Wear Pants To Church Day; And Other Cultural Dress Standards

[Pahoran]

Uh, did you just say something?

There is probably someone who is going to read this post and get all worked up that your bishop was ignoring you because you are a woman.

You're right, of course. Those who are determined to get offended about something will have their wish.

Some no doubt wanted those strait-laced, buttoned-down ultraconservative Mormons to have all had aneurisms at the sight of women in trousers. The fact that none of them did will simply prove, to some, that they just don't even see women. Every Mormon male is either an overbearing control freak or completely ignores women altogether.

What on earth are "Bogs"?

I believe the long form of the name is "Bogtrotters," a type of sports shoe (taken, IIRC, from a Roald Dahl children's story.) Hence the two puns in Volgadon's reply.

ETA: OTOH, looking at Jeremy's response, they might be gumboots.

We have a song about them down here.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited December 17, 2012 by Pahoran

[blackstrap]

[volgadon]

Jeremy did not, citing the aforementioned inclement weather.

How utterly convenient!

In Naomi's defense, it has been documented that Bogs shoes have been used since ancient times (ca. 2002) as symbols of wading through the mud of sin in this Librul town, thus making them perfectly appropriate.

Stylish Wellies! What else in a state whose slogan calls to keep the place weird...

Anyway, in the interests of weirdness,

The new question is whether or not, in the Millennium, we'll show our respect for God via Adamitism, like that old gymnosophist Isaiah.

Gymnosophist sounds like a word only a dirty librul Adamite would come up with.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

How utterly convenient!

Personally, I augured that the weather was meant as a Tender Mercy bestowed upon the ward by a kind and gracious Heavenly Father who didn't want the poor innocent souls to be blinded by my untanned hide, which has been described by many witnesses as a "whiteness beyond anything earthly", "above the brightness of the sun".

... and what in the Sam Hill is a gumboot?

[Stargazer]

Personally, I augured that the weather was meant as a Tender Mercy bestowed upon the ward by a kind and gracious Heavenly Father who didn't want the poor innocent souls to be blinded by my untanned hide, which has been described by many witnesses as a "whiteness beyond anything earthly", "above the brightness of the sun".

... and what in the Sam Hill is a gumboot?

Wellingtons! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellington_boot

You know: also known as rubber boots, wellies, wellingtons, topboots, billy-boots, gumboots, gumbies, gummies, rainboots, and Alaskan Sneakers.

[volgadon]

... and what in the Sam Hill is a gumboot?

A boot made of gum rubber.

[Nominee]

Oh, BOGS are so much more than rainboots! They are an evidence of evolution. They are snowboots, cowboy boots, rainboots, work boots, fashion boots, gardening, farming and even sneakers rolled into one perfect shoe. They look like a rainboot, the base is hard like a snowboot, the shaft is soft, flexible and completely water proof, the inside fits like a Nike running shoe, and they keep you warm in sub-degree weather. BOGS are wonderful.

We live in a rainforest! Well, seems like it. I did see Jeremy wearing pants (add: jeans actually and a black leather jacket - like always) today. In our neck of the woods, life is weather permitting. Around here, babies know what inclement means and nobody uses umbrellas because people will point and laugh at you. Silly tourists.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Nominee

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I did see Jeremy wearing pants today.

Proving that there is a merciful Supreme Being protecting innocents from natural disasters.

[mapman]

There was lots of purple at my Ann Arbor ward and I'm pretty sure that at least some of it was intentional. I noticed a couple of sisters in pants, though I have no idea if that is something normal for them to do. I wore a purple wristband to show my support. I know that many Mormon women are fine with the way things are, but I feel like I should be doing what I can to help bear the burdens of those who feel marginalized over cultural things. From reading comments on some of the feminist Mormon blogs it seems that today was a good experience for nearly everyone involved, and so even if it doesn't change much of anything, it at least helped many women feel more confident and welcome at church.

[Nathair/|\]

Apparently ties can increase the wearers' risk of glaucoma.

[BCSpace]

We kept watch out of our own recognizance and curiosity. No purple shirts or ties worn by men Stake-wide period, which is surprising considering over three thousand members in the Stake. It's already known that some women wear pants anyway, perhaps 0-3 per ward we guessed. No discernible increase was detected Stake-wide; 12 women wearing pants seen in eight wards two branches (one Spanish). No names taken of course. Why would we?

Perhaps in the hairy armpit of the Church, Salt Lake City, there was something noticeable. I saw one woman, in a photograph in the Salt Lake Tribune, standing in front of an LDS Church in SLC wearing pants.

It should be noted that my stake is not in Utah.

[KevinG]

We kept watch out of our own recognizance and curiosity. No purple shirts or ties worn by men Stake-wide period, which is surprising considering over three thousand members in the Stake. It's already known that some women wear pants anyway, perhaps 0-3 per ward we guessed. No discernible increase was detected Stake-wide; 12 women wearing pants seen in eight wards two branches (one Spanish). No names taken of course. Why would we?

Perhaps in the hairy armpit of the Church, Salt Lake City, there was something noticeable. I saw one woman, in a photograph in the Salt Lake Tribune, standing in front of an LDS Church in SLC wearing pants.

It should be noted that my stake is not in Utah.

We had one poor fellow in the HP group who forgot to clean his white shirts and had to wear a blue one today. He was teased unmercifully about being a protester.

We tend to take these hissy fits less than seriously around here (SouthEast)

[BCSpace]

I think those who do it for the purpose of "rocking the boat", if it were known, should be denied TR, but otherwise, I don't think anyone cares.

[Duncan]

FWIW I have a picture of Elder McConkie and Pres. Monson in Hawaiian Shirts and a picture fo Elder Oaks doing the macarena. So, at the beginning and the end of the day what diff. does it make? I doubt these brethren would wear those at Church out of respect and people don't dance at Church-unless they get released from something!

[blackstrap]

Apparently ties can increase the wearers' risk of glaucoma.

That's it!

It's now a Word of Wisdom prohibition in my book.

[BCSpace]

That's it!

It's now a Word of Wisdom prohibition in my book.

Dang! Now I have to violate the WoW in order to wear something that'll make me look a little skinnier.

[Avatar4321]

If you don't wear a dress to church next Sunday, it will be just as likely that some uninformed person will interpret your actions as an outward expression of positive sexism. Why would you make such a statement that could be misconstrued? It's safer to just go with the flow and wear pants, right, so you don't offend anybody?

You see my point? You can't be held hostage by how ignorant people might interpret your actions. Anyone who knows anything about this event on Sunday knows this has nothing to do with sexism. Conservatives think that everything that feminists do is about sexism, because they have not yet bothered to educate themselves about what feminism is. It's about patriarchy (or pantriarchy, in this case), not sexism.

You're wrong. It's the ignorant people who are held hostages by how they interpret or misintepret answers. We are not responsible for what they do.

[wenglund]

Yes, and the fact that this seems foreign to you explains a lot about your posting history. Do you really believe that everything that is important and meaningful to you should be important and meaningful to everyone else?

No. That wasn't my point. Sorry you keep misunderstanding it. I wasn't speaking just about what I alone may view as important and meaningful, but what I reasonably figure may generally be deemed as important and meaningful or otherwise, as evinced, in part, by multiple posts from other participants on this thread.

Unlike you, I do believe that there are rational ways to establish general standards for importance and meaningfulness--ways to test the reasonableness of what one may deem important and meaningful, and distinguish it from what may generally and reasonably be viewed as unimportant and meaningless, and this so that we individually and collectively may be able to progress/mature and developing skill sets that are more socially workable.

Keep in mind that we aren't talking here about a private belief or action. We are talking about beliefs and actions (i.e. the protests) that were intentionally made very public. Since the protest, and the ideas behind it, were put forward for public consideration, it is perfectly appropriate to provide public criticism, including, but not restricted to, the evaluating the relative pettiness and meaninglessness of the protest, whether the organizers and participants may come to agree or not.

Even more critical, at least from an LDS perspective, isn't so much what each of us as individual members may view as important or not, rather it is what God deems important and what he likely wants us to deem as important. If you think God would view a pants protest as important and meaningful, I would like to hear your reasoning since, from what I can tell, there are a host of indicators to contrary.

Or the reverse -- that everything that you see as trite ought to be seen as trite by everyone else?

No. (See above)

That is a pretty certain way to go through life never really understanding others positions.

I am not the one here having trouble understanding other positions. I understand your position and the position of protesters. This understanding doesn't alter my personal and reasonably generalizable belief, and likely shared belief with God, that the protest is trite and meaningless. Perhaps, though, I may be proven wrong were it to be discovered that the protest was widely known and participated in and it resulted in the desired outcome, particularly inspired by God. I won't hold my breath.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Yeah, men are so base and non-spiritual that they need the priesthood to catch up to the women, in whom spirituality comes naturally. I find that idea incredibly offensive, and false.

Whether you correctly understand our reasons or not (I see no evidence that you do), it doesn't make sense to me that you would be offended, let alone incredibly, by those of us who hold women in high esteem--having been wisely taught to do so by our fathers and Church leaders. But, I have found that people these days are way too easily offended to no one's good. That is why we end up with petty protests that merely serve to stir up contention. Now there is something undeserving of high esteem.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DavidB]

Judging by the comments of those who sent pictures of wearing pants, the only contention I have seen is from someone suggesting the.women be shot in the face, and from other internet postings of ridicule and derision toward those women.

[wenglund]

Thanks, Scott.

This is why I would not have worn pants today. I don't attend church to make any point other than that I'm trying to follow Christ (a point I make only for myself). Using those few hours a week I set aside for communal worship with my fellow congregants for any type of conspicuous activism would be a distracting waste of time for me. I'm afraid I would be thinking about me and my cause instead of Him and His.

It is this kind of empowering thinking, in contrast to that of the protest organizers, that give me good reason to hold women in high esteem.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

Judging by the comments of those who sent pictures of wearing pants, the only contention I have seen is from someone suggesting the.women be shot in the face, and from other internet postings of ridicule and derision toward those women.

Actually I have seen little or nothing in the way of "contention" at all. This so-called "protest," offensive though it was in its attempt to hijack a sacred worship service for political purposes, failed to generate any real "contention," and as such was a fizzer.

Regards,

Pahoran

[DavidB]

Actually I have seen little or nothing in the way of "contention" at all. This so-called "protest," offensive though it was in its attempt to hijack a sacred worship service for political purposes, failed to generate any real "contention," and as such was a fizzer.

Regards,

Pahoran

In sacrament meetings, yes, it appears there was no contention.

Amongst anonymous and not so anonymous persons who claim the LDS faith, there was contention, this thread is evidence of that contention, and no I will not entertain in to a battle of semantics or personal opinion.

[mapman]

I'm not sure why people keep referring to the event as bringing politics into Sacrament meeting. Women wearing pants hasn't been a political issue for decades. It seems that some people just aren't comfortable with cultural norms being challenged, even if those norms are stupid and not actually rules.

[yootaw]

Whether you correctly understand our reasons or not (I see no evidence that you do), it doesn't make sense to me that you would be offended, let alone incredibly, by those of us who hold women in high esteem--having been wisely taught to do so by our fathers and Church leaders. But, I have found that people these days are way too easily offended to no one's good. That is why we end up with petty protests that merely serve to stir up contention. Now there is something undeserving of high esteem.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

By which you imply that I do not hold women in high esteem? My father and church leaders also taught me how to hold women in high self-esteem. My wife has taught me how to give this esteem more than lip service. I reject your notion that having equality between the genders prevents anyone from holding women in high esteem. In fact, it is my opinion that treating someone as an equal is a stronger indicator of esteem than saying that you hold them in esteem. Claiming to hold women in high esteem, then denying equality (while using the extreme esteem as a justification) does not seem to be holding women in real esteem.