(I just got back from lunch. I spent lunch outside, allowing the sun and the gentle breeze caress my uncovered calves. I love spring.)
There's a few things I can't quite figure out about the extreme fundamentalist Christian subculture when it comes to female modesty. (Well, okay, more than a few.)
First of all, I thought the purpose of female modesty was so that women would not draw attention to themselves. Ignoring the reality of how men are, practitioners claim to cover up not quite to the point of a burqa or abaya so that men will not have lustful thoughts about them. So, why all the pride about standing out in a crowd?
A godly woman is very noticeable in a crowd. She is not the one with the
expensive, fancy clothes or the one who is loudest in the crowd. Instead her
spirit is quiet and she carries herself with humility. She doesn't try to
attract attention but instead she draws attention with her meekness because that
is such a rare quality today. She draws attention because she is a rare gem
standing in contrast against the muddy darkness of the world.
So, humility that draws attention? Immodest modesty? What?
Also, why do these women get all "Onward, Christian soldiers!" about wearing skirts exclusively?
I can't tell you how many times I've seen the following: "I'm switching to wearing only skirts and I can only imagine what people will say!"
Um, what do you think people are going to say, exactly? I'm an atheist and I wear skirts 95% of the time. I have 1 pair of jeans and 1 pair of work pants (that are actually also jeans, but in a herringbone pattern and trouser cut). I wear skirts* (or dresses) in the dead of winter. I wear skirts to walk to the store, to mow the lawn, while cleaning, really just all the time. I like skirts. I like the way they look, the way they feel, and the way they fit. (You try combining short with long waisted and see how many pants fit.)
Nobody says a word to me about this, ever. On the occasions when anyone comments on my clothing, it's always, "Oh, you look nice!" or "Is that new? It's really pretty!" I suppose it's possible people are snarking on my skirt wearing ways behind my back, but I've never heard any of it.
So . . . do these fundys all know really rude people? Or do they just like to pretend that skirts = major cultural issues that will result in confrontations for Jesus? Do they really think the rest of us care that much?
*All my skirts are around knee length, but that's mostly just to prevent me from looking stubby.
Odd.
ReplyDeleteThe born-again women I know are always impecably dressed. Modest in the sense of little skin showing, but they generally wear very nice clothing, and their hair and is usually perfect.
I find them lust-worthy.
That's actual modest modesty, in that while you might notice that they look "impecable", well dressed with nicely styled hair doesn't really stand out in a crowd. (Unless it's a crowd of homeless people or athletes in full gear.)
ReplyDeleteDressing like you might have stepped off the set for a remake of Little House on the Prairie, on the other hand, tends to draw attention.
I used to wear long skirts and tall boots. That way I could go to work in my long underwear and no one would know.
ReplyDeleteI encourage skirt wearing, have worn a few in my past. They are very comfortable.
ReplyDeleteI think the whole you will stand is just another way to say they are being persecuted. Being gossiped about is equal to being tortured to death.
I encourage skirt wearing because of air flow alone. I feel bad for guys and their lack of access to air flow for their genitals. It must get uncomfortable in the summer.
ReplyDeleteIt must get uncomfortable in the summer
ReplyDeleteNot if you walk around nekkid as a jaybird...
I'm still counting on BeamStalk to whip out the purple kilt for his Atheist Army uniform. That will be HAWT. Though not modest, necessarily...
ReplyDeleteI suppose it depends on whether or not Beamstalk has perfected the "bend at the knees" strategy of picking things up off the floor while wearing a skirt . . .
ReplyDeleteAnd now I need to repress all memories of this thread. Somebody get me the repressing hammer.
ReplyDeleteActually, a girl who is quiet and shy would attract attention from me (unfortionately, me being me, it'd be quiet, shy attention and we'd probably never even speak to each other), but all the "godly" women I know are quite the opposite.
Hey, isn't that a contradiction? You're meant to evangelise, but not draw attention to yourself?
Well, to be fair, I *can* only imagine what people would say if I switched to wearing only skirts.
ReplyDeleteBut that's just because I don't have the legs for it.
Well, that and the fact that I live in Texas...
Hey Personal Failure: I recently found an asshole that sets new records for stupid evil bigoted misogynistic christian arrogance. I'd never heard of him before.
ReplyDeleteWARNING: Do not read if you value your calm.
Vox Day, Internet Superintelligence.
This is the very first thing I read, entering his blog:
"As I have said many times before, calling a feminist a feminazi is an insult to the German National Socialist Worker's Party."
That's right. According to Mr Day, feminists are worse than nazi's. And he's said it "many times before."
James, thanks for pointing out that article; I found it informative. It's sad that so many extreme feminists are comfortable with the idea of killing millions of people, what he referred to as an "anti-female holocaust", under the shout of women's freedom and choice.
ReplyDeleteCura_te_ipsum:
ReplyDeleteAt first I thought you were being sarcastic. Actually, I'm still not sure you're not. I apologise if I've got you wrong.
Seriously, do you really think that feminists are comfortable with the idea that "sons are more valued than daughters" in countries like China and India?
Do you think that pro-choicers support the killing of newborns? Or the abortion of fetus's based on something as shallow as gender?
One last question: do you know the meaning of a "strawman caricature"?
No, James, they are not. "Pro-choicers" generally are also not promoting abstinence or adoption, but rather the right to choose killing or not. They are well aware of the statistical likelihood that a girl will choose abortion over other options yet they support it anyway. Do these things not clarify some sort of an agenda? If they were so uncomfortable with the idea of entitlement killing, why are they not pushing birth as much as they are abortion funding for example? What you write off as a "strawman" is simply ignorance of what is going on.
ReplyDelete@CN and PF,
ReplyDeleteWell I am of Scottish descent, my great grandmother moved to Oklahoma from Scotland, she was a McNevin. The clan colors are blue and white with some yellow and green, so I can only imagine that the tartan for it would be in similar colors. So sorry no purple, but I would be happy to wear a kilt. Plus it shows off my basketball legs. With a kilt you bend at the legs or you show everybody everything.
I can well imagine skirts are comfortable. Someday I'll get a kilt in my tartan (Wallace- very simple and elegant).
ReplyDeleteAnd Vox Day is one of those very few people from whom the world is probably, on the whole, safer because they're some kind of Christian.
"Pro-choicers" generally are also not promoting abstinence or adoption, but rather the right to choose killing or not.
ReplyDeleteAbstinence doesn't work (The full report can be found here). But in my experience they generally promote things like sex education and contraception, which do.
Personally, I've always been a supporter and promoter of adoption.
What you write off as a "strawman" is simply ignorance of what is going on.
This is absolutely true and also utterly hilarious, although probably unintentionally. :)