![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beachlassFor 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 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)
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)
no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 06:58 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-17 07:18 pm (UTC)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!