The so-called manosphere may be a tiny (if noisy) corner of the internet, but here’s yet another reminder that many of its, er, “values” are shared by people other than angry Spearhead commenters and NWOslave. Some of these people even have access to real power. At the Values Voters conference this week, at which Republican VP contender Paul Ryan gave a talk, a group called Modesty Matters distributed flyers whose text reads as if it had been cribbed from posts on The Thinking Housewife or the CoAlpha Brotherhood forum.
As ThinkProgress.org reports:
Modesty Matters criticized women for dressing “immodestly” at church, and blamed women for causing men to stare lustfully at them.
Women must “embrace MODESTY in dress and behavior,” one of the handouts read. Women dressed immodestly in church are “an insult to a holy God,” another said.
Some other choice bits highlighted by ThinkProgress:
From the “Modesty: It’s nothing to be ashamed of” pamphlet: “Since men are particularly visual, immodesty in church can trigger lustful thoughts.”
“My men’s bible study group talks frequently about controlling our lust, thoughts, and eyes. Yes the problem and responsibility are ours, but is it really reasonable for the women of the church to make it THIS difficult for us?”
From the “True Woman Manifesto”: “All women, whether married of single, are to model femininity in their various relationships, by exhibiting a distinctive modesty, responsiveness, and gentleness of spirit.”
Frankly, I don’t think women are completely responsible for all of this terrible immodesty.
Obviously, James Brown deserves part of the blame as well. Here’s footage of him lobbying congress on the controversial “hot pants” issue:
from a man in his early thirties. Anyone else catch a hint of something a bit off about the adults’ responses (in general)?
The second creepiest part of the survey is the sheer number of adult men who felt the need to weigh in. And yes, their answers are definitely the worst.
The creepiest part of the survey is the adults who wrote it in the first place.
Also, the idea of asking your brothers and your dad if something you’re wearing is too sexy keeps coming up. Now, I don’t have any brothers, but when I try to imagine having that conversation with my dad all I can think is that wow, that would be awkward for both parties.
Lowquacks: Indeed, “don’t be David Bowie” would probably have to be on the list. Even photos of him can impregnate you.
Ugh!! That makes me think of those creepy Purity Balls **gag!**
I mean, it’s like, ask your dad and/or brother to check out how your boobs look in that sweater and whether or not they might give some other guy an erection. It’s all good as long as you do it for Jesus.
“Age 40-49
Any girl can learn to turn on that mystical, wonderful, terrifying, unnerving tractor-beam of feminine allurement. The clothing can amplify this but it is by no means necessary.”
…Owly?
Oooh, ooh, lowquacks, I know how blokes can be totally modest! Wear the falling-off-the-arse trousers/jeans/whatever with the crotch at knee level. Nothing like looking like a baby with a full nappy as a way to cancel out any immodest, shameful attractiveness in my book! 😀
Oh and re: the ancient biscuits/cookies discussion – they’re all biscuits to me, I never talk about cookies at all except to my American friends. Savoury biscuits, sweet biscuits, shortbread, plain crackers, chocolate coated, it’s all the same thing to me.
Say, does anyone else think the Immodest Blonde’s hat looks more like it was based on some sort of LDS/Amish bonnet than the fashionable hat it’s meant to be?
This survey has made me realize that I own the most immodest, ungodly jeans of all time. Not only are they tight, they have a super obvious design on the back pockets that you can’t help but notice. And as if that wasn’t bad enough, the design clearly indicates that I worship Satan (it’s a skull).
http://images.forbes.com/media/lifestyle/2006/08/30/7_0830feat1.jpg
(These, but in a different wash)
The idea of making people that uptight really really upset totally justifies the money I spent on those jeans.
“(This whole problem could easily be solved by accepting the fact that most people have sexual feelings and are attracted to people and that’s OK, but I guess that would be too easy.)”
Aye, there’s the rub. (Oh no, not rub! Rubbing is a stumbling block.) They’ve set up a situation where there’s God Thoughts and Bad Thoughts and they don’t have the resources to see past it within their own understanding of their religion. Within this framework, everything must be delineated and contained and directed at God Thoughts all the time, but this is simply impossible in real life because there’s a whole lot of Regular Thoughts zooming around all the time, so the only way to respond is with a rigidity of attitude that constantly compares the real to the ideal and focuses on endless minutiae. Of course, even the most modestly dressed women I know, hijabis who wear headscarves and long sleeves, etc., still report men perving on them by e.g. staring at their mouths and other such creepy behavior; the constant if-onlys of the modesty monitors only serve to demonstrate their futile obsession with controlling those they objectify, rather than themselves.
Or maybe it’s almost 4 am and I just let this comment turn into an incoherent rant.
Have anyone of you noticed that a tie is actually shaped like an ARROW pointing towards the guy’s CROTCH? I mean honestly, how can women be expected not to spontaneously rape men wearing ties?
I remember an interview a couple of Swedish TV hosts did with that crazy reverend who ran the “God hates Sweden” campaign after the tsunami killed so many Swedish tourists in Thailand a few years back. He had all kinds of reason why Sweden was a sinful country hated by God, like legalising gay marriage, stuff like that which you can sort of see how it makes sense given his view of God and sex. But then he also claimed that the royal family is a particularly sinful bunch, in part because princess Madeleine has big boobs. So the interviewer goes:
– But… it’s her natural boobs. They’re the boobs God gave her. How could merely having them be a sin?
I don’t even remember exactly what Crazy Reverend answered to that, he just went on about how her boobs are BIG and that’s TERRIBLE.
(This interview and the whole God Hates Sweden thing was way before it was revealed that the king had an affair with singer Camilla Henemark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYT2aWavXlc for a long time in the nineties. That would have given him something better than Madeleine’s boobs to worry about.)
The big boobs = sinful thing shows up almost every time fundies talk about sex. It’s so weird. It’s a perfect illustration of the way they try to outsource men’s self-control to women, and then blame the women when the men fail to think only pure thoughts (which of course they do, because they’re human).
zomg are Weeping Angels the perfect women!?
I would make a list of my ‘stumbling blocks’ but I have some unusual fetishes and it would get weird.
Let’s just say that among other things, men would have to be bald, mean, and stupid.
One of my stumbling blocks would be hands (I love men’s hands), and how the hell are you supposed to avoid those? If I’d been brainwashed to believe that having sexual feelings made me a bad person I’d be miserable every time I left the house.
Also this made me snicker.
Please witness to me about my short skirt and/or sinful Satanic jeans, earnest 17 year old fundamentalist! I could do with a good laugh.
@kittehhelp
That’s how I do biscuits too.
It just looks like she’s balancing a flannel on her head, honestly.
embyrr
I know what your problem is. I used to have an excellent palate for selecting young reds that would age well, but I didn’t like drinking them, especially the aftertaste. Fortunately we had many (many) cases, so several dozen were left until they were really well aged. Those? Those I can drink. But we could never have afforded to buy them like that, it was just good luck that we’d bought when they were cheap and could age them in a friend’s cellar.
So all you need to do is to find high quality, well aged red wines and drink those. otoh, you might want that money for ephemeral fripperies like food, shelter and clothing.
Well, this medication I’ve been given for gastric reflux is giving me insights into the nature of myself and the universe and putting thoughts together in ways I’d never thought before, and opening my mind and that, which is fun, but it’d be a lot better for my studying/homework if it could just focus on repairing my oesophagus. This is seriously weird. The bacground of this website’s great with it too.
I’ve looked up side effects and “tripping balls” isn’t even listed as one, so I’ve no idea what the hell’s going on.
@CassandraSays
“I see you are a tart. Have you heard the good word?”
LOLOLOLOLOLOL SEX = EVILLLLLLLL PPL LET’S ALL TELL PEOPLE WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN’T DO IN PRIVATE WITH THEIR PARTENER(S).
Why do these people think they have the right to be the uber morality police for everyone else again?
“Indeed, you are correct! Was it the high heeled black boots that clued you in? As we all know, only prostitutes wear those.
Wait, where are you going? Was it something I wore? Don’t forget to Hail Satan!”
Reading the comments in this thread as well as the original post, I am trying to identify the motivating premises. So far, it seems to me that the premises are these:
– There will never be a divine judgment to hold women (nor men) accountable for adhering to any standards of modesty. The only judge is human.
– Standards that define modesty are human, rather than divine, in origin. Therefore they are malleable, and so should be governed by feminist priorities.
– Any standards of modesty must promote feminist values and priorities, or else be rejected as being denigrating to women.
– Men who seek increased female modesty actually seek to (1) objectify and control women, and (2) displace personal responsibility for their own self-control onto women.
– Any increase in female modesty should inure to the benefit of women.
– Increased modesty merely suppresses sexuality, and therefore does not inure to the benefit of women.
Do I have this right? If you agree with the original post, then are these your premises?
Shorter every Abrahamic religion –
I’m too weak to live up to my own self-imposed standards so please restructure society so that I may never be tempted.
I wonder when these uber christian guys will realize that a) they are trying to appropriate mennonite culture and b) their demands on a womans movement patterns essentailly prevents uberchristian women from doing anything physical and makes it really awkward to do anything else.
I mean, what they want is for women to move like Taelons? How are we supposed to stay slim if we never move beyond deliberate and glacial slowness?
Cannot bend at waist…guess hubby gets baby in and out of the crib all the time right?
So, on the one hand, in the open comments part of the survey the respondents made mouth-noises towards being responsible for their own thoughts. Good? But in the context of a whole set of questions meant to analyze and judge how other women dress, I remain unimpressed.
“While we’ll acknowledge that we’re responsible, but we’re going to spend most of this survey discussing exactly what ‘immodesty’ is so we can judge women and let them know the whole list of things they do that is wrong.”
Joys.