In the meantime, and completely unrelated to the actual work I SHOULD be doing:
This really struck me today. Historically, I have been awful about eating right and exercising, but honestly - I am HORRIBLE about talking to myself right. It's a wonder I'm not (more of) a basket case. Surely, I can do three such simple things. I really think I can.
* * * * *
I've made banoffee pie for my family since I've been home from England, and for a family reunion the other day I was attempting to create a Banoffee Pie Cake. Due to an unforeseen cake-baking-and-removal-from-pan incident, I instead came up with Banoffee Trifle. (Still so British!) It was fabulous, so remind to write down the recipe here. Later, when I'm not trying to write about societal perceptions of war and children's theatre. (Unless people were eating banoffee pie while attending a piece of children's theatre about the effects of war... I should probably suggest that to somebody.)
* * * * *
I've been browsing some blogs this morning, and I found a very interesting string of posts on modesty. Check it out:
http://borrowedlight.blogspot.com/2012/08/on-modesty.html
http://brittanyjmolina.blogspot.com/2012/02/my-love-note-post-went-viral-what-my.html
http://momtheintern.blogspot.com/2012/02/modesty-and-accountability.html
I really like Sue, the first link, finding her often insightful and always very funny. I'm still processing what she says in that post - but more, I'm trying to understand the motivation behind the Friend story and the Primary lesson. (One of her commenters mentions that her three-year-old daughter was called up in front of the entire Primary and told to 'put a cardigan on' over her sleeveless dress - and I, for some reason, flashed to Beyonce 'Single Ladies (Put a Ring On It)'. Not the modesty connection most would hope for, I'm sure... but there are some aspects of this discussion that are just that ridiculous. More on that in a minute.)
The second story is linked from Sue's, a girl who was 'called out' by a boy a BYU for immodesty who took the whole thing as a joke and uploaded his note and a picture of her outfit, and it all went massively viral. The third link is a response to the BYU girl's story.
First off, to start in the middle - Brittany (BYU girl) really seems to have handled the whole thing well. She's positive and upbeat, and is very kind in her writing and speaking about BYU boy. Good for her. Poor BYU boy - chances are he really was just trying to be polite and helpful and not report her to the Honor Code Office. His tone is a tad self-righteous, and his timing (Valentine's Day) was TERRIBLE, but it is not an inherently mean note at all. The problem comes down to his motivation, and since (hopefully) no one will ever know who he was, we won't be able to ask.
The argument seems to be coming down to a couple of different points: 1) Train them young; 2) Girls are responsible for men's responses to them; and 3) Covering up as much as possible regardless of style, comfort, or personal discretion seems to be the way to go.
I really like Jenna's (third link) discussion on modesty - in essence, that modesty is about respecting yourself as a child of God. And... there you go. Modesty is about you, your behavior and perception of self, and your relationship with your Heavenly Father. There are all sorts of offshoots there, such as a discussion of how appearance and behavior can often motivate/inspire/empower one another, and there is truth to that. There's also the realization that modesty is also about helping other people to feel comfortable in your presence, which is also true. There are guidelines the Church gives on appropriate dress, and those are important to review and apply.
HOWEVER: I really don't think we can apply blanket standards to all people in all places of all ages. The thing I dislike most about the Friend story is that there is no context given, other than that the 4-year-old's birthday dress is sleeveless - is it too big? Do the armholes and neck gape and show the girl's sides and chest? Does it have spaghetti straps? I don't understand how someone decides a 4-yr-old wearing a cherry-print sundress is 'immodest' without a few mitigating factors. I agree with Sue - a little girl's shoulders are not sexual, and should not therefore be covered up for that reason. If there is another reason, let's talk about it. If your three-year-old is wearing a sleeveless dress to church that fits properly, covers up her torso, and doesn't have Satanic messages printed on it, I'd be more inclined to point out how cute she looks than go screaming for a cardigan. If the little girl sees her mother and the other sisters and older girls in the ward wearing comfortable, well-fitted (not too big, not too tight) outfits that are appropriate to their age and their temple status, I'd say she'd be fairly likely to be fine with dressing that way herself when she arrives at those various ages and temple status. People do change - that's the whole point of why we're here. OF COURSE we can adapt and adjust to different standards as we grow older and move into new situations. We're selling our children (and ourselves) very, very short to assume that everything has to be learned and locked in immediately. Lead by example; explain things; be practical as well as spiritual; stop judging and keep loving; and I'm thinking the kids will be all right.
I loved this point in the debate: the Victorians got all riled up over a glimpse of ankle or wrist because it was forbidden and all covered up. Times and fashions change (due at least to some extent by major societal events, such as wars and the resulting shortages) and we (thankfully) are no longer required to wear corsets, gloves, long sleeves and longer skirts all the time. Men (evidently) no longer go giddy over the turn of a (naked!) wrist because they're used to seeing it. This doesn't mean I'm advocating we all walk around naked so that everyone gets used to it, because, hello, pockets, but if the Victorians are anything to go by then making something 'forbidden' is not the way to keep it safe. When young women and young men are taught to value themselves and to value those around them as children of God, when they are taught to acknowledge similarities and to appreciate (but not obsess over) differences, physical and otherwise, when they are allowed to honestly discuss thoughts and feelings without insisting that anyone else be judged or dictated to because of differing personal choices... Well, we'd have a lot less of the problems that plague us today.
It is not fair for any woman to be told that she alone is responsible for a man's reaction to her appearance. This completely negates his ability to choose! Remember how the world tells us that you 'feel what you feel' and that those feelings (and by extension, thoughts) cannot be controlled? Baloney. No matter how powerful the feeling is that you're experiencing, you alone control the actions you take because of those feelings. Young men swept with a biological response to seeing a pretty girl allow their thoughts and actions to follow - or they choose to re-direct those thoughts, and the resulting actions, which in turn changes, turns off, or otherwise alleviates the feeling created by that biological urge. Face it - men (young, old, nearly dead) are going to have biological urges (hint: women do, too) so the key is in controlling them, not in shifting responsibility to someone else. Of course, girls can help the men with that control by not dressing in ways that imply a particular type of behavior, and they should out of consideration. However, in the end the responsibility for a young man's behavior rests with him, not with the top or leggings a girl is wearing. It really does come down to personal responsibility and recognizing the worth of the self (for everyone) - when we teach children and youth not to dress a certain way because of the response it may garner from someone else we are also teaching them to objectify themselves to an alarming degree. Basically, we just have to chill out, teach correct principles (and by 'correct principles' I do not mean inch allowances on sleeve- and hem-lines), and expect that most people we will encounter will behave as, well, people... and not depraved sex machines.
I just decided I'm not going to directly address, point 3, because... please.
On BYU Honor Code and Other Types of Established Standards: I think that one of the reasons that we are instructed to "Judge not, that ye be not judged" is that we are simply NOT QUALIFIED to judge. We don't know. We don't have the bigger picture. We cannot expect that other people come from the same backgrounds, situations, teachings and standards that we do - we cannot assume that we understand exactly what's going on. The problem with BYU Boy was not that he commented on Brittany's outfit, or that her clothes disturbed him - it was that he made an assumption about the application of Honor Code standards, her digression from them, and the fact that other people were bound to agree with him simply because he believed his interpretation to be accurate. He shifted blame for his reaction to Brittany onto her and her supposed inability to live the Honor Code because he did not want to acknowledge his responsibility to curb his own response and resulting thoughts, or take the opportunity to consult with someone who WAS qualified to 'judge'. HE ASSUMED HE WAS RIGHT. This is why we have to control our thoughts, actions, and by extension, our feelings - we cause problems when walk around doing things that we believe to be 'right' when there are checks in place to determine whether we are, in fact, 'right'. We very often judge others vocally because we assume that people will agree with us, or in an attempt to persuade them to agree with us. BYU Boy's note made several incorrect assumptions, and it was for this that he was ridiculed across the Internet. If he had focused on his homework and forgotten about it, the whole circus wouldn't have happened. If he had counseled with someone on the Honor Code Board, the whole circus wouldn't have happened. If he had acknowledged to himself: 'Huh - something about that pretty girl is inducing a biological reaction. Interesting. It must be evidence that I am, in fact, a guy. I could ask her out, or I could give her a note that will probably make it less likely that she'll induce a biological reaction from me. That might be out of line, though - maybe I'll just go get a non-caffeinated beverage and meditate in front of a floor fan for a while instead...' The. Whole. Circus. Would. Not. Have. Happened.
I grant you that it's unlikely for youth and young adults to think things through quite this extensively. However, I do not think it's beyond the realm of possibility for us adults to teach them to TRY. And if we do, the clothing issues (real or imagined) are just not going to be that big a deal anymore.
That's my modest conclusion, anyway.
* * * * *
Follow-up notes: I had no idea the title of my post would apply to well to the whole post. Huh. I also had no idea I had so much to say about it.
- Just because I wrote all this down in a blog and was maybe slightly funny or a little bit clever does not mean I'm actually RIGHT. Just FYI.
- Also, I was thinking about doing a word count on this post, just because I count pretty much everything I type these days, then realized I didn't want to know just how much work I could have been doing on my paper while I was getting this all out instead. *le sigh*
*
