Awfully Altered Modest is Not Hottest Wedding Gown Explained

[FoxyMoxie]

I almost included a paragraph about how I don't think makeup in itself is immodest in my original post, but I decided against it because it's hard to type on my phone. Guess that'll teach me to be lazy!

Makeup is not immodest, makeup is not unfeminist, makeup is not anything but makeup. Just to throw that out there! Likewise there's nothing wrong with wanting to look pretty, or stylish, or feminine, or modest, or whatever. I would argue though that modesty would mean avoiding excess in any capacity,and that's what bothers me about Olivia. Back to the swimsuit example, is it modest to wear something you know will make you stick out like a sore thumb? Wouldn't it be more modest to wear something that won't make you the center of attention?

It just seems to me like Olivia has very strict rules (skirts must be a certain length, tunics must cover her butt, etc) that came from...where? Who decided this was the definition of proper Christian modesty, and why does this young girl think she can lecture about it?

Ahh I understand your meaning more now - sorry for the misunderstanding. I agree re Olivia - she's a Calvinist afaik, and not a member of a church with concrete modesty requirements as far as I can tell, so it is a little puzzling.

[FoxyMoxie]

Um, no, they are saying in context that women who run around brandishing modesty as if it is the only worthwhile value in a woman then slather on a ton of makeup to draw attention to themselves are not modest. Context, dear. Go back and actually absorb the context. You did need to support your reasoning because your argument had nothing to do with what was actually being stated.

Feminism has nothing to do with being free from criticism, by the way. Calling a woman "unfeminist" because they disagree with your conclusion (which was actually based on taking a statement out of the obvious context of its meaning) is censoring thought, which is likely the most "unfeminist" thing you could do.

If you would like a little education on women, self image, perception and feminism, check out Naomi Wolf and Simone de Beauvoir. I would also advise Sarah Evans' Personal Politics. It is quite an eye opener.

Actually I absorbed the context perfectly well, I simply disagree with you. That is possible! Whenever did it become acceptable to speak down to people just because they disagree with you? Why is rudeness OK just because I disagree with you? So I disagree with you - not sure why it has offended you so much.

I haven't ever said that I'm free from criticism, and neither do I think that someone (actually I called the statement unfeminist, not the person) is unfeminist because they disagree with me. I called the statement unfeminist because I thought it was unfeminist - but it was a misunderstanding. I'm not sure what the huge deal is here.

I have read de Beauvoir and Wolf. Will check out Sarah Evans. Personally I am keen to read from a more diverse cast of feminists than white middle-class academics - have you read Audre Lorde and bell hooks?

[nelliebelle1197]

Except that personal interpretation is kind of key to Christianity. I don't know if you are a Christian, but words meaning things doesn't prevent personal interpretation. Just from a personal perspective - as an Anglican who would not use the Bible alone but also Experience, Tradition and Reason (ie the Wesleyan Quadrilateral) I would interpret those verses not literally, but as talking about a show-offy manner. I wouldn't say that it literally forbids plaiting your hair. For myself and others from non-Biblical-literalism denominations, personal interpretation is perfectly valid. Even with the Duggars, I may not agree with them but I respect their right to interpret the Bible differently to me. Of course, when it comes to forcing children to dress a certain way that is different.

I see what you are saying now. You are coming at it from a very different, more critical place than most of these folks. I went to an IFB school until 10th grade and have been exposed to a lot of what we talk about here first hand. I don't know if you have been exposed to biblical literalists in any sort of large, personal dose, but man, it is a terrifying world of absolutes with nothing up for critical thought or examination. In fact, I am not sure where you are, but if you are near one, you should go for a couple weeks. I think you would be blown away and intrigued.

If everyone was thoughtful and thought about it the way you do, religion would be a much more healthy place.

[nelliebelle1197]

Actually I absorbed the context perfectly well, I simply disagree with you. That is possible! Whenever did it become acceptable to speak down to people just because they disagree with you? Why is rudeness OK just because I disagree with you? So I disagree with you - not sure why it has offended you so much.

I haven't ever said that I'm free from criticism, and neither do I think that someone (actually I called the statement unfeminist, not the person) is unfeminist because they disagree with me. I called the statement unfeminist because I thought it was unfeminist - but it was a misunderstanding. I'm not sure what the huge deal is here.

I have read de Beauvoir and Wolf. Will check out Sarah Evans. Personally I am keen to read from a more diverse cast of feminists than white middle-class academics - have you read Audre Lorde and bell hooks?

I get ya. Yep, required reading. And I am sure you read Angela Davis. I worship her. Saw her live a few years back. I am also sure you have read on liberation theology?? Gutierrez? If I were to be religious again...

[nelliebelle1197]

I get ya. Yep, required reading. And I am sure you read Angela Davis. I worship her. Saw her live a few years back. I am also sure you have read on liberation theology?? Gutierrez? If I were to be religious again...

And that was condescending. Reread it and I agree. Been doing that a lot lately. Thanks for calling me out. I think I must be getting really excitable in my old age. Just smack me around if I need it!

[usmcmom]

The focus on modest clothing drives me nuts, because it misses the point of modesty. Wearing long skirts or high necklines doesn't make a person modest. Modesty is a state of mind. It isn't modest to dress in long denim skirt and shapeless t shirt but yet spend hours upon hours doing your hair and makeup.

Modesty is more about humility, propriety and deference within ourselves. When apostle Paul talks about women dressing modestly, he meant not to be extravagant, flaunting wealth and he speaks about not not having elaborate hairstyles or elaborate decor with the clothing. Modesty is not to prevent others from responding with arousal or lustful thoughts, it is about being humble and unassuming.

:clap: :clap: This is where I think Teri Maxwell completely misses the boat in how she dictated her daughters' clothing. She was so proud of Sarah for shaming the "immodest" girls at church because they didn't dress like the Maxwells. Boastfulness is not modest; even if we can't see your ankles while you're doing it.

[ExCatholic]

Check out the comment section of any post where Olivia wears pants - the true skirts-only crazies really come out.

There's a commenter on her workout outfit that says what I was trying to say about modesty much more eloquently than I did. :)

freshmodesty.blogspot.com/2014/04/my-workout-outfit.html?m=1

[ExCatholic]

D'oh, hit submit. Here's the quote I liked:

"My other concern is that many young women are more concerned with their "conservative, skirts only" image than with having a heart that is pure and humble and completely in love with Jesus."

That's what bothers me - it seems some of these women are focused dar more on their image then on the reason they say they want to be modest. Its OK to want to be cute, but own it! No reason to pretend Jesus cares if your hair is a certain length, you know?

[ExCatholic]

Ahh I understand your meaning more now - sorry for the misunderstanding. I agree re Olivia - she's a Calvinist afaik, and not a member of a church with concrete modesty requirements as far as I can tell, so it is a little puzzling.

No worries, its hard to tell what someone means if they don't take the time to write carefully :) I blame the baby sleeping on my other arm for my crappy one-handed snarking.

Ooh had more to say but he's waking up, and I don't hit my kid with a plumbing line to keep him quiet, so I'm going to go dote on him now!

[alba]

Check out the comment section of any post where Olivia wears pants - the true skirts-only crazies really come out.

There's a commenter on her workout outfit that says what I was trying to say about modesty much more eloquently than I did. :)

freshmodesty.blogspot.com/2014/04/my-workout-outfit.html?m=1

I'm loving this comment on that post:

Well, there is a site called hydro-chic and they have skirts that hit at your knee for exercising activities. That is a ton more modest then what you have on since if we can see at anytime your special parts it is totally immodest. I can do anything in a skirt.

a) Special parts? Seriously?!

b) The wording makes it sound like she's hanging upside down in a skirt with no underwear. You're not seeing "special parts" in this outfit.

I feel kind of bad for this commenter, though, because she also says her husband doesn't allow her to wear trousers (I'm sorry, I can't call them pants; here those are what you wear *under* your trousers/skirt) for any reason.

I actually find Olivia's approach to modesty more reasonable than a lot of the skirts-only types, because she says trousers are okay as long as they don't draw attention to your bum. I don't agree with the idea behind dressing modestly (I think people should dress in a way that is comfortable to them), but if the idea is to avoid looking sexy by highlighting your "special parts", then Olivia's policy makes more sense than Jessa Duggar's pencil skirts or the many well-endowed fundie women in high-necked shirts. For Olivia, it's about the effect of the clothes, not the type of clothing. She's still a smug know-it-all, though :P