This guest post is written by BDBeal. Yes, it’s a post about women’s dress written by a man . . .
;
All groups have their idiosyncrasies. Mormons are no different, although there are days when I suspect we have more than our fair share of quirks.
Today’s little bundle of weirdness: A cultural ban on women wearing pants to church. You have to love a church in which the sight of a woman wearing a pantsuit in 2011 is controversial.
I haven’t settled on an explanation for this, although my list of possibilities is short: a) a mindless slavishness to past dress standards (think the 1950s), b) an inability to either recognize the socially-defined nature of dress standards or to accept that social norms-including dress standards-evolve over time, c) a desire to keep uppity women from being able to sit in any other position but with their legs demurely crossed, or d) a desire to simply ignore everything around us and keep doing what everyone else in our tiny church bubble is doing (and avoid rocking the proverbial boat).
I suspect it’s a combination all four. Here are a few quick observations:
1) Society defines what kind of clothing should be worn to show reverence, respect and deference. The Mormon Church, contrary to the beliefs of some members, is not in charge of these standards. Sure, the church can dictate that its members wear purple polka-dotted underwear, but that’s not going to change societal norms. We’re only 2% of the population (and that’s counting all the folks that never show up). Hence, society has, in its infinite and mysterious wisdom, decreed that men shall, in formal settings, wears neck ties. I’m sure ties have a rich and glorious history-although I’m not familiar with it. It’s seems odd for me to tie what appears to be a large phallic symbol around my neck on Sunday morning to show reverence and respect, but what the hell, right? That’s what’s done.
2) Society-today’s society, not 1950-has defined what women should wear to show reverence and respect. Hint: It’s not a denim skirt and flip flops. It’s not a Laura Ashley floral print dress with an appropriately modest cut and sleeves. It includes. . . (and I’m whispering here) conservative pant suits and other similar attire. Here’s a handy link to a few pant suits on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=1045108. Before you pat me on the head and explain that the Church sets its own standards and we shouldn’t pay attention to what “the world” tells us, I’ll let you explain why there is such a convenient correlation between how men dress professionally “in the world” and how they dress at church. I notice that the dress norms that apply to men have evolved in lock stop with societal norms, so why hasn’t the same happened to women’s dress norms?
3) If you’re a woman and you don’t believe that social dress norms have evolved, go to your next job interview in a dress. Let me know how it goes.
4) If you’re a woman and a professional of ANY type (really, about ANY type), would you wear a dress to work?
5) Many women volunteer in the primary (where the chairs are pint-sized) or in the nursery (where they spend much of their time seated on the floor). I’ll bet you a pair of Super Bowl tickets that if you put all the men in the Church in skirts and sent them to the primary or the nursery for 10 minutes, the norms against women wearing pants would disappear before they could say “kilt.”
6) Can you show respect and reverence by wearing a dress? Sure. Can you show respect and reverence (and keep from flashing all the six-year-old boys in primary) by wearing conservative pantsuits? Absolutely. If you are a woman and you understand this, then why would you continue to restrict your attire to dresses only? Is it because you care more about what other people think than you should?
7) Much has been written in the academic literature on social norms about control freaks, OCD types, busybodies, mother hens, gossips, etc. Whatever the term, these are the folks that seem to take delight in communicating how “things are done” and then sanctioning those that don’t play along. These are the folks that seem to get their underwear in a wad every time someone deviates from the norm-regardless of how silly the norm may be. The people that were purported to play these roles always seemed like caricatures to me-and I didn’t really believe they existed. Surely people have better things to do with their lives than enforce mindless rules they can’t provide a reasonable explanation for enforcing? Nope. These folks are real. I meet more than one everyone Sunday morning at church. Do you really want to be one of these folks?
8) For those of you that are into mindless rule following, here’s a quote from the first presidency on the matter: “The Church has not attempted to indicate just how long women’s or girls’ dresses should be nor whether they should wear pant suits or other types of clothing. We have always counseled our members to be modest in their dress, maintaining such standards in connection therewith as would not be embarrassing to themselves and to their relatives, friends, and associates.”This quote is from a directive entitled “Dear Brethren” and dated April 12, 1971. It is taken from a book entitled “Statements of the LDS First Presidency: A Topical Compendium” by Gary James Bergera (with a foreword by Dale C LeCheminant). ISBN-13: 978-1-56085-195-0.
9) The church handbook does not prohibit pantsuits. A search on the church web site doesn’t return anything useful. “For the Strength of Youth” doesn’t mention it. The norm makes no sense in terms of modesty (actually, the dictates of modesty tilt things in favor of pantsuits). The norms make no sense in terms of social norms (social norms dictate that conservative pant suits would be more appropriate, in many cases, than what many women wear). Unless we intend to dig a hole in the ground and live in it, sooner or later we’ve going to have move into the 21st century.
10) Aren’t adult women capable of choosing how to dress? Can we trust adult women with the task of deciding what constitutes modest dress that communicates reverence and respect and is appropriate for Sunday worship? We let women get driver’s licenses. We let them vote. Can we men in the church let them dress themselves?
Anyone else have any thoughts here?
P.S. My wife wears pantsuits to church.
I’d agree with most of your arguments and observations except for number 4. I am a professional woman and I do wear dresses to work. Not every day and not ever anything that might be construed as a Laura Ashley or Laura Ashley-inspired style but I actually find dresses to be very easy to wear. I have jersey dresses with conservative cuts that never need to be ironed and never complain at the natural shifts in my waistline that are my fate as a woman. Can’t say that about pants.
Dresses and skirts have made something of a fashion comeback in recent years. Lots of women I know wear them frequently in ways that would never imply that they were dressing up. Which I think in some way supports your argument. Just as pants on a woman don’t say what they used to say culturally, neither do skirts and dresses.
lol on ‘Laura Ashley’. My Mum always used to say that Laura Ashley was her favourite shop… :)
Very funny, Andy! No one really wears those dresses anymore, but Brent’s kinda stuck on that image.
What lots of Mormon women DO wear to church is denim skirts and flip flops . . . which somehow are perceived as Sunday-appropriate while a pantsuits is deemed INappropriate. There’s so many layers of ridiculous in that norm, I just don’t know where to begin.
Maybe the denim skirts and flip flops are a bit of rebelling within the expected dress code…
Interesting post Brent. I largely agree with you, but have a few quibbles. I would change the title of this post to “Why All Mormon Women Should Wear Pants to Church If They Want To “. For me, the point is not about whether pants are more or less appropriate than dresses in a professional or church setting, the point is that grown women shouldn’t be infantalized and told what they can and can’t wear. Skirts, dresses and pants can be professional, modest and formal enough for both work and church and it should be up to individual women to determine what they feel comfortable wearing. (Personally, I almost always wear dresses and skirts and I would absolutely feel comfortable wearing a tailored dress or skirt suit to an interview — just depends on the formality of the job.)
Secondly, I think the unofficial no-pants rule has absolutely nothing to do with modesty and everything to do with enforcing clearly defined gender roles. I don’t think that the church has kept pace with the evolution of dress standards for women or men. Wearing only white shirts, or for those daring few, light blue shirts and dark suits is conservative business dress, which might not apply at all to men that are allowed to dress more casually in their work.
Heidi, I agree about the title. For me, it’s all about choice . . .
A friend once tried to relate the pants issue to the white shirts issue. I agree that they are related, but they’re something particularly rankling about men at church telling women what to wear. Men have the power and authority to do that–or I guess they think they do. Women do not have that power or authority (or any other power or authority, for that matter) to do likewise.
So it’s more about showing loyalty and acquiescence to institutional norms than anything else. When I wear pants to church, it somehow threatens the unwritten order of things. And (gasp!), it makes me NOT pink and soft (read = controllable).
@Becky and Heidi, I think you are both correct in pointing out that I’ve slighted dresses a little in my post. Dresses can certainly be part of a professional wardrobe and I think I overplayed the pants thing a bit (but hey, think of my post like a small effort at a kind of affirmative action for pants?). @Heidi, I TOTALLY aree with you about dress being used as a control mechanism, particularly for women, and I think you are 100% correct in your observation that it really isn’t about modestly, it’s about mainting clearly defined gender roles. I’d argue that that is the primary reason why women’s dress norms haven’t been as fluid as men’s (and are currently more out of step with societal norms that men’s).
@Brent, as affirmative action for pants, your post works very well. :)
“It’s about mainting clearly defined gender roles. I’d argue that that is the primary reason why women’s dress norms haven’t been as fluid as men’s (and are currently more out of step with societal norms that men’s).”
Even further, I would say men’s clothing doesn’t matter as much because we (both in and out of the church) are more interested in what men do than how they look. Sure, there are plenty of exceptions, but you only have to look at the size of men’s clothings departments (usually much smaller) compared to women’s or the way advertising usually show’s men doing something while women’s bodies and parts of their bodies are used to sell all kinds of stuff to see the discrepancy. Add to that patriarchal notions about the God-given right of men to evaluate women’s desirability (in the church, this would be determined by her virtue and virginity) and you’ve got a situation where men in leadership in might not even think twice about their duty to enforce dress standards.
Umm, yeah, the argument that pants for women are immodest is such complete crap. The only thing that could be more modest than pants and a button-up shirt is a burka.
So clearly it has nothing to do with modesty.
Actually, I think it raises a really interesting question about what subtexts might be at play with a word like ‘modesty’. Does it occur to women in the church that being ‘modest’ suggests a submissive nature? Thus, ‘modesty’ is under threat by a woman making her own choices, empowered for herself. And it’s a very good thing.
I never liked the term much. God doesn’t want a shy little retiring people.
Yes . . . let’s stack up the words that we use at church to talk about women: modest, virtuous, soft, pink . . . it’s like Barbie on steroids!
Amen!
@Heidi, well-reasoned and well-stated.
I recall, as a new convert at age 19, the first talk I gave in sacrament meeting. I wore my favorite outfit – a beautiful white pantsuit that my sister-in-law had helped me pick out in Germany. The pants were satiny and loose-fitting. The top was two layers: a sleeveless undershirt with a long-sleeve lace cardigan-type thing. I had a couple of pantsuits like this, b/c I played french horn, and when you need to dress up while playing a french horn (or a tuba), it’s better to wear pants since you can’t easily play with your legs closed! Well, I thought this white pantsuit looked very virtuous, innocent… in fact, it is what I chose to wear to my baptismal service (before & after the awesome baptismal suit that I actually got dunked in). That Sunday after my talk, my singles ward bishop called me into his office and gently informed me that women are supposed to wear dresses, not pants. Nobody had mentioned this at my baptism when I wore the same outfit. Nobody had mentioned this to me at any point before I got baptized! I was of course wanting to be obedient, but I do recall some conversations with other members of the ward where I tried to understand how on earth a dress was more modest than a pantsuit. Eventually, I became part of the crowd that informed others about what to wear…. :(
Would Jesus command people to wear a specific uniform to church? No.
No kidding, William. Jesus was the one going around telling the Pharisees and the Sadducees to stay out of everyone’s business.
Heather, I’ve never heard anybody at church tell me to be pink. I think you should give up on that one. :)
Are you joking, Nikki? It’s a major theme of the new YW re-write:
http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/58379/Fostering-spiritual-growth-among-Latter-day-Saint-young-women.html
From the YW president: “The booklets are pink. “We are excited about the color of pink, because we think these young women are pink. They resonate to the softness and the femininity of that color. We want them to understand that they are soft, they are unique, they are feminine and that they don’t have to be like the boys.”
Gag me. I wonder what shade it is this time around. When I was a YW it was this awful dusty pink. Almost mauve. We were to be both soft, pink, and muted.
Heather, if pink were such an important color to the leaders of the Church, why hasn’t it been chosen as one of the colors for the YW values? There are eight values, eight colors–white, blue, red, green, orange, yellow, purple, gold–and the glaring absentee is PINK. Come on, you seem to know what the leaders are thinking. Please let us know why pink isn’t one of the value colors. I know several YW who wish that it were one of the value colors.
I seem to know what they’re thinking? What’s that supposed to mean? I’m just listening to them and reading their words. It was the YW president who chose the color pink for the booklets and said they were excited about the color pink because “we think these young women are pink.” I hardly think I’m putting words in their mouths . . .
Every so often I run across something like this gaggiferous paen to pink and am once again reminded that we (parents of 3 daughters) made the right decision to leave.
Ahhh… that’s right. I remember you mentioning that before. I don’t think I’ve been to church since the rewrite. My bad! Pink it is!
Nikki, I hope I didn’t sound pissy. I FEEL pissy, but not towards you. ;)
Brent, I think all your arguments are fair and the overall point timely. Thanks!
Seems several comments raise what I also think is the primary argument against: that pantsuits are a symbolic infringement on priesthood.
Symbolic infringement of priesthood–yes! But why?? What does that even mean? Why is it so threatening for a woman to wear a pair of pants??
Well, for one thing — the submissive aspect of modesty that Andy pointed out. While it’s true that dresses can be less modest than a pantsuit, I think that the dress is a norm that supersedes sexual modesty as an icon of traditional and role modesty. And one of those roles for women is undeniably sexual — the sexual property of men and their priesthood. So I don’t really buy the argument that dresses are meant to be first and foremost, sexually modest. Though, within the framework of dresses there clearly is a sexual modesty aspect.
I think submissiveness is the natural expectation for all under priesthood authority — both men and women. But, as you know, women have traditionally been below all men in the submissiveness pecking order. And men see their clothing as outward expressions of their authority. Shouldn’t be surprising then that the more traditional among men (and their wives) would want to keep women in dresses.
Whoa, that pink stuff is really, really weird. It is freaking me out a little. I don’t want my daughters to be “soft.” I want them to be able to stand up for themselves, even if that means being like boys. It seems to me some church leaders really are obsessed with gender roles. All levels of weird.
Freaky indeed. Welcome to YW in 2011, Dayna. It seems to have gotten crazier since I was a teenager.
Yes Danya! If the church can’t guarantee the girls will marry, it makes no sense to deny them the possibility of a career in order to make a living while they wait. Soft pink flowers don’t fare well in the workforce! The church also has a horrible record when it comes to the institutional treatment of single sisters. That is one demographic in the church which bears a major portion of grief. It also perpetuates an unrealistic image of womanhood in single male members. When men expect soft pink women, there are just going to be a lot more single brothers and sisters stuck in this cultural morass.
I have never thought of myself as being “lower” than my husband. We are equals with different jobs to do. I would take my job over his any day of the week :) But, I do hate wearing dresses and having to keep my legs crossed at all times. I think pantsuits are a wonderful idea!! They are much more modest than some of the dresses I’ve seen at church lately.
As a lover of dresses, and I mean funky fashion I would never wear to work in a conservative law firm, I have always enjoyed having church as a place to wear them. But I am swayed by your point about how closely men’s attire for church mirrors men’s attire in a conservative professional atmosphere. Whether through cultural norms or overt statements by authority figures, the barring of women from wearing professional pantsuits is about gender roles. If I want to be taken seriously at church, do I need to dress the part? Men can certainly opt out of the professional dress code, but you don’t see the bishop wearing khakis and a sweater. How a man dresses is directly related to how he is treated.
Here’s a couple of fun quotes from the New Era on the subject:
“You should know that as a Latter-day Saint girl you have a special calling as a woman, distinct and different from men, and thus are responsible for making a womanly contribution to life and the Lord’s plan.” an answer to whether young women could wear pants to church activities 12/74
and there was this in 11/08
“‘Why do women still have to wear dresses or skirts in all our meetings?’
Dressing appropriately is less about what our clothing looks like and more about what it means. While other clothing may still be perfectly modest, classy, or professional, women are counseled to wear dresses to promote a certain spirit of reverence. Dresses are generally reserved for special occasions. Modest, simple dresses show respect and invite the Spirit by how they affect our attitudes.”
Mel–I remember reading that. And then I conveniently go back to the “but it wasn’t in Conference” or “but the First Presidency didn’t say it” arguments (which I think are lame arguments . . .)
Yep, I read it, showed it to my kids during sacrament meeting WHILE I WAS WEARING PANTS, and summarily dismissed it.
Doctrine and Covenants 58:26
For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
I’m surprised the preceding scripture hasn’t entered the discussion yet!
If I were to steady the ark, I would add a D+C 58:26a amendment that reads, “And behold, he that compelleth in all things, the same is a tyrannical and unwise leader, wherefore he receiveth no reward.
I find it odd that the same people who are sticklers for dress codes are the same ones who wear company lapel pins, and around christmas, jokey christmas ties. I don’t care if you distribute for Shaklee, or belong to the Rotary club, is this appropriate attire?
The enforcement of only white shirts for men is also a little irking. (Especially in the days when even the most conservative politician or news anchor has a stripe) It comes across as slightly abusive of authority. There is the comfort though of not worrying if I’ll be called to be a Bishop… I prefer not to dress like a CPA to the eternal discomfort of my GA father. (We almost came to blows this Christmas. ‘Hey, you know how I dress, if you don’t like it, don’t invite me.’)
Perhaps the following is reading too much into the scripture, but I find it interesting that there is a reference to refusing church attendance to people who do not adhere to dress standards. It appears in Alma 32. At that time, those attending the synagogues wore costly apparel. “…for behold, they were cast out of the synagogues because of the coarseness of their apparel- Therefore they were not permitted to enter into their synagogues to worship God, being esteemed as filthiness.”
Alma hears this, and says, “…do ye suppose that ye cannot worship God save it be in your synagogues only?” “… it shall be unto every man according to his work…” not how he is dressed.
The odd thing about this scripture is that with the suggestion that we can worship God anywhere, it seems a little like an invitation to leave a church if it imposes a dress code. (OK, I know I’m taking this too far, but it is rather an interesting passage.)
Great scriptures, Bitherwack. But boy oh boy, don’t we like to compel.
Yes Heather, I’m afraid the church is raising up a new generation of ‘compulsive compellers.’
@Bitherwack because it wouldn’t allow me to go down another layer on the comment thread.
Yes–what is the deal with that? I don’t have anything to compare it to. Was it always thus? Is this something (relatively) recent?
@Heather I sometimes get quite sad at the thought of what a kickass religion we once had.
Joseph Smith really was a radical reformer. I think of all the utopian ideas he had for improving mankind, and it hurts a little to imagine what he would think of the church now. For Joseph Smith, it wasn’t enough to believe the gospel, you could live it. A Zion society was an attainable thing. Debates of gospel topics, social reform, cultural topics continued through the night. Missionaries were sent to Paris on missions not to proselytize, but to learn to paint murals. Tabernacles, temples even chapels were extremely ornate.
I remember asking my grandmother, who had been a great society matron during the 30’s~50’s (prominent on the social register within the halls of power) about photos of her entertaining Senators and foreign dignitaries in her evening gowns. (All of which were cut ve~ry low) Later there were the cocktail dresses too. She said that at that time, the significant parts of the garments were issued separately, and you were to sew them in yourself. She would always just pin them into the inside of her clothes instead, and that was enough to qualify them as garments. She had the most elegant antique sterling silver tea set and coffee urn too. The word of wisdom was still considered advice, not a commandment. She obeyed it, but had no problem entertaining with a wet bar.
When I consider that the church in Nauvoo, and later Salt Lake had initially been intended as a country to itself, with its own currency, phonetic alphabet, social programs (fast offerings as welfare system, ZCMI [the ‘C’ for cooperative] which took payment in labor or in kind, the United Order– Mormonism’s answer to the commune.) Women were encouraged to get a college education. (The greatest concentration of women with college degrees in the 19th century was in Utah.) They were mostly doctors or teachers. They had the vote in 1870 second only to Wyoming and the first women in state legislatures in the US starting from 1896.
In this light, it seems especially odd that in the 1970’s, the church opposed the amendment that would guarantee equal rights for women. I often think the church is sliding into the 19th century, but ironically enough, not the radical reformist church of the 19th century, but more like the constrictive puritan tradition that Joseph Smith so rebelled against.
I suspect that there is a backlash effect; that the younger generations were not as willing to sacrifice for the church as the pioneering generation was…or as willing to put up with the kind of persecution that their forefathers had. I suspect that the desire for social acceptance in that generation was stronger than the appeals that the living gospel held. And then much later the pressures “Christians” brought to bear (“Mormons aren’t Christian”) caused us to try to ‘out-Christian the “Christians.”‘ When Mitt Romney should have said, “Whether you find my Christianity acceptable or not, it does not change the fact that I am Christian,” he capitulated with half-truthful attempts at mollification that came across as deceptive.
Some of the ‘family values’ rhetoric, the dress code, etc. seem to be an attempt to ‘out-conservative’ the conservatives. It also is an attempt to paste a disneyland veneer on an increasingly diverse membership. During the 1970’s, the church liked to crow its international prowess. That has all but disappeared. International membership brings diversity of thought. It is harder to control. Thus the hierarchical desire to compel.
Oops, what happened? Sorry, I wasn’t intending to write a doctoral thesis, it just ended up that way. Thanks for the stimulating question!
Bitherwack, I loved your budding thesis. ;) Great story about your grandmother as well. Seems like some of the early (female) saints were a force to be reckoned with in a way that Beck and Dalton are not . . .
I currently serve in the nursery in my ward, and last Sunday’s high was maybe five? ten? degrees and it snowed the entire time we were at church. I find it ridiculous to think that Heavenly Father would want me to wear a dress in A) freezing cold weather (come on, leggings and tights do not bring that much warmth) B) the nursery where I am supposed to be on the ground playing with children.
I wear pants when I’d like and I wear a skirt or dress when I’d like. And if it is freezing cold, you can bet I will have on a pair of pants and maybe some long johns, or thick tights or something warmer, under them. Oh, and of course, purple polka dotted undies. :D If it is very hot out, then of course I will wear my skirts I like or pull out the Laura Ingall’s Wilder outfit and kick it pioneer style, if I’m feeling spunky and want to fit in with some in my current ward. (Just the thought makes me shudder…)
The first time I wore dress pants in my current ward (3 years ago), the then bishop’s wife actually told me I CANNOT wear pants to church. I looked at her like she was an alien, did a little google search, found no “commandment” about it, and told her as much. All I could think of was Heather (and maybe Susan Eades?) wearing them while they served in primary in BR2…and these are women I look up to as role models of sorts.
I was also informed by a recent convert that she once wore pants to church (as an investigator of many years!) and had the missionaries come to her home a few days later and give a lesson on “proper Sunday dress attire”. (Same bishop inspired that lesson as inspired his wife to put her nose into my fashion affairs. Thankful when they moved away)
I was not wearing pants to cause controversy with the bishop’s wife, nor was I doing it to “be a rebel” (I do that in other ways, lol)…I wanted warmth (LA girl moves to NE…it is way cold here!) and now I want modesty. So any time someone tries to tell me I CANNOT wear pants, I just smile and think of how ignorant they are and how cold they (or their wives, depending on the person) must be as they walk to and from the car, into the cold rooms, etc.
So, thanks Brent for your post. And Heather, for so long ago wearing pants so I could even have the idea planted into my mind that it was okay to do so. :)
Oh, shoot, Jessica. I’m no role model.
It’s not about weather to me, since I wear pants year-round. It’s about standing my ground and saying: “Hey, I’m an adult. You can’t tell me what to wear.”
On that note, we don’t even tell our KIDS what to wear. They wear what they want to wear.
I see pantsuits at church — not all the time, but fairly often. And there’s clearly no official position on something as insignificant as this. But I would no sooner say that ALL women SHOULD wear pantsuits than I would say all women should wear dresses for a number of reasons:
1. Who am I say what someone should wear for worship? If a person feels more dressed up and respectful in a dress, why should I look down on that person? Same thing for pantsuits. . .if your best is a pantsuit, wear it. Church is about worship, not politics. I have yet to hear of anyone being sent home from church for what they wear. Maybe sometimes the culture prefers compliance with a certain norm, but that’s true of all close-knit societies, not just the LDS Church.
2. Related to 1 above, and I know this is alien to many of us, but there are those who seek to belong to organizations with established norms – they find comfort in belonging, and enjoy being part of something that gives guidelines. There’s nothing wrong with that. Personally, I wear a white shirt to church because I don’t want to draw attention to myself — I’d rather blend into the group and be left alone to worship and serve. Yes it’s unfair that I would be looked at askance if I wore my blue and white polo with chinos and a sports coat, and I wouldn’t be ejected for it, but it would honestly distract me from my worship if I did it to make a statement. So I’ll give the gift of conformity and fight my political battles (and being an independent Mormon in Utah leaves me plenty of those) when my time is about me. I really don’t think God cares, so long as my heart is in it — that’s as true for those of us who wear white shirts as it is for those of us who can’t or don’t.
3. Related to 2 above, some people really are designed to follow, not lead. Maybe they don’t want to spend their sacred time bucking the norms. Rebelling against anything is an intensely personal decision. I won’t look down on those who choose to follow — for whatever reason. It isn’t cowardly, it isn’t irresponsible, it isn’t . . . anything. People should go to church to worship God, serve others, and participate in ritual that renews, strengthens, and saves them from their sins and weaknesses. Making it about anything else is just narcissistic.
4. Not really a reason, but it’s nice that we’re free to use church as an outlet for bucking the norms and we aren’t forced to risk our lives and fortunes on maintaining that freedom. People are being killed and jailed all over the world for speaking out about things that really matter…and we’re chatting about dresses vs. pantsuits as if this is an important topic. Wear whatever the hell you want and praise God for our incredible lives.
@Brent–I agree that dictating that all woman should wear pants is almost as silly as saying they can’t wear pants. Brent was just being a pot-stirrer with his title. And with the post in general.
I’m reposting this from a Mormon Stories FB discussion: http://ldsliving.com/story/63283-sister-missionaries-get-a-new-wardrobe.
Some movement?
I just saw that and wondered what it means in terms of change. We’ll know we’ve arrived when you see a sister missionary wearing pants. :) Does anyone know if they even relax the standards for sisters serving in places like Siberia?
I served in Siberia and was glad to wear a dress with thermals and leggings and tights in all sorts of combinations and numbers. If I was trying to fit all that under pants I don;t think I would be able to move. The elders always looked colder. Then when things warmed up you take the layers off and everyone asks if you lost weight. I was grateful for the loose dresses to layer up under.
I joked when I was called to Nursery several years ago that I would have to get a new wardrobe (such as denim and corduroy skirts) because every skirt I own (the only dress I own is white-head to toe), is dry-clean only. I am a professional woman, and whatever I wear to work I wear to church–just like the men and their ties. But, I like skirts. I feel they are more figure-flattering to me.
I think women who wear demin and flip flops to church will pick the pantsuit equivalent–I don’t know what that would be but it would be tacky; you can bet on it. Women in my ward have plenty of money–it’s not that they can’t dress better; they choose to dress slouchy.
I think, if anything, men should revolt–if women can dress for the beach, why can’t the men? I would LOVE to see a man come to church in a suit and flip flops.
@Brent, good comments, although I think it’s a mistake to trivialize it. There is a lot more going on here than just casual adherence to social norms. From the larger there-are-people-starving-to-death-in-Africa view of things, you are right, of course, but this is a serious issue that runs a lot deeper than just shirt color or clothing style–it taps into issues of control, patriarchy, gender roles, etc.
I don’t know…you’re only controlled if you allow yourself to be controlled. If a perceived dress code really threatens your self worth and autonomy, I think you have bigger issues to address than the dress code. We can find issues of patriarchy and gender roles everywhere in society. I think it’s a mistake to imply they are LDS specific – or that they should interfere with one’s personal worship. I mean, honestly…wear a pantsuit…who cares? I think we all can see that while maybe some local yokels create commandments where there are none, the official organization does not care at all.
@Brent Ripley, I agree that these issues exist everywhere, but saying that shouldn’t minimize the very real issues in the church. And, the organization does care. See Dress Standards under the RS FAQ: http://lds.org/pa/display/0,17884,8004-1,00.html#3
The official organization sorta cares. That’s part of the problem.
But another part of the problem is that the official organization allows local yokels (love this!) to impose their particular/peculiar invented commandments on the members . . .
And if we want to complain or express frustration to a higher authority, they just send our communications right back to local leaders.
First, I’ve heard it said that a church that can enforce what kind of underwear you wear can enforce anything.
Second, I thought that after the Warren Jeff’s fiasco the SLC LDS church was trying to distance itself from the pioneer looks of the FLDS. What better way than for women to start wearing pants to church?
Love the conversation. Great post, Heather. Matt, your remarks resonated with me. This in particular- “…women have traditionally been below all men in the submissiveness pecking order. And men see their clothing as outward expressions of their authority. Shouldn’t be surprising then that the more traditional among men (and their wives) would want to keep women in dresses.”
It may seem like a strange example, but I remember in the late 80s working in a kitchen where women still wore white smock dresses and handkerchiefs in their hair as uniforms , while men wore what we are all more familiar with as chef attire-trousers, white smock, chef hat. It was still relatively uncommon for women to be executive chefs and so it was a direct reflection of the hierarchy of the workplace. I was a prep cook, and worked around boiling hot equipment and open flames. I remember going to my boss and saying that it was dangerous to be bare legged, or worse wearing nylon hose, as some women did. It wasn’t until women were hired as chefs and not cooks that the policy changed. In other words, when a few women were hired on that carried with them the title of “chef” not “cook.” Well, I could go on and on about the sexist notion that women used to be accepted as “cooks” and men were “chefs” but I don’t want to digress.
The reason I use this example is that, to me, there is a direct correlation with power and uniform. Women in the church are absolutely not to resemble men in their dress/uniform. As that would change the vernacular of power. Suits are for future/present priesthood holders. Priesthood holders are the executors of power. To me it is that simple. If women start dressing the parts of executors, we have a problem.
Yes, yes, and yes.
Pants = priesthood = power?
One more thing–my husband wrote the post. Can’t take credit for it.
The first time I ever questioned the dresses only rule was as a missionary. There was something about riding a bike through traffic in a European city struggling to keep my long skirt from flying up that made me view the whole thing as ridiculous. Modesty certainly was NOT the primary consideration there! I used to wear pants to church frequently when I was serving in nursery, but now that I work with the young women I don’t anymore. There’s a lot of pressure to “be an example” and I’m a chicken.
Oh dear, Chelsea, yes–riding a bike in a skirt is the pinnacle of absurdity.
Re: being a chicken. Yes, I’m guessing that a call in YW for me is out of the question. I’m fine with that.
Or I should say, “the church has a problem.”
Being clean and wearing your best is probably more important than a dress or pants. Where one lives and the climate provides a clue as to acceptable apparel . The church is a place to go and meet with people who have the same beliefs. I don’t care what the people wear I would just like for all of us to agree on doctrine and get away from the culture religion, like having to wear a dress to Church.
Personally, I’m a fan of jeans. I don’t own dress pants. And I think pant suits are hideous.
We all have our personal peeves. Church parking lots full of luxury vehicles are less modest and more offensive than casual clothing to me.
A great comments from a facebook conversation: “The uniform for men is an expression of their alignment with authority. The uniform for women is an expression of their submission to authority.”
Succinct and powerful: for it’s accuracy, I think.
That’s one to remember.
Well, I never was good at remaining anon … especially where positive strokes are to be had. As you suggested, Brent. I’m going to take credit and do a t-shirt. :P
But seriously, I wrote this as a summation of what I felt was the most important point being made in your post and in the comments.
Odd, isn’t it… You’d think they would just be glad you wanted to come. (and on a more sinister note, pay tithing…)
My sister left the church for several reasons, but one of them was what she saw as a disproportionate emphasis on attire to the detriment of more essential inner things.
@Brent, I agree with your live-and-let-live approach. It shouldn’t matter. I’m annoyed that it does matter–and I’m annoyed that there seem to be plenty of men that feel perfectly fine telling women what to wear (and that are perfectly comfortable calling them out if they wear a pant suit).
The church does not prohibit women wearing pants to church but I wonder if the same holds true for the temple. Could a woman wear white pants in the temple?
I have wondered this myself. Would they actually prohibit you from going inside? I wonder if anyone has tried it. I’m guessing in other countries it has certainly been done. When I lived in Hawaii, men certainly wore skirts–both at church, to pass the sacrament, and yes, in the temple. ???
I was a temple worker a few years ago, and the instruction we were given was that if a woman came to the temple wearing pants, we were to treat her exactly the same as a woman wearing a skirt. We were to welcome her to the House of the Lord and treat her with love and respect. The little old ladies were scandalized by this instruction, but I was cheering silently.
I doubt a woman could get away with wearing white pants while doing an endowment session, though. Once, I was wearing my modest ankle-length white skirt and white ballet flats with no nylons. I was instructed to go put some nylons on. If I can’t even go nylon-less, I doubt pants would fly.
Interesting, Keri. That is as I would have hoped (the first paragraph).
Second paragraph – major eyeroll.
Thanks for sharing.
It probably depends on the temple. I went through a session once where one of the women was wearing black nylons.
I think you could do white pants if they were flowy (not the legging-kind) and you had a longer shirt- like a tunic. Hmm. Maybe I should try!
Black nylons? In spite of my rankling at dress proscriptions, that sounds a little Wicca-like to me somehow…
I think the way to make a change is for women who wish they could wear pants to church to start wearing pants to church. Heather is my hero.
KLS, I think you need to get out a bit more if I’m your hero. ;)
You’re amazing (if you’re the KLS I think you are . . .)
KLS, totally agree. Now’s as good a time as any for a popular uprising. For India it was salt. For Mormon women it’ll be the pantsuit!
I wore (black velvet) pants to church last Sunday. I do not work in the primary or nursery (I hold the calling formerly known as Enrichment Leader, and currently called something like Relief Society Meeting Coordinator). My ward is on the west side of Portland. I’m not the only one who ever wears pants in my ward, but one of few.
I started wearing pants in the mid-1990s in the NYC singles ward. I wore them quite regularly when I first got married and moved back to Portland because I was working as a lawyer and pants predominated in my wardrobe. Since I started my extended maternity leave 10 years ago, I’ve worn pants considerably less often because I own far fewer nice ones. I still probably wear pants about 10-12 times/year.
The only person who’s ever said anything to me about wearing pants to church was my own sister. :)
The fact that this is even a topic of discussion screams CULT!!!!! Just sayin…
Yeah . . . it’s beyond weird. I mentioned it to a co-worker and his eyes just about popped right out of his head.
What about the fact that I feel my Sunday best happens to be in the form of a dress or a skirt?
I am a professional who for ten years has worked in industries ruled by men, and where I often utilize the method of dress to convey an image, relay a standard or establish an impression to demand a level of integrity and respect. Pantsuits have had their place in that category for me, but so have modest, appealing skirts and a pair of high heels. While I know that how I appear attributes to the perception people have of me, the way I carry myself in the clothes I wear is an even more significant factor.
But when I attend church, I am seeking the spirit, humility and a time to focus on things other than the issues with the world I deal with every other day of the week. I am seeking to keep the Sabbath day holy, not to make a powersuit impression. I am completely confident in my place as a woman at church (and respected as such) without needing to advertise it. I go to church with some of what I consider the most significant and impactful women in the state, and even in their Sunday dresses and skirts they are respected the same as they would be in their places of work. Being in clean modest dresses helps to remind me the nature of the day and helps me to maintain a reverence that will allow me to find what I seek on the Sabbath. Set aside is my need to seek equality in the world, because at church I don’t need to be concerned with that…I already am an equal. And frankly, I enjoy being reminded of my femininity by wearing a dress to church. The feminist movement I am after celebrates femininity.
I was raised non-Mormon, in a variety of non-denominational Christian churches, so I know this standard falls across the board to many churches. Why pick on the Mormons for doing something that people around the world have been maintaining for generations?
Why is it so wrong for a woman to want to wear a dress to church?
Kaneischa, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman wanting to wear a dress to church. I don’t think anyone here has implied that there was. There IS something wrong (in my opinion) with a man telling a woman that she can’t wear pants to church.
I completely disagree, however, that you are equal to men in the Mormon church, although I appreciated reading your thoughtful rationale for your wardrobe choices and your purposes for worshipping.
I respectfully submit that your hypothesis about “many churches across the board holding this standard” is completely false. I think we’d like to THINK it is, but it isn’t. At all. NONE of my mainstream protestant, Catholic, or reform Jewish friends would think twice about wearing dress pants to church. Not one. Now, if you are talking about fundamentalist Christian and orthodox Jewish congregations, then you might be on to something. But that is hardly ‘across the board.’ This is ONLY important to churches that strongly promote traditional gender roles.
Even in rural east Texas, I see PLENTY of Baptist women (teenagers and adult women) wearing nice, snappy, professional pants–even capri pants–to church services. So I think it’s pretty uniquely and weirdly Mormon.
And this is why LDS women keep saying the things you are saying and telling ourselves the things you are telling yourself.
My sister (raised LDS) now goes to a charismatic church. Most people go to church in t-shirts. Even the pastor. (Actually, I was having trouble identifying who was in charge because of this, that and because everyone was calling each other by their first names…) Sometimes they go to church in the congregational t-shirt. (Was it distributed, or did they have to buy one? I should have asked.)
I no longer live in the States, but one of my memories is of the incredible (suggesting both the superlative, and disbelief) hats the Baptist women would wear. I’ve often wondered if that were just dressing up, social conformity to a long forgotten edict, or a ‘women’s heads must be covered’ rule.
For that matter, why is it that usually only women are required to cover their heads ‘out of respect?’ (Unless you’re Jewish)
Bitherwack, don’t EVEN get me going on women covering their faces . . .
Super well done, Brent … and Heather (cause yeah, you get some of the credit!). I really liked the four possible reasons you proffered. I agree with all of the comments about gender roles too. I mentioned this issue once to someone and the response was, “It’s not a big deal.” Well, if it’s not a big deal, then why is it a big deal?
I’ve had to ask myself a hard question as well – why is it that I would feel incredibly awkward to wear pants to church? I want to think I could and would do it. But I can’t see myself in pants during a Sunday service. I suppose I could see myself slinking in to the back row of the chapel, but I can’t imagine attending the 2nd and 3rd hours without a skirt or dress on. Why? Because it would make such a statement. And the reasons for that – both my cowardice and the environment I worship in – make me sad.
The crazy thing is that we even have to slow down for this speed bump. Clearly, the church (the capital C in SLC) already recognizes the liability of the unwritten order of the old dress *code*. I was laughing hard while reading the LDS Living article at the frightened investigators who feared they too would be “born again” as drab, mousy people after baptism. This shows just how in tune the capital C church IS with societal norms.
After the whole FLDS brouhaha, I, like many others, was horrified by the unibrows and the pastel gowns. “Look away!” But it’s the same thing there – women’s dress = uniform = enforced gender roles. Women in our church congregations, and maybe even men in leadership positions, would scoff if someone implied that LDS women are under the same kind of dress code that FLDS women live by. “Oh not so, not so,” they would say. But it seems that at least in some congregations and in some minds, it IS so.
Alas, it does make a statement. For me, it says “I am a strong, professional woman and will not be intimidated by men (or the institution they represent) telling me what to wear.”
I should add that I do like wearing dresses. I even like wearing 1950s style dresses. But what I most like is the freedom to wear what I want. But do I actually have the freedom to do that? Well, yes, sure, if I’m prepared for stares, comments, glares, judgment. Is that the way we should make each other feel in a Zion community?
I mean, I’ve worked very hard to no longer sneer at men who wear Looney Tunes ties. I used to wish that banishment of ugly ties were part of the unwritten order of things, and then I realized, I guess after my own father wore such a tie, that some men LIKED those ties and it was no business of mine to be the fashion police. It was a good lesson. :)
ARghhddhu*&%^GBHJU%$%%#$$!!! on the Looney Tunes and Grinch and Tasmanian Devil ties. PLEASE. When I take the sacrament from someone wearing one of those, I just want to walk out. It’s so incongruous with the meaning behind that ritual.
And yes to the freedom to wear what you want. I will say that I have never gotten stares, comments, or glares. But I guess I have gotten judgments–just not to my face.
I live in a ward abroad where the ‘ex-pat’ membership are usually in and out within three years. I’ve been here for 30. With my job, and the lifestyle that it requires, I wear a rather ethnic (non-suit) to church. I got stares and glares at first. But being that I’ve been around longer than anyone, (by a power of 10) when the question arises, someone will usually just say, “oh, he’s just that way.”
If you are determined, and do it long enough, there really shouldn’t be a problem.
I had, at first, armed myself with the rejoinder, “Do you really want to tell me that I am not welcome in this Ward?” Thank heavens I’ve never had to use it!
kaneischa–you like to set Sunday aside to seek the spirit by wearing a dress….my bishop–and most other male church leaders in my area–wear exactly the same outfit on Sunday than 5 other days of the week. Apparently, a change of dress in not necessary for men to feel the spirit, focus and seek humility. Strange….what other superior powers do men possess, I wonder?
My husband who was recently called into a bishopric had to go buy a suit and white shirts to wear to church. In one of the first meeting they had with the stake presidency, they were told they had to conform to the “unwritten order of things”, including this ridiculous dress code. Now he’s much more limited in his choice of what to wear than I am.
I love wearing dresses and skirts; especially cool vintage clothes and things that I couldn’t justify wearing around the house. But some Sundays (or other days during the week when I need to go to some meeting) I don’t feel like wearing a dress. Because I don’t have a job that requires professional attire, I don’t have a nice pantsuit.
So I wear long denim skirt that I save to wear on those days when I’d really just rather wear pants. And every time I wear it, I think how crazy it is that this faded skirt is considered more acceptable than my nice slacks.
@Reader Rachel, I do not love wearing dresses and skirts and think pants are much more flattering for me. So maybe it’s just vanity?? ;)
What happened in my case is that I started working on a Ph.D. The first time I had to do a formal presentation, I looked in my closet and thought: “Wow. I don’t have a single thing I could wear that is appropriate for this occasion.” So I went and bought some nice dress pants–which is what 98% of women in my profession wear. I rarely see a woman wear a skirt at work–and a dress! Never. I can’t recall a single time in nearly 10 years (including grad. school).
So in my mind, nice dress now = professional dress = dress pants.
Seriously? This is what occupies your time? LOL
I know a woman who has been the Primary President, and sells sex toys as her business. Many in the ward were bugged, but she wasn’t released because of it.
Why is it that people have to find something about the LDS church to be bugged about? Have you considered that, for the most part, women in other denominations also wear dresses to church? At least they do at every other church I’ve been to. Maybe you need to get out more . . .
Also, the origin of the necktie was more functional than anything. It was designed to prevent the shirt from getting dirty, via food spillage, drool, whatever. If you don’t want to wear one, don’t! But just be prepared to buy lots of new shirts.
Sure, some women in other denominations wear dresses. But PLENTY of them wear dress pants or even capri pants. I’ve seen it all over the place. And I’d bet my last dime that the pastor/preacher of those churches doesn’t call them into his office or pull them out into the hallway and ask them to please stop wearing pants. Talk about absurd.
Ruth, see above re: women in other churches wearing dresses. Of course they do. But they also wear pants. Regularly. AND NO ONE CARES.
As for ties, shirts are a lot easier to launder than ties. At least the kinds of ties adult professional men wear, as opposed to washable polyester teenager ties.
What an odd response, Ruth. Who is to blame for this issue occupying someone’s time? The person who is bugged by the bishop’s overreaching in trying to dictate his ward members’ clothing choices, or the bishop for overreaching in the first place?
I don’t know where you go to church but in my ward there are women wearing all kinds of dress clothes on Sunday. We have your standard dresses and skirt & shirt combos, there are pant suits, nice slacks and a blouse, and even some traditional Indian attire. No one is looked down upon for dressing in any one way. Everyone wears what they feel is appropriate within their own wardrobe and what they personally feel puts them in the proper mood to worship. I think that analyzing what people have on takes the focus away from the point of the meeting, which is to worship God. Put the focus on what is really important.
Cheryl, I couldn’t agree with you more . . . which is why I was so annoyed to learn that multiple conversations have been had in bishopric meetings about how I (and other women) sometimes wear pants. A friend told me that our RS president was asked to talk to me about not wearing pants. She refused (smart woman). More than one of these women has been explicitly asked not to wear pants to church anymore. For some reason, no one has approached me about it–yet. But like I said, I completely agree with you that it is absurd. I do not look forward to the conversation during which someone tells me what I can/can’t wear.
I think that is why I like living outside of Utah. More people are converts and people are more appreciative of having people there rather than focusing on how people dress.
I’ve never lived in Utah (except for 3.5 long years at BYU . . . sorry, Utah friends!) . . .
Cheryl, me too… that’s why I’m SOO flabbergasted when this type of things happens even out here in ‘the mission field.’ Aren’t there more important things to worry about? Apparently not.
In my town,(in South Dakota) I would say about 15% of the women wear dresses to church (Lutheran, Catholic, Episcipal, and mainstream Christian). Of those 15%,90% of them are over the age of 60. Even at funerals, I would venture to say that only about 15% of the women are in dresses.
The only churches in my community that women are expected to wear dresses are the LDS church and a fundamentalist church (where the women don’t wear makeup, have really long hair worn in a bun, and wear doiley-like things on their heads). To say that ‘most churches require women to wear dresses’ is just plain misinformation (imo).
I think it comes down to gender roles and avoiding the appearance of evil…. wearing pants to church is the first step off a slippery slope…next thing, you’ll want to pass the sacrament. The church wants women to ‘look the part’ of their ‘divine roll’.
I remember my mom telling me that she had to wear dresses to school all through grade school, middle school, and high school. I thought that was so weird! How crazy that a girl would be required to wear a dress to school! How would a girl swing on a swingset or play on the monkey bars wearing a dress? I just couldn’t imagine something so ridiculous!
Maybe someday my granddaughters (it’s too late for my daughter…she already sees this craziness as normal) will react the same way to the thought of us wearing dresses to church every Sunday.
FWIW, I like to wear dresses on occasion. I have pretty nice legs : ) and if the weather is warm or I am in a ‘girly-mood’ I like to wear a dress. But sometimes, I don’t feel like wearing a dress and to have anyone (my husband included) dictate what I will wear seems beyond ridiculous!
I think this is a great point, Tauna. A dress/skirt is a good reminder to women that they’re supposed to be limited, to not get too involved in anything physically demanding. Similarly, it serves as a good reminder that they’re not supposed to be in charge of anything; they’re supposed to be followers, not leaders.
My two cents (with probably the same value): Where I grew up, LDS women wore nice pants to church when they wanted to – or at least as nice as farmers can dig up. No professional women in our ward, sorry. I haven’t heard this furor in Montana, Idaho, California, or Massachusetts wards. I’ve been in PEC and bishoprics in every one of those states and never heard a gripe. Then I move to Texas. (I would give Texas back to Mexico in a heart beat if I didn’t like Mexico so much.) Anyway, I’ve only heard one old sort of Levitical creature give any serious complaint, but since I’m not a woman I’m sure I haven’t heard some of the stupid things Texans are capable of. Anyway, I would respond the same way I responded to a person who was concerned about my colored shirts; I expressed concern about their wasting their worship time in the worldly focus on clothing and I called them to repent (o thou child of hell-like).
@Claire RE your “I respectfully submit that your hypothesis about “many churches across the board holding this standard” is completely false. I think we’d like to THINK it is, but it isn’t. ” Balderdash. Again, it depends on where and by experience. Several of the Catholic parishes in my wife’s home town prohibit pants at mass, and will not administer communion to women in pants. The Lutheran’s in my home town were the same. Pentecostalism is the fastest growing religious movement in the world, and many, many large Pentecostal groups prohibit women from wearing pants for worship. I work with one Mexican Pentecostal group – the largest in Mexico and exploding in the US, and they don’t let women where pants at any time. Baptists run the full spectrum, but there are dress-only baptists with large congregations in out town as well as “who cares what you wear” baptists. I think we have to say that Mormons, like other mainstream denominations, experience variation from congregation to congregation regarding the ever-important pants issue. I think conversations like this – as much of a time-suck as they are – have some merit so we let people know that the clothes grumps just carry their sins in a different way. Their pettiness is the cigarette-smell of pride and hate. I choose to ignore it. Of course, because I’m a man, I can. *insert evil patriarchy laugh here*
@Jason, interesting indeed. Yeah, something’s rotten in Denmark (or Texas or Mexico or wherever) when a woman at church (or anywhere else, for that matter) is explicitly asked not to wear pants to church.
A time suck indeed. Holy cow. Yeah, I’m not handling this well. I’m not proud. Just wishing there was something I could do to make it right.
Edited to add–asked by an authority figure in the organization–not just by a Levitical creature (ha!).
Jason,
Just wondering where your wife is from. Are these churches still continuing w/this practice? I could fathom this being the practice 20-30 years ago when your wife was growing up, but in 2011? Really? Is your wife just remembering this from how things were when she was a child? I’m guessing the ‘dress only’ dress code at the Lutheran and Catholic churches (that you are referring to) was ended years ago.
My question as well, Tauna. My assertion still stands, though. This rule, where ever it exists, only exists where enforcing traditional gender roles is a major tenent of the religion. I guess what so hard for us who are shocked by this is the realization that, as much as we’d like to think our church is about Jesus, the Atonement, eternal joy and salvation, etc…. the whole shebang is served up on a plate of patriarchy and we’d better like it, or else.
@Heather
THIS is what offends you?
“9.10.2
Dress Standards
The Relief Society presidency teaches sisters to be well groomed and modest in their attire. Presidency members help sisters understand that at Church meetings, their appearance and clothing should show reverence and respect for the Lord. Relief Society leaders also help sisters understand that when they go to the temple, they should wear clothing that is suitable for entering the house of the Lord. On these occasions they should avoid wearing casual clothes, sports attire, and ostentatious jewelry.”
Where on earth – or at least in this paragraph – does it say anything about pantsuits vs dresses? I gotta be honest, it seems like there’s some real hypersensitivity here, or an attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill for the sake of argument and getting everyone’s panties in a wad.
Not to mention the condescension toward women in general this this original post, and the attitude it espouses, manifested. I think if anyone tried to tell my wife – or my mother or any of the other women in my life (friends and family to be clear) – that what they wear is the result of some man somewhere telling them what to do they’d be really offended.
To the degree that there is, somewhere, a suggestion about what to wear is nothing more than a “heads up” so to speak so visitors don’t show up in jeans and T-shirts like they do in some churches and thus feel out of place or awkward. I really can’t believe that this is what gets Mormons going in East Texas. Come to Utah. We have real controversy here.
@Brent–of course that paragraph doesn’t offend me. I’m not seeing the link. I never mentioned this statement. ??
And I agree that a heads-up is great so visitors know what to expect. What’s NOT great is a bishop telling a grown woman not to wear pants to church anymore. And yes, that is what gets THIS Mormon in East Texas going.
I’ll take a pass on Utah . . . although we did enjoy seeing y’all however many years ago (Utah notwithstanding). ;)
@Brent, I think you are missing the point a bit. You are right, this shouldn’t be an issue. Women are adults–they can dress themselves (and they should be able to wear whatever they want to wear and/or feel comfortable in). The problem is that apparently there are quite a few men in the church that don’t agree. That’s the problem. And it’s really not an institutional issue. The Church has no official policy on the matter (and they shouldn’t), which makes recent issues here with “pants wearing” all the more frustrating.
Adding to the anecdotal observations of other churches, our family has been on an exploration of different churches for the last 9 months. We have attended Unitarian, black Baptist, Pentacostal, Methodist, Episocopalian, Catholic, etc. None of them have a skirt/dress only policy, even informally. At first, I was calling or emailing the particular church prior to our family’s visit in order to avoid looking odd, but after a few weeks, I stopped because none of them cared.
It was also interesting to notice what people did choose to wear when given a free pass to “come as you are”. I had not seen anything sloppy at all. Not one pair of sweatpants, pajama bottoms or big wrinkled mess of whatever. There was lots of people who wore dress pants or khakis. Overall, there was a much bigger range of styles and colors, from really fancy and to nice jeans/shirt… and it seems to just reflect individual taste.
This is in contrast to my daughter’s regular wardrobe of pajama bottoms to YW. Any given week, at least half the girls wear them. It seems like a small rebellion against the mandatory skirts on Sunday.
Also, in my neck of the woods (North Carolina), the dress/skirt enforcement has come from the female leadership. There was a notable “announcement” at the this year’s Stake RS Annual Conference. There has also been an issue with a YW Leader in a neighboring ward that consistently wears pants. At this point, there are other concerned women in her ward who are “taking the issue to the Stake President” because of the supposedly poor example she is setting for the YW. They want her to be released.
Great post!
**New visitor to your blog… new commenter
@Orange, so glad you stopped by!
Thank you for sharing your experiences re: the dress at other churches. I’ve not been to that many churches–I’ve only seen people coming in and out of other churches and have noticed how much wider the variation seems to be than what you see at a typical LDS church building.
Pajama bottoms to YW on Sunday? Interesting indeed. Not my favorite young adult style. ;)
Re: your last point. When I hear that it is WOMEN raising these issues, I just wanna poke my eyes out. Why, why, why, why, why??
I always figured it was the idea that they didn’t get to wear pants to church, so by golly, no other uppity women are going to get to either. An example of the “I suffered; you should have to suffer too” philosophy.
No, the pajamas to YW are a mid-week thing…. (a little rebellion from the Sunday dresses, I think). I am not a big fan either. But I choose my battles. Right now, they are practicing basketball before YW, so they are all sweaty and in shorts for YW.
But, there YW Pres. seems to be happy to have my daughter whenever she comes. So she’s never been hassled because of her wardrobe choices at the ward level. Now Girls Camp and Prom? That is another story….. and not on topic. :)
Okay, mid-week. That seems less surprising. Picking battles – yep. I almost got into it with my daughter tonight re: her eyeliner. But I let it go. She was annoyed, but . . .
The female enforcers of the “unwritten order” are one of my biggest peeves. And this trait seems to something Mormons do have in common with at least some of the other Christian churches. The Pentacostal church, for example. It seems pretty progressive. There are 2 female pastors in addition to the main guy. They are upfront leading with apparently equal respect. Women and men distribute and bless the sacrament. Women and men baptize and give blessings. But the only references I have heard to male headship/wife submission…. come from the women pastors.
So, they let you wear pants, lead the congregation, etc, etc… and then FULL STOP — because being an equal partner in your marriage is somehow “unbiblical”. And it must be taught to the women by the women. It seems like a contradiction. Because if you were gonna go “literal bible”… you would be covering women’s heads, no female pastors, right? I don’t understand how you get female pastors, but refuse to allow equal partnership in the home. But it is very real.
Bottom line: Pants=Equality? Not.
@Orange, very interesting indeed.
So what is going on with the “female enforcers,” as you so cleverly call them? Why the need for women to monitor each other’s behavior?
Sorry, “female enforcers” is probably a little jaded. I apologize if that offends anyone.
But in my view, it comes from the need to reduce the stress of dealing with differences in your specific culture. The more everyone is on the same page, in the same spot on the same page, even…. then it reinforces the feeling of rightness and correctness of those views. This seems to be true for both ideas.. “only wearing of dresses means proper reverence and respect” and “husband headship/wife submission is the only biblical family pattern”.
Its hard for me to define. I am not much of a writer. :)
On the contrary, Orange.
Glad you are here-welcome.
“Female enforcers” = duly jaded. ;)
Re: being on the same page. One of my favorite quotes is “You don’t get harmony when everybody sings the same note.”-Doug Floyd
Beautiful quote Heather.
Without diversity, no possibility for harmony. (Also, very boring!)
The nice thing about allowing myself to quit going to church . . .
I don’t worry about the cultural trappings that surrounded and choke, what could be a really beautiful religion if it wasn’t being used as a weapon against anyone consider different than what is considered the norm within the ward.
I feel better about Mormonism if I have nothing to do with Mormons and the pettiness they can really beat people with at times.
Frankly. . . if you are worried about what someone else is wearing or even what you are wearing to church. . . you are likely to be missing the point . . . right?
I think I’ll eat chocolate in my pantsuit this Sunday with a Nigerian turban on my head to celebrate my freedom.
lol, good times Angie. I’ll celebrate freedom with you! My feelings largely echo your own.
RE: Women and the strict rules. Women are generally the first to convert to the more “fundamentalist” types of religion and become some of the most vocal “enforcers” – a term that is not inappropriate (work of David Stoll, Virginia Gerard Burnett). Since I mostly work in Latin America, I know more about the studies and literature surrounding conversions there. For example, Elizabeth Brusco’s studies show women joining evangelical groups with strict codes on gender performance, etc. for three reasons: 1) They see themselves as getting a moral high ground over their philandering husbands 2) The lifestyle is cheaper and returns more income into the home 3) Compared to Catholicism, sex is considered a healthy thing, so once the husbands are converted and found to be STD free after their years of frequenting mistresses and prostitutes, the amount of sex happening between these evangelical women and their husbands increases. My own studies of Pentecostals that have women cover their heads and cover their bodies from neck to ankle (and always wear dresses) shows a willingness to adapt such behavior because it is seen as a protection against aggressive men, a fair trade off for the mutual support of the community, and a display of personal piety. There are only 5 million in that church, but the number is overwhelmingly female. In the US, consider the case of Phyllis Schlafly, the conservative activist, author, businesswomen, and politician mother who fought the ERA to its demise and all the while (as she jetted about the nation and worked outside the home) said that women needed to be in the home. She garnered fame, power, wealth, and influence from her position. I think the question to ask is what is it that the female “enforcers” get from these positions. By doing so you do what real feminism should do, and that is look at women as entirely free agents who act and choose within the full spectrum of possibility. The episteme of power relationships is most often patriarchal in our societies, but as Gramsci would remind us, power is negotiated and hegemony is not a monologue, open to engagement and adaptation. I would lay good $$$ down that behind the recent flutter in Heather’s ward (also our ward) from the man who is telling a sister how to dress is a woman who has complained to him because her child is in that sister’s class. My wife experienced a similar complaint that came via a wife through her husband (who is the same man in question here) to my spouse. We ignored them and took them Christmas treats. They need to repent and get over themselves.
@Jason, I had some similar thoughts. Women learn how to dress from other women — first the women in the family, then Primary and YW leaders, friends, lady magazines etc. It makes sense that women would continue to enforce proper dress codes, probably somewhat unconsciously, based less on an understanding of gender issues and more on a sense that there is a proper way to do things. In my experience, the majority of women in the ward aren’t policing each other, but there are always a few and all it takes is one busybody with a bee in her bonnet complaining to the RS president, who then chooses to take it up the chain of command.
I think female enforcers do it because it gives them power within a patriarchal system. Patriarchy is deeply embedded in our society, both within the church and outside and I think that sometimes in conversations like this we forget that both men and women are rewarded for participating in and supporting patriarchy, which is partly why it continues to exist.
Yes, they have no recognized, legitimate authority within the system, so they have to think outside the box. Do underhanded things. Tell on women who aren’t following the rules to their husbands who do actually have authority within the system.
Makes me think I need to re-read Lord of the Flies . . .
What do the female ‘enforcers’ get out of it? I’m reminded of Dana Carvey, who managed to hit the nail on the head with his impression of the ‘Church Lady’…
What does she get out of it? She gets to do her little ‘superiority dance.’
Jason, I hope you come back because I have questions!
Re: women converting to fundamentalist religions. Wowza. I’ve gotta think about all this. I just read a book also that referenced a study (can find the citation later if anyone wants it) that suggests that women are more religious because they are LESS likely to engage in risk. And they see religion as a path to security–both in this life and in the next. I have never linked religion and risk-taking in that way.
Re: the Christmas treats. I love that you did this. You guys are the real deal. Seriously. BUT (there had to be a “but”), is it always best to take the moral high road? Or do we sometimes need to face things head-on and not just sweep them under the rug?
I see both paths as viable, depending on personalities/context, etc. Right now I’m sick of being on the sweep-it-under-the-rug path.
We don’t sweep. We discuss. We talk. We advocate. We support. However, when people continue doing as they do, we also ignore so they can have time to repent. I suppose forgive would be best, clearly I’m not at the point of forgive yet or I wouldn’t have commented on this page. :) Anyway, I will say my 2 cents at the right time, then I will let them go on their merry way. In the mean time, I will ignore their Mosaic prattling and allow them space with time and wisdom to recant – why should I become them? That is, at least, what works for me. The former head of the Church Education (Stanley Peterson) came to Missoula, MT in 1999 for a know your religion talk. He said that the only way you can survive being a parent is to understand agency. The guy next to me said that is only way we can endure any relationship with other people. Even, and especially, with prigs.
As for me and my house, I will continue to follow the traditions of my mothers from where I grew up and say that I really don’t care what a sister wears to church.
Jason, so what might it look like for an LDS woman to discuss, talk, advocate, and support? I’m not being snarky; I’m being 100% sincere. I know how to just keep on keeping on. I’ve been doing that for plenty long. But in this particular case (and others, I suppose), what would you suggest? That in my position of power (hee hee) as primary chorister, I talk to the sunbeams about how we shouldn’t worry about what clothes people are wearing? (Okay, so that was being snarky.)
That I . . . give a talk at a leadership meeting about the same? (Won’t happen. I have no such platform available to me.)
That I . . . give a talk in Sacrament Meeting? (could happen, but hasn’t happened in probably 18 months)
That I . . . hop up from the organ bench during the closing hymn and hold forth about people acting like prigs? (Sounds fun, but won’t happen.)
That I . . . ???
I think that this, what you are doing here, is what it looks like. I think Facebook is what it looks like. I think private conversations, dinners with friends, interviews with church leaders are all what it looks like. But I don’t think it looks like the way the prigs do it: throwing tantrums in which they demand that everybody look and act they way they want them to, including “you have to accept my POV no matter what.”
But if you think people change because we do these things, then I think that is a mistake. I can’t expect a prig family to change because I say so any more than I could expect my sister to quit drinking because I say so.
These “dress only” people are essentially like little kids throwing a tantrum because the church is not exactly the way THEY want it. I just don’t want to become like them, except from a different point of view. I just commented on the way I object. It works for me. It works for my exercise of agency and testimony. I am conscious, and I make my choices. I don’t think anybody else has to take my approach.
Thanks for your response. Okay, but the audience of this is, ahem, obviously limited. I hope I don’t seem like I’m throwing a tantrum and demanding that everyone do it my way. I’m happy to have my way, but I don’t give a rat’s a** what anyone else does. I just don’t want people (men, in particular) telling me how to dress. That would be one of the reasons why I like the 21st century. Heck, for that matter, the 20th century would work as well (well, the latter part).
Who cares if this is a limited audience. Is the goal for you to live your life with your family as you see fit and as you feel you are guided to do so by heavenly father, or is the goal to have the ear of the whole church and tell them all be just like you? 20 years from now, some kid is going to be a bishop and a woman is going to show up at church in pants, and some pedantic old fart is going to whine about it, and, like me, that bishop is going to remember the women in his ward who wore pants and he’ll say “that’s no business of yours, Brother Pharisee, quit gawking at the sisters and go do something Christ would really want you to do.”
Replying to myself because I can’t reply back to Jason.
Yeah, you’re right. I don’t need to be “I am woman, hear me roar.” I actually care less about what happens in the church in general than I care about what happens in my ward, every week, with me and my daughters and friends. So in that regard, it’s enough to talk amongst ourselves and try to enact small changes in this way.
Two thumbs up for telling the Brother Pharisees out there to mind their own business. And the Sister Pharisees. And the Heather Olson Beals if/when I overstep my bounds. ;)
Oh, and as for talks, I haven’t spoken since two mother’s day ago when I said that I admired women who abandoned superficial rat-races of “my house is most pristine” and swapped it for loving, caring, kind, and atonement centered lives.
Like. :)
A poor unsuspecting elderly bishopric member in Baton Rouge asked me to speak on Mother’s Day. When he told Brent about it, Brent just about spit out his drink. He didn’t know what he was in for, although I don’t think I didn’t anything *too* outrageous.
From “English Usage”:
A prig is a believer in red tape; that is, he exalts the method above the work done. A prig, like the Pharisee, says: “God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are”-except that he often substitutes Self for God. A prig is one who works out his paltry accounts to the last farthing, while his millionaire neighbour lets accounts take care of themselves. A prig expects others to square themselves to his very inadequate measuring rod, and condemns them with confidence if they do not. A prig is wise beyond his years in all things that do not matter. A prig cracks nuts with a steamhammer: that is, calls in the first principles of morality to decide whether he may, or must, do something of as little importance as drinking a glass of beer. On the whole, one may, perhaps, say that all his different characteristics come from the combination, in varying proportions, of three things-the desire to do his duty, the belief that he knows better than other people, and blindness to the difference in value between different things.
I have worn pants to church through most of my pregnancy for several reasons:
1. it’s hard to find appropriate maternity skirts and dresses
2. I can’t afford many maternity clothes and pants are more versatile than skirts and dresses so that’s what I’ve bought
3. I can’t cross my legs with my belly in the way, so pants are way more modest
4. pregnancy is miserable enough without dealing with sitting properly, shaving legs, and wearing nylons.
@Catherine, I would love to have worn pants when I was pregnant. Alas, I was chicken back then. ;)
“VERY GOOD “
This has been a great discussion. I’ve reached the following conclusions:
1) The Mormon church is one of the few places where traditional stay-at-home mothering is the norm and where it is both encouraged and rewarded. It is one of the few places where stay-at-home mothers are validated. It is one of the few places where the difficulties and sacrifices of mothering are assuaged by religious doctrine and the assurance that one’s life choices are in compliance with the wishes of a wise and benevolent deity.
2) Cultural norms against wearing pants serve a purpose. These norms contribute to the continued differentiation of gender roles within the church and serve to reinforce the primacy of women’s roles as mothers and helpmeets.
3) Unfortunately, wearing pants often produces a defensive (and often negative) reaction from the women who, either consciously or unconsciously, have internalized (and may have structured their lives around) the existing normative and cultural structure of the Church. For these women, pantsuits seem unsettling because this type of clothing symbolizes the cultural shift that has occurred in broader society over the past 50 years that has, in many ways, blurred traditional gender markers and both deligitimated and devalued the traditional roles of wife and mother.
4) In social groups the process of validation and the maintenance of cultural norms are often zero sum games that require lines of demarcation and negation. In other words, the Church may not be culturally capable of validating both the traditional roles of wife and mother and simultaneously making normative and cultural room for different lifestyle choices. To make room for one is to diminish the other. Validation requires differentiation and exclusion. The “in” crowd is defined by the existence of an “out” crowd. If there are no unpopular kids, then there are no popular kids.
5) The Church’s silence, or at least ambiguous stance, on this issue is understandable. It is in the best interests of the Church, considered as an institution, to be as many things to as many people as possible. It makes no sense to clarify, for example, that pantsuits are acceptable Church attire if such a declaration would do more damage than good (in terms of diminished normative or cultural value for women committed to the traditional roles of wife and mother). The smart thing to do, unfortunately, is to allow these issues to be negotiated locally (and largely through majority-wins processes).
That, in short, is why there is currently a fairly uniform cultural ban on women wearing pants to Church. What to do about it is an entirely different question.
@heather. I got that link from one of your posts…the one where you say the church kinda cares. I just followed the clicks…I don’t see where it does.
@ Brent … If certain men have a problem with how women dress in church, thats their problem. Why would anyone let these control freaks affect them? And as for the church not stepping in to tell local leaders to let women wear pants…do you honestly think the church hierarchy is going to spend even one minute defending a womans right to wear pants? Good grief man. Like there’s nothing better to do? And on one hand you acknowledged there is no policy for or against it, but then again you say that it’s purposefully there as a nefarious scheme to keep women in “their place” as homemakers. Are you just trolling me? Haha. Good one. You got me.
And when are you guys coming back here to visit again? It’s been too long…our kids are all grown up now. Well, almost.
Wow – I think just the sheer volume of comments on this post says something. I’m suddenly shocked to realize I’ve never even THOUGHT about wearing pants to church. Raised in the church, even liberal Oregon, I can’t say I recall any woman wearing pants to church unless they were an investigator.
@Heather, I’m a little horrified by the Personal Progress/”pink” and “soft” stuff… No, I’m quite horrified. I know what it is to be a woman – I’ve had two natural childbirths. Not pretty. Can’t get much more feminine than that mess…
@Jessica, yes, it’s quite surprising when you compare our dress norms with the rest of society.
And yes again–the pink Personal Progress stuff is a few levels of weird/crazy. I hate it. I have two daughters who are 14 and almost 11.
This article at least gets people thinking about the social stereotypes within Mormon wards, but I think it is directed at individuals who would already agree. And it seems that everyone who already agrees is becoming even more irked than they were previously. There are plenty of women in my ward who wear pantsuits (maybe only half a dozen, but it doesn’t phase anyone). I, personally, hate pantsuits because of how they look on my thighs. So, I wear skirts. And when I go to professional meetings I wear… skirts. Not Laura Ashley skirts, but pencil skirts. Who cares, right? exactly.
I think that people should be less concerned IN GENERAL about what other people wear. If a man is not wearing a WHITE shirt with tie and suit coat to church, we should not assume he is going inactive. It’s normal in any organization, but the goal is to GET OVER IT individually. And not bristle so easily when someone hasn’t achieved the same enlightenment as you.
@Brent, it’s more than just a “few control freaks,” its the culture. . . (and sometimes its difficult to ignore–the culture, for many people, IS the church). If leaders can take the time to specify the number of earrings that should be worn, shirt color for deacons, the specific translation of the bible that should be used by members, and on and on, then it doesn’t seem unreasonable for them to issue a single sentence in one of the many letters sent to leadeship that says: “Women may now dress themselves.” I don’t think they will for the reasons I’ve outlined, but if they did it certainly wouldn’t be odd based on prior related announcements.
It would be a trip to get together–time flies, doesn’t it?
@Anna M, well-stated.
Just wanted to say, in response to Ruth’s comment above:
Have you considered that, for the most part, women in other denominations also wear dresses to church?
This is absolutely not true. I would say that at best ratios are 50/50, but it’s probably even worse than that for dresses and skirts. I have called the Nazarene Church, Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.), Assembly of God, and New Frontiers churches my home, and pants dominated in all of those denominations. When skirts did come out, they were often denim. I currently attend the Evangelical Covenant Church, and my church is pastored by a woman. She probably wears pants while preaching a little bit more than she wears dresses and skirts—so obviously there’s no chance that she would ever call you into her office and instruct you to wear skirts and dresses.
The peculiar exceptions on this religious landscape are the traditionally black denominations. Black people are oddly similar to Mormons in their religious formalism. They’ll often insist on use of proper titles (Sister ______, Elder _______, Deacon _______, Reverend _________), suits and ties on Sunday mornings, and nice dresses for women—though a woman would probably still get away with wearing a nice pantsuit to church without being called into the bishop’s office and ordered to conform.
I usually wear pants whenever I’m visiting my husband’s ward. I agree that the instructions for women to wear dresses have more to do with enforcement of female submissiveness and traditional gender roles than “modesty,” which is one of the reasons I like wearing pants there.
On the other hand, I sometimes feel like Protestants are a little too casual about Sunday attire, so I typically wear skirts and dresses to my own church, though not horribly “dressy” ones. I guess I’m trying to challenge norms on both ends.
Is this the Ms. Jack of FMH? ;) I want to be your friend in real life!
You are so right about traditionally black denominations. I once had the privilege of attending MLK’s former church in Atlanta and wow, were those people dressed up. I loved seeing all the fancy hats!
And I love that you are pushing the boundaries on both ends. Keep people on their toes.
I wore pants to church today. Second time ever in my life. The first time was in San Fransisco and there were extenuating circumstances. Fast forward 13 years until today. Once again there are extenuating circumstances. I’ve got a torn MCL in my knee and need to keep my leg up (because it’s more comfortable that way). A long skirt might work, and I’ve got several considering my current nursery calling. But because of this article I opted for slacks. There was one comment made while waiting for the switch from sunday school to relief society (which I have to attend until my knee heals- I prefer nursery) ‘so is that what you have to do to get to wear pants to church?’ A brief conversation between about 5 of us ensued when I told her that she can wear pants to church next week- I give her permission. That there isn’t a ‘hard and fast’ rule about it and that I dared her too. The RS president was in on the conversation and said, ‘I don’t think there is a rule- but I do think it is preferred’. I told her that if she attended church in a different state she was more likely to see women in slacks. Another sister confirmed this. I have six weeks of ‘okay- because of injury’ slacks wearing time, in which time I’m going to look for more dress slacks and then I’ll be rotating them into my standard church attire.
I’m a first time poster here–I wear pants to church all of the time.
I’m a liberal lawyer-mom-wife-person in a traditional ward and my pants are the least of the things that separate me from the ward members–I just don’t thing there is room for me there. Unless I smile and don’t say what I think–which is pretty much what I do. Perhaps my pants are just my symbolic opening of my mouth. Nice to meet y’all. But I have to admit–I’m on the verge of giving up the whole church thing.
I’m with you, 4th amendment gal. Glad you stopped by.
I haven’t often felt like there’s just not a place for me. But then sometimes I think, darnit, I’m just gonna make room. So I elbow my way around a bit–I don’t think I jab people TOO hard in the gut, but this is my church, too. I’m not going to let dogmatic, pharisaical (sp.?) people nudge me out of my church.
Other times, I feel like I’d be happier if I’d just pack up my marbles and go home. At least people respect me there and I can be free to be who I am . . .
Come back and see us!
I wore pants to church during my last few months of pregnancy. Nobody ever said a word to me about it. Infact, I brought it up to the stake presidents wife because I was embarrassed, and she said she was just glad I was there and to not worry about the pants. Thank goodness there are still people with commonsense in the church.
4th amendment gal and Heather, please, please, please keep going to church! (I’m not trying to save your souls. I’m trying to help the dolts in your ward recognize their ignorance.)
Every ward needs people like you (some wards need a lot more of you), and not just because of the “it takes all kinds” factor. Insularity breeds mindlessness. I am lucky enough to live in a ward that has a variety of characters, including some straight-laced people, and it’s awesome. Probably the best ward I’ve lived in.
You know the Church does a lot of good for you, that’s why you’ve stuck it out so far. Don’t let others push you out because of their narrow thinking. Enlighten them. Broaden their perspectives. Be an example of the “real” people that keep appearing in the mormon.org TV ads.
The world (read: ward) needs more people like you.
Jon
First time to this blog, found through FMH. I have to say, I think I may have found a place to belong. I so often feel at odds with the mormon culture and fret about how those unwritten cultural norms are put on par with doctrine and gospel principles.
I want to wear pants to church. But I just don’t have the chutzpah to do it yet. It would be highly convenient as a mother of two tiny kids who climb all over me and constantly tug my skirt up. Not to mention it would be much warmer right now. But again, I lack the courage to fly in the face of societal pressure. Chicken. Chicken. I’m a chicken!
I also want to wear hats to church.
@Heather – please do start a discussion on women covering their faces. I would love to hear a well thought out and reasoned discussion on the topic. It’s something that has always irked me, but I haven’t given much thought because I know if I did I would become much more than irked. Perhaps it’s time I started formulating my own defenses for my antiestablishment ideas, rather than just going with the flow because it’s easier.
Hey, Menner. This is the place! ;)
Wear the pants. And the hat. Seriously. I just want people to be able to be who they are. Wouldn’t God want people to be comfortable in their own skin? The kind of god I want to believe in wouldn’t want people hiding behind skirts and rules.
Re: covering their faces. Sigh. That’s a conversation for another day. Re: formulating your own defenses for your antiestablishment ideas–my 10-year-old daughter said it best, I think, when a well-meaning primary teacher told her one Sunday that the pants she was wearing were inappropriate to wear to church. I was so mad when she was telling me this story after church. I asked her what she had said to the teacher (and I was quickly imagining confronting this poor lady and telling her to please not tell my daughter what to wear) and she just shrugged her shoulders and said: “I just said: ‘Huh. I think I look nice.'”
And that was that. Who could argue with that? Her teacher couldn’t. And didn’t.
Hmmmm…we must have a really really liberal bishop. He has said ‘this is my ward and pants are fine.’ In one of the other wards, the bishop allows jeans and t-shirts…whatever will get them through the door. You all must be living in the heart of Utah. One 20 something who was convinced to try coming back wears a tie with his basketball jersey. The bishop rolls his eyes and smiles and welcomes him to Sacrament Service just the same. Does God really care what you wear just so long as you are there? BTW, I only wear pants.
Sukiyhtaky, this is great to hear. No, of course God does not care what we wear. He’s not the fashion police.
And we’re a LONG ways from the heart of Utah. We’re even better–we’re deep in the heart of Texas!
Hello! Irecentlydiscovered your page via bing. What a informative blog you have! I like it very much! Thank you for putting out such priceless information to the whole internet landscape!
Thanks for stopping by, Belle!
So…turns out, there are places in the church where pants suits are the standard. I’ve lived 2 branches on 2 different continents (one of them being North America) where it was fairly standard for women to come in pants suits, especially those with small children.
Was it in Canada? ;)
Am I too late to the conversation? No I think not. I feel sometimes the church is somewhere in between Law of Moses style living, and living the higher law. This whole dress code does bug me at times. Why I only have chosen to wear long skirts and knee length dresses to shirts. I do feel more comfortable wearing pants I admit, but in church I do conform to this societal norm. I do remember when I was a girl always wearing shorts underneath my dresses, it just made me feel more comfortable. Though I must say, I have seen girls at BYU-Idaho (where we aren’t allowed to wear Capri or flip flops) push the limits of their dress length to what I consider inappropriate, I would much rather see women wear a pant suit to church instead of a short skirt or dress, and a button up top instead of the low cut tops I see on some girls. I think I know that if I ever find a job, considering the really short time I now have before I go up to school, I will more then likely not even have the time to change for church, into a skirt, and I’m not lugging a change of clothes. I’ve seen women come to church in pants, though I feel this is different, I don’t mind it. I mind the mini skirts, and the low cut tops as I’ve said before.
Sarah, female students at BYU-Idaho aren’t allowed to wear capri pants or flip flops?
Typo error: *Why i have chosen to wear long skirts with modest blouses, and knee length dresses to church.*
Nope, Heather, not allowed to wear them at all on campus. We can wear them off campus, but I never do because of all the trips I find myself making to campus. Ever day, if not in sunday clothes, which IS skirts and blouses or dresses for girls, and which IS white shirts, and ties, and pants for boys, we have to wear full length pants and shoes. At first I couldn’t understand why people would complain, as I had my first semester in the fall, but as soon as the spring track came around I understood immediately. It does get blazing hot in Idaho, contrary to some peoples opinion, for at least 3 months out the year (9 months is frigged cold), and I would love to wear capris (still modes), and flip flops. Of course the school allows nice sandles but they must have a strap to keep them from slipping. The school has a very strict dress code. But as I mentioned above, on the length of the dresses, some girls will do whatever they want. And I much rather have pant suits allowed for girls then what I see sometimes.
Sarah, do you know whether the same dress code applies at BYU? I don’t remember any rules like that when I was there.
I believe BYU-Idaho has always had a stricter dress code than BYU. I never understood why though.
I know I am probably way too late for this conversation, but I just read it and I also have a few thoughts. When we were little our parents dressed us, right. Sometimes they would dress us in things that we really did not want to wear, but we wore it anyway. When we got older, we started to dress ourselves and couldn’t be happier with that. For years and years, we’ve been waiting for the chance to actually choose what we wanted to wear ourselves. Then we finally get the chance and soon it is taken away from us again by forms of rules. There is a time and place for everything, I understand that, but where do you draw the line? In a work situation, you have a dress code. The dress code may consist of certain colors, company uniforms etc. But, what if that company uniform includes a skirt or a pant suit. You still respect the company’s rules and no one has a problem with what you wear. As long as it has the colors, or you can wear anything underneath, just make sure you wear the company shirt. In Church, you must look respectable, neat, appropriate and all these other expectations they throw in you face. This is for men and women. Men must wear suits. Women must wear dresses or skirts. What about the weather conditions. Would you like to wear a dress or skirt in the blistering cold? Why can’t you just wear a pant suit? What some people don’t understand is that wearing a dress or wearing a pant suit, doesn’t make a difference. As long as you abide by the rules and what are these rules? To dress respectable, neat and appropriate. What could be more appropriate that a pant suit rather than a miniskirt. Going to church isn’t suppose to be a beauty contest. You don’t go for someone else or to show off your legs, you go for yourself and for God. He doesn’t care what you wear. He just wants His children to follow the right path that He set out for us. But, in the end, everyone has their own opinions. I just think that people should stop judging others, as it is the biggest sin on earth. And that is exactly what is happening with this whole dress code issue.
I love this thread…but Heather, I must point out that not giving a rats @$$ about what other people do, includes the teenaged boys wearing goofy ties whilst passing the sacrament.)
The point that most of the dissenters are missing, is that depending on the “opinion” of your ward/Bishop, your clothing DOES and CAN affect your membership status. You can be released from a calling, you can be prevented from holding callings, etc. You can be blacklisted and others will judge you. And while, no, no one is “forcing” you to wear anything, the social pressure is certainly there. I don’t think most people want to be treated badly at church, and told they aren’t worthy to serve in church callings anymore. And YES, it does happen. THAT is the issue. If your ward/Bishop isn’t that way, thank your lucky stars. Plenty of others are having to deal with issues like this every single Sunday. My uncle was explicitly told he would never serve in a “higher” calling if he didn’t shave off his mustache/beard (which was nicely trimmed, short, etc). They ban teens from passing the sacrament if they aren’t wearing a white shirt, or if their hairstyle is too “weird” (regardless of whether they are actually WORTHY to).
I find it SO messed up that a college has stricter clothing rules than my children’s elementary school does. No shorts, capris or flip flops??? GEESH. Excuse my french, but why the hell would anyone ever want to go there?! :S
Oh, shoot. Guilty as charged on the goofy ties while passing the sacrament. Well, sort of.
Let me justify a bit. I’m curious to know whether you’re convinced. ;) To me, there is a difference between my very nice professional attire (that happens to include pants) and the boys wearing totally irreverent/casual stuff. I am wearing clothing that “the world” (gasp!) would deem dressy; they are wearing clothing that “the world” would deem tacky and casual. Not only that, they are administering an ordinance which is sacred to Mormons, so I think respect for and deference to their office and to that ordinance should dictate that they NOT wear Tasmanian devil and Grinch ties.
Or, either we worry about what EVERYONE wears or we worry about what NO ONE wears. Ditch the double standard.
This is a very strange story and discussion. I have attended church in blue jeans. Right now I attend church here in Afghanistan with a pistol on my hip. When I’m not deployed I wear my security uniform as I have to go to work right after sacrament. I have even attended in my clan kilt. Never once as anyone ever treated me with anything but respect and love.
My wonderful wife wears both pant suits and dresses. Each sunday she chooses what she wants to wear. Again nothing but respect and love. I doubt that any married man thinks that if his wife wears a dress she is subserveant to him.
Lets face it women run the world. I would do anything to keep my wife happy. :-) We are partners in everything. She usally wears dresses as they fit her figure better. I tease her about her hour glass figure and how hard it is to find cloths that fit. She is right though dresses flow and fit better for her.
I’m going naked to church to see what they do. LOL
Society DOES NOT have the right to tell men and women what to wear – that is against American values, which stand for equality and freedom of expression for BOTH genders! The Declaration says, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!” In a free country, people can wear whatever they want, and that includes men wearing skirts, dresses, heels, and makeup! If you do not agree with American principles, then you should not be living in this country!
@True Patriot, if your post is intentional caricature, it’s pretty funny; if not, then you’re late to the party and a few french fries short. . .
I realize I am extremely late to this party, but I have only one quibble with your post. I am a professional single woman in DC and I wear dresses and skirts often (usually with a suit jacket). This is typical DC professional dress, particularly since the first lady has shown a preference for dresses in her own style. (remember, reigning figures have always helped set societal trends).
However, I totally agree that most pant suits are far more “reverent” and appropriate than the dress that I see at church. I taught early morning seminary years ago and would wear pant suits about half the time. I was reprimanded by the local head of CES for not always wearing a skirt. I stated that I wasn’t a missionary and did not wear a dress every day, but that I always dressed professionally. He suggested that I keep a denim skirt in my car, change in the bathroom before teaching, and change back to professional dress after the lesson. I suggested that he was off his gourd and should find more important worries.
Ha, Rachel! I love your expression: “off his gourd”! You are right that Brent was being extreme re: dresses and skirts (and don’t worry–I can personally attack him because he’s my husband!!). ;) I think he was just trying to make a point re: the inconsistencies in Mormon dress standards.
Last week to work, I wore a denim skirt (that I recently bought at a consignment shop for $6!) along with a pullover polo shirt. As I was getting dressed, I was thinking, “There is NO WAY I would wear this to church. It’s too casual/informal.” And then I laughed when I realized that many of my fellow ward members would much prefer me to wear a denim skirt over my usual slacks and button-up shirt.
Love hairdresser stylists!
I’ve been wondering this since I investigated the Church and I have always wanted to wear my pretty work slacks to Church. I know it’s respectful but I see girls in denim skirts or cotton tops and I think… I’m pretty sure my nice work slacks are more reverent than those sloppy excuses for a Sunday best outfit. I believe I am going to start wearing slacks to Church. I don’t think all Mormon women should wear pants to Church – I’ll be the first to admit – a skirt is a lot free flowing and less constrictive than slacks, but sometimes I don’t feel like wearing tights with my skirts (I do like tights with skirts) but not every Sunday in the winter… so guess I’m going to do it!!!!
i haven’t read the comments so i’m not sure if this has been answered but later in the article it says this:
“When a girl wants to be at her very best and look her prettiest and be really dressed up, she will wear a dress.” There are many occasions in Church-related activities when a girl wants and needs to be her prettiest and be “really dressed up.” One of these, of course, is at sacrament meeting where we come to worship our Father in heaven. For other meetings of a sacred nature or special cultural events, a dress will be most appropriate.”
I’m all for pants i’m just wondering if the church is actually okay with it
I simply desired to thank you so much again. I do not know the things I would have carried out in the absence of those creative concepts contributed by you concerning this industry. Certainly was an absolute distressing difficulty for me, however , encountering your well-written manner you treated the issue made me to leap with delight. I am just happy for this work and believe you comprehend what an amazing job you’re putting in training other individuals by way of your webblog. I am certain you’ve never encountered any of us.
Wow, this blog post is still going on? I commented a while back and now I’m back. I am thinking about this, really tempted actually. I am, *gasp*, looking into conceal carry (and yes I plan to bring the gun to church, in the slightest .000001 % chance anything may happen that would require me using it in self defense, or the defense of others). And I find dresses, completely 100% impossible for concealed carry, and I thought about wearing a thigh holster, but now am completely against the idea. Now I am not yet ready to wear full on pant suits to church, but I’m so planning on it in the future. I more or less am still getting used to my feminism, and shedding every care in the world about what other people think about me. I though, now, do wear a knee length dress and light slim pants underneath, in the winter to keep me warm, and I solve the flashing problem. I also wear skirts, and leggings, and blouses. I am in the process of a wardrobe change, and just waiting to get the money to make such a change settled. Pant suits are lovely, same with skirt suits. I went outside the norm a bit, and wore a white three piece suit for my wedding. It got lots of compliments, and I felt so wonderful wearing something that was simple and not all frumpy, and the suit like appearance stated elegance, simplicity and business. I though, when I get to heaven, and have no need of concealed carry or anything like that, would love to wear a nice lovely tunic with some nice loose pants, and would want to be buried in that too. Kind of like a white salwar kameez. *sigh*
Well now that I rambled. I will probably at some point start wearing more pants and blouses to church, and forget the leggings and skirts, and blouses, or the pants and dresses combo. Its just a matter of when I say “enough”, I need to be comfortable with going outside the norm first. And I will do that just a little bit at a time.
I wear pants to church! When I first wore them to the singles ward I heard a missionary call me the leader of the “Pants Brigade”. Then I got married and wore pants to the family ward and that seemed to be a little uncomfortable for the ladies who were more traditional. I then taught RS in pants one day and asked the ladies if I was immodest or improperly dressed, it seemed to cause some thinking, so I guess it’s working. My BIL says that if anyone makes a comment about my attire I should direct them to read Alma 32. And as Pres. Uchtdorf said this morning – “Stop it.”.