Last Sunday night I got asked to speak this Sunday, and I thought what I could do was write drafts of the talk in here, and then publish the final form, thus sharing the talk.
The problem with this is that I actually can't write a talk. I will think about it a lot, and get ideas, but when I try to write it out, it doesn't work. I guess I thought that making it a blog post would trick it. I wasn't planning on taking the written talk up there, but going through the words could have been helpful.
When I finally sat down to write, even though I was trying to basically type the words already in my head, everything still felt wrong. There were other things in my head though about the topic, which is how repentance is a gift. So I thought perhaps what I needed to do was a journal session where I covered the other issue, and that ended up going not at all how I thought it would go. I was beating myself up for something, and as soon as I started writing I felt a lot better about it, so that was something I very much needed, but still I was not writing anything really talk related.
A part of me that already knows that going up there with bookmarks for four scriptures and three keywords written down is actually the way I need to do this, and that I shouldn't fight it. If I write it out it might get too pat or too clever and polished, and my strength as a speaker is probably my urgent sincerity.
At the same time it felt like that there were things in the topic that were going to be valuable, and if I could share it, and have it out here on the internet, that could be good too.
Fortunately there is a precedent for this. About 21 years ago I also spoke on repentance, and I also went up there with very little to go on, though that time there were five scriptures. However, after the talk, a woman in the ward mentioned how she wished her son could have heard it, and so I typed it up for her, as I remembered it, and it worked out. That's what I am going to try and do for next week.
So, that's not necessarily helpful information for preparing a talk. That is the only thing that works for me, but it would not necessarily work for everyone else. I do have one tip though, which I recommend for everyone...
Don't make a big deal about not being able to avoid giving the talk, or the story of how you were called to talk, unless there is an important spiritual point to it. In this church we give talks. That's how it goes. I remember a talk once where the speaker spent more time introducing her talk than on the topic, where a metaphor about how there is no perfect way to craft a talk like there is to make cookies was clearly just a way to let people know she made good cookies.
And there would have been absolutely nothing wrong with her just telling us that. Who doesn't like cookies, or knowing where to locate good cookies? The way she did it really detracted from the talk itself though, so don't do that.
Sunday, June 29, 2014
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Garden Report - June
Not just this month, but this week, had a contrast of highs and lows.
I had started feeling pretty encouraged by the proliferation of blossoms. The first zucchini blossom was exciting, but suddenly there were a lot, and lots of pea blossoms. By Wednesday I had noticed a few small green tomatoes, and in addition to little pea pods shooting out and filling out, there were at least two new zucchini forming.
This was all very encouraging, but it led to a new worry: what if I don't know when to harvest? I know you don't want to let zucchini get too big, because they start getting tougher and less flavorful, but what size is big enough and ripe enough? The pea pods apparently start out flat, like snow peas, but then get thicker. When should I pick them?
It was clear from the start that I was going to be neurotic about this, and I had decided it was going to be a learning year, so that should take some of the pressure off, but it is kind of interesting watching new worries crop up.
When I focus on Wednesday, there are two reasons I focus on that day. One is that it was my day off, so I spent some extra time in the garden. The other is that in the Beaverton Leader I saw that there was going to be a presentation the next night at the library on maximizing your garden space. This was something I have been thinking about a lot. Normally a friend and I go walking on Thursday nights, but I thought she might be interested and she was. We decided we would go and then walk.
The presentation was really good. I don't know that I will implement anything this year, but it gives me some ideas for next year, and knowing more about the possibilities is exciting. Also, as we were talking about biennials, it was brief, but it filled in some understanding for me on how they grow. In addition, they gave us a seed packet with some different lettuce in it. I do have some space where I can put that, and I will. What a great night!
The low came the following evening. I went to water the garden. A few of us have been sharing a hose, and one other person was there and using it. I waited for my turn, and I did try using the hose from the tap it was attached to, but it did not quite reach right. I asked if it was all right if I moved it, and she was fine with that, but I needed to turn off the water before disconnecting the hose.
I turned the handle, but the water was still going. I thought that was odd, but maybe I had turned it the wrong way, so I tried turning the other way and it came right off!
A geyser was now erupting from where the handle had been. In panic I dropped the handle, so my first thought was to try and find that and maybe I could jam it back in. Once found, the water pressure was too great for reattachment. Okay, maybe taking off the hose would cause the water to come out of the spout, and then I could reattach the handle. The hose came off, but the water kept on shooting up from the wrong area. This was bad.
Fortunately, I did have my cell phone on me. There are two numbers posted at the garden: one for garden information and one for the park patrol. It was 9PM on a Friday night, so I called the park patrol. He said he would try and get a hold of maintenance.
I didn't feel like I could leave. The garden has a gate with a combination padlock. Regular crew would probably know the combination, but this was sort of an emergency situation and I didn't know who would be coming. I didn't want to accidentally lock someone out, and I did not want to leave it unlocked. Besides, I wanted to know that it did get fixed.
So, I stood outside the fence and watched my garden flood for about half an hour. There were mainly three plots that it was hitting, but mine was getting the brunt - surprising, but I guess it was appropriate. I mean, I had gone there specifically to water.
That half hour was not all waiting. Two patrol vehicles showed up relatively quickly, but they were having a hard time getting a hold of the right person (Friday night) and finding the shutoff. Once that happened, shutting off the water was pretty easy. They were then able to reattach the handle, and then turn the water back on to make sure it would not fly back off.
They were very nice. I felt stupid, of course, but it was not really my fault. I know that Monday someone will probably come out and do a more permanent fix. I also know that I will never tough that particular tap again, and that I will be a bit gun-shy for a while, just knowing that such a thing could happen.
Still, I survived. I got wet, and at least one mosquito bite, but I survived. No one yelled at me. And the garden took the heavier than usual watering without dying. Who knows? Maybe this will be the push that the bush beans needed.
This is still a learning year.
Here are some pictures:
I had started feeling pretty encouraged by the proliferation of blossoms. The first zucchini blossom was exciting, but suddenly there were a lot, and lots of pea blossoms. By Wednesday I had noticed a few small green tomatoes, and in addition to little pea pods shooting out and filling out, there were at least two new zucchini forming.
This was all very encouraging, but it led to a new worry: what if I don't know when to harvest? I know you don't want to let zucchini get too big, because they start getting tougher and less flavorful, but what size is big enough and ripe enough? The pea pods apparently start out flat, like snow peas, but then get thicker. When should I pick them?
It was clear from the start that I was going to be neurotic about this, and I had decided it was going to be a learning year, so that should take some of the pressure off, but it is kind of interesting watching new worries crop up.
When I focus on Wednesday, there are two reasons I focus on that day. One is that it was my day off, so I spent some extra time in the garden. The other is that in the Beaverton Leader I saw that there was going to be a presentation the next night at the library on maximizing your garden space. This was something I have been thinking about a lot. Normally a friend and I go walking on Thursday nights, but I thought she might be interested and she was. We decided we would go and then walk.
The presentation was really good. I don't know that I will implement anything this year, but it gives me some ideas for next year, and knowing more about the possibilities is exciting. Also, as we were talking about biennials, it was brief, but it filled in some understanding for me on how they grow. In addition, they gave us a seed packet with some different lettuce in it. I do have some space where I can put that, and I will. What a great night!
The low came the following evening. I went to water the garden. A few of us have been sharing a hose, and one other person was there and using it. I waited for my turn, and I did try using the hose from the tap it was attached to, but it did not quite reach right. I asked if it was all right if I moved it, and she was fine with that, but I needed to turn off the water before disconnecting the hose.
I turned the handle, but the water was still going. I thought that was odd, but maybe I had turned it the wrong way, so I tried turning the other way and it came right off!
A geyser was now erupting from where the handle had been. In panic I dropped the handle, so my first thought was to try and find that and maybe I could jam it back in. Once found, the water pressure was too great for reattachment. Okay, maybe taking off the hose would cause the water to come out of the spout, and then I could reattach the handle. The hose came off, but the water kept on shooting up from the wrong area. This was bad.
Fortunately, I did have my cell phone on me. There are two numbers posted at the garden: one for garden information and one for the park patrol. It was 9PM on a Friday night, so I called the park patrol. He said he would try and get a hold of maintenance.
I didn't feel like I could leave. The garden has a gate with a combination padlock. Regular crew would probably know the combination, but this was sort of an emergency situation and I didn't know who would be coming. I didn't want to accidentally lock someone out, and I did not want to leave it unlocked. Besides, I wanted to know that it did get fixed.
So, I stood outside the fence and watched my garden flood for about half an hour. There were mainly three plots that it was hitting, but mine was getting the brunt - surprising, but I guess it was appropriate. I mean, I had gone there specifically to water.
That half hour was not all waiting. Two patrol vehicles showed up relatively quickly, but they were having a hard time getting a hold of the right person (Friday night) and finding the shutoff. Once that happened, shutting off the water was pretty easy. They were then able to reattach the handle, and then turn the water back on to make sure it would not fly back off.
They were very nice. I felt stupid, of course, but it was not really my fault. I know that Monday someone will probably come out and do a more permanent fix. I also know that I will never tough that particular tap again, and that I will be a bit gun-shy for a while, just knowing that such a thing could happen.
Still, I survived. I got wet, and at least one mosquito bite, but I survived. No one yelled at me. And the garden took the heavier than usual watering without dying. Who knows? Maybe this will be the push that the bush beans needed.
This is still a learning year.
Here are some pictures:
Sunday, June 15, 2014
Modesty
If I can slam "Modest is hottest" just one more time, let me say that if they had tried "Proud to be modest" instead, the problem would have been obvious.
Part of the problem is that "modest" has become code for "not too sexy". Not only does that cause "modest" to lose its own meaning, but just coding anything where we talk about sex makes that overly complicated. People can't agree on whether "modest" means not too sexy, or not sexy at all, or what is sexy, and any of those related questions because they are embarrassed to even use those words. Oddly, that mess is very revealing.
It's not where we're going right now, though, because I want to spend some time on modesty itself. It is, in fact, a very good quality, and there are ways in which it relates to dress, and we ignore those.
One definition of modest is "not too proud or confident of your abilities: not showing or feeling great or excessive pride." As the scriptures and conference talks are full of warnings about pride, this should seem like an important aspect of modesty.
Another definition is "limited in size, amount, or scope", with "unpretentious" for a synonym. These two are very related.
It would be easy to look at the first definition, and not like it, because hey, we want to feel good about ourselves, and like we are good, but the keys are "too proud" and "excessive".
This is another area where people get it wrong all the time, because there is such a stigma on being conceited that "nice" people are afraid to even know that they are capable of doing something right. That's not how it works. C. S. Lewis has written brilliantly on this subject, and if you haven't read Mere Christianity and The Screwtape Letters, you should; there is a lot of insight in both of them.
I am just going to say that the problem with pride in the spiritual sense is that it is competitive. I can rejoice in my gifts and yours, and that is not pride. If I think my gifts make me better than you, that is wrong. It shows a bad understanding of how God's plan works, and it makes me less loving, when love is what we all need most. If I think your gifts make you better than me, that is also destructive, and also pride, though less obviously. When we love each other, we don't set up rankings.
Freed of that need to compete, I don't need to make a show of anything. I don't need a bigger or more ornate house, just one that meets my family's needs. This is where the other definition comes up. There is that lack of excessiveness, and so that also implies an appropriateness and fitness. Modest and moderation both come from the Latin modus, to measure.
People are good at taking things the wrong way, so it can be easy to go to the other extreme, and thinking that nothing should be nice or pretty ever in the interests of modesty. Maybe it just shouldn't be excessive. That can mean a lot of different things.
There was a time when dressing for a women took a lot of time and required assistance, with lots of tiny buttons, and intricate ribbons and arrangements. There were also fashions that required a certain amount of immobility. I kind of feel like it happened because they didn't have enough to do, so it became a way of filling the time, but there are other ways to fill time, so it was not the only factor. Still, it is clearly excessive. That is not even getting into physically harmful practices like rib removal and foot binding.
We are somewhat more enlightened now, but it is nonetheless possible to spend far too much time on dress and appearance - worrying about it, earning money for it, developing eating disorders over it - this takes away from what life should be. In Isaiah 3 there is a rather long description of fine apparel being taken away, but there is nothing about them being too pretty, or showing too much of their body. The multiple lines for multiple clothing items may just emphasize that there was too much time on dress, and that they were haughty, and focused on their appearance. There is a lot about pride in the scriptures; there's not that much about clothes.
The best verse on clothing may be Alma 1:27:
And they did impart of their substance, every man according to that which he had, to the poor, and the needy, and the sick, and the afflicted; and they did not wear costly apparel, yet they were neat and comely.
Even then it is not so much about the clothing as how they treated each other, but when we are caring about each other and looking out for each other, the clothing works out. That's not saying that shopping should never be fun, and that no one can want to look good, but if we rank the factors in our life appropriately fashion is fairly low on the list, and that is better for self-esteem and for harmony and for life.
We are doing our young women and our young men a disservice by putting so much focus on dress.
Beware of Pride: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/04/beware-of-pride?lang=eng
Deadly Victorian Fashions: http://www.macleans.ca/culture/arts/deadly-victorian-fashions/
Away with the humble brag: http://sporkful.blogspot.com/2013/01/away-with-humble-brag.html
Part of the problem is that "modest" has become code for "not too sexy". Not only does that cause "modest" to lose its own meaning, but just coding anything where we talk about sex makes that overly complicated. People can't agree on whether "modest" means not too sexy, or not sexy at all, or what is sexy, and any of those related questions because they are embarrassed to even use those words. Oddly, that mess is very revealing.
It's not where we're going right now, though, because I want to spend some time on modesty itself. It is, in fact, a very good quality, and there are ways in which it relates to dress, and we ignore those.
One definition of modest is "not too proud or confident of your abilities: not showing or feeling great or excessive pride." As the scriptures and conference talks are full of warnings about pride, this should seem like an important aspect of modesty.
Another definition is "limited in size, amount, or scope", with "unpretentious" for a synonym. These two are very related.
It would be easy to look at the first definition, and not like it, because hey, we want to feel good about ourselves, and like we are good, but the keys are "too proud" and "excessive".
This is another area where people get it wrong all the time, because there is such a stigma on being conceited that "nice" people are afraid to even know that they are capable of doing something right. That's not how it works. C. S. Lewis has written brilliantly on this subject, and if you haven't read Mere Christianity and The Screwtape Letters, you should; there is a lot of insight in both of them.
I am just going to say that the problem with pride in the spiritual sense is that it is competitive. I can rejoice in my gifts and yours, and that is not pride. If I think my gifts make me better than you, that is wrong. It shows a bad understanding of how God's plan works, and it makes me less loving, when love is what we all need most. If I think your gifts make you better than me, that is also destructive, and also pride, though less obviously. When we love each other, we don't set up rankings.
Freed of that need to compete, I don't need to make a show of anything. I don't need a bigger or more ornate house, just one that meets my family's needs. This is where the other definition comes up. There is that lack of excessiveness, and so that also implies an appropriateness and fitness. Modest and moderation both come from the Latin modus, to measure.
People are good at taking things the wrong way, so it can be easy to go to the other extreme, and thinking that nothing should be nice or pretty ever in the interests of modesty. Maybe it just shouldn't be excessive. That can mean a lot of different things.
There was a time when dressing for a women took a lot of time and required assistance, with lots of tiny buttons, and intricate ribbons and arrangements. There were also fashions that required a certain amount of immobility. I kind of feel like it happened because they didn't have enough to do, so it became a way of filling the time, but there are other ways to fill time, so it was not the only factor. Still, it is clearly excessive. That is not even getting into physically harmful practices like rib removal and foot binding.
We are somewhat more enlightened now, but it is nonetheless possible to spend far too much time on dress and appearance - worrying about it, earning money for it, developing eating disorders over it - this takes away from what life should be. In Isaiah 3 there is a rather long description of fine apparel being taken away, but there is nothing about them being too pretty, or showing too much of their body. The multiple lines for multiple clothing items may just emphasize that there was too much time on dress, and that they were haughty, and focused on their appearance. There is a lot about pride in the scriptures; there's not that much about clothes.
The best verse on clothing may be Alma 1:27:
And they did impart of their substance, every man according to that which he had, to the poor, and the needy, and the sick, and the afflicted; and they did not wear costly apparel, yet they were neat and comely.
Even then it is not so much about the clothing as how they treated each other, but when we are caring about each other and looking out for each other, the clothing works out. That's not saying that shopping should never be fun, and that no one can want to look good, but if we rank the factors in our life appropriately fashion is fairly low on the list, and that is better for self-esteem and for harmony and for life.
We are doing our young women and our young men a disservice by putting so much focus on dress.
Beware of Pride: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/04/beware-of-pride?lang=eng
Deadly Victorian Fashions: http://www.macleans.ca/culture/arts/deadly-victorian-fashions/
Away with the humble brag: http://sporkful.blogspot.com/2013/01/away-with-humble-brag.html
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Why would we ever promote "hottest"?
I have an issue with "modest is hottest". Some of it is that we have strayed from what "modest" actually means, and there are some significant losses with that, beyond my general preference for using language correctly so we can communicate effectively. Nonetheless, I loathe the other part even more.
If my motivation for modesty is a level of hotness superior to other females, I am putting myself in competition with other females to attract men, and that is my motivation for how I dress. I am aspiring to be the object of the male gaze instead of the subject of my own story. It's back to being an ornament instead of a person.
If I remember my youth correctly, I spent an awful lot of time thinking about boys - possibly more time on that than anything else. That's normal, and there are things about it that can be fun and cute, both at the time and looking back on it later. It is, however, not enough for a truly happy or productive life. There needs to be an interest in non-romantic relationships, an interest in the greater community, a growing appreciation of the world and ones' own abilities, and that should include an appreciation for the abilities of one's own body.
Those are the things girls need to be helped with. It seems almost impossible that they will never have any concerns about whether their bodies are pleasing or not, and a lot of terrible things can come from that, so this is not the one parents, youth leaders, and educators need to be focusing on. Just because you get a kind of a rhyme that makes something easily memorable does not mean it is a point worth carrying.
(Actually, if you feel kind of hip saying it, that's a great reason to discard it. You will never be hip, but they do hear sincerity and they do notice what your actions reflect, even if they are not letting on.)
There is an inherent paradox in the "modest is hottest" mindset. First, girls, it is your role to be attractive, and the objects of desire. In fact, you should want to be more attractive than those around you. However, this physical beauty which defines you needs to be kept as covered up as possible.
The impossibility of finding that right balance between being attractive but not showing it too much would be plenty of frustration in a stupid cause, but it is so much worse when you consider the destructive nature of the two parts.
Be hot. Your physical exterior is the most important part of you; that makes the boys want you, and that's what you're here for. It goes well with The Feminine Mystique. The relative economic prosperity that allowed so many housewives to have empty lives defined by their purchases is disappearing, but you can still keep the inner life of the girl shallow and unfulfilling.
Be hottest. It is a contest between you and the others girls, which can not only undermine needed friendships, but makes "slut-shaming" an effective tool of social oppression. A girl can get a bad reputation not merely for what she does, but what she is believed to do, looks like she might do, has at least one person wish she would do, what someone mad at her said she did, and so forth.
Be modest. This body that we are so fascinated with is actually dangerous and gross, and needs to be covered up as much as possible. It has special powers that will cause boys to be stupid and brutish and it will all be your fault because you didn't cover up. If a boy thinks bad thoughts about you, that is your fault; you must not respect yourself. It's probably because you're a bad person.
Of course, what we also imply with this one is that men are pigs, mucking around in the dirt. The mere wearing of yoga pants can prevent them from being able to learn things in school, and wearing a short skirt can lead them to rape, except that it couldn't really be rape because a short skirt would be asking for it.
That whole line of thinking where we make women responsible for the thoughts and actions of males by their mere existence is a great way of denigrating humanity all around, but even if we accept that, how do you decide how much coverage is enough? There's a long way between spaghetti straps and full length sleeves; where is the line? Are cap sleeves too revealing? What about open sleeves that go to the wrist but with skin showing all the way down? Can young men study then? There's no skin showing with the yoga pants; why isn't that good enough? Okay, burqas for everyone!
That's when it starts to look like the real goal is to make women invisible. Consider eating disorders, and the constant message that a woman cannot be thin enough. Also, once out of girlhood, a woman can't look young enough, so everything has to be hidden away. Her maturity and experience are bad markers, her substance and her flesh need to be hidden, and the boys want sex but she can't have anything to do with it.
That's not to say that there are not outfits that look like really bad ideas. I have seen many dresses that were just one wind gust or stumble away from showing off everything. I remember seeing one girl in short shorts and a top that allowed me to see her back tattoo, which said "Money Maker" in Gothic lettering. No, I did not think that outfit showed a lot of self-respect.
Here is my problem. We can call these outfits immodest, but I think I am going to go with "too revealing". What they reveal is that this girl believes she needs to make a sexual display of herself - that is what society expects and wants and this is her only avenue for securing power, even though it is just as likely to work against her as in her favor.
As bad as that target is, and as much as it is worth working against that mindset, this emphasis on skin is not going to help. Okay, your chest is covered, but now your shoulders are too sexy. Actually, everything is too sexy, because that's all we can think about when we look at you, you are reduced to your sex in every way possible, or the modesty discussion would focus on how boys should dress too. And apparently we think boys are ugly, as well as stupid and venal, because no one worries about what they have covered or uncovered. This is not how it should be.
So there are issues with what modesty actually is here, which I think I can address in a later post; and there are issues with sexuality, which I may not be the best person to address but I have not positively ruled it out; and there are issues of equality, which I have already spent a lot of time on. For now, today, my message is that this slogan is stupid.
"Modest is hottest" is stupid, and I'll stand by that.
If my motivation for modesty is a level of hotness superior to other females, I am putting myself in competition with other females to attract men, and that is my motivation for how I dress. I am aspiring to be the object of the male gaze instead of the subject of my own story. It's back to being an ornament instead of a person.
If I remember my youth correctly, I spent an awful lot of time thinking about boys - possibly more time on that than anything else. That's normal, and there are things about it that can be fun and cute, both at the time and looking back on it later. It is, however, not enough for a truly happy or productive life. There needs to be an interest in non-romantic relationships, an interest in the greater community, a growing appreciation of the world and ones' own abilities, and that should include an appreciation for the abilities of one's own body.
Those are the things girls need to be helped with. It seems almost impossible that they will never have any concerns about whether their bodies are pleasing or not, and a lot of terrible things can come from that, so this is not the one parents, youth leaders, and educators need to be focusing on. Just because you get a kind of a rhyme that makes something easily memorable does not mean it is a point worth carrying.
(Actually, if you feel kind of hip saying it, that's a great reason to discard it. You will never be hip, but they do hear sincerity and they do notice what your actions reflect, even if they are not letting on.)
There is an inherent paradox in the "modest is hottest" mindset. First, girls, it is your role to be attractive, and the objects of desire. In fact, you should want to be more attractive than those around you. However, this physical beauty which defines you needs to be kept as covered up as possible.
The impossibility of finding that right balance between being attractive but not showing it too much would be plenty of frustration in a stupid cause, but it is so much worse when you consider the destructive nature of the two parts.
Be hot. Your physical exterior is the most important part of you; that makes the boys want you, and that's what you're here for. It goes well with The Feminine Mystique. The relative economic prosperity that allowed so many housewives to have empty lives defined by their purchases is disappearing, but you can still keep the inner life of the girl shallow and unfulfilling.
Be hottest. It is a contest between you and the others girls, which can not only undermine needed friendships, but makes "slut-shaming" an effective tool of social oppression. A girl can get a bad reputation not merely for what she does, but what she is believed to do, looks like she might do, has at least one person wish she would do, what someone mad at her said she did, and so forth.
Be modest. This body that we are so fascinated with is actually dangerous and gross, and needs to be covered up as much as possible. It has special powers that will cause boys to be stupid and brutish and it will all be your fault because you didn't cover up. If a boy thinks bad thoughts about you, that is your fault; you must not respect yourself. It's probably because you're a bad person.
Of course, what we also imply with this one is that men are pigs, mucking around in the dirt. The mere wearing of yoga pants can prevent them from being able to learn things in school, and wearing a short skirt can lead them to rape, except that it couldn't really be rape because a short skirt would be asking for it.
That whole line of thinking where we make women responsible for the thoughts and actions of males by their mere existence is a great way of denigrating humanity all around, but even if we accept that, how do you decide how much coverage is enough? There's a long way between spaghetti straps and full length sleeves; where is the line? Are cap sleeves too revealing? What about open sleeves that go to the wrist but with skin showing all the way down? Can young men study then? There's no skin showing with the yoga pants; why isn't that good enough? Okay, burqas for everyone!
That's when it starts to look like the real goal is to make women invisible. Consider eating disorders, and the constant message that a woman cannot be thin enough. Also, once out of girlhood, a woman can't look young enough, so everything has to be hidden away. Her maturity and experience are bad markers, her substance and her flesh need to be hidden, and the boys want sex but she can't have anything to do with it.
That's not to say that there are not outfits that look like really bad ideas. I have seen many dresses that were just one wind gust or stumble away from showing off everything. I remember seeing one girl in short shorts and a top that allowed me to see her back tattoo, which said "Money Maker" in Gothic lettering. No, I did not think that outfit showed a lot of self-respect.
Here is my problem. We can call these outfits immodest, but I think I am going to go with "too revealing". What they reveal is that this girl believes she needs to make a sexual display of herself - that is what society expects and wants and this is her only avenue for securing power, even though it is just as likely to work against her as in her favor.
As bad as that target is, and as much as it is worth working against that mindset, this emphasis on skin is not going to help. Okay, your chest is covered, but now your shoulders are too sexy. Actually, everything is too sexy, because that's all we can think about when we look at you, you are reduced to your sex in every way possible, or the modesty discussion would focus on how boys should dress too. And apparently we think boys are ugly, as well as stupid and venal, because no one worries about what they have covered or uncovered. This is not how it should be.
So there are issues with what modesty actually is here, which I think I can address in a later post; and there are issues with sexuality, which I may not be the best person to address but I have not positively ruled it out; and there are issues of equality, which I have already spent a lot of time on. For now, today, my message is that this slogan is stupid.
"Modest is hottest" is stupid, and I'll stand by that.
Sunday, June 1, 2014
Being a person
There was one quote from The Feminine Mystique that bothered me more than any other. It was from a textbook, Marriage For Moderns:
"If a woman can find adequate self-expression through a career rather than through marriage, well and good. Many young women, however, overlook the fact that there are numerous careers that do not furnish any medium or offer any opportunity for self-expression. Besides they do not realize that only the minority of women , as the minority of men, have anything particularly worthwhile to express."
As much as the contempt for women there bothers me, it is interesting that there is the same contempt for men. Given how often anti-feminist work portrays men as hopeless brutes, I think there is some food for thought there.
This is the opposite of the Gospel, where we believe in infinite potential in people, who are children of God, and where they should be developed and learn.
Because we believe that, parenthood is incredibly important, for both mothers and fathers. As there was an expectation that the father would be the breadwinner, he could not be reduced to that role, but mothers were, and it was a reduction.
There were three things that I especially hated.
1. Mothers were considered the source of all ills. One result of WWII was that many Vienna-trained/Freud influenced psychologists came to the states. It talked about that in
The Feminine Mystique, but I just finished Her Mother's Daughter and The Day the Voices Stopped too, and whether it is the mother being told that her child's mental issues are her fault, or the parent refusing to seek treatment because of the stigma, it took a long time for that to wear off.
2. Motherhood didn't really give you that much to do. What Friedan describes was largely a middle-class problem, and it was rooted in that relative affluence. You get electric gadgets, and cleaning doesn't really take that much work anymore. You get TV dinners and baking mixes, and other conveniences so cooking is simplified. The children are enrolled in school, and getting their education there, and also, they will grow up. Then you get the surplus of time, and the move toward obsolescence.
There are fascinating things in there, and in The Beauty Myth about studies by the advertising industry, and how they not only work to sell products, but also to mold the customer base. When so many stories about people dying miserable or changing careers focus on people who work in advertising, there is some examination to be done there. For now, though, let's focus on women's magazines and a change they made.
3. Mothers were not supposed to be interested in the outside world. Older magazines had stories about current events and international issues, and fiction that was not always about settling down. That changed, because women were not interested in subjects other than recipes and diets and so on, but it was male magazine editors who decided that. A feeling of connection to the outside world is vital for happiness and self-actualization.
Think about it: if the only value in a woman is her ability to care for a husband and children, how many ways are that for her to go wrong. Yes, some women don't have children, and some don't even find husbands (gasp!), but what about the widow whose kids are grown? Has she outlived her usefulness? If you have only daughters, and you are just raising them to raise their children, doesn't that feel kind of pointless? Maybe they will have sons, but what if they don't!
But if she is a person, instead of just a woman, then shouldn't she get to have her own talents and dreams and wants too? That's not to say that it will never involve a time that is very focused on home and children, and those can be beautiful times, but then it's not a reduction, it's a choice, made by a person.
The differences may seem minor, but they are not.
"If a woman can find adequate self-expression through a career rather than through marriage, well and good. Many young women, however, overlook the fact that there are numerous careers that do not furnish any medium or offer any opportunity for self-expression. Besides they do not realize that only the minority of women , as the minority of men, have anything particularly worthwhile to express."
As much as the contempt for women there bothers me, it is interesting that there is the same contempt for men. Given how often anti-feminist work portrays men as hopeless brutes, I think there is some food for thought there.
This is the opposite of the Gospel, where we believe in infinite potential in people, who are children of God, and where they should be developed and learn.
Because we believe that, parenthood is incredibly important, for both mothers and fathers. As there was an expectation that the father would be the breadwinner, he could not be reduced to that role, but mothers were, and it was a reduction.
There were three things that I especially hated.
1. Mothers were considered the source of all ills. One result of WWII was that many Vienna-trained/Freud influenced psychologists came to the states. It talked about that in
The Feminine Mystique, but I just finished Her Mother's Daughter and The Day the Voices Stopped too, and whether it is the mother being told that her child's mental issues are her fault, or the parent refusing to seek treatment because of the stigma, it took a long time for that to wear off.
2. Motherhood didn't really give you that much to do. What Friedan describes was largely a middle-class problem, and it was rooted in that relative affluence. You get electric gadgets, and cleaning doesn't really take that much work anymore. You get TV dinners and baking mixes, and other conveniences so cooking is simplified. The children are enrolled in school, and getting their education there, and also, they will grow up. Then you get the surplus of time, and the move toward obsolescence.
There are fascinating things in there, and in The Beauty Myth about studies by the advertising industry, and how they not only work to sell products, but also to mold the customer base. When so many stories about people dying miserable or changing careers focus on people who work in advertising, there is some examination to be done there. For now, though, let's focus on women's magazines and a change they made.
3. Mothers were not supposed to be interested in the outside world. Older magazines had stories about current events and international issues, and fiction that was not always about settling down. That changed, because women were not interested in subjects other than recipes and diets and so on, but it was male magazine editors who decided that. A feeling of connection to the outside world is vital for happiness and self-actualization.
Think about it: if the only value in a woman is her ability to care for a husband and children, how many ways are that for her to go wrong. Yes, some women don't have children, and some don't even find husbands (gasp!), but what about the widow whose kids are grown? Has she outlived her usefulness? If you have only daughters, and you are just raising them to raise their children, doesn't that feel kind of pointless? Maybe they will have sons, but what if they don't!
But if she is a person, instead of just a woman, then shouldn't she get to have her own talents and dreams and wants too? That's not to say that it will never involve a time that is very focused on home and children, and those can be beautiful times, but then it's not a reduction, it's a choice, made by a person.
The differences may seem minor, but they are not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)