juliann Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 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,PahoranWell, depends on what you are looking for. I thought there was a prohibition against pants (just never occurred to me to look into it). Now this has been made clear, I will be wearing pants on occasion. (We actually have a closet full of blankets in the RS room for everyone to warm up their legs which is really nice after we huddle in a cold GD class). I told my Nursery Leader friend about the fracas over this today and her eyes lit up in excitement at the thought of being able to deal with children without flashing anybody. In fact, I think that every ward should make sure that at few women are in pants so that there is no worry about investigators feeling they did something wrong by showing up in them (which they routinely do). 1
mercyngrace Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 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.Mapman, Pants aren't any more political than strips of red, white and blue fabric until someone ties them to a flagpole or uses them as the symbol of a movement.In my readings at FMH this week, that's what happened. Wearing pants became a symbol of equality, solidarity, and in some clearly stated ways, protest. If you'll visit Feminist Mormon Housewives and read comments from the "after party" thread and the photos thread, you'll notice that some women noted that they were not inclined to wear pants until there was an opposition to the idea, at which point they had a change of heart. In other word, their wardrobe choices were reactionary, designed to make a point that had nothing at all to do with clothing. I am not bothered by women wearing pants to church in the slightest. If anything, I'm bothered that my pants, should I choose to wear them to church, may now appear to be anything other than pants. 4
Duncan Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 Mapman,Pants aren't any more political than strips of red, white and blue fabric until someone ties them to a flagpole or uses them as the symbol of a movement.In my readings at FMH this week, that's what happened. Wearing pants became a symbol of equality, solidarity, and in some clearly stated ways, protest. If you'll visit Feminist Mormon Housewives and read comments from the "after party" thread and the photos thread, you'll notice that some women noted that they were not inclined to wear pants until there was an opposition to the idea, at which point they had a change of heart. In other word, their wardrobe choices were reactionary, designed to make a point that had nothing at all to do with clothing.I am not bothered by women wearing pants to church in the slightest. If anything, I'm bothered that my pants, should I choose to wear them to church, may now appear to be anything other than pants.I posted on there and now I get 80 million follow up emails!!!! it's okay though, it's not like I have a woman in my life.... 1
Nominee Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 I'm bothered that my pants, should I choose to wear them to church, may now appear to be anything other than pants.Exactly. Exactly how I feel. 1
slamarwi Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 This was simply a "I am woman here me roar" moment directed at the supposed inequality that men impose upon the women of the LDS Faith. I feel like I'm back in 1973.Who needs bra's anyway?
Pahoran Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 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,Was there? I haven't seen any.and no I will not entertain in to a battle of semantics or personal opinion.Tell me David: do you understand the difference between forum and pulpit?Regards,Pahoran
Pahoran Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 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.Okay then; let's not use Sacrament meeting as an occasion for challenging cultural norms. Let's use it for worshipping the Lord instead.Regards,Pahoran 1
Avatar4321 Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 This was simply a "I am woman here me roar" moment directed at the supposed inequality that men impose upon the women of the LDS Faith. I feel like I'm back in 1973.Who needs bra's anyway?I don't. But then, im a man.
Avatar4321 Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 Okay then; let's not use Sacrament meeting as an occasion for challenging cultural norms. Let's use it for worshipping the Lord instead.Regards,PahoranWorship? At Church. A novel concept. One I wish more people would consider.
slamarwi Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 I don't. But then, im a man.I guess that's the point.
Nathair/|\ Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 This was simply a "I am woman here me roar" moment directed at the supposed inequality that men impose upon the women of the LDS Faith. I feel like I'm back in 1973.Who needs bra's anyway?Apparently, Bras cause problems with melatonin production and with the immune system.
Calm Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) TThe results suggest that skin pressure by clothing could markedly suppress the nocturnal elevation of salivary melatonin, resulting in an increase of rectal temperature. (Chronobiology International, 17(6) 783–793, 2000)How do you get your conclusions above from the results I quote, is it mentioned somewhere else?I am thinking less salivary melatonin means less melatonin over all which means less quality of sleep...which definitely interferes with practically everything in the body as studies have shown, but increase of rectal temperature? What does that do?At least now I can claim I wear pjs at home all day for my health based on scientific studies. Edited December 18, 2012 by calmoriah
Scott Lloyd Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 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.Loonies of all stripes are endemic on the Internet.But I wonder if DavidB/Frankenstein gets this indignant over the hate speech that shows up in reader comment sections on the Salt Lake Tribune and other websites whenever Mormons or Mormonism are mentioned whatever the context might be. 1
DavidB Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 Loonies of all stripes are endemic on the Internet.But I wonder if DavidB/Frankenstein gets this indignant over the hate speech that shows up in reader comment sections on the Salt Lake Tribune and other websites whenever Mormons or Mormonism are mentioned whatever the context might be.Didn't realize wearing ones religion on the sleeve was a requirement for Scott. Tis a shame you are such an eager beaver check papers.But since I must wear my religion on my sleeve for you, I have not posted on sltrib.com fo many years, why might you ask, not that you realtime care, well I will tell you why, sltrib.com moderation is lacking in all meanings of the word. Despite sltrib.com rules not allowing certain types of postings sltrib.com is chuck full of such postings. So I don't waste my time there or on deseretnews either.Furthermore, sltrib.com is so full of adverts that visiting the site is so entirely aggravating.But I suppose that since I do not visit that site to defend the church at chance that I must be less than faithfull and should give you my home ward address so you can report me to my bishop and stake president.What is interesting is I see little difference between you and many of the people on sltrib.com...the bitterness and angst you both display make the internet a very unpleasant place.I have seen some of the Trib comments and you won't stay in a thread if you accuse fellow posters of behavior that is removed on sight on this board.
DavidB Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) Scott can you explain why I must be unkind to others in order for you think I am born in covenant, full tithe, temple worthy melchezidec priesthood bearer Edited December 18, 2012 by DavidB
Calm Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) Didn't realize wearing ones religion on the sleeve was a requirement for Scott. Tis a shame you are such an eager beaver check papers.What does that have to do with what Scott was asking about...'are you are equal in your condemnation of others who participate in hate speech as you are in condemning here?'Scott can you explain why I must be unkind to others in order for you think I am born in covenant, full tithe, temple worthy melchezidec priesthood bearer Perhaps I have missed this but where did Scott ask this?BTW, since he was asking if you act the same elsewhere as you act here, does that mean you see your own behaviour here as "unkind"? Edited December 18, 2012 by calmoriah
Cobalt-70 Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 The women who orchestrated this event have said that it is specifically about gender inequality in the church. If someone believes this event is about sexism, then the women in charge have only themselves to thank.Gender inequality and sexism are not the same thing. Again, I'd encourage you to do some reading up on feminist theory. Most gender inequality has nothing to do with sexism. We haven't really seen much actual sexism in the United States since the 1970s. But we do still have a huge amount of patriarchy. Patriarchy is, in the most succinct expression I know, the "centering" of the male and masculine, and the moving of the female and feminine toward the margins.I don't like to raise issues of "equality" in feminist discussions, because the word "equality" has lost its usefulness and can be misleading. People might say that women are put on pedestals, so how can we say they are unequal? Yes, they may be "equal" to the degree that men value them as much as, or more, than they value their own kind. But they are still "unequal" in the sense that by putting women on pedestals, men are putting them in their "place," whereas men are not similarly confined to a "place." Moreover, the concern is about how men esteem women, which centers the discussion on the needs and outlook of men. Women become the "other." They are objectified and made into trophies that can be put on pedestals for display. 1
Cobalt-70 Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 While the Church does not have a "no pants allowed policy", some members do have a policy that they think others must abide by. Yes, these ladies have missed the mark a bit by blaming the Church instead of the smog nosed members who impose standards on others and otherwise make church a unpleasant experience.....there is hope though, I am witnessing a rainbow, so one more year to improve ourselvesBy "these ladies," I don't know who you are talking about. Not the organizers of Wear Pants to Church Day. This event was expressly not directed at the church leadership. In fact, the leadership is on their side as to the pants at church issue. This is directed against church culture, not church leadership.
DavidB Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 By "these ladies," I don't know who you are talking about. Not the organizers of Wear Pants to Church Day. This event was expressly not directed at the church leadership. In fact, the leadership is on their side as to the pants at church issue. This is directed against church culture, not church leadership.If that is the case, a push against the culture of the members, then I am all for pushing against what the Book Of Mormon describes as "foolish traditions".
Saints Alive Posted December 18, 2012 Author Posted December 18, 2012 If people wouldn't come to church in jeans and tee-shirts it would be nice to get rid of this unofficial dress code. Why do I need to wear an Oxford shirt? Why can't I wear a nice sweater with slacks? Or if I wanted to go 80's why not wear a turtleneck under my sports coat? When its hot out why do I need a tie? Why can't I wear my shirt open collar, heck even the military gets rid of ties on their summer uniforms.
Calm Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 This is directed against church culture, not church leadership.CFR please that this is how the organizers saw the action.
bluebell Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 Gender inequality and sexism are not the same thing. Again, I'd encourage you to do some reading up on feminist theory. Most gender inequality has nothing to do with sexism.I've taken classes on the issues. I find your argument to be mostly semantics.
Scott Lloyd Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) Didn't realize wearing ones religion on the sleeve was a requirement for Scott. Tis a shame you are such an eager beaver check papers.I'm having trouble making sense of this sentence, but DavidB appears to be expressing disapproval of my habit of reading online newspaper content. I am guilty as charged and see no shame in keeping up on current events. And yes, I do occasionally look at reader comments, though I don't spend an inordinate amount of time at it.But since I must wear my religion on my sleeve for you, I have not posted on sltrib.com fo many years, why might you ask, not that you realtime care, well I will tell you why, sltrib.com moderation is lacking in all meanings of the word. Despite sltrib.com rules not allowing certain types of postings sltrib.com is chuck full of such postings.You ought to become better acquainted with punctuation marks, DavidB. They make your writing more readable.I agree that the Tribune is too lax in its moderation and, as a result, its "reader comment" sections are odious.So I don't waste my time there or on deseretnews either.The "reader comment" sections on the Deseret News site are of a markedly higher quality, and it is precisely because they are moderated more carefully. Civility is important to the Deseret News; it's part of the brand identity.Furthermore, sltrib.com is so full of adverts that visiting the site is so entirely aggravating.I don't have a comment here except to say that the bills have to be paid somehow.But I suppose that since I do not visit that site to defend the church at chance that I must be less than faithfull and should give you my home ward address so you can report me to my bishop and stake president.As calmoriah astutely observed, nothing in what I wrote justifies this conclusion on your part. I was only wondering if hate speech directed toward the Church provokes in you a similar level of indignation as what you register about the isolated extreme comment regarding the late pants-at-church protest.What is interesting is I see little difference between you and many of the people on sltrib.com...the bitterness and angst you both display make the internet a very unpleasant place.You're entitled to your opinion, but I reject your criticism. This board is virtually the only Internet forum I post on, and if I were to manifest even a fraction of the incivility I see in Tribune reader comments, I would scarcely last here two days.And that's as it should be. I would not feel comfortable participating here if there were not a certain level of civility and moderation required. Edited December 18, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 Scott can you explain why I must be unkind to others in order for you think I am born in covenant, full tithe, temple worthy melchezidec priesthood bearerAs I said above, this is an unjustified conclusion from what I wrote.
Calm Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 You're entitled to your opinion, but I reject your criticism. This board is virtually the only Internet forum I post on, and if I were to manifest even a fraction of the incivility I see in Tribune reader comments, I would scarcely last here two days.His credibility dropped several more points for me with his equating of you with the negative Trib reader comments.
Recommended Posts