Mormon feminists plan "Wear Pants to Church Day"

[ADoyle90815]

I'm sure this is going to get some women in trouble with their local leaders, as Mormonism has a dress code of skirts or dresses only on Sundays.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaith ... s.html.csp

 

It was started on the Feminist Mormon Housewives blog and on Facebook.

feministmormonhousewives.org/2012/12/mormon-feminists-in-whoville-and-why-you-should-wear-pants-to-church-this-sunday/

[meda]

Wear pants? Seriously? Wow, how radical and subversive. In 1890. :roll:

[Witsec7]

Wear pants? Seriously? Wow, how radical and subversive. In 1890. :roll:

That's what i was thinking. Certainly for their culture it is. I should think they could get their point across just by refusing to participate in the LDS, a mass exodus combined with refusing their husbands sexual access.

[pomology]

That's what i was thinking. Certainly for their culture it is. I should think they could get their point across just by refusing to participate in the LDS, a mass exodus combined with refusing their husbands sexual access.

Lysistrata part 2: Mormon feminists strike back?

[ceg045]

"...are there any women here today?"

MIaORknS1Dk

[BravaAmica]

That's what i was thinking. Certainly for their culture it is. I should think they could get their point across just by refusing to participate in the LDS, a mass exodus combined with refusing their husbands sexual access.

That would be more effective than wearing pants.

[Mela99]

Wow. I never knew this.

I guess I never understood the pants thing. Isn't a dress technically letting your hoo-ha hang free?

[Witsec7]

Lysistrata part 2: Mormon feminists strike back?

Exactly what I had in mind.

[Kitty]

Wow. I never knew this.

I guess I never understood the pants thing. Isn't a dress technically letting your hoo-ha hang free?

Maybe its because I'm an evil feminist and atheist whose only exposure to Mormonism was a close friend in high school who left it, but I always thought that about dresses too. That's why I've always worn shorts or leggings underneath, that and to prevent chub rub despite being 105 lbs...

[gimlet]

Wow. I never knew this.

I guess I never understood the pants thing. Isn't a dress technically letting your hoo-ha hang free?

But pants are worse because it's usurping the natural clothing and authority of men!

The no tattoos stance, the no earrings on men/second earrings for women, no beards for men, and temple garments--how anyone can not think that the LDS church authorities are way to far up in members' personal business, controlling and concerned with the wrong things? This is why people call it a cult.

[lilwriter85]

But pants are worse because it's usurping the natural clothing and authority of men!

The no tattoos stance, the no earrings on men/second earrings for women, no beards for men, and temple garments--how anyone can not think that the LDS church authorities are way to far up in members' personal business, controlling and concerned with the wrong things? This is why people call it a cult.

The constant meddling of LDS church authorities also gives me a bit of cult vibe. From Mormon blogs that I read, the bloggers sometimes talk about the strong communinity vibe in LDS, they talk about their fellow ward members and the authority figures helped them out during hard times. But then there are posts about their bishops always being in their business. Sometimes exmormon.org, the members discuss times in which church authorities really got into their business and how it annoyed them. A few months back, I read an article about Romney's days as a LDS bishop and there was an incident in which he tried to pressure a single woman into putting up her son for adoption.

[emesbe]

I am a part of this---you would not believe the names we have been called.

My faith in the people of the church is lying in the gutter. I am seriously pissed.

[luckystone]

It's sad they have to do this, but I think it's really awesome there is a group that is. I'm proud of them.

[eohiken]

Friend of mine (IRL) is doing this. I can't for the life of me understand why she's managed to stay in that church all this time, she's a intelligent opinionated women, but she likes it for some reason. Her husband has already left the church in heart and mind (although not in body), maybe she's not far behind.

[mirele]

The last time I went to church on any regular basis, I used to wear salwar kameez, which I'm sure confused the hell out of everyone. I didn't care.

[emesbe]

When I can afford it, I am so getting a ao dai and wearing the hell out of it at church.

[Ramona]

I had no idea that the mainstream LDS church required dresses or skirts ~ is this for little girls as well (toddlers etc) or just grown women?

[theologyofyourface]

The last time I went to church on any regular basis, I used to wear salwar kameez, which I'm sure confused the hell out of everyone. I didn't care.

My mother wore a bright-orange and gold salwar kameez to my wedding. My mother is awesomesauce. :D

[emesbe]

I had no idea that the mainstream LDS church required dresses or skirts ~ is this for little girls as well (toddlers etc) or just grown women?

The thing is---it's not required.

“The Church has not attempted to indicate just how long women’s or girls’ dresses should be nor whether they should wear pant suits or other types of clothing.â€--LDS Church Presidency (1971)

I just can't even with a lot of the members of my church. This may be the straw that breaks my back. :cry:

[LadyFriend]

I have a hard time referring to anyone who belongs to a discriminatory and patriarchal organization (not only referring to Mormons) a feminist. Perhaps that is unfair. I have plenty of marginally Catholic friends who I would otherwise consider (for the most part) to be feminists. I am also aware that there are people here who probably fit that profile.

However...even if I believed in God, I could never be a member of an organization that gives any validation to patriarchy and continue to feel comfortable calling myself a feminist. The hypocrisy of it drives me nuts.

[theologyofyourface]

I have a hard time referring to anyone who belongs to a discriminatory and patriarchal organization (not only referring to Mormons) a feminist. Perhaps that is unfair. I have plenty of marginally Catholic friends who I would otherwise consider (for the most part) to be feminists. I am also aware that there are people here who probably fit that profile.

However...even if I believed in God, I could never be a member of an organization that gives any validation to patriarchy and continue to feel comfortable calling myself a feminist. The hypocrisy of it drives me nuts.

I actually think it's pretty brave of those women to stay and try to change things in the Mormon Church. I think that's part of the reason why religious organizations like the Mormon Church or the Catholic Church have been so slow to change--because all the people with good ideas leave, instead of staying and telling their bishops/priests/church friends, "Hey, I think what you're spouting is wrong and you should stop doing that now." I believe the most rapid change to an organization is achieved from the inside, and that change is most effectively brought about by people leveraging the privilege that their membership in a specific group provides. I mean, I went to the General Convention of the Episcopal Church this summer, and I saw first-hand how an organization (especially a religious one) is only changed when its members are the ones who do the changing.

[LadyFriend]

I actually think it's pretty brave of those women to stay and try to change things in the Mormon Church. I think that's part of the reason why religious organizations like the Mormon Church or the Catholic Church have been so slow to change--because all the people with good ideas leave, instead of staying and telling their bishops/priests/church friends, "Hey, I think what you're spouting is wrong and you should stop doing that now." I believe the most rapid change to an organization is achieved from the inside, and that change is most effectively brought about by people leveraging the privilege that their membership in a specific group provides. I mean, I went to the General Convention of the Episcopal Church this summer, and I saw first-hand how an organization (especially a religious one) is only changed when its members are the ones who do the changing.

I agree with you to an extent. I am conflicted on the point and I hope that came across in my comment. I'm not at all convinced, however, that change is best enacted from inside. Sometimes people do need to be dragged kicking and screaming from outsiders and remaining in these organizations is enabling and legitimizing (i.e., "there are plenty of female Catholics, so they can't be all that bad when it comes to women"). I do know that I personally couldn't be a member of such a group (regardless of my metaphysical beliefs/opinions).

I also think that having all the people with the "good ideas" leave does not erase those ideas. The leaders and members of the organization know exactly why people are leaving in many cases and that message doesn't dissipate just because the members are gone. It's not as if bishops are not hearing feminist ideas from the outside (although you may be right that they MIGHT be less likely to be hostile if those ideas are coming from one of their own).

I think that it's probably a good thing to have people working for change from within these organizations. I still think there is a bit of hypocrisy in lending legitimacy to patriarchal groups (via membership, which implies acceptance of the group's major beliefs) and calling yourself a feminist. I also recognize that there is a hell of a lot of gray area in this discussion and I don't want to disrespect those working for change from the inside out.

Edited to add a point.

[theologyofyourface]

I agree with you to an extent. I am conflicted on the point and I hope that came across in my comment. I'm not at all convinced, however, that change is best enacted from inside. Sometimes people do need to be dragged kicking and screaming from outsiders and remaining in these organizations is enabling and legitimizing (i.e., "there are plenty of female Catholics, so they can't be all that bad when it comes to women"). I do know that I personally couldn't be a member of such a group (regardless of my metaphysical beliefs/opinions).

I also think that having all the people with the "good ideas" leave does not erase those ideas. The leaders and members of the organization know exactly why people are leaving in many cases and that message doesn't dissipate just because the members are gone. It's not as if bishops are not hearing feminist ideas from the outside (although you may be right that they MIGHT be less likely to be hostile if those ideas are coming from one of their own).

I think that it's probably a good thing to have people working for change from within these organizations. I still think there is a bit of hypocrisy in lending legitimacy to patriarchal groups (via membership, which implies acceptance of the group's major beliefs) and calling yourself a feminist. I also recognize that there is a hell of a lot of gray area in this discussion and I don't want to disrespect those working for change from the inside out.

Edited to add a point.

Fair enough. What I was trying to say, I guess, is that in groups that believe themselves to be in some way "oppressed" or "misunderstood" or "against the world," like many of these conservative Christian groups, views from the outside are neutralized with the rationalization that those other people "just don't understand." Sure, the good ideas don't go away when people leave, but if they're coming from a person whom the institution automatically distrusts as an outsider/traitor, they may be less likely to make a difference. If the member up and leaves the group, their dissent may be explained away-- oh, they weren't true believers, they didn't really care about the faith, etc. But if the call is coming from inside the house, so to speak, then it's harder to dismiss. A non-Mormon telling the Mormon Church that they need to treat women equally is no threat, really-- it's just more evidence in the minds of the higher-ups that non-Mormons don't understand the church and are hostile to it. A Mormon telling the Mormon Church that they need to treat women equally is a lot more awkward for the church to explain away.

Anyways, I get being conflicted about it, too. I don't know that I would be able to bear staying in a religious group that treated me as an inferior. It seems like it would be pretty soul-crushing.

[Beeks]

Nienie's sister CJane (who IMO has gotten a lot more likable lately) wrote a post on this.

Skip to the comments to read righteous Mormon mommies getting their panties in a twist and clutching their pearls over this. It's sad.

.cjanekendrick.com/2012/12/the-worst-thing-is-pants.html

Edit to properly break the link

[ADoyle90815]

Even worse are the comments posted on that day's Facebook page. I've personally experienced judgment for wearing slacks to the Mormon church, as at the time, I had no idea it was a skirts or dresses only church on Sundays. The sexism is one of the reasons I ended up leaving, but more than that, I just didn't believe in the Book of Mormon.

facebook.com/events/144815455666087/