Pants: Why I changed my mind

A few days ago I had, in reference to the Wear Pants to Church Day event, stated that I wouldn’t be joining the group, based on my own conceptions of equality and my disagreement with how the event was initially framed (the event description has since changed for the better).  My feelings on these two counts have not changed. 

However, the amount of abusive language levied toward those who have chosen to participate has caused me to rethink my former position about joining the group.  Let me explain.

After 9/11, the United States became a hotbed of antagonism towards Arabs, Muslims and anyone who slightly looked like they belonged to either of these two groups, including Persians and Sikhs.  The hijab, or veil, that Muslim women wear became a focal point of anti-Muslim feeling.  Within days of the 9/11 attacks, reports of widespread abuse of Muslim women surfaced. Women were verbally harassed and name-called. Some Muslim women told of being called “rag-heads” or told to “go home!”  Another woman was shouted at: “America is only for white people!” Many were physically violated and attacked (Ahmed, 2011, p. 204-205).

In response to these attacks, other women—many of them non-Muslims—began to organize campaigns against these assaults. The hijab, which had been the site of so much consternation, was taken up and publically worn by these women in order to show solidarity for Muslim women in the country.  Interestingly, The Feminist Majority Foundation issued a Scarves for Solidarity event, which started, fortuitously enough, on December 16^th (2001).  Their invitation was simply for women to wear scarves to cover their hair during Eid Muslim celebratory days as a “simple gesture of solidarity” meant to “communicate love and peace for women who wish to dress in a modest fashion.”  

One woman explained her participation thus: “I think it’s really important to speak out . . . because who’s going to be there for me.  Any sort of act of hate is an act against me.”  The slogan “Them equals Us” was taken up (p. 205).

Some of the women who chose to participate in these campaigns did so despite the fact that many hadn’t agreed historically with the hijab as a symbol.  Many of them had previously held complicated or even antagonistic feelings towards the hijab itself. But what they didn’t have complicated feelings about was protesting the abuse of women who chose to wear it, no matter their reasons for doing so.

One woman, after organizing such an event was criticized “for embracing a tradition that is viewed by many as a symbol of Islam’s oppression of women." She responded that her only intention “had simply been to reach out to let Muslim women know that they were not alone.”

One woman who had previously disagreed with the hijab as a symbol changed her mind because, as she explained, “I understand how it marks you as an object for someone else’s hatred….It’s still the same fight, but the symbol means something different” (p. 206).    

The women who have joined the Wear Pants to Church Day group have been called "dumb bitch feminists", "lesbians", "selfish", "stupid", "angry and masculine", "idiotic", "insecure", and "apostate."  They have been told to leave the church, and that they are not welcome. 

While I still have complicated feelings about the use of pants as a symbol of equality, for the reasons I’ve explained before, and while I may not agree exactly with how the event was initially framed or launched, or even (especially?) how it has been defended by the participants, I do not harbor any complicated feelings about now joining the event in order to extend love, compassion, and goodwill towards my sisters and brothers in the gospel who might believe differently than the majority, but who belong at church with us, regardless of what they wear or why they wear it.

I won’t be sitting there in pants thinking about anything other than how remarkable it is that Jesus and our Church leaders welcome everyone, regardless of their beliefs, motivations, actions, apparel, race or sexual orientation, to come and sit and be with us as we worship Christ, who loves us, and who can save us all.   

Ahmed, L. (2011). A quiet revolution: the veil’s resurgence, from Middle East to

America. Yale University Press.

Art

When I tell people who aren't Mormon that Mormons take for granted that God is an embodied Woman (married to an embodied Man), I'm suddenly reminded of how very Pagan Mormons are and how very cool that is. Unfortunately, Mormons have barely scratched the surface of what this means and who She is, and historically haven't been too interested in delving deeper. Several BYU scholars have remarked at this oddity, and I couldn't more emphatically recommend that everyone read this review on their research. 

Because of many of the points in this article Mormons, despite their theological makeup, have been reticent to artistically imagine Mother God and to me this is a real shame.  However, female deity is hardly a new idea. In fact, it's one of the oldest ideas out there. Check it out. 

And so, lucky lucky me, I get to see how others have filled in the gap. Welcome to The Met, house of depictions of Mother God and Her daughters. 

Today I'm grateful for the belief I have in a Mother in Heaven who is mindful of Her daughters and sons. And for those courageous enough to try to bring her to life in the minds and hearts of others.

alleluliah

"Today, we endeavor to understand more deeply what it means to be stewards of creation by celebrating St. Francis [of Assisi]. . .We reach back to 1182 as we focus on the transformation and dedication of someone who must have seemed unlikely to become a saint.  Born to a prosperous family, Francis reveled in wealth and craved military fame in his youth.  But he would later have his life changed by his encounters with street beggars and lepers.  Francis defied the protests of his father as he renounced all material values. . .

 

"Each year the Earth Mass and Blessing of the Animals is placed under the roof of [St. John the Divine Cathedral] as a way of convening a conversation about stewardship of creation. . .Francis taught that we were created by the One who created all things.  And that we are intended by God to be faithful by loving each other, every creature, and all of creation. . ."

 

Prayer of Thanksgiving

For All Creation

"We give you thanks, most gracious God, for the beauty of earth and sky and sea; 

for the richness of mountains, plains, and rivers; for the songs of birds and the loveliness of flowers, and for the wonder of your animal kingdom.  We praise you for these good gifts, and pray that we may safeguard them for our posterity.  Grant that we may continue to grow in our grateful enjoyment of your abundant creation, to the honor and glory of your Name, now and for ever. Amen."

 

 The Blessing

 The Bishop invokes blessing on the animals

"Live without fear: your Creator loves you, made you holy, and has always protected you. Go in peace to follow the good road and may God's blessing be with you always. Amen."

 

Prayer

Attributed to St. Francis

Lord, make us an instrument of your peace. Where there is hatred, let us sow love;

where there is injury, pardon; where there is discord, union;

where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; 

where there is darkness, light; where there is sadness, joy.

Grant that we may not so much seek to be consoled as to console; 

to be understood as to understand; to be loved as to love.  

For it is in giving that we receive; it is in pardoning that we are pardoned; 

and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen.  

serendipitous

I found this quote on this blog:

{"Now and then it's good to pause in our pursuit of happiness and just be happy."

Guillaume Apollinaire}

just after listening to this podcast in which the Rabbi Jonathan Sacks says that sometimes we should take a break from pursuing happiness, and just let happiness catch up with us. Beautiful, no?

By the way, I really recommend not just this individual podcast, but all the podcasts associated with this site. They are among my recent favorites.

Today I discovered that happiness is:

waking up early to prepare for, and succeed at, a task that's important to me.

and then taking a much-deserved early evening.

celebrating (as in hooting and hollering) Lissie going pee in her potty.

listening to the hum of the dishwasher.

thinking about a scripture in a way I never have before (listen to Sack's take on Jacob's wrestle with the angel and you'll know what I mean).

Hmm, what if I let happiness catch up with me more often?

complications of modesty

I have very mixed feelings about modesty talks, in church or in other forums. Certainly there are types of clothing that I wouldn't wear, or encourage my daughter to wear. Certainly some clothing can be appropriate in some venues while being inappropriate in others. Certainly I think people can wear clothing that draws too much attention to the body and not enough to themselves as complete human beings.

But what I hear often is that women in particular should be modest in order to protect men from sexual thoughts, and to protect women from men and themselves. This is rhetoric I try to stay far away from.

First of all, I'm not convinced that men are beasts who can't control their thoughts. I think the majority of men are conditioned by their cultures to see certain things as sexual. Women's breasts, for instance, have been ridiculously hypersexualized in many Western cultures. In other cultures, however, breasts are not sexualized at all. They are seen as tools to feed babies. And what about hair in many Islamic nations? And what about ankles in Victorian England? In short, there is no prescribed notion of what is sexual. We simply learn to interpret what is or is not sexual from our culture.

Strong evidence also suggests that how women dress does not correlate with sexual violence, such as rape or other assaults. Culture is the greatest predictor of rates of violence against women. If a man can rape or assault a woman sexually with little retribution legally or socially, he, or other young boys or men, learn very quickly that this is an acceptable action to take. In some parts of Africa and Afghanistan, a man is absolved legally from raping a woman as long as he offers to marry her afterward (even if she refuses). Even if he doesn't offer marriage, women are so afraid of the social retributions of having been raped that men often get away with it. A culture that implicates a victim as responsible for the crime is a strange one indeed.

Since women's protection from men doesn't correlate with modesty, why do we talk about it as if it does? I become very impatient with rhetoric that indicates this. If for no other reason, I think often "protecting" women's modesty sometimes perpetuates the view that women's bodies are inherently sexual. Women's bodies (and men's bodies for that matter) are not inherently sexual. What they do with their bodies can be sexual. A woman wearing a bikini to a beach, or walking down the street in a short skirt does not indicate sexual behavior. This is very different from porn where women and men are doing blatantly sexual things with their bodies. The qualm I have with modesty talks is that I feel they teach women, and the men who overhear, that women's bodies are sexual. Period.

My question is, when and where does it stop? Burqas are a clear indicator of what can happen when women's bodies are viewed as purely sexual. In her book Reading Lolita in Tehran, Azar Nafisi discusses the wearing of the veil and burqa to some length. The setting is Iran. Khomeini and his supporters have already overthrown the Shah. Khomeini has made the wearing of the veil, then the burqa compulsory. Nafisi hosts a weekly literature class at her home for a number of handpicked students. A student of Nafisi's tells her that one day she and some schoolmates were standing on the sidewalk eating apples. Some guards standing nearby approached and then told the girls they were eating their apples too seductively. What?!

I, like most normal mothers, want to teach my daughter to dress in ways that are appropriate; ways that represent her as a multi-faceted human being with a wide range of characteristics. I want to teach her how to protect herself; to warn her of the dangers of being alone at night or in certain places, of date rape, of drugs and alcohol, and how to be a good judge of character (but even these things, unfortunately, do not stop rape from happening. Only would-be rapists can do that.). I want to teach her to be careful, because even though her body is certainly not to blame, some people out there are just sick perverts who have been conditioned to absolve themselves of all responsiblity.

In Toni Morison's book, The Bluest Eye, Pecola is a poor girl frequently told by people and by her culture that because she is black, she is ugly . More than anything, she wishes for a pair of blue eyes in order to rectify the situation. Then, she believes, she would be beautiful. Her friends, Frieda and Claudia, also black, are aware that the view that blackness equals ugly is a common one, but they have the wonderful gift of knowing that "the Thing to fear" isn't why they don't fit the beauty criteria, it is the Thing that teaches others that blacks are ugly and whites are beautiful. I hope to teach Lissie that it is the same with her body. The Thing to fear is not her body, but the thing that renders all girls' and womens' bodies as purely sexual.

stereotypes

Is it just me or has there been a lot of talk of Mormons lately? I really don't want to delve into the nitty gritty of the exchanges bouncing around. All I want to say is that the few times I've clearly been misunderstood or stereotyped as a Mormon it has been really annoying at best and hurtful at worst.

Scenario one: I must have been in high school. I was on a trip home from somewhere, by myself in an airport. I honestly don't remember much of the details. But I do clearly remember striking a conversation with a middle aged woman. Somehow the conversation came around to me being a Mormon. I don't remember much of the conversation, but I do remember that she proceeded to describe Mormon girls as primarily domestic. She told me that Mormon girls must transition easily into marriage because they are good at sewing and cooking. What? I began to feel that perhaps Mormon girls, and consequently, myself, were being slightly misunderstood and falsely categorized.

Scenario two: My husband and I found ourselves in Las Vegas for our anniversary this year. We got sucked into a sales pitch for time shares. We vehemently told the woman talking to us that we were not interested for lots of reasons, finances being an excuse, but really time shares don't seem very appealing. She then said something like, "Well, you two are from Utah, so I'm assuming you'll be having quite a few more children". Again, what? I'm not even sure what this statement had to do with the larger context of the conversation we were having, but again I felt falsely categorized.

Scenario three: This summer in Arizona I attended a conference given by an expert on gifted education. I'm sure the man giving the presentation was talented in many ways, but when he found out my research partner and I were from BYU, he must have made a few assumptions. Later he was discussing how important it is to take culture, race and ethnicity into account when approaching education. He loudly drew attention to me and my research partner and said something like, "even these girls from BYU...". (First of all, girls?) I honestly don't know if or how he finished the statement, but his intent was clear. People from BYU (Mormons) are ethnocentric, racist people who don't care about people of other races or cultures. Huh? Sigh. I think I've made my point.

The bottom line: stereotyping is unfair and rude. Being on the receiving end...well, let's just say it isn't fun.