Wear Pants To Church Day; And Other Cultural Dress Standards

[Cobalt-70]

CFR please that this is how the organizers saw the action.

Listen to this interview of the spokesperson for All Enlisted, the group who organized the event. Two of the other pantstigators from All Enlisted are interviewed here.

[Cobalt-70]

I've taken classes on the issues. I find your argument to be mostly semantics.

Semantics is the point. Patriarchy lives in the world of signs and symbols, which is why the simple symbolic act of a few women wanting to come to church in pants caused such a stir, and why so many men and women who are invested in the patriarchy find it so threatening to symbolic male hegemony.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[volgadon]

Patriarchy lives in the world of signs and symbols,

What sheer and utter rot.

[Avatar4321]

Semantics is the point. Patriarchy lives in the world of signs and symbols, which is why the simple symbolic act of a few women wanting to come to church in pants caused such a stir, and why so many men and women who are invested in the patriarchy find it so threatening to symbolic male hegemony.

So why didn't it cause a stir then?

[Scott Lloyd]

So why didn't it cause a stir then?

Whatever stir that was generated was in the way of curiosity and detached amusement rather than provoked resentment -- which seems to be a disappointment to people like Cobalt.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Pahoran]

Semantics is the point. Patriarchy lives in the world of signs and symbols, which is why the simple symbolic act of a few women wanting to come to church in pants caused such a stir,

Pardon me for interrupting your rally speech, but what stir? Oh, I know it was intended to cause a stir, but it did not.

Which rather makes the gesture something of a failure, IMHO.

and why so many men and women who are invested in the patriarchy find it so threatening to symbolic male hegemony.

Who finds it "threatening to symbolic male hegemony?" Nobody that I've noticed.

AFAICT, I'm one of the few who even commented upon the notion, and I rather explicitly said that I have no problem with women wearing trousers to Church. My sole response was that we go to Church for a specific purpose or purposes, none of which is to "make a statement" about fashion.

And the few people who have commented upon that -- some of them women, and not all of them what you would reasonably regard as ultra-conservative -- have, AFAICT, rather unanimously agreed with me.

Regards,

Pahoran

[juliann]

So why didn't it cause a stir then?

It didn't cause a stir because whatever "protest" element was involved was not done in church. Some women quietly wore pants. Just like some women do every other Sunday. All of the talk went on outside of church. So this gets kind of weird when people insist that wearing pants is just fine, happens all the time.....and then turn around and insist it was any different this time and it suddenly matters that women wore pants. But wait, it doesn't matter, they do it all the time.... I'm confused.

Did anyone carry signs? Make speeches? Jog around the chapel? So nothing whatsoever was different on Sunday. Nothing. Creating a narrative that worship was interrupted, distracted or anything is nonsensical when it is openly admitted that wearing pants is not disruptive. So people need to pick a narrative and stick with it. Can't have it both ways. Just sayin'....

[Hamba Tuhan]

Patriarchy lives in the world of signs and symbols, which is why the simple symbolic act of a few women wanting to come to church in pants caused such a stir, and why so many men and women who are invested in the patriarchy find it so threatening to symbolic male hegemony.

Once again I'm reminded of how, when I was doing my masters study in America, a group of students met each Friday night outside the library to hold a 'candlelight vigil for East Timor'. Meanwhile, the faithful Saints back in Indonesia were spending thousands of hours packing hygiene kits and shipping them to the Timorese. I suspect the 'stir' Cobalt here posits was as efficacious as the symbolic aid rendered by the students with the candles.

[Calm]

Listen to this interview of the spokesperson for All Enlisted, the group who organized the event. Two of the other pantstigators from All Enlisted are interviewed here.

Thank you

[Stargazer]

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.

I've never heard anyone say that the reason they don't come church is because of the dress code. I've seen lots of people come in casual clothes.

Go ahead, do all that as it seems fitting to you. I won't complain.

[Saints Alive]

You might not but others would.

[Nominee]

I do know people who have refused to come to church because they were asked to dress more modestly. I also know a girl ( teenage) who refuses to dress modestly but insists on coming to church. And good for her! Believe it or not she is a pure heart that is the only active convert member in her family. She gets herself to church, youth activities, and ward activities. She shows up in strapless prom dresses sometimes and tank tops other times despite the reprimand, dirty looks, and shut outs. She insists on being around and setting an example of Christlike behavior for all the members of our ward who can use it. I learned something from her actions myself- God's timing. This girl's clothing is NOT appropriate. God's laws and prophets tell us so! BUT she will find her way along her path with Christ and her foundation will be solid because she based her choices on her relationship with Heavenly Father and not on what other church members thought of outfit. I watched her grow spiritually and her clothes slowly become more modest with time. I see that she means well and even understand that what she was raised to view as "your best" was immodest. As she becomes her own woman she is becoming a modest and virtuous woman. She learned it on her own and wants it for herself. She is going to be a strong and remarkable saint.

~ Naomi

[Cobalt-70]

So why didn't it cause a stir then?

It did cause a stir. There were death threats. The police and the BYU Honor Code Office had to become involved in a few cases.

[Cobalt-70]

Pardon me for interrupting your rally speech, but what stir? Oh, I know it was intended to cause a stir, but it did not.

You are wrong on both counts. (1) It was not intended to cause a stir. It was just supposed to be a small opening gesture by All Enlisted. The organizers were dumbfounded when it became national news, mostly because of the internet outrage the thing caused. (2) It did cause an incredible stir. The website had to be taken down because of all the nasty and threatening comments from Mormons. There were specific death threats, and the original spokesperson for the event had to step down for her own safety.

[Nominee]

You are wrong on both counts. (1) It was not intended to cause a stir. It was just supposed to be a small opening gesture by All Enlisted. The organizers were dumbfounded when it became national news, mostly because of the internet outrage the thing caused. (2) It did cause an incredible stir. The website had to be taken down because of all the nasty and threatening comments from Mormons. There were specific death threats, and the original spokesperson for the event had to step down for her own safety.

I disagree with you on #1. It was intended to cause a stir. It would be ludicrous to say that they expected no negative or positive attention (even in the positive, a stir is a stir) either locally or nationwide when their efforts were organized for the purpose of drawing attention to anything at all - ON FACEBOOK.

[DavidB]

...

My sole response was that we go to Church for a specific purpose or purposes, none of which is to "make a statement" about fashion.

Regards,

Pahoran

If it was widely accepted that Church is for worship and only about worship and not about "make a statement about fashion", then it would stand to reason that there would have been no "wear pants to church".

But because, in the minds of many, and this boards very own Juliann, there is a perception (does not matter that the perception is incorrect) that attending Church is partly about "make a statement about fashion" in the sense of what is for lack of better words fashionable or otherwise acceptable to wear to Church. There are two incorrect perceptions that, in my opinion, infect the Church membership:

White shirts and neck ties must be worn by males.

Non-pant outfits must be worn by females.

[Nominee]

White shirts have been mentioned by our prophets and in our handbooks. They are not merely an incorrect perception just because some people would like them to be.

~ Naomi

[Pahoran]

You are wrong on both counts. (1) It was not intended to cause a stir. It was just supposed to be a small opening gesture by All Enlisted. The organizers were dumbfounded when it became national news, mostly because of the internet outrage the thing caused. (2) It did cause an incredible stir. The website had to be taken down because of all the nasty and threatening comments from Mormons. There were specific death threats, and the original spokesperson for the event had to step down for her own safety.

Yeah, and the Danites tried to off Ed Decker, too.

Of course, I'm making allowances for the American penchant for hyperbole here. I know you lot say "incredible" to describe something that really is little more than "fairly interesting." But I wouldn't be at all surprised if both of the "nasty and threatening comments from Mormons," including the single "specific death threat" was posted by the organisers themselves.

I'm not surprised that the Sisterhood of the Sacrament Pants are trying to beat this non-event up into something more than it was; just about nobody noticed it on the day.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

If it was widely accepted that Church is for worship and only about worship and not about "make a statement about fashion", then it would stand to reason that there would have been no "wear pants to church".

And there wouldn't have been if the publicity hounds (the Sisterhood of the Sacrament Pants) respected that fact.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Saints Alive]

White shirts have been mentioned by our prophets and in our handbooks. They are not merely an incorrect perception just because some people would like them to be.

~ Naomi

I don't doubt you but I would like to see which handbooks said that and when. Call it an informal CFR. Edited December 19, 2012 by Saints Alive

[DavidB]

White shirts have been mentioned by our prophets and in our handbooks. They are not merely an incorrect perception just because some people would like them to be.

~ Naomi

I don't doubt you but I would like to see which handbooks said that and when. Call it an informal CFR.

Whites shirts are not a requirement. The CHI does not mandate or otherwise require whiteshirts.

[DavidB]

If it was widely accepted that Church is for worship and only about worship and not about "make a statement about fashion", then it would stand to reason that there would have been no "wear pants to church".

And there wouldn't have been if the publicity hounds (the Sisterhood of the Sacrament Pants) respected that fact.

Regards,

Pahoran

while trying to defend your position that Church not about "make a statement about fashion" you inadvertently give credence to the position that Church, is in part, about "make a statement about fashion".

If a woman wearing pants to Church was not a culture issue, then why would Juliann have doubts - prior to this event - that she, as a woman, was in one or another prohibited from wearing pants to Church. A dress code - cultural or otherwise - is a "make a statement about fashion".

[wenglund]

If it was widely accepted that Church is for worship and only about worship and not about "make a statement about fashion", then it would stand to reason that there would have been no "wear pants to church".

But because, in the minds of many, and this boards very own Juliann, there is a perception (does not matter that the perception is incorrect) that attending Church is partly about "make a statement about fashion" in the sense of what is for lack of better words fashionable or otherwise acceptable to wear to Church. There are two incorrect perceptions that, in my opinion, infect the Church membership:

White shirts and neck ties must be worn by males.

Non-pant outfits must be worn by females.

Has it occurred to you that, culturally or otherwise, the white shirts for men and the "non-pants" for women is expressly intended to avoid fashion becoming elevated in importance during church service? It is similar in concept to school uniforms. In other words, do you realize that you have it exactly backwards?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

while trying to defend your position that Church not about "make a statement about fashion" you inadvertently give credence to the position that Church, is in part, about "make a statement about fashion".

Really? How?

If a woman wearing pants to Church was not a culture issue, then why would Juliann have doubts - prior to this event - that she, as a woman, was in one or another prohibited from wearing pants to Church. A dress code - cultural or otherwise - is a "make a statement about fashion".

If a host invites you to a black tie event, that is not "making a statement," it is simply a condition of the invitation.

If you choose to show up in slacks and a sports coat, then that is "making a statement." It is also rude.

But if a host invites you to an event, and you are under the impression that it is a black tie event, and you elect to show up in slacks and a sports coat in order to give the host the finger, and then discover that in fact it wasn't a black tie event at all, you might feel a little let down.

The point is, as I mentioned earlier, when we attend Sacrament meeting, one of the ways we show our respect for Him whose presence we are entering is to dress in a respectful way. One that shows that we accept that He is more important than our whims and preferences.

Those sisters whose trouser outfits are the smartest clothes in the wardrobe are showing a reverent attitude when they put them on to attend Church.

The Sisterhood of the Sacrament Pants, however, weren't thinking about worshipping the Lord. They were thinking, "I'll show those old male fuddy-duddies."

That's not what we go to Sacrament Meeting for. Sorry.

Regards,

Pahoran

[DavidB]

Has it occurred to you that, culturally or otherwise, the white shirts for men and the "non-pants" for women is expressly intended to avoid fashion becoming elevated in importance during church service? It is similar in concept to school uniforms. In other words, do you realize that you have it exactly backwards?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not I do not have it backwards. The Official position of the Church, via Mr. Trotter, is that there is no mandated uniform.

The culture of the membership has created a dress code, that a the membership has made Church attendance in part a fashion statement and as much as you want to believe, the culture that perpectuates and mandates a dress code in contractadiction to the Official position of the Church is not trying to "avoid fashion becoming elevated in importance during church service"; infact the culture and members who perpetuate a dress code contrary to the position of the Church are elevating fashion in importance/requirement during Church attendance.