WholesomeWear - Taking modesty to a new level
Tue, 2007-08-07 06:23
#1
WholesomeWear - Taking modesty to a new level
Tue, 2007-08-07 06:23
#2
I found this profoundly disturbing. Like I had been flown back to the 30's or something. Have a gander for yourself:
[url=http://www.wholesomewear.com/page-3.html]WholesomeWear[/url]
Swimming with dresses on must be so fun!!
[img]http://www.wholesomewear.com/graphics/slimmer-c.gif[/img]
![http://www.wholesomewear.com/graphics/slimmer-c.gif[/img]](http://www.wholesomewear.com/graphics/slimmer-c.gif[/img]){kind=link}
Endorsed by good Christians everywhere, including the Hillbilly Housewife who calls herself A Christian Stay At Home Mom.
This blog [url=http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=749]Feminist Law Professors[/url] has a lot to say about it. I think she broached it from many angles but ultimately, I think this is downright creepy.
Tue, 2007-08-07 06:55
#3
remind
Well shit, and I just bought my daughter a wonderful crocheted bikini, had I known hypocritic society would shortly be adopting burkas for swimming I would not have. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Interesting comment, on many levels, by the last poster on the blog.
Tue, 2007-08-07 07:14
#4
It's interesting really, looking at this from two different sides, and I can understand the merit in both. On one hand, my first reaction was looking at it from the perspective of such "modest" wear being a way to hide our bodies, and to be ashamed of them, but on the other hand if women wear them as to not feel objectified, I can also understand that argument to a point. Though, I mostly worry it shows the female body as something to hide, and be shameful of. Interesting posts on both sides of the spectrum in that link.
Tue, 2007-08-07 07:21
#5
I don't think there's much to choose between a burka and a bikini, though for different reasons, obviously. On second thought, maybe the reasons aren't so different. The reasoning is the same in both cases: women aren't full human beings - their (our) significance is given by the sexual responses of men.
Tue, 2007-08-07 11:14
#6
On the other hand, perhaps some women just feel self-conscious in bathing-suits that reveal more than they're comfortable with revealing. Obviously I think the whole Christian Taliban movement is a bit much, but I would respect a woman's choice to wear something that covers her body more.
I saw that site years ago, possibly while looking for those new bathing suits that cover the shoulders and thighs in order to avoid sunburns.
My son takes swimming lessons at Toronto community centres. We booked one of his levels at a different community centre than our usual one, and one of the instructors was a woman who wore a swimsuit that looked like a one-piece, loose body suit, and a cap. I'm pretty sure that she was Muslim. Anyhow, I remember thinking, that's really neat that she's found a way to participate at a public pool, with mixed genders, without compromising her comfort level.
Mormon women might also appreciate such bathing suits, as they wear undergarments that would show under a "regular" bathing suit.
Tue, 2007-08-07 13:07
#7
Makwa
I wish the old fashioned swimsuits from back in the day, which were form fitting but covered from neck to just above the knee were around for gyus, then maybe I wouldn't feel too self-conscious to swim anywhere. Sure I'm heavy, and ashamed to show too much flesh lest I insult and degrade everyone around me, but gosh - what is wrong with feeling modest?
Wed, 2007-08-08 03:41
#8
On the surface there is nothing wrong with feeling modest. Many of us do at various times. But the issue is not modesty in my opinion, It is shame for the female body that I am talking about here. How women and girls are programmed to cover up so as not to 'entice' men. Or cover up because they have less than perfect bodies. We all have less than perfect bodies. That is reality.
We should not be going backwards in this regards. We should be going forward, and towards embracing all forms of the human body - because that is reality - not swimming in dresses. Not having women cover up form head to toe. This is not advancement. This is fear of the body as it exists. It is not enpowerment, it is stifling and masking a fear (which is the root of the problem). The root of the problem must be deconstructed so that we, as women, do not have to make a choice between "modesty" (and really, this is not modesty) and 'slutty".
This culture shirks from age, from women whose bellys speak of child birth, from women whose lines speak of experience. Covering those up is not grrl power.
Just my opinion, as a female, who has and still has body image issues.
And the pressure is on for men too Makwa. Men should be able to be comfortable in their bodies, and you should not feel embarassed that you have some extra pounds. That's called life, and living it, and it should be celebrated, not covered up. People need to start being seen for who we are, and not what we look like. And it has to start somewhere. This modesty movement is not it though.
[ 08 August 2007: Message edited by: Stargazer ]
Wed, 2007-08-08 04:53
#9
quote:
The root of the problem must be deconstructed so that we, as women, do not have to make a choice between "modesty" (and really, this is not modesty) and 'slutty".This culture shriks from age, from women who bellies speak of child birth, from women who lines speak of experience. Covering those up is not grrls power.
I think this dichotomy between modesty and "slutty"ness is important to look at, and we've been examining it in another thread in regards to female sexuality. Sure, covering up is not grrrl power, but either is stripping down in many cases. You're right, no woman needs to choose between modesty and "sluttyness" because there is so much grey area in between. I think the importance lies in an ability and freedom to make such choices for ourselves, and not to please a third party.
Wed, 2007-08-08 08:59
#10
I think that women need to chose what kinds of clothes they feel they are comfortable in. From a male perspective I do not like the underlying message that men cannot control their sexual desires so women need to cover themselves. I think that attitude is self fulling and increases the violence agaionst women.
Society would in my opinion be better served by exposing the men who comitt violence against women as deviants. The violent inappropriate behaviour of some men must be seen as not ordinary. We need to teach our young men that those kinds of attitudes are neither acceptable nor normal. The fundamentalist right of all religions seems to preach that humans cannot control their base urges unless the strict rules they promulgate are adherred to.
Wed, 2007-08-08 09:44
#11
I just spent a week on the beach and noticed something: [i]men[/i] seem to be wearing more modest beach attire than, say, twenty-five years ago. Back then, the standard swimsuit was a pair of Speedo-style briefs. These days, it seems, the standard issue male swimsuit is a pair of swimming shorts, often long and baggy. It's not exactly the coveralls advertised by wholesomewear, of course.
Wed, 2007-08-08 10:37
#12
Polly B
Stargazer - well said!
Wed, 2007-08-08 10:54
#13
Thanks Polly! (Minus the horrible spelling).
Wed, 2007-08-08 11:12
#14
remind
quote:
Originally posted by jrose:
[b]Sure, covering up is not grrrl power, but either is stripping down in many cases. You're right, no woman needs to choose between modesty and "sluttyness" because there is so much grey area in between. I think the importance lies in an ability and freedom to make such choices for ourselves, and not to please a third party.[/b]
I am not sure about stripping down not being grrrl power, it certainly pisses me off men, of whatever body type, can go without shirts on, on hot days and no one blinks an eye, while if a female did the same, many people would be staring and/or outraged/discomforted. The closest we females can get to this type of baring is bikinis tops, or sports bra type covering. Wearing bkinis has very little to do with sex appeal.
It seems that female nipples are unacceptable to be exposed, while when male nipples are being exposed no one blinks an eye.
People need to get rid of "sluttiness" being applied towomen ideology completely. In fact, it is high time that any application of morality is taken out of people's perceptions of sex, or anything to do with it.
Wed, 2007-08-08 12:28
#15
quote:
People need to get rid of "sluttiness" being applied towomen ideology completely. In fact, it is high time that any application of morality is taken out of people's perceptions of sex, or anything to do with it.
I agree, to a certain point, due to the sexual morality enforced on all of us via the media, our peers, parents, some men, all of which we should rightfully reject. I do however think many men and women have standards of their own sexual morality that we place upon ourselves, that act as more of a strict guideline than the messages around us. At least I always have. You’re so right about the word “slut,” and the concept of "sluttiness". I’ve always thought that there are few words in the English language that are quite as derogatory and I cringe every time I hear it applied.
Wed, 2007-08-08 15:03
#16
remind
quote:
Originally posted by jrose:
[b]I do however think many men and women have standards of their own sexual morality that we place upon ourselves, that act as more of a strict guideline than the messages around us. [/b]
But those we apply to ourselves, as opposed to others applying them for us. It is no one's business, and they have no right to judge others sex lives.
quote:
[b] You’re so right about the word “slut,” and the concept of "sluttiness". I’ve always thought that there are few words in the English language that are quite as derogatory and I cringe every time I hear it applied.[/b]
I feel the same way about the use of "whore", especially in a contexual value like: "skanky crack whore". Men who are crack addicts do not have an additional value added to their addiction condition.
Wed, 2007-08-08 15:42
#17
Didn't read the blog, but I think more choice in fashion is usually going to be a good thing. It is a bit strange that a woman's bathing suit choices are limited to the bikini or the one-piece, both of which may expose more than one feels comfortable with. Bathing clothes of yesteryear were exactly that: clothes.
Wed, 2007-08-08 15:53
#18
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]I feel the same way about the use of "whore", especially in a contexual value like: "skanky crack whore". Men who are crack addicts do not have an additional value added to their addiction condition.[/b]
No they are not usually seen as whores but rather violent thieves who would kill you for a toke.
Wed, 2007-08-08 15:59
#19
We could really screw "Wholesome Wear" up if we all developed a fetish for it.
Wed, 2007-08-08 16:27
#20
Tommy, who would have thought you'd bring up fetishes? Hahahaha. It is a good idea though.
Wed, 2007-08-08 19:15
#21
remind
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]No they are not usually seen as whores but rather violent thieves who would kill you for a toke.[/b]
Ya think? Never hear the expression; "violent thieves" in reference to males addicted to crack.
Thu, 2007-08-09 03:32
#22
Left Turn
I definitely think there's something creepy about modesty wear. Those bathing suits are very shapeless, but they also remain feminine. It seems to suggest that the modesty wear company thinks women should hide their curves and more of their skin, but that they arn't very accepting of women wearing a garment with "legs". I suspect the purveyors of modesty wear would not consider putting on a pair of swim trunks over a one-piece bathing suit to be acceptable for women, and there is something very disturbing about that.
What do the women here think of a swimsuit like [url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/BathingSuit1920s.jpg]this[... old-fahsioned one from the 1920s? I'm not suggesting that bathing suits be made out of this material again, but that some women might like to wear a bathing suit that is skin tight but still covers more of their body. Plus, it still definitely looks sexy. Some men might want to wear a more masculine version of this type of bathing suit as well.
![http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/BathingSuit1920s.jpg]this[...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/BathingSuit1920s.jpg]this[/url]){kind=link}
[ 09 August 2007: Message edited by: Left Turn ]
Thu, 2007-08-09 09:29
#23
Makwa
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Never hear the expression; "violent thieves" in reference to males addicted to crack.[/b]
Actually, no.
Thu, 2007-08-09 10:12
#24
quote:
Experts say the shift in patterns of drug use has directly affected the type of crimes being committed at street level. Heroin addicts, previously identified as being responsible for the vast majority of property-related crime, traditionally fund their habits through activities such as burglary, breaking into parked cars, shoplifting and credit card fraud. Crack, however, leaves heavy users edgy, paranoid and dangerously desperate. Because of this they are more likely to get involved in violent, opportunist crimes such as mugging, mobile phone theft and carjacking.
[url=http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/story/0,,652167,00.html]Gu...
[url=http://drps.ca/internet_explorer/whatsnew/whatsnew_view.asp?ID=1978]Durham police[/url]
quote:
“If there’s crack in your city or town, you’re going to find an increase in crime. They go hand-in-hand. Many of our home invasions, robberies, thefts and break and enters can be traced back to the violence of the drug trade and, in particular, to crack cocaine.”
Gee I've never heard crack addicts referred to as violent either.
Thu, 2007-08-09 20:33
#25
remind
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b] Gee I've never heard crack addicts referred to as violent either.[/b]
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
We were talking about a select gender biased negative label that is imposed upon women who are addicted to "drugs", and that men do not have a similar label.
Moreover, your articles linked were not gender specific either, nor were they containing a broad brushing negative label for men.
Fri, 2007-08-10 04:19
#26
Maysie
I'm joining this discussion late, and I hope that my comments are taken in the spirit that I give them: as helpful constructive criticism that encourages discussion.
(I think you all know what's coming next.)
remind and Rosa, and all others who haven't challenged the use of invoking the image and methaphor of a burka as the-most-extreme-way-a-woman-can-be-oppressed-ever, I ask you to think about what it means to say this, believe this, and not to challenge this, and what mainstream assumptions are beneath this understanding.
Fri, 2007-08-10 09:09
#27
remind
BCG, read and reread your words, and thought a bit about what you said, and sadly I do not appear to "get" what you are meaning, or rather want me to get from your words.
Fri, 2007-08-10 09:19
#28
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]BCG, read and reread your words, and thought a bit about what you said, and sadly I do not appear to "get" what you are meaning, or rather want me to get from your words.[/b]
I think she's pointing out that there have been assumptions made in this thread that societies where women wear bikinis/small bathing suits are culturally superior to cultures where women cover up (ie societies where burquas are mandatory).
Is that what you were getting at bcg?
Fri, 2007-08-10 10:56
#29
remind
Well, if that is the case, then I plead guilty of bias.
"mandatory" vs freedom to choose what one wears, does says, behaves, says it all for me .
Fri, 2007-08-10 11:08
#30
Remind you are always right even when you introduce thread drift about crrack addicts. I know now that when someone says a violent crack addict the image of a man that pops into my mind is not correct I will try in the future to imagine a woman when I hear that term. And I will make sure I never think that the term crack whore could be used to describe a male crack addict because we know they never prositute themeselves for drugs.
But enough of the thread drift. I think that women need to chose what kinds of clothes they feel they are comfortable in and that includes right wing christians as well as moslems not just non religious women.
Fri, 2007-08-10 12:03
#31
remind
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]Remind you are always right even when you introduce thread drift about crrack addicts. I know now that when someone says a violent crack addict the image of a man that pops into my mind is not correct I will try in the future to imagine a woman when I hear that term. [/b]
I actually do imagine a woman when I hear the term, as my experience with a violent crack addict was a woman who was robbing a gas bar, I was in at the time paying for gas, with a dirty hypodermic needle.
and thanks for acknowledging my correctness. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
quote:
[b]And I will make sure I never think that the term crack whore could be used to describe a male crack addict because we know they never prositute themeselves for drugs.
[/b]
It seems some men just refuse to acknowledge the patriarchy that exists in news reporting
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2007-08-10 12:08
#32
The ad hominum attacks again. You do yourselve a diservice because you are often right but when you say things like," It seems some men just refuse to acknowledge the patriarchy that exists in news reporting" you are just doing a drive by smear for no reason and with no evidence. Look at anything I've ever posted about the MSM and you will find I acknowledge (or is that rant about)all the shortcomings including its patriarcal view of the worlsd.
Fri, 2007-08-10 13:05
#33
remind
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]The ad hominum attacks again. You do yourselve a diservice because you are often right but when you say things like," It seems some men just refuse to acknowledge the patriarchy that exists in news reporting" you are just doing a drive by smear for no reason and with no evidence. Look at anything I've ever posted about the MSM and you will find I acknowledge (or is that rant about)all the shortcomings including its patriarcal view of the worlsd.[/b]
Pardon me, it was you who slammed me with an ad hominen attack with your:
quote:
Remind you are always right even when you introduce thread drift about crrack addicts.
followed by a sarcastic rejoinder, so it seems its okay for you but not forme, eh?!
Fri, 2007-08-10 13:34
#34
Okay may I lift a white flag of truce and move on. What I find fascinating about this cyberspace is that we ( and I mean you and I Remind) agree on most everything but still manage to butt heads regularily. I think it has something to do with this type of internet chat forum and the inability to quickly get past semantic differences the way one does in regular face to face dialoques. We both appear to nit pick way too much with each other over what seems in the final analysis to be semantics.
Fri, 2007-08-10 13:38
#35
c'mon you guys...
[img]http://www.tkstoystand.com/IMAGE1/A_SUZYS_ZOO/sz_bears_hugging_sgl_stick...
[ 10 August 2007: Message edited by: oldgoat ]
Fri, 2007-08-10 13:41
#36
Oldgoat if you are here after the post about you going on holidays I think you should get addiction counseling. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] [img]cool.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2007-08-10 13:48
#37
Oh, I get lots of that. Me'n my addictions counsellor go out for pints pretty much every night.
Actually, I don't start 'til tomorrow. Not that I would have missed a chance to beat Michelle to a double banning anyway. sweet! [img]cool.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2007-08-10 13:50
#38
That's okay, I beat you to your status line.
Fri, 2007-08-10 13:51
#39
GAH!
.
.
.
cute [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2007-08-10 13:59
#40
remind
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]Okay may I lift a white flag of truce and move on. What I find fascinating about this cyberspace is that we ( and I mean you and I Remind) agree on most everything but still manage to butt heads regularily. I think it has something to do with this type of internet chat forum and the inability to quickly get past semantic differences the way one does in regular face to face dialoques. We both appear to nit pick way too much with each other over what seems in the final analysis to be semantics.[/b]
Of course, you can raise the flag, and as a mentor once told me, semantics ARE [b]everything[/b]. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2007-08-10 14:38
#41
lol
[img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2007-08-10 16:37
#42
I agree with many here- the main problem with this is the idea behind the bathing suits- not the bathing suits themselves. The idea of modesty is linked with ideas about the female body and sexuality, how a woman should behave. These ideas are essential to maintaining our sex-gender system.Showing more flesh or less flesh doesn't mean women are more or less empowered necessarily.As the article says
quote:
Okay as far as it goes, but women probably choose “WhosesomeWear” swimsuits for a variety of reasons. Some no doubt do so because of requests by patriarchal spouses or fathers, or due to general Christian nutjobitude, but others may have damaged bodies, or damaged psyches. A person who gets tired of fielding questions about noticeable scars may quite reasonably prefer to cover them. A rape or sexual harassment victim may quite reasonably prefer to hide her curves. Some people need heavy duty sun coverage for health reasons. Shouldn’t feminism leave room for that?
I also don't really think that these bathing suits are made to attract attention to the degree of the wearer's modesty and how good they are- few people would actually wear these things.
[ 10 August 2007: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]
[ 10 August 2007: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]
Fri, 2007-08-10 17:17
#43
Maysie
The assumptions about what it means to wear a veil, or a hijab or a burka, come from a Western view of what women wear being the most important thing about them.
Absolutely there are similarities across patriarchal religions and cultures, including ours, that the more "uptight and religious" the more covering of women and the more secular the less covering. Neither speaks to women's agency, and what, in fact are the issues that we define as significant to us.
I always ask this question when this kind of topic arises, and I'll keep asking it: What are Muslim feminists saying are the issues most important to them? Muslim women here in the West? Muslim women in the Middle East? Africa? Afghanistan, India and Pakistan? Lots and lots of things I bet.
Can I suggest that anyone who's interested to poke around the blog of Chelby Daigle?
quote:
About Me
Name: The Funky Ghetto Hijabi
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaThis blog is a way for me to communicate my thoughts to all my friends and loved ones who I don't have enough time to talk to. I'm Nigerian-Canadian. My dad lives in Lagos. He's Ijaw/Yoruba. My mom's from Quebec and is culturally French-Canadian but she raised me as an Anglophone. I became a Sunni Muslim when I was 21. A lot of this blog deals with my issues around being a Muslim by choice in the post 911 world. I also discuss issues around having grown up on welfare, being committed to anti-oppression politics and recovering from childhood abuse and a highly dysfunctional family. I hope that others can benefit from my thoughts and experiences. I also hope that some of my posts can trigger a laugh or two.
quote:
When we see women "covering," many of us see oppression. But the Muslim women we talked to say nobody is pressuring them. Take 26-year-old Chelby Daigle. Born to a French-Canadian Catholic mother and a Nigerian Lutheran father, she grew up an atheist and converted to Islam when she was 21, even though she was then, and still is, a feminist. She's one of a growing number of young women wearing the hijab -- or head scarf -- as a symbol of her commitment to Islam, even though people regularly insult her or sometimes throw things at her on the street.
[url=http://thefunkyghettohijabi.blogspot.com/]The Funky Ghetto Hijabi[/url]
[ 10 August 2007: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]
Fri, 2007-08-10 17:29
#44
quote:
These ideas are essential to maintaining our sex-gender system.Showing more flesh or less flesh doesn't mean women are more or less empowered necessarily
Exactly! True empowerment would be the ability to feel comfortable in our skin, whatever shape it may be in. True empowerment would be to be ourselves as we are, to view ourselves as we are, as opposed to seeing ourselves through the eyes of the male gaze.
Sat, 2007-08-11 09:51
#45
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]Exactly! True empowerment would be the ability to feel comfortable in our skin, whatever shape it may be in. True empowerment would be to be ourselves as we are, to view ourselves as we are, as opposed to seeing ourselves through the eyes of the male gaze.[/b]
Ah, enlightenment, the solution to all life's problems.
Sat, 2007-08-11 11:08
#46
Is this sarcasm?
quote:
Ah, enlightenment, the solution to all life's problems.
[ 11 August 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
Sat, 2007-08-11 13:26
#47
No..err....yes...err...
What if it was?
What if it wasn't?
[ 11 August 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
Sat, 2007-08-11 13:59
#48
quote:
Ah, enlightenment, the solution to all life's problems.
Actually being comfortable with one's own skin is empowerment. I don't know why you are choosing to be an ass because I don't remember ever offending you.
Sat, 2007-08-11 17:23
#49
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]Actually being comfortable with one's own skin is empowerment. I don't know why you are choosing to be an ass because I don't remember ever offending you.[/b]
Enlightenment, Empowerment = Tomayto, Tomahto...
My "being an ass" is entirely your own internal dialogue. I was being completely serious. The problem of "feeling comfortable in your own skin" is not political, but an entirely psychological - dare I say spiritual - pursuit.
What the Jones' choose to cover their naughty bits with has no bearing on the problem.
[ 11 August 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
Sat, 2007-08-11 18:40
#50
Actually I don't agree one bit. Empowerment has got to come from inside, yes, but only after the conditions of the society we live in allow it to be so. So you've got this wrong.
Empowerment does not mean enlightenment. And I would be the very last person to turn this into a psychological issue. We do not live in a vacuum.
Sat, 2007-08-11 19:29
#51
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]Actually I don't agree one bit. Empowerment has got to come from inside, yes, but only after the conditions of the society we live in allow it to be so. So you've got this wrong. Empowerment does not mean enlightenment. And I would be the very last person to turn this into a psychological issue. We do not live in a vacuum.[/b]
Not surprising, you're busy defending your cyber-territory.
Anyway the gist of your spiel is that it's someone else's responsibility if you don't feel comfortable in your own skin.
You've got it backwards - the political cannot and will not change until our internal situation is rectified. The attitude change you require of others for your so-called "empowerment" will only come about through their own internal work, not by you wishing it so. The same is true of your own feeling of "comfort in your own skin." It will ALWAYS come back to you.
[ 11 August 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]