Wear Pants To Church Day; And Other Cultural Dress Standards

[Yirgacheffe]

According to the Chicago Tribune they had to take down their original Facebook page because of death threats.

[bluebell]

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.

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.

[Calm]

No one has said it was, why do you assume it is to anyone but the individual himself?

[MorningStar]

These women seriously need to wear a suit and tie to show they really mean it.

[Duncan]

Now that I think about it there is a lady in our ward who wears pants to church, and frankly I don't think anyone cares. I don't see it as rebellion, our ward has bigger concerns that this lady wearing pants to Church

[DH]

Please try not to make arguments idiotic just because you disagree with them. It's obvious that that's not what's being said and for you to try to 'make' that what's being said just so it's easier to make fun of it comes off badly.

I'm sure Erin will be back to explain herself further, but i'll be the first to admit that she is not the first i've heard to 'go there' when commenting on the women who are directly involved in starting and spreading this petition. To many people (men and women, myself included) it seems crazy to spend time, energy and effort (especially during this time of the year) on a campaign trying to get women to wear pants to church.

I still think that argument is stupid. If people are going to get all judgmental based on a set of unfounded assumptions (e.g. "I disagree with the "Pants" event. Those people must not be doing anything valuable with their lives."), then I reserve the right to call them on it.

For crying out loud, just let them wear their pants to church, and don't make all kinds of silly assumptions about their character because of it.

Seriously, by judging them like that, you are only proving that their point is valid.

Edited December 15, 2012 by DH

[Stargazer]

Now that I think about it there is a lady in our ward who wears pants to church, and frankly I don't think anyone cares. I don't see it as rebellion, our ward has bigger concerns that this lady wearing pants to Church

We had a sister missionary in our mission who refused to wear a bra because she was a faminist, made sure she drank coke, and in general exhibited a rebellious attitude. She was in my district at one point, and the mission president had put her with the most tolerant other sister missionary he had -- she had apparently alienated every single companion she had up to that point. I don't know what happened ultimately, whether she went home early or finally grew up, but I remember wondering just what kind of a mission she thought she was on. Or whose. Or why she had come at all, since there was no social expectation for sisters like there was for brothers. This was back in the mid-1970s.

[Stargazer]

I still think that argument is stupid. If people are going to get all judgmental based on a set of unfounded assumptions (e.g. "I disagree with the "Pants" event. Those people must not be doing anything valuable with their lives."), then I reserve the right to call them on it.

For crying out loud, just let them wear their pants to church, and don't make all kinds of silly assumptions about their character because of it.

Seriously, by judging them like that, you are only proving that their point is valid.

Up to this point, I've not had any judgemental feelings (or cared very much) if any sister in our ward showed up in trousers. But if someone shows up in trousers this coming Sunday I will have to be wondering if this is because of this silly protest or not.

Bujt it's the Pacific Northwest, not Utah Valley. Nobody will know why they come in trousers.

[Duncan]

We had a sister missionary in our mission who refused to wear a bra because she was a faminist, made sure she drank coke, and in general exhibited a rebellious attitude. She was in my district at one point, and the mission president had put her with the most tolerant other sister missionary he had -- she had apparently alienated every single companion she had up to that point. I don't know what happened ultimately, whether she went home early or finally grew up, but I remember wondering just what kind of a mission she thought she was on. Or whose. Or why she had come at all, since there was no social expectation for sisters like there was for brothers. This was back in the mid-1970s.

ummmmm...how do you know she didn't wear a bra?! I drank coke too and still do. I don't think this lady in my ward is on any kind of crusade or anything and we are happy to have her attend

[blackstrap]

Soon they will be burying 27 people. Find something better to do with the "desire for change " folks.

[Jude2]

Soon they will be burying 27 people. Find something better to do with the "desire for change " folks.

I was thinking the same thing, there are so many more important things to focus on. These feminist just seem frivolous, John Taylor might describe it as “fried froth”

[Calm]

These women seriously need to wear a suit and tie to show they really mean it.

And a white shirt.

[Calm]

Now that I think about it there is a lady in our ward who wears pants to church, and frankly I don't think anyone cares. I don't see it as rebellion, our ward has bigger concerns that this lady wearing pants to Church

If it took you this long to think of her, it definitely is evidence that at least you don't care.

[bluebell]

I still think that argument is stupid. If people are going to get all judgmental based on a set of unfounded assumptions (e.g. "I disagree with the "Pants" event. Those people must not be doing anything valuable with their lives."), then I reserve the right to call them on it.

For crying out loud, just let them wear their pants to church, and don't make all kinds of silly assumptions about their character because of it.

Seriously, by judging them like that, you are only proving that their point is valid.

Fine. Call them judgmental. No one's going to lose sleep over it and you are welcome to your opinion.

But at least do it understanding what is actually being said. I've said before that whenever i've heard this argument, it's been about the women who are specifically spearheading the effort and not about anyone who might wear pants this sunday.

I'm having trouble understanding why you keep missing that, but i'll refrain from judging you for it.

[yootaw]

Soon they will be burying 27 people. Find something better to do with the "desire for change " folks.

How are these events even remotely related? It seems like you are associating an extremely tragic event with this protest as a method of discounting the need for change.

[blackstrap]

Ask Nature how often 'change' makes things better. There are always unintended consequences for any change. A few years back one dufus put a bomb in his shoe and attempted to light it on a plane. So,there was a change in the rules. Goody,so 50 million air travelers got to take off their shoes. Big help.

A few ladies feel slighted in the church so they protest by wearing pants to the service. This is the cause that they want to spend their efforts on,not the homeless, not the widows and orphans,not the domestic abused, not the mentally ill, not the drug addicted,not the starving children,but instead they joust at windmills .

[Calm]

Putting something into the proper perspective is not the same thing as "discounting".

[yootaw]

Putting something into the proper perspective is not the same thing as "discounting".

I agree. However, I think that the proper perspective here would lead to a better understanding of what is motivating those led to protest. Blackstrap's comments seem designed specifically to avoid understanding their motivation. Which, in my opinion is discounting. And, as Juliann pointed out earlier, time spent on this forum could be just as easily seen as taking away from more important concerns.

[yootaw]

Ask Nature how often 'change' makes things better. There are always unintended consequences for any change. A few years back one dufus put a bomb in his shoe and attempted to light it on a plane. So,there was a change in the rules. Goody,so 50 million air travelers got to take off their shoes. Big help.

A few ladies feel slighted in the church so they protest by wearing pants to the service. This is the cause that they want to spend their efforts on,not the homeless, not the widows and orphans,not the domestic abused, not the mentally ill, not the drug addicted,not the starving children,but instead they joust at windmills .

And you are choosing to spend your time railing against these same ladies rather than helping the homeless, widows and orphans...

Maybe if you spend a bit of time trying to understand their perspective you wouldn't be so angry? Do you really think that there is gender equality in the church? If so, in what ways does the church demonstrate gender equality? I am genuinely interested in understanding your perspective on this question. I'll start a list -- feel free to add to it.

Both men and women can be baptized, take the sacrament, and receive all other saving ordinances.

Men and women can both speak in church (although tradition dictates that the men speak last)

Both men and women can pray in church.

There are callings where men and women can both be called (nursery, primary, cub scouts, library, Sunday school teacher, etc)

Edited December 15, 2012 by yootaw

[Calm]

I agree. However, I think that the proper perspective here would lead to a better understanding of what is motivating those led to protest. Blackstrap's comments seem designed specifically to avoid understanding their motivation. Which, in my opinion is discounting. And, as Juliann pointed out earlier, time spent on this forum could be just as easily seen as taking away from more important concerns.

I didn't read it that way. It seemed to me that the thought of the massacre is so foremost in blackstrap's mind that such things are just dimmed for him in importance. My impression of blackstrap from other posts is that he is not dismissive or discounting of others. On another day his response would be quite different, I believe.

[DH]

But at least do it understanding what is actually being said. I've said before that whenever i've heard this argument, it's been about the women who are specifically spearheading the effort and not about anyone who might wear pants this sunday.

Okay, it's about the organizers of the "Pants" event. Still, why are people judging them? How much time does it take to set up a Facebook page and suggest women wear pants to church? Can't they do that in the morning, and then go out and clean the church building in the afternoon, and serve dinner to the homeless in the evening?

Edited December 15, 2012 by DH

[yootaw]

I didn't read it that way. It seemed to me that the thought of the massacre is so foremost in blackstrap's mind that such things are just dimmed for him in importance. My impression of blackstrap from other posts is that he is not dismissive or discounting of others. On another day his response would be quite different, I believe.

I always appreciate that you give others the benefit of the doubt. Thank you.

[yootaw]

I'd be interested to learn why others on this board feel that men and women are equal. It seems like I often read the statement that men and women are equal in the church, just with different roles. I don't understand that perspective. It seems to me that men and women are not equal in the church, or even held in equal value. For instance, why is the young men's program budget always larger than the young women's? Why do we have cub scouts for the boys (which meet weekly with a structured program that includes defined activities and awards), and just achievement days for the girls? To me, these are evidences that culturally we value the boys and young men more than we do the girls/young women.

Saying that men and women are equal, (but just with different roles) is a way of avoiding the hard truth that there is significant gender inequity in the church.

[bluebell]

Okay, it's about the organizers of the "Pants" event. Still, why are people judging them? How much time does it take to set up a Facebook page and suggest women wear pants to church? Can't they do that in the morning, and then go out and clean the church building in the afternoon, and serve dinner to the homeless in the evening?

The women have said that this is an effort which is part of a much larger campaign to fight gender inequality in the church. I think we can safely stop trying to protray their efforts as a facebook page about pants and nothing more.

Besides that however, i've already explained why some people have chosen to judge the women's use of their time on this crusade. It's not because these women aren't capable of doing other things while running this campaign. From what i've seen, it's based on a judgment of the usefulness of the cause itself and how that judgment transfers over to a judgment on the use of the time involved to both create it and support it.

When someone starts a 'cause' it's generally because they believe that it will make the world better in some way and they generally are very invested in them. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that these women would not have started this cause or pursued it, if it didn't mean a lot to them and if they didn't believe it was very much needed to fix the church and that the church and it's members were suffering without it.

It also doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that by choosing to both create and them champion this cause, these women sacrificed their time, energy and effort to do so (and why wouldn't they, if they believe it's important?)

If this is their goal (to fix the church and end some level of suffering) then some people ask, will a pants-wearing petition as part of the bigger picture, accomplish that? With so much else in the world and in the church that is also designed to make the world a better place and help suffering members, is this campaign a good use of resources? Will gender inequality in the church be helped by a pants wearing campaign?

Many people have asked those questions and answered them 'no'. They have judged this cause as a waste of effort in accomplishing any real good and they have judged the women who are in charge of it as having wasted their time based on the uselessness of the cause.

These people (who think the cause is a waste of time and energy) then mourn that such time and energy was not put into what they see as an actual worthwhile cause.

Others, especially the women involved, judge the cause worthy and therefore the women differently.

One other sort of judgment that i've seen comes from a different place entirely. It's based on the idea that you don't try to take a mote out of someone's eye until you get the beam out of your own and it stems from a perception that no one can be doing everything in the church they should be doing, as well as they should be doing it (100% visiting teaching, completely magnifying their callings, serving the poor, doing temple work, etc.).

They look at this cause and view the women who have started it as attempting to point out a mote in the Church's eye, even though they likely have enough weaknesses or beams of their own to keep busy with.

They judge that any time these women use to try and 'fix' the church is unworthy because they have likely not fixed themselves yet.

And just to clarify-i've never heard this judgment used where someone says that it's a fact that these women have things they need to fix. It's always been couched in a kind of 'if these women are anything like the rest of us then there are much better uses of their time than trying to fix the church' kind of thing.....

I hope that rambling explanation helps clarify a bit where those who have a different opinion than you on the issue are coming from.

[bluebell]

I'd be interested to learn why others on this board feel that men and women are equal. It seems like I often read the statement that men and women are equal in the church, just with different roles. I don't understand that perspective. It seems to me that men and women are not equal in the church, or even held in equal value. For instance, why is the young men's program budget always larger than the young women's?

It wasn't in my last ward, where i was the YW's president. We actually had more money then the YM.

Why do we have cub scouts for the boys (which meet weekly with a structured program that includes defined activities and awards), and just achievement days for the girls?

Because achievement days are also supposed to happen weekly as well and have defined activities. If that's not happening in your ward, then it's the fault of the local leaders.