Are Holiness Standards People Chauvinistic?

[Mirth1981]

Originally Posted by notofworks

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]

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. 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.

[Mirth1981]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

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. 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.

Good post!

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Lacey

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]

Originally Posted by Mirth1981

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]

Originally Posted by Mirth1981

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]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

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]

Originally Posted by Cindy

You just say that cause you are good looking.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

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. 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.

••Very insensitive.

[Mirth1981]

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.