Dominionists are so privileged.

[MamaJunebug]

I'm fighting a sadness today, and distracting myself by poking around for things to laugh at .... even if the laughter is brittle.

 

Dear, demure, restored, sales-whiz Stacy McDonald is recycling her stories on the ole yoursacredcalling.com blog, and I dove into one on "why we wear dresses" with .... a little glee.

 

Stacy primly asks us to read the entire article before we comment. So I did, even followed the links contained within and read those.

 

I'll snark later - immediately, the life of privilege that Stacy and others lead is what I want to comment upon.

 

It's the life of the person who doesn't *have* to shop at Goodwill - but who may choose to "thrift" to fulfill her creative side. As opposed to the one whose budget allows Goodwill and not much else.

 

Or who has time for reflection as to whether what she's put on shows her to be a follower of Jesus of Nazareth - and who doesn't automatically acknowledge nuns in Roman Catholic orders who do and don't wear traditional habits. As opposed to the woman whose reflection after dressing is a blur - she's got to get to the hospital/restaurant/office to support her family with a dreary job outside the home.

 

Or for whom deciding when and how to counsel a sinnin' sister about her visible cleavage, or thighs, or underwear. As opposed to the person who needs to decide when and how to counsel a homeless woman who's stalked into the narthex (church lobby) after services demanding money, or a woman who's shaking from the DT's.

 

It's the privileged man/husband/father whose masculinity can be amplified by his wife and daughters wearing skirts, but actually it's the sad man whose masculinity is competed with by his wife and/or daughters in trousers. As opposed to the man who's simply glad his female relations have clothes to wear, and the happy one whose masculinity doesn't consider itself competed with by a female - in any style of dress.

 

I'm as privileged as they come. I've never gone to bed hungry because there was no food for me to eat. I'm in a mere two layers of clothes while the temps outside continue to plummet, because my house is warmed by a reliable source. In fact, I'm privileged because I *have* a house.

 

Stacy and her ilk have financial success, most of their health, huge families and dozens of friends, well appointed houses and properly behaving husbands. They actually - I just realized - have to LOOK for things to complain about and worry about and obsess over and lecture about to others.

 

They're so foolishly clueless in their whining and uber-moralizing. I could live that way, but I won't.

 

Sources cited:

yoursacredcalling.com/blog/2013/10/are-pants-modest/

(aka, Why we wear skirts, featuring photos of a young woman in various poses of chastity - bent backward with arms flung ecstatically wide; standing with one hip thrust to the side and her waist and bosom in fine silhouette)

 

yoursacredcalling.com/blog/2013/10/three-signs-that-christians-have-been-desensitized-by-feminism/

(or, 3 Signs How Even Good Christians have been Desensitized by Feminism, including our pearl-clutching at a 12-yo boy who likes dolls but not at a 12-yo girl who likes active play; and a response from a woman who thanks G-d she's a woman because she is able to enjoy war tales AND books about china dishes and pretty things -- and no real man can enjoy fine china and beautiful items without being, y'know, ghey)

 

Privileged people, that's what they all are.

[Arete]

MamaJB, there are just soooo many scriptural references to Jesus admonishing the Daughters of Eve about their dress and robe lengths, we should be grateful Sister Stacey has blessed us with this counsel. How else would we know our time is better spent clucking "shame, shame, shame on the sinner!" as opposed to handing Sister Mary Ignatius a 20 to gas up the van that brings the homeless to shelters?

[Savoring Samsara]

Am I the only one who, upon reading the title of this thread, immediately had their mind go to "dominants" (as in BDSM) rather than "dominionists"? Not at all the thread I was expecting but that's probably for the best!

[fatcat]

Am I the only one who, upon reading the title of this thread, immediately had their mind go to "dominants" (as in BDSM) rather than "dominionists"? Not at all the thread I was expecting but that's probably for the best!

Haha, nope. I may be reading the wrong blogs...

And yes I agree, they are privileged in many ways (domionists I mean),

[ExCatholic]

Am I the only one who, upon reading the title of this thread, immediately had their mind go to "dominants" (as in BDSM) rather than "dominionists"? Not at all the thread I was expecting but that's probably for the best!

Oh good it wasn't just me!!! Dirty minds think alike...

[Childless]

If all you've got to complain about is seeing a little cleavage or having the kid at check out say "Happy Holidays" to you, then you are indeed privileged. Perhaps your time would be better spent being thankful for what you have and helping those less fortunate then clicking your tongue at people and trying to shame them.

[ILoveJellybeans]

Oh good it wasn't just me!!! Dirty minds think alike...

I thought it was sexual as well, lol :D

[nelliebelle1197]

That article is illustrated with photos from the Stale Modesty blog. Olivia is just lovin' herself all over the page

[Magdelope]

I thought it was sexual as well, lol :D

Glad I wasn't the only one... :?

[MamaJunebug]

Thanks to the kind mods for delivering the title of this topic from the bigggggg mistake I made it to begin with. To my tiny mind, "doms" will always be dominionists. I'd best be careful when I'm on a pub crawl and discussing my personal passion of exposing and countering domINIONISTS or I could be in a very interesting sitch.

Back to the promised snark - I don't have any. But looking at SpiritualSoundingBoard.com for Doug Phillips is a tool updates, I found that the discussion of husbands physically disciplining wives devolved at one point into a headcovering turn. It made me think of Mayim Bialik - stay with me, I promise I'm on-topic - who after her divorce blogged on kveller.com about a variety of changes to her life as an observant Jew.

One of them was whether or not she'd cover when she said prayers or attended services on the Sabbath. IIRC she decided she would. I felt a little sorry for her and didn't know why. Reading the SSB.com discussion and the links they provided to BaylyBrothers *shudder* blog and a place called headcoveringmovement.com, I felt sorry again and figured out why:

The ladies who choose to cover - whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim or other - do so in the best of cases because they've been taught that it's their proper way to talk with God. Me? I've decided that God is big enough that S/He can take my talk no matter my apparel. Stacy and others of her type - again, no matter the religious system - make plenty of book by keeping their followers off-balance: Can a woman truly worship properly without a hat? a tam? a veil? a Kleenex? (Big MJB told us that while in Catholic grade school, if a little girl forgot her headcovering, a nun would make the girl wear a Kleenex on her head to comply with the man-made rules.)

Also, there's a response to Stacy's post from somebody named William who describes himself as unmarried, 38, and having reproached a sister in Christ for the unbuttoned buttons on her otherwise-buttoned blouse. So deep is his question/comment that Stacy sends in Reverend James McDonald to address William.

Oy.