Wear Pants To Church Day; And Other Cultural Dress Standards

[DavidB]

Really? How?

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

And likewise if the Host says "Wear your best" and when you arrive attendees at said event shun you, ridicule you, or other wise disparage what you are wearing, then those attendees have supplanted the host and created their own rules, thus those individuals make the event about what you are wearing.

[juliann]

Sisterhood of the Sacrament Pants

Award for best line!

My point continues to be that it is the Sisterhood's detractors who have made this a big deal. They really didn't have to do anything but talk about what they were doing. None of this would have reached this proportion had there not been stoopid Mormon folk on the Facebook page making threats and condemning them for what they then turn around and say is done all the time anyway. It shouldn't be so difficult to see that. We need to just say whatever and move on....we learned that with the Book of Mormon musical but we can't seem to do it when women are involved.

[juliann]

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-

Ah come on, there is no such thing as a uniform female dress. It's pretty much anything goes as long as it involves exposed legs and a skirted bottom. I've seen a lot of leggings under really short skirts, just really short skirts, really tight skirts, t-shirts, sheer blouses, lots of birkenstocks, and of course, the fashion plates with the Nordstom matched outfits and layers of rings and jewelry. Most of all I see a lot of garments hanging out of various places. But only one earring, of course. The only uniform look that developed was on female missionaries and they even had to tell them to knock it off. So this new idea that we have some kind of pristine dress is a little difficult to pull off. And I do find it interesting that nothing is being said about men who don't wear white shirts or even suits. We have several and I can't even imagine a circumstance where that would become a topic of conversation let alone create such a nasty backlash. But for some reason it is OK for men to discuss what women wear under any circumstance. It's getting kind of....icky.

[Pahoran]

Award for best line!

Thank you. I aim to please.

My point continues to be that it is the Sisterhood's detractors who have made this a big deal. They really didn't have to do anything but talk about what they were doing. None of this would have reached this proportion had there not been stoopid Mormon folk on the Facebook page making threats and condemning them for what they then turn around and say is done all the time anyway. It shouldn't be so difficult to see that. We need to just say whatever and move on....we learned that with the Book of Mormon musical but we can't seem to do it when women are involved.

Watch out with that there tar-brush!

So one (or maybe two?) idiots spoiled a non-event. And thus made it into an event!! The Sisterhood must be so unhappy about that. But why should the actions of that (or those) anonymous individual(s) be taken to reflect upon the rest of us?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

And I do find it interesting that nothing is being said about men who don't wear white shirts or even suits. We have several and I can't even imagine a circumstance where that would become a topic of conversation let alone create such a nasty backlash.

Umm, I can.

A group of fringies gets together and organises a "Wear a pastel shirt to Church day." They invite women who "support" their "protest" to show it by wearing a purple carnation. (Sounds dumb, huh? It gets dumber.) When they realise that their event is simply flying below everyone's radar, they, ah, "arrange" for an "anonymous" death threat or two to be sent to their Facebook page.

Do you think that might work?

And then if all else fails, they could complain that they're being victimised because of "homophobia," or some such PC anathema.

Regards,

Pahoran

[wenglund]

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.

Let me just reiterate that, as Pahoran has explained, the informal and oft laxly enforced cultural standard for clothing is a guideline of respect and way of avoiding clothing that may draw attention to itself and away from the intended purpose of the meeting. It's intent is to lessen the impact of clothing on the meeting, and not the other way around--and I say this as someone who hates wearing white shirts and ties.

The opposite is true of the protesters. For them, it was all about the clothes rather than about the sacrament and the purpose of the sabbath day.

So, if there is anything objectionable and unduly elevating fashion in this case, it is them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Ah come on, there is no such thing as a uniform female dress. It's pretty much anything goes as long as it involves exposed legs and a skirted bottom. I've seen a lot of leggings under really short skirts, just really short skirts, really tight skirts, t-shirts, sheer blouses, lots of birkenstocks, and of course, the fashion plates with the Nordstom matched outfits and layers of rings and jewelry. Most of all I see a lot of garments hanging out of various places. But only one earring, of course. The only uniform look that developed was on female missionaries and they even had to tell them to knock it off. So this new idea that we have some kind of pristine dress is a little difficult to pull off. And I do find it interesting that nothing is being said about men who don't wear white shirts or even suits. We have several and I can't even imagine a circumstance where that would become a topic of conversation let alone create such a nasty backlash. But for some reason it is OK for men to discuss what women wear under any circumstance. It's getting kind of....icky.

I think you are straining in multiples ways to mis the point. The fact that we tend to see women at church in nice dresses suggests that there is some level of uniformity, even if the styles of those dresses are somewhat diverse.

That the culture may well-intentionally provide some guidelines for respect, doesn't mean that everyone agrees with them and abides by them. Some people may wear certain clothing with the intent of drawing attention to themselves and the clothing. Doing so, however, would be in contravention to the good intents of the cultural guidelines and the purpose for the Sunday meetings, and is deserving of criticism even if the clothing doesn't consist of a pants.

As for men supposedly discussing WHAT women wear to Church, but not WHAT men may wear, for my part my only interest is with the WHY, in select cases, women or men may wearing certain clothing to church on a certain day. If a group of men make a public spectacle of themselves protesting white shirts and ties at Church, and in a way that draw attention away the intended meaning of Church services, then be assured that I will speak up about it, and hopefully that will make things less "icky" for you. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 20, 2012 by wenglund

[Pahoran]

And likewise if the Host says "Wear your best" and when you arrive attendees at said event shun you, ridicule you, or other wise disparage what you are wearing, then those attendees have supplanted the host and created their own rules, thus those individuals make the event about what you are wearing.

I absolutely agree that that should never happen.

Does it happen? Perhaps.

Do people, due to their own self-consciousness about the fact that they stand out in some way, perceive that this is happening when it is not?

Most probably. Almost certainly, in fact.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bob Oliverio]

So many churches around this country that exist w/o all this nonsense of women not wearing a dress and not a whimper of this so called "respect" issue.  Are women who wear slacks to these venues of worship any less worthy or respectful to their beliefs?  If so-why?  Our church and our men, meaningful as they well be, can get so caught up in so much nonsense that only detracts from acceptance of what we all really want!!!  Time for a wake-up call again!!

[Cobalt-70]

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."

Pahoran, you seem to know an awful lot about the inner motivations of these sisters. Do you know them? Can you even tell me what their names are?

[Scott Lloyd]

So many churches around this country that exist w/o all this nonsense of women not wearing a dress and not a whimper of this so called "respect" issue. Are women who wear slacks to these venues of worship any less worthy or respectful to their beliefs? If so-why? Our church and our men, meaningful as they well be, can get so caught up in so much nonsense that only detracts from acceptance of what we all really want!!! Time for a wake-up call again!!

What evidence can you show that "our church and our men" are getting "caught up" in the matter of what women wear to church?

[Calm]

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.

But there is a specific context where they have been mentioned, correct?

[Calm]

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?

That is how I have always understood it. Many don't actually wear our best to church as we often possess fancy dress that is much more "best" and more expensive than what we wear to church to wear to parties and ceremonies and other social events. Edited December 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Award for best line!

And I am out of points right now.

[Calm]

But why should the actions of that (or those) anonymous individual(s) be taken to reflect upon the rest of us?

One of them at least was not anonymous is the thread in the "In the News" forum is correct. Look for the locked one. This guy is apparently one of the asst. editors of the BYU student paper, whatever that is called...can't remember. Someone might have been using his name, of course, but it was on Facebook, I believe and if the identity had a history consistent with the man it was attached to, it is more likely to be the actual person. Edited December 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[Gervin]

New York Times has picked up the story on their front page web site. Just an FYI.

[Calm]

New York Times has picked up the story on their front page web site. Just an FYI.

Have they confirmed who sent the death threats?

[juliann]

New York Times has picked up the story on their front page web site. Just an FYI.

And notice the lead sentence....

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/us/19mormon.html?_r=0

A call for Mormon women to wear pants to church, begun this month by a small group of women, has stretched across the globe, but not before creating a backlash and even generating death threats.

And the last....

Aimee Hickman, the editor of a Mormon feminist magazine called Exponent II, said she originally had reservations about the event. But then she saw the negative reaction by church members online. “This made me rethink my original position,” Ms. Hickman said. The attention drawn to the effort, she added, “has people talking about Mormon gender roles more than anything I’ve seen.”

And it still hasn't sunk in. Now it has hit the NYT because of members who just can't sit back and let things happen. You have to be living on another planet if it isn't now crystal clear that the problem isn't the women in pants but the ones who can't stop talking about them until reporters show up.

Nor has it sunk in that it is also crystal clear that women have worn pants before this, without the hysteria, so it isn't about pants at all. It is about which kind of woman can wear them. So we actually have a worthiness test to wear pants now. If you are not a self-proclaimed feminist you can just keep on doing it. It just can't get any weirder.

[why me]

Umm, I can.

A group of fringies gets together and organises a "Wear a pastel shirt to Church day." They invite women who "support" their "protest" to show it by wearing a purple carnation. (Sounds dumb, huh? It gets dumber.) When they realise that their event is simply flying below everyone's radar, they, ah, "arrange" for an "anonymous" death threat or two to be sent to their Facebook page.

Do you think that might work?

And then if all else fails, they could complain that they're being victimised because of "homophobia," or some such PC anathema.

Regards,

Pahoran

It has worked. Here is the NYTimes reporting the death threats and the protest:

http://www.nytimes.c...agewanted=print

Unfortunately, what the paper doesn't seem to understand is that lds women can wear pants if they wish. Also, as Juliann has noted lds women today are wearing shorty skirts and revealing blouses all the time, especially the lds younger women who are in their early twenties. And teenagers are not that different. I call it the H&M effect that they learned when they were teenagers. Also, the lds church is losing control over the dress code for ladies and for men.

And I think that bishops do not want to rock the boat over this issue but certainly, worldly styles have made inroads in sunday dress codes.

Edited December 20, 2012 by why me

[Bob Oliverio]

What evidence can you show that "our church and our men" are getting "caught up" in the matter of what women wear to church?

16 pages + on this topic alone for starters!

[Calm]

16 pages + on this topic alone for starters!

Nah, that is just evidence that people like to talk and will take anything as an excuse to do so. Edited December 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[bluebell]

16 pages + on this topic alone for starters!

A lot of the posters on this thread are women, so i'm not sure the length really means much.

Also, if i'm remembering right, we've had threads on men wearing white shirts and ties to church on here before, and they were just as popular.

[Bob Oliverio]

Nah, that is just evidence that people like to talk and will take anything as an excuse to do so.

So in other words:  Just too much time on their hands?

[DavidB]

What evidence can you show that "our church and our men" are getting "caught up" in the matter of what women wear to church?

And I do find it interesting that nothing is being said about men who don't wear white shirts or even suits. We have several and I can't even imagine a circumstance where that would become a topic of conversation let alone create such a nasty backlash.

But for some reason it is OK for men to discuss what women wear under any circumstance. It's getting kind of....icky.

[volgadon]

So in other words: Just too much time on their hands?

Don't leave yourself out.