Challenging Assumptions about Modesty

[Ardent_Fire]

Both men and women have a shared responsibility about this. I guess I don’t see a beginning or ending there. I mean, of course women should dress modest and men should keep their inclinations in check, but the reverse is true, too. It’s not like men don’t have any responsibilities in dress or conduct, and women aren’t off the hook about their inclinations, either.

I guess I just see it as a matter of mutual respect.

 

[Godfollower]

Is any woman seriously going to file a complaint that Mike Pence or some other boss wouldn’t “meet alone” with her?

What possible benefit could there be to being alone with your boss? I can’t think of one.

I’ll grant you that it might not really matter now that he’s the Vice President; I don’t really know whether he or the President are ever truly alone. But, as for the principle of meeting alone with your boss . . . .

Let’s say you and I each discover that a coworker is mistreating another employee, or cheating on expense reports, or what have you. But it’s a powerful coworker. How do we tell our boss? I pop in, shut the door, and report the problem. If it’s a male boss who won’t meet with women alone, you have to have a witness to the fact that you reported the coworker. Or you have to report it in writing, which might tick off your boss (or publicly, which should tick off your boss).

Some projects are confidential, even to the point of not discussing them with co-workers (granted, not necessarily in every industry; but it’s true of many). I can have off-the-cuff discussions with our boss about such projects; you can’t (again, under the Pence paradigm).

I have no idea how Pence handled confidential annual reviews of female employees. Maybe he just didn’t have any?

You have to have someone there when you go in to tell the boss that you won’t be at the annual fill-in-the-blank because that’s your due date. I can just walk and say I’m preg… Wait. Okay, bad example.

In the last year I’ve probably had four or five dozen closed-door, one-on-one meetings with my opposite-gender boss. The door was closed for a reason, and my point is that I get to have them and women working for men who won’t do that don’t.

The truly important meetings with your boss behind closed doors are the ones where your future gets discussed. If you and I both work for Pence, I get more of those meetings than you do. And studies have shown that that means I get better assignments, raises, promotions, references, etc.

 

[Elf01]

Tis_Bearself:

Is any woman seriously going to file a complaint that Mike Pence or some other boss wouldn’t “meet alone” with her?

What possible benefit could there be to being alone with your boss? I can’t think of one.

I’ll grant you that it might not really matter now that he’s the Vice President; I don’t really know whether he or the President are ever truly alone. But, as for the principle of meeting alone with your boss . . . .

Let’s say you and I each discover that a coworker is mistreating another employee, or cheating on expense reports, or what have you. But it’s a powerful coworker. How do we tell our boss? I pop in, shut the door, and report the problem. If it’s a male boss who won’t meet with women alone, you have to have a witness to the fact that you reported the coworker. Or you have to report it in writing, which might tick off your boss (or publicly, which should tick off your boss).

Some projects are confidential, even to the point of not discussing them with co-workers (granted, not necessarily in every industry; but it’s true of many). I can have off-the-cuff discussions with our boss about such projects; you can’t (again, under the Pence paradigm).

I have no idea how Pence handled confidential annual reviews of female employees. Maybe he just didn’t have any?

You have to have someone there when you go in to tell the boss that you won’t be at the annual fill-in-the-blank because that’s your due date. I can just walk and say I’m preg… Wait. Okay, bad example.

In the last year I’ve probably had four or five dozen closed-door, one-on-one meetings with my opposite-gender boss. The door was closed for a reason, and my point is that I get to have them and women working for men who won’t do that don’t.

The truly important meetings with your boss behind closed doors are the ones where your future gets discussed. If you and I both work for Pence, I get more of those meetings than you do. And studies have shown that that means I get better assignments, raises, promotions, references, etc.

The famous 'Billy Graham rule' that US Vice President Mike Pence still follows

A variation of the resolution is famously followed by US Vice President Mike Pence

www.independent.co.uk

My understanding is that Mike Pence will meet alone with a woman but not dine out with one or consume alcohol without his wife. Sounds reasonable to me. A female employee can meet with him but not over lunch/dinner.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Annual reviews and a lot of the other things you mention can be done by phone or Skype or in a public-yet-secluded place (meet for lunch in a public restaurant away from the office).

I find it unusual that you have all these “closed door meetings”. My current workplace is huge, barely has any offices with doors (it’s mostly open workspaces to foster collaboration, including for executives) and in addition, the few rooms with doors tend to have all glass walls so you can see who’s in the room and what’s going on. We do almost everything by Skype anyway.

I predict the closed-door meeting will eventually go the way of the confessional without a window in the door. Just too much risk.

 

[Godfollower]

If you want to get rid of the closed-door meetings entirely, that’s perfectly fine. What I’m saying is that it is wrong to have them with men but not with women.

(Side note: I dictated that last paragraph, and the software wrote “clothed-duration” rather than “closed-door” — that could’ve been awkward).

 

[semper_catholicus]

@(name removed by moderator)

 

[blackforest]

I don’t know if even answering the question makes sense. Sexual abuse and sexual harassment is NEVER justified, no matter what the woman wears.

I don’t think anyone went so far as to make THAT argument. They did, on multiple occasions, suggest that women should dress “modestly” in order to prevent men from straying. (I’ll concede, however, that this idea DOES create a dangerous slippery slope for justifying harassment and rape).

Nobody will define what “modest” looks like to them, however, as they never answered my questions in the OP.

I think the thread topic is an interesting one because it raises the broader theological question of how much we are entitled to blame someone else when we stray and sin.

 

[Jehu2077]

Of course a man is always personally responsible for his own thoughts and actions (not getting into the definition of consent of the will be). However, being a Christian Woman, are you aiding your brothers in Christ who struggle with pornography addiction and lust (conservative estimates range at close to 75% of Catholics/ Christian men who are willing to admit that they have a problem) by wearing bikinis, daisy dukes, or low cut shirts? Modesty is a social construct to a point, true, but immodesty at a certain point is universal.
And if there is no value to modesty, why does the Holy Father have such a strict dress code for his audiences with women? Why do religious sisters take such pains to appear as modestly as possible (certainly not arguing that all women must dress like religious)? Why does Paul speak of it in his letters? As a man I am responsible for policing my thoughts, but I thank God for my sister’s in Christ who make that job just a little easier.

 

[Theo2]

Knowing that “modesty” is a cultural construct, precisely how should this woman dress?

I have no idea. Both men and women have a responsibility to dress and act appropriately and not temp others. God made the female body to appeal to men so they, the women, can find a suitable partner to marry and fertilize her eggs. Sorry to be blunt but that is what it is all about.
Men on the other hand are always ready to mate but with proper discipline can wait for marriage. I did. It is not impossible. My 4th grade teacher taught us modesty of the eyes. I wish all men were taught that.
Ted

 

[blackforest]

Men on the other hand are always ready to mate but with proper discipline can wait for marriage.

Women are capable of intense sexual desire and temptation, too. I’m sure you’re well aware of that, but that factor just gets left out of the conversation often.

My 4th grade teacher taught us modesty of the eyes. I wish all men were taught that.

I absolutely agree!

 

[twf]

Side note - I was shocked when Vice President Pence said he never meets with a woman alone, as the temptation to commit adultery would be too great. He won’t drink alcohol near a woman without his wife. This INCLUDES treating his staff members differently if they are female. I mean, people actually gave him CREDIT for this. To me, this is unbelievably sexist.

Yeah, the idea that men just can’t help themselves… in this case, I think a lot of it is traditional Evangelical conditioning. I was raised conservative Evangelical (converted to Catholicism in late high school). My mom was 19 when she married my dad and my dad was in his early 20s. They never really engaged the opposite sex as “just friends” while single young adults - didn’t have that chance. When I was in my 20s and single, I remember my mom in particular always struggling to accept that my close women friends were 100%, really truly “just friends” and no matter how much time we spent with each other, alone or otherwise, nothing romantic or sexual was on the books…

 

[edwest]

That is the best answer. Just being male is the issue. The current slogan: “I have seen the future and it is female.”

 

[_ServusDomini]

I wonder if he does this because he’s afraid of doing something or because he’s afraid of being accused of something.

 

[Elf01]

I wonder if he does this because he’s afraid of doing something or because he’s afraid of being accused of something.

A bit of both I’d imagine.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Pence wasn’t raised Evangelical. He was brought up Catholic and his relatives are still Catholic. He converted as an adult.
He may be saying things that appeal to traditional Evangelical belief, but it’s an act.

 

[Elizabeth3]

I often hear it argued on CAF that women are morally responsible to dress modestly in order to accommodate men and keep their male proclivities for lust in check.

Women and men are responsible to dress modestly to reflect that they are made in the image of God. This means they shouldn’t reduce themselves to just their bodies or just the amount of bling they adorn themselves with because this isn’t where their dignity and value as a human person comes from. We also have to acknowledge that we live in a fallen world in which we are all prone to sin in various degrees and no matter what the sin may be, we do have a responsibility to help each other by not willingly and consciously intending to be a source of temptation.

I’ll state up front that I find the notion absurd.

It IS absurd if a woman thinks she has to wake up everyday and question everything she puts on through the lens of whether a man might lust over it or not. The thought she puts into what she wears should be considered in light of the activities she has planned, the place(s) she intends to go, the cleanliness and neatness of the items, etc. To be modest would be to dress in a way that is appropriate to all of these considerations and, of course, considering fashion and culture as well. In considering these last two, they still require further discernment for the Christian woman in ensuring the message those items send aren’t about getting undue attention in the way of sexiness, material status, trying to cause shock/get a rise out of others by it’s outlandishness, or to invoke jealousy or envy etc.

In a situation calling for 'lust control," where do her responsibilities end and yours begin?

Her responsibilities end when she fulfills the above explanation. The man’s responsibilities as far as his actions in response to either a modestly or unmodestly dressed woman begins with understanding his particular weaknesses, cultivating his relationship with and love for God, and working to attain self-mastery by constant vigilance in rooting out sin.

 

[semper_catholicus]

Women have an obligation to dress modestly for the sake of the virtue of modesty. The same goes for men.

If a man lusts after a woman who is immodestly dressed, she partly shares culpability (not subtracting from the culpability of the man.)

 

[chessnerd321]

I think this is a pretty complicated issue but I’ll lay out my opinion briefly.

First, it’s not an either or. I think people are absolutely always responsible for their lust. I don’t think that means other people are free to act and/or dress as suggestively as they want.

You make a good point that modesty is realitive. And I do think it changes based on time and culture. I think our unfortunately sexualized and porn addicted culture make us quite deadened compared to our ancestors.

I think a decent standard then is if you’re doing or wearing something to be sexually attractive, not just beautiful, but sexually attractive then you’re in the wrong. I think a lot of women get a rush from that sort of attention or use it as a means to get something else from men. I think that’s clearly wrong.

Clearly people can’t go about naked, but there’s a lot of grey area. And I think it’s best to leave it up to the woman to judge her own intentions in those situations.

That said, I think if a man asks a woman he has to see a lot, like a girlfriend or other female friend who’s around a lot, that something she does makes his purity harder on him, then the charitable thing is to change your behavior to the best of your ability around that guy.

 

[Godfollower]

If a man lusts after a woman who is immodestly dressed, she partly shares culpability (not subtracting from the culpability of the man.)

The way you put this, she only sins if he does — making her guilty of his sin. That doesn’t make any sense.

If a woman walks outside in her underwear, she is culpable of bad taste, unwisdom (sorry about inventing a word there), and maybe a venial sin for “flaunting it” (whatever that means under the circumstances). But the man lusting over her is solely responsible for his sin.

Otherwise we need to change the Scripture:

You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, she hath already committed adultery with him in her heart.

 

[Theo2]

Women are capable of intense sexual desire and temptation, too. I’m sure you’re well aware of that, but that factor just gets left out of the conversation often.

Not really. Happily girls have not thrown themselves at me but I know it happens. My defenses would have cast off any attempts unless I was drinking or somehow compromised.