It doesn't feel any better the second time around

[beachlass]

For the second time this month, I've been blocked from commenting on Beauty Tips for Ministers

I think the offending word this time is "slutty", but I could be wrong... at this point I think I'll probably email the blogger and ask her about it - if for no other reason than to rule out the possibility that I'm overly paranoid. 

I feel like I've been sent upstairs to wash my mouth out with soap.

And I'm realizing what a treasure we have in fandom, on dw/lj - our  expressiveness of communication, that there is no bot blocking out someone's comment because they've used profanity to express frustration; or because language is being called out from hiding behind euphemisms. I'm immersed in our culture - with sex and laughter and arguing over warnings and comment freezing and wank and much of it happening in the openness of the online community. I'm frustrated by having my voice anonymously, automatically silenced. I'm deeply uncomfortable by the undercurrent of slut-shaming in BTFM this week. 

I wonder if her top was actually "see-thru"?

There's something that skeeves me about that fb update - it's got a very objectifying male gaze tone about it.

I might be a bit cranky this morning, but to my colleague above who bemoans that women don't cover themselves up adequately?

Get over yourself. My body, and the way I choose to dress is mine. Learn to exercise some damned restraint. If you are uncomfortable around colleagues in short skirts, how do you cope with parishioners in short skirts?

There's a thread through this, for me - about incarnation and bodies and sex and dualism and gender and identity and self-determination.

Beyond issues of professional attire, there is the reality of being the face/body of the church. And if, on occasion, my skirt is "too" short, or my cleavage shows "too" much, then I am embodied a theology in which I believe - that women are welcome in the full life of the church, just as we are. That we don't need to hide our bodies because they are culturally written as sexual objects. And, especially since I have teenage girls in my congregtions who are growing into women, I think it's important that they can see that I won't reject them for being 'slutty', that God's love isn't dependent on your hemline, that they can interact with their culture and their church, and if they come to church in tight jeans and low cut shirts, they are still welcome.

Umph. /End of polemic - sorry to rant. (Not sorry enough to forgo the submit comment button, however)
 

 

Comments

the auto-message when I tried to repost

[beachlass]

Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you’ve already said that!

[dorothean]

I hope that it really is just something innocuous about the spam filter that's been blocking your comments there (though I suspect with you that there might be more to it), because I think that blog could REALLY benefit from your opinions.

I've read a bit of it (linked through Miss Conduct on the Boston Globe) and while I think it's got an interesting concept going, I couldn't add it to my regular reading because I did get this judgmental vibe from it. Like, it's great for women who share a profession to talk with each other about their choices of personal presentation ... but there are so many ways for that to cross over into policing. When it does that I think it loses so much.

[beachlass]

Thanks. I do comment there, which is partly why I find it so odd that it's just these two times that my comments haven't posted.

The policing dynamic is interesting, as it lives in the grey area between "Let's discuss/can we agree that..." and "OMG, can you believe (she did) x..."

[kass]

I am so right there with you on this.

And I also know that I agonize sometimes over the question of what to wear when I'm serving my congregation, and whether my clothes look "professional enough," and what message I'm sending via what I'm putting on my body -- and I know that my male colleagues don't have those same concerns in quite the way that I do, and that makes me pretty cranky.

[beachlass]

In my tradition a lot of the clergy wear albs - long white nightgown things to lead worship. And one of the justifications is that it removes the possibility of parishioners being distracted by what we're wearing.

But then I think - but the other women in the congregation don't get to wrap a sheet around themselves and hide, and while it's not such a big deal now, I know women have been judged severely for what they wore to church. So why should I be exempt by virtue of leadership? It's like temporary male privilege for an hour.

[kass]

::nod::

There are Jewish traditions in which a robe is customary -- some Reform clergy wear robes all the time. But in my community, the rabbi just wears a prayer shawl draped over her/his shoulders. I tend to favor the big blanket-style kind, draped in a particular way; I love the way it makes me feel enfolded in God's presence. But it's definitely not something which covers up much of my wardrobe!

[dandelion_salad]

What bugs me about this is that some guy they don't even know found her clothing inappropriate, therefore, it must have been. Whether they saw it themselves or not.

I had a controlling and abusive boyfriend once who had problems with my clothes. He also had problems with me hanging out with my family members. My clothes were fine. He was the one with the problem.

Sure, most people would probably agree that a LITERALLY see-thru blouse would be a bit much for the pulpit. But I find it hard to imagine any woman would actually wear a literally see-thru blouse in the pulpit. So I'm automatically wondering what the blouse actually looked like and whether it was the guy who had the problem. Maybe the problem was that he was attracted to the woman until he found out she was the pastor and then he felt uncomfortable. Is she supposed to be responsible for him being attracted to her, and if so, what is she supposed to do about that? Maybe she could preach from behind a screen...

I don't think women are responsible for men's reactions to their bodies. Where does that end? A burka? I mean that quite seriously. Obviously societies have culturally determined ideas about what is appropriate clothing, and that's okay, but when people start to believe that those rules are something more than just a cultural consensus, I think that's a problem, especially if they ignore the power structures that contribute to those expectations. I have heard talk shows on right wing Christian radio exhorting young girls to keep boys from sin by dressing modestly, and young girls calling in to say they understand how hard it is for boys to control their sexual urges and how they don't wear shorts because they don't want to cause a boy to go to hell. Really? Any discussion about what is appropriate in clothing ought to acknowledge that women own their bodies and men own their reactions, because we live in a society where men have held women responsible for men's actions for thousands of years. How can anyone miss that?

The moderator finally posted your comment with her response to it in parentheses all through it. I'm new to DW but I haven't seen that before. Hmm...

Well, anyway I clicked through to your journal through the bitesized cleaning community and thought you seemed interesting so I added you. Hi!

[beachlass]

Thank you for adding me!

What bugs me about this is that some guy they don't even know found her clothing inappropriate, therefore, it must have been. Whether they saw it themselves or not.

OMG, yes, this, exactly. And somehow I didn't get that point across. Which, now that I see all her replies (I didn't know it had be posted, thank you) - is because I'm angry, defensive, naive and immmature.

*rolling my eyes*