Burkas, modesty rhetoric and where do we go from here

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

Unfortunately that is also dependent on culture AND beliefs.   Live and let live unless it is out side the unwritten RULES of LDS culture, but not at all offensive to God.

It is called "diversity" and sometimes even "Relativism"!!!   How dare I speak that word??

[katherine the great]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

Maybe an American style swimsuit. 

 

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Jason Mimoa?

Meh. Chris Hemsworth maybe. 
 

 

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Why?

Because he’s gorgeous. 
 

 

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Can we separate that from sex?

I can. I never once thought of myself having sex with him. But I still love beauty in all its wonderful forms. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

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.  

I'm really not interested in the social construct and purpose of modesty though.  I honestly think that a focus on that is most of what has gotten us into the modesty mess we find ourselves in right now. 

I really only care about modesty as it pertains to God's purposes, and I'm not convinced that your idea of modesty bolded above is how God sees it.  I can't find that anywhere in any scripture that's not suspect (and by suspect I mean in the same vein as the ones in the NT that teach that women should be silent in the churches, not cut their hair, etc., that we don't follow in our religion).

Quote

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 ABSOLUTELY 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. 

To the bold, I honestly would not consider that to be an issue of modesty.  I do think that it's good to instill courtesy and respect in our dress, but I don't see that connected to modesty specifically.  Not like you do, and like you seem to take for granted that everyone else does.

Quote

 

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. 

 

I'll repeat what I asked Danzo and ask you, have you ever considered why 1) women are often more focused on modesty than men, and that 2) women might be subconsciously acting as if modesty only applies to women because that's how the concept was taught and illustrated to them as they were growing up?

We've talked about the baggage that a lot of women have surrounding modesty and the way they dress, well, baggage often creates the situations you are talking about.  It's not healthy and if it's not dealt with and resolved, it comes out in unhealthy ways.

[BlueDreams]

On 8/23/2021 at 10:38 AM, pogi said:

If we could change the way modesty is taught in the church, what would it look like?  I agree that there are problems with how it has been taught. 

Should dress ever be included in teachings on modesty?   If so, how would you approach it?  I think we all probably agree that there is a line, but that line is so subjective and culturally based that it becomes impossible to define.  

How should teachings on modesty deal with the societal problems we see in media and elsewhere of the objectification of women?  I think we all agree that this is true for men as well, but the degree to which women are portrayed as mere objects of men's desire in the media far overwhelms what is true for men.  It becomes a social status thing, to where women start dressing more for other women then they do for men.   I think we all probably agree that this can generally affect the well-being of women and may lead them to feel that their self-worth is derived from being sexual objects of appearance - leading many to take extreme measures of surgery to maintain their sexual appearance because that is what society values, and is often where their self-worth is derived.   Worldly social pressures to appear a certain way is so much greater for women then men, which is why I think the church has historically made modesty more of a female issue.  Unfortunately, in attempting to combat worldly pressures, the church has created their own opposing pressures which are also so much greater for women then men in the church, placing women uncomfortably between two HEAVY and opposing social pressures and expectations with no escape. 

How does the church combat corrupt worldly social pressures of objectification which erode a women's self-worth and identity without exacerbating the issue with their own pressures of appearance?  Perhaps the church has been too hyper-focused on the symptoms (dress) thinking that will solve the problem (social values).   

How does one raise a young women to live in the world but not of the world in terms of society's appraisal of her value (sexual and image driven), while still giving value to wanting to appear attractive?   

My 2 year old daughter was born with albinism.  This is a serious concern for me because I worry about her self-esteem due to society's corrupt values on image.  I have become hyper-aware since my children have albinism of things that I always considered innocent before.  I can't count how many times I have cringed at seemingly innocent jokes or comments about "pasty white legs" or someone being too "pale", one show I watched recently made a joke about a Robin Williams looking like an "albino" with the other actor looking at him with disgust at his whiteness.   This kind of stuff never would have affected me before, but now it breaks my heart for my son and daughter and what they will face as they age.  What do I do about that?  How do I raise my son and daughter to develop self-worth and self-esteem independent from societal estimations based on appearance?  Unfortunately, the same issues that may affect my children due to their albinism will affect all children in different ways.  It seems that the people most endowed with natural beauty often feel the most pressure and self-esteem issues of not being beautiful enough.  That to me is the core of modesty issues that needs to be addressed by the church, with less emphasis (without ignoring it completely, however) on the symptoms that present in how one dresses. 

 

The primary word I think of with this question is simply balance and a focus on spiritual growth over temporal solutions to social problems. 

I’d focus on scriptural discussion of appearance and what they were used to represent. Namely either a heavy misfocus on displays of wealth and vanity. I would talk to the youth about how we can become hyper focused on our appearance and what problems can happen when we do so. I’d also point out that one of the main problems is that the nephites and other groups would use clothes to judge the worth of a person in society. And use that as a discussion for how that applies today. 

 

I would then talk about the BOM verses that talk about the proper balance, or wearing nice clothes that were attractive but not falling into excessive focus on apparel or gaining new/costly apparel. At that point I would point out what is considered “nice” or “appropriate” often changes from culture to culture and circumstance to circumstance. That it’s a personal decision and expression and one that needs to stay in balance for more important aspects of life. I would also note that clothes can be a form of religious expression and that once endowed we are given garments to remind us of our covenants and that at that point it is symbol of our respect for our covenants to God to wear and cover them.  (That would likely also be a lesson to build on for temp/mish prep). 

i didn’t gender this because I think the general principle is better taught and the format with the lessons would allow for each community/group to talk about it differently. 
 

These are just rando thoughts on what you mentioned. I think outside the general message one thing I plan to raise kid(s…god willing one day) is to focus their value primarily on what their talents and things that don’t ebb and flow. I’m also trying to put together what worked for me. I still enjoyed looking good but more importantly I think I’ve had a deep well of compassion and true love for me as me. So sometimes I’ve enjoyed make up, but I’m content and feel beautiful without it. I love dresses and torn up pijamas equally because they give me vehicles to what I want and self-expression…but neither feel as though they are truly me or that I’m less “me” when I put them on. I’ve loved my body when it was thin, when I gained 40 lbs from pregnancy, and in that weird deflated period after pregnancy when your body is recouping. I find the slow introduction of white hairs on my head as entrancing. I’ve worked to care for it…often not perfectly but I’ve earnestly tried because I value the vessel I experience life in. 
to me many modesty lessons and beauty messages in the world  are two sides of the same coin. They can focus one’s external packaging to define eternal and physical worth. I think what’s worked for me and given me truer self-love is having my eternal worth and life journey be what influence my external expression and how I view my body. It means that when someone can’t value me or pidgeon holes me because of what I look like on the outside it’s more their loss than mine. 
 

with luv, 

BD 
 

Edited August 26, 2021 by BlueDreams

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm really not interested in the social construct and purpose of modesty though.  I honestly think that a focus on that is most of what has gotten us into the modesty mess we find ourselves in right now. 

I really only care about modesty as it pertains to God's purposes, and I'm not convinced that your idea of modesty bolded above is how God sees it.  I can't find that anywhere in any scripture that's not suspect (and by suspect I mean in the same vein as the ones in the NT that teach that women should be silent in the churches, not cut their hair, etc., that we don't follow in our religion).

To the bold, I honestly would not consider that to be an issue of modesty.  I do think that it's good to instill courtesy and respect in our dress, but I don't see that connected to modesty specifically.  Not like you do, and like you seem to take for granted that everyone else does.

I really don't have a good concept of what you think modesty is then, if there is no social construct to it. If you had to create a definition, what would it be, and how would you distinguish it from other general principles such as "spirituality" and general "devotion to God"?  

I agree that we should only care about how modesty pertains to God's purposes.  That is the point I am trying to make.  His purpose is 3 fold - love for God, love for neighbor, and the often neglected love for self.  His purpose IS a social construct which is considerate of our neighbor and yes, even the opposite sex.  "As much as you have done it unto the least of these, you have done it unto me."   Modesty, as defined by the church, and most dictionaries is unavoidably about our behavior, speech, and dress, in relation to others.  Isn't that what the gospel is all bout - our relation with others, our relationship with God, and our relationship with self?  We can't neglect one and pretend to be in compliance with the others. 

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

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!"   "If I can't get attention for my body, you sure as heck ain't going to surpass me."  Is there also some intentional humbling going on as well, perhaps? 

That could be, but then we could ask, who usually has the most power in a patriarchal society (or who has historically had the most power), the women who are sexually sought by men, or those who aren't?

It's the age old Madonna/whore complex that women have been having to deal with for forever and a day.  It's even illustrated in the bible, where we see Herod leave his wife and take up with another woman, who then uses her sexuality, and that of her daughter, to get herod to do what she wants.

 

 

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That could be, but then we could ask, who usually has the most power in a patriarchal society (or who has historically had the most power), the women who are sexually sought by men, or those who aren't?

Exactly!  Naturally it is men who historically have most power in a patriarchal society.  I think that absolutely may help explain why some women are so hyper judgmental of other women in regards to their dress and looks - it is a power struggle over a limited resource (power). 

 

Edited August 26, 2021 by pogi

[Calm]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

Men and women should have equal voice in this matter, because it affects them both.  

Do you believe your neighbor should have the right to tell you how to landscape your property and what color to paint your house, etc?  That they should have equal voice with your own preferences because it affects them as it affects you?

[mfbukowski]

Error

Edited August 27, 2021 by mfbukowski

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

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. 

 

So I'm definitely jumping into this conversation late but I had a couple of quick thoughts tied to this. 

First on the dude in the playboy hat, I, like BB, would also not describe that scenario as a man being immodest, but a man with problems with chastity and temperance. He has not sought out self-mastery over his own lusts and is now coveting something that isn't his to have. If he were immodest, based on how I see modesty, it would be more likely that the guy dressed in a high end suit and was disappointed/looking down on his date's outfit that he could tell came from Ross. He's placed an over-value on appearance as a marker of earthly social status and ties that to the inherent worth of an individual.  

The problem I have with noting "cultural sensibilities" and others concerns is that it is an extremely blurred line between that and enabling cultural problems that run rampant in our society. Even the inference can make me uncomfortable because that is often what women are called to do in society: take in everyone's opinions for how they should appear in life. And it can get extremely old real fast. So to insist I or another woman should dress out of respect of cultural customs that have often harmed us it doesn't sound like a virtue but maintaining a social vice. Think of it this way. If Jesus, in his outreach to the Jewish community, decided that it would be best to do no healings on Sundays, avoid lepers, and defer to the Pharisees or the general public's expectations of a messiah His divine mission would have been severely hindered. He wasn't there to soft-ball the public into self-validation. There were serious problems with their teachings and he highlighted those in his ministry. 

I know you are not pointing to just women when noting cultural sensibility, but the actual cultural sensibilities maintain far more beliefs around women, not men, in how they should look or act. Many that are flat out wrong, limiting, or harmful to women's sense of self. One of the problems I see with this is that for many women a sense of identity has become diffused/enmeshed with cultural acceptability. So women lose their sense of self and what they even like/want, following the expectations of their cultural circles. This loss leaves women with a diminished self-worth, diminished connections to the divine, and vulnerable to losing higher purposes and service in the overarching community. This would go very much against your 3-fold purpose to the gospel. By maintaining this belief that we need to dress with others in mind, we will likely end up enabling the virtue cancers that have developed in our communities.  

I prefer a more passive stance on this aspect that's not actively fleshed out, because when we do that's when our sexist cultural messages of what is acceptable starts to really creep out. This is not the message that is missing in our modesty talks. It's they one that has metastasized into it's own creature. Therefore reducing and cutting focus on social expectations may be a needed remedy until the culture starts to shift around truer principles than pharisaic monitoring of behaviors. 

 

With luv,

BD 

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you believe your neighbor should have the right to tell you how to landscape your property and what color to paint your house, etc?  That they should have equal voice with your own preferences because it affects them as it affects you?

I don’t think that is an equivalent parallel.  The house we are talking about is modesty.  It belongs to all of us.

in regards to dress, I don’t think anyone else has “equal” say to what I personally choose to wear.  I have never implied as much.  Modesty does require consideration of others in how I dress, act, and speak however, but I am the one who gets to choose.

It could be considered immodest for a neighbor to paint their house neon pink and let their yard go to waste full of junk etc, if that is contrary to cultural standards behavior.  it affects the resale value of all surrounding homes, hence the creation of HSAs.  While we ultimately have the final say, it is considered modest to consider our neighbor. 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

e house we are talking about is modesty.  It belongs to all of us.

Explain please…

I can see teaching as a very general principle, like keeping the Sabbath day holy, but individuals do not have the right to determine how that should be done by someone else, do they? 
 

Quote

could be considered immodest for a neighbor to paint their house neon pink  and let their yard go to waste full of junk etc

You are using a definition of modesty that is different IMO than typically used, at least in the teachings I have heard.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Calm

[Danzo]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you believe your neighbor should have the right to tell you how to landscape your property and what color to paint your house, etc?  That they should have equal voice with your own preferences because it affects them as it affects you?

I think this happens all of the time with HOAs, Restrictive covenents and zoning laws.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think this happens all of the time with HOAs, Restrictive covenents and zoning laws.

They have equal voice all the time?  If you can make a choice of color to paint your house, you should always consult your neighbors before making that choice?

I have roses planted and a new neighbor moves in and comes over and says I don’t like roses, you should pull them up…I should give his desires equal weight for my own?

Edited August 27, 2021 by Calm

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

 

So I'm definitely jumping into this conversation late but I had a couple of quick thoughts tied to this. 

First on the dude in the playboy hat, I, like BB, would also not describe that scenario as a man being immodest, but a man with problems with chastity and temperance. He has not sought out self-mastery over his own lusts and is now coveting something that isn't his to have. If he were immodest, based on how I see modesty, it would be more likely that the guy dressed in a high end suit and was disappointed/looking down on his date's outfit that he could tell came from Ross. He's placed an over-value on appearance as a marker of earthly social status and ties that to the inherent worth of an individual.  

The problem I have with noting "cultural sensibilities" and others concerns is that it is an extremely blurred line between that and enabling cultural problems that run rampant in our society. Even the inference can make me uncomfortable because that is often what women are called to do in society: take in everyone's opinions for how they should appear in life. And it can get extremely old real fast. So to insist I or another woman should dress out of respect of cultural customs that have often harmed us it doesn't sound like a virtue but maintaining a social vice. Think of it this way. If Jesus, in his outreach to the Jewish community, decided that it would be best to do no healings on Sundays, avoid lepers, and defer to the Pharisees or the general public's expectations of a messiah His divine mission would have been severely hindered. He wasn't there to soft-ball the public into self-validation. There were serious problems with their teachings and he highlighted those in his ministry. 

I know you are not pointing to just women when noting cultural sensibility, but the actual cultural sensibilities maintain far more beliefs around women, not men, in how they should look or act. Many that are flat out wrong, limiting, or harmful to women's sense of self. One of the problems I see with this is that for many women a sense of identity has become diffused/enmeshed with cultural acceptability. So women lose their sense of self and what they even like/want, following the expectations of their cultural circles. This loss leaves women with a diminished self-worth, diminished connections to the divine, and vulnerable to losing higher purposes and service in the overarching community. This would go very much against your 3-fold purpose to the gospel. By maintaining this belief that we need to dress with others in mind, we will likely end up enabling the virtue cancers that have developed in our communities.  

I prefer a more passive stance on this aspect that's not actively fleshed out, because when we do that's when our sexist cultural messages of what is acceptable starts to really creep out. This is not the message that is missing in our modesty talks. It's they one that has metastasized into its own creature. Therefore reducing and cutting focus on social expectations may be a needed remedy until the culture starts to shift around truer principles than pharisaic monitoring of behaviors. 

 

With luv,

BD 

Well said.

I feel like a lot of what surrounds modesty in the church is similar to the "hedge" created by the pharisees in the NT to protect people from breaking the commandments.  I understand the purpose of teaching kids not to dress sexually but the way that it's been done, and the extent that that has become the only part of modesty that is often taught, feels like we tried to start out with "modesty was made for man" but have now morphed to "man was made for modesty" focus.

I actually kind of see the same thing in Utah with the emphasis on men in leadership positions needing to be clean-shaven.  That also feels to me like just another hedge to me, that serves no actual purpose for the men.

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Well said.

I feel like a lot of what surrounds modesty in the church is similar to the "hedge" created by the pharisees in the NT to protect people from breaking the commandments.  I understand the purpose of teaching kids not to dress sexually but the way that it's been done, and the extent that that has become the only part of modesty that is often taught, feels like we tried to start out with "modesty was made for man" but have now morphed to "man was made for modesty" focus.

I actually kind of see the same thing in Utah with the emphasis on men in leadership positions needing to be clean-shaven.  That also feels to me like just another hedge to me, that serves no actual purpose for the men.

It's not just Utah.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

It's not just Utah.

I've got experience living in five different states and Utah is the only one that I've come across this stuff, but I believe you.

My parents bishop in Wyoming has a full beard, and he is not the only one in the stake who does.  Same thing when we lived in ND.  But in Utah, someone see's a person in leadership with a beard and it's like they've found a unicorn.  They are both so surprised and so delighted.  It's weird.

[ttribe]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've got experience living in five different states and Utah is the only one that I've come across this stuff, but I believe you.

My parents bishop in Wyoming has a full beard, and he is not the only one in the stake who does.  Same thing when we lived in ND.  But in Utah, someone see's a person in leadership with a beard and it's like they've found a unicorn.  They are both so surprised and so delighted.  It's weird.

Every Stake and Ward I've lived in in AZ has been like this.

[Peacefully]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

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. 

It really depends on the woman. We can’t all be lumped together in the same basket. 

[pogi]

To clarify, I said:

Quote

Men and women should have equal voice in this matter, because it affects them both.

To which you responded:

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you believe your neighbor should have the right to tell you how to landscape your property and what color to paint your house, etc?  That they should have equal voice with your own preferences because it affects them as it affects you?

I responded:

Quote

The house we are talking about is modesty.  It belongs to all of us.

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Explain please…

I can see teaching as a very general principle, like keeping the Sabbath day holy, but individuals do not have the right to determine how that should be done by someone else, do they? 

The "matter" I was talking about was modesty in general.  I was not talking about dictating how the opposite sex should dress or having equal say in what they wear on a daily basis.  I hope I have made it abundantly clear that I am not advocating for objective dress code guidelines.  Modesty is subjective and should be based on principles of propriety and decency in communication via dress, words, and actions.  No one sex should be the arbiter of that.  It should be based on consideration and mutual respect for each other and each sex.  No, I should not have a say on what color you paint your house, but I hope you would have the decency and propriety to consider your neighbors and the context of the neighborhood.  That would be the modest thing to do.

3 hours ago, Calm said:

You are using a definition of modesty that is different IMO than typically used, at least in the teachings I have heard.

I think the definition I am using is typically used.  We just never focus on that aspect of modesty.  I have posted the definition of the church and dictionary a couple times.  But in essence, modesty is about propriety.  We have made it all about dress and sexuality.  Propriety is WAY more broad than that.  Propriety is about conforming to "conventionally accepted standards and behaviors or morals".  In other words, it is based on a social construct and is considerate of others.  Anything we do that might violate or offend conventionally accepted behavior or morality could be considered immodest by definition.  I agree that my example of the house was a stretch in how we typically think of modesty, but I am trying to get us to think outside of the sexuality and dress code box of modesty just a little.  If we behave in ways that is offensive to the broader culture and sensibilities without any deference to others, that is immodest. Modesty by definition is all about being considerate of others and is a social construct. 

Edited August 27, 2021 by pogi

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

But in Utah, someone see's a person in leadership with a beard and it's like they've found a unicorn.

The last two times that I was in Utah (2010 and 2011), I randomly attended wards that were near my hotel rooms. The first one was near the airport somewhere. The bishop, one counsellor, and the stake adviser all had beards. The second one was in the Midvale area, and again, the bishop, one counsellor, and the high council member assigned to speak all had beards. Maybe I just have good luck at picking the right wards?

In my stake here, our stake clerk and about a quarter to a third of the high council have facial hair of some kind (including me), and in my ward, our second counsellor and elders quorum president both do. Life is good!

[pogi]

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

 

So I'm definitely jumping into this conversation late but I had a couple of quick thoughts tied to this. 

First on the dude in the playboy hat, I, like BB, would also not describe that scenario as a man being immodest, but a man with problems with chastity and temperance. He has not sought out self-mastery over his own lusts and is now coveting something that isn't his to have. If he were immodest, based on how I see modesty, it would be more likely that the guy dressed in a high end suit and was disappointed/looking down on his date's outfit that he could tell came from Ross. He's placed an over-value on appearance as a marker of earthly social status and ties that to the inherent worth of an individual.  

The problem I have with noting "cultural sensibilities" and others concerns is that it is an extremely blurred line between that and enabling cultural problems that run rampant in our society. Even the inference can make me uncomfortable because that is often what women are called to do in society: take in everyone's opinions for how they should appear in life. And it can get extremely old real fast. So to insist I or another woman should dress out of respect of cultural customs that have often harmed us it doesn't sound like a virtue but maintaining a social vice. Think of it this way. If Jesus, in his outreach to the Jewish community, decided that it would be best to do no healings on Sundays, avoid lepers, and defer to the Pharisees or the general public's expectations of a messiah His divine mission would have been severely hindered. He wasn't there to soft-ball the public into self-validation. There were serious problems with their teachings and he highlighted those in his ministry. 

I know you are not pointing to just women when noting cultural sensibility, but the actual cultural sensibilities maintain far more beliefs around women, not men, in how they should look or act. Many that are flat out wrong, limiting, or harmful to women's sense of self. One of the problems I see with this is that for many women a sense of identity has become diffused/enmeshed with cultural acceptability. So women lose their sense of self and what they even like/want, following the expectations of their cultural circles. This loss leaves women with a diminished self-worth, diminished connections to the divine, and vulnerable to losing higher purposes and service in the overarching community. This would go very much against your 3-fold purpose to the gospel. By maintaining this belief that we need to dress with others in mind, we will likely end up enabling the virtue cancers that have developed in our communities.  

I prefer a more passive stance on this aspect that's not actively fleshed out, because when we do that's when our sexist cultural messages of what is acceptable starts to really creep out. This is not the message that is missing in our modesty talks. It's they one that has metastasized into it's own creature. Therefore reducing and cutting focus on social expectations may be a needed remedy until the culture starts to shift around truer principles than pharisaic monitoring of behaviors. 

 

With luv,

BD 

I see some of the inherent problems with a social construct of modesty, but I also don't see any way around it without completely redefining it.  Which I am fine to explore, but I don't really have a grasp of how you and bluebell would define it outside of a social construct and consideration for others.

Overview. Modesty is an attitude of propriety and decency in dress, grooming, language, and behavior.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/modesty?lang=eng

That is essentially the same definition I have found in other dictionaries.

So, what is "propriety"?

It seems the general definition from different sources falls along these lines:

 

Quote

the state or quality of conforming to conventionally accepted standards of behavior or morals.

In other words, it is a social construct.  That can be contextually oriented to a specific religion, but I think it should also include the larger surrounding culture. 

In that sense, the dude I described is acting immodestly.   Yes it is true that he likely has problems with "chastity and temperance" etc. but when those problems are expressed in social situations which violate propriety in behavior, then that is immodest.  I think we limit modesty to dress, sexuality, and "costly attire" and prideful attitude, but I think it would serve a better purpose to embrace the stated definition of propriety as suggested by the church and dictionaries, which is much more broad. 

Edited August 27, 2021 by pogi

[The Nehor]

10 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?

Well, I decided to do something about this so I started dressing as immodestly as possible to try to even up the ratio of ‘offenders’.

Oddly, all that happened was people congratulating me and talking about “how hard it must have been for you” and “we always suspected”.

I am going to have to continue the experiment until the data becomes more clear.

[bsjkki]

4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

 

So I'm definitely jumping into this conversation late but I had a couple of quick thoughts tied to this. 

First on the dude in the playboy hat, I, like BB, would also not describe that scenario as a man being immodest, but a man with problems with chastity and temperance. He has not sought out self-mastery over his own lusts and is now coveting something that isn't his to have. If he were immodest, based on how I see modesty, it would be more likely that the guy dressed in a high end suit and was disappointed/looking down on his date's outfit that he could tell came from Ross. He's placed an over-value on appearance as a marker of earthly social status and ties that to the inherent worth of an individual.  

The problem I have with noting "cultural sensibilities" and others concerns is that it is an extremely blurred line between that and enabling cultural problems that run rampant in our society. Even the inference can make me uncomfortable because that is often what women are called to do in society: take in everyone's opinions for how they should appear in life. And it can get extremely old real fast. So to insist I or another woman should dress out of respect of cultural customs that have often harmed us it doesn't sound like a virtue but maintaining a social vice. Think of it this way. If Jesus, in his outreach to the Jewish community, decided that it would be best to do no healings on Sundays, avoid lepers, and defer to the Pharisees or the general public's expectations of a messiah His divine mission would have been severely hindered. He wasn't there to soft-ball the public into self-validation. There were serious problems with their teachings and he highlighted those in his ministry. 

I know you are not pointing to just women when noting cultural sensibility, but the actual cultural sensibilities maintain far more beliefs around women, not men, in how they should look or act. Many that are flat out wrong, limiting, or harmful to women's sense of self. One of the problems I see with this is that for many women a sense of identity has become diffused/enmeshed with cultural acceptability. So women lose their sense of self and what they even like/want, following the expectations of their cultural circles. This loss leaves women with a diminished self-worth, diminished connections to the divine, and vulnerable to losing higher purposes and service in the overarching community. This would go very much against your 3-fold purpose to the gospel. By maintaining this belief that we need to dress with others in mind, we will likely end up enabling the virtue cancers that have developed in our communities.  

I prefer a more passive stance on this aspect that's not actively fleshed out, because when we do that's when our sexist cultural messages of what is acceptable starts to really creep out. This is not the message that is missing in our modesty talks. It's they one that has metastasized into it's own creature. Therefore reducing and cutting focus on social expectations may be a needed remedy until the culture starts to shift around truer principles than pharisaic monitoring of behaviors. 

 

With luv,

BD 

You express yourself so perfectly. Thank you!

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Peacefully said:

It really depends on the woman. We can’t all be lumped together in the same basket. 

True.

When I taught for the Anglican Church, our students wore uniforms. The boys' uniform made sense: green pants, white shirt, green tie. The girls' uniform was the same on the top, but instead of pants, they had to wear a pleated green-plaid skirt. We had a strict dress code that required these ridiculous skirts to be worn 'at or below the knee'. Seriously, why force females to wear something that requires a length requirement in the first place???

Most of the girls at the school had no issue with this rule, though some of the really tall ones seemed to struggle since the uniform supply shop only carried certain lengths. This was unfair, of course, and we were instructed to cut these girls some slack.

Then there were the other girls, about 10 per cent, I would estimate, who somewhere between leaving home and arriving on campus, would roll the waistbands of their skirts over two or more times until they were wearing something approaching a mini-skirt. Then they would lie and insist that they hadn't rolled anything up; they just had long legs.

This issue was raised in staff meeting by our female principal, and she insisted it was our responsibility as teachers to enforce skirt length. We were failing the ethos of the church and school by letting female students walk around like this. All the older, married men nodded along, and we single men panicked. I raised my hand and said boldly that as a young, unmarried male, the last thing I was going to do was to let anyone think I was looking at the lengths of students' skirts.

The principal was stunned by this and insisted I explain why. She honestly didn't get it, even after I had explained the risk, and none of the older men came to our defence.

Our most notorious skirt roller was in my year 12 English class. As graduation approached, I let her know that she wasn't passing because of numerous missing assignments. Her first response: to sit on my desk, bat her eyes at me, and insist sweetly that she was sure I wouldn't let a few missing assignments stop her graduating. I got up from my desk, walked to the far side of the room near the open window, and assured her that I was too honest not to.

Before the week was out, I was in the principal's office. This girl had gone home and told her parents that I was failing her because she had refused my sexual advances after class. Her mum, a member of the school board, had in her fury and indignation met with the principal to lodge an accusation of sexual misconduct against me.

In my defence, I showed the principal my grade book with the missing assignments, rehearsed for her exactly what had happened in the classroom, and then reminded her that this was precisely why I and the other single, male teachers had refused to comment on the length of female students' skirts!!! I think she finally got it.

Thankfully, I was believed, and the missing assignments were hastily finished and handed in (a compromise insisted upon by the principal), earning this girl just enough marks to secure a D and graduate. What a nightmare!

To this day, it remains my rule never to comment on how a female is dressed no matter what. A couple of years ago, we had an American family (maybe from California?) in our ward, and their daughter seemed to own nothing but mini-skirts. Not my issue. But one very frosty winter's Sunday, I was sitting in the foyer, and this poor girl's blue, goose bump-covered legs were clearly visible on the other side of the space. Stupidly (!) I said to the mum (who was near me) something about bare legs on a cold morning. I meant it as a generic, non-gendered statement -- literally something I've said to my boys many times when they insist on wearing rugby shorts in winter -- but she immediately turned on me: 'Why are you looking at my adolescent daughter's legs?'

So yeah. I'll never make that mistake again. Those of you who really like this particular minefield can have at it if you wish. That's a big nope from me.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan