Recently there was an article examining "the modern dating crisis" by examining Mormons and Orthodox Jews:
http://time.com/dateonomics/
It did have some interesting information, though the research didn't feel intellectually vigorous. At least for me, part of that is knowing that a large part of the breast implant market in Utah consists of married women. I'm not sure that's so much about dating.
The premise of the article is that because men outnumber women in the dating pools of these religious groups, thus having more options, this puts extra pressure on the women to increase their desirability. There is pressure on the physical appearance of the Orthodox Jewish women too, but there has also been a huge increase in the use of dowries, and their relative value. Apparently in Mormon culture there is only the focus on appearance, hence breast implants.
The article mentions at least one patient who is getting implants because her boyfriend would like them bigger (also, the plastic surgeon mentioned sees a lot of college age women coming in for Botox injections), so it's not that unmarried woman are not affected. Still, there are a lot of housewives getting the procedure too.
That is probably not completely unrelated. The ads are there for everyone to see, so even if they are geared toward one demographic, they could affect another.
There is a very interesting article on the topic at http://www.beautyredefined.net/mirror-mirror-on-the-wall-salt-lake-city-is-vainest-of-them-all/, which lets us know - among other things - that Salt Lake City earned the title "Vainest City in the Nation" in 2007, based on an index of plastic surgeons per capita and spending on beauty products.
Vanity is not a Young Women value. It's not a Gospel value. It should not be something we want any of our women to aspire to. But if we tell them that they have to be attractive, and then our messages that are purportedly about other things - like modesty - still focus on the appearance of the girls, that is a likely result.
Then, if they succeed too well in being attractive, it becomes so easy to modesty-shame them.
- "That top is too tight."
- "It wasn't before the implants."
Initially my concerns with the modesty shaming was that it can alienate people who may forget that the Church is true if they find enough members being jerks. That is a concern, but even without that, this seems like a concept destined to make women neurotic and keep them from discovering their true potential.
I'd call it manure, but manure can at least produce good results. This is toxic.
I'm do have some thoughts about how focusing on service and charity, gratitude, and developing your own talents while appreciating the talents of others would do a lot more to foster true modesty anyway, but these attitudes aren't about modesty anyway. They are about keeping women down, and modesty-shaming allows women to also have a position above someone else. When your heart is right, there probably are some clothes you won't wear, but you're not going to care a lot about what other people are wearing.
That's all I have to say on this for now. Oregon Field Guide's "Unprepared" airs October 1st at 8 PM on OPB. You can watch it online too. Check it out, and then we will go back to talking about earthquakes.
(Actually, not just earthquakes; megaquakes. In fact, the megaquake. Yeah, be ready for that.)
Sunday, September 27, 2015
Sunday, September 20, 2015
Tradition
When I was around third grade a Pakistani family moved in next door. They were the first Muslims I had ever met.
The mother was not allowed to show her legs because of modesty. The oldest daughter was getting close to where she would be of an age to think about that (I believe it was 12). As her mother was American, and not Muslim, I was not sure that she would adhere. There was some potential for friction there, and eventually she started visiting her father less, though that was not necessarily the cause.
We met three other Pakistani families through them, and they all followed the same rules for modesty, focusing on adult women having their legs covered.
My religion believed in modesty too, so I related to that. Their rule was stricter than ours, because Mormon women can wear shorts, but in terms of modesty in dress being important, more emphasis on it approaching adulthood, and a higher burden on women than on men, it was pretty similar.
Years later seeing hijab, niqab, and burqas, it looked like Pakistani women had gotten off easy, but I have seen Pakistani women wearing head coverings as well. Perhaps it is different if you are rural or urban. There were also times when clothing rules changed drastically in Iran and Afghanistan, based in changes in power.
I concluded that often rules of modesty might be based more on tradition than religious doctrine. That would not be at all surprising. Local climate influences dress, and availability of materials, and habits can be strong.
I don't want to sound disrespectful at all in my writing. One young friend recently defended hijab - which she wears - as a way of keeping people from judging you by your looks so they will focus on your mind instead. There is value in that. People do focus on looks too much.
I can see her point, but I also remember Marji making fun of the sexuality that radiates from a woman's hair in Persepolis, and that with hijab people can still judge your face (which does look better framed by hair), and that people are free to judge her father on his looks since he does not have to wear it.
Modesty is a good trait, and so many good things can be said about it. There is also a lot to be said for not making everything sexual, or having women compete to attract, or for reducing women to their very dangerous looks. I am afraid though that much of what we do in the name of modesty flies specifically counter to that.
And now I am talking about Mormons again, but more on that next week.
The mother was not allowed to show her legs because of modesty. The oldest daughter was getting close to where she would be of an age to think about that (I believe it was 12). As her mother was American, and not Muslim, I was not sure that she would adhere. There was some potential for friction there, and eventually she started visiting her father less, though that was not necessarily the cause.
We met three other Pakistani families through them, and they all followed the same rules for modesty, focusing on adult women having their legs covered.
My religion believed in modesty too, so I related to that. Their rule was stricter than ours, because Mormon women can wear shorts, but in terms of modesty in dress being important, more emphasis on it approaching adulthood, and a higher burden on women than on men, it was pretty similar.
Years later seeing hijab, niqab, and burqas, it looked like Pakistani women had gotten off easy, but I have seen Pakistani women wearing head coverings as well. Perhaps it is different if you are rural or urban. There were also times when clothing rules changed drastically in Iran and Afghanistan, based in changes in power.
I concluded that often rules of modesty might be based more on tradition than religious doctrine. That would not be at all surprising. Local climate influences dress, and availability of materials, and habits can be strong.
I don't want to sound disrespectful at all in my writing. One young friend recently defended hijab - which she wears - as a way of keeping people from judging you by your looks so they will focus on your mind instead. There is value in that. People do focus on looks too much.
I can see her point, but I also remember Marji making fun of the sexuality that radiates from a woman's hair in Persepolis, and that with hijab people can still judge your face (which does look better framed by hair), and that people are free to judge her father on his looks since he does not have to wear it.
Modesty is a good trait, and so many good things can be said about it. There is also a lot to be said for not making everything sexual, or having women compete to attract, or for reducing women to their very dangerous looks. I am afraid though that much of what we do in the name of modesty flies specifically counter to that.
And now I am talking about Mormons again, but more on that next week.
Sunday, September 13, 2015
False modesty
I have been getting very irritated with talk of "modesty" lately. Let me start with a little story:
http://www.screendaily.com/festivals/cannes/women-denied-palais-entry-for-wearing-flats/5088395.article?referrer=RSS
This may seem like it has nothing to do with modesty, but the element of inspection reminded me of another story I had recently heard of women back in the day having to kneel to demonstrate that their skirts were long enough, based on whether their hems touched the floor or not.
Allow me to suggest that if that is necessary to tell if the skirt is long enough, it's long enough.
The common factor is that the female body is subject to inspection. Once that is expected, the criteria can become increasingly arbitrary and ridiculous. A heel does not automatically make a shoe beautiful - some heels are really tacky. Many shoes are hidden by the gown length anyway. (I believe I read something about some women being asked to raise their skirts slightly so the heels could be checked.)
Therefore you can decide that even if a girl's collarbone is currently covered, the possibility of the sweater that is covering the collarbone being removed is reason enough to decide that the shirt is still inappropriate enough to send her home.
This teaches our young women two things: their bodies are shameful things and they are not capable of making their own decisions on what is appropriate. Because the reasons their bodies must be hidden are so frequently centered around distractions for the boys, girls are also taught that it is not about them. Even something as basic as what she puts on in the morning is not about her. Finally, though clearly the problem is how easily distracted and low-minded boys are, it is the responsibility of the girls to fix it.
Sadly, she is still required to be attractive, but not attractive in a way that violates the prevailing ill-conceived rules about what is and is not acceptable. Yoga pants cover the legs up, but too closely. Tight sweaters are okay if the bra doesn't show through. And seriously, when did collarbones become sexualized?
This is not about modesty, or respect, or any of the things they say it is. This is about controlling women. This is about patriarchy. No matter how many women help uphold the crooked system, it remains crooked.
This is the kind of mindset that leads to modesty-shaming, where a young woman at girls camp might be shamed for wearing capris and a sleeved t-shirt because the sleeve ends above her elbow and the shorts don't go far enough past her knee. I saw the picture, she was fine. She was also in a place where there are no boys, but still, how dare she have any skin other than her neck and face showing! Now we just need to decide that the neck and face are also evil so that we can require burqas and be done with it.
I was reading the Pauline Epistles lately, and if anyone is going to say something that sounds stupid and sexist it will be Paul. You know what he says about modesty and women? Don't spend too much time on your hair.
Fixating on clothes would be immodest. The path that we are on is one that will require young women to spend far too much time worrying about clothes, and they won't have any fun with it, but it will at least provide plenty of opportunities for judgment and alienation.
If we can't do better than that on modesty we should quite talking about it. We should at least understand it before we try and teach the young poeple how to do it.
http://www.screendaily.com/festivals/cannes/women-denied-palais-entry-for-wearing-flats/5088395.article?referrer=RSS
This may seem like it has nothing to do with modesty, but the element of inspection reminded me of another story I had recently heard of women back in the day having to kneel to demonstrate that their skirts were long enough, based on whether their hems touched the floor or not.
Allow me to suggest that if that is necessary to tell if the skirt is long enough, it's long enough.
The common factor is that the female body is subject to inspection. Once that is expected, the criteria can become increasingly arbitrary and ridiculous. A heel does not automatically make a shoe beautiful - some heels are really tacky. Many shoes are hidden by the gown length anyway. (I believe I read something about some women being asked to raise their skirts slightly so the heels could be checked.)
Therefore you can decide that even if a girl's collarbone is currently covered, the possibility of the sweater that is covering the collarbone being removed is reason enough to decide that the shirt is still inappropriate enough to send her home.
This teaches our young women two things: their bodies are shameful things and they are not capable of making their own decisions on what is appropriate. Because the reasons their bodies must be hidden are so frequently centered around distractions for the boys, girls are also taught that it is not about them. Even something as basic as what she puts on in the morning is not about her. Finally, though clearly the problem is how easily distracted and low-minded boys are, it is the responsibility of the girls to fix it.
Sadly, she is still required to be attractive, but not attractive in a way that violates the prevailing ill-conceived rules about what is and is not acceptable. Yoga pants cover the legs up, but too closely. Tight sweaters are okay if the bra doesn't show through. And seriously, when did collarbones become sexualized?
This is not about modesty, or respect, or any of the things they say it is. This is about controlling women. This is about patriarchy. No matter how many women help uphold the crooked system, it remains crooked.
This is the kind of mindset that leads to modesty-shaming, where a young woman at girls camp might be shamed for wearing capris and a sleeved t-shirt because the sleeve ends above her elbow and the shorts don't go far enough past her knee. I saw the picture, she was fine. She was also in a place where there are no boys, but still, how dare she have any skin other than her neck and face showing! Now we just need to decide that the neck and face are also evil so that we can require burqas and be done with it.
I was reading the Pauline Epistles lately, and if anyone is going to say something that sounds stupid and sexist it will be Paul. You know what he says about modesty and women? Don't spend too much time on your hair.
Fixating on clothes would be immodest. The path that we are on is one that will require young women to spend far too much time worrying about clothes, and they won't have any fun with it, but it will at least provide plenty of opportunities for judgment and alienation.
If we can't do better than that on modesty we should quite talking about it. We should at least understand it before we try and teach the young poeple how to do it.
Sunday, September 6, 2015
Mormons and consent
Conversations about consent are becoming more common, and they are necessary to overcoming rape culture.
If that phrase startles you, well, this is mature content. I'm not going to be tawdry at any point, but I will be frank.
It is easy for active members to feel like we don't have a part in this conversation - if you're not married, you shouldn't be having sex. That may seem like we cannot make any contributions other than hypothetical. That is a mistake.
First of all, obviously Mormons have sex all the time. At church I see pregnant women, babies, and little children everywhere. Sex has played a big part in that.
Consent matters for married couples. Imagine a night where a chaste married couple is going to bed. He wants to have sex, but she doesn't.
Once upon a time, the husband forcing sex would not have been legally considered rape. It could have left some of the same scars on the wife, and it wouldn't have been a building block in a healthy respectful relationship though.
Let's say this husband would never force sex, but he shames her for not being there for his needs, when her job is to sustain and serve him; after all, it is his work that provides their house and all the nice things they have, and lets her stay home with the kids. She feels like dirt and gives in, then feels worse.
This would also not be considered rape, but it is still not a healthy relationship building block. The husband shows a lack of respect for the wife and her needs, and it is selfishness on his part. Sometimes when people talk about enthusiastic consent, they mean things like this. A person can not want it but still not fight it, for a variety of reasons.
I suspect another common scenario could be the wife not really feeling like it, but making herself available for feelings of obligation - perhaps she thinks of England while she does her wifely duty - but that, while better, is still not as good as it could be.
If both the husband and wife care about each others' needs, communication can help a lot. Then you can discuss the tiredness, and look for ways to relieve some of the burden. You can decide on morning sex instead of evening sex so everyone gets a fresh start. You can realize that some positions are not enjoyed as much as others and accommodate that.
I could go on in that vein, though we might start to venture into the tawdry, and really, that's not necessary. There is information on there on specific ways to increase your pleasure and on improving communication, which is often a good thing to do regardless.
No, my point here is one of equality. The reason it wasn't a crime to rape your wife is because she was yours; if she wasn't quite a much a piece of property as your table, she surely wasn't as much of a person as a man. There was tradition in that, but is has never been God's way.
The importance of establishing consent is that both people have to be free to say no before their yes can matter. That is partly that sex is very intimate, and can thus become very degrading when not wanted, but also because both parties need to have rights. They need to be equal.
It should be obvious that the right to not feel violated supersedes the right to have sex. The temporary frustration of not getting satisfied one way does not linger like the regret of acquiescing when you didn't want to, or burn like being forced when you didn't acquiesce. If your thought to concerns on the part of the other party is to get over it and it is no big deal, you do not deserve sex and I hope your partner sees that. Sex is a big deal.
So we should be able to talk about it. We should be able to know what the good parts of doing it are, and how it can go horribly wrong, and how a couple can work to make it more enjoyable for both of them.
We need that, because both people matter. Both parties are equally valuable. My examples have focused on reluctance on the part of the woman, because historically she has been the one most likely to lack status, but it works both ways. No woman should guilt or drug or intimidate a man into sex either. We believe in love and respect and kindness for all people.
So keep that in mind, and we will use it to take another look at modesty next week.
If that phrase startles you, well, this is mature content. I'm not going to be tawdry at any point, but I will be frank.
It is easy for active members to feel like we don't have a part in this conversation - if you're not married, you shouldn't be having sex. That may seem like we cannot make any contributions other than hypothetical. That is a mistake.
First of all, obviously Mormons have sex all the time. At church I see pregnant women, babies, and little children everywhere. Sex has played a big part in that.
Consent matters for married couples. Imagine a night where a chaste married couple is going to bed. He wants to have sex, but she doesn't.
Once upon a time, the husband forcing sex would not have been legally considered rape. It could have left some of the same scars on the wife, and it wouldn't have been a building block in a healthy respectful relationship though.
Let's say this husband would never force sex, but he shames her for not being there for his needs, when her job is to sustain and serve him; after all, it is his work that provides their house and all the nice things they have, and lets her stay home with the kids. She feels like dirt and gives in, then feels worse.
This would also not be considered rape, but it is still not a healthy relationship building block. The husband shows a lack of respect for the wife and her needs, and it is selfishness on his part. Sometimes when people talk about enthusiastic consent, they mean things like this. A person can not want it but still not fight it, for a variety of reasons.
I suspect another common scenario could be the wife not really feeling like it, but making herself available for feelings of obligation - perhaps she thinks of England while she does her wifely duty - but that, while better, is still not as good as it could be.
If both the husband and wife care about each others' needs, communication can help a lot. Then you can discuss the tiredness, and look for ways to relieve some of the burden. You can decide on morning sex instead of evening sex so everyone gets a fresh start. You can realize that some positions are not enjoyed as much as others and accommodate that.
I could go on in that vein, though we might start to venture into the tawdry, and really, that's not necessary. There is information on there on specific ways to increase your pleasure and on improving communication, which is often a good thing to do regardless.
No, my point here is one of equality. The reason it wasn't a crime to rape your wife is because she was yours; if she wasn't quite a much a piece of property as your table, she surely wasn't as much of a person as a man. There was tradition in that, but is has never been God's way.
The importance of establishing consent is that both people have to be free to say no before their yes can matter. That is partly that sex is very intimate, and can thus become very degrading when not wanted, but also because both parties need to have rights. They need to be equal.
It should be obvious that the right to not feel violated supersedes the right to have sex. The temporary frustration of not getting satisfied one way does not linger like the regret of acquiescing when you didn't want to, or burn like being forced when you didn't acquiesce. If your thought to concerns on the part of the other party is to get over it and it is no big deal, you do not deserve sex and I hope your partner sees that. Sex is a big deal.
So we should be able to talk about it. We should be able to know what the good parts of doing it are, and how it can go horribly wrong, and how a couple can work to make it more enjoyable for both of them.
We need that, because both people matter. Both parties are equally valuable. My examples have focused on reluctance on the part of the woman, because historically she has been the one most likely to lack status, but it works both ways. No woman should guilt or drug or intimidate a man into sex either. We believe in love and respect and kindness for all people.
So keep that in mind, and we will use it to take another look at modesty next week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)