What your clothing "says" about you

Lately, in my internet sphere, there has been this kind of "war" about modesty. There are those who say modesty is important because it shows self-respect and keeps a man from having sexual thoughts about you - and there are those who say that modesty is all well and good, but doing it for the sake of others' is not the right way to go about it.

I think you can guess by now that I'm clearly in the second camp. I wrote about it last year here. You should also check out this great post by another Mormon feminist here; this one is responding to a video that's been making the rounds by Jessica Rey, creator of a "modest" swimsuit line.

One comment the above blog post ("To Every One That Believeth." Not my blog.) was something about what we were "says" something to everyone around us.

Actually, what she said was this:

Of course, I replied something snarky and said she must be exhausted all of the time from "evaluating" and "assessing" people. Although, I truly believe that this lifestyle does sound exhausting. You're already running errands, working, going to school, and trying to have fun - so while you're doing that, you're also turning your head every way to look at people, see what they're wearing, and judge them based on something as shallow as their clothing? 

The idea that a person "says" something with their clothing comes from pure commercialization. When you shop at Urban Outfitters, you're saying you're quirky and a hipster. When you shop at American Eagle, you're saying that you're preppy. But who decides that? The stores do. The commercials do. The commercials convince you that you need to represent yourself a certain way, specifically their way. And that way, you aren't going from store to store finding items that you like, but you're staying at one store and spending all of your money there. They've got you hooked. 

And are we really "saying" something with our clothes when we all shop at the same prescribed stores anyway? A store produces thousands, millions of the same exact item every time it creates a new piece of clothing. The chances of you running into someone wearing the same shirt as you is actually pretty high. So why do we think that we're "saying" anything unique with our clothing when we clearly have very little say in it anyway? 

Lastly, this is such an unreliable method to get to a decision anyway. Most of the time when you judge someone based on their clothing choices, you are wrong. What about the athletes who sexually assault women? The businessmen who embezzle? In my high school, a group of about 20 of the good-grade-honors-students-teachers'-favorites-athletes-who-got-into-good-colleges weren't allowed to walk at graduation because they got drunk on their way to prom and assaulted a police officer. Last week in the grocery store, despite the fact that my hair was a mess and I was wearing my cleaning clothes (and a wedding ring), I got hit on when I didn't want to. Most of the time when you try to "interpret" someone's clothing, you're going to get it wrong. 

From there, it's a slippery slope into victim blaming. That woman was wearing a low cut shirt and short skirt, which we all know means that she's "saying" she wants sex, so isn't it her fault that someone decided to "listen" to her clothing and not her words? Doesn't that make it her fault she was raped? 

No. It never does. Never ever ever. 

The same thing applies to women in bikinis. This woman, and many other champions of "modesty," are presuming that a woman who wears a bikini is doing it for the sexual attention she will attract. What we should be doing is thinking that maybe a woman in a bikini is wearing it because that is what she is most comfortable in, and she really doesn't care who looks at her. It's a cliche, but there's also that expression that we don't wear makeup for men, but for ourselves. Same thing with bikinis. 

Honestly, I really feel a lot of pity for this woman who posted the above comment. (Of course, I am judging her without meeting her and that's wrong, but ...) I can imagine that she is the type of woman who wakes up two hours before the crack of dawn because she can't stand to leave her house without her make up and hair done. And while many may think "oh, she's showing respect for those around her," really, she's just very insecure about herself. 

"Diary of a Single Mormon Female"

My thoughts

So first of all, I won Diary of a Single Mormon Female as part of a contest over at Modern Mormon Men, and got a copy signed by the author, so thanks Aleesa! (I feel like we're on a first name basis after reading this. After all, I was basically reading her journals. We have to be pretty tight after that.) I was really excited to read this because I was expecting it to address a lot of the cultural issues of the Church, such as pushing marriage onto people and treating single adults as second thoughts. I was not disappointed on that count at all. I think Aleesa did a fabulous job demonstrating how harmful some aspects of Church culture can be. 

I think the beginning of the book is a little slow. Part of this is because I didn't really need explanations of Johnny Lingo and fasting, seeing how I also grew up LDS. Those sections do make me wonder who the intended audience of this memoir is, or if her editor made her include it. (Who published this book? Did Aleesa do it herself? Wow, that's impressive.) 

I also just didn't find her earlier journal entries that entertaining. I think part of the problem is that I feel like my experience literally mirrored hers. I absolutely had church boys that I had crushes on, and our relationships consisted entirely of my daydreams and the very minor interactions we had, which I would blow out of proportion. (Unlike Aleesa, I actually married my Jon ... Yup, I would totally stare at 12-year-old Colby as he passed the sacrament. Then write about it in my journals. Which I still have, and were a huge source of entertainment to my family after I got engaged to him.) It's an interesting phenomenon, and I'd like to see how many women who grew up in the Church have experienced something similar. 

It definitely picked up for me after Aleesa turned 16-17 and actually started to date. Those experiences began to be different than mine. I'll try not to give any spoilers away here, but I was fascinated and horrified by who she was when she was going to BYU. I loved watching her grow, step-by-step, until she was the person at the end of the book. And I loved the end of the book. My favorite line is

"Church culture seems to dictate that life's trials can be discussed only in the past tense, hand in hand with the feel-good declaration that everything ended up working out just fine. Most people are very uncomfortable acknowledging doubt, anger, grief, despair or any of the other, less sparkly emotions. The injuction Christ gave his disciples to "be of good cheer" has been interpreted by many as the only legitimate state of being for a Mormon at any time - hence robust sales of Prozac in Utah" (218).

Emphasis is mine. I just feel like that's a really true part of the Church culture. We somehow are afraid of acknowledge doubt, even though you cannot have faith without questioning things.

So even though Aleesa's trials in this context revolve around being single and I am now married, I can still really relate to her emotions at the conclusion of this book. I think they are universal, despite her specific context. While I found the duration of this memoir entertaining and informative, it was the ending that really spoke to me.

Your book club

• When did you start noticing boys? Were they boys from Church? Did you write about them in your journal?
• How did Aleesa's religious beliefs affect her interactions and attitudes towards boys? Have you had similar experiences with church lessons that revolve around future companions? Have you had any experiences with marriage being taught in different ways or frequencies to the teenage girls than the boys?
• What do you think of Aleesa's time at BYU? What was her outlook and attitude like during that entire experience? Do you think that outlook/attitude is common (especially among BYU students)? How did she describe the men in her life? What do you think, if anything, went wrong? Did you see any sort of pattern or similarities between all of her crushes (other than them not working out)? Do you think Aleesa's attitudes affected her dating life? In what ways did Aleesa grow during her time at BYU? 
• What do you think about Aleesa's relationship with Hugh (her first boyfriend)? Have you had a similar type of relationship?
• Aleesa frequently talks about "potential" with the men she has a crush on. Is this outlook on dating normal or unusual? Do you ever think that way? Do you think it's an effective method? (Read the first paragraph on page 137 about Sam.)
• On pages 141-142, Aleesa and her friends start discussing sex. Does her experience of learning about sex reflect yours? Do you agree with her about the ways she wishes the topic of sex was taught?
• On page 171, Aleesa comments that some of the teachings of the Church on dating can be contradictory and confusing. Do you agree? What are some things you'd like to see changed?
• How does Aleesa represent the men of the LDS church? Do you feel this is a fair representation?  
• Aleesa sticks to her standard of only wanting to marry LDS men, even though it meant giving up Boris and Amir. What do you think of this decision? Do you think things would've worked out between her and one of those men? Do you think she was being foolish and narrow-minded or strong and uncompromising (or maybe even a little of both)? 
• Do you agree with Aleesa's assessment on the way Church culture often treats trials, such as in the quote above? Have you ever had similar feelings or feelings that you felt weren't as "kosher" in the Church? Is there anyone you can talk to about these types of feelings?
• BONUS QUESTION: If you are married, what are some better ways that you can interact with the single adults? What's something you can say other than "oh, you'll find someone some day"?

Yeah, sorry, I know that's a lot. The great thing about book clubs is that you get to pick and choose what you want to talk about! Some topics may not get a lot of response from the crowd, and some you may end up talking about for hours. Good luck! I hope you enjoyed Diary of a Single Mormon Female and any subsequent discussions!

2 situations in which women commonly find themselves in movies

I went to go see Oblivion (imdb.com) last week with Colby. He and I are both really into sci-fi. I thought it was a great movie, particularly as a post-apocalyptic sci-fi story. There was some beautiful imagery. There were a lot of cool inventions. The storyline was really great. I liked all the characters, including the female ones.

But then, I also have to analyze this movie as a feminist. Interestingly enough, it does pass The Bechdel Test. This is surprising considering that there is a male protagonist and the men generally have all of the violent, action roles. I think a woman picks up a gun and fires it twice in the movie, but only reluctantly (to protect a man in one instance and after another man has dropped the gun in the other). But it's a nice surprise. It's nice that even in a male-centered movie that women can have adequate (maybe?) representation. We just need to step it up by making tons more female-centered movies.

There were two things I noticed about this movie that I think you can find it lots of other movies as well. I don't think you could call them "tropes" exactly, because they aren't character molds. They're just situations that women are frequently found in. Warning - spoilers!

1. Nurturing/Protecting a Random Child - When a child fell down, it was a woman who picked him up and protected him from that point on. Julia was basically a random stranger to this colony of Earth survivors, but when one of their children is somehow separated from the group and left behind, she picks him up. Why doesn't someone else from this band of survivors protect the child? Doesn't he have any friends or neighbors who are interested in his welfare?

I've seen this happen in a few other movies. Katie Holmes does it in Batman Begins. The whole city is under a chemical attack that causes them to hallucinate. Holmes's character, Rachel Dawes, clutches to a random little boy that is for some unknown reason all on his own. (Interestingly, that boy happens to be a young Jack Gleeson, who plays King Joffrey in Game of Thrones.)

I actually can't think of any other movies, so I'm either brain farting or it's just a coincidence that these two movies have incidences of women protecting children during attacks. I don't think it is, though.

The reason why I don't like this is because it puts women in the role of natural nurturers. By having women who are not yet mothers slip into the role of pseudo-mother instinctually, you are saying that all women are potential mothers. This is a naturally accepted role. I wonder why in these movies you don't have men playing this protective part, or even just the child's own mother?

It also generally happens when the man is out doing hero stuff. Jack sacrifices himself as a kamikaze and Batman is off fighting villans. The women just stay out of the way until the fracas is over. This way, they won't get hurt.

I'm sure there are movies that do have men protecting random children, but I think we are meant to respond to that as an out-of-the-ordinary heroic, compassionate act, whereas women are treated as that being the norm.

But I don't have anything to back that up, so you can take it whatever way you'd like.

2. A Baby as a Consolation Prize - At the end of the movie, Jack Harper, the protagonist, and Julia, his love interest, plan to suicide bomb the aliens. Julia is put into "delta sleep," while Jack flies the spaceship. When Julia wakes up, she realizes that Jack has tricked her, and she is actually safe on Earth. Which really pisses me off. Julia volunteered to die with Jack, knowing full well what the consequences were! Who is he to make that decision for her? Anyway, we flash forward to five years later (or whatever), and now she has a daughter. Somehow during that time, Jack impregnated her. This is a frightening implication on its own because we are never aware of them having sex. I guess there's a possibility they had sex before she went into delta sleep the first time, or they did have consensual sex but we don't see it. I guess.

So even though Jack is dead, it's okay because Julia has a baby, who is supposed to be the next best thing. I guess you can see Jack in the child, or the child reminds her of Jack.

I know this has happened in LOTS of movies. It happens in Cold Mountain, where Nicole Kidman's character, Ada Monroe, has sex with her lover just before he is shot to death. Again, fast forward a few years, and she has a child.

It happened in Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. Jack is cursed to the point where he is only able to set foot on land once every ten years. His wife, Elizabeth, settles down alone on an island after a sex romp. Jack comes back ten years later, and now Elizabeth has a ten-year-old son.

It kind of happens in Superman Returns (2006). When Superman returns, he finds that Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) now has a young child. We realize by the end of the movie that this is actually Superman's son, and not Lois's boyfriend's. So even though Superman didn't die and the baby wasn't the consolation prize revealed at the end of the movie, Lois was still left with a baby by herself for a number of years. 

I'm not a fan of this occurrence either. It is insulting to both the male partner and the kids. Your lover cannot be replaced by a child, and a child isn't just a momento of someone you deeply loved. It's also insulting to the women: it's basically saying that they can get over the man if they only have a child. In Oblivion, Cold Mountain, and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, the three mothers stop their adventurous lives and settle down into a domestic one. This is generally seen as much better and safer for them, and a sacrifice the male makes out of the purest most selfless love. It's even worse in Pirates because she's spending ten years waiting for this man while he's running off on adventures - the ultimate working dad who passes off all the childcare to his wife. 

I understand that movies are made this way in order to make audiences less sad. There is more resolution in a movie that ends with this kind of bittersweet ending. And it is very tragically bittersweet - I felt lots of feels when watching (most) of these movies. 

Both of these situations also have a degree of passivity in them. In the first one, women are standing in the sidelines after having been "given" the safest responsibility. In the second, women have no control over reproduction (I know that's historically accurate, but it doesn't stop it from sucking!).

I don't appreciate women being put in this situation over and over again, even in fiction. I believe it has all these implications for "real world" women, including being shuffled into the nurturing/mothering role without any regard for the previous strength and adventurous spirit these women once had. And without any regard to how they felt about the men in their lives before they lost them.

So anyway, if you agree or disagree, please let me know in the comments below! I would also love to hear it if you know of any other movies where these situations happen to women.

How to Read Like a Feminist

Being an English major has taught me that there are a number of ways that you can read the same book. It all comes down to the context in which you want to look at a text. You can look at a book historically, which generally means comparing it to other works that were written around the same time and seeing what they have in common. You can think about colonialism when reading a book, which often means themes of race relations or questions about savagery versus civilization (think Pocahontas).

Generally, a feminist novel is one that has a female protagonist and deals primarily with the relationships between women. (Do we apply The Bechdel Test to books? Comment and tell me your opinion.) But that doesn't mean we can't look at other kinds of books from a feminist perspective.

(It's also worth noting that a female character who isn't "strong" can still be a feminist novel. Sure, we feminists love a strong, kickass woman, but really, who doesn't? But that's also not realistic. Just as men aren't always strong - and many novels focus on the low and pathetic points of a man's life - women aren't always strong either. We can definitely have feminist novels where the women don't come out looking great.)

Reading Like a Feminist

When reading, ask some questions about the book. 

1. Are there women in this book? Is the protagonist or antagonist a woman?
2. What is the relationship women have to men? Are they primarily girlfriends, wives, daughters, mothers, sisters? Do you experience female characters outside of their relationship to men?
3. How do men treat women in this book? Does it seem like the book or narrator condemns or condones the actions of men towards women?
4. Do the female characters seem realistic and fleshed-out to you? Do they experience growth or learn any lessons? Do they change in any way?
5. If this is a historical book, are the roles and actions of women much different than they are now? Do they women have anything to say about their roles? Do the men? Does the book take time to point out how the roles of women back then are different from women today? 
6. If there are multiple female characters in the book, are they different from each other? Do they have different personalities and make different life choices?
7. Do women come out looking good or bad? 
8. Do the female characters drive the plot of the novel at all?
9. Are the female characters passive or active? Are they acted upon or do they do the acting?
10. Is the author of this book male or female? Do you think that the sex of the author somehow colors the way they write about men and women?
11. Are the female characters dependent on men?
12. As a feminist, what do you like about the book? What do you dislike? (This is different from asking you what you like and dislike about the book generally. You are allowed to love any kind of entertainment or literature that makes the feminist in you angry.)

An Example

Let's use the Harry Potter books as an example, since almost everybody has (or really, REALLY should have) read those.

Harry Potter is obviously about a male character. There seems to be an equal balance of male and female characters (but I haven't actually counted, so there could be more men than women). Harry, as a character, has varying relationships with all sorts of women. These female characters have a large range of diversity, displaying traditional femininity, vapidness, intelligence, athleticism, loyalty, cruelty, kindness, villainy, determination, heroics, etc. They all (for the most part) have distinct personalities from each other. Many of the more important female characters have both strengths and weaknesses, and they change over the series, making them round, fleshed-out characters. While they all have men in their lives, none of them seem to be dependent on men, and they are all generally pretty active. 

So even though this is a book with a male lead (and a male antagonist), we can still look at the women within the story. There may not be a ton to glean from different books about the female characters (because LOTS of books center on men), but it is always possible to pick out little bits and pieces.     

Go try this and tell me how your experiences turn out. If you can think of any more helpful questions to ask yourself when reading, please comment below and tell me!

"Bossypants" and "How to Be a Woman"

My thoughts

I just read Tina Fey's Bossypants and Caitlin Moran's How to Be a Woman back to back. The funny thing is, they really are very similar. On the cover of Caitlin's book, someone has reviewed it as "the British Bossypants," and it's true! They both talk about the horrors of puberty, being a woman in a male-dominated workplace, their family, and their experiences as mothers.

The thing I like about both these books, besides being hilarious and easy to relate to, is that they're both gateway drugs into feminism. I mean that in the best way, of course. They are two individuals' experiences with feminism. Because it's so easy to understand, these books are a great introduction to feminism.

They aren't, however, the bottom line of feminism. Tina Fey has been criticized for this one line she has about how beauty standards have evolved to the point where one woman is expected to have body parts from all sorts of ethnicities. The way she comes across in the line is derogatory to women of color, or so I have read from women of color (I didn't find it offensive at first, but that could easily be my white privilege. It might also be that I read it differently than those critics did). I didn't like that both of them criticized other female celebrities, though the reasoning behind it made sense.

So while the books aren't hardcore feminism, or even inclusive, intersectional feminism, they are brilliant, funny, lighthearted, and have some great criticisms of everyday sexisms.

Your book club

Because these books are both very personal, your book club might get very personal too when talking about these books. It might just turn into story time. But that's okay! I think that's the point of both of these books, and that's what reading them encourages.

Here are some questions that will hopefully bring about awesome discussions in your feminist book club:

1. Talk about your experiences with puberty. Did your parents give you "the talk"? What are some conversations you had about growing up with siblings or friends? 
2. In Caitlin's book, she talks about what we call our private body parts. Do you think the names we use for our breasts and vagina are important? What are some of the names you hear that you do or don't like? 
3. What are some of the beauty standards you come up against? How have you had to fight them and learn to accept your body? Do you still struggle with some of them?
4. Both Tina and Caitlin have mentioned gay friends that they had. What do you think of their relationships with people who are homosexual? How do you think the gay community and feminism relate to each other? Can gay men understand some of the experiences of women in the patriarchy? (You could also talk about lesbian women in this discussion, but this is also a REALLY BIG discussion. You might have to try to reign it in.)
5. Both Tina and Caitlin use humor to talk about feminism. Tina even uses humor to bring feminist issues to a national audience. How does using humor help feminist causes? You could use rape jokes as an example in this discussion.
6. Both Tina and Caitlin have experienced sexism in the workplace. Both of them have had to fight for more female representation in male-dominated industries. How do you think things have changed for women as comedians and musicians? Are we making progress in those two fields? You might also want to share some experiences you have had in your own workplaces. 
7. Caitlin describes her first experience of being in love with Courtney. It's obviously an awful relationship, and Caitlin seems to know that, but she sticks with it. Why does she stay with Courtney for so long? Have you had a similar experience? Why was it so important for Caitlin to be in love?
8. What do you think of Caitlin visiting a strip club? What are your personal feminist views on women working in the sex industry? Do you agree with Caitlin's conclusions?
9. Caitlin describes her wedding and all the issues she has with the wedding industry. Do you agree with her? Did you have problems with your wedding, or have you been in a similar situation as her sister, Caz? 
10. Tina Fey tells a story about Amy Poehler saying to Jimmy Fallon "I don't care if you fucking like it." Talk about that. Talk about male privilege, too. 
11. Both Tina and Caitlin talk about motherhood, as well as how they bring their feminist outlook to motherhood. If you are a mother, talk about how you try to bring feminist ideals to raising your child. If you aren't, you can bring up goals you have for raising children in a feminist way. Is motherhood a feminist act? (Discuss Caitlin's chapter about giving birth for the first time. I absolutely loved that part. She made giving birth seem so empowering, like a she-warrior.) 
12. Talk about Caitlin's chapter on abortion. Do you want children? Do you think not having children is a feminist act?
13. Both Tina and Caitlin are white, mostly middle-class feminists living in developed countries. Discuss some of the privilege that comes with that, and maybe some of the privilege you saw in Tina and Caitlin. 
14. Now that you've read both books ... which one did you like better and why?

So there's a lot in there. SORRY. You could probably talk an entire 24 hours if you went thoroughly through every one of those questions. So just pick and choose what you and your book club will probably like. 

And I hope you enjoy the books!

5 Ways to Make Modesty More Spiritual

One issue that Mormon feminists have is that of "modesty culture." (For more on "modesty culture," you can check out the definition, an awesome blog post at Experimental Criticism, and a blog post by me.) I think that most MoFems, myself included, wished that modesty revolved less around the length of your skirt and more around spiritual traits.

But that got me thinking - what is modesty that has nothing to do with clothing? When the For the Strength of Youth isn't talking about the specifics of clothing and appearance, it says

"Your body is sacred. Respect it and do not defile it in any way. Through your dress and appearance, you can show that you know how precious your body is. You can show that you are a disciple of Jesus Christ and that you love Him."

That part was great, but none of the rest of the For the Strength of Youth was super helpful for what I was trying to figure out. Upon some further exploration of LDS.org, I found this entry (here):

I like this one a little better. Modesty is transfered from clothing choices to an "attitude," and behaviors.

Elaine S. Dalton said this in her talk Stay on the Path:

Virtue encompasses modesty—in thought, language, dress, and demeanor ... When we are modest, we show others that we understand our relationship with our Father in Heaven as His daughters. We demonstrate that we love Him and that we will stand as a witness of Him in all things. Being modest lets others know that we “cherish virtue” (“Dearest Children, God Is Near You,” Hymns, no. 96). Modesty is not a matter of being “hip.” It is a matter of the heart and being holy. It is not about being fashionable. It is about being faithful. It is not about being cool. It is about being chaste and keeping covenants. It is not about being popular, but about being pure.

This is a little more helpful in describing the attitudes, thoughts, and behavior. Essentially, what I get from this paragraph is that it is more important to have a relationship with Heavenly Father than to be popular, fashionable, etc. Modesty is about what is inside of you rather than what is outside of you.

So how do we figure that out? Telling us that modesty is an "attitude," "behavior," "thought," and "demeanor" isn't very specific. What thoughts are we supposed to be thinking? How exactly are we supposed to be behaving?

Behaviors of Modesty

So what are the behaviors of modesty? That's really not an easy question to answer. The definition of modesty outside of Christianity probably has something to do with being humble. But how do we have a demeanor of being humble without putting ourselves down all of the time?  

Here are a few answers that I've thought up. These are obviously not perfect and may not work for everyone, but I think they're a good start to answering this complicated question. 

1. Love yourself - We've all heard before that it's hard to love others if you don't love yourself first, but it's true! It's also difficult to take care of your body if you hate it. So much of our society and media today tries to tell you that you aren't good enough, that your body isn't perfect enough. Start working today to undo the harmful messages that are all around you. Try daily to think of parts of your body that you genuinely like. Stop buying magazines and comparing yourself to celebrities that spend hours a day working out and then are photoshopped in the pictures (check out Beauty Redefined to learn more about harmful media). Don't let yourself look in a mirror for entire day. Skip makeup.

2. Take care of yourself - You don't need to spend hours a day exercising and restricting yourself to an oppressive diet. But you should also take care of yourself physically. To me, all this means is maybe going out for a leisurely nature walk or trying to cut out fast food. It also means letting yourself relax and not get too stressed. Do some yoga or have a dance party with your friends. There can be good, helpful ways to maintain some healthy habits without making yourself unhappy. Also, eat the cake! If you want dessert, go reward yourself with some. Just make sure you don't binge eat on anything either - keep a healthy balance of eating good, supportive foods and fun, helpful exercise. Nap in the middle of the day if you feel like it. 

3. Love others - This one relates to #1. If you are constantly criticizing others around you, those thoughts are going to turn inwards. If you are worried about someone else's clothing, you're also going to start worrying about your own. That kind of poison doesn't leave you. It stays inside of you and hurts you. Mean thoughts towards others is also not Christlike in the least. How can you love and serve others if you're secretly calling them fat or slutty? Answer: YOU CAN'T! Next time you catch yourself criticizing someone else in your head, try to replace the thought with a positive one. Think about instead how their hair looks great, or how they're really good at making friends, or how talented they are. You don't have to go overboard and make yourself feel bad (because we're not comparing ourselves to others, right???), but you should try to banish the negative thoughts you have about others.

4. Be grateful - It's not always easy to be happy with what God gave us. All of us go through a terrible combination of puberty, high school, and more that make us dislike at least part of our bodies. But think about how remarkable we are. Our bodies are so miraculous and complex that scientists still haven't figured it all out - we still don't even know why bodies need sleep! And God created that all. When you pray at night, thank Heavenly Father for the individual amazing things your body does. Go outside and feel the sunlight on your skin. Lay with your eyes closed and pay attention to your breathing. I believe that an attitude of modesty is caring more about what your body DOES rather than how your body LOOKS. 

5. Be creative - There are so many awesome ways to make, recreate, recycle, or decorate clothing on Pinterest. I've got a million of them right here. Try a few of the ones that appeal to you. Learn how to sew or crochet or whatever. Learning a new skill will again help you to value what you can do over your appearance. Take pride in your work and wear it boldly. Personalize it to show off your unique personality. Even if you've made a mistake in your artwork, no one else will notice. Go up to people and brag about it (I don't mean really get in their face brag, but more like "hey look! I made this! I'm pretty proud of myself for making a goal and accomplishing it! Now I have this awesome product I love!"). Creating your own clothing pieces will allow you to make it as modest as you like it. You'll also begin to care less about the cost of clothing or the brand names. You can spend your extra money on more worthwhile things, like having fun with friends. You'll feel more comfortable, because your clothes will actually fit your size, unlike clothes at stores that are very hit or miss.

Those are my ideas, at least. I would love to hear if you have any great ideas for how you make modesty more spiritual! Please share your thoughts, comments, or questions below.

Mormon feminists and gender

So, I haven't written in a while, and I'm sorry about that. Things get crazy sometimes.

While you're here, check out THIS. It's a link to an interview I did with SLC feminist on MormonFeminist.org and being a Mormon feminist. Also, SLC feminist is an awesome blog run by an extremely cool person.

I wanted to talk about a problem/criticism I've been seeing a lot lately. Mostly, I've seen it in context with the idea of ordaining women (http://ordainwomen.org/). And it mainly comes from Mormons who don't understand what the purpose of Ordain Women is or what Mormon feminism is.

They seem to think that we want men and women to be exactly the same. I had an LDS woman (who will remain anonymous) recently say to me

"i think that there are specific qualities that Heavenly Father has blessed men and women with that compliment each other in their roles as family members. if He wanted one person to be able to make a family, He would have made one person. but He didn't, he made two different people that when together can make a family."

I've heard this a lot in various forms. Mostly commonly, I hear "equal does not mean exactly the same."

I'm not sure where this idea comes from that feminists want men and women to be exactly the same. I would say that I agree that equal does not mean exactly the same. Let's take the Civil Rights movement - everyone, no matter what color, was allowed to go to the same schools, have the same resources, have the same jobs, etc., but not every single person decided to make the same exact choices.

What feminists want is not for men and women to be exactly the same, but for society/religion/other outside influences to stop dictating what it is that men and women should be doing. For instance, in LDS culture, the man is the provider while the woman is the nurturer. LDS members who play into this idea usually believe that married couples are equal partners with very separate responsibilities.

Mormon feminists believe that men and women should not be forced into these very narrow roles. What about the men who want to be nurturers and the women who want to be providers? What about the women who do not feel like nurturing comes naturally to them, and vice versa?

I love the fact that I'm a woman. I love my breasts and curvy hips and vagina. I like not having a penis and testicles. I love the relationships I have with other women and the power I feel I have as a woman. I  hope to learn more about the spiritual nature of being a woman (of which I do believe growing a fetus inside of me can be a part). Because of my patriarchal blessing, I believe that my spirit has been anatomically female for as long as it has existed. I believe I will continue being anatomically female after I die (which is a very Mormon belief, I know).

I know that I have many talents, gifts, strengths, and weaknesses. But I also don't believe that any of those are inherently tied to my gender. I am not a good writer, friend, scholar, and leader because I am a woman - I am all of those things because I'm an individual human being. My husband has many of the same gifts and strengths as me, but also some very different ones. This is also not because he is a man, but because he is an individual. Together, we will make an awesome family because we do not see each other in categories, but as individuals.

So what Mormon feminists want is for you to stop saying that women are going to be better nurturers naturally while men are better providers naturally. Especially since this isn't always true. I myself do not feel comfortable around children at this point in my life. My husband, however, is great with kids, because he can make silly faces and do the funny voices. Telling me that I should be a natural nurturer is basically telling me that something is wrong with me. Which I don't believe.

We don't believe that men and women will morph into some androgynous or Barbie-doll-smooth-down-there mass if you get rid of gender roles. I don't think anybody wants that to happen.

We do believe that men and women will both benefit from the freedom of being able to make life and family choices based off of what their personal strengths and weaknesses are. And Mormon feminists do believe that it is important for couples to complement each other!

I understand that this idea might be confusing (and I'm not always the best at articulating, especially in a blog). Please, if you have any questions, feel free to comment below.

Thanks a bunch,
Ally