Modestly Yours

Femininity: An Alternative View?

In the spirit of interfaith dialogue I came across this article from aljazeera.net and thought that it would be interesting for Modesty Zone fans. While the article focuses on Muslim women’s dress and more specifically the abaya- a long and usually black overgarment- it raises some key points on modesty. Do we, like some of the women quoted in the article, practice modesty to avoid unwanted attention from men? Or do we practice modesty to protect the sacredness of the feminine identity? At the end of the article one Muslim man says, “In Islam we value women, like jewels and diamonds. They are so precious that they should be covered. They are not like pieces of broken glass lying on the street.”

Religion and the desire to cover as extensively as some Muslim women do aside, I think his opinion touches on key aspects of the modesty movement. As I’ve written about before, there is this idea of the immense value of women and the absolute need to recognize and respect that. In our society, I think women are certainly recognized but not necessarily respected by men or among themselves. Just look at the state of popular women’s media whether it is TV or magazines. Respect of women (depicting us as intelligent, complex, nurturing, and creative beings) is sorely lacking in these mediums.

Another element that the quotation brings up is the controversy between modesty and women’s liberation. Some believe that the way for women to express their value is through freeing themselves from the professional and and sexual bonds that they feel have hindered women from realizing their true self-worth. I understand this opinion and agree that women should express their value in such a way that it benefits others. Being in a fulfilling career, being a successful stay-at-home mom, an active student, or a religious sister are some of the ways to do this. Where I disagree with the women’s lib movement is on their overbearing emphasis on the self. Exaggerated self-awareness, self-worth, individual sexual expression (as if one’s sexual expression has no effect on anyone else).

At the heart of all of this is a narcissistic view of femininity that strays so far away from a woman’s gifted nature- that of being a sophisticated care-giver (an actual giver of care and love to those in need)- that it transforms feminist identity into a grotesque and self-obsessed affair.

This phenomenon is similar to really horrible and sometimes offensive contemporary art (don’t get me wrong, contemporary art is one of my favorite types of art) where the artist justifies the painting’s existence by citing it as “self-expression”. No doubt, this is their self-expression but it is neither beautiful nor edifying to others as true art is supposed to be. Such is the case with self-obsessive feminism and explains why it clashes so much with modesty which, I believe, is centered around respecting the value of a woman as care-giver and ultimately “mothers” of humanity.

Got Modesty? Then You Must be a Right-wing Religious Nut!

While this might not be what critics of the modesty movement say outright, they surely imply it by their smirks, jeers, and op-eds that poke fun at the idea of a modest woman. I always wondered why our critics equate a return to modesty as a step backward and, even more horrific, a step toward religious fanaticism and theocracy. Perhaps they assume that modesty is merely a religious form of submission; submerging women in shame by making them cover themselves and denying them an opportunity to “know” themselves. “Know thyself” now being translated into “Explore thy sexuality,” that is.   

And this is the problem. Our critics single-handedly equate modesty to suppressing female sexuality. Of course, we know that modesty involves an entire way of life-- one that strives in all action and thought to preserve the innermost part of a woman’s being. In fact, we also know that a woman is much more than her sexuality (contrary to what many postmodern feminists think--just take a look at the writings of some who support the Vagina Monologues to see what I mean). Nevertheless, for those of us who try to live modestly, we are thought to be extremists or, God forbid, religious extremists--religion being the enemy of women’s liberation and expression, according to modern feminist thought.

I suppose then that, to be a true feminist one cannot be religious or modest. That is, one cannot believe in a loving and just Creator and believe in an innate dignity worth preserving in order to advocate for the betterment of women? Hmm, that doesn't make much sense. We in the modesty movement are criticized for being regressive, fanatic, and anti-woman. But, judging from our  critics’ litmus test, I wonder which movement truly works in the interest of all women. 

Indeed, the modesty movement is a truly feminist movement and it’s about time it be recognized as such.

Fashion Sense

I was inspired to write this entry due to a recent shopping trip for back-to-school clothes.  Yes, I’ll be a senior in college but the excitement of going shopping for interesting clothes before the start of classes (or at anytime really) has not left me.  I like fashion, and I think that modest clothing needn’t be boring or prudish.  In fact, dressing modestly is fun and more respectful of feminine beauty.  As my friend once said, “Dressing appropriately does not mean walking around in a long, flowery skirt and baggy t-shirt!” 

Amen. 

On that note, I thought it would be fun to give my advice on clothing for all of those Modesty Zone fashionistas out there.  And please feel free to add your own advice in the comments section.

Skinny Jeans- These are very popular right now, and I think that they look quite appropriate on all body types as long as you wear them with the right shoes and blouse.  Some women like to wear them with heels but I believe that this look can too easily slip into the category of trashy.  I would say go with interesting flats- the jeans produce a slimming effect and the flats add a sweet, put-together touch to it.  As for the blouse, try to find a long one like a tunic.  Skinny jeans also tend to sit low on the waist so a longer blouse will prevent the embarrassing--and immodest!--show of underwear.

Tunics-  I highly recommend them.  They tend to be more or less shapeless so if you want to add a little more shape to your look, tie a skinny cloth belt (like the ones from J. Crew or any preppy store) around your waist.  Some women like to tie big belts around their waist to create this effect but I think this can be a little much.  Tunics look really good with fitted jeans and not so good with skirts.

Proper Undergarments- This is imperative.  As petty as it might seem, the wrong undergarments can really destroy an entire outfit.  Find bras in your correct size and if you don’t know your size, find it out ASAP!  A properly fitting bra does wonders for creating a nice, clean look.  As for underwear, I know some women might  label thongs and the like as immodest.  In my opinion, it doesn’t matter what type of underwear you choose to wear as long as it is not showing (neither the lines nor the actual undergarment).  This is why it is called underwear; it should be hidden!

Long Skirts- I’m partial to those popular gypsy-like skirts as opposed to the too-short jean skirt that many young women are wearing today.  The longer skirts are flattering to more body types and look more feminine.

Knee-length Shorts- No longer an oxymoron, everyone has seen the comeback of these shorts.  I am not particularly fond of shorts myself, but I have seen these shorts work on certain people.  They would not look so good on shorter women (as they would make shorter women seem even shorter).  They also would not look good in an office setting.  Please, don’t wear these shorts (no matter what the fashion magazines might be saying) at work!  Certainly, modest dress also entails propriety.

Flats- While I still like the trend of pointy shoes, pretty flats are very popular right now.  They look good with jeans, skirts, capris, shorts, etc.  FYI: Keds has updated its line to include flats with colorful and funky patterns and a pair of these adds old-school (mid 90s, haha) flair to any wardrobe.

Chunky Necklaces:  And finally, one of my favorite modern accessories, the chunky necklace- the necklace with all types of things stringed onto it.  They look great with any type of shirt except for collared shirts (the collar tends to get in the way of the necklace).  True to any good accessory, they really complete an outfit by adding personality and zest to it.

That’s it for my modest fashion assessment.  Remember, fashion never needs to mean dressing like Paris Hilton. Or Brittany Spears.  Or any of those girls in the hip-hop videos.   

Immodest Men

On the ModestyZone blog, we usually discuss modesty among women (of course, with all of us being women!) but we all know that modesty is an issue both for women and for men. I’d like to discuss one particular aspect of the immodesty among men that I’ve noticed recently. And I’m sure many women in the Modesty Zone community can relate. Let’s say you’re walking along the street and up ahead you see a group of guys or just one guy who seems to be paying an inordinate amount of attention to you. So you try to ignore him and keep walking but just as you’re passing, a guy yells out (quite rudely), “Ay, girl!” or some other remark to express how much they want to “get” with you. Or, instead of saying anything to you, they might just give you “the once over”- that quick look from a guy whose obviously checking out the shape of your body.

Some women might be flattered by this type of reaction- maybe as an affirmation that they really are attractive- but I find it to be obnoxious, unwanted, and really immodest and ungentlemanly on the guys’ part. When I’m walking on the street, going to work or to lunch or even to Mass, I’d rather not be bothered by such comments. Instead of being a compliment, it’s more like an insult as if the guys don’t know how to approach a woman properly. I refuse to hearken back to the “good ol’ days” when guys were chivalrous and respectful because in every age, you can find incidences of disrespectful behavior toward women. But, is it too much to ask for these guys to be more modest in their comments toward women?

Swimming Modestly

I’ve been on hiatus for a while but during that time, I have come across a few interesting articles that relate to modesty. One of the more recent ones deals with the bathing suit company WholesomeWear which sells modest swimsuits for women. In her article in the Washington Post, author Robin Givhan criticizes the company for “cranking back the clock to the 1920s” and stifling women’s self expression and freedom. She ends the article by expressing her opinion that the suits are quite unattractive and wonders how WholesomeWear can even call itself a “ministry”.

Givhan’s article has spurred many responses as evidenced by the number of blogs that have commented on it. Let me add my 2 cents and please read the article and tell me what you think. I for one, agree with Givhan that there are other ways to be modest at the beach or by the pool. A tankini, cover-ups, a tasteful one-piece with a sarong could work. However, if someone prefers the WholesomeWear swimsuits, that’s fine too. I find Givhan surprisingly obnoxious and insensitive to women who would prefer these swimsuits. The tone in her article is condescending and she seems to jeer at modesty.

I have been on the WholesomeWear website and while I wouldn’t purchase one of the suits (I don’t swim and even if I did, I refuse to spend $89 on a swimsuit), I’m not at all offended by its presence as Givhan seems to be.

What is it about this company and their customers that bothers Givhan? From the article, it seems to me that she feels as if the company is negatively judging women and particularly those who wear bikinis. To her, it is as if the company labels these women as immodest or even downright slutty and puts itself as the pinnacle of modesty.

To be perfectly honest, I think Givhan is projecting her own misconceptions and prejudices about religious modesty unto WholsesomeWear and the women who buy their swimsuits. For example, she implies that women who wear these swimsuits are “fearful” of their bodies. Why must they be fearful simply because they would prefer to cover up their bodies instead of showing themselves to all who happen to be at the beach or the pool? I will never understand Givhan’s position that wearing a bikini is “liberating” or “compelling” while wearing more modest swimwear is restrictive and a sign of low self esteem and shame in one’s body.

Putting your body on display as if you were a new car in an auto show doesn't sound like the path to true freedom for me.  I’m not saying that everyone who wears a bikini has this in mind, but I suspect that a lot do. If other women find modesty is a path to freedom, one of embracing self-respect and showing gratitude for the blessing of being a woman, why do other women have to make fun of that?

Technorati Profile

Crunch!

I have just finished reading Rod Dreher’s Crunchy Cons: How Birkenstocked Burkeans, gun-loving organic gardeners, evangelical free-range farmers, hip homeschooling mamas, right-wing nature lovers, and their diverse tribe of countercultural conservatives plan to save America (or at least the Republican Party).

The reaction to this book is evident all over the blogosphere and I think that the book provides food for thought. 

 Here’s an excellent synopsis and a fair critique of the book from Publishers Weekly:

What do you call people who vote for Bush but shop at Whole Foods? Crunchy cons. And according to Dreher, an editor at the Dallas Morning News, they're forming a thriving counterculture within the contemporary conservative movement. United by a "cultural sensibility, not an ideology," crunchy conservatives, he says, have some habits and beliefs often identified with cultural liberals, like shopping at agriculture co-ops and rejecting suburban sprawl. Yet crunchy cons stand apart from both the Republican "Party of Greed" and the Democratic "Party of Lust," he says, by focusing on living according to conservative values, what the author calls "sacramental" living . . . His conversations with other crunchy conservatives—e.g., the policy director of Republicans for Environmental Protection, a Manhattan home-schooler, the author's wife—are illuminating, but the book fails to offer any empirical evidence to connect these individuals to a wider "movement." Instead, it works best as an indictment of consumerism and the spiritual havoc it can wreak. While his complaints about consumer culture are similar to those advanced by liberals, Dreher frames his criticism of corporate America in explicitly conservative terms, painting rampant consumerism as antithetical to true conservatism.

Crunchy conservatism seems to accord well with my idea of the modest woman. It is based on the value of restraint not only in sexual affairs but with every area of life especially the economic sphere. Mr. Dreher states (in one of my favorite quotes from the book), “A conservatism that does not recognize the need for restraint, for limits, and for humility is neither helpful to individuals and society nor ultimately, conservative. This is particularly true with respect to the natural world” (p. 2). The modest woman will agree with the crunchy con that consumerism (the discourse which builds and encourages the insatiable desire to accumulate more material things and is wholly opposed to the idea of restraint) is devastating to any person’s development of virtue.

My first blog posting touched on the fact that saddest truth about women today is that they do not know themselves. In a sense, many women are alienated from themselves. Reading Crunchy Cons helped me to see that this alienation which is typical of modern society comes about in part because of consumerism. If a woman is too busy concerning herself with what type of clothes she should buy to impress others or which rich man to marry so that she can become rich too or what type of high powered job she should go into so that she can make tons of money--if a woman occupies herself with these thoughts then there is no room to contemplate the essential questions of her life--who she is truly (and she is not just her vagina!) and what she should be doing to better the world. 

Crunchy conservatism is also based on the sacredness of life--that everything has a meaning and transcendental purpose. Religious crunchy cons will add on that everything has a purpose as determined by God. This sacredness leads to the belief that there are things that are true, good, and beautiful and these things are not only immensely valuable but knowable. This should sound familiar to the modest woman. What is truly beautiful is in someway connected with that which is good and true. Immodesty like the type proposed to us from pop culture is clearly none of these things. How many times have you recoiled when you saw a girl walking around in a skirt that is waaaay too short for her? Or when you see guys that think it’s cool to “sag” and have their pants far below their waist line? These reactions to the immodesty of some people’s dress suggest that we intuitively know that the style of dress is neither beautiful nor good. A sacramental view of life eliminates such behaviors and instead orients us toward a more virtuous life.

So, I’ve taken some of my favorite points from the book and tried to apply them to my idea of  modesty. Undoubtedly, while reading the book, you will discover other points that you can apply. I think that crunchy conservatism has a lot to teach us, and I am grateful to Mr. Dreher for documenting this exciting phenomenon.

If you’ve read the book, let me know what you think about the connection between crunchy cons and modesty. If you haven’t read the book, stop reading this and start reading Crunchy Cons!

Soft Violence Against Women

The official website of "The Vagina Monologues" states: "The word 'vagina' is indeed used frequently in the play ... a word that does indeed represent women both physically and metaphysically as a feminine being."

The script of the play goes even further, asserting that the clitoris "is" me: "[She] told me my clitoris was not something I could lose. It was me, the essence of me. It was both the doorbell to my house and the house itself. I didn't have to find it. I had to be it. Be it. Be my clitoris."

These quotes are at the heart of the message "The Vagina Monologues," and this is precisely the message that I oppose.

I am well aware that the goal of the V-Day campaign is to raise awareness and eradicate violence against women, and I support this excellent goal. I don't support, however, the means by which the campaign goes about its goals — namely, promoting the production of "The Vagina Monologues." It is disturbing to me that the content of the play is focused on representing women solely by their sexual organs.

How does the word vagina represent a woman metaphysically? It appears to do so by reducing a woman's very essence solely to a sexual object. Moreover, this sexual object is detached from any authentic notion of female sexuality. "The Vagina Monologues" depicts sexuality in purely naturalistic terms. It details the biology of the vagina, its role in female physiology and its supposedly rightful function as an affirmation of the value of women. "The Vagina Monologues" misconstrue femininity and present the essence of women as simply looking for pleasure in the sexual organ.

 
"The Vagina Monologues" tell me that, as a woman, I am my vagina and should seek to affirm myself by looking for ways to stimulate my sexual organs. The notion that the true dignity and freedom of a woman is primarily found in a wholehearted embrace of a sexuality that prizes her sexual prowess and capabilities is not only wrong, but also degrading. "The Vagina Monologues" forget what sex is all about. Sex isn't simply about generating a series of pleasurable experiences in my body; it's about making a gift of myself to another person and receiving the gift of the other person in my very body.

What do "The Vagina Monologues" really mean when they advocate that a woman's dignity is found in her sexual appeal? They mean that a woman is not truly a woman — that she is not truly herself — until she pursues all the bodily satisfactions and physical pleasures that sex can afford her. Her intellect, talents and hopes are no longer significant parts of her being. Only this pursuit of sexual pleasure will complete her.

But this is simply false. Most women I know are not simply satisfied with chance sexual encounters and random sexual pleasure. They do not envision themselves as a sexual object meant for sexual pleasure. Rather, they desire committed relationships, in true love, with guys they can trust.

I am not suggesting that women should deny their sexuality. I am simply questioning "The Vagina Monologues" ' notion that female sexuality is ultimately about sex appeal and refashioning women as sexual objects. A woman can express her sexuality in more appropriate ways by placing it within the sphere of her femininity: her desire to love another person, her ability to give life, her propensity to nurture and care for others and, of course, her specific capacities like her intellect, interests and aspirations. This femininity is what it truly means to be a woman. Women are beautiful, noble and important because of who they inherently are, not because of how they perform sexually. The beautiful reality that women are the only givers of life is something to be particularly appreciated. These truths — a woman's inherent dignity and special role as bearer of new life — are the reasons to staunchly oppose any violence against women.

I share the overarching goal of "The Vagina Monologues" to stop violence against women worldwide. Women are still oppressed and horribly mistreated by means of rape, female infanticide, dowry deaths and other vicious acts. However, performing a play that affirms a woman's worth by promoting a false sexuality that effectively reduces her to a sexual organ is not the way to end violence against women. This reduction objectifies women and thereby perpetuates a soft violence against the dignity of women.

 

Recommended Reading

My apologies for not having posted in a long time!  Finals in January took away most of my time.  I'd like to recommend a book written by two senior fellows of the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, NJ.  The book is called: The Meaning of Marriage: Family, State, Market, and Morals by Robert P. George (a Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University) and Jean Bethke Elshtain (a Professor of Social and Political ethics at University of Chicago).

From what I've read, it looks to be a book about the value and role of marriage in our modern life using different focuses.  It looks at marriage from a philosophical view, a legal view, an economic view , for example.   I think this book is sorely needed in a movement (the pro-marriage movement) that is just beginning to take root.  So, if you're at all interested in marriage (whether academically or otherwise!) go out and buy this book.  It would be an appropriate addition to any modest woman's library.

The Right Choice?: The New Phenomenon of “Choice Moms”

I was reading the newspaper the other day and came across a reference to a New York Times article which came out a few months ago. It was called “More single women become mothers by choice” (on the website it is entitled “First Comes the Baby Carriage”). A picture showed a 37 year old woman injecting herself with a drug that stimulates ovulation. The woman was preparing for artificial insemination and had chosen to be a single mom. The title and the picture were enough to make me want to read the article; to see why any woman would make such a drastic decision.

It seems that there are two main reasons why these women actively decide to have a child without a husband:

 1. These women consider that the possibility of having an unhappy marriage is not worth getting married and having a child. They would rather have a child on their own and thus, avoid all of the baggage that marriage seems to bring.

 2. Having a child on their own gives them complete freedom in raising the child and avoids the negotiation and compromise that would occur in a marriage on these issues.

When I first read the article, I was very upset at the women. It seemed that they had made this decision primarily out of selfishness. Don’t they know that it’s better for a child to be raised with a mom and dad? Have children now become like fashion accessories to these women, picking and choosing as they will? I still maintain my initial disdain for their choice but after thinking about the two main reasons why these women choose to be single moms, I’ve discovered another reason.

Implicit in their reasons is a sort of desperation. Even though one of the women remarked that there was “a lot less desperation as a whole in the group”, I doubt that, upon further reflection, she would find this to be the case. It seems that because these women haven’t met the right guy and the years are going by, they choose to forget the whole activity of waiting for “Mr. Right” and to just have a child without him. Also, it seems that even if they were to find “Mr. Right” they would hesitate to enter into marriage with him and face the challenges that it would bring. Thus, it seems that this desperation not only concerns themselves but it also concerns marriage. They are worried about having children in a marriage that would probably (to them at least) end up in sadness and divorce.

Why are these women afraid of marriage? Even more than the autonomy that being a “choice mom” affords them, it seems that this fear of marriage is an implicit drive toward choosing to be a single mom. I don’t think these women are “neurotic” as one person remarked or even that they’re primarily selfish (although I am sure that in many cases, selfishness can be found). I don’t know why these women are afraid of marriage but I do think that it is this particular fear that characterizes the women.

None of these women would admit to being afraid of marriage. No one wants to admit to being truly afraid of anything. Instead, they would probably say that they have found complete freedom and happiness in disengaging themselves from marriage. They have found a way to get a particular good of marriage (children) without the challenges of marriage. And now they believe they have succeeded in their efforts. But I suspect that deep down the fear remains.

Note: A friend emailed me an article from this month's issue of Touchstone concerning women who desire to have children outside of marriage.  The author takes a different route primarily arguing that these women implicitly believe that they have a right to a child.  The author strongly believes that no individual outside of a marital relationship has a right to a child; she outlines her reasons for this in the article. 

'Tis the Season to be Jolly (Really)

Because this is the holiday season, I’ve been thinking about the concept of happiness. This season is packed with symbols that are supposed to bring joy and happiness. Christmas lights and trees, crèches or manger scenes, Santa Claus bringing gifts, and people being extra charitable and full of holiday cheer. But what is happiness really? What does it mean to be happy?

Most would answer that happiness means feeling good about yourself or being content with a situation. These certainly can be included in the definition of happiness, but I always found this definition to be limiting in that it focuses primarily on the self. How I feel or how I consider a situation.

The Christmas message of hope and peace reminds us that happiness does not subsist in the self alone.

Recently, I was listening to a lecture by Peter Kreeft about the Beatitudes and what they say about happiness. He explained that in the traditional scholastic sense, happiness was equivalent to a state of blessing, to being blessed by God. By this definition, happiness does not merely rely on the self, on an individual’s emotions or perceptions, but on the objective reality of God’s love for a person. Happiness then, has God as its primary source.

I am in accord with the more traditional definition of happiness simply because it is more beautiful, theologically and practically. The traditional definition of happiness has generosity at its core unlike the more modern definition which has self-fulfillment (which often leads to selfishness) at its core. God freely gives his love to an individual in the form of a blessing and the reception of this blessing makes the individual blessed, happy. This happiness lasts for as long as God continues to love the person (and according to Christian thought, God always loves the person).

So even in bad situations, by the traditional definition, a person can be happy and blessed because that person is loved by God. The modern, limited definition makes the possibility of achieving happiness much smaller in scope because happiness is based on an individual’s emotions and changing circumstances. And we all know how fickle emotions and circumstances tend to be.

So what makes a person happy today may not make that same person happy tomorrow. I was happy receiving $10 today because I only wanted to go see a movie with friends but I won’t be happy if I receive $10 tomorrow because I want to by a new pair of shoes. How then can we call this true happiness when the source of happiness is subject to so much fluctuation?

I may be in the minority on this, but I am of the opinion that true happiness (blessedness) should be lasting, enduring. Anything less is just passing contentment.