There’s been much ado lately in the media, Bloggernacle, (also here here, here, here and a whole bunch of other places as well) and even Facebook about Mormon Feminists calling for women to wear pants to Church on Sunday, 12/16/12, (hereinafter Pants’ Sunday). Now, in the Mormon tradition and culture, women traditionally have worn dresses or skirts to Church on Sundays; however, there is no formal dress code in place, and the institutional Church does not have or enforce such a dress code. Now, the point of Pants’ Sunday is to focus attention on the inequality of women in the Church, which I readily admit exists, just as it does throughout the entire world (recall how they treat their women in the Middle East?). The Mormon Church is not unique in its discrimination against women–or better stated in its unequal treatment of women. For example, women cannot be ordained to the Mormon Priesthood. They cannot function at the highest levels of policy making authority in the Church because of this. And, for many years, what I like to call Mormon myths, or Mormon folklore, actually implemented in practice, did not allow women to pray formally in Church meetings on Sunday, give talks, or officiate in the ordinances and sacraments of the Church.
Peggy Fletcher Stack of the Salt Lake Tribune has an article, just posted to the Tribune website, and is worth the read:
The event is intended as the first act of All Enlist, a group dedicated to gender equality in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
“We do not seek to eradicate the differences between women and men, but we do want the LDS Church to acknowledge the similarities,” the group’s mission statement says. “We believe that much of the cultural, structural, and even doctrinal inequality that persists in the LDS Church today stems from the church’s reliance on — and enforcement of — rigid gender roles that bear no relationship to reality.”
Within hours, the page had hundreds of commitments to participate, and even more hostile comments. Critics questioned the organizers’ motives, their spirituality, their loyalty to the faith. A second group posted its own, opposing event: “Wear Skirts to Church Day.”
I am sympathetic to the cause, i.e., more equal treatment of women in the Church. And, in the Mormon Church there always remains a real possibility that the equalization of women could become a De Jure practice, given the Church’s fundamental, and foundational bedrock principle—continuing revelation. Our history demonstrates not only the capacity for change, but the actuality of change, in core doctrine or practices. The prime examples would be ending the practice of polygamy, and extending the male Mormon Priesthood to all worthy males, regardless of race. I, and millions of others would welcome such revelation in the future enlarging the role of women in the institutional Church.
That said, my problem with the current movement (if wearing pants to Church can be considered such) is wrapping itself in the cloth of “civil disobedience.” I’m sorry, but I just don’t think wearing pants to Church is a form of civil disobedience. Nor is it similar (even remotely) to those persons of color who in the 1960’s refused to be segregated in their transportation, their schools, the lodging, and in the most fundamental of constitutional rights, to vote. Nor, will the consequences of wearing pants on Sunday be similar (even remotely) to those pioneers of the Civil Rights Movement who rode freedom buses in the heart of the racist south, and were met not with rhetorical fire hoses, attack dogs, and nooses, but the real thing.
Of course, the other major difference is the very concept of civil disobedience itself. The great disobedience movements in history, at least two of the greatest, Ghandi, and Independence in India, and the American Civil Rights movement, headed by Dr. King and others fought against legalized government oppression, bigotry, and discrimination enshrined in law. Not to trivialize Pants’ Sunday, but wearing pants to protest a rule that doesn’t exist, by a religious (and not governmental) organization that doesn’t even enforce the non-existent rule—-well, it’s just not the same thing.
All that said, from what I have read there have been some very ugly responses to this harmless, benign proposal of Pants’ Sunday, including threats or a discussion of violence. One of the Facebook pages devoted to Pants’ Sunday got so nasty that it was shut down–not certain whether that was a Facebook move or by the administrators of that particular page or group. Regardless of your position on Pants’ Sunday, ugly and derogatory responses including threats or even just a discussion of violence is beyond the pale and indefensible. There is simply no room for that type of discussion in the community of Saints no matter what your theological leanings.
I wish my Feminist Sisters and Brothers well on Sunday–and beyond for that matter. I hope there are positive results (whatever they might be) from this exercise. While I’m not certain there will be any significant changes from Pants’ Sunday, certainly those who want to participate ought to be able to do so without the ugly response from some who have responded in Facebook and other Internet venues. Hey–I may even join you this week . . .
Worth the read:
Ronan: Less than 1200 words on pants;
Jacob: Women Wearing Pants At Church;
Joanna: Why Mormon Women Are Wearing Pants To Church This Sunday;
Washington Post: Mormon Women Wearing Pants Love The Gospel
December 14, 2012 at 7:24 am
Well said, Guy. I’m personally sort of amused by the “pants protest,” but the vitriol flung at these women–including death threats–is truly shocking.
BTW, Facebook shut the page down, not the administrators. The administrators are trying to resolve the situation with Facebook. It appears that the page was taken down because multiple users complained that it was “inapproppriate.” One would assume these were misguided, self-proclaimed “defenders of the kingdom,” but who knows?
December 14, 2012 at 7:32 am
Nick,
Yeah, I agree with you on the F.B. page. The only thing inappropriate about it would have been some of the mean and vicious comments by those who believe they are defenders, but in truth rather “offenders” for a word . . .
December 14, 2012 at 7:28 am
It was shut down by the administration, who I believe was persuaded to the understanding that the entire, ENTIRE and ONLY purpose of the issue is to increase contention in the Church.
December 14, 2012 at 7:34 am
Who exactly are those propagating “contention” in the Church? Certainly not those who want to wear pants to Church. I wear pants to Church . .
December 14, 2012 at 7:29 am
Ah, you’re talking about the original pro-pants page, not the anti-pants page. The first was indeed shut down by Facebook, the second by the page’s administer.
December 14, 2012 at 7:29 am
*administrator, rather.
December 14, 2012 at 8:43 am
Perhaps if there is a movement for women to wear pants, then we should see a movement for men to be able to wear kilts and other finery as well?
Oh look, my brain is turning again.
December 14, 2012 at 10:49 am
Better, Still, Still–would be a movement away from judging what people wear when they come to worship God . . .
December 14, 2012 at 8:46 am
“Not to trivialize Pants’ Sunday, but wearing pants to protest a rule that doesn’t exist, by a religious (and not governmental) organization that doesn’t even enforce the non-existent rule—-well, it’s just not the same thing.”
Thank you, Guy, for saying so succinctly what I feel about this issue. Would you mind if I quoted you on this?
December 14, 2012 at 10:48 am
Quote away . . .
December 14, 2012 at 11:12 am
Wow, this post is the closest thing yet to getting me to join in. My ONLY exposure to this issue is on the bloggernacle and the invitation from obsessive feminists to join in left me cold.
Suddenly, your misplaced insistence that it isn’t civil disobedience clarified it for me. Even though I know it isn’t a rule, I truly could not imagine wearing pants to church on Sunday.
Which is exactly what perhaps makes this brilliant.
I think about feminism and women’s issues a lot. I am somewhat feminist but I don’t like feminism complaining or attacking the church. I don’t want ostracized or unbelieving members to insist that their way is the only way which is what I first felt like the Pants Sunday was about. But if comment #6 is quoting this post because they just don’t get why breaking a non-enforced non-existent rule is such a big deal I think we should be talking about why it is a big deal even though it shouldn’t be.
While I would never hurl an insult in person or online, I wonder if this week will change me. Last week I probably felt like if I personally wore pants to church it was a statement of me saying that I do not believe in the church and I reject my religion. While I would not assign those motives to other pant wearing women, that is what it would have meant if I wore pants (unless I was camping).
This is fascinating to think about. I don’t want to be someone with messed up priorities, and having moved around a lot I tend to think of myself as objective when it comes to culture.
But the absoluteness about wearing skirts to church suddenly seems out of proportion but I can’t help it. Wearing skirts and dresses is so ingrained and linked to righteousness I think we would end up eventually like the Amish or Mennonite groups that stay in the dress code of a past century even without an official rule.
Fascinating.
December 14, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Not exactly certain what you are trying to say jks–but my only point really is that whatever Pants’ Sunday is or might be–what it is not, is civil disobedience as that phrase is generally understood. Many promoting Pants’ Sunday are wrapping themselves in the cloak of civil disobedience and that’s just not an accurate comparison.
I don’t have any problem with people wearing pants or skirts or whatever other attire they have to worship. I’m generally supportive of the goals of more equal treatment of women in the Church. If this activity might help–great. It’s just not civil disobedience–that’s it . .
December 14, 2012 at 5:04 pm
Sorry I am unable to explain it properly.
December 14, 2012 at 11:47 am
What concerns me is that because of the huge backlash, it will only reinforce the feelings of the brethern at the top that women really don’t want change and are happy with the current system.
December 30, 2012 at 7:27 am
Guy, of course you’re sypathetic to this cause. It seems you have sympathy and compassion in all the places where public display of same is what counts.
I’m not sure you’d sympathize with this — I was personally hoping that some women would decide to wear NO pants to Church. To me, that might be an exciting cause. But perhaps somewhat beyond the original intentions. 🙂
To be perfectly honest, I’m way beyond getting very excited about womens clothing or lack thereof. With the medical experiences I have had over the past five year, there is not a shred of false modesty left in my ravaged wreck of a body. And complaints that the Church is somehow lacking in the proper respect for women seems rather hyperbolic, perhaps even meaningless, in the context of the Gospel and how we regard people. I say people, because I believe in the idea that we are brothers and sisters, and are already serving on equal grounds.
Put on your pants protest, if you’d like. I couldn’t care less. Too busy with home teaching, I guess.
December 30, 2012 at 7:30 am
Guy, how can wearing pants to church constitute some kind of “civil disobedience” if there is nothing to “disobey”? Your attempt to reason this out just confuses me, whereas before I simply felt there was no reason to care.
December 30, 2012 at 10:58 am
Guy, a minor question occurs to me, after I consider your blog entry further. What exactly is the difference between civil disobedience and civil unrest, and just plain anarchic lawless mob rioting?
My niece Bessy lived in South Africa for a while. They had some real problems there, even in the Church. As far as I know, they still do. Even after Nelson Mandella and supposed ending of aparthied rule.
When I was growing up, in LA, there were a number of riots among the black population. At the time, I asked myself what would make people, who among other things were complaining about being hungry and unemployed, burn down and loot their own neighborhood grocery stores? Since then I’ve even circulated among blacks, in their own ghetto neighborhoods and wondered out loud about such a curiousity. Never had a satisfying answer, that I can recall. Now, many of them in those same neighborhoods complain about having to travel long distances to get to the nearest grocery store.
January 5, 2013 at 10:45 am
Wow, what a straw man you set up. It’s creative, but I’m pretty sure that Stephanie Lauritzen would agree with you that “pants” day is not as important as the civil disobedience that helped revolutionize this country, India, the Middle East etc. But comparing the two and then dismissing pants day because the underlying issue is not as important? Yes a society based on racism (the south) dictatorships (Middle East), Imperialism (India), should be overturn. I agree that they should be and I agree that civil disobedience should definitely be used in those cases. But using the straw man to prove your point? Shame on you. Shame on you.
Yes, the real war on women is happening in the Middle East and to a lesser extent in other developing Countries. I absolutely agree with you there. I think that I really do have it great but…..
Personally, from what I’ve read from Stephanie and other women, the wearing of pants was to show solidarity to those women who feel infringed. The whole civil disobedience thing? Well, it got people talking, that’s for sure. I’m glad that you are sympathetic to the cause as a Caucasian Male in the church and you recognize the problem. Personally, I’m not as bothered by it as many women, including Stephanie. However, I think they have a valid place. Stephanie and quite a few other “feminist” LDS women and many LDS “intellectuals” have left because they feel abandoned. That being said, maybe they have just as much of a voice as you and I. There’s a reason they did something that is so profoundly “wrong” to many Latter Day Saints. To dismiss their “injustice” as not being on par with other injustices seems like a straw man to me.
Personally, I thought the pants movement was going too far, and wasn’t so sure about it, but after reading about all the outcry towards the women who had such nerve to wear pants to church…I became a bit of a supporter. I do not feel as infringed as many of the other women, but I do understand where they are coming from, and I do want the church to be a place where all feel welcome.
You and I may disagree about when to use Civil Disobedience, but keep in mind that you are a middleaged Caucasian Male in this Church. Maybe, just maybe civil disobedience in this instance was understandable for these women to use civil disobedience to let their voice heard. Maybe it wasn’t inappropriate, or maybe it wasn’t…..but maybe we should listen before dismissing them while using a straw man logical fallacy.
January 5, 2013 at 10:46 am
Happy New Year by the way. 😉