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.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
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.Portia wrote:Skirts and dresses = more formal than slacks.
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.)Eirene wrote: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.Portia wrote:Skirts and dresses = more formal than slacks.
I see where you're coming from and definitely agree that some pant suits are "more formal" than some dresses and skirts.bobtheenchantedone wrote: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.)Eirene wrote: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.Portia wrote:Skirts and dresses = more formal than slacks.
Ummm... Do you remember where we are?!? The obvious correct answer is werf.UffishThought wrote: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.wired wrote: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."
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.bobtheenchantedone wrote: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?
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.Yarjka wrote: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.
I'll bet he had a tough time of it, though.Zedability wrote: 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.Zedability wrote:I went to his mission farewell in bare legs and a form-fitting dress. I enjoyed it thoroughly
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.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.
He's like me, he enjoys breaking these types of conventionsMarduk wrote:I'll bet he had a tough time of it, though.Zedability wrote: I went to his mission farewell in bare legs and a form-fitting dress. I enjoyed it thoroughly.