SOME REBELUTION

A while back, a female colleague and I interviewed a young businessman who was a witness in a commercial dispute we were handling. We went to his office on a warm summer day, and he was sitting behind his desk with his tie somewhat loosened and the sleeves of his Oxford shirt rolled up.  It was hard not to notice that this young man was particularly good looking, and the bit of skin he was showing -- his neck and his forearms -- didn't help. As I asked him questions, I couldn't help but notice that my normally calm, cool and competent colleague was uncharacteristically quiet.   When my colleague and I were driving back to my office, she said, "Oh my God, I could barely even look at him without blushing."  In truth, both my colleague and I had felt discomfited during the interview.

But here's the thing.  At no time did it occur to either of us to blame this young man for our reactions to him.  We didn't question his right to exist in the workplace or his right to make himself a bit more comfortable on a hot day by rolling up his sleeves and loosening his tie.  We didn't feel any hostility towards him. We didn't feel entitled to leer at him or make any comment about his sexual attractiveness.  Of course we didn't!  There is no cultural precedent for the notion that men have an obligation to constantly police themselves to make sure that women don't feel uncomfortable or start thinking about sex. 

But The Rebelution, a site by teenaged fundamentalist superstars Alex and Brett Harris, and its readers are reveling in the ol' double standard.  In the site's Modesty Survey, hundreds of Christian boys (and some grown men) provided answers to Christian girls' questions about precisely what articles of apparel might prove to be "stumbling blocks" to the Christian male's quest to avoid lust. The survey is predicated on the notion that girls and women themselves have a moral obligation to help boys and men to avoid lust.  The questions and responses go into a disturbing amount of detail.  For example, while most young men did not see a problem with "v-shaped necklaces" (phew!), one requested, "Please don't wear them with v-neck shirts or thin shirts that are depressed by the pendant's weight."  And there are lots of other extraordinarily detailed responses to precisely where the sight of a bit of female skin may be a cause for sin.

It was also striking how the boys felt all too entitled to request or dictate changes in female behavior without any regard for how those changes would limit and restrict the lives of the girls.  They thought nothing of suggesting all sorts of restrictions on bathing suits, dance outfits, and gym clothes -- the primary purpose of which is not to titillate men but to allow freedom of movement for women engaging in physical activity.  Can you imagine if there was a suggestion that the boys not wear those tight little baseball uniforms when playing baseball or that they wear long pants while mowing the lawn?  Of course not -- because the boys' right to live their lives is beyond question.  The girls on the other hand bear the burden of having to worry about things like having to turn their back when taking off a sweatshirt in front of a boy, or not appearing too confident in their bodies:

Girls usually know when they’re doing this though, I think. Like if a girl who already has a very confident air about her, who dresses very attractively, then sits cross-legged on a couch with her arms spread out over the back of the couch, smiling… Haha, okay, you kinda get the idea. This is awkward.

(Hat tip to Pandagon)

Sure, there is lip service given to the notion that controlling lust is ultimately the boy's responsibility -- but they are happy to place the ultimate burden to restrict their lives and worry about every detail of their conduct and dress on the girls, with notably no reverse survey on the details of male modesty.  Huh, funny that.

Finally, I would note (as Jill already has) the hostility directed at girls and women in comments such as this response to how boys feel about girls who flaunt their bodies:

Saddened; disappointed; sometimes angered. They’re distracting good men, dishonoring God and marriage, and offering themselves cheaply–which makes me desire even more strongly a girl who is modest, who is valuable. I would be disingenuous if I didn’t concede that these kinds of girls are a temptation. But I always remind myself that if a girl flaunts herself before I marry her, she’ll do the same thing afterward. As a husband, that would make me pretty mad.What would make me happy is dedicating all my energy to loving a young woman who reserves herself for me.

As I have noted before, the theoretical underpinnings of the Christian modesty movement are essentially A Recipe for Misogyny -- not to mention an excuse to control (and humiliate) women.  (Girls in the survey are advised to run their outfits past their fathers and brothers for approval.)  The fact that there is no reverse modesty survey for male dress proves that this mindset is at the very least predicated on the notion of women and girls as second class citizens. 

Comments

[Sarahndipity]

I'm first? Woo-hoo! Anyway – as a Catholic I believe that women (and men) should dress modestly, and that women do have more responsibility in this area simply because men are more visually oriented than women. You do raise some good points, however. I absolutely agree that men should not get completely off the hook – while women may be less visually oriented than men, men still have a responsibility to dress modestly. I also agree that many of the responders to this survey go way too far – you would drive yourself crazy trying to meet the standards of every single one of them.

I think when a lot of Christians talk about modesty, they also miss the point that while the principle of modesty is the same regardless of culture or time period, the specifics differ. For example, I personally see nothing wrong with wearing a tank top and shorts on a hot summer day (as long as it’s not super-short shorts or a really skin-tight top), but if I were to travel back in time to the Victorian era, wearing that same outfit would be immodest, I think, because the men of that time period would be used to seeing women in floor-length dresses and would probably be much more easily aroused by the sight of a woman in a tank top and shorts. (Did you hear about the Muslim man – I think it was in Saudi Arabia – who ejaculated when he saw part of a girl’s arm?) On the other hand, in some cultures women walk around bare-breasted all the time and it’s no big deal. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that – in that context.

I just try to use common sense while dressing – I probably dress slightly more modestly than average, but I don’t dress dowdily. Some actress from the 40s – don’t remember who – said she would make sure her clothes were tight enough to show she was a woman but loose enough to show she was a lady. I sort of take that approach. And if I really wasn’t sure if something was modest, I don’t see anything “humiliating” about asking a man’s opinion – they do have a different perspective.

[Lizard Eater]

I can't help but be completely disgusted by this way of thinking -- that the female must be the caretaker of men's lust, making sure that it's not unduly or inappropriately excited, a pitbull that everyone must tiptoe quietly around. (The other side is often used as well ... how many women have been told that if their husband is showing lust toward another woman, it is because *the wife* hasn't been properly taking care of him?)

My normally fair father, when I was a teen, told me "A hard penis has no conscience." Hmm. I wonder how much of that was a desire to keep his daughter away from potentially dangerous situations and how much was actual belief? I should ask him.

[Sarahndipity]

Let me hasten to add that I also believe that if a man lusts after a woman; or stalks, rapes or sexually harasses a woman; or cheats on his wife, that it is *no one’s fault but his own.* Yes, women *should* dress modestly, but even if they don’t, men need to take complete responsibility for their actions. Like Happy said, the fact that she was attracted to her interviewee would not justify her coming on to him. And while I believe a wife should be sensitive to her husband’s needs (just as a husband should be sensitive to his wife’s needs), the failure of one or both spouses to do so does not in any way justify adultery.

[Sarah]

I think a big part of the problem is the strange attitude these men seem to have towards their own sexuality. It's completely normal to feel a little aroused when you look at an attractive person in revealing clothes, but if you frame that normal response as 'sinful' or somehow wrong or a failing, then that is a problem, because it's not something most of us can really prevent. So they get angry at themselves every time it happens, and at the women who trigger that response, and the whole thing seems to become a kind of obsession with trying to control their environment so they never get aroused against their will.
Surely it isn't wrong to feel attracted to someone? It's what you decide to do next that is the moral issue.

[Lizard Eater]

Note to Sarahndipity -- my disgust is directed toward the website Happy referenced. I think you and I are different "tickie marks" on the same barometer. For example, I don't let my daughters have Bratz dolls or dress like them. Hugs.

[Sarahndipity]

Absolutely, Lizard Eater. I didn't think your disgust was directed at me. I just wanted to make sure the readers understood that I don't think it's a woman's fault if she's raped, harassed, cheat on, or what have you if she dresses immodestly, because I didn't think I made that clear in my first post. And I totally agree with you about Bratz dolls.

[Sarahndipity]

Oops, I meant to say I don't think it's a woman fault if she's cheat on because she "let herself go" or whatever.

[uuMomma]

I loved this post so much, I had to write my own response, see it here: http://uumomma.wordpress.com/2007/03/26/keeping-them-covered-whose-job-is-it-and-why/. Oh, I wish I had been so forward thinking on the whole Bratz doll thing. I keep wondering when my girl will ask to have their heads and feet enlarged (and their feet removable) they are just like them! Blessings to all, and Happy, I'd join in the group of people who are thrilled you are back, except I'm new to blog world, so I'm just happy to have found you!

[Zan]

I was very annoyed by that survey. I would never let my boys fill out something like that. I think just having some guy visualize a situation in which he might have lust is bad enough. I think this survey was "helping" men lust and giving them a license to think about girl's bodies.

I was disappointed to see that more Christian sites didn't speak out against this. Girls do not need to learn from anonymous men and boys how to dress modestly. The Bible is very clear that the older women are to teach the younger women. I think modest dress could fall under this.

Frankly, I thought the survey was creepy.

[The Happy Feminist]

Hi Zan! Good to get back in touch with you. I think that's an important point, that the survey questions and answers were themselves rather titillating.

Sarahndipity, I don't have any problem with the notion of modesty in and of itself. I think modesty is only polite in both sexes-- but, as you point out, what that means depends on the context and the cultural expectations of everyone involved.

You mention that women may have a greater obligation to dress modestly because men are more visually stimulated. Interestingly, however, standard female dress often requires showing more skin than what a man is expected to show. At the office, the men are covered from neck to toe in suits while I, on my most modest day, am likely to be showing more of my arms and at least part of my legs. Women have to do a much more precarious balancing act between showing too much and showing too little.

UUMomma, I'm looking forward to reading your post!