea is superimposed onto public policy and expectations of private behavior. Refer to recent threads about leggy teen women and the "skankiness" they apparently exude from their supposed lack of modestly. The idea that women ought to be more reserved sexually inspires increasing limitations on medical choices, thus reducing more the autonomy a woman has over her own body. It's not at all like being heterosexual and walking into a gay bar, it's more like identifying gay bars are dangers unto society and throwing the patrons in jail in a raid. 

[SKL]

By the way, I cover certain body parts because I want them covered.  Not because I am sacrificing my right to be naked on some altar.  If someone found an authentic ancient scroll where Jesus or Buddha or Krishna said women should be topless, I still would cover myself from  neck to thighs (at least) because I want to.

 

And also, I am happy that other women cover their boobs, because I don't want to see them.  Not because I am happy there will be more ladies in Heaven, but because I don't like the look of them.

 

I suspect this is the majority view in the USA regardless of religion.

 

My friends who were not raised in a "monotheistic" religion have no desire to be or see topless in public either.  My Atheist friends don't either.  Thank goodness.

[mommaduck]

Agreed, very much, Eliana! If anything, it was Jewish women speaking on such mitzvahs that have helped me in understanding the flaws of certain types of thinking on "modesty" and better ways of thinking on such that don't involve turning women into commodities, shaming victims, or excusing abusers.

[Veritaserum]

The unveiling of Iranian women reminds me of Reading Lolita in Tehran (which I read last month). The book discussed the upset women felt when the veil became mandatory. Religiously observant women who veiled for private, personal reasons were upset that their private, personal religious observance was turned into something forced and political. Women who preferred not to veil were upset that their private, personal choices regarding how they dressed were coopted by the men in charge. The descriptions in the book of how the Morality Police harassed women for even imagined infractions of the modest dress rules were horrifying. Covering up women does NOT prevent sexual violence from males. In my experience, it actually increases it because men are taught that it's a woman's job to cover. If she doesn't cover "enough" or "the right way," then she is obviously "asking for" sexual attention.

[albeto.]

I don't want to engage in a religious or philosophical debate, but I do want to clarify a few things.

 

Understood. 

 

[Disclaimer: I do not speak for all of the observant Jewish world, only for my strand of it... which falls rather in the middle of the Orthodox spectrum]

 

I am do not aspire to tznius dress and behavior because I have concerns that otherwise I will be rendered a commodity - and I certainly don't believe my sister, whose attire is very, very different from mine is being devalued by her clothing choices, or turning her sexuality into a commodity.

 

The simplest bottom line explanation is that these boundaries are part of a system which I believe creates the potential for a life of kedushah (holiness).

 

I do not assert, or believe, that this is the only way someone can experience connection with G-d, or create holiness in their lives and the world, but it is my way, and my people's way.

 

Saying it is a path to kedushah is ***not the same thing*** as saying that someone who chooses otherwise is being, ch"s (G-d forbid) unholy, or anything else negative.

 

It would be interesting to hear in what way clothing contributes to a system of kedushah. It would be interesting to hear the correlation between the two, because they seem to me objectively unrelated. 

 

...and subservience is not any part of the identity of any observant Jewish woman I have ever met...and I cannot imagine it being taught as a value in any shul or community I have lived in or visited.

I find this feminism interesting in light of the teaching of the religion that restricts certain things based on gender. Perhaps I will visit the "ask an Orthodox Jew" thread for more explanation. 

 

I don't want to make this about me and my faith... but I want to speak out strongly to clarify that the underlying concepts in my observance of 'tznius' which sort-or-corresponds to your 'modesty' are not the ones you are talking about at all.

 

I disagree, but thank you for the explanation. 

[SKL]

The unveiling of Iranian women reminds me of Reading Lolita in Tehran (which I read last month). The book discussed the upset women felt when the veil became mandatory. Religiously observant women who veiled for private, personal reasons were upset that their private, personal religious observance was turned into something forced and political. Women who preferred not to veil were upset that their private, personal choices regarding how they dressed were coopted by the men in charge. The descriptions in the book of how the Morality Police harassed women for even imagined infractions of the modest dress rules were horrifying. Covering up women does NOT prevent sexual violence from males. In my experience, it actually increases it because men are taught that it's a woman's job to cover. If she doesn't cover "enough" or "the right way," then she is obviously "asking for" sexual attention.

 

I agree with you.  The problem is not that some women wear a veil, but that politics has gotten involved and taken the choice away from women / families / communities.

 

In the US, we have the option to avoid/ignore the minority who make a fuss over dress (beyond the most basic cultural norms).  Our laws are nowhere close to what is described in the quote above, nor is there any real danger of that happening in our lifetimes.  But protesting the existence of minority groups that choose more restrictive dress is the other side of the same coin.  Let them feel what they feel and cover what they cover, as long as they don't have a right to control other adult human beings.

 

[Luckymama]

Out of likes for the day!

 

 

I just heard about #stealthfreedom. It means taking off the hijab when it's safe to do so, and posting pics on facebook to celebrate this [secret] freedom.

 "Despite the fact that going out in public without a hijab can get women imprisoned for 60 days and 70 lashes, a surprising number of brave hearts in Iran are ditching their headscarves on Facebook." 

 

 

 

And people use "balls" to denote courage.

 

:glare:

 

 

I spent a good part of my free time yesterday reading about this. I am struck by their strength. I hope that I would do the same faced with such a situation, but I don't know if I am that brave. (Side note----dd14 and I are watching the "Eyes on the Prize" documentary this week. Wow.)

 

 

"called out"? 

 

I cannot imagine a scenario in which calling someone out about there attire could be even remotely appropriate unless there is an organizational dress code being violated by a student or employee... and even then, calling out sounds so hostile and negative.

.

.

.

I...I've just never seen such a thing... and I wouldn't want my children in a community that behaved in such a way... a community that considered how some dresses more important than respecting their dignity...

 

 

Yes!

 

 

The unveiling of Iranian women reminds me of Reading Lolita in Tehran (which I read last month). The book discussed the upset women felt when the veil became mandatory. Religiously observant women who veiled for private, personal reasons were upset that their private, personal religious observance was turned into something forced and political. Women who preferred not to veil were upset that their private, personal choices regarding how they dressed were coopted by the men in charge. The descriptions in the book of how the Morality Police harassed women for even imagined infractions of the modest dress rules were horrifying. Covering up women does NOT prevent sexual violence from males. In my experience, it actually increases it because men are taught that it's a woman's job to cover. If she doesn't cover "enough" or "the right way," then she is obviously "asking for" sexual attention.

Added the book to my summer reading. Thanks for the reminder!

[Vida Winter]

Modesty, IMO, is about respect: toward yourself and to those around you.

 

It's about dressing appropriately for the situation. It's about showing to others that you care enough about them and what's going on to dress in a way that shows appreciation and consideration. (Wearing a formal dress to a formal event, wearing clothes that allow you to participate in active events, etc.)

 

It's about considering how oneself feels and the image you want to portray to others. (Choosing clothes that reflect your own tastes and needs, making yourself as attractive (or even unattractive, I suppose) as possible within the appropriateness of the event.

 

Real modesty has nothing to do with avoiding attractiveness or with others' impure or slanderous thoughts. But it does include considering what the *general* image is that you portray.

 

Real modesty is entirely subjective and relative to the event and those who attend, particularly those who host the event.

 

JMHO

 

You put it better than I could have. An analogy would be the concept of being a gentleman, lady, or host - one who is considerate of others.

[Elisabet1]

For me..the pieces parts are covered and appropriate for the event. For example, if I am out running (which I do not do anymore but my teen daughter does) short shorts are ok with t-shirt. She and I are both big chested, so things fly when not contained.  When I did run, it was with a sports bra under the t-shirt. 

 

I tend to be non-sexist in this. I hold same standards for boys and girls. Cleavage is not ok for either gender. Boys can unbutton their shirts too low. I have mostly boys and they have to button up high enough to not show their chests. Whatever is on the bottom should not show their bun cheeks. Pants should come up high enough to not show pubic hair, or the area that would have pubic hair if older. If your parts are bouncing, boy or girl, they should be contained. 

 

On venue...halter tops and flip flops are ok for the beach, but not for church. A cocktail dress can be fine, but if it could never be worn to a business affair, why would I ever be ok with it being worn to a prom? There is a different between an appropriate cocktail dress, and one made of elastic basically, meant to show ever single last crevice of a body and meant to slink up and be inappropriate. Likewise, outside of the gym or other such places, any sort of elastic clothes like that are just wrong. Formal means dressy, not elastic. I hold my standards same for each gender.

[Aelwydd]

And I'm saying it isn't religion that makes up definitions and rules about modesty.  It's culture, and sometimes religion is convenientely blamed.

 

If you don't have experience with any other than monotheistic religions, then I don't know how you can make any statements regarding distinguishing qualities of monotheistic religions.  I'm not saying the "religion" followed in China (which is mostly Atheism, btw, but there are others) is the source of misogynistic values there.  I'm saying it's culture.  Same thing in India.  Same thing in the USA.  Most people running around in string bikinis in the USA were raised in a Christian home.

 

The few religions in the US that actually seek to control what women wear are distorting "religion" to meet their own earthly ends (i.e., controlling people, feeling better than others).  Why give them the time of day?  I don't understand.  It's like, if you are heterosexual, then why go to a gay bar and complain about what they are doing there?  Is there no other way to satisfy your spiritual needs than to attend a church that tells you what to wear?

 

I don't see where you are finding a consistent emphasis in the Bible about the superiority of men over women.  Most of the differences you see in the Bible are a natural reflection of cultural realities of those times.  The gender disparities were essentially the same in Jewish and Roman / Egyptian / etc. homes.

 

You are still not understanding me, SKL.  I don't have to know about other religions to recognize hallmarks of the religion I was raised in, and in other religions I've had significant exposure to.  To make an analogy: I don't have to have six more children, to recognize my son's innate kindness, or his stubborn nature, or his curiosity.  Similarly, I have noted a recurring theme in the Bible, in Christian traditions, in Islamic text and traditions, in some Jewish traditions, etc., of men holding special favor over women.  I have noted it because it is extensive.  I have read of sanctioned rape in the Old Testament, sanctioned male control of female sexuality, more legal rights given to men, etc. In the New Testament, I have read of man being named the spiritual head of women, and likened to playing Christ to her Church.  I have read of women being called to bear children, and gaining salvation that way.  I have read of women being called to submit to their husbands and to keep silent in the churches.  I have read of the Church Fathers', especially Tertullian, Iranaeus, and Augustine, among many others, and their frankly, dismissive and contemptuous attitudes towards women.

 

In Islam, I can't read Arabic, so I have read translations of parts of the Koran, and the haadith, as well the writings from different Islamic schools, Sunni, Shiite, Wahabi, etc.  I have spoken with several Muslim women, online, at work, and in my neighborhood.  I have studied several different Islamic countries and their varied Sharia-based interpretations codified in law (specifically, Jordan, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia).  I have seen quite a bit there that qualifies as religious based misogyny.

 

Same thing with Judaism, though I have studied that religion to a lessor degree.  There are different schools, different traditions, some seemingly much stricter than others.

 

You say it's culture--but why does culture in the US look different from culture in Jordan which looks different than culture in Israel?  They don't all go to their holy places on the same days--the days they work, go on vacation, have holy days, the popular style of clothing, the language they speak, the music they listen to (if they are indeed allowed to listen to it--Wahabiism frowns upon that one), the things they eat and drink, who they may or may not marry, how many kids they have, what's considered a respectable career and what's not--that's very heavily influenced by religion. 

 

Webster's defines culture as thus:

 

¹cul·turenoun \ˈkÉ™l-chÉ™r\

: the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time

: a particular society that has its own beliefs, ways of life, art, etc.

: a way of thinking, behaving, or working that exists in a place or organization (such as a business)

 

 

Beliefs and customs are often heavily influenced, or even generated by religion.  By its very nature, culture is thoroughly imbedded with religious themes, religious art, religious music, design, speech, and so forth.

 

As I said before, religion did not invent misogyny, it just capitalized on it.  Heavily.

 

The tribes in old Israel did not invent the oppression of women; they just codified it into Divine law, and thus elevated it beyond a local curiosity, to an immortal ideal. 

 

Sexism and misogyny definitely exist outside of religion; I've seen some right arseholes on many of the secular and science websites saying some of the nastiest things about women.  The difference, to me, is that their opinion has no weight behind it except a kind masculine animalism that some of them have yet to evolve out of. But as full of themselves as they can be, they are still merely mortal and human, with no special powers of authority to defend their bad behavior.

 

With religion, misogyny is something elevated to divine order, and it permeates far more than just the fringes.  If you believe that institutionalized sexism ended in 1920 with suffrage, that is a very narrow view, indeed.  The fact that you and I are having conservations about the question of "modesty" when neither of us is particularly religious, is itself evidence that these distasteful ideals stretch well into mainstream. 

 

I don't see the Catholic Church, for example, petitioning Congress for exemption on paying for Viagra for men--a medication with decidedly limited applications, medicinally speaking, and which can most definitely be used for illicit sexual purposes--yet, declare war on estrogen and progesterone hormonal pills.  Note I did not call them "birth control" pills; because as popular as they may be for these uses, these medications have a much broader range of medical applications. 

 

Since birth control pills may be used for a purpose not approved by the Catholic Church, it would stand to reason that it would take a similar stand on Viagra, and other male sexual enhancement drugs.  Logically, it should be even more opposed, because, as I stated, these drugs are much more limited in their application. 

 

Yet, I have not heard a single bishop stand up and angrily denounce having to pay for Slutty Man Sex.

 

Ok, I'm laughing my ass off thinking about that.  It's funny because it's absurd.  At the same time, it's true.

 

As a society, we will authorize and keep totally mum on the fact that we are all subsidizing horny men wanting to get it on for longer, and we don't even question if the sex being had is only marital sex, and for the purposes of reproduction.

 

The problem we have is apparently paying for women to have sex--or more accurately, for them to have the kind of "risk free" sex that allows them to enjoy it, like men, without the attendant liability of 9 months of pregnancy, childbirth, and nursing.  

 

And why is that anathema to us?

 

What undermines that belief?  We were all just born naturally believing women shouldn't have the same freedom as men?  We should all feel responsible for inciting their lusts by what we wear and what we say?  We, as a society, just developed these ideas in a vacuum?  Apart from any real significant influence of religion?

 

If you believe that, I actually can understand, SKL.  I mean, sexism is pretty extant throughout the species.  I just don't think it's accurate though.  I think the reality is that our society developed as a result of and heavily influenced by, certain dominant religious paradigms.  And though more people are beginning to deviate from those specified beliefs, the institutions of our society--church, education, arts and culture, music, speech, politics, etc., are still enmeshed with religious precepts.

 

Which pisses me off every time I get off shift early Sunday, and can't buy a bottle of wine at the local super market on my way home from work.

 

Damn Puritans! lol

 

 

 

 

[FaithManor]

By the way, I cover certain body parts because I want them covered.  Not because I am sacrificing my right to be naked on some altar.  If someone found an authentic ancient scroll where Jesus or Buddha or Krishna said women should be topless, I still would cover myself from  neck to thighs (at least) because I want to.

 

And also, I am happy that other women cover their boobs, because I don't want to see them.  Not because I am happy there will be more ladies in Heaven, but because I don't like the look of them.

 

I suspect this is the majority view in the USA regardless of religion.

 

My friends who were not raised in a "monotheistic" religion have no desire to be or see topless in public either.  My Atheist friends don't either.  Thank goodness.

I'll agree with you on this. I'm not all that happy with my body because gravity has not been kind. (Off topic scientific question...to the booKs rebound to their original position if a woman goes to the moon or Mars???) Further more, the mosquito population this year is brutal. Therefore, though I really, really like Jesus, if following his ideals meant running around in a nudist colony,  Seriously, not.happening.

 

Oh and the ticks. :eek: This might a good time to talk about robes, NASA jumpsuits, coordinating your mosquito netting outfits, or donning a bio hazard containment suit! UGH....

[SKL]

 

You are still not understanding me, SKL.

 

 

I don't have any more time to spend going over the same concepts.  You are entitled to your opinion and we can agree to disagree.

 

[Aelwydd]

To address your last point first: isn't that true for any value system we try to share with our children? 

 

My children have grown up with our flavor of Orthodox Jewish life as their default... and, yes, that is the only way they have known personally by the time they reach adulthood.  ...but each child only gets one childhood.  ...and to choose one lifestyle means that is the one your children grow up with... and that they don't get any of the other ones.

 

...my kids will never have the experience of waiting for Santa - something I hear has been a lovely part of my children's childhoods.

 

...but they have had other special experiences, ones that are part of the culture they have grown up in.

 

I might not experience sun in my hair on the beach, but I don't see that as a loss in my life.  I can't have everything, or be everything.  I can only have this one finite life.  And each positive choice I make closes other options.  I don't see that as loss, I see it as part of the conditions of life.

 

The image I have in my mind is this: my choices in life create a space for kedusha, holiness... I make of myself and my choices and container (we all do), and by choosing these boundaries, those materials, I choose the kind of container I make, the kind of space.  

 

I have chosen my boundaries for the space I want to create, and those are in harmony with the deepest certainties of my soul. 

 

I do feel at peace with who I am, as I am, without regard for who is looking.  My sense of 'appropriateness' is inner, not who might be watching.  It is part of my relationship with G-d.

 

Yes, when I dance it is with other women, in our own space... and when my husband dances it is with other men in their space.  ...but there is no higher experience of dancing than what I had being the first one to dance with my eldest daughter at her wedding surrounded by the women of our family and community.  ...and then joined by her mother-in-law, so the three of us danced together.

 

My moments of spontaneity and casualness might look different than yours, but I think I have as much joy and feeling of freedom... I just live it differently.

 

Yes, my children, sons and daughters, have grown up within the framework dh and I have chosen and created, but their spiritual journeys are their own.  ...and each as s/he grows is making it his/her own.

 

[side note: my son actually has more boundaries in his life than my daughters, but that is a really different conversation, with its own cultural morass.]

 

I hear your caring, your passion, your love & concern, and I honor them and you.  ...and I grieve for the negative spiritual experiences you have had as woman and a person.  :grouphug:

 

I hear you, Eliana, and I get what you're saying.  But I think a profound difference is ultimately, don't your children still have a choice? 

 

If one of your daughters chose a different tradition of Judaism, and therefore adopted some different styles of practice and dress, I imagine you may be disappointed, but I don't imagine you would condemn them.  Or attempt to punish them for their own choices.

 

Maybe that's my presumption! 

 

My comment is not that these daughters don't get to experience the same things I did at that age, but that in some cultures, they never get to make any choice to experience something different from what they know. 

 

I tend to think that who a person is is pretty much innate and exists from birth.  Some women are born loving the inner life and the mystery that is religion. They gravitate towards the spiritual, because the physical is secondary. And others are born craving life in all its natural earthiness. 

 

For those in the latter group, I think it would be very difficult to never be given the opportunity to live true to themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Aelwydd]

I don't want to engage in a theological debate, so I'm avoiding the religious and textual issues in this post [do note, please, that I disagree with some of your points and conclusions!]

 

I do, however, agree with this culture and faith are intertwined. 

 

...but I would assert they re not the same thing.  (Something I can observe clearly within my own world - there are many, many cultures within the Orthodox Jewish world, we have the same core theological beliefs, but some very different cultural norms.)

 

I think SKL is focusing on the differences and you are highlighting the overlaps...

 

 

 

Yes, I don't see the two as seamless.  I do see them as heavily influencing each other.  There is a difference too, between micro cultures and the broader culture.  What I am referring to is more the "big picture," the society on a large scale.

 

[Crimson Wife]

Yeah, the funny thing for me is seeing this same "moral courage" being identified as "skankiness" in our culture. It takes a kind of moral courage to be confident with your sense of self, even sexuality, in public and in private. For the same reason many of us don't see "skankiness" in a woman whose head is not covered, many of us don't see "skankiness" in a woman wearing short shorts or a form fitting outfit. It's all relative, I guess.

 

Taking off one's headcarf on the beach as a political protest is a very different act than a middle school or high school student dressing like a streetwalker in the classroom in order to solicit the attention of the boys in the room. Don't pretend that the latter is an "act of courage" when it clearly isn't.

[Veritaserum]

Taking off one's headcarf on the beach as a political protest is a very different act than a middle school or high school student dressing like a streetwalker in the classroom in order to solicit the attention of the boys in the room. Don't pretend that the latter is an "act of courage" when it clearly isn't.

How do you know their motivations? I'm wearing a tank top and shorts right now because it is a warm day. I'm not wearing them to solicit attention from any males.

 

Also, it would take bravery for me to wear this outfit in public in my community because "modesty" dictates that a woman cover her shoulders/top of arm and her legs all the way to her knees. I would get looks of disapproval, especially from anyone who knows my religious history. My mother would be mortified by my "immodesty."

[Guest]

So what is your definition of modesty? And if you're of the "Modesty means looking as unattractive as possible," variety, how do you reconcile that with all of the female beauty described in the Bible? I see the Biblical descriptions as not trying to be seductive, but not hiding beauty either. Am I missing something?

 

By way of a disclaimer, I don't take my cues from The Bible anymore, but I do think this verse is a good guideline:

 

…2as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. 3Your adornment must not be merely external-- braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; 4but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.…

 

I do not (and never previously did) interpret this to mean you should be as unattractive as possible. Those folks who bothered you about a red suit can go pound sand. Stupid. Modesty to me means not creating undue focus on one's sexier aspects, particularly several of them at once. It also means (in my interpretation) not wearing or buying excessively fine clothing and accessories just to call attention to your wealth (or debt, as the case may be ;)).

 

Truly I would not darken the door of a church who gave me a talkin' to about my clothes, or the clothes of my kids. I don't sanction (for myself or my kids) over-the-top sexy, but I'm not afraid to wear something pretty that fits me well.

[Aelwydd]

Yes, oh, yes.  Their spiritual journeys are their own, and we respect that.  ... we do have hopes, but as our children transition into adulthood respecting their individuality and their ownership of their lives and spirituality is a core value for us.

 

My grief if one of my children left the observant world would be my problem, not theirs... whether they left it for a less observant form or, cv"s, for another faith, or rejected faith entirely.

 

I held them in my body as they grew inside me, I held them in my arms, I shared my heart and values and guidance with them when they were small... what they do with all of that is theirs to decide.  ...my arms will always be open, my heart will always be theirs.

 

I believe, with passionate intensity, that we each have an individual contribution to make the world, and that trying to become our best and truest selves is how we make that contribution... and I would not presume to judge someone else's, even, or especially my own child's, determination of what that involves.

 

I'm sorry.  I misunderstood you & thought you were sad that my kids, for example, were being raised within this framework... but now that I hear what you are actually saying, I see that we agree completely.

 

Thank you for clarifying.

 

 

Oh thank goodness!  No, I totally did not mean that it was regrettable that your kids are raised in your faith.  I actually see it as a very valuable and important gift, to give your children something that is distinct and genuine, something that gives them definition as individuals and as a family. No matter where they go in life, they will always have that common thread.

 

You know from the "Ask an Atheist" thread that I'm at fairly loose ends, spiritually speaking. Even so, I don't regret the way I was raised. I do strongly disagree with certain beliefs my parents embrace; but, it was my faith tradition that caused me to read and study the Christian Bible. Thus, I gained a much more nuanced understanding about my own history, as part of my family (and our shared culture), and as part of the larger picture, in the sense of how much literature, vernacular, art, music, history, so forth, has been predicated upon certain sayings, ideals, precepts expressed in the Bible.  I had a priest who once said to experience the breadth and beauty of the English language, one should read the King James Bible, Shakespeare works, and the Book of Common Prayer. 

 

I don't agree with that particular priest's world view, but I definitely understand what he meant by being exposed to those writings.  I do take his point, however, about the impact that such writings can have, definitive as they are in many aspects of western culture.

 

The Bible was the first thing that taught to me question everything I'd been taught. Its contradictions and tragic flaws were impossible to ignore. It provoked me to think, to argue, and in turn, I began to apply that to everything I read or was taught.

 

There were times when I was a kid, that I profoundly wished to do things my peers did.  I wasn't permitted to go to movies, trick or treat, dance or listen to pop/ rock music, etc.  I did feel left out and alienated from many of my friends.

 

Now, I've left that belief system behind, and I'm much happier.  But, the things I couldn't do as a kid--I do them now! (Even trick or treating, lol.)  I haven't "missed out," I've just experienced things in maybe a different order than other people.  And I wouldn't trade my religious searching and struggles for the happy ignorance of some of my peers.

 

There are a lot of people who have fallen out of church, or declared themselves atheist or agnostic, or are just marginally practicing Christians.  However, there's not a lot of folks I can talk to who have the same background knowledge.  I will sometimes reference an obscure story or verse in the Bible, and get confused or surprised looks.  Heck, I get those sometimes from my "believing" family members!

 

I may not hold to their particular frame of reference, but it still gave me the gift of introspection.  I wouldn't be who I am now, I wouldn't understand what I do now, without that framework.  It gave me knowledge of myself, and it spurred me to do so much more reading and studying.

 

I know my experience is a poor comparison to what your family believes and practices.  I have been reading the "Orthodox Jew" thread with much interest. Yours is a faith/framework that is so complete and encompassing, it must be tremendously comforting to be a thread in that mosaic.  It's why I framed any potential difference in your children's life choices, nonetheless as still remaining within the context of Judaism.  The kind of person you are, and the faith you have presented, does not have the harsh edges of my background.  The flex and bend of your gravity would, I think, always gently pull your children towards you, even the "wanderers" in orbit. :)

 

 

 

[albeto.]

Taking off one's headcarf on the beach as a political protest is a very different act than a middle school or high school student dressing like a streetwalker in the classroom in order to solicit the attention of the boys in the room. Don't pretend that the latter is an "act of courage" when it clearly isn't.

 

Equating a form-fitting dress with the outfit of a prostitute is offensive and indicative of the kind of patriarchal ideology girls and women in the United States are expected to internalize in many regions. The shame and contempt inherent in a comment like this is what makes abandoning these internalized ideas courageous. Assuming one is trying to solicit the attention of boys, either by showing her hair, or by showing the curves of her hips, is equally offensive and leads to the culturally approved coercive private behavior and oppressive public policy some of us are not willing to support. I think your last sentence is awkward. Did you really mean to reprimand me for sharing an opinion that you may not have? Are you slapping my wrists for challenging the traditional, patriarchal, manipulative idea that to dress in a modern, non-religious style is to elicit sinful fantasies?   :huh: If you can share with me the difference, I'd be interested in hearing it, but if you're going to slap my wrists, well... that's weird. 

 

For what it's worth, I can see the difference between wearing modern clothes without a hijab, and wearing short shorts to school. The similarity isn't in the amount of fabric. It's certainly not the intensity of the potential punishment one faces for breaching patriarchal protocol. Clearly the kind of slut-shaming that would suggest a teen student looks like a prostitute (the very epitome of slut-shaming), or the subsequent, indirect consequences like restricted access to reproductive autonomy isn't equal to 70 lashes. I don't suggest or imply they are. The similarity is in challenging conventional, arbitrary correlations, and taking control of one's own person, even if it means people will try anything to force compliance.