Jump to content
IGNORED

Veronica Partridge Thinks Leggings are Lustful (MERGE)


16strong

Recommended Posts

I found this blog and it seems very snarkworthy.

Mother of one and self-described homemaker and homesteader Veronica Partridge has kicked off the new year by declaring that yoga pants and leggings cause men to sin and she will no longer wear them outside of the house. She is "convicted." Her husband "agrees."

Of course, she doesn't hide the fact that they rarely agree on anything and are mostly prone to screaming matches. But that's okay because she's working on deepening her relationship with God and making sure she doesn't ugly cry in public again, because that was the turning point in their marriage. But never fear guyz! They went to marriage counseling, and now everything seems to be going swimmingly. As long as everything is still about her.

veronicapartridge.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To illustrate her newfound modesty, she used this picture as she explained that she would no longer wear leggings in public...

Partridge0220-740x500.jpg

Pictures on her blog are, apparently, not the same as public.

She looks good in those pants (jeggings, perhaps>?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of editing my previous post about her leggings, I'm going to add a new post about her husband.

Here is a write up about him in Forbes, I believe.

forbes.com/sites/evankirkpatrick/2013/03/04/how-sevenly-ceo-dale-partridge-is-changing-the-world-7-at-a-time/

.sevenly.org/ The org where he is CEO

Every week, Sevenly’s followers team up to help bring funding and awareness to the world’s greatest causes. We commission the creation of “cause art†that celebrates the work of these charitable partners in the world.

Each purchase of Sevenly merchandise, whether a campaign-specific shirt or print or an item from our curated collection, results in a $7 donation to the featured charity. Many items are exclusive, limited edition products.

With nearly $4 million raised and counting, Sevenly is helping to inspire a generation of generosity. We’ve made a tangible difference in the stories of more than a million lives as people like you share these causes!

And his blog...

dalepartridge.com/

Interesting. Not sure his wife posting about fighting and leggings is good for his or the company's image, but whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting company he runs! Man, it really would be a nightmare to try to have a " normal" life if you have a spouse posting your every squabble for the whole wide world to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting company he runs! Man, it really would be a nightmare to try to have a " normal" life if you have a spouse posting your every squabble for the whole wide world to see.

I agree. As fun (and disturbing) as it is to watch as an outsider, for a marriage, it can't be good.

I wonder how many of their fights are about stuff the other posted on the internet ("I saw your blog entry about that incident, and it didn't happen like you wrote at all!! Why are you writing such things about me??").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, what do these fundie people mean by convicted? I've tried to google several Christian sites and I've found convicted could mean God is nudging your conscience to convicted meaning "you are loathsome in sin". Then I read here about fundies being convicted to something, which to me seems just a good idea, like "I was convicted to pick up milk on the way home." Do fundies speak a different English than I do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, what do these fundie people mean by convicted? I've tried to google several Christian sites and I've found convicted could mean God is nudging your conscience to convicted meaning "you are loathsome in sin". Then I read here about fundies being convicted to something, which to me seems just a good idea, like "I was convicted to pick up milk on the way home." Do fundies speak a different English than I do?

Yes, a lot of them seem to use it to mean "I felt moved by God to do such-and-such".

If you look for it, you'll notice that a lot of the cultish religions out there have their own special lingo. Since many of them try to insulate themselves against the outside world, they do pick up different ways of talking than outsiders do.

I am most familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses, and they definitely have a way of speaking and various lingo that is distinct to them since they try their best to keep their followers from mixing with the outside world.

As for the husband of this woman, I wouldn't judge him based on what she is saying and doing on her own blog. For all we know, maybe she has taken a turn towards fundamentalism since they have been married. That happened in my family, and I really feel bad for people who end up married to a fundamentalist when that isn't what they signed up for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you coldwinterskies. I do love your username-it was 10 below at my house this morning. Cold skies indeed. Thank goodness I had my kittens. The special lingo does seem to seperate but also feels a bit elitist to me. But thank you very much.

Edited to add: Sorry, I didn't read your last paragraph, missed it somehow. I'm actually not blaming husband I was more interested in term convicted. I'm new with all this and doing my best to understand. I have some new fundies in my family too and trying to understand and not be (much) judgemental. Thanks again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, what do these fundie people mean by convicted? I've tried to google several Christian sites and I've found convicted could mean God is nudging your conscience to convicted meaning "you are loathsome in sin". Then I read here about fundies being convicted to something, which to me seems just a good idea, like "I was convicted to pick up milk on the way home." Do fundies speak a different English than I do?

I've always interpreted to mean it's fundie for "I felt like it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always interpreted to mean it's fundie for "I felt like it."

Kinda seems that way. But God approved. How convenient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kinda seems that way. But God approved. How convenient.

"Convicted" is Fundie speak for feeling guilty that they're sinning for whatever reason. The programmer behind the pulpit preaches loud and long about wearing pants, for example, and then over half the women in the church feel compelled (or convicted) to give pants up to honor God. Took me a long time to understand that "conviction" is a controlled action usually set in course by the minister and how a church person responds to it shows the level of their programming by the church itself. I've also seen it used as a loyalty test - he who acts upon the orders is loyal to God AND the pastor. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, yuck. Are new members given a handy dandy guide that translates fundie to English? You are right, it does sound like programming. How sad to stop using your mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was a fundamentalist, it usually meant I was comparing myself to another (typically more Godly in my eyes) Christian and coming up wanting. If I could break it down over various things, then I'd see if it was stuff I could give up. I'd pray over it a lot, fearful I was sinning, knowing better to stop, and now in fear of hell fire because of all that. Shortly there after, I'd be "convicted" enough to stop whatever it was. Or at least give it the old college try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, yuck. Are new members given a handy dandy guide that translates fundie to English? You are right, it does sound like programming. How sad to stop using your mind.

Sadly, Kitten, a lot of fundies have never used their minds to begin with - they were trained from childhood on up to believe what they believe. They lack true critical thinking skills. And the handy dandy guide usually starts out as a Sunday School lesson book and morphs over the years into sermons, lectures and the like. For a newbie there's always some busy body who's been in the church forever who will be more than happy to 'instruct' them on how to behave and what to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all. I don't know what to say. This makes me so sad. And so angry. I have a lot to learn about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to post about this. She believed her jealousy caused the problem and of course no blame is laid on the man. I hate these kind of one-sided teachings. Not breaking link since it is Daily Fail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... -look.html

Heaven forbid the man take any responsibility or blame for his actions, thoughts or behaviors! :roll: She's exhibiting the usual 'submissive wife' mindset that they force on women in conservatism and fundamentalism.

Did anybody see where her blog made it onto Jezebel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heaven forbid the man take any responsibility or blame for his actions, thoughts or behaviors! :roll: She's exhibiting the usual 'submissive wife' mindset that they force on women in conservatism and fundamentalism.

Did anybody see where her blog made it onto Jezebel?

I agree that the whole women have to cover themselves so men can't be tempted (Nike!) is mind boggling. And on behalf of my atheist husband and son, I am insulted that all men are viewed this way by fundies.

I have looked at the photos on both sites. She seems quite fond of herself.

Last of all, I know it's only the Daily Mail, but how is this news?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I hear is "Me! Me! Look at meeee! Not at all these unsaved whoooores who wear leggings! But just in case this post made you think of other women than me in leggings, let me distract you with photos of me looking hot in leggings. Me!"

Incidentally, I think some fundies use "convicted" as a messed-up verbing of "conviction". Is it just a holier version of "convinced"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I hear is "Me! Me! Look at meeee! Not at all these unsaved whoooores who wear leggings! But just in case this post made you think of other women than me in leggings, let me distract you with photos of me looking hot in leggings. Me!"

Incidentally, I think some fundies use "convicted" as a messed-up verbing of "conviction". Is it just a holier version of "convinced"?

I don't know any more about fundie language. Perhaps Rosetta Stone can offer a course in the Fundie language. I know it would help me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have we discussed Matt Walsh's response to the legging post? Typical Matt Walsh garble.

theblaze.com/contributions/hey-look-that-woman-is-trying-to-be-modest-lets-all-laugh-at-her-and-call-her-names/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a blogger getting attention for her views. She doesn't wear yoga pants or leggings because it causes men to have impure thoughts. She is holding the woman responsible, not the man. And to boot, she says she wishes she never posted the blog! Once you do, the internet will never forgot.

Link not broken because it's people!

http://stylenews.peoplestylewatch.com/2 ... ings-blog/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you know what turns my husband on? A sundress with a cardigan. Know why? Dresses making quickies easier. Does this mean women shouldn't wear dresses because a hem might make my husband and some other men feel a quick flash of sexy thoughts?

I asked him before what the least sexy stuff is, and he said spandexy pants. I asked why, and he said it makes me think of someone working out and getting sweaty and smelly, and that's not sexy. And I agree with him.

So if she wants to make sure my husband doesn't get a a subconscious urge that he has to be a decent human and control, she should wear leggings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her skinny jeans are tighter than some of my yoga pants. Which I actually use for yoga.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

So this is an old topic, but it was one of my options in my rhetorical criticism class (analyzing the rhetorical narratives presented). I try to make my academic writing readable to non-academics -- have fun with it!

Fashion blogs have debated whether leggings count as “real†pants for over a decade. Go Fug Yourself, a high-sarcasm blog that uses photos of celebrity outfits, has repeatedly stated that leggings are not pants. In particular, they have responded to the wardrobe choices of actress Lindsay Lohan several times. One post in late 2013 ascribed Lohan’s personal troubles to her affinity for leggings as pants. While this is an over-the-top, satirical response to the debate, the idea that leggings are a problematic garment remains.

Veronica Partridge, a housewife, recently entered the leggings debate. When her husband (public speaker Dale Partridge) mentioned that he occasionally looked at the backsides of women wearing leggings, Partridge internalized the message: if her husband looks at other women wearing leggings, then other men look at her when she is wearing leggings. She decides that leggings show the defined shape of her body to an extent that she is uncomfortable with. Citing her religious beliefs, Partridge decides to stop wearing leggings in public as a way to prevent distracting or tempting other men. Ultimately, Partridge believes that her Christian faith teaches modesty, and that modesty prevents her from contributing to others’ negative actions. Responses throughout the internet varied. Several like-minded websites shared the post as it was, while opposing websites responded with a variety of approaches. Shannon Barber’s response, on Addicting Info, states that Partridge is reinforcing harmful views. The practice of allowing one’s husband, father, deity, or other male authority figure tell you what to wear is inherently misogynistic. Further, she interprets the concept of modesty, cited by Partridge, as ascribing the influence of one’s clothing choices to prevention of the harmful actions of others. Barber identifies this as a classic example of rape culture, in which the woman is responsible for the man’s actions (whether cat-calling, abuse, assault, or simply disrespect) based on her own actions. Essentially, by believing that one can wear certain clothes to prevent “tempting†or “inciting lust†in others, Partridge is discreetly stating that, by refusing to wear leggings in public, she is safe from harm.

A later blog post from Partridge responds to critics, including Barber. Partridge describes how she felt attacked and vulnerable when reading criticism. While Partridge denies that she intended to judge others or that she had a superior attitude, stating that she believes that different clothes are appropriate for different environments, the rebuttal says the opposite. Partridge describes her perspective as being part of a community, in which her choices affect those of others; however, the situation she describes assigns and removes value to individuals based on those choices. Partridge’s argument implies that, if a woman wears leggings in public and that inspires a man (or teenage boy) to physically respond or another woman (or teenage girl) to criticize her own body, it is the original legginged individual who is at fault. Further, the narrative Partridge shares vilifies men and teenage boys for looking at women and feeling attraction. The narrative also vilifies women and teenage girls, not only for wearing clothing that attracts male attention, but for reacting with any kind of jealousy or negative self-talk. Finally, Partridge states that her opinions on the topic are the result of her own development of wisdom, strongly implying that women who do not share her opinion lack said wisdom.

While the leggings debate will not likely end in the near future, perspectives that ascribe morality to clothing choices, rather than evaluating fashion as a form of expression and comfort, only make the debate personal. Veronica Partridge’s blog posts provide a perspective that claims moral superiority even as she denies that she is telling anyone else what to wear. Despite her claims to the contrary, Partridge judges the fashion choices of others and ascribes moral inferiority to those who wear leggings without covering their backsides and superiority to those (like herself) who refuse to “tempt†others. Further, Partridge neglects the reality that society is not entirely heterosexual. By assuming that men will be tempted and women will be jealous or shamed, Partridge erases the perspectives of gay, lesbian, and bisexual members of her community (and the world).

References:

Barber, Shannon. “Christian Mother Bans ‘Lustful’ Leggings from Wardrobe, Says they Dishonor God, Husband.†Addicting Info. 18 Jan. 2015. Web. 20 Mar. 2015.

Cocks, Heather, and Jessica Morgan. “Fugly, Fully Loaded.†Go Fug Yourself. 17 Dec. 2013. Web. 20 March 2015.

Partridge, Veronica. “My Response to My Leggings Post.†Veronica Partridge: God. Farming. Family. Community. 28 Jan. 2015. Web. 20 Mar. 2015.

Partridge, Veronica. “Why I Chose to No Longer Wear Leggings.†Veronica Partridge: God. Farming. Family. Community. 5 Jan. 2015. Web. 20 Mar. 2015.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.