Author
|
Topic: WholesomeWear - Taking modesty to a new level
|
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061
|
posted 07 August 2007 06:23 AM
I found this profoundly disturbing. Like I had been flown back to the 30's or something. Have a gander for yourself:WholesomeWear Swimming with dresses on must be so fun!! Endorsed by good Christians everywhere, including the Hillbilly Housewife who calls herself A Christian Stay At Home Mom. This blog Feminist Law Professors has a lot to say about it. I think she broached it from many angles but ultimately, I think this is downright creepy.
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 07 August 2007 11:14 AM
On the other hand, perhaps some women just feel self-conscious in bathing-suits that reveal more than they're comfortable with revealing. Obviously I think the whole Christian Taliban movement is a bit much, but I would respect a woman's choice to wear something that covers her body more.I saw that site years ago, possibly while looking for those new bathing suits that cover the shoulders and thighs in order to avoid sunburns. My son takes swimming lessons at Toronto community centres. We booked one of his levels at a different community centre than our usual one, and one of the instructors was a woman who wore a swimsuit that looked like a one-piece, loose body suit, and a cap. I'm pretty sure that she was Muslim. Anyhow, I remember thinking, that's really neat that she's found a way to participate at a public pool, with mixed genders, without compromising her comfort level. Mormon women might also appreciate such bathing suits, as they wear undergarments that would show under a "regular" bathing suit.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061
|
posted 08 August 2007 03:41 AM
On the surface there is nothing wrong with feeling modest. Many of us do at various times. But the issue is not modesty in my opinion, It is shame for the female body that I am talking about here. How women and girls are programmed to cover up so as not to 'entice' men. Or cover up because they have less than perfect bodies. We all have less than perfect bodies. That is reality. We should not be going backwards in this regards. We should be going forward, and towards embracing all forms of the human body - because that is reality - not swimming in dresses. Not having women cover up form head to toe. This is not advancement. This is fear of the body as it exists. It is not enpowerment, it is stifling and masking a fear (which is the root of the problem). The root of the problem must be deconstructed so that we, as women, do not have to make a choice between "modesty" (and really, this is not modesty) and 'slutty". This culture shirks from age, from women whose bellys speak of child birth, from women whose lines speak of experience. Covering those up is not grrl power. Just my opinion, as a female, who has and still has body image issues. And the pressure is on for men too Makwa. Men should be able to be comfortable in their bodies, and you should not feel embarassed that you have some extra pounds. That's called life, and living it, and it should be celebrated, not covered up. People need to start being seen for who we are, and not what we look like. And it has to start somewhere. This modesty movement is not it though. [ 08 August 2007: Message edited by: Stargazer ]
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jrose
babble intern
Babbler # 13401
|
posted 08 August 2007 04:53 AM
quote: The root of the problem must be deconstructed so that we, as women, do not have to make a choice between "modesty" (and really, this is not modesty) and 'slutty". This culture shriks from age, from women who bellies speak of child birth, from women who lines speak of experience. Covering those up is not grrls power.
I think this dichotomy between modesty and "slutty"ness is important to look at, and we've been examining it in another thread in regards to female sexuality. Sure, covering up is not grrrl power, but either is stripping down in many cases. You're right, no woman needs to choose between modesty and "sluttyness" because there is so much grey area in between. I think the importance lies in an ability and freedom to make such choices for ourselves, and not to please a third party.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 08 August 2007 11:12 AM
quote: Originally posted by jrose: Sure, covering up is not grrrl power, but either is stripping down in many cases. You're right, no woman needs to choose between modesty and "sluttyness" because there is so much grey area in between. I think the importance lies in an ability and freedom to make such choices for ourselves, and not to please a third party.
I am not sure about stripping down not being grrrl power, it certainly pisses me off men, of whatever body type, can go without shirts on, on hot days and no one blinks an eye, while if a female did the same, many people would be staring and/or outraged/discomforted. The closest we females can get to this type of baring is bikinis tops, or sports bra type covering. Wearing bkinis has very little to do with sex appeal. It seems that female nipples are unacceptable to be exposed, while when male nipples are being exposed no one blinks an eye. People need to get rid of "sluttiness" being applied towomen ideology completely. In fact, it is high time that any application of morality is taken out of people's perceptions of sex, or anything to do with it.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jrose
babble intern
Babbler # 13401
|
posted 08 August 2007 12:28 PM
quote: People need to get rid of "sluttiness" being applied towomen ideology completely. In fact, it is high time that any application of morality is taken out of people's perceptions of sex, or anything to do with it.
I agree, to a certain point, due to the sexual morality enforced on all of us via the media, our peers, parents, some men, all of which we should rightfully reject. I do however think many men and women have standards of their own sexual morality that we place upon ourselves, that act as more of a strict guideline than the messages around us. At least I always have. You’re so right about the word “slut,” and the concept of "sluttiness". I’ve always thought that there are few words in the English language that are quite as derogatory and I cringe every time I hear it applied.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 08 August 2007 03:03 PM
quote: Originally posted by jrose: I do however think many men and women have standards of their own sexual morality that we place upon ourselves, that act as more of a strict guideline than the messages around us.
But those we apply to ourselves, as opposed to others applying them for us. It is no one's business, and they have no right to judge others sex lives. quote: You’re so right about the word “slut,” and the concept of "sluttiness". I’ve always thought that there are few words in the English language that are quite as derogatory and I cringe every time I hear it applied.
I feel the same way about the use of "whore", especially in a contexual value like: "skanky crack whore". Men who are crack addicts do not have an additional value added to their addiction condition.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732
|
posted 09 August 2007 10:12 AM
quote: Experts say the shift in patterns of drug use has directly affected the type of crimes being committed at street level. Heroin addicts, previously identified as being responsible for the vast majority of property-related crime, traditionally fund their habits through activities such as burglary, breaking into parked cars, shoplifting and credit card fraud. Crack, however, leaves heavy users edgy, paranoid and dangerously desperate. Because of this they are more likely to get involved in violent, opportunist crimes such as mugging, mobile phone theft and carjacking.
GuardianDurham police quote: “If there’s crack in your city or town, you’re going to find an increase in crime. They go hand-in-hand. Many of our home invasions, robberies, thefts and break and enters can be traced back to the violence of the drug trade and, in particular, to crack cocaine.”
Gee I've never heard crack addicts referred to as violent either.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 09 August 2007 08:33 PM
quote: Originally posted by kropotkin1951: Gee I've never heard crack addicts referred to as violent either.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? We were talking about a select gender biased negative label that is imposed upon women who are addicted to "drugs", and that men do not have a similar label. Moreover, your articles linked were not gender specific either, nor were they containing a broad brushing negative label for men.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
EmmaG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12605
|
posted 10 August 2007 09:19 AM
quote: Originally posted by remind: BCG, read and reread your words, and thought a bit about what you said, and sadly I do not appear to "get" what you are meaning, or rather want me to get from your words.
I think she's pointing out that there have been assumptions made in this thread that societies where women wear bikinis/small bathing suits are culturally superior to cultures where women cover up (ie societies where burquas are mandatory).
Is that what you were getting at bcg?
From: nova scotia | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 10 August 2007 12:03 PM
quote: Originally posted by kropotkin1951: Remind you are always right even when you introduce thread drift about crrack addicts. I know now that when someone says a violent crack addict the image of a man that pops into my mind is not correct I will try in the future to imagine a woman when I hear that term.
I actually do imagine a woman when I hear the term, as my experience with a violent crack addict was a woman who was robbing a gas bar, I was in at the time paying for gas, with a dirty hypodermic needle. and thanks for acknowledging my correctness. quote: And I will make sure I never think that the term crack whore could be used to describe a male crack addict because we know they never prositute themeselves for drugs.
It seems some men just refuse to acknowledge the patriarchy that exists in news reporting
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072
|
posted 10 August 2007 04:37 PM
I agree with many here- the main problem with this is the idea behind the bathing suits- not the bathing suits themselves. The idea of modesty is linked with ideas about the female body and sexuality, how a woman should behave. These ideas are essential to maintaining our sex-gender system.Showing more flesh or less flesh doesn't mean women are more or less empowered necessarily.As the article says quote: Okay as far as it goes, but women probably choose “WhosesomeWear” swimsuits for a variety of reasons. Some no doubt do so because of requests by patriarchal spouses or fathers, or due to general Christian nutjobitude, but others may have damaged bodies, or damaged psyches. A person who gets tired of fielding questions about noticeable scars may quite reasonably prefer to cover them. A rape or sexual harassment victim may quite reasonably prefer to hide her curves. Some people need heavy duty sun coverage for health reasons. Shouldn’t feminism leave room for that?
I also don't really think that these bathing suits are made to attract attention to the degree of the wearer's modesty and how good they are- few people would actually wear these things. [ 10 August 2007: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ] [ 10 August 2007: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]
From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938
|
posted 10 August 2007 05:17 PM
The assumptions about what it means to wear a veil, or a hijab or a burka, come from a Western view of what women wear being the most important thing about them. Absolutely there are similarities across patriarchal religions and cultures, including ours, that the more "uptight and religious" the more covering of women and the more secular the less covering. Neither speaks to women's agency, and what, in fact are the issues that we define as significant to us. I always ask this question when this kind of topic arises, and I'll keep asking it: What are Muslim feminists saying are the issues most important to them? Muslim women here in the West? Muslim women in the Middle East? Africa? Afghanistan, India and Pakistan? Lots and lots of things I bet. Can I suggest that anyone who's interested to poke around the blog of Chelby Daigle? quote:
About Me Name: The Funky Ghetto Hijabi Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada This blog is a way for me to communicate my thoughts to all my friends and loved ones who I don't have enough time to talk to. I'm Nigerian-Canadian. My dad lives in Lagos. He's Ijaw/Yoruba. My mom's from Quebec and is culturally French-Canadian but she raised me as an Anglophone. I became a Sunni Muslim when I was 21. A lot of this blog deals with my issues around being a Muslim by choice in the post 911 world. I also discuss issues around having grown up on welfare, being committed to anti-oppression politics and recovering from childhood abuse and a highly dysfunctional family. I hope that others can benefit from my thoughts and experiences. I also hope that some of my posts can trigger a laugh or two.
quote: When we see women "covering," many of us see oppression. But the Muslim women we talked to say nobody is pressuring them. Take 26-year-old Chelby Daigle. Born to a French-Canadian Catholic mother and a Nigerian Lutheran father, she grew up an atheist and converted to Islam when she was 21, even though she was then, and still is, a feminist. She's one of a growing number of young women wearing the hijab -- or head scarf -- as a symbol of her commitment to Islam, even though people regularly insult her or sometimes throw things at her on the street.
The Funky Ghetto Hijabi [ 10 August 2007: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914
|
posted 11 August 2007 01:26 PM
No..err....yes...err...What if it was? What if it wasn't? [ 11 August 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914
|
posted 11 August 2007 05:23 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stargazer:
Actually being comfortable with one's own skin is empowerment. I don't know why you are choosing to be an ass because I don't remember ever offending you.
Enlightenment, Empowerment = Tomayto, Tomahto... My "being an ass" is entirely your own internal dialogue. I was being completely serious. The problem of "feeling comfortable in your own skin" is not political, but an entirely psychological - dare I say spiritual - pursuit. What the Jones' choose to cover their naughty bits with has no bearing on the problem. [ 11 August 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914
|
posted 11 August 2007 07:29 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stargazer: Actually I don't agree one bit. Empowerment has got to come from inside, yes, but only after the conditions of the society we live in allow it to be so. So you've got this wrong. Empowerment does not mean enlightenment. And I would be the very last person to turn this into a psychological issue. We do not live in a vacuum.
Not surprising, you're busy defending your cyber-territory. Anyway the gist of your spiel is that it's someone else's responsibility if you don't feel comfortable in your own skin. You've got it backwards - the political cannot and will not change until our internal situation is rectified. The attitude change you require of others for your so-called "empowerment" will only come about through their own internal work, not by you wishing it so. The same is true of your own feeling of "comfort in your own skin." It will ALWAYS come back to you. [ 11 August 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 12 August 2007 06:32 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stargazer:
Exactly! True empowerment would be the ability to feel comfortable in our skin, whatever shape it may be in. True empowerment would be to be ourselves as we are, to view ourselves as we are, as opposed to seeing ourselves through the eyes of the male gaze.
I like your vision, But I don't think it possible. I believe reproductive urgers are simply to fundamental to our instincts and behavior as homo sapiens. Though, maybe with not too much social engineering, we might be able to move closer.
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061
|
posted 13 August 2007 04:04 AM
quote: to clarify, I mean that you have to burn the candle at both ends. Sexism os something that is intergral to our social system- so integral that its notions are imposed and taught as normal from birth by evereyine around us. You educate yourself (enlightenment) and others, and then things change because then they now what they are doing is wrong. I don't think that competitiveness of the physique is inevitable- having gone to both a mixed gender gym and a women's gym, I haven't noticed this at all-people tend to mind their own business. I don't think that being comfortable in your own skin really jives with your ideas of the above. Doesn't that have to do more with beauty standards that are also sexist and racist -ie degrading? Oppression is written/reflected on the body.
Thank you for saying this. This (more specifically Beezlebub's assertion that it is up to us to change), really had me thinking of a rebuttal that would make sense. I can be as enlightened as I want - i.e., I can KNOW that this ad or these clothes are sending such and such a message. The problem is, that just because it resonates intellectually does not mean that in the future, when I or another woman come across something that jars us back into our bodies as spectator's, it won't hit us emotionally. Take for instance yesterday. Waiting in line for a coffe there was the regular bevy of celebrity rags. The one that caught my attention was glaring the head line "See what stars are battling icky cellulite?" To these people who think it all has to "come from inside us" I say bullshit. You can be strong for certain periods but when you see parts of your own body reflected in a rag, and those parts being torn down by usually male writers (regardless of the gender, it doesn't matter) shame for your own body is bound to happen. It is inevitable. Why? because again, we live in an extremely sexist society. Men are allowed to grow old, get man boobs, big bellies and grow bald, and still be labeled hot or not discussed at all. While women in their late 30's and older are torn to shreds that they should dare age. They should dare have marks on the bellies that prove childhood. They should dare have "man hands" or they should dare age gracefully. It is a misogynistic world and until this prevailing attitude changes, we are stuck with some form of body hatred. Secondly, I really really resent a man telling me or any women that the key to getting over this always lies inside ourselves. Bullshit buddy. Until you are a woman, and until you experience what women doe on a daily basis, all freaking day. get back to me. For now I suggest stying out of this thread and listening. For frigs sake, they even were tearing down young women of 20 who dared not be perfect - surgery, etc. It is horrible to have your body parts on display for the world to see all it's imperfections (which id really just life and genetics) and even worse to be the person looking at those ads who sees themselves reflected there and realizes how much disdain people have for the female body in it's natural form. Society has to change. There is not a chance in hell we will ever be on equal footing unless this happens, regardless of what some dude in this thread thinks.
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061
|
posted 13 August 2007 07:00 AM
Why don't you piss off you pompous asshole. quote: Until YOU know how not to be negative and controlling (like worrying about what people cover their naughty bits with), you can't tell anyone else how to go about dealing with their shit.
Negative and controlling for pointing out sexism that exists? Seriously stay the fuck out of this forum. I don't want to get a mod here. [ 13 August 2007: Message edited by: Stargazer ]
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914
|
posted 13 August 2007 07:47 AM
The act of pointing out sexism is not itself negative, but your emotional state sure is. Is that MY fault? Or yours? Maybe you can blame society as a nice middle-ground. As for "controlling": is it necessarily "sexism" when people wish to cover what they deem to be their naughty bits? Is a non-sexist world a world of naked people? This came up in the debate about hijab in France. People cried "a covered woman is an oppressed woman". Are they? Is not a woman forced to uncover by the demands of secular capitalist ideology also "oppressed" by definition?
You would have everyone uncovered, they would have everyone covered and in the meantime you still can't brook a little bit of contrasting opinion without flying off the handle, calling people names, and painting everything I say in the colours of your own internal state. Empowered? Hardly: a few questions and a different opinion and you're a marionette. And you expect the people of the world to change if you just "enlighten" them? [ 13 August 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061
|
posted 13 August 2007 07:54 AM
No, I expect you to act like a decent human being. Which you haven't done. You have stepped your nose into the feminist forum and claimed that I am ashamed or somehow censoring "naughty bits" which is blatantly false. You are a pompous ass. Whether or not I let my emotion rule this particular moment is my business. It irks me that you, a complete no mind when it comes to reading comprehension, are still here, still trying to pick fights with me. So again..fuck off. This is supposed to be SAFE forum for women to discuss issues which effect them. Not a forum in which I have to watch my emotions or watch what I post for fear some asshole like you will come along and take advantage of that vulnerability. I've already alerted the moderators. [ 13 August 2007: Message edited by: Stargazer ]
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914
|
posted 13 August 2007 08:02 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stargazer: [QB]No, I expect you to act like a decent human being. Which you haven't done. You have stepped your nose into the feminist forum...
I'm sorry, is this some exclusive territory? Not by Rabble's rules. quote: and claimed that I am ashamed or somehow censoring "naughty bits" which is blatantly false.
It would be false if this was my assertion. In fact, I said that the people you are criticising are covering what THEY feel are their naughty bits. I quote myself, "As for "controlling": is it necessarily "sexism" when people wish to cover what they deem to be their naughty bits?" quote: Whether or not I let my emotion rule this particular moment is my business.
Finally, you're starting to understand me. quote: It irks me that you, a complete no mind when it comes to reading comprehension, are still here, still trying to pick fights with me.
You lead off this bit with an offended/offensive response to one sentence I wrote. Now you've made it my fault for "irking" you. [ 13 August 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914
|
posted 13 August 2007 08:05 AM
My attacks? This is your first message to me: quote: Actually being comfortable with one's own skin is empowerment. I don't know why you are choosing to be an ass because I don't remember ever offending you.
Already, without even asking what I meant, you called me an "ass" and suggest that I'm out to get you. Then this: quote: This is not his playground. It is a place for women's voices. I should not have to be silenced because he chose to ride my ass every post.
It's a place to discuss issues regarding feminism. There is no "women only" rule. I have responded to you without calling you names, and without suggesting that you be banned/silenced/reported to the moderators, etc. You have been anything BUT silenced. So, back on topic - why is it necessarily sexism when people wish to cover what they think are their naughty bits? Is "shame" at the sight of a human body necessarily "sexism"? [ 13 August 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 13 August 2007 09:22 AM
quote: Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores: Why are these bits "naughty" or shameful ?
Oh, I know the use of that terminology infuriated me. quote: We're not really worrying how they dress- but why they dress that way. That's not being negative or controlling.
Exactly! Though I do not think he should be engaged in conversation that he was told to stay out of. quote: Oppression may be inner, but these bathing suits are an example of how its written on the body.
Oppression is not only inner.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921
|
posted 13 August 2007 09:27 AM
quote: Originally posted by bigcitygal: remind and Rosa, and all others who haven't challenged the use of invoking the image and methaphor of a burka as the-most-extreme-way-a-woman-can-be-oppressed-ever, I ask you to think about what it means to say this, believe this, and not to challenge this, and what mainstream assumptions are beneath this understanding.
I don't think my position is at all that of remind! I didn't say the burka was the most-extrem-way-a-woman-can-be-oppressed-ever! I said (simplifying greatly) that a bikini is just as symptomatic of oppression as a burka. It is true that I am characterizing both as "symptomatic of oppression" and perhaps you object to that. But I stand by that. Pardon the late reply. I've been preoccupied. [edited to remove animated smillie. It was driving me crazy!] [there! got the damn thing!] [ 13 August 2007: Message edited by: RosaL ] [ 13 August 2007: Message edited by: RosaL ] [ 13 August 2007: Message edited by: RosaL ]
From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|