More on Modesty

Continuing on the subject of fathers and daughters, I was struck by this Rebecca Hagelin piece on Townhall yesterday.  Entitled "Fashioning a Response to Immodest Clothing", it's Hagelin's spirited defense of parents who refuse to buy what they regard as inappropriately revealing clothing for their daughters. (Hagelin has a thirteen year-old daughter).

On the one hand, I'm prepared to share many of the concerns expressed by parents across the country (not all religious conservatives, either) about the apparent ever-increasing sexiness of clothing aimed at young teen and "tween" girls.    Frankly, I don't hear many feminists vigorously defending retailers like Abercrombie and Fitch, though many of us on the left are as troubled by A&F's reputation for racism and "body fascism" as by their marketing of mildly provocative clothing to younger adolescents.   For not altogether different reasons, feminists and social conservatives can agree that dressing thirteen year-olds in tiny miniskirts is problematic.

So I have several "yesses" to Hagelin.  But I have a fairly big "no" as well.  Hagelin writes:

...it can be tough to take a stand in favor of modest clothing. But it can be done. Just ask some of the friends Kristin has brought to our house.

Occasionally, a girl visits wearing something inappropriate -- a midriff-baring shirt, a short skirt, a low neckline.

I smile and say, “God made you a person of value. You’re somebody special who deserves to be respected. So when you’re in my home, I want you to dress in a way that reflects the treasure you are. So let’s go upstairs. You can pick out anything you like to cover up while you’re here.” There may be a gasp -- often, nobody’s ever told them that their body is a treasure to be respected. But then they get it. And you know what? A bond is created, and they appreciate what I’m doing.

Well, I'd love to know what these girls' parents have to say, particularly with the offensive implication that any parent who lets his or her daughter out of the house dressed "inappropriate" doesn't see her as a person of value, at least as Hagelin defines it.

More importantly, it's a reiteration of the ancient lie that one has no right to be both sexually alluring and respected!  While I agree with Hagelin that thirteen year-olds ought to be allowed to remain innocent a while longer, I'm concerned about the message these girls will have as they progress through adolescence into adulthood.  The message is this:  "You have a treasure, but it needs to stay hidden.  Remember that men will only value that which is hidden from them.   Displaying your sexuality undermines your credibility, and it robs you of the chance to be seen as a full and complete human being."

I think that's a fair characterization of the subtext of Hagelin's message, and the message of the neo-Victorian modesty crowd that has recently emerged in all of its blue-nosed splendor. (If it's unfair, please tell me how.)

The feminism which I have embraced, and which I try and inculcate in the teen and twenty-something women with whom I work, is one in which they are taught one overriding lesson about sexuality: it belongs to them.   On the one hand, this approach is critical of consumer culture (ala Abercrombie); it works to strengthen young women to resist the often-exploitative and fat-phobic messages of the mainstream fashion industry.  Feminism is critical of the message that young women's bodies exist only to be judged or fetishized or lusted for.  On the other hand, it is equally critical of the message that women's sexuality ought always be tamed, suppressed, and hidden in order for a woman to be respected. 

I want the women with whom I work to see their sexuality as theirs; it doesn't belong to their fathers, their future husbands, the leering boys in math class or the older men at the bus stop.  It doesn't belong to the church, or to MTV, or to the magazines, or to their peers, or to their parents.  Are girls of thirteen ready to understand the implications of this?  Almost certainly not.  But girls of seventeen and eighteen may well be, and they deserve better than to hear a message which is only a few rhetorical flourishes removed from that of the Taliban.

On a lighter note, Hagelin links to this site as a suggested resource for frustrated parents: Modest by Design, a Utah-based company that seems closely affiliated with the LDS church.  Rather tellingly, the motto of the company is "clothing your father would approve of."    Huh?  Is mom too influenced by a depraved modern culture to be trusted to pick outfits for her daughter?  I am particularly troubled by the notion that it is fathers who are the more reliable guardians of their daughters' burgeoning sexualities.  After all, continuing to dress his adolescent daughter as if she's a small child allows Dad to fantasize that he remains the central male figure in her life.  If he can hide her sexuality, he can deny that it's there at all, and he can remain his innocent daughter's shining knight a little while longer.   I've always been bugged by the whole "Daddy's little princess" bit, but when it continues into adolescence, yikes. I've seen the damage it does in my teens in youth group.

Of course, these are the musings of a childless man!

And for what it's worth, the fashions at Modest By Design are very inexpensive.  They also, frankly, are hideous to my Los Angeles eyes.  Tell me, my readers who live elsewhere, does this look like an attractive outfit for going out?  Should I teach in this?   And check out this princess dress for little girls, which comes with the following caption:

This dress is fit for a little Princess! Whether you are a Flower Girl or on a date with your dad, you will look your best. Embroidered bodice, with an organza overlay full skirt, back zipper, and organza ties to make the perfect fit.

Emphasis mine.  Gotta love writing a description for a dress for pre-teens in the second person.

Comments

[Sally]

Actually, I didn't think the Modest By Design clothes were so bad. Maybe it's just because I was comparing them to the modesty-wear at the other sites, all of which looked vaguely like a uniform from a Victorian workhouse. But the Modest By Design stuff looks a lot like what many people wear in my benighted region, far from hip and glam L.A. Actually, what boggles my mind about the modesty marts is that you can pretty much get those clothes at any discount retailer around here. I'm not sure why you'd need to shop at a special store, unless you really wanted workhouse garb.

[Hugo]

Or, you wanted to make a statement with how you spent your dollars.  Of course, what the site doesn't tell us is where the clothes were made, and by whom, and for what wages. 

From a Christian standpoint, I think it's far more important to know who made the clothes and how much they were paid than knowing how much skin they cover...

I'm not unaware that American Apparel, which does make all its clothes here in LA with well-paid workers, uses a considerable amount of sexuality to sell its product.  I wish I liked more of their stuff.

[Sally]

Actually, the problem with American Apparell isn't just that they use sexuality to sell their products (or that the way they use sexuality is particularly blatent and sketchy.) It's that there are credible allegations that the owner seriously sexually harasses office staff. I really don't know what to do about a company that treats manufacturing workers well and treats office workers like the boss's personal harem.

I haven't tried on AA's clothes, but I think they'd fail my personal modesty test, which has to do with visible nipples. That saves me a serious ethical quandry.

[Hugo]

It's nice when one's ethics and one's fashion sense cohere, isn't it?

[Rainbow]

The point of these websites is that they group a selection of clothing, not necessarily that the clothing is not available elsewhere. Modesty is in the eye of the beholder. The short sleeves and low necklines on those Christian websites don't live up to Moslem or Orthodox Jewish standards.

See:
http://www.hilalplaza.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=36

http://www.modestworld.com/

[djw]

I have a couple shirts that look a lot like that, and I teach in them all the time. I know I have no fashion sense to speak of, but isn't that perfectly ordinary shirt?

[djw]

On American Apparel, a blogger (I can't recall who) made a good case a few months back that progressives should support them despite the pervasive sexual harrassment. Here's the case, as I recall it

Pro AA: Their progressive labor policies, living wages, etc.
Anti AA: Pervasive creepy sexual harrassment of female employees

Here's why to pay more attention to the pro than the anti--the pro is utterly unique, and the anti, while appalling, is also illegal and several lawsuits are currently pending. So ideally and hopefully, the bad thing can go away through means other than a boycott, which would protect the unique pro thing. In other words, let's try and get rid of the bathwater some other way before we give up on the baby as well.

[amy]

Hugo, I'll interject my humble opinion on the Modest by Design issue, having been raised in a Mormon household. I don't think the motto reflects a belief that fathers are best suited to select their childrens' wardrobe (son or daughter, let's remember the site is not exclusive to girls' clothing). Rather, I think it reflects a core aspect of the Mormon religion which grants the authority of the priesthood to men alone. When any conflict or question arises, members are likely to be advised to "ask your priesthood holder", generally referring to their father, husband, or bishop (pastor). That said, it is still patriarchial. In practice, in most Mormon families I know, it's the mother who is most outspoken when it comes to modesty and clothing. Oh, and from my own experience I know my church growing up had a lot more "daddy daughter" activities than any of my friends' churches, for what ever reason.

[mythago]

Of course, these are the musings of a childless man!

My husband finds the whole "protecting Daddy's little princess" thing unutterably creepy as well. (Personally, I have to wonder if some men aren't engaging in more than a little projection.)

As I said elsewhere, the thing that weirded me out about these clothes is not that they're modest, but that they're restrictive. A little girl can't easily run around, jump, turn cartwheels, or wade in a muddy stream in a huge ankle-length skirt. Which I suspect Mrs. Hagelin approves of too.

However--given the ridiculousness of mainstream clothing stores, I can't say as I am surprised there is a market for this stuff. Marketers have started making the kinds of clothes a sixteen-year-old would love to wear in sizes for their pre-pubescent sisters.

[Chip]

"I want the women with whom I work to see their sexuality as theirs; it doesn't belong to their fathers, their future husbands, the leering boys in math class or the older men at the bus stop. It doesn't belong to the church, or to MTV, or to the magazines, or to their peers, or to their parents."

I can agree with you when you talk about not giving into the Abercrombie-type image, Hugo, but I can't agree fundamentally with the concept that "their sexuality [is] theirs." Heck, my sexuality is not my own -- my use of it is called to be a picture of Christ and the church. Just as Christ gave his life for the church and was totally faithful to it, so the apostolic teaching inspired by the Holy Spirit asks me to reserve myself for one woman and to be faithful to her ... and to give sacrificially for her.

But to broaden the issue: From a Christian POV, I can't see ANYTHING in our lives to be our own. "You are not your own; you were bought with a price. Therefore honor God with your body [or your talents, or your mind, or your emotions, or your thought life, or your work ... you get the picture]." "And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves, but for him who died for them and rose again." Impossible commands? Sure, in our own human strength ... but it's still something we are called to grow into by the power of the Holy Spirit. And we are to live with the ultimate goal of pleasing God.

Peace of Christ,
Chip

[Jendi]

Our sexuality, as expressed by how we dress, is not just "our own". It is a form of communication, sometimes unintended, about how we regard our own sexuality, and how many people we invite to view us as sexual beings. More-revealing clothing can send the message that we want strangers to be sexually attracted to us. More-modest clothing is a way of establishing boundaries - "I want to be seen as a person first, not as a sex object". It's important to teach girls how to set those boundaries so they *can* stay in control of their sexual choices.

[Tony Vila]

I think to some degree it’s just a matter of cultural mile-posts. If a teenage woman was naked in your house, should we expect you to focus on her as a person and not her sexuality? (One could make an argument that she has a right to that, but I don’t think we should expect you to react that way.) Similarly for the Mideastern cultures you point out, where the line between modest and immodest is higher. As a culture we believe there is a certain range of clothing that is not “distracting” and to step outside of that range exeunts you from polite circles. Every culture seems to believe that, they just have different ranges.

Now to me, this just shows that saying there’s some moral absolute line between immodest and modest is flawed. If I don’t respect his rhetoric however, I still respect that father’s desire for some cultural conformity, and I think there is definitely a point where any of us would be made too uncomfortable by revealing dress (or lack altogether), if only for relativist and cultural reasons.

But really, I liked this post a lot and I’m glad to see you avoid the anti-materialism of both extremist Christians and extremists feminists.

Chip: Hugo has previously said he feels our bodies are a gift to us from Christ (you may disagree with this, but don't argue as if he hasn't discussed this before). While we owe responsibility to God for them, that’s rather different than owing responsibility to other people who aren’t Christ, and not enjoying them like God intended. In fact, while following cultural norms for the sake of personal comfort is important for our companions on this world, I feel Christ cares the least of all what clothing we wear.

[cmc]

Thank you for mentioning the creepiness of the stereotype in our culture that daughters always remain "Daddy's little girl." I am amazed at how often people I know, people who seem otherwise normal and not wingnuts, embrace that phrase.

I got married at age 26, just after having taken the bar exam and just before I embarked on my legal career. I was a bona fide, independent adult and had been for some time. Yet, during the period surrounding my marriage, my father and I had to endure numerous fatuous comments about how hard it must be for my dad to say good-bye to "Daddy's Little Girl." And the people at the bridal shop told me I looked a "little princess" in one of the dresses I tried on. It wasn't the biggest deal in the world, but I know men are never talked to based solely on their gender in such a demeaning way.

[rainbow]

I always wondered how attraction and sexuality is handled in societies where nudity or loin clothes are the rule. Is sexiness in the eyes or voice in those societies?

[mythago]

If a teenage woman was naked in your house, should we expect you to focus on her as a person and not her sexuality?

Uh, we're talking about little girls here, not "teenage women". Hagelin's daughter is thirteen. And yes, I would expect you to focus on your daughter's friends as people and not sexual targets. Geez.

[Hugo]

Mythago, I didn't catch that offensive query the first time. I'm with you.

I teach for a living; I work with a youth group; I am frequently surrounded by young women in states of what Hagelin would consider immodest dress. If I'm objectifying these girls, that's 100% on me.

[Bryan]

With regards to Modest By Design, I might suggest that the subtitle "Clothing your father would approve of" is more of a pun, referring at both times to one's father as well as to God (subtle religious ties correctly noted). Ok, so I'm cheating... I know that's the intention because I'm their webmaster and I put it on their site several years ago. Trying to read any more than that into it is a waste of good brain cells.

The company caters to a niche market, one that is growing nationwide. Although it may be LDS owned and operated (not by the Church, but by members thereof), the store receives inquiries from people of all faiths from all around the world regarding its products and items it may potentially sell. The owners do have years of experience in retail fashion and spend many weeks in the year looking for just the right items to carry in the store. And (I can say this because I'm the webmaster) the website doesn't do the individual dresses and other clothing items justice (at least not yet). Going to the store (for those who can) makes a difference.

I'd comment on the daddy's little girl thing, but since my daughter is only 2 years old, she really is daddy's little girl and will be that way for a while to come. Maybe I'll come back when she's 12 and add whatever insight I've gained.

[Hugo]

Thanks for the info, Bryan... I'll take your word for it that the photos don't do the clothes justice, and I'm glad to have the bit about "father" clarified (though the "date with Dad" bit still troubles me some).

[histluvr]

My father (a chinchilla breeder) and I were cruising the web and ran across your site. We really enjoyed your photos of Mathilde.

[kelley]

I think fathers are in a very different position than mothers to judge their daughter's attire. Fathers once were young men, and they know what's going through young men's minds. The father-daughter relationship is different than mother-daughter one, and has a huge impact on how the daughter relates to men for the rest of her life. Fathers are guardians in a different way that mothers are. Can we please stop insisting that there's no difference between men and women, or fathers and mothers?

[kelley]

"More importantly, it's a reiteration of the ancient lie that one has no right to be both sexually alluring and respected!"

Actually, I think it's the new lie to think that one has the "right" to be sexually alluring and respected. Depends a whole lot on time and place, but if you want to be sexually alluring, and you are in a public space, then in most cases you aren't after respect. You're after attention, sex, money, or power, but probably not respect. (Exceptions made for singers and entertainers.) It seems silly to believe otherwise. Young women shouldn't be taught that they can flaunt their sexuality all over the place and expect to be treated respectfully. What a disservice the current "feminist" thinking is doing to young women.