Burkas, modesty rhetoric and where do we go from here

[mfbukowski]

Error

Edited August 27, 2021 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I am having a hard time understanding your concern about it being tied to modesty.  Can you explain your concern?  I don't see how still teaching those things, but not tying it to modesty, would resolve any issues.   If anything, it is just giving the issue a new name. 

Sorry, I get the confusion, and figured I'd need to clarify.  I ran out of time to elaborate when I first posted.

From my perspective, modesty is a moral issue (it's a part of being Christlike), but showing shoulders or belly buttons isn't.  Whether or not it's appropriate to show shoulders or a belly button is a cultural issue (both church culture and the bigger societal culture), not a moral one, and I think that divorcing dress standards from morality would go a long way to getting rid of the baggage we've created around both topics.  

If we separated modesty and dress standards we could continue to teach the morality and importance of modesty (the correct definition of the word) and also discuss what is appropriate or inappropriate to put on our bodies, just without the 'if you do this then you are making yourself walking pornagraphy' angle.

That way you get the true definition of modesty back AND you still teach standards of dress. 

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Uh huh. Agree, but...

Good luck on that...

Now if we could at least swap bodies for a few days....

Incidentally that is one of the reasons Imo for temple marriage, to learn intimately what it's like to be in the other half of humanity.

Did women invent 4 inch stilleto heels?

What purpose do they serve?

Who invented IMModesty? And why does it even exist?

Maybe it has some link with sex? Ya think just maybe?

I'm just hear to watch Mark talk down to women about their approach to modesty.  This should be interesting.

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Sorry, I get the confusion, and figured I'd need to clarify.  I ran out of time to elaborate when I first posted.

From my perspective, modesty is a moral issue (it's a part of being Christlike), but showing shoulders or belly buttons isn't.  Whether or not it's appropriate to show shoulders or a belly button is a cultural issue (both church culture and the bigger societal culture), not a moral one, and I think that divorcing dress standards from morality would go a long way to getting rid of the baggage we've created around both topics.  

If we separated modesty and dress standards we could continue to teach the morality and importance of modesty (the correct definition of the word) and also discuss what is appropriate or inappropriate to put on our bodies, just without the 'if you do this then you are making yourself walking pornagraphy' angle.

That way you get the true definition of modesty back AND you still teach standards of dress. 

I think we are in agreement in our objection of objective dress standards when there is nothing objective about modesty, which is culturally, contextually, and subjectively based, and seems to be ever evolving with time and place.  I do think it is possible to teach correct principles without needing to be so specific about how many square inches of skin we can show around our knee.  I do think it is important to keep sexuality as a part of modesty, however.   That seems to be unavoidable and is important to be addressed.  I just think it could be done in a much more healthy way which helps build self-worth/respect and is less objectifying of women's bodies.  

[Danzo]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Sorry, I get the confusion, and figured I'd need to clarify.  I ran out of time to elaborate when I first posted.

From my perspective, modesty is a moral issue (it's a part of being Christlike), but showing shoulders or belly buttons isn't.  Whether or not it's appropriate to show shoulders or a belly button is a cultural issue (both church culture and the bigger societal culture), not a moral one, and I think that divorcing dress standards from morality would go a long way to getting rid of the baggage we've created around both topics.  

 

I don't really think it is possible to seperate culture from morality. Almost all moral codes have to rely on cultural context in their execution. 

 

[pogi]

17 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I don't really think it is possible to seperate culture from morality. Almost all moral codes have to rely on cultural context in their execution. 

 

I completely agree, which is why teaching strict objective standards of dress may not be the best way to address modesty in a culturally diverse church and where there is nothing objective about modesty.  It should be more principle based, in my opinion.    

Edited August 26, 2021 by pogi

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

But we would still teach some sort of dress standards, then, right --- even if separately from modesty? Even if we "don't connect it so heavily to modesty," it would still be connected in some way. What I'm saying is that I don't think critics of how it's been done in the past can really give examples of what that would look like, where the line of demarcation would be, and how that would actually be done.

As far as adults, it's almost exclusively done in the context of what is taught in the temple and in the temple recommend interview (wearing garments night and day, not failing to wear garments when garments can reasonably be worn, etc.). To the extent that dress standards are taught at all to adults, it orbits the garment as a standard. To the extent that this is taught to adults, I would say this is true even of unendowed adults. 

I don't personally see a reason to connect the 'we don't wear that because other people think it's sexual' issues to modesty at all. 

Like I said to pogi, I think modesty is an issue of morality but that whether or not a person shows their shoulders and turns someone else on sexually isn't.  I don't think that a girl who wears a tank top that shows her shoulders needs to repent, for example, but we do need to repent when we are being immodest.

So for me modesty and dress standards connected to sexuality are two different things that our church culture has mashed together badly and now we are dealing the baggage.

Now, does that mean that it's always appropriate (or modest) to show our belly buttons or even our shoulders?  No, and that's where teachings on dress standards would come in.  To use a secular example, rather than teaching a girl that showing cleavage in school is wrong because it's distracting to boys we could teach them that it's inappropriate because school is about preparing to be successful in life and in life, we dress professionally when we are at 'work' and school is the main job of a teen. 

We could do the same thing in a religious environment. 

As for garments and adults, that can be kind of tricky because I personally can show a lot of cleavage without my garments showing.  Garments, especially some of the styles, are fairly low cut.  I choose not to show cleavage, but I could and still be wearing my garments correctly.  So garments as the standard doesn't always work.  If I didn't separate my beliefs about appropriate dress and the garment, then I could be following the letter of the law (wearing garments) while not following what I believe to be the spirit of it (by showing a lot of cleavage). 

[Danzo]

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

I completely agree, which is why teaching strict objective standards of dress may not be the best way to address modesty in a culturally diverse church and where there is nothing objective about modesty.  It should be more principle based, in my opinion.    

You are right, the church shouldn't have a strict standards worldwide, however at some point principles have to be put into practice and at a local level there may need to be some specifics. 

One cannot always talk theories. At some point I need of how does this appy to me, in my culture, in my situation.

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I don't really think it is possible to separate culture from morality. Almost all moral codes have to rely on cultural context in their execution. 

 

Maybe not secularly, but I'm not talking about secular morality. 

What is moral is determined by God, not the legislature or karen down the block.  Society can say that something is moral and they can legislate it, but that doesn't actually make it moral.  The reverse is also true of course.

I believe that it is imperative for latter-day saints to learn to separate culture (or tradition) from morality.  Many of our biggest problems in the church stem for our inability to do that and I think it's a huge stumbling block.

 

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

I do think it is important to keep sexuality as a part of modesty, however.   That seems to be unavoidable and is important to be addressed. 

Why?

[bluebell]

45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Uh huh. Agree, but...

Good luck on that...

Now if we could at least swap bodies for a few days....

Incidentally that is one of the reasons Imo for temple marriage, to learn intimately what it's like to be in the other half of humanity.

Did women invent 4 inch stiletto heels?

What purpose do they serve?

Who invented IMModesty? And why does it even exist?

Maybe it has some link with sex? Ya think just maybe?

Do women like to see a well muscled man in a speedo?

Jason Mimoa?

Why?

Can we separate that from sex?

Sorry, I have no idea what you are saying. 

Men invented the stiletto heel but I don't know why that is relevant.  And no, most women do not want to see a man in a speedo (at least most American women, other cultures might be different).  That's why we are well known for making fun of men who wear them.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

Is it just my perception, or does it seem like 90%+ of the time it's men who are "teaching" women about what constitutes "proper" modesty?

They've been told over and over again that women need to be modest for them, so it make sense that some of them have so internalized this message that they believe they have a right to tell women how to do it, and to try to enforce their standards on women if they can. 

[ttribe]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They've been told over and over again that women need to be modest for them, so it make sense that some of them have so internalized this message that they believe they have a right to tell women how to do it, and to try to enforce their standards on women if they can. 

They also have the ability to reason and figure out that doing so is just stupid.

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, ttribe said:

They also have the ability to reason and figure out that doing so is just stupid.

Definitely.  I didn't say that to justify what they were doing, only explaining why it happens so frequently.

In my experience, most men that I've had these kinds of conversations with are not open to changing their perspective, probably because their perspective makes their needs the most important thing.  They believe that they benefit from the way modesty is taught right now (or has been in the past) so they fight to keep it.

But the few men that I have heard talk about their change in beliefs (which usually only happens when a daughter or wife shares bad experiences with them), one of the things they always say is how they didn't know the damage that their perspective was actually doing to themselves.   

[Danzo]

59 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Maybe not secularly, but I'm not talking about secular morality. 

What is moral is determined by God, not the legislature or karen down the block.  Society can say that something is moral and they can legislate it, but that doesn't actually make it moral.  The reverse is also true of course.

I believe that it is imperative for latter-day saints to learn to separate culture (or tradition) from morality.  Many of our biggest problems in the church stem for our inability to do that and I think it's a huge stumbling block.

 

Morality, even as given to us from Heaven cannot be divorced from culture.  It is always applied through our culture and it is applied differently in different cultures.

"love thy neighbor as thyself"  

How you love your neighboer definately depends on culture.  I have known more than one person who's given name is a vulgarity in another language. There was a missionary in my mission who couldn't use his name and had to have a new name for his mission  because of how offensive his name was where he was serving.  

Words are notorious for changing their definition over time and cultures. What can be a complement in one culture can be a slander in another culture.  

Stealing and Theft change between cultures based on the culture's ownership customs.  Is copying music stealing? it really depends on what music is being copied, which depends on the laws of the country and culture. Using water that runs through your land can be stealing in most of the western united states.

Even the definition of Murder can change between cultures.  In some cultures, killing someone can be an acceptable way of righting a wrong, others rely on the law to right a wrong.

The sabath day could be Sunday, Saturday or even Friday based on culture. 

I could go on and on.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

They've been told over and over again that women need to be modest for them, so it make sense that some of them have so internalized this message that they believe they have a right to tell women how to do it, and to try to enforce their standards on women if they can. 

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

They also have the ability to reason and figure out that doing so is just stupid.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Definitely.  I didn't say that to justify what they were doing, only explaining why it happens so frequently.

In my experience, most men that I've had these kinds of conversations with are not open to changing their perspective, probably because their perspective makes their needs the most important thing.  They believe that they benefit from the way modesty is taught right now (or has been in the past) so they fight to keep it.

But the few men that I have heard talk about their change in beliefs (which usually only happens when a daughter or wife shares bad experiences with them), one of the things they always say is how they didn't know the damage that their perspective was actually doing to themselves.   

I think the over-emphasis that women need to dress modest for men has been damaging in lots of different ways.  However, if modesty is about propriety in dress, and if propriety is about conforming to social standards of dress, then that means modesty is about dressing out of respect for cultural standards and sensibilities (which includes men).  Modesty is all about what and how we communicate with others and how that affects them, how that affects us personally, and how that affects our relationship with God.  I think the over-emphasis of that principle of how it affect men specifically has caused some women to react in protest due to the harm it has caused, and has led some to take the opposite extreme of making modesty only about them and removing sexuality from it completely.  But I think that approach misses the social construct and purpose of modesty which includes respecting ourselves, others, and God in how we communicate in dress, words, and action.  

Think of the example I gave earlier of going on a date with a man who was wearing a playboy hat, can't keep eye contact with you, and is continually staring at your breasts.  Isn't it true that it would have been modest for that man to have considered how such behavior and dress would effect you, and act accordingly out of respect?  Isn't it good to instill respect and consideration for the sensibilities of others in our teachings about modesty?  Absolutely it is!  It is not about trying to please everyone, or objective standards of dress, but simply about generally being considerate of the cultural sensibilities of others.  Modesty doesn't really make sense without considering those around us.  God wouldn't really care how we dress if we were isolated on an island.  So, yes, I do think that modesty includes considering the opposite sex, but not only the opposite sex.  From what I hear, most women dress for other women.  Modesty ABSOULTELY includes considering the same sex as well, and status competitions which stem from the negative effects of comparing ourselves to others.  The same applies to men.  For men, it seems that their behaviors more than their dress are sources of immodesty that negatively impact women. 

From my outside observations, there is often 2 extremes that emerge when women teach or talk about modesty in Mormonism.  One extreme is the young woman leader who enforces ridiculous and harmful standards at young women's camp and takes what our church leaders teach to the next level of extreme and perfectionism, further objectifying women.  The other extreme is what I mentioned above, as a direct and understandable reaction to what they have been taught their whole life.

Men seem to care much less about modesty in dress than women do, from my perspective.   When they do speak about it, it is usually in response to one of the opposite extremes mentioned above, and I think what some men are responding to is the seeming attitude of "I don't care how my language may offend men".   It is hard for me to understand either perspective, probably because I am not a woman - ha!  And because I am a man, it is all too easy for women to discount what I say on modesty.   From my observation however, it is not just men who tell women what modesty is, I see women equally speaking their mind to men as to what modesty is too.  For some reason, they both seem to be focusing only on women, however.  As if modesty only applies to them, and therefore men don't have a say.  I think that is unfortunate. 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2021 by pogi

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Men seem to care much less about modesty than women do, from my perspective. 

I'm just going to suggest that your perspective may be unique in this context.

[Danzo]

16 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm just going to suggest that your perspective may be unique in this context.

I don't think so.  In my neck of the woods, it seems the women are much more worried about modesty than the men.  The women seem to be the ones enforceing standards.  I can't remember the last time I man tried to police a woman's dress, but I do see women do it alot.  Both through gossip (did you see how she was dressed). To actually telling people to cover up. In my house, my wife is much more concerned about how my children dress (both daughters and sons) than I am.

Of course, it is possible that you have a different experience.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

I'm just going to suggest that your perspective may be unique in this context.

Perhaps.  I am just suggesting that I have heard more women complain about the hurtful teachings of modesty on steroids from their female young women leaders than they have ever complained about what they have heard taught by any man.

I think what men are having a hard time hearing is that women don't want to care anymore about what men think, and men are emotionally responding to that.  While I understand the exhaustion from the history of hurtful teachings on modesty, I do think there is some truth to the fact that modesty is about caring what others think, in general.  It is true for men as much as it is true for women.   Sexual harassment, for example - we should care how modesty affects the opposite sex. 

Edited August 26, 2021 by pogi

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Morality, even as given to us from Heaven cannot be divorced from culture.  It is always applied through our culture and it is applied differently in different cultures.

"love thy neighbor as thyself"  

How you love your neighboer definately depends on culture.  I have known more than one person who's given name is a vulgarity in another language. There was a missionary in my mission who couldn't use his name and had to have a new name for his mission  because of how offensive his name was where he was serving.  

Words are notorious for changing their definition over time and cultures. What can be a complement in one culture can be a slander in another culture.  

Stealing and Theft change between cultures based on the culture's ownership customs.  Is copying music stealing? it really depends on what music is being copied, which depends on the laws of the country and culture. Using water that runs through your land can be stealing in most of the western united states.

Even the definition of Murder can change between cultures.  In some cultures, killing someone can be an acceptable way of righting a wrong, others rely on the law to right a wrong.

The sabath day could be Sunday, Saturday or even Friday based on culture. 

I could go on and on.

You could, but it really doesn't change my point.   

We use our culture to help us define morality, but as Hamba has been repeating for months now (years?) that doesn't mean that how we have defined it is right.  Our leaders have been asking us to leave our cultural ideas about morality behind and focus on what God condones or condemns, not our cultures.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

I'm just hear to watch Mark talk down to women about their approach to modesty.  This should be interesting.

My wife agrees with me and what I really know about women other than a lot of casual dating comes from her.  Want to insult her too?

Oh I guess you already have.   Who could possiby disagree with the Arbiters of Truth here??   It's not permitted.

Edited August 26, 2021 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I don't think so.  In my neck of the woods, it seems the women are much more worried about modesty than the men.  The women seem to be the ones enforceing standards.  I can't remember the last time I man tried to police a woman's dress, but I do see women do it alot.  Both through gossip (did you see how she was dressed). To actually telling people to cover up. In my house, my wife is much more concerned about how my children dress (both daughters and sons) than I am.

Of course, it is possible that you have a different experience.

Have you considered why that might be?

• Historically, who has suffered the most when they have been accused of being immodest, men or women? 
• Who has more often been stoned or otherwise physically harmed for dressing immodestly, men or women?
• How often are men who have been sexually assaulted told they were asking for it because of what they were wearing, compared to how often sexually assaulted women are told that?
• Who has the most to lose culturally (or did, historically) if someone else believed they were dressing too sexualized, men or women?  
• How many dads have been talked to, yelled, or judged while at church because their daughter came to church dressed "immodestly" and it was hurting someone's son, compared to how many moms have had that happen to them (I personally know of zero dads but multiple moms).

Women have internalized the modesty messages they have been taught, as well as the negative consequences of not following them, much more than most men have because the consequences are usually more dire.  That manifests itself in some unique ways, including a hyperfocus on making sure that they and the people they love are "safe" by following all the modesty rules.

Not to say that women can't be just as caught up in the 'shoulders are a sin' idea as any man can be.  

[rongo]

21 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I don't think so.  In my neck of the woods, it seems the women are much more worried about modesty than the men.  The women seem to be the ones enforcing standards.  I can't remember the last time I man tried to police a woman's dress, but I do see women do it alot.  Both through gossip (did you see how she was dressed). To actually telling people to cover up. In my house, my wife is much more concerned about how my children dress (both daughters and sons) than I am.

Of course, it is possible that you have a different experience.

I can guarantee the dress standard Nazis at girls camp are the women, not the male leaders (I attended the whole week every year I was a bishop, along with the other priesthood who were there). Ditto for MIA activities, church dances, etc. 

One time, a stake YW presidency member got my attention indignantly during a whole camp thing, and pointed out that one of my inactive girls was wearing a tank top. I honestly hadn't noticed. I told her I would talk to her and continued watching. She forced her way through the crowd to make her put on a jacket, and I got after her and told her we're just glad she's here, and that it was terrible making a spectacle and putting her on the spot like that. 

Same lady (now the stake president's wife), but this relates to the broader, "higher" definition of modesty being espoused here. She was upset that one of my inactive YCLs had such a following at camp among the girls. The inactive girl was charismatic and genuinely fun to be around (a real "Mensch" in every way, and relatable for many of the girls because she was genuine). She was upset that she had the adoration of so many girls, when she hadn't gone to any YCL meetings, while _____, who had diligently gone to everything (another of my older girls), didn't get this rock star treatment from the younger girls. "Have you spent much time with her?" I asked her. "She is one of the grumpiest people you will ever meet. It's no surprise that the girls like the inactive girl better than that "active" girl." Her reaction to this was to snipe at one of my leaders, an absolute salt of the earth lady whom everybody loved. She pointed out that women and girls like her so much, even though she had been through Church discipline. I was dumbstruck. "Do you actually believe in the atonement, or not?" I said. When her husband was called to be stake president, she wrote me a letter and apologized for a number of things. I wrote her back and "wore the hairshirt" for my part in interactions with her that I should have been better in, and I told her that when strong-minded personalities interact, often sparks fly. 

I think you are very correct about the role most active women play in this whole modesty thing, independent of the patriarchy (historical and present). That's why many women I know absolutely do not want women to have the priesthood. More than one has told me that it would be "hell on earth" to have women over them as priesthood leaders. I think it would be "you ain't seen nothing yet" in many cases if women presided over wards and stakes. Look at how it is with women presiding over YW and RS in terms of dress standards modesty friction. 

[pogi]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Have you considered why that might be?

• Historically, who has suffered the most when they have been accused of being immodest, men or women? 
• Who has more often been stoned or otherwise physically harmed for dressing immodestly, men or women?
• How often are men who have been sexually assaulted told they were asking for it because of what they were wearing, compared to how often sexually assaulted women are told that?
• Who has the most to lose culturally (or did, historically) if someone else believed they were dressing too sexualized, men or women?  
• How many dads have been talked to, yelled, or judged while at church because their daughter came to church dressed "immodestly" and it was hurting someone's son, compared to how many moms have had that happen to them (I personally know of zero dads but multiple moms).

Women have internalized the modesty messages they have been taught, as well as the negative consequences of not following them, much more than most men have because the consequences are usually more dire.  That manifests itself in some unique ways, including a hyperfocus on making sure that they and the people they love are "safe" by following all the modesty rules.

Not to say that women can't be just as caught up in the 'shoulders are a sin' idea as any man can be.  

Those are poignant points, painfully accentuated further by what is going on in Afghanistan as we speak. 

I can't help but wonder if there are more base human reasons for women being more strict than men too, including jealousy, judgment, and status competitions, etc.  "This girl is just looking for attention!"  "Look at her pompous style!"   "She is not going to out-show me!"  Is there also some intentional humbling going on as well, perhaps? 

Edited August 26, 2021 by pogi

[ttribe]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

My wife agrees with me and what I really know about women other than a lot of casual dating comes from her.  Want to insult her too?

Oh I guess you already have.   Who could possiby disagree with the Arbiters of Truth here??   It's not permitted.

That was a weird response.  I said nothing about your wife.  I commented on how you talk to people, especially women, in this thread.