What is this?
It’s a rhetorical question— I know I’ve actually read through this before, and found it really bizarre and misogynistic, but I didn’t remember it being this bad.
Statement: “Denim jackets with faded sections on the chest draw too much attention to the bust.” [agree/disagree]
“Absolutely! Do you WANT people to think that section of your clothing is getting rubbed a lot more?”
Statement: “It is okay for girls to wear tighter and/or more revealing clothes if they are working out.” [agree/disagree]
“If one so implicitly desires to work out in an “exercise bra,” they can put a home-gym in their basement.”
“However, if they are working out in a room full of brutes then where’s the wisdom or purity in that? Be discerning.”
“When possible it would be better to not work out/exercise in the presence of guys so that modesty is not an issue and comfort can be chosen instead.”
“Only if there are no guys around. Girls should avoid working out around guys as much as possible.”
“Just as at the beach, the opera and the girls’ volleyball game, guys’ hormones don’t magically shut off at the health club. Obviously, if there aren’t any guys around, the rules are somewhat different. Some activities that are co-ed should be segregated.”
Statement: “Immodest clothing is not a problem (for you) when a girl in your own family wears it.” [agree/disagree]
“My younger sister, 14, is just recently becoming more of a young lady. It was not too long ago that I (for the first time) had to bring up her dress to her. It’s not a question of incest. It’s a question of instinct. I could probably think for a moment and realize that it’s my sister, but why be put in that position in the beginning?” [this from a 22-year-old, by the way]
“I radically disagree. It does not matter if the girl is my sister or not, it is still an assault on godly beauty, and my chastity.”
“Even my Mom can attract my attention if she isn’t careful.” [if she isn’t careful. If SHE isn’t careful. If she isn’t CAREFUL. !!!]
Statement: “A technically modest outfit can be a stumbling block when it has attached sexual associations (e.g. a “school girl” outfit after Britney Spears released a music video where she was dressed as an “innocent” school girl, but acted very provocatively.)” [agree/disagree]
“It is a bad reflection on the girl (to me) when they knowingly emulate a style with obvious immoral or immodest connotations. And how are we to know if they are not doing this on purpose?”
Statement: “Showing any cleavage is immodest.” [agree/disagree]
“Any amount of cleavage immediately inspires the mind to think of breasts, which should be for only a girl’s husband. And thoughts of breasts lead to more sinful thoughts.”
“I think that clothes that show cleavage should be purged out of the wardrobe.” [whoops, there goes half my wardrobe…]
“Most guys like to look at girls breasts anyways, if a girl is showing it off it’s almost like your telling him it is okay.”
“It’s probably my largest temptation. Keep it hidden for the husband.”
Statement: “Exposing the chest below the collarbone, even without cleavage, is immodest.” [agree/disagree]
“Immodesty has to start somewhere, we should not be trying to walk the line, but flee from it.”
“I agree mildly—let me explain. The more skin that is exposed the more risk of being a stumbling block to a brother. And another caution is that if you have a dress that has a neck that comes down past the collar bone (I have seen it especially on those that have squarish necks) you have much more of a chance when you bend over of exposing yourself. (and don’t kid yourself by saying “I won’t bend over”) Most often from the dresses that I have seen that expose the chest bellow the collar bone are immodest if you bend over (cleavage or worse will be visible.) Thus I believe that it is generally immodest to wear a dress that exposes below the collarbone. Does this make sense? I do not think that it is necessarily immodest for me to see your collarbone, but almost all dresses that exposes your collar bone will be immodest.”
[but see also:] “As a man, I don’t really see how anyone could really defend this position. Never once in my long career of being in a locker room and hearing lewd talk have I ever heard a man say “DUDE! DID YOU SEE HER COLLAR BONE!?!? AND THE TWO INCHES OF SKIN BENEATH IT?!”“
Statement: “Seeing even an inch of skin between the bottom of a girl’s shirt and her pants is a stumbling block.” [agree/disagree] [and have you noticed how these questions are written in such a leading fashion?]
“I wouldn’t say it’s a stumbling block, but it says something about the girl if she’s wearing a shirt that doesn’t come down all the way. A girl that dresses like that is generally going to be immodest anyway, in my opinion.”
Statement: “Semi-transparent sleeves are a stumbling block.” [agree/disagree]
“They are often a symptom of girls trying to attract guys with their bodies under the guise of modesty. Check your hearts.”
Statement: “It is a stumbling block for a girl to sit with her legs spread apart.” [agree/disagree]
“Respect yourself. That’s not respectful.”
“It is not a stumbling block, but it is definitely unladylike.”
“Not a stumbling block, but poor manners.”
“For one thing, it’s not the way any girl should sit in the first place.”
Statement: “It is a stumbling block to see a girl lying down, even if she’s just hanging out on the floor or on a couch with her friends.” [agree/disagree]
“Again a lot depends on what she’s wearing, exactly how she’s lying, the atmosphere of the situation, and the state of mind of the guy observing her, but there is a very real possibility (perhaps probability) that it could be problematic, especially if the guy is already attracted to the girl.”
“I think there should be a careful evaluation on the part of the girl before lying down around a bunch of guys. However, in terms of the inherent modest/immodesty of the action, I can’t say it is a stumbling block by itself. In certain clothes, however, it would be a clear, 100% problem.”
“Somehow, lying down just seems to draw attention to all of the wrong places (face down=buttocks; side=hips; face up=breasts)”
“Depends on how she’s lying, though I lean towards it being immodest.”
“Even modest cloths can become immodest when some people lie down. And all around it’s not very proper. Although if a girl had to lay down I find it less of a stumbling block if she laid down on her side instead of her back.”
“It can almost look “inviting.”“
Statement: “A girl bending over and exposing her lower back is a stumbling block.” [agree/disagree]
“Yes, a bit. I love it when a lady places her hand behind her to cover her lower back. I think that is so thoughtful!”
“It does not necessarily mean that I would imply immodesty upon that person, because such breaches are usually ‘accidental’ and I would avert my eyes. But don’t think it’s ok to keep on doing it carelessly.”
Statement: “Lifting a long skirt any higher than the knee in order to step over something is a stumbling block.” [agree/disagree]
“Anywhere you’d need to do that, you should probably be wearing [modest] pants.”
“I have known a lot of people that only wear skirts and they have done pretty much everything in them and they have never had to hike their skirts up past their knees.”
“Yes, it is. I’m tempted to see how high your going to pull it up and my imagination starts to wander away from where I’d like it. It doesn’t have to go above your knee for you to step over something, especially if it’s a really loose skirt. If it does then you should probably not step over it or get another girl to help you.”
“It should not come above the knee. Pants or skirts should always be at least knee length and stay that far down.”
[but see also:] “Lifting long skirts is *necessary* if a woman wants to wear those garments while being active. It is certainly not the responsibility of women to stay inside all day rather than risk tempting someone; when it comes to necessary activities, it’s guys’ responsibility to control ourselves.”
Statement: “Seeing a girl’s chest bounce when she is walking or running is a stumbling block.” [agree/disagree]
“This is mostly an issue with undersized and push-up bras. General tip: Uncomfortable bras probably weren’t designed to be uncomfortable, but rather to attract guys.”
“When walking, yes. Running is more understandable, and I usually am not tempted to look at the chest of a girl running anyway.”“Running/exercise garments are cheap. Please use them.” [they’re really, really not]
“Please don’t let your chest bounce. I’m sorry, but that can really be distracting.”
“I can’t agree more. Girls need to take this into consideration before taking off and running.”
I could go on and on, but most of this speaks for itself. Oh no, I have breasts, and they move when I walk! The horror! (If anyone without breasts has, for any reason, doubts about the ridiculousness of this criticism, try this experiment: fasten two filled water balloons to your chest. Try to move without making them bounce.) Women, beware lest you bend over, exercise, walk, lay, nay sit in the presence of a man lest you do it too ~sexily~! It's best for you to wear a potato sack and not move at all.
Have I mentioned that this survey has pictures? It is illustrated with pictures of the immodest fashions in question-- if they're so alluring, why are the survey-makers putting them in the way of the boys and men taking this survey? It's uncomfortably reminiscent of a bunch of dudes sitting around perving over pictures of women and then blaming the women for making them do it.
The picture at the top shows a woman who's covering her face below the eyes. Is this really the ideal the bloggers are holding up? Do they realize that if women dressed like this, the only thing it would accomplish is raising a generation of men with eye fetishes?
I also recall that, when asked if they would make an equivalent survey about men, the survey-makers simply said "No." This is not about modesty. It's about controlling women. If I said, “Men, when you sit with your legs open it’s a stumbling block because it highlights the fact that you have external genitalia, please stop doing that,” I’d probably be called a freak and told to get therapy for my abnormal lusts. If I said, "Men, everyone knows women are into big biceps, so you should wear long-sleeved shirts at all times so as not to tempt us," I'd get a lecture on propriety. If I said, "Men, your pecs are too sexy, you must always wear baggy shirts," I'd be told that women simply don't work that way. This is a double standard, about controlling the behavior of 50% of the people on the planet, and I'm not sure what it has to do with Christianity.
(The same blog that hosts the survey also hosts a lot of stuff about reviving chivalry [women, pretend you need help to make men feel good about themselves!] and what makes a "real man" and a "real woman," so I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the survey. But I am, and what's more, I'm thoroughly creeped out.)
P.S. Apparently I'm not a real woman. Oh no! Whatever shall I do?
4 comments:
Thanks for posting this! The comments on that survey are really interesting, and completely disturbing. Let's all sit around in sacks with our boobs taped down!
I'm reminded of a priest who worked at a church on a reservation I worked at for awhile. He always did homilies about women's immodesty and how they were ruining church and the world by wearing such slutty clothing and tempting the menfolk into sin. He thought women shouldn't show anything between their collarbones and their mid-calf. He was awful- a terrible misogynist.
Well, recently he posted an ad on facebook for a male-speaker who would be coming to the church. The speaker in the ad was conventionally handsome, super muscular, and wearing an incredibly tight tank top that showed off his biceps,pecs,and even stomach muscles because it was so tight. A woman commented that she hoped he didn't dress like that when he came to speak in the church because it was "immodest" and "tempting." And the priest scolded her for being judgemental, for juding a person based on their appearances and their clothing, for not being able to see past appearances,and for being tempted at all. He went on to tell this woman all about how issues of modesty are different because women and men are wired differently.
So, apparently, it is ok to judge women who dress "immodestly" and blame them for the destruction of the world, but not men. I was so disgusted and appalled by such a blatantly sexist and gendered double standard! As you said, so much of the modesty rhetoric isn't about modesty at all, it is about controlling women. It is a double standard and it doesn't and shouldn't have anything to do with Christianity.
That is surprisingly disturbing. I've heard of the site before, but I hadn't read any of the comments (because I have a general rule of "if it's not a feminist website, don't read the comments"). What is the purpose of that website?
Hi Shannon,
Thanks for your thoughts. Unfortunately I suspect there are lots of people, of all genders, like your priest running around out there. The "men and women are wired differently" argument is one I find particularly annoying! I've been very lucky in that the Christian background in which I was raised had no weird hang-ups about modesty beyond the usual-- I had several bikinis as a kid and a teenager, for example.
Hi Ben,
As far as I can tell, The Rebelution is based around the Alex and Brett Harris brand, who have a youth-targeted ministry. They're known for their "Do Hard Things" campaign; their brother Josh (I believe) wrote "I Kissed Dating Goodbye." According to their website, "the Rebelution has really become a type of counter-cultural youth movement among Christian young people from around the country, and even around the world, who are not only rejecting the lies and the corruption of media-saturated youth culture, but they're returning to biblical and historical levels of character and competence. "
Character, competence, and inspiring teens are well and good, but unfortunately they've wrapped it up in a specific cultural context of conservative Christianity.
Post a Comment