What should courtesy in dress look like these days? In the past fashion dictated courtesy. Now things aren't so difficult, since fashion is indifferent, if not outright opposed, to the idea of courtesy. Because society is indifferent we women have no guide as to what it would expect if it were to expect anything. I stated earlier that I mean to avoid any particulars, and I was sincere. I'm not going to give a guide of what details of clothing will exhibit good manners in public. I think it should be fairly obvious that there is a great difference between pajamas and a nice top paired with a good skirt or pair of jeans. There are, however, two qualities which are essential to the character of a princess which are a huge benefit (speaking from personal experience) to discerning how courtesy in dress should look.
The first of these is modesty. Depending on the circles you move in, modesty either means something akin to chains or something akin to beauty. As far as the Church is concerned, modesty is akin to beauty. It has no relation to chains and bondage; in fact it has everything to do with freedom. Modesty frees women from objectification. It gives her the freedom to be beautiful without sacrificing her dignity, and to have dignity without sacrificing beauty.
The modest woman is often compared, very wrongly, to a caged bird. Such vitality, such life, such passion, one says, could be seen in the poor creature if only she were allowed to spread her wings. Perhaps I'm making the mistake of going for the obvious conclusion, but when I see a group of people standing around the bird cage, gawking at the bright colors and sweet singing, I'm more inclined to think of the girl who exposes herself to the gawking of all around her, rather than the modest woman. The modest woman sees her body as something beautiful in itself, as something of worth even when she stands in the forest alone; the woman who doesn't see the value of modesty views her body as something that can only have worth through others. She is the one who flaunts her bright feathers and her voice for the applause of others. She is in a worse position than the bird in the cage. The latter sings regardless of whether anyone stands by to listen, because singing gives it joy; the former sings only to be heard by others, and not because she has joy but because she doesn't, and is seeking it.
Through modesty a woman recognizes her immense dignity, and demands that others recognize it as well. Additionally through modesty recognizes the dignity of all others; for in choosing to dress modestly she is not acknowledging merely her own personal dignity but the dignity of women at large. It is because she respects the dignity of all women that she, being a member of that group, chooses modesty for herself. Modesty is often touted as a 'personal decision,' but it is the farthest thing from it. A modest woman is not making a statement just about herself. She is making a statement about all women, about what she believes womanhood to be. It's for this reason, I would guess, that many feminist types reject modesty not for their own selves but on principle.
There are always going to be various standards of modesty. These standards don't change only with culture and time, but also with individuals. Many have been set forward as the only way, though without any proper authority. Some will say that sleeveless is inappropriate; some will say sleeves above the elbow are the height of immodesty. Some will say the skirt can't go above the knee; some will say not above the ankle. In some guidebooks a skirt is the only way to be modest. It can be confusing to try to navigate through all the various opinions and reach the one right answer. As frustrating as it is, there is no one right answer. The Church hasn't gone into the details of clothing. The Church has acknowledged that there will always be cultural differences. There is only one rule that spans all times and places: that clothing be reflective of man's dignity.
What this means is that trying to set down definite rules of modesty is going to prove ultimately futile. This doesn't mean that there isn't any benefit in discussing the matter. I've found that musing over it with other ladies has been very beneficial in helping me form my own standards, and understand better the beauty of modesty as a whole. But in every discussion I've been a part of the end result is always the same: however many interesting points may have been made, however much wisdom has been offered, there is no final consensus. The Church hasn't spoken, and we're faced with the awkward yet awesome truth that the world is bigger than we know.
What this does not mean, however, is that anything goes. The Church hasn't laid out specifics, but she has drawn a very firm line. Her line of dignity is a firmer line than a line such as "no skirts above the knee" or "no sleeves above the elbow." The line of dignity is a real line. Any other lines that individuals draw are all dependent on that one line. That one line is the reason for every other line as far as modesty is concerned. That one line is the Line. Far from saying anything goes, it proclaims quite firmly: No Further.
The first of these is modesty. Depending on the circles you move in, modesty either means something akin to chains or something akin to beauty. As far as the Church is concerned, modesty is akin to beauty. It has no relation to chains and bondage; in fact it has everything to do with freedom. Modesty frees women from objectification. It gives her the freedom to be beautiful without sacrificing her dignity, and to have dignity without sacrificing beauty.
The modest woman is often compared, very wrongly, to a caged bird. Such vitality, such life, such passion, one says, could be seen in the poor creature if only she were allowed to spread her wings. Perhaps I'm making the mistake of going for the obvious conclusion, but when I see a group of people standing around the bird cage, gawking at the bright colors and sweet singing, I'm more inclined to think of the girl who exposes herself to the gawking of all around her, rather than the modest woman. The modest woman sees her body as something beautiful in itself, as something of worth even when she stands in the forest alone; the woman who doesn't see the value of modesty views her body as something that can only have worth through others. She is the one who flaunts her bright feathers and her voice for the applause of others. She is in a worse position than the bird in the cage. The latter sings regardless of whether anyone stands by to listen, because singing gives it joy; the former sings only to be heard by others, and not because she has joy but because she doesn't, and is seeking it.
Through modesty a woman recognizes her immense dignity, and demands that others recognize it as well. Additionally through modesty recognizes the dignity of all others; for in choosing to dress modestly she is not acknowledging merely her own personal dignity but the dignity of women at large. It is because she respects the dignity of all women that she, being a member of that group, chooses modesty for herself. Modesty is often touted as a 'personal decision,' but it is the farthest thing from it. A modest woman is not making a statement just about herself. She is making a statement about all women, about what she believes womanhood to be. It's for this reason, I would guess, that many feminist types reject modesty not for their own selves but on principle.
There are always going to be various standards of modesty. These standards don't change only with culture and time, but also with individuals. Many have been set forward as the only way, though without any proper authority. Some will say that sleeveless is inappropriate; some will say sleeves above the elbow are the height of immodesty. Some will say the skirt can't go above the knee; some will say not above the ankle. In some guidebooks a skirt is the only way to be modest. It can be confusing to try to navigate through all the various opinions and reach the one right answer. As frustrating as it is, there is no one right answer. The Church hasn't gone into the details of clothing. The Church has acknowledged that there will always be cultural differences. There is only one rule that spans all times and places: that clothing be reflective of man's dignity.
What this means is that trying to set down definite rules of modesty is going to prove ultimately futile. This doesn't mean that there isn't any benefit in discussing the matter. I've found that musing over it with other ladies has been very beneficial in helping me form my own standards, and understand better the beauty of modesty as a whole. But in every discussion I've been a part of the end result is always the same: however many interesting points may have been made, however much wisdom has been offered, there is no final consensus. The Church hasn't spoken, and we're faced with the awkward yet awesome truth that the world is bigger than we know.
What this does not mean, however, is that anything goes. The Church hasn't laid out specifics, but she has drawn a very firm line. Her line of dignity is a firmer line than a line such as "no skirts above the knee" or "no sleeves above the elbow." The line of dignity is a real line. Any other lines that individuals draw are all dependent on that one line. That one line is the reason for every other line as far as modesty is concerned. That one line is the Line. Far from saying anything goes, it proclaims quite firmly: No Further.
Hello there! I've read your blog on and off for two years or so, I think, and I am going to try to keep up with it more! I am greatly enjoying these posts, as far as I have read them. In this one, you pointed out that modesty recognizes the dignity of the individual and of all women. One thought that struck me as I read, is that it also respects the dignity of gentlemen. Modesty acknowledges the true gentlemen who look to women for more than their bodies, and who don't want to seee women flaunting themselves. :)
ReplyDelete