Wear Pants To Church Day; And Other Cultural Dress Standards

[Scott Lloyd]

So that's the best you can do, DavidB/frankenstein? A comment from juliann saying she doesn't like men discussing what women wear?

I guess I'm safe to conclude you really don't have anything at the ready to show that the Church and the men therein are getting "caught up" in what women wear.

[juliann]

Not cool to play people off against their friends when you have nothing else, DavidB.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 pages + on this topic alone for starters!

The topic is one group trying to create a firestorm about what has turned out to be a non-issue. That's not evidence of the Church getting "caught up" in the matter of what women wear.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Not cool to play people off against their friends when you have nothing else, DavidB.

Amen to that.

[Calm]

Not cool to play people off against their friends when you have nothing else, DavidB.

Good call

[Pahoran]

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.

Yes, the publicity-hounds have been very successful.

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.

Who said that?

AFAICT, the point is not that only non-feminists can wear pants. The point is that Sacrament meeting is not an appropriate occasion to make a protest.

Do you really think it should be?

Regards,

Pahoran

[DavidB]

Not cool to play people off against their friends when you have nothing else, DavidB.

Juliann, I did not "play people off against their friends when have nothing else".

Out of respect for the women of the board, based primarily one your "icky" post, I was not going to post anymore in this thread; I would like to be able to read the thread without having to logout and delete cookies. My experience is that where one is willing to speak up (here it is you), there are many others who feel the same but remain silent. I had thought to myself that your "icky" post was final nail in the coffin for everyone or for at least the males discussing the topic.

But if we are speaking about what is not cool, is the dog pile on me - by you and calmoriah - for simply pointing out and agreeing with you, that you find it "icky" that males are discussing what women are wearing to Church.

In fact, I even encouraged a male poster to edit a post, so that the post would not inadvertently or unintentionally seem, as you put it "icky" and it was icky if not bordering on creepy (though very likely unintentionally).

Why did I use your post as a response to Scott Lloyd, because given your comment and having some understanding that you and he have some sort of "friendship", I simply could not understand why he would question(attack) someone for repeating in different words what you have said. Is the type of conduct I can expect from this board - never let your "friends" now that you disagree with them on some particular issue; but I suppose it will be argued that it is a matter of semantics of what you posted and what Bob posted.

Either way, even as "not" your "friend", as a male I understand why a male discussing this topic would appear icky to you and as "not" your "friend" I will respect that and act accordingly; it will be telling what those who claim to be your friend will do. The topic has been discussed, and I view your "icky" post as good counsel to all males involved.

Edited December 20, 2012 by DavidB

[Scott Lloyd]

Is the type of conduct I can expect from this board - never let your "friends" now that you disagree with them on some particular issue;

I think the point Juliann was making is that you were endeavoring to manufacture a point of disagreement where there was none.

[Calm]

The point is that Sacrament meeting is not an appropriate occasion to make a protest.

I don't think there is anything in Juliann's post that implies in any way that it is an appropriate time for protest.

Therefore I am not sure why you went there after reading her comment on the response to the protestors.

[Calm]

But if we are speaking about what is not cool, is the dog pile on me - by you and calmoriah

Two short posts by two people is a dog pile? My, how sensitive a disposition you must have.

[Scott Lloyd]

Two short posts by two people is a dog pile? My, how sensitive a disposition you must have.

The image of women dog piling strikes me as, well, icky.

[DavidB]

Two short posts by two people is a dog pile? My, how sensitive a disposition you must have.

speaking of two short posts, if the moderation of the board sets the standard of the board, then yes, based on the board standards as manifested in moderator comments two short post OR even one short post is a dog pile; so it is not my sensitivities but rather the sensitivities of the board.

Shouldn't the moderators comments be used as universal guidance/definitions for the board?

Edited December 20, 2012 by DavidB

[juliann]

Why did I use your post as a response to Scott Lloyd, because given your comment and having some understanding that you and he have some sort of "friendship", I simply could not understand why he would question(attack) someone for repeating in different words what you have said. Is the type of conduct I can expect from this board - never let your "friends" now that you disagree with them on some particular issue; but I suppose it will be argued that it is a matter of semantics of what you posted and what Bob posted.

Oh for heaven's sake, we disagree with each other on this board all the time. On this topic, I tend to disagree with a lot of friends (I could add a DUH after that for emphasis if needed). Just because one post triggers a comment does not mean that the response is an attack on the person behind the idea being responded to.

it will be telling what those who claim to be your friend will do

Well, let me think about it....hmmm...my guess is that they will keep saying what they say and I will keep saying what I say just as we have for years. And we will continue to be friends just as we always have been for years. I'm trying to imagine your world where all friends have conjoined brains. It is icky.

And if you think a couple of people objecting to you trying to create fights is a dogpile, you are in the wrong place.

Edited December 20, 2012 by juliann

[Pahoran]

I don't think there is anything in Juliann's post that implies in any way that it is an appropriate time for protest.

I didn't think she was implying that it was.

Therefore I am not sure why you went there after reading her comment on the response to the protestors.

Because I'm not sure why she went the "only non-feminists can wear pants" route as her interpretation of the rather calm and benign view that Sacrament meeting is not the appropriate venue for a protest.

Unless she's responding to something else, in which case we are simply talking past each other.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

The image of women dog piling strikes me as, well, icky.

Depends on the women. Some of us are very careful when jumping on top of others not to injure those who are delicate as well as not to place ourselves in disarray.

[Calm]

speaking of two short posts, if the moderation of the board sets the standard of the board, then yes, based on the board standards as manifested in moderator comments two short post OR even one short post is a dog pile; so it is not my sensitivities but rather the sensitivities of the board.

Shouldn't the moderators comments be used as universal guidance/definitions for the board?

Really? how do you draw this conclusion?

add-on: "dog pile" isn't in the board guidelines..."bone" is but I don't think you can draw even a curving line between the two terms and come to a conclusion that "dog pile" is what the mods mean there simply because there are other contexts that associate the words.

add-on and on: "Dog pile" isn't in any of Nemesis' posts available for searching as well....the mystery of how this conclusion was drawn grows.

Edited December 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Because I'm not sure why she went the "only non-feminists can wear pants" route as her interpretation of the rather calm and benign view that Sacrament meeting is not the appropriate venue for a protest.

Unless she's responding to something else, in which case we are simply talking past each other.

Got it, will wait for clarification on where the conversation has gone and is going as right now with the brain in the fog it is, I need large signposts pointing the way to follow along. Edited December 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[DavidB]

Oh for heaven's sake, we disagree with each other on this board all the time. On this topic, I tend to disagree with a lot of friends (I could add a DUH after that for emphasis if needed). Just because one post triggers a comment does not mean that the response is an attack on the person behind the idea being responded to.

Well, let me think about it....hmmm...my guess is that they will keep saying what they say and I will keep saying what I say just as we have for years. And we will continue to be friends just as we always have been for years. I'm trying to imagine your world where all friends have conjoined brains. It is icky.

And if you think a couple of people objecting to you trying to create fights is a dogpile, you are in the wrong place.

I used your comment to respond the idea Scott Lloyd responded to, in all sincerity that was all I was attempting to do. Perhaps you should also consider if you are in the right place if you think such is trying to create a fight OR pit friend against friend, rather taking the post at face value for what it is, a response to an idea that another person responded too.

Edited December 20, 2012 by DavidB

[DavidB]

delete

Edited December 20, 2012 by DavidB

[juliann]

I didn't think she was implying that it was.

Because I'm not sure why she went the "only non-feminists can wear pants" route as her interpretation of the rather calm and benign view that Sacrament meeting is not the appropriate venue for a protest.

Unless she's responding to something else, in which case we are simply talking past each other.

Regards,

Pahoran

That is the only logical conclusion because: 1. Women wore pants before this 2. There was no protest in the church building.

That is the brilliance in what was done. You cannot say that wearing pants is wrong when it is already done and there is no prohibition against it. It is rather like insisting men who don't wear white shirts are protesting every Sunday. You don't even know why a woman wearing pants was doing it. I'm sure there were many who were as clueless about the protest as most. They just wear pants. Just like some men wear colored shirts or a tie and sweater instead of a jacket. (Notice in that NYT article the photo is of a woman in pants sandwiched between two men who are not wearing suits!) Not a word about those men protesting because it is no more remarkable than the woman in pants.

So again, there was no protest in church. A statement that it was an "inappropriate" place for protest is a strawman. There was no protest at church.

So we are left with the conclusion that quiet "obedient" women can wear pants to church but outspoken feminist women may not. Even more telling, if pictures were put in front of you, you would not be able to tell the difference between them. They are all just women wearing pants. So there is no other logical conclusion. That is why there is so much effort to make this a "protest" in the church itself when nothing even close to an in-church protest happened.

Edited December 20, 2012 by juliann

[Pahoran]

That is the only logical conclusion because: 1. Women wore pants before this 2. There was no protest in the church building.

That is the brilliance in what was done. You cannot say that wearing pants is wrong when it is already done and there is no prohibition against it. It is rather like insisting men who don't wear white shirts are protesting every Sunday. You don't even know why a woman wearing pants was doing it. I'm sure there were many who were as clueless about the protest as most. They just wear pants. Just like some men wear colored shirts or a tie and sweater instead of a jacket. (Notice in that NYT article the photo is of a woman in pants sandwiched between two men who are not wearing suits!) Not a word about those men protesting because it is no more remarkable than the woman in pants.

So again, there was no protest in church. A statement that it was an "inappropriate" place for protest is a strawman. There was no protest at church.

So we are left with the conclusion that quiet "obedient" women can wear pants to church but outspoken feminist women may not. Even more telling, if pictures were put in front of you, you would not be able to tell the difference between them. They are all just women wearing pants. So there is no other logical conclusion. That is why there is so much effort to make this a "protest" in the church itself when nothing even close to an in-church protest happened.

Only if you rather narrowly define "protest" to mean something equivalent to "a formal demonstration complete with placards, sit-ins and people singing 'We Shall Overcome'."

But the NYT, who presumably don't make up their facts out of whole cloth, reported that it was "a symbolic first salvo in a larger struggle over gender inequalities."

Sounds a lot like a protest to me.

The OP of this thread said:

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)

So I'm not the one who came up with "protest" all on my little lonesome.

But if you don't like the word "protest," then fine.

What do you want to call it?

"Making a statement?" A "symbolic gesture?" Whatever description you find suitable, what does it have to do with the purposes of Sacrament meeting?

I suggest that those purposes are:

1. To worship the Lord;
   
2. To renew sacred covenants by partaking of the Sacrament;
   
3. To fellowship with the Saints.
   

How does protesting (or whatever you'd like to call it) contribute to any of those things?

Incidentally, I don't see the "brilliance" at all. The event was a non-event, so they have to try to beat it up into something in retrospect. The NYC reported "thousands" of women participating. Really? Based upon what I've heard, would "dozens" be more accurate?

And a rather idiotic throwaway remark has been rather vigorously reinterpreted as a "death threat," nay, a "specific death threat."

The "brilliance" is that the Sisterhood are trying to make lemonade out of a solitary, and rather small, lemon.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Nathair/|\]

But the NYT, who presumably don't make up their facts out of whole cloth,

I'm not sure that's true.

[Calm]

That is the only logical conclusion because: 1. Women wore pants before this 2. There was no protest in the church building.

That is the brilliance in what was done. You cannot say that wearing pants is wrong when it is already done and there is no prohibition against it. It is rather like insisting men who don't wear white shirts are protesting every Sunday. You don't even know why a woman wearing pants was doing it. I'm sure there were many who were as clueless about the protest as most. They just wear pants. Just like some men wear colored shirts or a tie and sweater instead of a jacket. (Notice in that NYT article the photo is of a woman in pants sandwiched between two men who are not wearing suits!) Not a word about those men protesting because it is no more remarkable than the woman in pants.

So again, there was no protest in church.

I am not following you. It seems to me that the intent of the organizers was to create a protest and it is being reported at least as a "demonstration" and an "organized movement" in one article about it, which terms seem to me to be synonymous in this context to "protest":

http://www.refinery2...en-pants-church

This week, thousands of Mormon women wore pants to Sunday services in an organized movement that was far more than a fashion statement. As the New York Times reports, there are no specific restrictions against women wearing slacks to services in the Mormon faith. Church leaders told the Times, “Generally church members are encouraged to wear their best clothing as a sign of respect for the Savior, but we don’t counsel people beyond that.”

Nonetheless, this “Wear Pants to Church” demonstration raised eyebrows and voices due to the issues it targeted. Currently, a significant number of women and men within the church feel that various policies represent antiquated and what some would call sexist values: women cannot be ordained, are not required to go on missions (as men are), and must contend with other inequalities both social and theological. By wearing pants to services (something frowned upon by many, even if it's not officially restricted) women all over the globe visually demonstrated a demand for increased equality. It was, in the view of one expert, “the largest concerted Mormon feminist effort in history” — a significant, conspicuous demonstration for a religion that has, for many justifiable reasons, kept much of its inner workings out of the public eye.

Simply because the protest ended up blending into the background due to the fact that women are already wearing pants to church and so those who did so in alliance with the organized movement were identical to those who wore it because of personal choice/need doesn't seem to me change the protest to a nonprotest. If those wearing the pants defined their actions as a protest, isn't it a protest...even if it is an ineffectual protest (until the attackers and the media got involved). You will have to connect the dots for me...sorry I am being so hazy at the moment. Edited December 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[Storm Rider]

So often we are only heroes in our own mind. These individuals follow in that same path where their "protest" was only a protest in their own minds and no one else noticed. My advice is that an individual gets to choose what they will do in life. If these people want to see themselves as protestors then protest as much as a you want as long as it does not disturb the worship of others. I wonder how the Savior will perceive such behavior? Should I spend my time in emulating the example of Christ in the service of others or in a constant state of protest against whatever I perceive as an injustice against an offense that has no victims?

[Pahoran]

So often we are only heroes in our own mind. These individuals follow in that same path where their "protest" was only a protest in their own minds and no one else noticed. My advice is that an individual gets to choose what they will do in life. If these people want to see themselves as protestors then protest as much as a you want as long as it does not disturb the worship of others.

Which, of course, they didn't do.

And that is a good thing, but to the extent that they were thinking about their "protest," which hardly anybody else had even heard of at that point, they were disturbing their own worship.

And that really underlines the fact that Sacrament meeting is not an appropriate occasion for a "protest." When it is suitably low key so as not to disturb anyone, as it was here (and full credit to the partici-pants for keeping it that way) it becomes ineffectual, and kind of misses the point of protesting in the first place. But if it had been loud and strident enough to get noticed, it would have been disruptive of the worship of others, and would have thus invited a well-deserved backlash.

I wonder how the Savior will perceive such behavior? Should I spend my time in emulating the example of Christ in the service of others or in a constant state of protest against whatever I perceive as an injustice against an offense that has no victims?

An interesting question. You know, it's possible to view the positive things we do -- worshipping the Lord, serving others etc -- as a kind of "protest" against a lost and fallen world. So perhaps there is a Christ-like way to protest: do something positive to make things better. Are there people who feel awkward or excluded because they don't fit in, perhaps because their clothes aren't what everyone else is wearing? Then let's all do a little more to make them feel welcome and included.

Regards,

Pahoran