Burkas, modesty rhetoric and where do we go from here

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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!

Funny how you found 2 in Utah!  I have yet to meet a bishop with a beard and I've been to wards in at least 9 states and 4 other countries.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Rain said:

Funny how you found 2 in Utah!  I have yet to meet a bishop with a beard and I've been to wards in at least 9 states and 4 other countries.

My husband had a beard as a counselor in Kansas 30 years ago but was required to shave as a High Councilman in Calgary 25 years ago.  Haven’t had bearded bishopric members in Utah for last almost 20 years.  I don’t remember a bishop with a beard ever. 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, katherine the great said:

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

It is like living sculpture. Men and women’s bodies in motion can leave me breathless at times (ballet, those lines of the legs and arms), but it is the same breathlessness I get when seeing a horse run or a hawk in flight or a school of fish turn in unison or a tree swaying in the wind and sun, so I am thinking I am not crossing any lines with my enjoyment.  The Lord created a world full of beauty. My guess is he wants us to enjoy it. 

Edited August 27, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

Having watched babies and preschoolers take great joy in discovering new ways of using their bodies, I think the Lord is likely unhappy with our cultures that are so eager to teach his children to not trust or even dislike and suppress their bodies rather than learning how to control and develop and wisely use them. 

Edited August 27, 2021 by Calm

[Amulek]

7 hours ago, Rain said:

Funny how you found 2 in Utah!  I have yet to meet a bishop with a beard and I've been to wards in at least 9 states and 4 other countries.

I've only ever had one bearded bishop. Unfortunately, it was only for the short time that I served in his ward as a missionary.

He wore a brown suit and Birkenstocks to church every Sunday and was one of the nicest people I have ever met.

 

[Peacefully]

8 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I've only ever had one bearded bishop. Unfortunately, it was only for the short time that I served in his ward as a missionary.

He wore a brown suit and Birkenstocks to church every Sunday and was one of the nicest people I have ever met.

 

The first and second counselors in our bishopric seem to take turns with the beards although both are clean-shaven, currently. One of the stake high council also had a beard recently, but I kind of think he grew it during the mask-wearing phase of church. 

[Peacefully]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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.

Thank you for sharing. That is scary stuff! I’m so happy you were believed, otherwise that story could have had a very different ending. That type of scenario probably keeps a lot of men from pursuing careers in secondary education.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Peacefully

[BlueDreams]

43 minutes ago, pogi said:

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:

The problem is likely how we're using the word. The gospel topics definition is super broad (and the google definition likewise uses the words extremely broadly). So I can get where you're coming from in using the word for several scenarios that the gospel topics and topical guide may use interchangeably. For the record, I don't know if I'm a fan of that use of a word. It becomes so broad that it's hard to tell without context what specific virtue one's talking about: temperance/moderation, chasteness, gentleness, kindness, or modesty as pertaining to apparel. At which point you don't need modesty lessons. After all modesty would practically just be a stand in to the word for "virtue" and talk about any or all of the virtues. 

I think me and BB as well as the main topic are taking a specific focus on modesty tied to appearance moreso than as a synonym for, say, temperance or gentleness. This is the use of the word, after all, that's directly tied to the thread and directly tied to how it's been applied to us as women. When I was a bratty teenager with a fairly angry tongue, no one pulled me aside and told me I was being immodest in my behavior (though that would fit the definition you refence). Rather whether I covered this part of my body to their standards was what was used to define me being "modest" or not. Doing so was then tied to either protecting oneself, having self-respect or dignity (as in I didn't really have a lot of respect for myself if I dressed like XYZ), or "helping" others (read as the men) from being tempted. And it's reorienting this specific aspect of modesty that I'm talking about as are many of others on this thread. 

 

 

 

Quote

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. 

 

All virtues to some degree are socially constructed. As in their social manifestations are likely strongly influenced by our cultures assumptions around them. Whether that social construct is more in line with what God means is the bigger question. 

i mentioned that I have a problem with the super broad definition of the word "modest." Really what I have a problem with is that it's heavily socially constructed. As in our cultural values are being inserted into the text moreso than the text is guiding our definition of the term. But even if it wasn't, the limited amount of references could in and of itself be a guide for reducing our focus on modesty as we currently teach it.

The topical guide, for example, references only 11 scriptures for modesty. Six are tied to apparel. Two are tied to A+E being clothed/recognizing their nakedness, 2 are new testament passages largely focusing on women wearing simple clothing and doing good works (and then littered with things that have been wrestled with and reoriented because a direct following of these passages often leads to/bolsters gendered hierarchy in homes and societies), 1 is the book of mormon, and 1 is in the D+C. These two focus on costly apparel as a problem and being lifted up in pride based in part on this. Minus A+E in the temple, none of these other passages we really follow or focus on in common church teachings today....at least not totally.  

The other 5 verses don't even use the word "modest" but another word that the person who compiled the topical guide infers are synonyms/related to modesty. These include "chaste" and "moderation" directly. 3 are inferred by the basic gists of passages....1 I don't really get what they're going with here (isaiah 3:1). The other 2 are similar to what I think you're going with, which is basically showing and emphasizing good behaviors, changed hearts, or actions in society that are deemed synonymous with being "modest." You don't really need to use the word modest to connect these. You could use the words they use or a catch-all phrase like virtue/virtuous to reference this idea of behavioral/attitude expression of conversion. There isn't something to really link these ideas to the apparel scriptures minus our own cultural definitions and assumptions.

And you could have a different link to clothes/apparel that's tied to a more specific definition of modesty, but have it link more to how virtues around apparel are actually described in the scriptures...namely to covenants/religious clothing and everyday clothing being more simple and less of a display of wealth/vanity. The Book of Mormon verses are probably the best in directly defining the principle with the new testatement and D+C showing moreso how two communities applied the specific virtue in their day and time. This would hypothetically also rearrange what scriptures we tied to "modesty" as well, adding some that I think are missing. How that plays out with each of us may likely change with our context (as in how do we in essence exhibit temporal humility in our clothes/spendings and avoid excessively vain pursuits or symbols of earthly success? How do we avoid judging people who may have lesser monetary means than we do or overvaluing those who have been monetarily/temporally successful). Dressing with others in mind with this would be at best a side thought to dressing for ourselves and our covenants with God in this context...and more tied with indicating a standard that is not of the world (ie materialism) but a outward sign of devotion to a higher purpose (God and service).

So in short, I think it would be better if we more clearly define modesty as a subset of virtue that's focused on apparel and garments less so for covering certain amount of skin or the cultural derived reasons for doing so that overemphasizes women's effect on men and more to do with 1.) avoiding vain pursuits and overvaluing wealth or outward symbols of earthly success/acceptability and 2) ancient symbols of our covenants to God. I would see the 1st definition as preparatory to the second and what we would focus on our youth to prepare them for the temple. And the 2nd more emphasized in temple prep and adult gospel discussions to remind us of our covenants and the purposes of garments tied with this more specific definition of modesty. The other broader aspects of being kind, temperate, mindful of others, etc could be tied to it to a degree but also stand as a separate topic when discussing christ-like attributes or in reference of other virtues when they are brought up.  

In this model, it doesn't mean that the man's poor behaviors would not be covered in teaching about varying aspects of virtuous propriety. It just wouldn't need to fit under the limited umbrella of modesty. 

 

With luv,

BD

[pogi]

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I think me and BB as well as the main topic are taking a specific focus on modesty tied to appearance moreso than as a synonym for, say, temperance or gentleness.

I agree with modesty being about appearances, and I too am trying to reorient how it is taught as it has clearly harmed women.   I am a little confused though, because I thought that appearances in relation to modesty is what everyone has been trying to get away from in this thread - trying to make it more about a general relationship with God without regard to how we appear to others and how they perceive us.  If modesty is about appearances, then modesty is by definition about dressing for others.   I 100% agree that modesty should be about appearance, but not simply in dress, but also in speech, and actions.  Modesty is about how we communicate to others, verbally and nonverbally.  I think we would all agree that it is important to be considerate of others in our communication.  I think some are unnecessarily straining at the idea of dressing for others.  It should be no different or cause no more anxiety than it does to be considerate of others in our speech.  I understand that it is different for women than men, and the previous teachings absolutely have caused anxiety and body shame issues, with historical expectations from both sides tugging at them - that is what I am trying to get away from.  It doesn’t have to be that way.  We don’t have to throw out the baby with the bath water.  We can't please everyone, there will be miscommunications, but we do our best to practice propriety.  It could/should be the same with how we communicate in our dress.  Yes, that is based on a social construct - but so is language in general.  But as you say, that is unavoidable.  Even your definition is largely based on a social construct. 

I agree that modesty should be a subset of virtue.  The way modesty would be distinguished from virtue in general, to address the dilemma you perceive in my approach, is that it would specifically deal with virtue in our communication with others.  Modesty is about communication and the messages we send verbally and non-verbally.   It is very clear and specific, and yet broad enough to help us be more mindful of the many different ways that we communicate with other people.  Also, we wouldn't have to rewrite the dictionary and the definition used by the church.  We could essentially keep modesty as it is, but reorient how we teach it to make it less harmful to women.  

In other words, the way I would teach modesty to youth today is that modesty = mindfulness in our communication via speech and other non-verbal outward symbols, and how that should be in sync with our religious views of virtue in general.  Modesty = love for God, self, and others in how we communicate.  No mention of shoulders, knees, etc.  It would be about becoming mindful of the why's of dress.  What am I trying to say?  What kind of attention/avoidance am I trying to achieve? And as you say, is it inspired by vanity and outward symbols of success/acceptance?

I think this approach would be much easier to apply with the framework we already have, and would get to the heart (rather than the skin) of modesty. 

I don't think we are that far apart on this issue.  I just think my approach is a little more broad to include all forms of communication as the definition of modesty requires. 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2021 by pogi

[BlueDreams]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

I agree with modesty being about appearances, and I too am trying to reorient how it is taught as it has clearly harmed women.   I am a little confused though, because I thought that appearances in relation to modesty is what everyone has been trying to get away from in this thread - trying to make it more about a general relationship with God without regard to how we appear to others and how they perceive us.

I'll see if I can try to break it down one more time. To be clear there are several pages of posts I haven't read on this thread. I'm basing my assessment on the first page and then the last few pages that I had the time to read to figure out where the current discussion is at. Modesty can be about apparel. But I think there's 3 main differences in what I'm suggesting: 1) I'm not talking about appearances, I'm talking about our choice of apparel 2). I'm not talking about covering the body as much as I'm talking about avoiding materialism 3) I'm not talking about doing so "for others" but for checking our own hearts and focus....if that effects others, that is secondary and not a primary reason for modest dress. 

THe next part, I'm mixing and matching some of your post to help better organize my own thoughts

4 hours ago, pogi said:

  If modesty is about appearances, then modesty is by definition about dressing for others.   I 100% agree that modesty should be about appearance, but not simply in dress, but also in speech, and actions. ....

I agree that modesty should be a subset of virtue.  The way modesty would be distinguished from virtue in general, to address the dilemma you perceive in my approach, is that it would specifically deal with virtue in our communication with others.  Modesty is about communication and the messages we send verbally and non-verbally.   It is very clear and specific, and yet broad enough to help us be more mindful of the many different ways that we communicate with other people. 

 

As I mentioned, I definitely don't think of modesty as about "appearances." And I don't know if that really distinguished Modesty from other virtues. let's take the ones I mentioned: temperance/moderation, chasteness, gentleness, kindness. All of them would still fit the idea of "communication  and the messages we send verbally and non-verbally." Temperance/moderation could note being careful/measure/balance in our speech, chasteness would entail sexual messages and communications that match our relationships and belief in fidelity. Gentleness and kindness I have a hard time picturing how it couldn't be about our communications. It can also tie to compassion, patience, long-suffering, etc. So this doesn't really distinguish modesty as a broad definition from any other virtues. What you mention to me is still a broader aspect of several other virtues, rather than something that's solidly distinct in modesty.  

Quote

 

Modesty is about how we communicate to others, verbally and nonverbally.  I think we would all agree that it is important to be considerate of others in our communication.  I think some are unnecessarily straining at the idea of dressing for others.  It should be no different or cause no more anxiety than it does to be considerate of others in our speech.  I understand the knee-jerk repulsion brought on by previous teaching methods on dressing for men, but it doesn’t have to be that way.  We don’t have to throw out the baby with the bath water.  We can't please everyone, there will be miscommunications, but we do our best to practice propriety.  It could/should be the same with how we communicate in our dress.  Yes, that is based on a social construct - but so is language in general.  But as you say, that is unavoidable.  Even your definition is largely based on a social construct..

Also, we wouldn't have to rewrite the dictionary and the definition used by the church.  We could essentially keep modesty as it is, but reorient how we teach it to make it less harmful to women...

I think part of the problem is that this strongly underestimates social messaging on women that effects just how much we focus on the needs of others. To the point that it regularly comes up as a problem in my therapy sessions. Just this week I celebrated a co-worker saying no to a potential new obligation that would have stretched her too far...a trap that she'd fallen in again and again including in her marriage. It represented a major shift in her modus operandi. Women are more socially trained to have this potential virtue of being considerate to the point that it often becomes a vice. And because of just how potent this problem is, I'm extremely cautious in emphasizing this message in female circles in any form. The balance in what women consider often goes other people - god - me for many many women insomuch that the last part of that equation may almost entirely disappear. For men (and a few women) the vice version may more likely go me - god - others or me - others - god.... And in those, learning more from the aspects of virtue(s) that teaches them to really take in other people's experience would be important. These messages were especially caustic around dress and still are. That can't simply be ignored when moving forward with teaching it or it will likely continue just with a different veneer. 

Again we have a really solid cancer in our society that's extremely gendered. If we're not mindful of that when we're teaching this, we will likely feed the problem even if we don't mean to. 

 

Quote

In other words, the way I would teach modesty to youth today is that modesty = mindfulness in our communication via speech and other non-verbal outward symbols, and how that should be in sync with our religious views of virtue in general.  Modesty = love for God, self, and others in how we communicate.  No mention of shoulders, knees, etc.  It would be about becoming mindful of the why's of dress.  What am I trying to say?  What kind of attention/avoidance am I trying to achieve? And as you say, is it inspired by vanity and outward symbols of success/acceptance?

I think this approach would be much easier to apply with the framework we already have, and would get to the heart (rather than the skin) of modesty. 

I don't think we are that far apart on this issue.  I just think my approach is a little more broad to include all forms of communication as the definition of modesty requires. 

The differences we do have to me would make a big difference to some of our gendered problems that we have around modesty more quickly. Modesty = Avoiding materialistic focuses and judgment calls and maintaining our sacred emblems once we're endowed meant to focus us on godly things. This is ripped right from the times apparel are mentioned in scriptures. You can get to aspects of being considerate or having some social propriety in other virtues that more accurately fit this concern and are less likely to trip into a huge cultural problem. Mine efficiently clips out some of the major issues I see with our current model - it recenters us on a scriptural narrative around clothing, it actively condemns making judgments on others attire, and it recenters the focus of our apparel on our relationship to God. I'm not willing to give much leg room to the problems I see with how women are taught about modesty. And being mindful of other with how we dress is a quick and slippery slope to those issues.

 

With luv,

BD

[rodheadlee]

Womensplaining how men's bodies work ain't gonna work. Carry on. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

Womensplaining how men's bodies work ain't gonna work. Carry on. 

What women here do you think is taking on the role of explaining how men’s bodies work?  Serious question as I would like to understand how you see what has been said.

I would suggest though what most women here are saying is it is men and boys’ business to control their own bodies, not women and girls.  We don’t want to explain or be responsible for male bodies.  Our own are enough responsibility for us.

Edited August 28, 2021 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

On 8/26/2021 at 10:56 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

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.

Three or four years ago the assistant principal at my high school would come on the PA at the beginning of first period and tell everyone to stand up. Teachers were then supposed to check everyone for dress code violations. I am exactly with you, Hamba. I told my students to remain sitting and we just started class. I am not going to be looking over all of the girls (the dress code for the boys is so basic that it's pretty impossible to break it) to see if their shoulder straps are less than 3 fingers wide, or if their skirts are however many inches too high above the knee, or whatever.

This year our school has pretty much stopped enforcing the dress code. Thank God. Yes, there are more belly buttons being shown (the horror!) and a couple of hats here and there, but amazingly enough teaching and learning hasn't been affected.

Edited August 28, 2021 by MiserereNobis

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Womensplaining how men's bodies work ain't gonna work. Carry on. 

I don't know of any woman on the thread trying to tell a man how their bodies work.  What we have been saying is that we are not responsible for how they work.  That's all you guys.

[mfbukowski]

So glad this issue is now finished, and we never need to bring it up again.

I mean, since it's so simple, there is no need for further discussion!

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't know of any woman on the thread trying to tell a man how their bodies work.  What we have been saying is that we are not responsible for how they work.  That's all you guys.

 

[Tacenda]

53 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Three or four years ago the assistant principal at my high school would come on the PA at the beginning of first period and tell everyone to stand up. Teachers were then supposed to check everyone for dress code violations. I am exactly with you, Hamba. I told my students to remain sitting and we just started class. I am not going to be looking over all of the girls (the dress code for the boys is so basic that it's pretty impossible to break it) to see if their shoulder straps are less than 3 fingers wide, or if their skirts are however many inches too high above the knee, or whatever.

This year our school has pretty much stopped enforcing the dress code. Thank God. Yes, there are more belly buttons being shown (the horror!) and a couple of hats here and there, but amazingly enough teaching and learning hasn't been affected.

Glad the teacher ignored for the reason you said. Sometimes when I sub it can get a little irritating when the principal goes on and on about really trivial things in the mornings and I'm worried to be able to get clear through the sub plan for the day. But that sounds so Nazi like to me that the assistant principal wanted these inspections. 

Edited August 28, 2021 by Tacenda

[bsjkki]

And in India, girls want to be able to wear pants. Culture is a large part of dress codes. And they have the same problem of it being about the boys. https://m.timesofindia.com/city/chennai/schools-shatter-glass-ceiling-with-unisex-dress-codes/articleshow/72062982.cms
 

Edited August 28, 2021 by bsjkki

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

So glad this issue is now finished, and we never need to bring it up again.

I mean, since it's so simple, there is no need for further discussion!

 

You'd think so, except for all the teachings that we get (now, much less so thank goodness) about how women need to dress modestly to help the men deal with the way their bodies work.

Sometimes we are really good at complicating simple issues.

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

And in India, girls want to be able to wear pants. Culture is a large part of dress codes. And they have the same problem of it being about the boys. https://m.timesofindia.com/city/chennai/schools-shatter-glass-ceiling-with-unisex-dress-codes/articleshow/72062982.cms
 

I'd love to know why pants don't objective a man's body?

[MustardSeed]

Just now, bluebell said:

I'd love to know why pants don't objective a man's body?

It’s not dawned on enough men and women that women can be sexually inclined.  In our patriarchal environment, the subtle messaging is that women provide men sexual pleasure, end o story.  
Once women begin to embrace their own sexuality, we will all be happier IMO. 

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

It’s not dawned on enough men and women that women can be sexually inclined.  In our patriarchal environment, the subtle messaging is that women provide men sexual pleasure, end o story.  
Once women begin to embrace their own sexuality, we will all be happier IMO. 

Not really.

In the early 70's men became very aware of "performance" issues. Listen to the song "Ruby Don't Take Your Love to Town"

But I suppose that was not an issue for young LDS girls

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Womensplaining how men's bodies work ain't gonna work. Carry on. 

Maybe not but it might drive home how obnoxious the opposite is.

[The Nehor]

On 8/26/2021 at 5:29 PM, katherine the great said:

Maybe an American style swimsuit. 

 

Meh. Chris Hemsworth maybe. 
 

 

Because he’s gorgeous. 
 

 

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

Yeah, I could just melt into his arms.

 

Wait, what were we talking about?

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Not really.

In the early 70's men became very aware of "performance" issues. Listen to the song "Ruby Don't Take Your Love to Town"

But I suppose that was not an issue for young LDS girls

There will always be exceptions to absolutes. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

There will always be exceptions to absolutes. 

I dunno. In Utah maybe you don't get as many tv "enhancement" commercials as we do in LA. On TV!

But you know, last week was my first experience with education week in my 41 years of membership, and I got a very deep, nearly weepy sense of being among MY people.

It's quite different than conference to see that many members NOT Sunday dressed and in their own natural habitat.

I have loved the church fo 42 years now, but this time I loved "them Mormons" kickin back with their families and jest takin pitchers with Aunt Tessie, weird as we are.