"Wear Pants to Church Day"

[Zedability]

Okay, so my stance on this just changed significantly. I just remembered that in my home ward, there was a Beehive who REALLY disliked skirts and dresses, for whatever reason. Instead of letting her come to church in pants, her active, rather socially progressive parents WOULD NOT LET her come to church unless she was wearing a skirt, so she went inactive.

And now I totally see why pants is inherently an issue. Before, I just saw it as a way to draw attention to all these other issues, and I didn't to make my legs their battleground, as someone else said.

Nevertheless, even if I were going to church this Sunday, I don't think I'm enough of a rock-the-boat kind of person to wear pants. Plus I like skirts. Plus pants do seem less dressed-up to me, and less "reverent." But that's just my personal opinion, and I think other women should feel comfortable wearing pants to church if they so desire.

Sorry, most of you have probably made it through this thought loop already, but I just figured it out.

[Marduk]

Plus pants do seem less dressed-up to me, and less "reverent."

And this is exactly the problem. Unspoken misogyny is still misogyny. It doesn't need to be institutionalized to be real. The fact that you've been indoctrinated to accept that somehow pants aren't "reverent" means that that sort of indoctrination exists, whether or not the church has a specific policy about it. I mean, I wear pants to church every Sunday. Are they less "reverent" for me?

(I know I'm cherry picking one thing you said, and I'm not trying to bully you Z. I'm just trying to make a point.)

[Katya]

The fact that you've been indoctrinated to accept that somehow pants aren't "reverent" means that that sort of indoctrination exists, whether or not the church has a specific policy about it.

The LDS idea of "reverence" is also fairly problematic, because it's been turned into "quiet and unthreatening," when the actions involved in actively revering God could take a wide range of forms.

[wired]

Plus pants do seem less dressed-up to me, and less "reverent."

And this is exactly the problem. Unspoken misogyny is still misogyny. It doesn't need to be institutionalized to be real. The fact that you've been indoctrinated to accept that somehow pants aren't "reverent" means that that sort of indoctrination exists, whether or not the church has a specific policy about it. I mean, I wear pants to church every Sunday. Are they less "reverent" for me?

(I know I'm cherry picking one thing you said, and I'm not trying to bully you Z. I'm just trying to make a point.)

Marduk, do you have the same reaction to a guy wearing a skirt to Church? Would discouraging boys from wearing skirts be misandry?

Edit: Similarly, is being told not to wear shorts reflective of some deeper antagonistic motive of church leaders?

[Katya]

Plus pants do seem less dressed-up to me, and less "reverent."

And this is exactly the problem. Unspoken misogyny is still misogyny. It doesn't need to be institutionalized to be real. The fact that you've been indoctrinated to accept that somehow pants aren't "reverent" means that that sort of indoctrination exists, whether or not the church has a specific policy about it. I mean, I wear pants to church every Sunday. Are they less "reverent" for me?

(I know I'm cherry picking one thing you said, and I'm not trying to bully you Z. I'm just trying to make a point.)

Marduk, do you have the same reaction to a guy wearing a skirt to Church? Would discouraging boys from wearing skirts be misandry?

Are there significant practical advantages (modesty, warmth, ease of movement) to wearing a skirt? Are skirts (or kilts or lava lavas) the standard formal or professional attire for men outside of LDS church meetings? Do skirts have a recognized cultural association with power? (E.g., do we ask if someone "wears the skirt" in their household?) Have men (both inside and outside of the Church) had to fight for the right to wear a skirt without being harassed or reported to the authorities?

(If the answer to any of these questions is "no," then men in skirts is not a good equivalent for women in pants.)

[wired]

Marduk, do you have the same reaction to a guy wearing a skirt to Church? Would discouraging boys from wearing skirts be misandry?

Are there significant practical advantages (modesty, warmth, ease of movement) to wearing a skirt? Are skirts (or kilts or lava lavas) the standard formal or professional attire for men outside of LDS church meetings? Do skirts have a recognized cultural association with power? (E.g., do we ask if someone "wears the skirt" in their household?) Have men (both inside and outside of the Church) had to fight for the right to wear a skirt without being harassed or reported to the authorities?

(If the answer to any of these questions is "no," then men in skirts is not a good analogy for women in pants.)

Practical advantages: I can think of of many practical advantages, foremost of which you don't want me to articulate. (Sweet, sweet freedom.)

Cultural Association with Power: Other than that specific phrase, pants are not a symbol of power. And that phrase itself is reflective not of clothing, but of gender. In other words, by simply dressing women in pants you do not remove the underlying gender-bias that the phrase implies. (So I can see the desire to rebel against that underlying principle by dressing in pants, but I don't think it's relevant to whether encouraging women to wear skirts is misogynistic.)

EDIT: A crass example that demonstrates what I meant here. We often talk about men "having the balls" to do something. This reflects a gender bias about how men are more dominant (and that, according to stereotypes, that is a good thing). This is reflective of an underlying gender bias. A woman who wore a prop to have balls would be doing nothing to actually address the underlying gender bias reflective in the statement.

Fight for Right to Wear the Clothing: I imagine that if men started wearing skirts, they would receive similar backlash to what women received when they first started wearing pants. Because there is no demonstrated history does not mean there isn't a societal expectation about what is or isn't appropriate for either gender to wear.

I think your second question about society's expectation of what is proper is really getting at the heart of the actual discussion - that is, what is considered formal or appropriate in culture and how that influences what we think men and women ought to wear at Church. And in many, many places wearing a skirt is still considered the most appropriate way for American woman to dress. So I have no problem discussing whether that should or shouldn't be the case, but I think it's far from accurate to say it stems from misogynistic concerns. It's as misogynistic as telling young men to wear white shirts and ties to church is misandric. Does society's expectations regarding what men and women wear reflect gender biases? By definition, it has to. (We more commonly believe that men wear this type of clothing and that is appropriate. We more commonly believe that women wear that type of clothing and that is appropriate.) But I don't think leaders encouraging people to dress in a manner that reflects society's expectations regarding how to dress respectfully is even remotely misogynistic.

NOW! Do I think women should feel pressured to wear skirts? No. I'm fine if someone wants to show up in jeans or nice slacks or a freaking chicken suit. I just want them to come to church. But I find no problem in parents or church leaders teaching about dressing in a way that reflects respect for the occasion. Do I think they should focus on the difference between a nice pants suit and a skirt? Probably not worth the time. I prefer principles over rules.

But again, I think we're stretching really, really far if we say the following: if person thinks that they ought to wear a dress because it seems more reverent (because of its higher association with formality for women), then she has been indoctrinated by an unknowingly misogynistic culture.

Not buying.

[wired]

Interested to know if anyone saw any strong statements via pants today.

[UffishThought]

I saw one woman in pants in my singles' ward today. Then again, she wears pants every Sunday, so that wasn't too surprising.

[bobtheenchantedone]

I thought Marduk and I made a good pair, me in pants and him in a formal lava-lava.

[yayfulness]

I only saw one lady wear pants to church in my ward, and I think that's what she usually wears. Then again, from the very small sample of people I talked to about it, I'm guessing that few if any of the ward members actually knew about it.

[yayfulness]

I thought Marduk and I made a good pair, me in pants and him in a formal lava-lava.

I wish I could have seen that.

[bobtheenchantedone]

I meant to get a picture and post it on Facebook. Alas, Marduk changed before I remembered.

[Marduk]

My apologies for getting to this so late, Wired.

To answer the overt question you asked, yes, there is a problem with dress standards for males as well. To get to the meat of the issue, rigid gender roles are often enforced by clothing standards, and that's why clothing standards are one of the first things that needs to change. It sounds to me like you're making an argument in favor of rigid gender roles, so let's start there. First, I think there's a problem in ascribing any one role to one gender at the exclusion of the other when it isn't necessary biologically. That's because different individuals have different capacities, and so to restrict someone who could be capable at something because they aren't the right sex is silly.

If we believe in more flexible gender roles, our dress and attitude ought to reflect this. And I categorically disagree when you make an assumption that formal clothes are necessarily segregated. Fifty years ago, one might've said the same about casual clothes, and yet it isn't uncommon to see a man and a woman both dressed in a t-shirt and jeans.

I suppose it all boils down to this: rigid gender roles are enforced by rigid dress standards, spoken or otherwise. So while dress standards in and of themselves aren't restrictive and backwards, using them to create specific gender differentiations is.