"Wear Pants to Church Day"

[Imogen]

I wore jeans to mass yesterday, but I wear a choir robe over my clothes, so no one really notices.

[TheAnswerIs42]

This article says that they are doing this to "to advocate for equality within our faith."
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=23355976&nid=10 ... id=queue-7

So which is it? Is this to bring attention to struggling sisters, or prove that women can wear pants if they want to and that makes us equals? And what, exactly, are the things they want to see changed in the church?

I'm so lost. Wear what you want, people.

[wired]

This article says that they are doing this to "to advocate for equality within our faith."
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=23355976&nid=10 ... id=queue-7

So which is it? Is this to bring attention to struggling sisters, or prove that women can wear pants if they want to and that makes us equals? And what, exactly, are the things they want to see changed in the church?

I'm so lost. Wear what you want, people.

My favorite quote that sums up my feelings on the subject start to finish:

LDS church spokesman Scott Trotter said clothing is not meant to be the focus of church attendance.

"Attending Church is about worship and learning to be followers of Jesus Christ. Generally Church members are encouraged to wear their best clothing as a sign of respect for the Savior, but we don't counsel people beyond that."

[thatonemom]

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.

I don't know that it's so much of a generational thing. I grew up in Chicago, where people wearing pants to church was very common. Jeans for men or women, to just about any denomination. I think my dad has only ever worn jeans to mass, and had no problem with my siblings and me wearing jeans when we went with him. I don't ever remember feeling under-dressed, either. But I also had friends who went to some churches where very nice dress was the expectation. Especially on important days, like Christmas or Easter. Mother's Day was also generally a more fancy dress day. Women would wear dresses, nice hats, sometimes even gloves.

But I can't really come up with a reason for such a wide variety, other than expectations for that particular religion. Or maybe that particular congregation. In my ward in Chicago it was totally common to see women in pants, or people wearing jeans. It wasn't the majority of people by any means. But it also wasn't a big deal. The ward was so small that I think everyone was just happy to see people at church. So it's hard for me to see this as some sort of church-wide issue. It seems like a very local, cultural thing to me.

[krebscout]

This article says that they are doing this to "to advocate for equality within our faith."
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=23355976&nid=10 ... id=queue-7

So which is it? Is this to bring attention to struggling sisters, or prove that women can wear pants if they want to and that makes us equals? And what, exactly, are the things they want to see changed in the church?

I'm so lost. Wear what you want, people.

It means different things to different people. To some it's about the cultural stigma of pants and skirts, and it runs all the way up the spectrum to speaking out for female ordination. Most people are somewhere in between, and if you'd like to see a list of "what, exactly, are the things they want to see changed in the church," there was an excellent one floating around the internet a while ago that I can't seem to find now, but it included things like, "Letting women serve as ward clerk and other positions that don't require the priesthood," "Letting women pray in general conference," "Including pictures of female leadership in the Ensign posters of general leadership, and calling female leaders General Authorities," "Allowing women to be present at or conduct worthiness interviews for young girls," "Allowing women to have their own activities without a male present," and so on.

[UffishThought]

The fact that it means different things to different people is what's making me undecided. I really like the "mourn with those that mourn" aspect, but I'm not trying to use my legs as an unrequested vote for a retooling of gender privileges/duties, and I don't want it to be taken that way.

[krebscout]

Here's one of the lists: http://www.whatwomenknow.org/all_are_alike/index.html

[Katya]

The fact that it means different things to different people is what's making me undecided. I really like the "mourn with those that mourn" aspect, but I'm not trying to use my legs as an unrequested vote for a retooling of gender privileges/duties, and I don't want it to be taken that way.

Wear pants a different day, then.

Seriously, I sympathize with your dilemma and am something of a hypocrite for offering advice, because I won't be at church this week and I've known that for a while (I'm driving a friend to the airport, instead), so I'm not the one having to make a choice. That said, if you don't feel comfortable wearing pants (this week or any week), then take all of the positive things you do like about the pants gesture and find other ways of expressing them. In particular, you could make an extra effort to be kind to people who feel like they don't fit in at church or you could make it a point to speak up on behalf of or sympathize with those who have had painful experiences related to the LDS church.

[wired]

I wholeheartedly agree with these:

-Encourage partnership in marriage, and eliminate the idea that husbands preside over their wives.
-Balance the stories and images of boys and men in church publications, talks, and other media with stories and images of girls and women.
-Recognize that girls and boys, women and men are equally responsible for appropriate sexual behavior, and avoid reducing morality to sexuality, and modesty to a preoccupation with women’s and girls’ clothing.
-Delegate more expansive supervisory authority to the Stake and Ward Relief Society, Young Women, and Primary presidencies, including approval of personnel, programs, and activities.
-Appoint women as presidents of Church universities and heads of administrative departments.
-Examine all Church positions to determine whether they can be filled without regard to gender.
-Expand hiring practices in the Seminaries and Institutes of Religion and within the religion departments at Church universities to provide women the same placement, advancement, and tenure opportunities as men.

I am ambivalent or have mixed feelings about supporting these:
-Invite women in Church leadership positions to speak and pray during General Conference in numbers equal to the participation of men.
-Instruct bishops to refrain from asking Church members probing questions about sexual practices and experiences.
-Call women to perform pastoral counseling, particularly for women and girls who have been sexually abused.
-Choose a General Relief Society Presidency and General Board that reflect the diversity of viewpoint and circumstance in the Church, and establish frequent meetings between the First Presidency and the General Relief Society Presidency.
-Include the Stake Relief Society President in Stake Presidency meetings, and appoint women to meet with the High Council.
-Include women among stake and ward leaders who hear evidence and offer judgment in Church disciplinary councils.
-Include the local Relief Society president in all bishopric meetings, and rotate the planning of Sacrament services among the Relief Society president and members of the bishopric.
-Change temple marriage policies so that men and women have equal opportunity to be sealed to their second spouses after they are widowed or divorced.
-Consider further wording changes to temple ceremonies and ordinances such that both men and women make the same covenants and enjoy the same promises.
-Recognize women as witnesses for baptisms and marriage sealings.
-Restore the former institutionally-accepted practice of women giving blessings of healing and comfort.

I strongly oppose either the concept embodied or the particular phrasing:
-Create parity in the Young Women and Young Men organizations through equivalent budgets, educational programs (leadership, career, and spiritual training,) and activities (sports, service, and outdoor events).
-Encourage leaders to use gender-inclusive language whenever possible.
-Lift the prohibition on women's participation in the blessing of their children.

[krebscout]

-Create parity in the Young Women and Young Men organizations through equivalent budgets, educational programs (leadership, career, and spiritual training,) and activities (sports, service, and outdoor events).
-Encourage leaders to use gender-inclusive language whenever possible.

Can I ask why you strongly oppose these two? These seem like two of the more benign points to me.

[thatonemom]

-Create parity in the Young Women and Young Men organizations through equivalent budgets, educational programs (leadership, career, and spiritual training,) and activities (sports, service, and outdoor events).

I think the new youth curriculum (https://www.lds.org/church/news/church- ... 3?lang=eng) address this, at least in part. I haven't looked through it much, but the lessons for the young men and young women seem pretty similar.

[Katya]

-Create parity in the Young Women and Young Men organizations through equivalent budgets, educational programs (leadership, career, and spiritual training,) and activities (sports, service, and outdoor events).

I think the new youth curriculum (https://www.lds.org/church/news/church- ... 3?lang=eng) address this, at least in part. I haven't looked through it much, but the lessons for the young men and young women seem pretty similar.

I think the lessons are similar, but there are still some striking differences in the language being used: http://www.dovesandserpents.org/wp/2012/10/manuals/

[Eirene]

Here's another similar list about gender inequalities in the Church: http://www.ldswave.org/?p=402#

[yayfulness]

Here's another similar list about gender inequalities in the Church: http://www.ldswave.org/?p=402#

I found the comments on that article very enlightening. Thank you for sharing.

The ironic part being that I was procrastinating a short essay on levirate marriage by reading that. It puts it in a very different light.

[bobtheenchantedone]

-Create parity in the Young Women and Young Men organizations through equivalent budgets, educational programs (leadership, career, and spiritual training,) and activities (sports, service, and outdoor events).
-Encourage leaders to use gender-inclusive language whenever possible.

Can I ask why you strongly oppose these two? These seem like two of the more benign points to me.

Seconded. Especially the first one. I can't fathom why the YW and YM organizations should be different, at least in terms of budgets and educational programs (that is, things the Church itself mandates). And even though (as far as I know) the kids in the programs have a large say in their activities, I can also see good in making a push toward equalizing those. Some girls like sports and camping, and some boys like crafts and cooking, and to restrict activities to certain genders has caused many a young man or woman to skip activities altogether.

[yayfulness]

Minor tangent: Maybe this is just because I grew up far from Utah and there were never more than half a dozen even slightly active Young Men in my ward at any given time, but we actually had a huge say in what kinds of stuff we'd do for activities.

But yeah, I don't see any reason that things like budgets should be any different.

And the more I think about this, the more I realize this is going to be so much more of an issue in large wards than in small wards or branches. When you have to balance the interests of 30 young men or 30 young women, you're probably going to end up spending a lot of time catering to the majority (and unfortunately, that often is replaced by catering to stereotypes about the majority) and leaving 5-6 people bored. On the other hand, if you only have 4-5 young men or young women, it's easy to find a single activity that all of them are interested in or can at least tolerate.

[wired]

-Create parity in the Young Women and Young Men organizations through equivalent budgets, educational programs (leadership, career, and spiritual training,) and activities (sports, service, and outdoor events).
-Encourage leaders to use gender-inclusive language whenever possible.

Can I ask why you strongly oppose these two? These seem like two of the more benign points to me.

Funding equality gets messy. It's something that is a great in theory but almost impossible in fact. Does equivalent budgets mean the same net amount, the same amount per youth, the same amount per youth's demonstrated interests (e.g. the Young Women have indicated they're interested in a week-long youth camp that will cost more than what the Young Men are interested in - making a potato canon and shooting non-potato items out of it). So as a principle, I think genders should be given equal opportunity. But I have not been able to come up with a practical way of making that happen. Arguments about equalizing funding usually ends up just arguments about what "equal" means and I think that's unanswerable with respect to funding for nuanced situations like YM and YW.

As for gender-inclusive language, I should back off my "strongly oppose" label. I just think it's such a low-level of concern regarding promoting equality that I don't really support it. (We can move it to the ambivalent category.) I think I included it there as a visceral response to the strong movement in language for gender-inclusion in writing and language that I think becomes a bit ridiculous. (E.g. disparaging the use of the word "mankind.") But again, that's really an irrational response my part.

[Zedability]

Maybe it's just because I'm so used to French, where in mixed masculine/feminine situations the masculine is used to include both, but I don't see gender-inclusive language as a huge deal. I think it would also be difficult considering how all the scriptures consistently use "mankind" instead of "humankind," "man" instead of "people," etc. It would sound silly to be PC-ing the scriptures all over the place, and trying to PC everything else would just get confusing when you're trying to quote scripture within your sentence.

[Portia]

I won't be at my regular YSA ward this Sunday, either. Going to The Nutcracker with my grandma and sister. Where we will be very much expected to wear dresses.

Seriously, I am all for a complete overhaul of gender norms in the church. It's rather ridiculous and borderline offensive for others to assume that I am some sort of passive, retrogade woman because I wear pantyhose. Is it 1975? Feminism has moved on, peeps. Like Uffish said, my legs are not your battleground. If this is what passes for feminism in the Church...

*note - I don't think anyone HERE thinks that. But the organizers of this event seem to be in a fine snit, not to mention their opponents.

[Marduk]

I hate pantyhose, for the record. (Before anyone asks, both wearing and on women. Before anyone asks about THAT, yes, I wore pantyhose before, no, I'm not going into it.)