s/o - modesty and culture

[FaithManor]

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.

I want to like. I am in the WTM Like Brothel of the Week having flirted them out shamelessly twice recently. Sigh....

 

 

And I'd like to note that Aelwydd liked the post. Sigh....she saved one for Albeto and not for me! :crying:

 

:biggrinjester:

[FaithManor]

This bothers me. 

 

I don't think streetwalkers own certain clothing styles... and I find it upsetting to have a kid's clothing choices likened to that.  ...and the assigning of intent seems unfair.

 

I think a more fair statement would be:

 

"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 violating school dress code [or wearing X or Y] Don't pretend that the latter is an "act of courage" when it clearly isn't."

 

I think the distinction isn't the positive or negative motivations of the respective taboo breakers, it is the circumstances under which they are making them.

Very astute, Eliana. You are correct. :iagree:

[Crimson Wife]

If it was all about being comfortable in the heat (which I can certainly understand the desire as it was 98 degrees yesterday), then why are the boys wearing shorts that are knee-length to mid-calf? Shouldn't they be wearing shorts that have a microscopic inseam as well?

[FaithManor]

 

If it was all about being comfortable in the heat (which I can certainly understand the desire as it was 98 degrees yesterday), then why are the boys wearing shorts that are knee-length to mid-calf? Shouldn't they be wearing shorts that have a microscopic inseam as well?

Actually, in my area the boys wear them much shorter than what you describe and oft times have the underwear band hanging out every time they lift their arms. I personally care not. The schools here are not air conditioned, nor have the old buildings been properly insulted. It's hot as blazes in there.

 

Here is a link to what we'll see a lot of come June if a hot streak hits since with the 10 snow days that had to be made up, the kids have to the 20th of June.

 

http://www.abercrombie.com/shop/us/mens-athletic-shorts The short running shorts on that page and maybe just above the slightly longer one. But, definitely I see the running shorts while the kids are waiting for the bus. As a matter of fact, there is a total double standard in the dress code at our PS about shorts' length. The girls can't wear them that short. I find that to be very sexist.

[FaithManor]

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. 

:hurray:  :hurray: :hurray:  :hurray:  :hurray:  

[albeto.]

You said that much better than I did - I'm quoting it because I think it is something that needs to be heard over and over again. 

 

*****************************************

I agree with the distinction you make (again, you said it much better and more clearly than I did), but I question this bit. 

 

I have trouble seeing complying with a dress code at an organization as giving up control of my person.

 

...and it seems to me that a more effective way to protest against an organizations rules is to work to change them... or to vote with one's feet and go elsewhere.

 

...but I come to that from the background of living in a society where there are other choices. 

 

Hmm...  I need to think about this some more.  Thank you.

 

Disregarding externally, unethically enforced dress code is a vote against it. Dress codes aren't up for vote in most places, so formal votes don't work.  Besides, laws exist to protect the conventional social mores, but conventional social mores evolve as people push the boundaries. 

 

I would argue that most of us live in micro environments in which conventional choices are routinely identified as moral, cooperative, or in some way "right." Nonconformist choices, on the other hand, are identified as dangerous, shameful, or in some way "wrong." I'll ask a question, and I don't expect an answer as this is a general question to make the point and not to put you on the spot personally, but how do you think you would respond if one of your young children refused to go to services or partake in the rituals and celebrations of your faith? If they were ten years old, for example, and expressed a desire to not support what he or she considered superstitious thinking, would you just let it go? I suspect you, like most of us (and I certainly did), would do our best to gently convince our child to see the "good" in these conventional beliefs we sincerely, and dearly believe to be "good." If you found your child identified as Transgender, would you support him or her to express themselves truly freely? Or would you, like most of us, try and encourage them to "fit in," and hope this was a phase? Perhaps these aren't good examples for you, or for others, but my point is, there comes a point at which I suspect you would do your best to encourage them to conform with a belief system you value. 

 

I think most of our moral foundation is shaped in this way - subtle, consistent, positive messages. We are raised in a microenvironment that rewards our compliance to the beliefs we value, and tries to steer us away from adopting those ideals that challenge them at some point (as drawn by the comfort level of the parents). If I grew up in a family that equated form fitting dresses with prostitution clothing, for example, I have no doubt I would grow up "knowing" that form-fitting clothing reveals immoral intent. Questions I'd have along the way would be answered and supported in my home in a way that reflects this kind of thinking. How much choice would I really have to reject it if it's all I knew? Now, most of us aren't raised in such isolated micro-environments, so we do know other options, but when one ideology is supported to such an overwhelming extent, it's natural to embrace it as one's own free choice unless faced with compelling arguments to the contrary.

 

These women are offering arguments to the contrary.

 

We won't all find them equally compelling.

 

I think they are equally awesome.

[Aelwydd]

I want to like. I am in the WTM Like Brothel of the Week having flirted them out shamelessly twice recently. Sigh....

 

 

And I'd like to note that Aelwydd liked the post. Sigh....she saved one for Albeto and not for me! :crying:

 

:biggrinjester:

 

That's me, Slutty McSlutty, playin' the field. lol.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

If it was all about being comfortable in the heat (which I can certainly understand the desire as it was 98 degrees yesterday), then why are the boys wearing shorts that are knee-length to mid-calf? Shouldn't they be wearing shorts that have a microscopic inseam as well?

 

Style.  You can thank Michael Jordan and Chris Weber.

For reference, please look at the shorts worn in the 70s and 80s by NBA stars.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I also forgot to add that due to most teen boys wearing boxers, high and tight shorts and lead to an easy sneak'n'peak, which most boys would like to avoid.  When shorts were shorter for boys, briefs were the more fashionable underwear choice.

[FaithManor]

That's me, Slutty McSlutty, playin' the field. lol.

:smilielol5:  :smilielol5: :smilielol5:  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I don't understand boxers.  Who wants to tuck that into their pants?  They'd be all bunched up.  Sounds uncomfortable.

 

I have liberated some from DH over the years and I think I kind of see the appeal.  My younger DS never liked them though for that reason - he does love his boxer briefs.

[MFG]

Style. You can thank Michael Jordan and Chris Weber.

For reference, please look at the shorts worn in the 70s and 80s by NBA stars.

 

Back when they really knew how to play basketball.

http://thestudenttimes.com/bill-russell-wilt-chamberlain

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Back when they really knew how to play basketball.

http://thestudenttimes.com/bill-russell-wilt-chamberlain

 

DH's junior high bball pics from the early 80s always get a chuckle from the boys.

[SKL]

So not a boxers fan.  Glad I only have daughters.

 

The other day someone posted a photo of her son and his prom date on facebook.  Clearly a boxers wearer.  I'm sure they didn't realize it but it was gross.  I don't want to see that.  And no, I didn't set out looking for it.

 

Did I mention I am glad I have daughters?

[albeto.]

...but, yes, we do try to share our values with our children - by how we live, by how and what we teach, by the music we play, the books we read, with everything we do.  ...and I care very much about transmitting our values to our children.

 

And I see that as a positive thing. 

 

Yeah, me too. I think we all do. This may be why it's so hard to hear others judge our kids so harshly. It may be why we have a hard time seeing other choices as moral. I don't know, but I think we all do this, or at least we try. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So not a boxers fan.  Glad I only have daughters.

 

The other day someone posted a photo of her son and his prom date on facebook.  Clearly a boxers wearer.  I'm sure they didn't realize it but it was gross.  I don't want to see that.  And no, I didn't set out looking for it.

 

Did I mention I am glad I have daughters?

 

Those must have been extremely tight tuxedo pants, and if so, the boxers were not the problem.

[FaithManor]

 

 

 

...but I think (do you disagree?) we are making progress in the world.. that there more places where folks really know that their worldview isn't the only one, and that people can be good and wonderful whether they are 'similar' or 'different'.  ...and I think we've gotten here by bringing things into the sunlight, by talking, by being ourselves, by standing up for each other, by acting with love and compassion... and we can share those goals, for a better, kinder, safer, more respectful, more peaceful world, across lines of religion, ethnicity, politics, gender...

 

Though our worldviews are very different, I think we share some strong values, and I know your strong, clear voice is one I am very glad to have here. 

 

This is really lovely, Eliana! :001_wub:

 

I love the sunlight analogy. We've functioned for too long in the dark, time to shed light into every corner.

 

I know that is one of my goals, a primary goal, for my boys. Tolerance, love, respect for fellow man, celebration of diversity...I keep fantasizing that some day, just maybe, humans will no longer feel the need to subjugate one another and demean on another.

[Jane in NC]

As is often the case, WTM participants offer much food for thought.

 

One of the things about clothing that amazes me is how what is appropriate/inappropriate is dictated by cultural mores.  Even within this American culture, the norms vary.  I live on the coast where it is very common to see people in shorts, tanks and flip flops everywhere.  There is a part of me (small minded, I know) that is appalled. Cultural standards that may apply in other places are simply erased here because it is The Beach.  And I am not just talking about what is worn on the beach itself, but in the restaurants and other businesses here or at school, church and government functions.  (Businesses often have dress codes here for employees--and the air conditioning often forces employees to cover up!)

 

There are a number of things about clothing choices that I fail to grasp. For example, I read in a newspaper article on school dress codes that some schools ban wearing pajama pants.  You see, it would not even occur to me to have worn pajama pants to school--but then I wonder if boundaries are blurred.  Some people sleep in sweat pants so are sweat pants also banned?

 

So is modesty really the issue or appropriateness? And of course my idea of "appropriate" is probably different than that of someone else.  I may look at a short flippy skirt on a young girl and think "how adorable".  The same skirt may strike me as inappropriate on someone else--but that is me just pretending I'm Tim Gunn.

 

 

[SadieMarie]

Modest clothing can be stylish and flattering to the wearer. I don't see red as an inherently immodest color. For example, this dress from Modcloth looks like would fit my personal standards of modesty (assuming that I purchased the correct size): http://www.modcloth.com/shop/dresses/about-the-artist-dress-in-red

 

I've got an hourglass figure and I don't think that being modest means I have to totally hide the fact that I've got curves. But I do think it means trying to avoid provocative clothing unless I'm dressing for TeAtime with DH. I aim for "cute", "pretty", "elegant", etc. rather than "s*xy" in my outfits.

I love that dress. But I think there would be some cleavage.

[Rebel Yell]

snipped

I was reading Gen. 38 with my dd today and discussing Judah's taking of Tamar.  She was dressed in what the ESV politely describes as the garb of the "cult prostitutes" and apparently she was so covered he didn't even recognize his own DIL!!!   :w00t:  Kinda reframes the whole modesty thing.   ;)

 

snipped

 

Hmmmm  why do the Dress Code and Modesty police at homeschool groups never see that verse and/or make that connection?

[Rebel Yell]

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.

 

SW PA here- PLENTY of modesty & patriarchy stuff going around. :glare: Mostly Baptist, but also in "home church" settings.

 

[Rebel Yell]

*Stepping in cautiously*

 

There are many meanings for the word 'modesty'... which is one of the reasons I try to avoid using it when I talk about my faith's approach to matters of attire.

 

Tznius is the (Hebrew) word I use, and, I guess is analogous to this 'modesty' you all are talking about... in its multiple dimensions as well as the one for which is more commonly known in some circles.

 

snipped

 I have often browsed clothing websites for Tznius and (I forget the word for it) conservative apparel for Muslim women.  I think the clothing is stunningly beautiful!  But the vast majority of women I know who dress "modestly" really dress unattractively- shapeless, baggy, ill-fitting, mis-matched, ugly worn-out shoes, unkempt hair with no style, no make-up, rare jewelry.

 

I've always wanted to wear the fitted pants and 3/4 sleeve tunics- but I don;t want to be mistaken for a member of a group I am not a part of- I'sm too afraid I'd do something wrong and offend inadvertently.

[Free]

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.

 

Hindu women do not have religiously prescribed clothing rules, but Indian women (including Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Jain, etc.) are expected culturally to dress modestly. Modern Indian culture, as is the case with most patriarchal cultures, is uncomfortable with and even demonizes  female sexuality while excusing men with the "boys will be boys" refrain.

 

That said culturally imposed clothing rules are very regional and diverse. So even though the most common attire is the saree, there are many different regional variations for draping it. Some styles can be very restrictive requiring face cover . But other regions have different styles such as these examples:

Kerala traditional set saree

Coorgi saree

Maharashtrian Kasta saree

 

Many of the less restrictive styles are ancient and traditional, which indicates to me that our ancients were less squeamish about showing and seeing some female skin.

[Free]

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 think Rebecca clarified quite well that she did not think monotheism was the source, nor the sole domain for misogyny and restriction on clothing. I must say though, (because you keep bringing up India), that before the arrival of monotheistic religions in India, many sections of Indian women routinely went topless without raising eyebrows.

[SKL]

Hindu women do not have religiously prescribed clothing rules, but Indian women (including Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Jain, etc.) are expected culturally to dress modestly. Modern Indian culture, as is the case with most patriarchal cultures, is uncomfortable with and even demonizes  female sexuality while excusing men with the "boys will be boys" refrain.

 

That said culturally imposed clothing rules are very regional and diverse. So even though the most common attire is the saree, there are many different regional variations for draping it. Some styles can be very restrictive requiring face cover . But other regions have different styles such as these examples:

Kerala traditional set saree

Coorgi saree

Maharashtrian Kasta saree

 

Many of the less restrictive styles are ancient and traditional, which indicates to me that our ancients were less squeamish about showing and seeing some female skin.

 

The saree, churidar, and similar Indian clothes for shapely women are quite sexy - much more sexy than what Indian men typically wear in public.  I don't see any demonizing of female sexuality as far as how they dress.  (How they conduct themselves in mixed company, yes, regardless of dress.)  If anything, the saree and churidar accentuate a woman's curves and femininity, without being gross about it.  In comparison, many popular American clothing styles make us look like more like boys than girls.

[SKL]

BTW, I brought up India (and Hyderabad specifically) because that is a place where very different faiths coexist and many cultural norms are shared across faiths.

[Kate in Arabia]

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. 

 

Does this also work in the reverse?  In those communities where, for example, hijab is banned, is it a courageous form of asserting personal beliefs when women wear it anyway and are fined and/or arrested?  or are they erroneously clinging to an outmoded patriarchal custom?

 

I don't think it is entirely accurate to say only those who wear less or more revealing clothes face societal pressure - the opposite also happens.  The question is, are they both coming from the same place and should they be regarded in the same light.

 

[Kate in Arabia]

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.

 

I was gifted a saree when I got married.  I thought it was beautiful, and once on it was (if I do say so myself) quite flattering to my body type -- unlike the shalwar khamees which, frankly, looks terrible on me.  But not being used to it I found it really *uncomfortable* to wear, as I was constantly afraid the whole thing was going to unravel.  At least the way it was put on me, there was a lot of pleating and tucking, and a few safety pins involved; and as I wore it things kept shifting and loosening.  I likely needed more time and experience.

 

[Veritaserum]

Does this also work in the reverse? In those communities where, for example, hijab is banned, is it a courageous form of asserting personal beliefs when women wear it anyway and are fined and/or arrested? or are they erroneously clinging to an outmoded patriarchal custom?

 

I don't think it is entirely accurate to say only those who wear less or more revealing clothes face societal pressure - the opposite also happens. The question is, are they both coming from the same place and should they be regarded in the same light.

 

I would say veiling where it is banned or culturally shamed also requires bravery. I would say that laws/rules that specifically put a heavier emphasis on what girls/women wear/don't wear find their roots in patriarchy and are therefore inherently sexist against women. For example, the predominate religion in my area has a pamphlet that details the standards members of the church should follow. In the section on dress, it lists a number of clothing styles that girls/women should not wear. Then it says that boys/men should be modest (no list).

[umsami]

Regarding modesty for both sexes and culture, we often hear about requirements for women and Islam.  There are requirements for men, specifically that from their navel to their knees be covered, and that the clothing not be too tight.  Men are also not supposed to wear gold or silk, those are reserved for women.   Culturally, at least up until 5 or so years ago (last time I went), I rarely saw Egyptian men wear shorts in public.  They are fine for athletics or maybe at beach resorts, but not for just out and about in Cairo.  

 

The traditional dress is quite the same for men and women.  Both wear full-length galabayas (kind of like a caftan).  Both cover their head, although the men wear more of a type of turban traditionally rather than the Saudi/Gulf style ghutra.  

 

I think what looks the most oppressive is in Saudi how men wear white (how nice and reflective) and lovely linen and cotton, where often the women are in black and man made fabrics.  That, I don't get, other than being tradition…and cynical me says it's a further way to make women disappear :)  (In Egypt, apart from Saudi influence, women wearing all black is not traditional as far as I can tell.)

[albeto.]

Does this also work in the reverse?  In those communities where, for example, hijab is banned, is it a courageous form of asserting personal beliefs when women wear it anyway and are fined and/or arrested?  or are they erroneously clinging to an outmoded patriarchal custom?

 

As an atheist, I think all these Abrahamic religions are outmoded patriarchal customs. I think all claims made by them are either verified without the need of supernatural intervention (the idea that altruism is good for society doesn't come by divine revelation, for example), or they are simply fantastic and lose credibility against the background of the knowledge we have access to today (miraculous healings, etc). The fact that certain positions of authority are designed to provide or deny opportunities to people by virtue of their gender makes it patriarchal. Rationalizations added may be of comfort, they may make one feel empowered in one way or another, but these are ultimately answers given to excuse the patriarchal infrastructure. So yeah, In my opinion, Abrahamic religions do train people to cling to erroneous, outmoded, patriarchal customs.

 

But in answer to the rest of your question, I think it depends on the details. What are the consequences of not wearing the hijab? Will it include social ostracization? Physical or emotional abuse? Is it worn in response to a choice freely made, or in response to years of gentle, subtle training? Is she wearing it because she wants to honor Allah or because she'd been raised in such a environment that she, as a women, has been conditioned to feel some measure of anxiety when it's off? Is she wearing it in opposition to another's rights? I think context would be important. Taking the hijab off at the beach and taking a photo for facebook is courageous, in my opinion. Wearing the hijab to work at Disneyland where it's against the rules is not.

 

I don't think it is entirely accurate to say only those who wear less or more revealing clothes face societal pressure - the opposite also happens.  The question is, are they both coming from the same place and should they be regarded in the same light.

 

My point isn't about the amount of fabric covering the body, in either direction (more or less than current styles). It's about defying oppressive public policies, formal and informal. I interpret the Abrahamic religions to be oppressive by design, and so to show allegiance to that in public is, in my opinion anyway, missing the boat.

[busymama7]

I would say veiling where it is banned or culturally shamed also requires bravery. I would say that laws/rules that specifically put a heavier emphasis on what girls/women wear/don't wear find their roots in patriarchy and are therefore inherently sexist against women. For example, the predominate religion in my area has a pamphlet that details the standards members of the church should follow. In the section on dress, it lists a number of clothing styles that girls/women should not wear. Then it says that boys/men should be modest (no list).

I get you have a beef with this but just shopping for both genders should give you an idea on why it has to be spelled out a bit more for girls ;). I mean boys clothes are pretty much modest by default. It kinda would take extreme effort for a boy to dress immodestly. Girls on the other hand, my gosh it is so hard to find stuff that I feel is modest enough for both me and my daughters. We have to layer etc. and don't even get me started on swimsuits. Boys get loose trunks and rash guards. Girls get skippy suits even the toddlers. Ever wonder why people think speedos on boys/men is yuck but we accept the same style as appropriate for girls?!?? Yes, less of a bulge in front but even one piece swimsuits do not cover girls/women any better than a speedo on a man.

 

I know everyone on this thread is blaming men as oppressing women in forcing dress standards on them. I don't even know why I'm still reading it honestly but I see it totally different. I see the skimpy show everything clothing styles that are culturally expected for females in this culture(swimsuits, low necks etc) as degrading to women not honoring. I know girls dress for themselves and what is comfortable blah blah blah. I dont think that is entirely true in most cases. And most of us are limited to what we can get in stores and the pressure to not look "frumpy" or out of style is great. I mean look at this whole thread about how women who cover more of themselves look.

 

And now I will put on my flame proof suit and wait for the onslaught of nastiness.

[Veritaserum]

No nastiness. If you want to cover more, fine. However, forced covering sexually objectifies females, too. If someone says my 7yo shouldn't wear a sundress because it lacks sleeves and is therefore immodest (common in the religious culture where I live) this means that they believe that my 7yo's upper arms/shoulders are somehow inappropriate or perhaps even sexual. There's nothing inherently sexual about shoulders or knees, yet the culture dictates these areas must be covered lest men be tempted to have lustful thoughts.

 

I do not allow overtly sexually objectifying clothing for my minor children (slogans, padded bras for pre-teens, styles meant for adult women with developed bodies, over-the-top skimpy/tight/sheer), but I also do not forbid "normal" clothing like tank tops, mid-thigh shorts, sleeveless dresses, etc.

 

I used to follow strict "modest dress" guidelines due to religious undergarments that I wore. To get "proper" coverage, I wore up to four layers of clothing even in the summer. When I allowed myself to critically examine the modesty standards, I determined that the stated reasons were not valid (for me at least) and that the underlying messages about female bodies in particular were damaging.

[albeto.]

:grouphug:

 

I haven't experienced it, but I know how strongly I feel hearing it happen to other people's children... and I know how strongly I feel about the process our transgender relative has experienced - positive, thank G-d, but it brought home to me how rich she is, and it made me sad that so many other kids in her situation don't have a family and support network that has their backs... that offers them unconditional love.

 

I am sorry for the pain you have felt hearing your children judged.

 

This was meant as a general, inclusive comment, not a personal one. But thanks for the sentiment. It's very nice.

 

 

...but I think (do you disagree?) we are making progress in the world.. that there more places where folks really know that their worldview isn't the only one, and that people can be good and wonderful whether they are 'similar' or 'different'.  ...and I think we've gotten here by bringing things into the sunlight, by talking, by being ourselves, by standing up for each other, by acting with love and compassion... and we can share those goals, for a better, kinder, safer, more respectful, more peaceful world, across lines of religion, ethnicity, politics, gender...

 

I have to say, I'm torn. Although I agree with you that one is more readily exposed to the fact that their personal religious, political, and social views are not universal, information has been routinely ignored by those more invested in maintaining a belief than accepting a conflicting fact. Sadly, that population is in the majority, and fighting hard to keep their beliefs respected in society. We as a nation sanction religious institutions and militaristic interventions based on vague, archaic ideas that attempt to explain reality.  These vague, archaic ideas have a terrible track record of credibility. They are useless with regard to making reliable predictions. They cannot, and do not seek to understand details, but instead rely on an appeal to emotion, tradition, authority, and other faulty logical arguments. The invention of the printing press damaged credibility to the Catholic Church like nothing before ever had, but today we have advanced this technology so much that with a push of a button on our phone (!), we can print a document in our own homes instantaneously. And yet with all this information, we see the same trends come and go, and come again. The current pope has invested more time and effort into fighting the devil than his immediate predecessors. Populations work together to increasingly deny reproductive and sexual autonomy to women. We as a nation spend millions of dollars fighting for the right to educate with facts nearly a century after the debate was settled in the Supreme Court. 300 years after the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, we have to set aside

!

 

I do think (hope?) the internet is a game, changer, though. As the younger generation grows up seeing the unreliable explanations held by virtue of tradition, explanations that appeal to one's emotional state, explanations offered as existing without real challenge, they'll increasingly question the stories and excuses offered. I hope we see an end to the kind of corporatism that renders prisoners widgets for the sake of profit, essentially creating a stereotype for the purpose of fulfilling it. I hope we see an end to psuedoscience before it's too late for our kids and grandkids. I hope we see the reality of information and knowledge uncovered and shared such that superstition and religious beliefs are no longer considered respectable foundations of knowledge. I hope, but I'm not holding my breath. I wonder if I will see my society turn towards a more beneficial direction in my lifetime, but given the history or the fight for rational thinking, I'm not holding my breath. I am grateful, however, that my kids live in an area where they are not subjected to bigotry and aggressive prejudice. Their lives will be easier than many, but my heart goes out to the many who have no one to stand up to them because people are fighting to promote, protect, and honor archaic beliefs. 

 

Though our worldviews are very different, I think we share some strong values, and I know your strong, clear voice is one I am very glad to have here.

 

Thank you. That's very kind of you to say. The feeling is mutual.

[busymama7]

No nastiness. If you want to cover more, fine. However, forced covering sexually objectifies females, too. If someone says my 7yo shouldn't wear a sundress because it lacks sleeves and is therefore immodest (common in the religious culture where I live) this means that they believe that my 7yo's upper arms/shoulders are somehow inappropriate or perhaps even sexual. There's nothing inherently sexual about shoulders or knees, yet the culture dictates these areas must be covered lest men be tempted to have lustful thoughts.

 

I do not allow overtly sexually objectifying clothing for my minor children (slogans, padded bras for pre-teens, styles meant for adult women with developed bodies, over-the-top skimpy/tight/sheer), but I also do not forbid "normal" clothing like tank tops, mid-thigh shorts, sleeveless dresses, etc.

 

I used to follow strict "modest dress" guidelines due to religious undergarments that I wore. To get "proper" coverage, I wore up to four layers of clothing even in the summer. When I allowed myself to critically examine the modesty standards, I determined that the stated reasons were not valid (for me at least) and that the underlying messages about female bodies in particular were damaging.

I'm in the same religion you left and I don't see it that way at all. My girls cover their shoulders because it teaches them good habits and makes it so that they don't have to change their clothing later when they go to the temple. I have never not once in my 37 years of going to church heard anyone say that men will be tempted by a 7 year olds shoulders. That is just ick and if you have heard that especially multiple times, then I see why you would be horrified. I see young kids with uncovered shoulders in church all the time in many states(including Utah although I don't live there now we visit) and I've never seen or heard of anyone making issue of it.

 

I still stand by my stance that having "normal" clothes for females be so revealing while normal clothes for boys are not AT ALL is a negative reflection of our culture and the way it views and treats women.

[Veritaserum]

Tank tops on boys and mid-thigh shorts on boys are the same as tank tops on girls and mid-thigh shorts on girls. Yes, there are overtly sexy outfits marketed to teens and even young girls. And that is definitely a problem. However, non-sexy tank tops and walking shorts are NOT overtly sexy.

 

The sexually objectifying messages are in the subtext. Females are taught to be more self-conscious (and more ashamed) of their bodies because of all the endless discussion about covering up. And yes, the covering is explicitly tied to "not tempting boys/men" in many cases. It certainly was when I was a child and teen and even in classs for adult women in recent years. My child and teen daughters report those messages in current lessons (we have not left the church, just greatly modified our participation). They have been told that shorts are not allowed at the girls' camp in July. The boys can wear shorts at Scout camp, however. The presence of the male priesthood leaders at girls' camp has been cited as a reason the girls aren't allowed to wear shorts. That's a problem.

 

Church-wide publications and addresses also place an undue emphasis on female covering particularly. Whether or not someone notices these messages will vary by person and is likely influenced by the surrounding culture. But the messages are there and they are harmful to those who internalize them.

[Luanne]

I think the only reason modesty only comes up on this board and you don't see it anywhere else, is because modesty was thrown out the window several years ago.  This includes a lot of churches that used to be conservative.  They see nothing wrong with females walking around with little to nothing on. 

[busymama7]

Tank tops on boys and mid-thigh shorts on boys are the same as tank tops on girls and mid-thigh shorts on girls. Yes, there are overtly sexy outfits marketed to teens and even young girls. And that is definitely a problem. However, non-sexy tank tops and walking shorts are NOT overtly sexy. .

I agree but this must vary by location. I have never seen boys wearing anything other than t shirts and knee length shorts. The girls of the same age are wearing shorts that look like underwear and cover about as much and tank tops with major cleavage and their bra straps showing and this is considered normal. It's a double standard. We require temple standards for all our kids therefore no double standard ;)

 

I was not addressing whether post puberty girls/women are instructed not to show their nearly naked body to the world as a way of showing kindness to boys who really don't need to see that much skin etc. I personally don't have a problem with that teaching. It's not shameful to me. I was addressing that you said you had been called out for a 7 year old in a sleeveless dress/sundress as men might be aroused. I have never heard that kind of extrapolation. Those who choose to use that standard (myself and personal friends family who I've discussed it with) do it because its simpler to just get used to the standards The Lord has outlined from an early age and not expect a girl to change her dress at some later maybe even arbitrary time. But not because there is anything sexual about a 7 year old which is what you said you've had said to you.

[Ameena]

Huh, I have not encountered that.

 

What strikes me is I often see them wearing flip flops.  Even in winter.  So they are covered from head to toe, but you can see their feet.

 

Umsami posted about this further down, but for some Muslim groups the feet are not considered part of the arwah {requirements for dress}.

 

I would say veiling where it is banned or culturally shamed also requires bravery. I would say that laws/rules that specifically put a heavier emphasis on what girls/women wear/don't wear find their roots in patriarchy and are therefore inherently sexist against women. For example, the predominate religion in my area has a pamphlet that details the standards members of the church should follow. In the section on dress, it lists a number of clothing styles that girls/women should not wear. Then it says that boys/men should be modest (no list).

 

I would go one step more, and say that veiling in the US takes bravery. As someone struggling with the decision to wear the hijab, I can testify that it takes a LOT of courage to step out in public wearing the hijab. You're wearing your faith on your head, in a country that isn't always the nicest towards Muslims.

 

Regarding modesty for both sexes and culture, we often hear about requirements for women and Islam.  There are requirements for men, specifically that from their navel to their knees be covered, and that the clothing not be too tight.  Men are also not supposed to wear gold or silk, those are reserved for women.   Culturally, at least up until 5 or so years ago (last time I went), I rarely saw Egyptian men wear shorts in public.  They are fine for athletics or maybe at beach resorts, but not for just out and about in Cairo.  

 

The traditional dress is quite the same for men and women.  Both wear full-length galabayas (kind of like a caftan).  Both cover their head, although the men wear more of a type of turban traditionally rather than the Saudi/Gulf style ghutra.  

 

I think what looks the most oppressive is in Saudi how men wear white (how nice and reflective) and lovely linen and cotton, where often the women are in black and man made fabrics.  That, I don't get, other than being tradition…and cynical me says it's a further way to make women disappear :)  (In Egypt, apart from Saudi influence, women wearing all black is not traditional as far as I can tell.)

 

I was just going to post this :)

 

As an atheist, I think all these Abrahamic religions are outmoded patriarchal customs. I think all claims made by them are either verified without the need of supernatural intervention (the idea that altruism is good for society doesn't come by divine revelation, for example), or they are simply fantastic and lose credibility against the background of the knowledge we have access to today (miraculous healings, etc). The fact that certain positions of authority are designed to provide or deny opportunities to people by virtue of their gender makes it patriarchal. Rationalizations added may be of comfort, they may make one feel empowered in one way or another, but these are ultimately answers given to excuse the patriarchal infrastructure. So yeah, In my opinion, Abrahamic religions do train people to cling to erroneous, outmoded, patriarchal customs.

 

But in answer to the rest of your question, I think it depends on the details. What are the consequences of not wearing the hijab? Will it include social ostracization? Physical or emotional abuse? Is it worn in response to a choice freely made, or in response to years of gentle, subtle training? Is she wearing it because she wants to honor Allah or because she'd been raised in such a environment that she, as a women, has been conditioned to feel some measure of anxiety when it's off? Is she wearing it in opposition to another's rights? I think context would be important. Taking the hijab off at the beach and taking a photo for facebook is courageous, in my opinion. Wearing the hijab to work at Disneyland where it's against the rules is not.

 

 

My point isn't about the amount of fabric covering the body, in either direction (more or less than current styles). It's about defying oppressive public policies, formal and informal. I interpret the Abrahamic religions to be oppressive by design, and so to show allegiance to that in public is, in my opinion anyway, missing the boat.

 

Interestingly enough, I can answer yes to most of these on my decision TO wear the hijab. In my area {TX}, if you are Muslim female you are expected to wear hijab but it's a personal choice. I know sisters who go both ways honestly. However, if you don't wear it you are invisible in the community and people doubt you are a "real" Muslim, especially if you are a convert. I've known sisters who had to choose between wearing the hijab and their family. Or homes. Or Jobs. While yes it's illegal to fire someone based on religious reasons - I know several folks who when it came out that they were Muslim they were laid off, had their hours cut to nothing, or forced to quit. Some of these were single moms supporting a family, so they had to choose between paying bills & doing what they felt was their religious duty. Wearing hijab can be just as big of act of courage as choosing to not wear it. I know I've been struggling with wearing it for 4 years now - I want to wear it full time, but don't feel I am a good enough example of a Muslim to be worthy of wearing it, IMO. FWIW I am a convert, so no "years of subtle instruction" apply.

[albeto.]

 I was addressing that you said you had been called out for a 7 year old in a sleeveless dress/sundress as men might be aroused. I have never heard that kind of extrapolation. Those who choose to use that standard (myself and personal friends family who I've discussed it with) do it because its simpler to just get used to the standards The Lord has outlined from an early age and not expect a girl to change her dress at some later maybe even arbitrary time. But not because there is anything sexual about a 7 year old which is what you said you've had said to you.

 

Perhaps you missed this example of a Mormon site doctoring photo to add sleeves to girl’s dress.

You can see the original here.

 

'Because of the need to present women and girls modestly, regardless of age, please avoid submitting photos of them in sleeveless tops and dresses or short skirts,' the policy reads.

 

(bolding mine)

 

On the photo standards page, only one guideline is offered for men that suggests they do not roll up shirt sleeves when in church. 

 

 

Examples for girls:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Examples for boys:

 

 

 

 

 

I suspect the reason we don't see men wearing tank tops and short shorts is because their bodies aren't sexualized in the same women's bodies are. They are objectified in other ways (by virtue of expected productivity, aggressiveness, stoicness, etc), but not so much with regard to showing lots of skin. Not in western society anyway. 

[Alicia64]

I think God gave women beauty for a reason. I can't imagine classifying beauty as a "stumbling block." But, you said "modesty" not beauty.

 

I have a very nice figure and, yet, dress modestly. Not from a biblical-modesty POV, but from a common sense POV. I don't want to embarrass my two boys. Even at the beach I wear a skirt and swim shirt.

 

I have a friend who was yelled at in church for wearing pants instead of a skirt. Pastors who yell at people like my friend and you don't seem to understand that they're going to lose parishioners. If the pastor felt that strongly couldn't he have taken you aside?

 

Alley

 

 

[Veritaserum]

I was not addressing whether post puberty girls/women are instructed not to show their nearly naked body to the world as a way of showing kindness to boys who really don't need to see that much skin etc. I personally don't have a problem with that teaching. It's not shameful to me. I was addressing that you said you had been called out for a 7 year old in a sleeveless dress/sundress as men might be aroused. I have never heard that kind of extrapolation. Those who choose to use that standard (myself and personal friends family who I've discussed it with) do it because its simpler to just get used to the standards The Lord has outlined from an early age and not expect a girl to change her dress at some later maybe even arbitrary time. But not because there is anything sexual about a 7 year old which is what you said you've had said to you.

"Nearly naked" is SO subjective.

 

Addressing the 7yo again, I see it as an impossibility for a young child to be immodest. Their bodies are not sexual. They are not sexual. Addressing clothing choices as modest vs. immodest for this age group (as written in the church's child magazine and in lessons and talks) does not at all indicate that sleeves and knee-length shorts prepare the child to wear garments if they choose to go through the temple later.

 

Modest vs. immodest is presented as a moral judgment. People who dress like this (insert list of rules according to Mormon teaching) are modest, please God, show self-respect, avoid causing others to have lustful thoughts, and protect themselves from being sexually preyed upon. People who dress like that (insert any dress that doesn't conform to Mormon standards) are immodest, displease God, lack self-respect, cause others to sin, and invite sexual predators. All age groups get these messages. A couple of years ago my girls came home from church. I asked what they talked about. They told me that in Primary (the children's class), they played a game called Modest or Not in which they judged photos and drawings of people as modest or immodest. This is not a healthy way to handle the topic.

[FaithManor]

I think God gave women beauty for a reason. I can't imagine classifying beauty as a "stumbling block." But, you said "modesty" not beauty.

 

I have a very nice figure and, yet, dress modestly. Not from a biblical-modesty POV, but from a common sense POV. I don't want to embarrass my two boys. Even at the beach I wear a skirt and swim shirt.9

 

I have a friend who was yelled at in church for wearing pants instead of a skirt. Pastors who yell at people like my friend and you don't seem to understand that they're going to lose parishioners. If the pastor felt that strongly couldn't he have taken you aside?

 

Alley

Well, that's disgusting and the pastor was showing a real misogynist idiocy. Beyond that, he or she has NO business saying anything at all. Period. Taking her aside is completely wrong. I would hope people in that church went ape on the pastor for the totally inappropriate behavior, spiritual abuse, and judgmental attitude.

[FaithManor]

"Nearly naked" is SO subjective.

 

Addressing the 7yo again, I see it as an impossibility for a young child to be immodest. Their bodies are not sexual. They are not sexual. Addressing clothing choices as modest vs. immodest for this age group (as written in the church's child magazine and in lessons and talks) does not at all indicate that sleeves and knee-length shorts prepare the child to wear garments if they choose to go through the temple later.

 

Modest vs. immodest is presented as a moral judgment. People who dress like this (insert list of rules according to Mormon teaching) are modest, please God, show self-respect, avoid causing others to have lustful thoughts, and protect themselves from being sexually preyed upon. People who dress like that (insert any dress that doesn't conform to Mormon standards) are immodest, displease God, lack self-respect, cause others to sin, and invite sexual predators. All age groups get these messages. A couple of years ago my girls came home from church. I asked what they talked about. They told me that in Primary (the children's class), they played a game called Modest or Not in which they judged photos and drawings of people as modest or immodest. This is not a healthy way to handle the topic.

That makes me sick!!!! Judging photos and making moral judgments on the clothing as a lesson at church???? I can't even wrap my brain around it!

[Veritaserum]

That makes me sick!!!! Judging photos and making moral judgments on the clothing as a lesson at church???? I can't even wrap my brain around it!

I know. I was really upset about it.

 

Here are some articles in the children's magazine about modesty that further illustrate how it's handled (badly):

 

https://www.lds.org/children/resources/topics/modesty (Each article has a summary. 7 out of 9 feature female modesty.)

 

It's more slut-shaming for teens and adult women (you become porn to men who see you if you're not dressed modestly, etc.).

[busymama7]

I will just bow out and agree to disagree. I do believe that the temple standards of dress are divinely inspired and I teach them to my children all along. I don't disagree with teaching them from a young age to follow the standards. I disagree with your assesertion that men are lusting after young children as the reason for it. I dont see that your examples are saying that either. Just that these are the standards and learning them and applying them at a young age is good. I see you are offended that it is tipped more towards girls but I just believe that is a reflection of the reality of our society and what clothes are out there for the different genders. I am not upset or offended by it. I am happy and secure in my gender and with my body. Being taught modestly taught me self respect. Obviously your experience has been different and you take it in a different way.

[SadieMarie]

http://www.amazon.com/Lolita-Effect-Media-Sexualization-Fixing/dp/1590202155/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1400422538&sr=1-1&keywords=the+lolita+effect

 

This is an excellent book that talks about the difference between being uncovered and sexualization, among other things. I think that is where a lot of these conversations go of the rails lol. Being uncovered, wearing less because it is hot or to be comfortable is very different from dressing like a sex worker. And if you go to the mall you can put together a sex worker outfit in the girls department of most stores and I think that is a cultural problem here and now. But it isn't about how much skin is covered, not in my opinion. So the idea of a church or religion saying that women and girls have to be all covered up for the sake of modesty, well, I personally reject that. I also reject sex worker clothing for children and teens.

 

And I have not been around here very long but I have noticed that these conversations always go to the extremes. It starts with a talk about modesty and clothing and before long we are talking about burkas or sending our teenage daughters off to school topless to be taught by naked men, lololol, sorry but that one had me rolling. Most of us do not live at these extremes. I personally do not feel like I am living my life on a ridge surrounded by slippery slopes lol.

[mommaduck]

"Nearly naked" is SO subjective.

 

Addressing the 7yo again, I see it as an impossibility for a young child to be immodest. Their bodies are not sexual. They are not sexual. Addressing clothing choices as modest vs. immodest for this age group (as written in the church's child magazine and in lessons and talks) does not at all indicate that sleeves and knee-length shorts prepare the child to wear garments if they choose to go through the temple later.

 

Modest vs. immodest is presented as a moral judgment. People who dress like this (insert list of rules according to Mormon teaching) are modest, please God, show self-respect, avoid causing others to have lustful thoughts, and protect themselves from being sexually preyed upon. People who dress like that (insert any dress that doesn't conform to Mormon standards) are immodest, displease God, lack self-respect, cause others to sin, and invite sexual predators. All age groups get these messages. A couple of years ago my girls came home from church. I asked what they talked about. They told me that in Primary (the children's class), they played a game called Modest or Not in which they judged photos and drawings of people as modest or immodest. This is not a healthy way to handle the topic.

 

I find this very interesting considering that I have LDS cousins in Utah. One is a dance instructor and cheer coach and was in both herself as a girl in Utah. The outfits I've seen, back then and in recent years, I have a feeling would not fit with "Mormon standards" unless the standards are just for church. I would say that what I've seen worn outside of those two activities have been modest and within standards.

[mommaduck]

"Nearly naked" is SO subjective.

 

Addressing the 7yo again, I see it as an impossibility for a young child to be immodest. Their bodies are not sexual. They are not sexual. Addressing clothing choices as modest vs. immodest for this age group (as written in the church's child magazine and in lessons and talks) does not at all indicate that sleeves and knee-length shorts prepare the child to wear garments if they choose to go through the temple later.

 

Modest vs. immodest is presented as a moral judgment. People who dress like this (insert list of rules according to Mormon teaching) are modest, please God, show self-respect, avoid causing others to have lustful thoughts, and protect themselves from being sexually preyed upon. People who dress like that (insert any dress that doesn't conform to Mormon standards) are immodest, displease God, lack self-respect, cause others to sin, and invite sexual predators. All age groups get these messages. A couple of years ago my girls came home from church. I asked what they talked about. They told me that in Primary (the children's class), they played a game called Modest or Not in which they judged photos and drawings of people as modest or immodest. This is not a healthy way to handle the topic.

 

I find this very interesting considering that I have LDS cousins in Utah. One is a dance instructor and cheer coach and was in both herself as a girl in Utah. The outfits I've seen, back then and in recent years, I have a feeling would not fit with "Mormon standards" unless the standards are just for church. I would say that what I've seen worn outside of those two activities have been modest and within standards.

[SKL]

About the 7 year old sleeveless.  My kids' school bans sleeveless from 1st grade up (might be KG now).  It is not because they think little girls are sex objects.  It is to get them used to the dress code expectations.  They also don't expect little girl shoulders to be covered in church or elsewhere outside of school.

 

I was thinking about this topic yesterday while traveling.  I think the reason I can't relate to the outrage is that for me (and surely many others), the angst I felt daily over what my peers would think/say about my clothes was at least 10x worse than any negative feelings I might have had about the official school dress code.  This was true in school, at work, to a lesser extent at church, and in all kinds of other social settings.  Sometimes it is a relief to have a simple rule to follow.

 

I don't care why women are asked to cover their boobs.  Really.  There are so many bigger problems in the world.  I think it is silly to act like the future of women's rights turns on the right to show a lot of skin.  Hillary Clinton and Oprah Winfrey cover their boobs.  Margaret Thatcher and Mother Teresa covered their boobs.  I'll bet they don't even mind it and haven't had time to sit and wonder whether it should bother them.