"Wear Pants to Church Day"

[wired]

Usage expert Brian Garner says that it's becoming fairly common in British English, though still resisted in American English. (http://www.lawprose.org/blog/?p=502)

And just so there's no confusion (because I know there has been in the past), I am a Brother Suffragette, rather than a Sister Suffragette.

[Eirene]

Skirts and dresses = more formal than slacks.

I think this really depends on the style of the piece of clothing in question. The dress pants I wear when I see patients are more dressy and formal than a good 1/3-1/2 of the skirts and dresses I wear to church. Dress pants will always be more formal than denim skirts and cotton or jersey maxi skirts, and I see those at church all the time.

[bobtheenchantedone]

Skirts and dresses = more formal than slacks.

I think this really depends on the style of the piece of clothing in question. The dress pants I wear when I see patients are more dressy and formal than a good 1/3-1/2 of the skirts and dresses I wear to church. Dress pants will always be more formal than denim skirts and cotton or jersey maxi skirts, and I see those at church all the time.

Exactly, which is why I appreciate wired's answer but still think it is insufficient - not only are there obvious exceptions to the rule in the case of cut or fabric, but also society largely accepts women in nice slacks as being formally dressed. (The fact that this is not much acknowledged inside Mormon culture is irrelevant to me asking Portia the question, since she asserts that she wants her dress code to be adopted in everyday situations such as work and school.)

[wired]

Skirts and dresses = more formal than slacks.

I think this really depends on the style of the piece of clothing in question. The dress pants I wear when I see patients are more dressy and formal than a good 1/3-1/2 of the skirts and dresses I wear to church. Dress pants will always be more formal than denim skirts and cotton or jersey maxi skirts, and I see those at church all the time.

Exactly, which is why I appreciate wired's answer but still think it is insufficient - not only are there obvious exceptions to the rule in the case of cut or fabric, but also society largely accepts women in nice slacks as being formally dressed. (The fact that this is not much acknowledged inside Mormon culture is irrelevant to me asking Portia the question, since she asserts that she wants her dress code to be adopted in everyday situations such as work and school.)

I see where you're coming from and definitely agree that some pant suits are "more formal" than some dresses and skirts.

I think some problems to our discussion is no concrete context or definition of "formal." When I hear the word "formal," I think of a spectrum that extends from the most casual wear that indicates no special effort for the occasion (e.g. gym shorts or sweat pants) to clothing that indicates a very special social occasion (e.g. tuxedo or gown). (And I set aside particular roles at a social occasion, like being part of a wedding party.) I then think of how the clothing matches up on that list. So in my mind, I imagine "formal" is what makes a person comparatively more comfortable at a gala event. And you are right that some pants would be nicer than some skirts. To be more comfortable, women would have to wear a dress or skirt. In other words, the nicest pants are less formal than the nicest skirts and dress.

The problem with my approach is that probably isn't what you all were thinking for "formal." And what is most appropriate varies depending on the context. Showing up to Church in a tux on a regular basis would be inappropriate. Wearing a cocktail dress in a professional environment similarly so.

[Giovanni Schwartz]

EDIT: Noticed that I used "they" as a singular, non-gender pronoun -- a convention that does not work largely because American linguistic custom is to disregard that as proper English. Alas, I'll leave it in hopes that by using it I will contribute to its broader acceptance and eventual inclusion in "proper English."

Ha! As Genuine Article would say, "amen, sister suffragette!" I know it's one of those things I should care about, as an English teacher, but we need a singular non-gender pronoun, and "they" works just fine for me.

Ummm... Do you remember where we are?!? The obvious correct answer is werf.

[Portia]

I just think well-tailored, non-schleppy clothes are more attractive, and that people act differently than in the jeans and tee shirts that are so de rigeur these days. I can't wait for the formal Christmas dance I'm going to this weekend - satin gloves, heels, updo, sleeveless knee length dress (debating whether to pair that with a cape, jacket, or bolero, because of course, it's cold), Czech crystal necklace - I just love fashion, and bemoan living in an era and region where adults dress like teenagers. I would consider Church, any church, to be a formal enough occasion to "put on your Sunday clothes." I care a lot about modesty, actually, in the decorum/appropriateness sense. But then I'm a person who wishes no guy had long hair, has no taste for tattoos, and probably wears and likes shopping for makeup more than most members here. Why does that lead to me wanting others to adopt my conventions? Well, doesn't everyone feel more comfortable when others adopt their expectations? I don't like how the concept of modesty got skewed to a sexual/ideological control thing. Also, I don't know how any of us millennials will get real jobs when we spend the first 30 years of our life in garb better suited to summer camp. </rant>

[Portia]

(Also, I think it's a stupid, false dichotomy to say that my desire to dress like it's 1963 supersedes or precludes my caring about anti-rape, anti-self-harm, pro-single-parent causes. As dumb as expecting my extremely liberal male friends to somehow proclaim their convictions through their clean-shaven chins and ironed collars. Our generation seems to mistake superficiality for advocacy, style for political discourse.)

*and of course Laser Jock beat me to the punch. he's still right though

[bobtheenchantedone]

You do make some good points, Portia, but I still don't see why I'm confined to "skirt or dress" or "jeans and t-shirt." Why can't my Sunday clothes include slacks?

[Zedability]

You do make some good points, Portia, but I still don't see why I'm confined to "skirt or dress" or "jeans and t-shirt." Why can't my Sunday clothes include slacks?

Because everyone knows slacks are just a myth perpetuated by socialists to degrade the morals of our society, along with rock music and Chef Boyardee.

[mic0]

From a BCC comment on this subject: "I yearn for a return to the calmer, saner, more Christ-like discussions of Prop 8, husbands presiding over wives, and the politics of the recent election."

Anyway, I'm definitely leaning more towards people should wear pants to church if they want to. Hopefully other people get over themselves and can handle not controlling what everyone wears. I don't miss these kinds of conversations about church one bit.

[C is for]

I'd much rather institute "Wear Pants to Work" than "Wear Pants to Church" because I guess I'm a traditionalist but I do sometimes wish (like on days when it's around 20 degrees and I'm waiting for the train) I weren't wearing a skirt every day.

Also, what I mostly care about is showing respect for worship and if women feel like they can do that in slacks that's fine. I'm one of those people that will do a double-take when I first see a girl wearing slacks but I won't judge her for it. I'm just a double-take kind of girl. Haven't yet gotten so jaded that nothing surprises me.

[Yarjka]

Ideally there would be no judgment of what a person is wearing at church. But we all know it happens. This event is trying to force an issue that will take care of itself naturally as the older generation dies out and the younger generation takes over. There's nothing wrong with mobilizing for trying to hurry the process along, though, especially if the current situation is disruptive to a woman's ability to worship. Up until very recently, female church employees were required to wear pantyhose. In the summer. In Arizona.

[Zedability]

Ideally there would be no judgment of what a person is wearing at church. But we all know it happens. This event is trying to force an issue that will take care of itself naturally as the older generation dies out and the younger generation takes over. There's nothing wrong with mobilizing for trying to hurry the process along, though, especially if the current situation is disruptive to a woman's ability to worship. Up until very recently, female church employees were required to wear pantyhose. In the summer. In Arizona.

My missionary's home ward is one of those really conservative wards where the Stake President has asked that all women wear pantyhose. I went to his mission farewell in bare legs and a form-fitting dress. I enjoyed it thoroughly.

[Marduk]

I went to his mission farewell in bare legs and a form-fitting dress. I enjoyed it thoroughly.

I'll bet he had a tough time of it, though.

[S.A.M.]

I went to his mission farewell in bare legs and a form-fitting dress. I enjoyed it thoroughly

He was probably fine if the dress covered her knees and shoulders, as we all know those joints are most distracting to men.

[Defy V]

There's a blog I read (she's discontinued it) which had some kind of crazy ideas but also some important ones. What she said here really opened my eyes:

Be more compassionate toward people who seem to have a problem sitting in meetings or being around leadership. They may have had a horrible experience, and it may be difficult for them.

I know one woman who could not enter a church building without breaking into hives because she was molested there. I know another young woman who could not wear a dress to church because she was molested there. Yet another could not do an interview without becoming physically ill because of sexual abuse that occurred with a leader.

And, a big problem with that is that all the churches look the same. If you’ve been to three LDS buildings, you have been to them all. This makes it hard for victims to ever feel comfortable there–it is a huge trigger. If someone is not coming to church, it’s not always because they are offended about milk strippings. They may be emotionally traumatized to the point that it is physically impossible for them to go. Give them the benefit of the doubt.

So while I feel like the pants-to-church is a little silly, it's good to remember to be compassionate and non-judgmental. Yay for raising awareness.

[Zedability]

I went to his mission farewell in bare legs and a form-fitting dress. I enjoyed it thoroughly.

I'll bet he had a tough time of it, though.

He's like me, he enjoys breaking these types of conventions

[krebscout]

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mormons- ... 37?fref=ts

[Giovanni Schwartz]

Because Jesus wants you in a dress.

[Portia]

Just realized I spent fourteen years of my life in a skirt, oxford or polo shirt, approved blazer or sweater, dark socks/tights, and dark lace-up shoes every school day. I just feel more COMFORTABLE in skirts! And my thing for guys in white or blue polos/oxfords, chinos or gray slacks, and short hair/little facial hair all makes sense now too. "The psychology of the individual..."