Emphasis on Modesty=Rape Culture in Utah

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I know this is your thread, but how do these questions have anything to do with the topic?

The thread started with a news article you brought to the board in which an LDS boy went to a school guidance counsellor for help with a problem with cheerleaders wearing their uniforms to classes. The problem went to the administration, and then from there it mushroomed into a national scandal in which the girls on the squad were made into victims of a vicious misogynist system in which one adolescent boy with a conscience wasn't going to be allowed to dictate to 44 girls how they could dress. In the normal course of things, attire similar to theirs but not a uniform would violate the school dress code and would not be permitted. He was made out to be a reprehensible future rapist, having been raised in the Utah/Mormon "rape culture" who would have problems later when he went on a mission, along with all the other LDS boys at Timp HS. Much ado was made of the Church's modesty standards. Sarcasm and mockery of LDS leaders and standards and silly Mormon words in quotes became the catch phrases and headlines. 

You raised the inevitable issue when discussing modesty in a response to the question, "Why do they wear the uniforms in class?"....

Quote

Why do they wear swimming suits on the swim team? Because it's easier to perform in them, just like the cheerleaders.

It's a good question. Why can cheerleaders violate the dress code just because they are cheerleaders and wear uniforms? There have been no answers for that question because there are none. It was further claimed that the girls wear skimpy costumes for safety reasons. In defense of the safety issue and as proof that it's ok for LDS cheerleaders to wear revealing clothing, a photo of the BYU cheer squad was posted showing all the women in short shorts and tank tops and all the men in baggy long shorts and t-shirts. Similar comparisons can be made with gymnastic, track, and volleyball uniforms. We have seen 3 videos of young men performing very dangerous cheerleading maneuvers while dressed in baggy shorts and t-shirts, so safety is not a factor. It appears that men can perform difficult sports extremely well while dressed modestly, but women can't. Doesn't that strike you as absurd?

So, I ask the questions.... Who is being exploited? Who is being sexualized and marginalized? What would change if female cheerleaders wore baggy shorts or full length sweats? Would the team not play to win, would the fans not cheer as loudly? Would the girls be less attractive or motivated? Why do we have situational standards? Answers: The girls are being exploited. The girls are being sexualized and marginalized. Nothing would change. No, the team would still want to win and the fans would still cheer. The girls would still be attractive and highly motivated. I don't know... that's why I'm asking. And perhaps the poor kid could get through the day without having "impure thoughts." Or maybe not. OK. Probably not. Maybe the problem is the notion of impure thoughts itself.

In summary, a kid at Timp HS kicks the hornets nest and gets stung to death because he went to a counsellor with a personal problem. He and his family, the community, and the Church are pilloried and ridiculed in the press and in the social media. Some girls are offended. Journalists and anti-Mormons get another punching bag. And one asks, given the Church standards of modesty, why can't our beautiful young lady athletes dress modestly like our beautiful young men athletes? How does having and teaching standards of modesty make one guilty of promoting a "rape culture?" Answers: they can, and it doesn't.

 

 

Edited September 17, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sorry, Bernard.  I had forgotten about the rape allegation against Clinton, and appreciate your calling it to my attention.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juanita_Broaddrick .

I don't mind at all if Amish women, ultra-orthodox Jewish women, and many fundamentalist polygamist Mormon women insist on wearing extra long dresses.  In the case of the Jewish women, that even includes wearing wigs.  No one should mock them or look down on them, or even Muslim women who wear varying degrees of coverings -- though ample robes are sometimes used to conceal suicide-belt bombs.

The same applies to various items of religious clothing worn by Jewish and Muslim men, as it does to Mormon religious apparel.  We need to be careful not to make a public issue of it, and not to be discriminatory toward those who do not adopt our practices.  God, after all, was never shocked by the nakedness of Adam & Eve.  It was only after they became of aware of their own nakedness that God had clothing made for them.

I am never shocked at traditional dress, whether it be a lavalava or a kilt on a man, and by all means let women wear pants when and where they like.  I love the image of the great Mohandas Gandhi going to England in a loincloth.  He carried more regal splendor in his little finger than the King of England sitting crowned on the throne in Buckingham Palace.  Back in 1963, when I was first a student at BYU, we used to joke that, if Jesus showed up on campus wearing long hair, a beard, robe, and sandals, he would immediately have been thrown off campus as a vagrant.  I just hope that all of us would offer to put him up at our apartments off campus -- and show him how to use soap and modern showers.  

No worries. I thought I misunderstood you. 

I wonder if God was shocked at their nakedness. They and their tormentor were. Perhaps on earth, that's why it is important enough to include it in the endowment. Any time Diety or its representatives have shown up, they've always been clothed. Is that just for our benefit? 

I remember the jokes when I arrived in 1964. My roommate and I were among the last BYU guys to wear beards.  Also the many appeals to the bearded prophets in the Church history manuals. Modesty was an issue then, as well. Times and circumstances change, but human nature does not.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Some interesting articles (to me anyway) about cheerleadering uniforms and perceptions of modesty:

http://www.omnicheer.com/blog/post/nfl-cheer-squad-criticized-for-too-modest-cheer-uniforms

"Why doesn't Green Bay want its own cheer squad? As explained by the President of the football team, college cheerleaders fit with the "wholesome" image the team wants to project. It's old fashioned and quaint and that's the way they like it. 

The Packers provide the selected college cheerleaders modest uniforms (ones many high school squads may use: a standard-length skirt, shell top, and long-sleeve bodyliner), which are, for the most part, well-received and liked by the people whose opinion matters most: the fans and the Green Bay community. 
 

"The point of collegiate cheerleading is to create camaraderie and team spirit and to keep girls active and healthy. Coaches should keep these ideals in mind and try to reinforce self-esteem among their team members.""

Thanks for the information. We hear a lot about body shaming today, and the headlines were that this young man and the Timp HS body-shamed the cheer squad. Did they?

Edited September 17, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Another question came up today...

Aren't many of the peripherals of the "cheerleader" thing, aside from the athleticism, anathema to feminism? 

Edited September 17, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

...an LDS boy went to a school guidance counsellor for help with a problem with cheerleaders wearing their uniforms to classes....It was further claimed that the girls wear skimpy costumes....And perhaps the poor kid could get through the day without having "impure thoughts." Maybe not.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Calm

[bcuzbcuz]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks for the information. We hear a lot about body shaming today, and the headlines were that this young man and the Timp HS body-shamed the cheer squad. I suppose if we could put in just a few questions the purpose for which I brought this up it would be, If modest dress is fine for male athletes, why is it not for females athletes? Who is really doing the body shaming here? Who is doing the exploiting of the girls? Who is sexualizing the uniforms and the young women? Who says women have to dress immodestly in order to participate in some sports and cheerleading? Why does a young man's desire for help with a problem result in his condemnation?  So far, I have seen no answers. 

Apparently, short skirts are not just an issue in Utah.

"Flowers," as Warren McDonald puts it, "are the short skirts of the plant kingdom. They advertise that something inside needs to be pollinated." http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160916-nobody-can-really-tell-you-what-a-flower-is

[Bernard Gui]

27 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Apparently, short skirts are not just an issue in Utah.

"Flowers," as Warren McDonald puts it, "are the short skirts of the plant kingdom. They advertise that something inside needs to be pollinated." http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160916-nobody-can-really-tell-you-what-a-flower-is

Arrrggghhhh. You swim in dangerous waters. 

[Calm]

Assume above quote is in this post please.  BG, please be reassured I have no thought of you as having inappropriate thoughts yourself or any intent to encourage "rape culture" etc. though I do want to point out a few word choices that I see as problematic and thus in my opinion can send the wrong message.

First was the way you phrased why the boy went to the counselor.  The problem was stated as being with the girls wearing their uniforms, not with his thoughts about the girls and him taking (unintentionally most likely) his own thoughts about girls in uniforms to inappropriate associations.  I think for the boy's own sake as well as the conversation it needs to be kept clear that his thoughts are his own responsibility.  The last sentence I quoted again seems to imply that his problem is not the boy's control of his thoughts, but rather the 'impurity' of his thoughts is imposed upon him from the outside since he would likely not have "impure thoughts" if he was not exposed during the day to the girls wearing their uniforms.  This type of language is part of what concerns many of us as it can appear to remove responsibility from the young man for his own thoughts and seems to turn him into a victim for being exposed to girls in cheerleading uniforms and thus others are responsible for protecting him from thinking certain ways.

Second is the use of the term "skimpy" which is a subjective choice that has negative connotations of intentional exposure (skimping on coverage, skimpy implies insufficient).  I don't see anyone justifying "skimpy" clothing for safety reasons.  They are instead justifying sufficiently covering (in their view), though close fitting and minimal clothing as necessary, correctly or not.  Btw, I was a gymnast in my youth, though not a good one; there were very good reasons for having skin exposed on the legs, for example, in order to use them to grip the uneven bars and it would be difficult to properly slide into a split with pants that were not tightly form fitting and perhaps attached around the foot.  Form fitting was necessary to avoid any lumping up of clothing or catching that would detract from the smoothness or speed of movement.  Male gymnasts use different equipment and do moves differently, so not all clothing transfers adequately between sexes.  One can also get a more secure grasp on legs and arms with tight fitting clothing, even better with no cloth; other times or places clothing is better for preventing friction or sweaty skin from sticking or causing slipping.  I was not a cheerleader, so have no input on what type of clothing is safest, but will also point out that there are moves that females do differently than males (for example, girls tend to slide into splits while boys jump into them, iirc; been too long since I've watched many routines; girls also tend to be at the top of pyramids requiring the most advantages for stability).  

If you are trying to describe the conversation for a summary of what is being discovered or concluded, it is better to use descriptions that agree with what people are saying about something than your own opinion about what is being discussed (though of course there is no problem with word choice in that sense if you are presenting your own opinion in the conversation).  No one claimed skimpy clothing was necessary.  It is the "skimpy" part that is being primarily debated. You in your choice of the word "skimpy" appear to be assuming the most important part of the discussion (is the clothing sufficient or insufficient for modesty?) was resolved in people's mind in agreement with you when it was not.  Such word choices do not help in resolving disagreements or even framing the disagreement clearly so at least people are disagreeing about the same thing.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

On September 15, 2016 at 3:03 PM, BlueDreams said:

This appears to be a misuse of the word "microagression" in terms of what he felt. I don't see how it could feasibly constitute. And no we wouldn't be reading this story.

Because in all likelihood the girl wouldn't have said anything about her discomfort

If she did, it would have been most likely laughed off or dismissed because people don't take seriously the idea of women being "sexually triggered" it's considered a man thing. or male weakness inherent to them

Ergo no one would have felt the need to call a meeting. And nothing would have happened.

That anything did happen in the school is indicative of some cultural assumptions about gender and their control of their sexual desires that we struggle to move past.

I try to respond to everyone, but somehow I missed this important insightful post that answers some of my questions. 

I intentionally used microagression to poke at the current craziness among certain folks to take offense where none was intended even from the most innocent of comments. "I like your hairdo." "Sexist pig!!"

Confiding a problem with a school counselor, probably very hard to do for a young boy especially with this issue, resulted in a major escalation where a whole bunch of people came down very hard on him and his mother for what they perceived as a sexual attack on the girls, akin to rape. Susequent actions by the school and comments by the girls, relatives, the media, a few folks on this board, and anti-Mormons confirm this.

 A girl might complain about boys wearing tight uniform pants to class, probably not that she was having "impure thoughts," but that she felt it was gross, disgusting, or exhibitionistic. I've seen crazier things in my teaching experience. Is it not problematic that she would be laughed off the playing field? If she were and the media got wind of it there would hell to pay.

For example, my high school was trying to enforce a rather mild dress code in response to the annual springtime escalating immodesty. Some of the male teachers expressed concern about confronting the girls who were in violation of the standards, so it was decided they could pass a prepared note to the girl instructing her to go to the office. I soon had occasion to hand out such a note. The girl read the note and angrily asked me, "What are you looking at!!??" I saw my career pass before my eyes as I said, "Nothing, but you need to go to the office." That was the last time I tried to enforce the dress code. We eventually asked the female teachers to take over enforcement. Some did, but most would not. They thought the girls were "cute." I don't understand that word.

A few days later, the school superintendent was visiting our school. Mrs Gui and I had served for a year on a task force to create school uniforms in our secondary schools to eliminate all the stupid dress issues. We came up with khakis or jeans and polos, t-shirts, or pullovers in the schools' colors. He rejected it as "too Spartan," even though that was the same dress code at the private school his 2 girls attended. I happened to be walking down a hall behind him when we came upon some girls whose dress was the reason for which we were trying to enforce the code. I was curious what he would do. Eyes right, and soldier on! Not a glance nor a word. A wise man, I thought. That's why he was paid 6 times my salary. 

So given that and the current discussion, I wonder why we have dress standards at all.

 

Edited September 17, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I try to respond to everyone, but somehow I missed this important insightful post that answers some of my questions. 

I intentionally used microagression to poke at the current craziness among certain folks to take offense where none was intended even from the most innocent of comments. "I like your hairdo." "Sexist pig!!"

Confiding a problem with a school counselor, probably very hard to do for a young boy especially with this issue, resulted in a major escalation where a whole bunch of people came down very hard on him and his mother for what they perceived as a sexual attack on the girls, akin to rape. Susequent actions by the school and comments by the girls, relatives, the media, a few folks on this board, and anti-Mormons confirm this.

 A girl might complain about boys wearing tight uniform pants to class, probably not that she was having "impure thoughts," but that she felt it was gross, disgusting, or exhibitionistic. I've seen crazier things in my teaching experience. Is it not problematic that she would be laughed off the playing field? If she were and the media got wind of it there would hell to pay.

For example, my high school was trying to enforce a rather mild dress code in response to the annual springtime escalating immodesty. Some of the male teachers expressed concern about confronting the girls who were in violation of the standards, so it was decided they could pass a prepared note to the girl instructing her to go to the office. I soon had occasion to hand out such a note. The girl read the note and angrily asked me, "What are you looking at!!??" I saw my career pass before my eyes as I said, "Nothing, but you need to go to the office." That was the last time I tried to enforce the dress code. We eventually asked the female teachers to take over enforcement. Some did, but most would not. They thought the girls were "cute." I don't understand that word.

A few days later, the school superintendent was visiting our school. Mrs Gui and I had served for a year on a task force to create school uniforms in our secondary schools to eliminate all the stupid dress issues. We came up with khakis or jeans and polos, t-shirts, or pullovers in the schools' colors. He rejected it as "too Spartan," even though that was the same dress code at the private school his 2 girls attended. I happened to be walking down a hall behind him when we came upon some girls whose dress was the reason for which we were trying to enforce the code. I was curious what he would do. Eyes right, and soldier on! Not a glance nor a word. A wise man, I thought. That's why he was paid 6 times my salary. 

So given that and the current discussion, I wonder why we have dress standards at all.

 

There is a dilemma going on here, I understand where you're coming from. 

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

........................................................

I remember the jokes when I arrived in 1964. My roommate and I were among the last BYU guys to wear beards.  Also the many appeals to the bearded prophets in the Church history manuals. Modesty was an issue then, as well. Times and circumstances change, but human nature does not.

Rabbi Nissim Wernick showed up on campus (to obtain his doctorate in religion) with full beard a couple of years later, after the ban on beards had gone into effect.  He had to obtain a permission letter in order to keep his beard -- which included permission for him to drink wine at Qiddush.  They had him teach Hebrew classes at BYU.

[Tacenda]

I know we don't know what the young man and his mother's full reasoning is for going to the school about the cheerleaders wearing their cheer outfits on game day. But I know my first thought was the following link, but now wonder if there could be a lot more to it than this, dunno. http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=19248440&comments=true&page=4

[Five Solas]

Utah/Mormonism is a funny thing, in so many ways.  I graduated from Hillcrest High School (Midvale, UT), class of '87.  At the time it was overwhelmingly white and LDS (neither hold true today, I'm told).  I remember game days.  I don't remember who was on the football team (I never actually attended a high school football game--I was on the debate team & inherently uncool).  But I always enjoyed game days & the cheerleaders wearing their outfits during the school day.  I had a crush on one of them in particular (she never knew--I hadn't the courage to act on it).  That was three decades ago--I don't even remember the class, but I still remember her name and where she sat relative to my seat.  

Her outfit (along with all the others) was incongruent with the standards we were taught across the parking lot in the seminary building and at church.  But then, so was the music played at school and church dances.  One thing was said & another was actually done--and everyone pretended the pieces fit & made sense (when they really didn't).

Maybe in some way this has helped me as an adult--although I can't say how, exactly.  But I'm not prepared to rule it out.

;0)

--Erik

[Damien the Leper]

A petulant juvenile or adult whining about the cheer uniforms because it somehow informs one's lascivious thoughts is ridiculous. A woman's attire is not an excuse for sexual assault. To make matters worse, a certain troglodyte recently suggested that rape victims apologize to their rapist's family. Quite the moron, he is.

 

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Valentinus said:

A petulant juvenile or adult whining about the cheer uniforms because it somehow informs one's lascivious thoughts is ridiculous. A woman's attire is not an excuse for sexual assault. To make matters worse, a certain troglodyte recently suggested that rape victims apologize to their rapist's family. Quite the moron, he is.

 

No one here has suggested anything remotely like blaming a woman's attire for sexual assault. The kid said or did nothing that could be considered assault. He went to a counsellor with a personal problem. That you think it is ridiculous is immaterial. His concerns should not have been made public. The school should have dealt with his personal issue discreetly. What evidence do you have that he was petulant? Which  troglodyte?

Do you believe schools should have dress codes? Why or why not?

Edited September 18, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[bcuzbcuz]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

No one here has suggested anything remotely like blaming a woman's attire for sexual assault. The kid said or did nothing that could be considered assault. He went to a counsellor with a personal problem. That you think it is ridiculous is immaterial. His concerns should not have been made public. The school should have dealt with his personal issue discreetly. What evidence do you have that he was petulant? Which  troglodyte?

Do you believe schools should have dress codes? Why or why not?

Roughly 10 years ago was my last year teaching Secondary (High School) in Canada. Our dress code was "No caps or head gear of any kind on school property" Even visiting parents had to follow the rule.

Rule no. 2: "No images on shirts, caps, or displayed tatoos that portrayed indecency (determined ultimately by Principal) or things illegal (Marijuana, etc.) 

Rule no. 3: "No gum chewing"

Rule no. 4: Inappropriate dress (bare midriff, etc).Student sent home to come back appropriately dressed."

Was a mere 10 years ago a simpler time? Caps and gum chewing don´t seem all that serious as social issues.

 

Edited September 18, 2016 by bcuzbcuz

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Roughly 10 years ago was my last year teaching Secondary (High School) in Canada. Our dress code was "No caps or head gear of any kind on school property" Even visiting parents had to follow the rule.

Rule no. 2: "No images on shirts, caps, or displayed tatoos that portrayed indecency (determined ultimately by Principal) or things illegal (Marijuana, etc.) 

Rule no. 3: "No gum chewing"

Rule no. 4: Inappropriate dress (bare midriff, etc).Student sent home to come back appropriately dressed."

Was a mere 10 years ago a simpler time? Caps and gum chewing don´t seem all that serious as social issues.

 

Yes! That looks like most of the dress codes in schools where I worked. 

It's #4 where the tsunami lurks. That little "etc." Wreaks havoc wherever it goes.

Do you remember when hair length was a big deal?

[Yirgacheffe]

On 9/17/2016 at 4:38 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Rabbi Nissim Wernick showed up on campus (to obtain his doctorate in religion) with full beard a couple of years later, after the ban on beards had gone into effect.  He had to obtain a permission letter in order to keep his beard -- which included permission for him to drink wine at Qiddush.  They had him teach Hebrew classes at BYU.

Do Catholics have to get permission to drink wine at communion?

[Kenngo1969]

3 minutes ago, Yirgacheffe said:

Do Catholics have to get permission to drink wine at communion?

Dunno.  Never went to any of the BYUs.  (Not good enough, in more ways than one! )  And of course, I'm not Catholic.  That said, my guess would be that I doubt it.  

[Yirgacheffe]

On 9/15/2016 at 2:11 PM, bsjkki said:

Young men and women are going to be constantly bombarded with people who do not think showing shoulders and or a mid-calf length dress is sending the message that they are 'slutty

Mid-calf is considered slutty?

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, Yirgacheffe said:

Mid-calf is considered slutty?

Ha Ha!  Until you pointed out, I didn't catch my error. Mid-calf may have been slutty 200 years ago. 😉

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

Do Catholics have to get permission to drink wine at communion?

I would imagine so, although I don't know any Catholics at BYU, and so don't know it for a fact.  It has to do with the agreement of all BYU students to abide by the honor code there, which includes restrictions on various substances.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I would imagine so, although I don't know any Catholics at BYU, and so don't know it for a fact.  It has to do with the agreement of all BYU students to abide by the honor code there, which includes restrictions on various substances.

But surely BYU/Church and any honor code does not supercede a religious right???  Ugh!!

[Jeanne]

Funny story (if you're not me)  When I was just a little girl, my Dad always coincided school shopping with going to Lagoon..an amusement park!  To try on dresses at the store, he made us wear dresses to town.  We tried on dresses and Dad measured...and then we went to Lagoon...in dresses!!   Modesty is thrown out the window on a roller coaster ya know..or going to the fun house.  We lost a lot of money in our sweet little purses in side the fun house!!  No matter..Dad was in his white shirt and tie.

PS...nothing like losing a petty coat on a wild mouse...I promise you!

Edited September 19, 2016 by Jeanne

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

But surely BYU/Church and any honor code does not supercede a religious right???  Ugh!!

I thought I conveyed that very thought adequately.  In the past, BYU has given special permission for those of other religions to exercise their rights, so I imagine that they still do so.  I just don't know it for a fact.