Where does extreme clothing modesty come from?

[KayMS]

Lisa N:

I am not sure of your point.

My point was exactly what you said, instinctive modesty is based on cultural indoctrination.
Lisa N:

Sleeves…You must be joking right?

I was merely pointing out the fallacy in the argument by highlighting the other conclusion that must be drawn if the reasoning is not to draw lines with the cut of your garment to areas requiring coverage. The argument would hold true for men as well and would thus require that they once again take up wearing kilts, tunics or robes.
Lisa N:

Since when has sound reasoning been responsible for fashion?

That comment was not about fashion, but about determining proper levels of modesty as opposed to the illogic of legalism.

 

[fix]

DavidB:

But to hear people who call themselves Christian actually criticize modesty shows how far from Jesus’ standards we’ve fallen. I would rather be accused of having a holier-than-thou attitude than be full of sin and not even aware of it, which is the state of our culture today. And much of the Church has gone along with it, to our shame.

David

Yes. Modesty is unknown to too many. It is hard for me to understand that so many can’t see the immodesty that has taken hold of fasions in this culture. This is not to mention the diminishing of gender identity that happens in the way we dress and the way we act.

 

[KayMS]

Lisa N:

Also consider the effect of climate.

I forgot to mention that clothing serves three purposes: protection, modesty, and decoration and are variously defined. I was confining my points to the issues of instinctive modesty as related to clothing and the issue of extreme modesty (or legalism).

 

[otm]

KayMS:

No, that is a fallacy. The virtues employed would be humility, meekness and modesty - which are subvirtues of the cardinal virtue of temperance; and charity, one of the theological virtue. The cardinal virtues are practiced to counter the capital sins and to counter vice; therefore, to imply that femininity is a virtue would be to imply that it is the counter practice to a vice. What would be the vice of femininity, masculinity? That would make all men in error since the virtues are for all people to practice, not just one gender. Femininity is not a virtue.

No, the vice would be attempted masculinty - e.g. bull dyke.

 

[otm]

Lisa N:

Since when has sound reasoning been responsible for fashion?

Lisa N

I am sure glad you said that and not me!

 

[KayMS]

otm:

No, the vice would be attempted masculinty - e.g. bull dyke.

Being a lesbian is a sexual disorder, which only becomes sinful if acted upon. It really has nothing to do with how feminine or masculine one behaves or dresses. There are lesbians who are very feminine, even modest in dress, just as there are gay men who are very masculine and modest in dress. One must be careful of ranking women (or men for the contrary reason) into categories deemed sinful based on the degree of feminine dress or mannerisms they employ especially since that is not what makes a person a homosexual. While it goes without saying that homosexuals can abuse clothing for immoral reasons, so too can heterosexuals. The problem lies not in the clothing but in the behavior and attitude of the person.

otm:

Originally Posted by Lisa N

Since when has sound reasoning been responsible for fashion?

I am sure glad you said that and not me!

As for that comment, while I was talking about reasoned arguments (rather than legalism) in determining modest dress in the prevailing fashions, those who support the push for modest clothing believe moral people should strive for sound reasoning in fashion. I would hate to think Pope Pius XII was not concerned with striving for this goal when he troubled himself to address the congress of the Latin Union of High Fashion. He said (my emphasis added),

“Modesty makes man hear its warning, like a forward sentinel, from the moment he acquires the use of reason…It is therefore just that modesty, as the depository of such precious possessions, should claim for itself an authority prevailing over every other tendency and every caprice, and should preside over the determination of fashions in clothing.”

 

[chevalier]

Caution. Much of it depends on who’s looking, how and what is the reasonable expectation of a certain reaction. While a bikini might be appropriate for a beach party with friends in some settings, I doubt a mini skirt with heels would be a good idea to wear for a female social worker or visitor in a male prison or a naval vessel deployed somewhere in the middle of nowhere for several consecutive months. It would probably be uncharitable as much as immodest, anyway.

 

[KayMS]

chevalier:

Caution. Much of it depends on who’s looking, how and what is the reasonable expectation of a certain reaction.

You are correct. I did not clarify well what I meant. I should have said if modest dress is maintained the problem lies not in the clothing but in the behavior and attitude of the person. For example, frequently very devout women wearing modest pants are often regarded by the extreme modesty proponents as not modest at all because of their “masculinized” dress - as if clothes (natural aspect of modesty) are more important than the disposition (supernatural aspect of modesty).

One article I read of an “extreme modesty” nature highlighted the differences in feminine dress by praising the “tasteful” clothing of a woman rallying to legalize divorce while condemning the causual “masculinized,” though modest, pants of women protesting against pedophylia. Sadly, it should NOT have been dress that was compared but attitudes! Class distinctions and modes of modest dress (as I pointed out, they will say pants are immodest just because they are pants) should never take precedence over insidious evil! Divorce and pedophylia are both wrong and good Catholics should always protest error, never rally for them no matter how “well-dressed” they may be. The author, while noting the error of the “well-dressed” woman and the good deeds of the casually dressed women, revealed what extreme modesty proponents will push to the side to make their point about what they think constitutes modest and immodest dress.

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

KayMS:

For example, frequently very devout women wearing modest pants are often regarded by the extreme modesty proponents as not modest at all because of their “masculinized” dress - as if clothes (natural aspect of modesty) are more important than the disposition (supernatural aspect of modesty).

I agree with this. And trousers don’t necessarily make for a “masculinized” appearance, anyway. I’m wearing trousers right now (and I have short hair), but I hardly think anyone would take me for a man. The little flowers printed all over my shirt and the lace trim on the neckline sort of give me away.

Regarding blurring of gender distinctions, I’m just not sure it’s all that important for me to look feminine when I’m doing something like reseeding the lawn or crack-sealing the driveway.

 

[KayMS]

CarolAnnSFO:

Regarding blurring of gender distinctions, I’m just not sure it’s all that important for me to look feminine when I’m doing something like reseeding the lawn or crack-sealing the driveway.

LOL Some would say that is not woman’s work but washing laundry on the rocks in the river, as women did long ago, could be compared to crack-sealing the driveway! I do not think those women were worried about being all dolled up for house(river)work either! What you see in fashion catalogs is usually what the upper crust of society wore - you know, women with servants, nannies, etc. The peasantry dressed very differently from what is now popularly shown as period dress. For example, it was rare indeed to find a farmer’s wife or his older daughters still living at home who owned corsets when corsets were popular fashion!

 

[Lisa_N]

KayMS:

LOL Some would say that is not woman’s work but washing laundry on the rocks in the river, as women did long ago, could be compared to crack-sealing the driveway! I do not think those women were worried about being all dolled up for house(river)work either! What you see in fashion catalogs is usually what the upper crust of society wore - you know, women with servants, nannies, etc. The peasantry dressed very differently from what is now popularly shown as period dress. For example, it was rare indeed to find a farmer’s wife or his older daughters still living at home who owned corsets when corsets were popular fashion!

Beg to differ with you. My grandmother was a farmer’s wife. They had hundreds of acres in green beans, raised chickens and turkeys, and always had several milk cows. My grandmother did EVERYTHING in a dress, complete with stockings and a girdle. She used to lament the invention of pantyhose that she said were “too hot” because girdles and stockings became very difficult to find. FWIW she didn’t wash clothes on a rock but did have an old wringer washer and clothes were dried on the line outside.

Her sisters and mom also wore dresses every day of their lives. I don’t think it was a matter of modesty. Hard to stay modest with a milk pail between your knees although only the cows observed…

Curious KayMS you seem to take this modesty thing very seriously, calling it ‘legalism.’ Honestly I can’t imagine even worrying about it that much. If someone’s religion or personal philopsophy means they dress very modestly in comparison with the rest of the folks they encounter, well so what? Maybe I just don’t understand your perspective?

Lisa N

 

[KayMS]

Lisa N:

My grandmother did EVERYTHING in a dress, complete with stockings and a girdle.

I did not say the lower class women did not wear dresses, I said they did not own corsets. This was because corsets restricted movement and were expensive. The upper crust women had to have them in spite of the limitations a corset imposed on the body or the cost it required to own one simply to look fashionable.

I also never said modesty was legalism. Extreme modesty dictated as an absolute standard is legalism.

I happen to take modesty seriously and am rather passionate about the topic as Catholics ARE called to be modest but people cannot dictate their personal standards as if they are the Church’s universal standards. There is a rather wide margin of modest dress achievable to allow for people with varing spiritual needs or cultural norms or states in life to practice modesty. This thread is not about modesty in general, however, it is about extreme modesty. If extreme clothing modesty is a personal choice, that is fine, but there are a good number of women who think extreme clothing modesty should be the minimum norm for all women. The Church does not teach this. Those who have take up such an attitude have take a position of religious intolerance, or an “all are wrong save those who fit my personal definition.” To force a severely strict mode of dress on a person who has not the grace to live it properly is legalism because someone has concentrated too heavily on the external application while practically disregarding the virtuous aspect.

If my passion for the topic is irritating for others, I am all too happy to bow out of this thread.

 

[fix]

In this culture one would be hard pressed to prove extremism in modesty is a major problem. The exact opposite is the authentic problem that being extreme immodesty.

 

[Lisa_N]

KayMS:

I did not say the lower class women did not wear dresses, I said they did not own corsets. This was because corsets restricted movement and were expensive. The upper crust women had to have them in spite of the limitations a corset imposed on the body or the cost it required to own one simply to look fashionable…

Actually I was referring to your comment about FARMER’S wives, not ‘lower class’ women. Believe me, my grandmother was VERY active, girdle and all. As I said my grandparents had acres in beans, flowers, they raised chickens, and had milk cows. My grandmother did everything from milking the cows to cooking for the farm hands—in a dress, girdle and stockings. Again it wasn’t modesty but just what she believed was appropriate for women.

KayMS:

I also never said modesty was legalism. Extreme modesty dictated as an absolute standard is legalism…

Honestly curious where you find this to be the case. Are you talking about somewhere in the US or do you mean Afghanistan during Taliban days? Frankly as Fix mentioned, modesty, much less extreme modesty is not much in evidence in this country. There have been many threads on people’s dismay with what is worn to mass—revealing blouses, short skirts or shorts etc.

KayMS:

I happen to take modesty seriously and am rather passionate about the topic as Catholics ARE called to be modest but people cannot dictate their personal standards as if they are the Church’s universal standards. There is a rather wide margin of modest dress achievable to allow for people with varing spiritual needs or cultural norms or states in life to practice modesty. This thread is not about modesty in general, however, it is about extreme modesty. If extreme clothing modesty is a personal choice, that is fine, but there are a good number of women who think extreme clothing modesty should be the minimum norm for all women. The Church does not teach this. Those who have take up such an attitude have take a position of religious intolerance, or an “all are wrong save those who fit my personal definition.” To force a severely strict mode of dress on a person who has not the grace to live it properly is legalism because someone has concentrated too heavily on the external application while practically disregarding the virtuous aspect.

If my passion for the topic is irritating for others, I am all too happy to bow out of this thread.

Again it’s not irritating just IMO very curious. I simply do not see the slightest evidence that extreme modesty in the Catholic church or on the street or in the workplace is a problem here. In fact the opposite is true as we see way too much skin in many cases.

So again, do you think this is a real issue and where in the US do you find it an issue? I agree some middle eastern countries have strict dress requirements but I don’t see that much here.

Lisa N

 

[KayMS]

fix:

In this culture one would be hard pressed to prove extremism in modesty is a major problem. The exact opposite is the authentic problem that being extreme immodesty.

I agree with you entirely. The greater problem in society is extreme immodesty but extreme modesty is becoming a problem for Catholics searching for the Truth. I will tell you why. Having read all the Catholic modesty literature available, I have noted the majority of the literature was written by the extreme modesty sort from people who frequent SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, sedevacantist, independent and those sorts of chapels. While this literature and extreme “philosophy” stayed within those circles for years, it is now making inroads into the regular Catholic market. Since the larger problem in society and with Catholics is immodesty, that means most Catholics are not properly catechized in the virtue and they will all too easily adopt the extreme position, since that is where most of the literature originates, under the false assumption that it is the correct Church position. There is only ONE Catholic modesty book in publication that was written by someone who referenced *only *licit, non-excommunicate, non-banned, authentic, verifiable sources - that was the booklet written by Msgr. Charles Mangan called Modesty in Dress: A Return to Decency. There are a number of good articles on the web but many articles are from the extreme position.

 

[KayMS]

Lisa:

So again, do you think this is a real issue and where in the US do you find it an issue? I agree some middle eastern countries have strict dress requirements but I don’t see that much here.

Lisa,

I did not see your question until after I made my post. The problem arises mostly in traditional Catholic circles. The average Catholic will not encounter it but a danger now exists for the average Catholic as a very popular book hit the regular Catholic market within the last year that took its lead from the position of the extreme side.

Farmers were considered to be in the lower class of society (the working class) not meaning they were “scum” but, in a non-egalitarian society, typically laborers.

 

[fix]

KayMS:

I agree with you entirely. The greater problem in society is extreme immodesty but extreme modesty is becoming a problem for Catholics searching for the Truth. I will tell you why. Having read all the Catholic modesty literature available, I have noted the majority of the literature was written by the extreme modesty sort from people who frequent SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, sedevacantist, independent and those sorts of chapels. While this literature and extreme “philosophy” stayed within those circles for years, it is now making inroads into the regular Catholic market. Since the larger problem in society and with Catholics is immodesty, that means most Catholics are not properly catechized in the virtue and they will all too easily adopt the extreme position, since that is where most of the literature originates, under the false assumption that it is the correct Church position. There is only ONE Catholic modesty book in publication that was written by someone who referenced *only *licit, non-excommunicate, non-banned, authentic, verifiable sources - that was the booklet written by Msgr. Charles Mangan called Modesty in Dress: A Return to Decency. There are a number of good articles on the web but many articles are from the extreme position.

Yes, I admit you may have a point. It seems you are calling for more information to be available to orthodox Catholics that is not tinged by radical traditionalists?

I have read much of the modesty literature and I do not find it to be as extreme as you say. Now, I may not have analysed it the degree you have, but I think much of it has truth to it. The source may be questionable in some cases, but that does not invalidate their assertions.

 

[Lisa_N]

KayMS:

I
. There is only ONE Catholic modesty book in publication that was written by someone who referenced *only *licit, non-excommunicate, non-banned, authentic, verifiable sources - that was the booklet written by Msgr. Charles Mangan called Modesty in Dress: A Return to Decency. There are a number of good articles on the web but many articles are from the extreme position.

KayMS OK I do understand what you mean although that extreme modesty sure hasn’t arrived on the “Left” coast! Last week someone in our processional carried the crucifix in wearing shorts and sandals . Frankly wish people were a bit MORE modest, particularly when they are part of the mass.

Say where would you find this book referred to? Do you know when it was written?

Lisa N

 

[KayMS]

fix:

I think much of it has truth to it. The source may be questionable in some cases, but that does not invalidate their assertions.

No, but neither does a Protestant err when validating a Truth; however, Catholics are not permitted to attend Protestant services to hear their version of the Truth because they do not hold the fullness of Truth. I have read some rather extreme modesty literature. One work, while claiming to copy the work of a modesty crusader from the 1950’s adds this to the Introduction “we have interjected small bits of copy into appropriate sections to update the text from the 1950’s and from private revelation which we have prayed over for a considerable time and feel comfortably sure of their accuracy.”

Here is a quote from a Society newsletter concerning a clothing issue, “Our Lady has since told privileged souls that Satan has introduced the general wearing of trousers and masculine hair fashions, etc., among woman to propagate homosexuality…”

Who are these people to determine what revelations are authentic, moreover, without even mentioning WHO is receiving these private revelations!

Here is the false logic that jumps out of most of these books, “Certainly not every women’s psychology will be affected in the same way bey the wearing of pants, but in reality, how many women have been affected without even realizing it, and by this, the whole of society? Are they still the heart of their families, desiring to be at home with their children? Are they still subject to the authority of their husbands as our holy religion teaches? Or have they become more independent and taken interest in being out in the world, in competing w/ith men at being the breadwinner and head of the family? All evidence indicates that this trend has already very much changed the psychology of women in society.”

Now, while that sounds SO TRUE, it was not pants that caused this psychological change in women - it was the philosophy of feminism. It is quite clever to link feminist philosophies to pants after saying pants are male garments and saying today’s women act like men, but it is an incorrect analysis. Feminists changed the way women “thought” while they were still wearing dresses! Suggragists fought for women’s liberation ALL while wearing dresses. Today’s dresses and brassieres are REALLY the liberated styles of early feminists - no hoops, no corsets, no bustles, practical lengths, etc - feminists who wanted women to be able to work and get paid equally, to own property, to vote and to divorce. But you will NOT see a modesty crusader mentioning with ill-language the liberations in dresses caused by feminism, but they will say that pants caused the liberation of women.

 

[KayMS]

Lisa N:

Say where would you find this book referred to? Do you know when it was written?
Lisa N

Father, now Monsignor, Mangan originally wrote the article for Soul Magazine in 2000, but it was republished by Queenship Publishing Company in 2002.

Queenship Publishing Company
P.O. Box 220 Goleta CA 93116
(800) 647-9882 or (805) 692-0043

The booklets are very inexpensive $1.25 (probably even less expensive if bought in bulk) if needed to put in churches or hand out to groups.

His article also appears, slightly altered, free on the Web here:
catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=647

I would like to mention that I am leaving town for a week incase anyone asks me a question and I appear to be ignoring you.