At the same time, I think there are other motivations for covering up. I know that, culturally and due to body-image and public comfort levels, I tend to show less skin than a lot of women my age. It’s not because I see immodest dress as in any way immoral or shameful–honestly, I barely blink at full-on nudity, for other people. When it comes to my own clothing, though, it comes down to personal comfort level. I get blushy.

I guess that’s what I was getting at–that there might be enough potential motivations for “modest” dress that the fact of covering up, or nonrevealing clothing, can itself be value-neutral. It’s the values we build around these signifiers that get to be problematic.

what the fuck..

Morningstar, it’s a pretty easy reconciliation. “Modesty” is value-neutral, as far as I’m concerned, and I think as far as Jill’s concerned. The problem is movements to make it obligatory. If a woman wants to cover her body or expose it, that’sher business and her right. If someone else wants to force, coerce, or shame her for doing so–either to convince her to cover up more or to get nakeder–that’s where we get into problems.

little light: Of course, I agree that it’s a woman’s business and right to wear what she likes, and so I would support the right of any woman to voluntarily wear hijab. But I’m not entirely sure that “modesty” is as value-neutral as you make out. As far as I can see, the concept does imply that there’s an onus on a woman to keep her body hidden from men. Modesty, it seems to me, is mostly about not attracting sexual attention from men – it’s not the man’s responsibility not to look, it’s the woman’s responsibility to not present a temptation to look. So inherent in the idea of covering up your body for religious reasons is the implication that it automatically stirs up lustful thoughts in men… and therefore you have to change your behaviour. Which seems to me a fundamentally dodgy concept. (Though I am not saying this is the reason why all Christian women who dress “modestly” do so, nor am I saying it’s why all Muslim women who wear hijab do so).

Is this sort of “don’t present temptation to your brothers in Christ” idea found in any other area of sin? That isn’t meant as Christian-baiting, I’m actually interested. I’m trying to think of an analogy but can only come up with analogies that imply women are like money, so I will perhaps not make them.

There may yet be some good to come from these modesty weirdos. For one thing, we coudl totally co-opt the phrase ’stumbling block’ as some awesome slang fro attractive clothing. Sample conversation:

“Do you like this dress?”

“I love it. It’s a total stumbling block.”

This suggestion is made of sheer awesome. I want a tarty, revealing little shirt printed with the words “Stumbling Block”.

I showed this to my boyfriend and he said, “They should make a magazine for them called Stumble with their moms and sisters in suggestive poses. . . like, you know, standing. Or sitting.”

Ha!

Perhaps this is not the normal feeling but I personally know a very religious person who constantly goes on and on about how women (except he always says girls) dress nowadays. While in other conversations he denigrates the Islamic religion and talkes about how they (said in a menacing tone) make women wear the hijab.

Have you run across this belief in other people, or is this guy exceptionally obtuse? Personally I lean towards obtuse because I have explained that the religion does not force them to wear the hijab it is generally their choice. However if it not a choice I agree that it most definitely sucks!

And now for more Tom Lehrer!!

Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Hindus hate the Moslems,
And everybody hates the Jews.

But during National Brotherhood Week,
National Brotherhood Week,
It’s National Everyone-Smile-At-One-Another-Hood Week.
Be nice to people who
Are inferior to you.
It’s only for a week, so have no fear;
Be grateful that it doesn’t last all year!

Gavin de Becker talks about how a common strategy used by (human) predators is to keep the victim off-balance with a mild insult that she then works to disprove. This is intended to get the victim to comply and to establish control.

I’ve seen this advocated as a useful technique in dating books. *shudder*

Morningstar, it’s a pretty easy reconciliation. “Modesty” is value-neutral, as far as I’m concerned, and I think as far as Jill’s concerned. The problem is movements to make it obligatory. If a woman wants to cover her body or expose it, that’sher business and her right. If someone else wants to force, coerce, or shame her for doing so–either to convince her to cover up more or to get nakeder–that’s where we get into problems.

Therefore, women choosing modesty, hijab or otherwise, is their business. Women being told they have to or it’s their responsibility to in order for men to not behave like drooling degenerates, not okay.

The mule-fucker is Neal Horsley, an anti-choice whackjob/terrorist. I think he was on the Alan Colmes show when he started insisting that anyone who grows up on a farm gets around to fucking animals at some point in their youth.