Apostolic Friends Forum

Apostolic Friends Forum (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/index.php)
-   Fellowship Hall (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic? (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=30654)

notofworks 07-01-2010 04:05 PM

Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Here's the deal...

Last week I saw a husband and wife. They are a strong part of an OP organization. He was looking like a million bucks. Very fashionable. He's very good looking and could have stepped straight onto the cover of GQ magazine and they wouldn't have had to change him one bit.

His wife? Well, that's another story. While being attractive herself, she VERY MUCH SO had "The Look." For her, there are NO options.

I'm just wondering....why do almost all the rules apply to the women? Cut hair, earrings, jewelry, makeup, pants, on and on and on. The guys? They get off just about unscathed.

You tell me.....when you see a UPC (or similar) couple in public, how can you tell they're UPC? By looking at the guy? No way. You KNOW it's from the look the women has. A UPC guy could walk around NYC for years and never be identified. A women? She's spotted in seconds. And I think that's chauvinistic.

I've never played the "cult card" on the UPC...don't think that's fair. But let's face it, one of the measuring sticks frequently used for a cult, is the "suppression of women."

So what do you think?



NOTE: This is an old thread but it was placed in some remote area and I wanted to bump it

Cindy 07-01-2010 04:20 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Nature itself teaches us that the male is suppose to be better looking than the female. Lions have the mane, peacocks have the thingy tail feathers, etc......

Mirth1981 07-01-2010 04:25 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cindy (Post 932719)
Nature itself teaches us that the male is suppose to be better looking than the female. Lions have the mane, peacocks have the thingy tail feathers, etc......

I'm not understanding what this has to do with the subject? Are you saying that because men should naturally be better looking then women, that is why there are so many restrictions on women in church organizations regarding their appearance? So that they don't exceed the men's attractiveness? I hope you can clarify. :)

notofworks 07-01-2010 04:25 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cindy (Post 932719)
Nature itself teaches us that the male is suppose to be better looking than the female. Lions have the mane, peacocks have the thingy tail feathers, etc......



:ursofunny
You're joking, right?

MissBrattified 07-01-2010 04:26 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cindy (Post 932719)
Nature itself teaches us that the male is suppose to be better looking than the female. Lions have the mane, peacocks have the thingy tail feathers, etc......

:toofunny

MawMaw 07-01-2010 04:27 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Notofworks, I don't hear any of my holiness friends complaining of being suppressed because of the way they don't cut their hair, or don't wear pants, or makeup, or jewelry. Why do you have this assumption?

Mirth1981 07-01-2010 04:27 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by notofworks (Post 932728)
:ursofunny
You're joking, right?

Oh, maybe she was just joking...I thought she was serious... :)

notofworks 07-01-2010 04:29 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lacey (Post 932730)
Notofworks, I don't hear any of my holiness friends complaining of being suppressed because of the way they don't cut their hair, or don't wear pants, or makeup, or jewelry. Why do you have this assumption?


Uhhh.....there's a reason they don't complain. They can't. And if they do, no one can find out. And if someone finds out, they're in BIG trouble. Hmmm....wonder if that has anything to do with it?

notofworks 07-01-2010 04:30 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirth1981 (Post 932731)
Oh, maybe she was just joking...I thought she was serious... :)


Well, I mean, I hope she was joking. You never know here on AFF!

MawMaw 07-01-2010 04:32 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by notofworks (Post 932733)
Uhhh.....there's a reason they don't complain. They can't. And if they do, no one can find out. And if someone finds out, they're in BIG trouble. Hmmm....wonder if that has anything to do with it?


Sure they can, if they want to. Again, why is it your assumption that we are unhappy with how we look? Holiness women are the most beautiful women in all the world bar none! :)

Mirth1981 07-01-2010 04:36 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by notofworks (Post 932734)
Well, I mean, I hope she was joking. You never know here on AFF!

This is true. :)

I have heard many enforce "holiness standards" by talking about women's lib and how "America has gone down a slippery slope" since women started wearin' pants and bobbin' their hair. Are those that promote "holiness standards" being chauvinistic and trying to suppress women? I don't think that is the intent, but one has to question the origin of all of these rules/holiness standards...most of which are directed at women. It's a valid question.

MissBrattified 07-01-2010 04:37 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
I don't think it's deliberately that way.

First, modern fashions dictate more immodesty from women than men. That's been the norm in our society for the last 75 years or so, although it's not the first time in history that it's occurred. In an effort to maintain modesty, it would seem that women get the brunt of the rules, simply because men can wear what is normally deemed acceptable and still be both modest and fashionable.

Secondly, I think women have a natural propensity toward things that are shiny, bright, colorful, pretty, or just plain beautiful. Personally, I know I'm not particularly tempted to blow money on a new toolbox, but hold up a cool ocean blue boatneck, three quarter length sleeve cashmere sweater, and I'll have trouble holding on to my purse. :)

Some people over the years have seen this natural tendency as a vice, (and of course like any natural tendency, it CAN be a vice), and have orchestrated overzealous rules in an attempt to squelch this feminine quality.

Finally, and simplistically, the rules are a tad chauvinistic because men have been the ones making them up. :D It's not deep, it's not complex--it's just because men don't see things the way women do, and have a sort of straightforward way of handling problems--in this case, women--and so they have these cut and dried lists that are apparently supposed to answer all the immoral issues of females around the world.

I don't think they've made up rules in such a way because they hate women or because they view them as inferior. I think they've gone about making up rules in the same way they would go about planning a wedding party. Whereas a woman is going to examine every detail, your average man would probably haul in buckets of styrofoam cups and plates, buy cupcakes from Wal-mart, cater in bbq, hook up some fog machines and call it a day.

Chauvinistic in the sense of being deliberately malicious toward women? No way!!!! Bent in the favor of men, perhaps unintentionally? Sure. Maybe a little insensitive towards women in general? Yep. Overly simplistic? Absolutely. :coffee2

Mirth1981 07-01-2010 04:38 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 932743)
I don't think it's deliberately that way.

First, modern fashions dictate more immodesty from women than men. That's been the norm in our society for the last 75 years or so, although it's not the first time in history that it's occurred. In an effort to maintain modesty, it would seem that women get the brunt of the rules, simply because men can wear what is normally deemed acceptable and still be both modest and fashionable.

Secondly, I think women have a natural propensity toward things that are shiny, bright, colorful, pretty, or just plain beautiful. Personally, I know I'm not particularly tempted to blow money on a new toolbox, but hold up a cool ocean blue boatneck, three quarter length sleeve cashmere sweater, and I'll have trouble holding on to my purse. :)

Some people over the years have seen this natural tendency as a vice, (and of course like any natural tendency, it CAN be a vice), and have orchestrated overzealous rules in an attempt to squelch this feminine quality.

Finally, and simplistically, the rules are a tad chauvinistic because men have been the ones making them up. :D It's not deep, it's not complex--it's just because men don't see things the way women do, and have a sort of straightforward way of handling problems--in this case, women--and so they have these cut and dried lists that are apparently supposed to answer all the immoral issues of females around the world.

I don't think they've made up rules in such a way because they hate women or because they view them as inferior. I think they've gone about making up rules in the same way they would go about planning a wedding party. Whereas a woman is going to examine every detail, your average man would probably haul in buckets of styrofoam cups and plates, buy cupcakes from Wal-mart, cater in bbq, hook up some fog machines and call it a day.

Chauvinistic in the sense of being deliberately malicious toward women? No way!!!! Bent in the favor of men, perhaps unintentionally? Sure. Maybe a little insensitive towards women in general? Yep. Overly simplistic? Absolutely. :coffee2

Good post! :thumbsup

notofworks 07-01-2010 04:39 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lacey (Post 932736)
Sure they can, if they want to. Again, why is it your assumption that we are unhappy with how we look? Holiness women are the most beautiful women in all the world bar none! :)


Sure they can.....if they wanna get blacklisted.

You don't believe that, do you?

My assumption isn't really an assumption. It's based on many years within the system. Have you gone to a youth camp lately to see how much the teens like it?

notofworks 07-01-2010 04:40 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirth1981 (Post 932742)
This is true. :)

I have heard many enforce "holiness standards" by talking about women's lib and how "America has gone down a slippery slope" since women started wearin' pants and bobbin' their hair. Are those that promote "holiness standards" being chauvinistic and trying to suppress women? I don't think that is the intent, but one has to question the origin of all of these rules/holiness standards...most of which are directed at women. It's a valid question.


There's a great book out there ("Great" used loosely) titled, "Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives, and Women Preachers" by John R. Rice. He was actually a conservative baptist.

Jermyn Davidson 07-01-2010 04:41 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirth1981 (Post 932731)
Oh, maybe she was just joking...I thought she was serious... :)

I thought she was too, serious that is.

I think my big Sis is.

Cindy 07-01-2010 04:43 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson (Post 932749)
I thought she was too, serious that is.

I think my big Sis is.

You just say that cause you are good looking.:)

Jermyn Davidson 07-01-2010 04:45 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cindy (Post 932750)
You just say that cause you are good looking.:)


:ursofunny

notofworks 07-01-2010 04:56 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 932743)
I don't think it's deliberately that way.

••Deliberately? I doubt if anyone sat down and said, "Hey, let's be chauvinistic".

First, modern fashions dictate more immodesty from women than men. That's been the norm in our society for the last 75 years or so, although it's not the first time in history that it's occurred. In an effort to maintain modesty, it would seem that women get the brunt of the rules, simply because men can wear what is normally deemed acceptable and still be both modest and fashionable.

••For sure, men are more visual than women, but I think the difference is overly exaggerated. When you leave the psychology books and get to real life, women can notice a highly attractive male pretty well themselves. Hint: Guys aren't the only ones who participate in "locker room talk."

My point is, modern fashions also find ways to accentuate the male anatomy as well. I think it's possible that your opinion could be slightly swayed because women are more likely to notice the immodesty of other women than men would notice men.

But nevertheless...rules about pants, hair, skirt length, etc., don't have anything to do with modesty. I think people pretend they do, but they don't. I'll tell you right now....by far, the sexiest clothes I've EVER seen have been at various UPC functions. I have no desire to get too graphic here, but a shirt doesn't have to be low to.........I'll just leave it at that. And I've seen dresses that highlighted a woman's figure WAY more than ANY pair of pants ever could.


Secondly, I think women have a natural propensity toward things that are shiny, bright, colorful, pretty, or just plain beautiful. Personally, I know I'm not particularly tempted to blow money on a new toolbox, but hold up a cool ocean blue boatneck, three quarter length sleeve cashmere sweater, and I'll have trouble holding on to my purse. :)

••Agreed. REally, that would be part of my point. It's a woman's nature to desire to "pretty herself up" as much as she can. Why is there a desire in OP circles, which is dictated by men, to suppress that?

Some people over the years have seen this natural tendency as a vice, (and of course like any natural tendency, it CAN be a vice), and have orchestrated overzealous rules in an attempt to squelch this feminine quality.

Finally, and simplistically, the rules are a tad chauvinistic because men have been the ones making them up. :D It's not deep, it's not complex--it's just because men don't see things the way women do, and have a sort of straightforward way of handling problems--in this case, women--and so they have these cut and dried lists that are apparently supposed to answer all the immoral issues of females around the world.

••I think they're WAY more than a tad, but yeah. I agree.

I don't think they've made up rules in such a way because they hate women or because they view them as inferior. I think they've gone about making up rules in the same way they would go about planning a wedding party. Whereas a woman is going to examine every detail, your average man would probably haul in buckets of styrofoam cups and plates, buy cupcakes from Wal-mart, cater in bbq, hook up some fog machines and call it a day.

••Nor do I believe it's because they hate women, but there are many cultures, both racial and religious, that do this. I don't believe it comes from a motivation of hate, but of the lust for power.

Chauvinistic in the sense of being deliberately malicious toward women? No way!!!! Bent in the favor of men, perhaps unintentionally? Sure. Maybe a little insensitive towards women in general? Yep. Overly simplistic? Absolutely. :coffee2

••Very insensitive.

Mirth1981 07-01-2010 05:07 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
The UPCI's official explanation of why women should not wear pants:

"In addition, we should avoid ... slacks on women because they immodestly reveal the feminine contours of upper leg, thigh, and hip." http://www.upci.org/doctrine/modesty.asp

This has always seemed chauvinistic to me, because slacks also reveal the male contours of upper leg, thigh, and hip...and sometimes other contours as well, if you know what I mean. Yet pants are acceptable for men to wear, but not for women.

Think about it. :)

rgcraig 07-01-2010 05:10 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirth1981 (Post 932784)
The UPCI's official explanation of why women should not wear pants:

"In addition, we should avoid ... slacks on women because they immodestly reveal the feminine contours of upper leg, thigh, and hip." http://www.upci.org/doctrine/modesty.asp

This has always seemed chauvinistic to me, because slacks also reveal the male contours of upper leg, thigh, and hip...and sometimes other contours as well, if you know what I mean. Yet pants are acceptable for men to wear, but not for women.

Think about it. :)

It's a silly argument because they don't mention the blouse that reveals the two primary feminine contours!!!!!

RandyWayne 07-01-2010 05:13 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig (Post 932790)
It's a silly argument because they don't mention the blouse that reveals the two primary feminine contours!!!!!

Of which a very good restaurant chain was even named after.

notofworks 07-01-2010 05:13 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirth1981 (Post 932784)
The UPCI's official explanation of why women should not wear pants:

"In addition, we should avoid ... slacks on women because they immodestly reveal the feminine contours of upper leg, thigh, and hip." http://www.upci.org/doctrine/modesty.asp

This has always seemed chauvinistic to me, because slacks also reveal the male contours of upper leg, thigh, and hip...and sometimes other contours as well, if you know what I mean. Yet pants are acceptable for men to wear, but not for women.

Think about it. :)


My goodness, I've never heard of that nor read it. That's almost embarrassing. It doesn't make a lick of sense. And like I said, I've seen dresses at camp meeting and general conference that were WAY more revealing than any pair of pants I've EVER seen.

Mirth1981 07-01-2010 05:14 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig (Post 932790)
It's a silly argument because they don't mention the blouse that reveals the two primary feminine contours!!!!!

Agreed. :)

Hopefully nobody gets this revelation and tries to create another "holiness standard" to make women keep 'em completely unnoticeable. :ursofunny

notofworks 07-01-2010 05:14 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by RandyWayne (Post 932795)
Of which a very good restaurant chain was even named after.

Shoney's Big Boys?

RandyWayne 07-01-2010 05:18 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirth1981 (Post 932797)
Agreed. :)

Hopefully nobody gets this revelation and tries to create another "holiness standard" to make women keep 'em completely unnoticeable. :ursofunny

I have listened to some men talk and if they could, believe me they would. It is almost sad to listen to them use words like "mammary glands" in an effort to be as clinical as possible.

rgcraig 07-01-2010 05:19 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirth1981 (Post 932797)
Agreed. :)

Hopefully nobody gets this revelation and tries to create another "holiness standard" to make women keep 'em completely unnoticeable. :ursofunny

Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 18:17-19

Truthseeker 07-01-2010 05:20 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by notofworks (Post 932796)
My goodness, I've never heard of that nor read it. That's almost embarrassing. It doesn't make a lick of sense. And like I said, I've seen dresses at camp meeting and general conference that were WAY more revealing than any pair of pants I've EVER seen.

That's the truth! Them behind huggin skirts are just as immodest as pants can be.

Truthseeker 07-01-2010 05:20 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirth1981 (Post 932797)
Agreed. :)

Hopefully nobody gets this revelation and tries to create another "holiness standard" to make women keep 'em completely unnoticeable. :ursofunny

They shouldn't be shown off that's for sure!!

Cindy 07-01-2010 05:21 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig (Post 932790)
It's a silly argument because they don't mention the blouse that reveals the two primary feminine contours!!!!!

And our lower legs have no feminine contours either.

rgcraig 07-01-2010 05:23 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirth1981 (Post 932784)
The UPCI's official explanation of why women should not wear pants:

"In addition, we should avoid ... slacks on women because they immodestly reveal the feminine contours of upper leg, thigh, and hip." http://www.upci.org/doctrine/modesty.asp

This has always seemed chauvinistic to me, because slacks also reveal the male contours of upper leg, thigh, and hip...and sometimes other contours as well, if you know what I mean. Yet pants are acceptable for men to wear, but not for women.

Think about it. :)

Someone needs to tell Standards this so he can use it instead of the wrong scripture.

Mirth1981 07-01-2010 05:36 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig (Post 932805)
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 18:17-19

:toofunny

TrmptPraise 07-01-2010 10:16 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
I certainly can agree that there are many inconsistencies in regards to physically "identifying" someone in regards to faith.

However, there are many ways of identifying an individual...words and speech come to mind; and probably would consider actions a more identifiable mark than any code offered for dress.

commonsense 07-01-2010 10:33 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Is there chauvinism re dress standards..........in a word= yes

May not have been planned or plotted but that doesn't eliminate it.

simplyme 07-01-2010 11:48 PM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lacey (Post 932730)
Notofworks, I don't hear any of my holiness friends complaining of being suppressed because of the way they don't cut their hair, or don't wear pants, or makeup, or jewelry. Why do you have this assumption?

I suspect ( JMHO, not that anyone asked ME :D ) that such an assumption stems from the one beholding whom actually fears suppression and uses that as a reason for NOT wanting to, nor trying to..look any different from anyone else of 'the world' [i.e. those whom want nothing to do with JESUS, have no interest/belief in salvation, ONE GOD, etc.] ., which.. TO ME, seems to suggest that such a person would rather be associated with 'the world' than THE CHURCH., some even call it "adult peer pressure". :D
Again, this is MY viewpoint based on much observation., some of it former personal experience as well.

Mirth1981 07-02-2010 12:41 AM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by simplyme (Post 932933)
TO ME, seems to suggest that such a person would rather be associated with 'the world' than THE CHURCH., some even call it "adult peer pressure". :D

I just wanted to point out that "adult peer pressure" goes both ways, especially when a person is in a small community that believes if you don't look like them, you're a sinner. :)

deadeye 07-02-2010 01:26 AM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Idiots!!

Mirth1981 07-02-2010 01:43 AM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by deadeye (Post 932942)
Idiots!!

???

Is that a joke?

:bigbaby

deadeye 07-02-2010 01:46 AM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
[QUOTE=Mirth1981;932943]???

Is that a joke?

:bigbaby[/QUOT

I dont know...is it?

On The Wheel 07-02-2010 02:29 AM

Re: Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by deadeye (Post 932942)
Idiots!!

Typical!


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.