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

[cinepro]

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"?

 

The equivalent statement would be "In the end, most people who get shot in that park get what they were looking for."

[Danzo]

The equivalent statement would be "In the end, most people who get shot in that park get what they were looking for."

do you think my second statement logically follows the first?

[mfbukowski]

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.

And I don't think I will ever get over this:

Shame on you for... acting like we are uncontrollable walking lust machines.

The trauma is just too much for me to bear. 

[mfbukowski]

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.

I know you are probably not too happy with some of my comments here, but I think you have nailed the issue perfectly here, and the way I see this comment, even if you did not mean it this way, is in line with my first posts on this thread.

The fact is that women and men are different THAT is church doctrine- found in the Proclamation on the Family.

As an overall tendency, women, especially young women, are more sensitive about these issues than men. Men are clearly sensitive about criticisms to their "manliness"- the "male ego" is legendary.

For me this is the key. If you say the same thing to a teenage boy and a teenage girl which offend their sensitivities in this regard, their reactions will be polar opposites. The young girl may very well cry while the young man will get ready to punch you in the nose. Yes those are generalizations, but I think they are true.

That is the key. I think Elder C was right to encourage modesty, but it is crystal clear that he should have used different language.

This has to be an embarrassment to the church. How could it NOT be? Everyone is talking about this, even here in provincial California, outside the Mormon Corridor.

One good edit could have caused this to never happen.

So what is the line between political correctness and freedom of speech? That for me is the real issue.

Do we walk around on egg shells because we might offend someone or do we speak our minds? The line used to be shouting "fire" in a crowded building, but now virtually anything can be construed as offensive.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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.

Great. Now we're getting somewhere. So you believe that if a man has an impure thought, he is either a) not striving to be pure, or b) in the presence of an immodestly dressed woman. Would you say these are the only two options?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

 

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.

You say you want to understand what is damaging, but keep avoiding the questions that will lead you down to that understanding. You don't need to ask around if other people take it that way, several real live people in this thread have informed you of that.

 

Question, if most people get the kind of man they dress for, then why wouldn't the following statement be true? Most women with the "abusive" kind of man must have dressed for an "abusive" kind of man. What about women that don't get married? Did they not dress for a man at all? Why wouldn't this statement logically follow. Again not in all cases (Elder Callister does not state it as an absolute), but as a generality. 

Edited February 25, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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"?

No its not the same. Now try making a statement in the same form as Elder Callister did. Here are a few examples:

 

Most parents get the kind of kids they pray for (Most parents with wayward children didn't pray right)

Most students get the kind of grades they study for (Most students with low grades didn't study)

Most people receive the kind of service at a restaurant that they dress for (Most people who receive poor service dress for it)

Most people receive prosperity according to the righteousness of their lives(Most people who are poor do not leave righteous lives)

In the end, most women get the type of man they dress for. (Most women with a "bad" type of man didn't dress modestly).

 

Where is the logical flaw in my thinking?

Edited February 25, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Danzo]

Great. Now we're getting somewhere. So you believe that if a man has an impure thought, he is either a) not striving to be pure, or b) in the presence of an immodestly dressed woman. Would you say these are the only two options?

Why would there be only two options?

[Anteojito]

 

No its not the same. Now try making a statement in the same form as Elder Callister did. Here are a few examples:

 

Most parents get the kind of kids they pray for (Most parents with wayward children didn't pray right)

Most students get the kind of grades they study for (Most students with low grades didn't study)

Most people receive the kind of service at a restaurant that they dress for (Most people who receive poor service dress for it)

Most people receive prosperity according to the righteousness of their lives(Most people who are poor do not leave righteous lives)

In the end, most women get the type of man they dress for. (Most women with a "bad" type of man didn't dress modestly).

 

Where is the logical flaw in my thinking?

 

 

I'm sorry if I am taking this wrong, but are you agreeing with the statement  "Most people who are poor do not leave righteous lives"?

[Danzo]

You say you want to understand what is damaging, but keep avoiding the questions that will lead you down to that understanding. You don't need to ask around if other people take it that way, several real live people in this thread have informed you of that.

 

Question, if most people get the kind of man they dress for, then why wouldn't the following statement be true? Most women with the "abusive" kind of man must have dressed for an "abusive" kind of man. What about women that don't get married? Did they not dress for a man at all? Why wouldn't this statement logically follow. Again not in all cases (Elder Callister does not state it as an absolute), but as a generality. 

 

The way a woman dresses does not cause abuse! Elder Callister  doesn't mention abuse in this sentence, you are putting the word abuse in his sentence.  He is not trying to pass judgement on all women nor his he trying to give the cause of abuse. It is not in his statement, why are you putting it there!

 

Spousal abuse is not the topic of his article! I don't understand how people put it in there.  The topic is morality. can we agree to only read in to his statements hidden meanings about his subject.  He is not making a blanket statement that every attribute of a husband is determined by the way a woman dress. I don't see how a reasonable person would read that much into it. I don't believe he was attempting to make universal statement about all aspects of a spouse being determined by what a woman was wearing at the time.  I guess some people are interpreting it that way.  

 

I guess before something is put into print we need to do surveys to see if everyone's reactions.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Danzo

[Danzo]

 

No its not the same. Now try making a statement in the same form as Elder Callister did. Here are a few examples:

 

Most parents get the kind of kids they pray for (Most parents with wayward children didn't pray right)

Most students get the kind of grades they study for (Most students with low grades didn't study)

Most people receive the kind of service at a restaurant that they dress for (Most people who receive poor service dress for it)

Most people receive prosperity according to the righteousness of their lives(Most people who are poor do not leave righteous lives)

In the end, most women get the type of man they dress for. (Most women with a "bad" type of man didn't dress modestly).

 

Where is the logical flaw in my thinking?

 

 

Statement one is not true

 

Statement two is true

 

statement three is not true

 

Statement four is not true

 

Here is one for you.   

 

What elder Callister was really thinking:

 

"In the end most women get the type of man they dress for must really mean that if her husband is a fireman," it was because she dressed like a fireman.

 

Do you think that is what he meant? Because I believe I could use your logic to say that is what he meant.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Danzo

[The Nehor]

I wish I had seen this article before. Now to figure out what kind of dressing means they get me. I am thinking pink tutu, orange sweater, and a werewolf mask. ON IT!!!!!

[Calm]

If this is the case wouldn't most women in abusive relationships have gotten there because they didn't dress modest enough?

I am not sure that modesty even has to enter into it, it is however imo implied that signals are sent and are picked up by the man.  An abusive man may look for signals that indicate a vulnerable woman…which may mean modesty issues for some but could be something else.  

[Calm]

The church's magazine for adults.

The Church's magazine for the family…just see sections on teaching family home evening, etc.

 

For example:

 

 

For Young

Adults

What do discipleship and dating have in common? Can eternal principles apply to our stage of life now? Find out inthis new article for young adults

I was reading the Ensign at least by 12 years of age, I remember reading the Instructor or whatever it was younger than that…it had paperdolls for one thing, but cool pictures of ancient places and other stuff.

The Ensign sits around the house from what I've seen and can be picked up by anyone to read. It has a special section now for Young Adults (18-30). Visiting teaching starts at 18. There is significant time before the brain hits full development at the usual age of 25…and if there is any emotional issues already, it may be a lot longer.

[Calm]

That is the key. I think Elder C was right to encourage modesty, but it is crystal clear that he should have used different language.

This has to be an embarrassment to the church. How could it NOT be? Everyone is talking about this, even here in provincial California, outside the Mormon Corridor.

One good edit could have caused this to never happen.

So what is the line between political correctness and freedom of speech? That for me is the real issue.

Do we walk around on egg shells because we might offend someone or do we speak our minds? The line used to be shouting "fire" in a crowded building, but now virtually anything can be construed as offensive.

I agree up to the political correctness part. If people were just complaining because an observation was seen as putting women in an inferior position when that was not the intent, then I would see the issue as political correctness. But the article was for the purpose of teaching and if the intent is to teach, then it is not about political correctness but how to most effectively teach the principle while avoiding that which may 'teach' something not desired.

 

I have heard too many women who could care less about political correctness or any of the controversies surrounding women in the Priesthood and other such issues who have been concerned about the effect of the soundbite "women get the men they dress for" to believe it is just those involved in controversies 24/7 that are being overly sensitive about it.

 

It was said poorly imo and every other woman I have discussed it with offline and most online (and I don't hang out in feminist boards, but relatively conservative arenas) have agreed and it is sad that it was not caught by the editing committee before it was published as an article.  Hopefully the discussion will cause the leadership to be more careful in the future so that teaching can be most effective and avoid missteps more often.

[Calm]

The way a woman dresses does not cause abuse! Elder Callister  doesn't mention abuse in this sentence, you are putting the word abuse in his sentence

He did not say most women who dress immodestly will get husbands that are sexually impure and most women who dress modestly can expect a husband who thinks sexually pure thoughts.

 

Instead he made a general statement, he didn't limit it to only women in certain situations.  A general application would include a variety of specific situations, including wonderful husbands, adulterous husbands, porn addicted husbands, abusive husbands, neglectful husbands, so so husbands.

 

He is not making a blanket statement that every attribute of a husband is determined by the way a woman dress.

He may not have meant to, but the way the sentence is structured allows for it.  And unfortunately not only those who are looking to make him look bad will read it and even are reading it that way.

 

I am someone who tries to and is generally successful at giving everyone great leeway in how they write and say stuff unless they have a history of being negative or authoritarian or whatever.  I don't have any impressions about Elder Callister's style, I don't have any talk of his that jumps out in my memory.  My reaction to his talk is in total isolation from anything else he has said.

 

My first gut reaction was "I must be wrong in how I am reading this", but after hearing from all sorts of women that they are reading it this way to and finally my RS president friend who normally has no use for this kind of stuff, I just cannot see this as anything else besides a misstep by the Ensign people.

Edited February 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Why would there be only two options?

I'll try to be more explicit. A man sees a woman and has an impure thought.  You have stated (I think - sorry if I put words in your mouth) that a modest woman will never prompt an impure thought in a man who is striving to be pure. So if the man has an impure thought the options are:

a)Woman is immodest

b)Man is not striving to be pure

c)

 

What other options are there? 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

 

 

No its not the same. Now try making a statement in the same form as Elder Callister did. Here are a few examples:

 

Most parents get the kind of kids they pray for (Most parents with wayward children didn't pray right)

Most students get the kind of grades they study for (Most students with low grades didn't study)

Most people receive the kind of service at a restaurant that they dress for (Most people who receive poor service dress for it)

Most people receive prosperity according to the righteousness of their lives(Most people who are poor do not leave righteous lives)

In the end, most women get the type of man they dress for. (Most women with a "bad" type of man didn't dress modestly).

 

Where is the logical flaw in my thinking?

 

 

I'm sorry if I am taking this wrong, but are you agreeing with the statement  "Most people who are poor do not leave righteous lives"?

 

The statements were an attempt at an execise in logic. It is my opinion that if the first statement is true, then the statement in parenthesis follows. Each statement was phrased to be as near to Elder Callister's remark (in form not substance) as possible. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Statement one is not true

 

Statement two is true

 

statement three is not true

 

Statement four is not true

 

Here is one for you.

The question is does the statement in parenthesis follow from the original statement. I would say that it does.

What elder Callister was really thinking:

 

"In the end most women get the type of man they dress for must really mean that if her husband is a fireman," it was because she dressed like a fireman.

 

Do you think that is what he meant? Because I believe I could use your logic to say that is what he meant.

No. From Elder Callister's statement you could say that she dressed for a fireman however (whatever that means).

[mfbukowski]

I agree up to the political correctness part. If people were just complaining because an observation was seen as putting women in an inferior position when that was not the intent, then I would see the issue as political correctness. But the article was for the purpose of teaching and if the intent is to teach, then it is not about political correctness but how to most effectively teach the principle while avoiding that which may 'teach' something not desired.

 

I have heard too many women who could care less about political correctness or any of the controversies surrounding women in the Priesthood and other such issues who have been concerned about the effect of the soundbite "women get the men they dress for" to believe it is just those involved in controversies 24/7 that are being overly sensitive about it.

 

It was said poorly imo and every other woman I have discussed it with offline and most online (and I don't hang out in feminist boards, but relatively conservative arenas) have agreed and it is sad that it was not caught by the editing committee before it was published as an article.  Hopefully the discussion will cause the leadership to be more careful in the future so that teaching can be most effective and avoid missteps more often.

Well it certainly did not achieve the desired result of teaching modesty, so I think it clearly was not a "success" by any measure.

We just got our Ensign in the mail today, and most have not yet read it or opened it, so I think it can only get worse in the next few months.

[mfbukowski]

The statements were an attempt at an execise in logic.

Impeccable logic:

If the moon exists, it is made of green cheese

The moon exists

Therefore it is made of green cheese

You just had a little problem in your premise.

Edited February 25, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

Well it certainly did not achieve the desired result of teaching modesty, so I think it clearly was not a "success" by any measure.

We just got our Ensign in the mail today, and most have not yet read it or opened it, so I think it can only get worse in the next few months.

It wil be interesting to see how long this discussion continues.  I am hoping in the long run the attention brought to it will be more beneficial because the extreme reaction (and it has been extreme in some quarters) has woken up people who would not normally notice things that only sort of cross the line to pay attention to how they structure their own lessons to err on the side of caution with this issue and perhaps other sensitive ones.  If so, then something unfortunate has been turned to good.

 

If otoh, people ignore the impact and defend it to the point of excluding change in sensitivity in teaching susceptible children and youths and even women (because there are unfortunately a lot of women who have gone through abuse and rape out there) then what  a waste of an opportunity.

[frank_jessop]

Calmoriah I think your last few post have nailed down the issue.  We got the Ensign today, my wife started reading the article in question. I told there is a single sentence in the talk which has caused much debate.  I left, and came back 30 minutes later and my wife read the sentence in question and said it must be the one causing all the debate.

[Calm]

Calmoriah I think your last few post have nailed down the issue.  We got the Ensign today, my wife started reading the article in question. I told there is a single sentence in the talk which has caused much debate.  I left, and came back 30 minutes later and my wife read the sentence in question and said it must be the one causing all the debate.

I tried.  

 

Like I said, I hope the ultimate outcome is avoidance of this kind of stuff in the future (not because it is morally wrong or anything, just that it can teach something that the one saying it or printing it don't really want it to teach).   What was your wife's reaction to it?

Edited February 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[frank_jessop]

I tried.  

 

Like I said, I hope the ultimate outcome is avoidance of this kind of stuff in the future (not because it is morally wrong or anything, just that it can teach something that the one saying it or printing it don't really want it to teach).   What was your wife's reaction to it?

 

She said "That is something a friend should say to friend" and then she told me of a situation where she made a similar statement to a friend. She did not think it was a message that General Authorities should be giving.