Wear Pants To Church Day; And Other Cultural Dress Standards

[Saints Alive]

Apparently there is a Feminist group planing a "wear pants to church" day in protest of "gender inequality" in the church. Has anyone heard of this group? (All Enlisted)

http://www.sltrib.co...-pants.html.csp

My first thought is I really don't care if women wear dress pants to church or not. But, what other inequalities are they talking about? Is wearing pants really going to encourage the 1st Presidency to change its mind about the priesthood or who can hold what calling?

What about other cultural dress standards that could be changed?

Edited December 12, 2012 by Saints Alive

[bluebell]

These women need to get out of Utah. We have sisters in my ward who routinely wear pants and it's never a big deal-it's never any kind of deal.

And besides that, there are cultural dress standards in the church for men just as their are for women. Men probably have more, in fact.

This petition seems, in my opinion, to be the epitome of being in the 'thick of thin things.'

[Tacenda]

I visit the Mormon Feminist Housewives website occasionally even though I'm really not what you'd call a feminist. I do enjoy listening to a strong woman's voice so to speak but the wearing of pants on Sunday, not really going to do much since the church really hasn't said anything against pantsuits. On the news last night the church provided a statement of just wearing your Sunday best for the Lord.

[Saints Alive]

These women need to get out of Utah. We have sisters in my ward who routinely wear pants and it's never a big deal-it's never any kind of deal.

Thats probably true, my understanding was that they are wearing pants as a larger protest against "other" inequalities.

As far as mens cultural standards go, short of wearing a tie, they have pretty much been challenged. Men wear non white shirts, they go unshaven, some have long hair, etc.

[Duncan]

I read FMH on ocassion, I also know of a FB group Mormons against wearing pants, women, something, so there is that as well

Edited December 12, 2012 by Duncan

[bluebell]

Thats probably true, my understanding was that they are wearing pants as a larger protest against "other" inequalities.

As far as mens cultural standards go, short of wearing a tie, they have pretty much been challenged. Men wear non white shirts, they go unshaven, some have long hair, etc.

Not if a man is in a leadership position or wants to serve in the temple.

If there are 'other' inequalities, then these women should focus on those. When you pick 'wearing pants when they are already allowed' as your mode of rebellion though, it kind of makes you look like a kid protesting the school's lunch program.

It makes me wonder, do these women just not have enough drama in their lives?

(i know that sounds horrible and judgmental, but i really don't get people like this).

[Saints Alive]

Not if a man is in a leadership position or wants to serve in the temple.

Even there, I know bearded high counselors, bishopric members that wear pink-stripped shirts, and temple workers with long hair. Although I am in the midwest so maybe that has something to do with it.

[Storm Rider]

Frankly, it would be better if they ran through the church with bells on and Christmas lights. There are few things as inane as these types of silly "statements". At times, I am far to tired from dealing with serious problems to give this type of stupidity more than a yawn of exhaustion. May they find happiness in all that they do.

[bluebell]

Even there, I know bearded high counselors, bishopric members that wear pink-stripped shirts, and temple workers with long hair. Although I am in the midwest so maybe that has something to do with it.

I'm not saying that men don't have a say in how they look.

I just think that when we compare the way men are 'supposed' to dress in the church and how women are 'supposed' to dress in the church that men have a lot more cultural 'supposed to's' than women have.

For women, wearing a dress is pretty much the only thing you could be on the cultural list of things they are supposed to wear to church. For men, especially men in a leadership position, you could list multiple things such as a suit, a tie, clean shaven, and short hair.

Of course these are just cultural issues and some men and women have NOT been following them for years but the cultural standard still seems to be there in general, regardless of whether or not it's forced. And in that regard, i think that women have it much easier than men.

[Wiki Wonka]

I've never understood the cultural requirement for women to expose the lower part of their legs, especially on cold days.

I was at BYU at the time of the infamous incident where, in December, a woman went to the testing center to try and take one of her finals. It was freezing outside, and she had on some pants under a long overcoat. The testing center denied her entrance because she was wearing pants (I believe that they were jeans in this case, which were prohibited by BYU standards at the time). Rather than go home and change, she went into the restroom, removed the pants, put the overcoat back on, and was subsequently allowed to enter the testing center to take her test. Nobody questioned a woman wearing a long overcoat over no pants. It seems that the need to expose the lower part of the leg made the difference in this case.

But enough about pants...In the next life, I want to have a serious chat with the person who invented the necktie!

WW

Edited December 12, 2012 by Wiki Wonka

[canard78]

Apparently there is a Feminist group planing a "wear pants to church" day in protest of "gender inequality" in the church. Has anyone heard of this group? (All Enlisted)

http://www.sltrib.co...-pants.html.csp

My first thought is I really don't care if women wear dress pants to church or not. But, what other inequalities are they talking about? Is wearing pants really going to encourage the 1st Presidency to change its mind about the priesthood or who can hold what calling?

What about other cultural dress standards that could be changed?

In UK, wear pants to church day would have a whole different meaning. I'd go

[Duncan]

I've never understood the cultural requirement for women to expose the lower part of their legs, especially on cold days.

I was at BYU at the time of the infamous incident where, in December, a woman went to the testing center to try and take one of her finals. It was freezing outside, and she had on some pants under a long overcoat. The testing center denied her entrance because she was wearing pants (I believe that they were jeans in this case, which were prohibited by BYU standards at the time). Rather than go home and change, she went into the restroom, removed the pants, put the overcoat back on, and was subsequently allowed to enter the testing center to take her test. Nobody questioned a woman wearing a long overcoat over no pants. It seems that the need to expose the lower part of the leg made the difference in this case.

But enough about pants...In the next life, I want to have a serious chat with the person who invented the necktie!

WW

I loathe you. I LOVE wearing ties!!!!

[CA Steve]

I've never understood the cultural requirement for women to expose the lower part of their legs, especially on cold days.

I was at BYU at the time of the infamous incident where, in December, a woman went to the testing center to try and take one of her finals. It was freezing outside, and she had on some pants under a long overcoat. The testing center denied her entrance because she was wearing pants (I believe that they were jeans in this case, which were prohibited by BYU standards at the time). Rather than go home and change, she went into the restroom, removed the pants, put the overcoat back on, and was subsequently allowed to enter the testing center to take her test. Nobody questioned a woman wearing a long overcoat over no pants. It seems that the need to expose the lower part of the leg made the difference in this case.

But enough about pants...In the next life, I want to have a serious chat with the person who invented the necktie!

WW

I was there at the same time. IIRC she sent a letter to the Daily Universe explaining what she did. Didn't she get in trouble for it?

Edited December 12, 2012 by CA Steve

[bluebell]

In UK, wear pants to church day would have a whole different meaning. I'd go

Are 'pants' underwear in English lingo?

[Wiki Wonka]

I was that at the same time. IIRC she sent a letter to the Daily Universe explaining what she did. Didn't she get in trouble for it?

Here it is, from 1978:

Jeans or naked legs?

Editor:

Today I was subjected to unnecessary embarrassment and I hope that this letter will hasten a change in a silly double standard that exists here at BYU.

While waiting in line to take a math test in the notorious testing center, I was informed by an employee that I would not be allowed to take my test. The reason? I was wearing pants made out of denim material! After a futile attempt at reasoning with the employee I realized that there was no chance of being admitted in my nice denim pants. It was snowing outside so I really didn't fell like walking all the way home just to change my pants. So, turning to an expedient alternative, I ran into the nearby library bathroom and removed my pants!

I then buttoned up my long coat and walked back to the testing center where I was admitted without question. Of course I was quite cold while taking my test, but I did accomplish my purpose and passed it.

There is something strangely perverse and incongruous about a dress code which demands that a girl dressed in nice denim pants is rejected from a campus facility, while a girl in underpants and an overcoat is acceptable. Is it that vital that we expose the lower half of our legs?

Furthermore, there is no reason why men should be allowed to wear denim pants if girls may not. Standards on what type of material pants should be made out of should apply equally to both sexes. Or is this double standard justified because the guys don't wear long coats that can keep them covered in such extreme situations?

<name removed>

Covina, Calif.

This was followed up in the Daily Universe with a cartoon of Santa writing

"Yes, Virginia, there is a standards clause. How about a long overcoat instead?"

Edited December 12, 2012 by Wiki Wonka

[Garden Girl]

Being a resort community (Oregon coast), we see occasional pants and sports shirts, but for the most part even our visitors bring their "Church clothes" with them... At no time is anyone clad in immodest apparel. As an old fuddy-duddy, I still hold to the dress standards for the Chapel, but we are free to be casual in all other parts of the building.

As for the men, our bishopric includes bearded as well as clean shaven men. Men in leadership positions generally follow the white shirt/tie practice... but we see others in colored shirts with ties all the time. I look at it as a matter of reverence and respect for the Lord's house while in the chapel for both men and women.

GG

.

[CA Steve]

Here it is, from 1978:

This was followed up in the Daily Universe with a cartoon of Santa writing

"Yes, Virginia, there is a standards clause. How about a long overcoat instead?"

Thanks WW, that was about the time frame I remember also. Wasn't she disciplined for her actions?

[volgadon]

Are 'pants' underwear in English lingo?

They are.

[Duncan]

They are.

I thought they are sometimes called "y-fronts"?

[Freedom]

I think that the days of women wearing dresses and skirts to church are numbered. I see more and more women wearing slacks. We had a discussion in an all male priesthood executive meeting about the 'matter of women wearing pants'. I was rather taken aback at the ignorance and arrogance of some of the men. The bishops view was he would not tell us what we must wear, and we will not tell his wife or any other woman what they can wear. And ties? What a useless article of clothing. The reality is, however, that it comes down to what our culture perceives as referent and sacred. When Jesus comes, will they be protesting long flowing robes for men?

[Scott Lloyd]

I've never understood the cultural requirement for women to expose the lower part of their legs, especially on cold days.

I was at BYU at the time of the infamous incident where, in December, a woman went to the testing center to try and take one of her finals. It was freezing outside, and she had on some pants under a long overcoat. The testing center denied her entrance because she was wearing pants (I believe that they were jeans in this case, which were prohibited by BYU standards at the time). Rather than go home and change, she went into the restroom, removed the pants, put the overcoat back on, and was subsequently allowed to enter the testing center to take her test. Nobody questioned a woman wearing a long overcoat over no pants. It seems that the need to expose the lower part of the leg made the difference in this case.

I was assistant editorial page editor of the Daily Universe when we published a letter to the editor from a female student who reported having done this. The incident went nationwide, and at our newsroom, we received at least one inquiry about it from a radio station in another state.

I have since heard, though, that such a thing is an urban legend, and I have wondered whether our letter writer was telling the truth.

Out of curiosity, about what year were you at BYU when you remember this incident transpiring?

Edited December 12, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

RARGH. The amount of time we waste freaking out about mere fashion is one of my biggest pet peeves about our culture. How many times do the scriptures have to warn us about our hypocritical judgment of others' characters based on whether or not they conform to whatever "fine clothing" is in style before we get the #@$%ing point?

Unfortunately, as a male who already wears jeans to Church, I cannot participate meaningfully in Pants Wearing Day. Instead, I'm gonna grow a beard and show up on Sunday in a loose robe with no other clothing so people can see into my bosom.

[BCSpace]

My first thought is I really don't care if women wear dress pants to church or not. But, what other inequalities are they talking about? Is wearing pants really going to encourage the 1st Presidency to change its mind about the priesthood or who can hold what calling?

What about other cultural dress standards that could be changed?

I think Trotter's statement in response to this effectively neutralized this issue. In other words, this group is going to have to really go out on a limb and cause their members to put themselves into positions of direct apostasy in order to get more notice.

[Nathair/|\]

Now I want to organize a "men in skirts" day where guys wear kilts, lava lavas, hakamas, etc. just to be a smart donkey.

[BCSpace]

How about a come to Church with a two day old beard day? Also, how about a no necktie day? Those are a symbol of female oppression and enslavement of the male species.

One can already see how some women wearing pants in Church on Sunday will not be noticed. In the priesthood hour of the block, one can also easily see how LDS men are already "whipped" and devoted/subservient to their wives.

Edited December 12, 2012 by BCSpace