Most Women Get The Type Of Man They Dress For - March 2014 Ensign

[Danzo]

Your exact words were:

 

 

Many women claim that teachings such as Elder Callister's "If it's too low, too high or too tight..." rhetoric have been damaging for them (who even says they are offended - many just want the rhetoric changed for their daughters).  Many therapists back them up. These same women and therapists also give many good examples of how modesty could be taught without causing harm. Danzo comes along and says these women can easily be dimissed because they "would have been negatively affected by anything anyone would have said." 

 

Why does the phrase "If it's too low, too high, or too tight..." damage people?

 

What is wrong with teaching youth not to wear thing that are "Too low, too high, or too tight?" This is what my wife and I teach my daughters, never once has it entered into our minds that teaching this might be damaging them. They have never expressed that they feel damaged by the teaching.  

 

I guess this is the thing that I don't understand.

[Danzo]

CFR that I said "men" should be held responsible for "every" feeling of shame and guilt "a woman" feels. 

 

Seems like you said earlier

 

"A third problem is that it further serves to sexualize women and gives many girls self esteem issues. We have Friend articles discussing how sleeveless sun dresses on four-year-olds are immodest. My sister who is large chested felt dirty growing up because of her body shape and how it might be impacting those around her. Go to a mormon feminist blog and you will read many stories that are similar. "

 

You seem to imply that somehow speeches like Elder Callister's are causing self esteem problems for, causing your sister to feel dirty for being large chested.

[bluebell]

Why does the phrase "If it's too low, too high, or too tight..." damage people?

 

What is wrong with teaching youth not to wear thing that are "Too low, too high, or too tight?" This is what my wife and I teach my daughters, never once has it entered into our minds that teaching this might be damaging them. They have never expressed that they feel damaged by the teaching.  

 

I guess this is the thing that I don't understand.

 

In my experience, it's almost impossible to have a good discussion on any topic, if the people involved don't actually understand what the other people are saying.

 

In this case, the people who have issues with this article are not saying that it is damaging to teach girls (and a little bit boys) to cover specific body parts.

 

What they are saying is that they believe it is damaging to reduce the issue of modesty in the church to only being about covering specific parts of the body, to teach that girls should be modest for boys, and to focus almost exclusively on what girls wear whenever the topic comes up.

 

If you want to engage this topic with those who find the article damaging, these are the issues you will need to focus on in the future.  

[Danzo]

Is it possible to express strong disagreement with a talk without being offended?

 

What is your disagreement with him?

We seem to agree on modesty.

What false doctrine does he teach?

 

I know that he say thing better, if you wrote down a lot of the talks I have given, it would be easy to find stupid or poorly phrased thing that I have said. That is the problem with public speaking, once you say it, it is said.

 

I like the way Moroni put it

"Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

 

If we can give the message in a better way, we should try and do so when we teach our children and our youth, that we can give the correct message to our children in the correct way.  Anyone speaking to a group of people does not have the luxury of tailoring the message to the individual needs of the listeners, but we who teach youth one on one have that opportunity and duty to make sure their needs are met.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

 

Seems like you said earlier

 

"A third problem is that it further serves to sexualize women and gives many girls self esteem issues. We have Friend articles discussing how sleeveless sun dresses on four-year-olds are immodest. My sister who is large chested felt dirty growing up because of her body shape and how it might be impacting those around her. Go to a mormon feminist blog and you will read many stories that are similar. "

 

You seem to imply that somehow speeches like Elder Callister's are causing self esteem problems for, causing your sister to feel dirty for being large chested.

"You seem to imply that somehow speeches like Elder Callister's are causing self esteem problems for, causing your sister to feel dirty for being large chested" does not equal holding "the men responsible for every feeling of "shame" and "guilt" that a woman feels." Edited February 24, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

"I didn't say they were lying. I suggest that people who are offended by Elder Callister's words are probably going to be living their lives in a constant state of offence."

This was the very subject that my friend, the RS Pres, brought up when we were over for dinner last night. She knows I am involved in apologetics but avoids it for the negativity, she just dislikes arguing. She avoids watching crime shows because they leave her with a dark feeling...though she has no problem with others watching. I am just explaining this to demonstrate she is some one who prefers to focus on positive things in her life and works hard at keeping a positive of others.

Yet she was the one to broach the subject and who expressed her disappointment with the way it was chosen to be written, specifically saying so if a woman ends up with a man who abuses her, it is because she dressed a certain way?

The quip can be taken to mean that any difficulty in the relationship or sins of the husband the wife should have expected at least and more likely deserved what she got because of the choices she made in her clothing. The quip is suggesting that if we line up a bunch of women we will be able to identify problems in their marriage by how the woman dressed prior to that marriage...a husband who cheats, looks at porn, is an embezzler, molests children, etc. on the negative side; a husband who is loving, kind, good provider, etc. on the positive side....the quip makes it sound like the most important decider is her appearance.

I have no doubt that is not what he means to say but then I am not a 14 year old girl or a woman in an abusive relationship already dealing with severe esteem issues due to my husband's constant abuse....and thinking that it is my own fault that I am there is hardly going to help me think that I deserve better, to motivate myself to get away from that abuse.

The conversation at dinner discussed other such effects and my friend agreed with me when dealing with children and youth with their less than fully developed brains one cannot expect them to take the entire article or talk or everything a leader or parent has said overtime into account, that they are to prone to viewing things in isolation---as soundbites so to speak---so one needs to in communication whether spoken or written always take care with every sentence not to say something extreme or prone to misunderstanding....an impossible standard, but one that we should try for.

And then the conversation turned into areas we had ourselves as children and youth misunderstood and used to judge ourselves wrongly, in my case thinking we were not good children because we were too hard for Mom to take care of (how Dad described why we were sent to live with Grandma due to Mom's health issues and her not being able to care for us.....even if we had been almost perfect children, just having to feed and clothe us woould have been too much of a task for her....it had nothing to do with us, it was her health), in her case thinking she was responsible for her father's death due to a partial comment overheard (which was impossible as he died in a hospital under full care, but her mom was wondering if it would have made a difference if he had gotten there earlier...and she assumed it had been her responsibility that she failed in somehow).

We must remember when teaching the youth not to sacrifice clarity for wit or for a great sound bite that is easy to remember but just might be misunderstood if taken in isolation even though it is also important to mentally and emotionally engage them so they actually pay attention.

Edited February 24, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

.  Anyone speaking to a group of people does not have the luxury of tailoring the message to the individual needs of the listeners, but we who teach youth one on one have that opportunity and duty to make sure their needs are met.

Anyone speaking to a group that includes children and youth should take their presence into account and not assume they will just ignore what is being said or somehow listen to it like they had fully developed brains and critical thinking skills.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

What is your disagreement with him?

Young women are being taught to dress so that they don't prompt impure thoughts in the minds of pure young men. Do you think this is possible?

And as Calmoriah said "if a woman ends up with a man who abuses her, it is because she dressed a certain way?"

I know that he say thing better, if you wrote down a lot of the talks I have given, it would be easy to find stupid or poorly phrased thing that I have said. That is the problem with public speaking, once you say it, it is said.

 

This is not a public address. This is edited (and the original was worse) from a devotional given at BYU-Idaho. I am assuming that Elder Callister is the one that did the editing.

I like the way Moroni put it

"Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

If we can give the message in a better way, we should try and do so when we teach our children and our youth, that we can give the correct message to our children in the correct way.

I hope you don't think that I condemn Elder Callister. I wish him no ill will and I am sure he is a wonderful person. The rhetoric he is using needs to change and if people don't speak up, that can't happen.

[Calm]

My friend didn't even attach the responsibility for the lethal quip to Elder Callister. When someone is composing a talk and knows what one is thinking in total context, it can be hard to understand how someone may read or hear it a different way. However, this talk went through an editing process at the very least for spellchecking and grammar and my friend just can't imagine how come no one took a moment to say 'hey, this might be a problem', especially if there were any women involved in the process.

It is strange to us that someone can be so concerned that a picture of angels may be taken the wrong way that cap sleeves are drawn in but no one was concerned enough to 'cap' the potentially offensive words themselves.

[jkwilliams]

My friend didn't even attach the responsibility for the lethal quip to Elder Callister. When someone is composing a talk and knows what one is thinking in total context, it can be hard to understand how someone may read or hear it a different way. However, this talk went through an editing process at the very least for spellchecking and grammar and my friend just can't imagine how come no one took a moment to say 'hey, this might be a problem', especially if there were any women involved in the process.

It is strange to us that someone can be so concerned that a picture of angels may be taken the wrong way that cap sleeves are drawn in but no one was concerned enough to 'cap' the potentially offensive words themselves.

 

It didn't just go through an editor, it went through a Correlation review. Your post makes me think the committee's priorities might be a bit skewed.

[Scott Lloyd]

It didn't just go through an editor, it went through a Correlation review. Your post makes me think the committee's priorities might be a bit skewed.

Or it may be that Correlation is not as apt to tell a General Authority what to do as some might think.

[Calm]

It didn't just go through an editor, it went through a Correlation review. Your post makes me think the committee's priorities might be a bit skewed.

I think it most likely that there is a feeling that 'we' shouldn't be the ones telling a general authority how he should say something…but everyone makes mistakes so simply because a person may be inspired doesn't mean that inspiration will always be communicated effectively and it may even backfire from time to time, communication being what it is.

 

That is assuming that they are usually comfortable with telling others to change things in their articles as opposed to just saying yea or nay to an article in the first place.

 

add-on:  I see that Scott has the same idea I did...

Edited February 24, 2014 by calmoriah

[jkwilliams]

I think it most likely that there is a feeling that 'we' shouldn't be the ones telling a general authority how he should say something…but everyone makes mistakes so simply because a person may be inspired doesn't mean that inspiration will always be communicated effectively and it may even backfire from time to time, communication being what it is.

 

That is assuming that they are usually comfortable with telling others to change things in their articles as opposed to just saying yea or nay to an article in the first place.

 

They do it all the time. Having had my work go through a correlation review, I know how picky they are about everything. Maybe they are more deferential to a general authority, as you suggest, but the review is never just a yea or nay to an entire article.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

My friend didn't even attach the responsibility for the lethal quip to Elder Callister.

I think this is a great point. I have said many things much worse than Elder Callister. In my everyday language, I used to say "That's gay" frequently. I didn't think about the phrase and its implications, but merely repeated it as I heard it. I certainly didn't mean to hurt other people. My wife (through patience and long suffering) has explained to me how offensive this can be to and I have modified my behavior. Edited February 24, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Danzo]

Anyone speaking to a group that includes children and youth should take their presence into account and not assume they will just ignore what is being said or somehow listen to it like they had fully developed brains and critical thinking skills.

 

It wasn't given to a group that had children and youth, it was given to a group of college students, and tailored to their needs, I would hope the college students have "fully developed brains and critical thinking skills" (although that is not guaranteed at any age)

[Danzo]

Young women are being taught to dress so that they don't prompt impure thoughts in the minds of pure young men. Do you think this is possible?

And teaching this is bad because . . .?

 

And as Calmoriah said "if a woman ends up with a man who abuses her, it is because she dressed a certain way?"

I don't believe Elder Callister said this, or implied this.  

 

I hope you don't think that I condemn Elder Callister. I wish him no ill will and I am sure he is a wonderful person. The rhetoric he is using needs to change and if people don't speak up, that can't happen.

 

I am glad you don't condemn him.

 

I am still puzzled about how his rhetoric is bad, and what he should have said different.

 

It would seem that many are condemning his rhetoric because of what they are mentally adding to his rhetoric like "if a woman ends up with a man who abuses her, it is because she dressed a certain way?" Something that was not part of his rhetoric (but people somehow think was) 

 

How can anyone be held responsible for things added mentally by the listener.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Young women are being taught to dress so that they don't prompt impure thoughts in the minds of pure young men. Do you think this is possible?

 

And teaching this is bad because . . .?

Do you think it is possible for a young woman to dress in such a way that she doesn't prompt impure thoughts in the minds of pure young men? Edited February 24, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I don't believe Elder Callister said this, or implied this.  

snip

It would seem that many are condemning his rhetoric because of what they are mentally adding to his rhetoric like "if a woman ends up with a man who abuses her, it is because she dressed a certain way?" Something that was not part of his rhetoric (but people somehow think was)

 

I agree he didn't mean for his statement to be taken that way, but it does naturally follow from what he said. He said "In the end, most women get the type of man they dress for." If this is true, then wouldn't most women in abusive relationships have married the type of man they dressed for? Why wouldn't this follow? If this is the case wouldn't most women in abusive relationships have gotten there because they didn't dress modest enough?

[Danzo]

 

Do you think it is possible for a young woman to dress in such a way that she doesn't prompt impure thoughts in the minds of pure young men?

 

Pure young men don't think impure thoughts (otherwise they wouldn't be, pure would they?)

 

Women can dress in a way that prompts (entices, invites, influences) bad thoughts in young men that may not be pure (but they may be trying). These young men need to learn to control their thoughts.  

 

Impure men, with impure thoughts, will think impure thoughts regardless who or what is prompting them.  

However these impure men tend to seek after impure women.  One way these impure women signal their impurity to impure young men is by the way they dress.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Pure young men don't think impure thoughts (otherwise they wouldn't be, pure would they?)

Women can dress in a way that prompts (entices, invites, influences) bad thoughts in young men that may not be pure (but they may be trying). These young men need to learn to control their thoughts.

Yes I agree that women can prompt impure thoughts in men. That is not my question, however (but thanks for pointing out my error - Elder Callister said "striving" to be pure). Again the (corrected) question:

Do you think it is possible for a young woman to dress in such a way that she doesn't prompt impure thoughts in the mind of any young man who is striving to be pure? 

 

[Calm]

It wasn't given to a group that had children and youth, it was given to a group of college students, and tailored to their needs, I would hope the college students have "fully developed brains and critical thinking skills" (although that is not guaranteed at any age)

No, it was originally given to a group of college aged kids.

Then it was printed in the Ensign.

[Danzo]

 

I agree he didn't mean for his statement to be taken that way, but it does naturally follow from what he said. He said "In the end, most women get the type of man they dress for." If this is true, then wouldn't most women in abusive relationships have married the type of man they dressed for? Why wouldn't this follow? If this is the case wouldn't most women in abusive relationships have gotten there because they didn't dress modest enough?

 

I don't interpret him in that way, I guess I could ask around and see if others see it that way.

 

He is talking (as is clear from the context of the speech) to unmarried women, not married women.  He is trying to prevent women from entering into an abusive relationship, not condemning women already in an abusive relationship.

 

 

What he says (not what he doesn't say) is absolutely true.  Women (and men) generally (mostly) get the type of person they advertise for.  Dress is not the only way men and women advertise, but it is definitely part of it.

 

 

I remember a few years back talking to a nonmember coworker.  She was complaining about all of the bad men in her life. I asked her were she met these men, she said she met them in bars. We talked for a bit and I suggested that the type of men that go looking for women in bars are not statistically the ones who make the best companions, I suggested that she might try looking  men in better places.  It was an interesting conversation, she told me she hadn't heard that advice before and thanked me for it.  

 

I am grateful that I was taught to act and dress in a way that advertised I was looking for a woman with high standards. I don't think I would have found my wife otherwise.

[Danzo]

No, it was originally given to a group of college aged kids.

Then it was printed in the Ensign.

The church's magazine for adults.

[Danzo]

Yes I agree that women can prompt impure thoughts in men. That is not my question, however (but thanks for pointing out my error - Elder Callister said "striving" to be pure). Again the (corrected) question:

Do you think it is possible for a young woman to dress in such a way that she doesn't prompt impure thoughts in the mind of any young man who is striving to be pure? 

 

Yes.

[Danzo]

 

I agree he didn't mean for his statement to be taken that way, but it does naturally follow from what he said. He said "In the end, most women get the type of man they dress for." If this is true, then wouldn't most women in abusive relationships have married the type of man they dressed for? Why wouldn't this follow? If this is the case wouldn't most women in abusive relationships have gotten there because they didn't dress modest enough?

 

If I say, "its dangerous to go to a certain part of the city after dark and hang out",

 

is it the same as saying "the guy who got shot in that part of the city deserved it, and the people who did it were justified, because the guy who went there was a fool"?