|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Mar 22, 2013 9:01:37 GMT
Hibernicus is right about the all-or-nothing approach, which is not exclusively SSPX. If you're not convinced of "all", you'll opt for "nothing". This is what half the St Mary's graduates seem to be doing.
Shane is right about how pervasive secular culture is; how much it takes for granted. And I think we are going to find it hard to come up with satisfactory answers as to how to react. At some point, we have to shoulder the cross and trust in the grace of God.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Apr 9, 2013 12:07:26 GMT
On reflection, I thought this comment more appropriate on this tread: US trads make a lot out of a dress code, though French don’t; I remember Michael (Davies) telling a young American lady that she should get a pair of shorts for the Paris-Chartres walk like the French girls – when the girl said she didn’t for reasons of modesty, Michael said that was Jansenism. In the same context, I remember reading a chat group posting from a US rad trad about meeting Michael Davies and his family in sunny California in the 1970s – the damning comment was the fact Mrs Davies and her daughter were at the swimming pool in bikinis. [glow=red,2,300]Askel answers: [/glow] Maria Davies (Mrs Michael Davies) and her daughter Adrienne go to sunny California from rainy London in a rare holiday and - shock horror - they are seen around a swimming pool in bikinis? Maybe that is a scandal to Californian traddies, but what else do they expect? Swim burkas? Mrs Davies is a Croat. As such she probably has had a lot more experience of the Islamic world than US trads and therefore would have a different perspective on dress codes to those more isolated from this. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Apr 9, 2013 12:32:04 GMT
I don't want to be facetious here, but there is a story about the late Bishop Michael Brown of Galway and Kilmacduagh (and Apostolic Adminstrator of Kilfenora). Apparantly, he banned bikinis in the dioceses (as if that was possible).
Story goes he was driving in Salthill on a beautiful summer's day and beheld a woman sunbathing on the beach in a bikini. His secretary was dispatched and addressed the lady:
"His Lordship, the Bishop of Galway, has asked me to inform you that two-piece bathing costumes are prohibited within his diocese."
The lady looked at the lacky and answered:
"Would you go up and ask his Lordship what piece he suggests I remove?"
This is clearly an urban legend and one of many associated with Bishop Brown. That a priest of the Galway diocese (Fr Olan Rynne) should have been involved in a controversy over appearing almost naked in a charity calendar around 2000 shows how times have changed, but that was before a TG4 documentary suggested Bishop Brown himself enjoyed a solitary naked swim in Salthill from time to time (until the relatively recent - mid 19th century - popularisation of swimwear, the general practice was for single sex swimming parties bathing nude).
Anyway, mythical or not, one senses a lot of traditionalists wish that bishops could and would do this sort of thing attributed to Bishop Brown and the singling out of Maria Davies is an example of this, as if it was anyone's business bar her own. And the point of the contrast with the Islamic world is a point well made. If you swim in a burka in the Red Sea or the Persian Gulf, it will probably dry of quickly, but if you do this in the Irish Sea or the North Sea, you might get pneumonia.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 9, 2013 21:06:08 GMT
To be fair, standards of acceptability in clothing do change over time. Apparently when the first modern bikini was produced in 1946, no professional model (in Paris!) would wear it and the inventor had to get a stripper to model it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MichelineBernardini.jpg I'm not so sure Bishop Browne's response was inappropriate in the circumstances, assuming the bikini was previously unknown locally (suppose the woman had been naked in public - would you really say it was only her own business and no-one else was entitled to object?) The problem with trad obsessions with this (and related matters - I have seen trad denunciations of Pope John Paul II for allowing people in abbreviated native dress to attend his Masses in Africa and Oceania) is the refusal to accept that standards vary with public attitudes/expectations.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 10, 2013 8:02:46 GMT
I think the point is that mores differ both from time to time and from place to place. The trads have more or less canonised something out of the 1940s or 50s in what we loosely call the west, without considering that these modes of dress may have been scandalous to an earlier generation. The other remark I'll make is their selectivity in regard both to dress and behavior.
|
|
|
Post by norwegianblue on Apr 10, 2013 11:41:26 GMT
To be honest, I think many a young girl and women of varying ages would have had great cause to be grateful if there had been greater general resistance to the development of bathing fashions over the last 60-70 years or so. Bikinis and skimpy bathing suits are not only at least highly debatable from a modesty point of view in the context of our society, but another interesting aspect is that they can actually be experienced as quite oppressive to women also for other reasons. What piece of clothing has made women so on display and open to criticising eyes not least from those of the same sex? What could be more conducive to a focus on the body and a judgment of the person based on the state of one's body than the pressure to 'look good in a bikini'?
When it comes to modesty and dress choices in general, the important thing is to try to make no judgments on the motives and heart of the individuals when one is mostly not in a position to do so. That goes even more when the clothing choice in question has become a norm in a particular society. And there is also the need not to go too far especially with the norms one would prefer to see others adhere to. However, that doesn't really mean that one should just be open to any development in the mores of the day or make no criticism of them. One can go too far in either direction.
Today, as a woman I have the choice of exposing myself rather more on the beach or at the swimmers than I really want to from any point of view (very much including that of modesty), singling myself out by obtaining swimwear that covers more (which, as it is not that easily obtained, also costs a tidy sum or else would consist of a variety of odds and ends probably considered even more 'eccentric' looking), or staying away from swimming altogether. That's actually not at all a very liberating state of affairs for me as a woman.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Apr 10, 2013 14:03:57 GMT
Times change. The image of Micheline Bernardini looks positively non-descript by present day standards and not have a great many women of conservative sensibilities donned the bikini, but along many parts of the Mediterranean, many of these have left the top off. As a side effect, it is much less embarrassing for nursing mothers to feed their babies in public.
A silly season story a few years ago, which Stramentarius picked up on in the Brandsma Review, illustrates the change. A young woman from Turin broke up with her boyfriend and entered a convent in Autumn 2006. As she was preparing for temporary vows in 2009, he placed a photograph of her from their last holiday together on a Sicilian beach with the heading "suora in topless" which translates as "topless nun" on his facebook page prompting legal action which led to a silly season story. It shows how the state of being topless has become so institutionalised in continental Europe that a young woman in Italy would think nothing of sunbathing topless on a public beach a few months before she was due to enter a convent. This country is dotted with coastal convents with private beaches allowing sisters swim privately - a note of changing mores.
Certainly public decency is an issue and there are statute laws in Ireland against public nudity and these are enforced (as fur protesters have been warned). In one way, one can see things have gone too far (as some protests have shown), but the trad problem is to read far too much in the area of dress and externals in general, without much regard for more important issues. And the scary thing is how similar they can be to the Islamic mindset.
|
|
|
Post by gemmagal on Apr 10, 2013 16:04:37 GMT
I'm very much alone here in my opinion, but here goes: I simply resist appearing in a way which would attract a sexual view or sensual thoughts. I have a mirror, full length, as most women/girls have. I and all of us glance at the image we will take out to the world each day. We all know full well, those of us with the power to reason and over age 6 or 7, what it is we look like. We turn and pose, perhaps with a second mirror to view our back side. What we project outward by our dress customs and habits will most likely gain certain impressions from others. My intention is to avoid the attracting of sexual or sensual thoughts toward myself. I don't thrive on competition with other women, nor am I interested in contributuing to the wealth of at least two of the wealthiest men on the planet through expensive fashion style cosmetic plastic surgery hair colour product purchases in the constant obsessive shift ofcutting edge fashion trends. My comman sense provided me with positive insight, I resist dressing myself in a way that evokes excessive attention, shock, envy, hostility; particularily in environments such as hospitals, food industry, libraries, anywhere people have to think, study or work, especially work with machinery or dangerous equipment, do surgery or prepare food, do exams, walk; I could go on.
My clothes, hats, and footwear, as far as I am able, are appropriate for the weather, the occasion and the place. I wear hats for sun protection, rain and cold. Coats for warmth, scarves, gloves also. Cotton is good for hot weather. Slips prevent the see through look. I don't swim, but a suitable modest swim suit would do I'm sure, however I wouldn't be wearing it for doing the grocery shopping, if you see what I am getting at. A pair of sturdy flat soled boots or walking shoes do well for long walks, even in cities, for sprained ankles and twisted knees are something I also avoid.
The really interesting thing I hope you all will read and take thought upon is this: Since I found myself enlightened on the subject of dressing this way and considered the impressions I may make upon others by turning down my own desires for attention -- an amazing change has come into my life. Where once I found my own mind engulfed from time to time by fantasy, even dare I admit it, impure thoughts, these have entirely left me.
In loving others as ourselves we obtain love, freedom from slavery and much more. For me it is worth it, supreemly worth the time to dress with a broader point of view rather than a self centered one.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 12, 2013 8:53:38 GMT
I am grateful for both Norwegian Blue and Gemmagel's contribution on this topic - especially as men talking about women's appearance and pontificating on it is not what this tread should be about.
I agree with the point that beach fashions are far from liberating. Men are almost naked on beaches/in pools and no one seems to care, yet the original male swimsuits were much more modest. Of course the reaction of the female to the male appearance is no where near as rapid as vice versa. Norwegian blue is right to say that there are three choices for a woman who wants to swim - to go with the trends, though that means more exposure; to acquire more modest swimwear somewhere, which means getting noticed; or to avoid swimming altogether. For many people, the latter is no sacrifice, but anyone with a bad back is going to be advised to swim and it is one of the most all encompassing forms of exercise available. However, I think there is a difference between a swimming pool and a beach - people who go to pools go to swim and scarcely notice other swimmers. Most women in pools wear one piece swim suits anyway. Beaches are different: people go there to relax. The weather we have in Ireland make the bikini rare on Irish beaches other than on the warmest days. Topless sunbathing is illegal, but I suspect it would be very rare anyway. Nearby continental Europe is a different matter altogether. But even so, whatever way, you appear on a beach; you would not appear the same way in a shop or in a church.
The other extreme is the Islamic reaction of swimming in the burka. I think there was probably less of a clear marker between the Islamic world and the west before the sexual revolution. I think that Islam has a point when it highlights what the west sees as liberation as rather exploitation. Islam of course went in the opposite direction, but one cannot take that for granted. A friend of mine used to live in Ballyhaunis, Co Mayo which has one of the oldest mosques in Ireland and probably has a higher percentage of Moslem residents than Dublin. They live apart from the local, but in the supreme sign of integration in rural Ireland, players with names like Mohammed and Omar are showing up on local Gaelic football teams (I doubt, though, that we'll see a Fatima on the Mayo ladies football team at any stage). Anyway, when talking about Islam in Mayo, we commended the Islamic modesty. There was a young woman with us who paid her way through university by working in Roches Stores on Henry St and other department stores. She said she had worked on lingerie counters and recalled that Moslem couples where the wife was well covered up tended to opt for what she described as the sexiest lingerie available and the process became a joke among her colleagues, but it wore thin as time went on. Other female friends of mine with this type of retail experience elsewhere confirmed this (sometimes unprompted by the original reflection). The thing about this attitude is that it has something in common with the liberal or libertarian western attitude - in both cases, the woman is an object to give men pleasure. I would say that the Christian attitude should be to look beyond outward appearance, without disregarding that God made the human body good and made men the way they are for a purpose, and resist both extremes we see here which like the extremes of a swinging pendulum on a clock are a lot nearer together than either are to the centre on closure inspection. That traditionalists draw the line with the secular west is a good thing, but how good it is depends a lot on their mentality in doing it. There is another extreme too. And one should not take differences with this extreme for granted - I already alluded to two SSPX supporting women who were taken to be Islamic at an EF Latin Mass in Cork.
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Apr 12, 2013 9:31:41 GMT
The discussion is interesting, but needs to pull back. Dress is fascinating, but trads also have interesting ideas on woman's education or professional capabilities.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Apr 12, 2013 13:47:37 GMT
Dickie Williamson famously said "if it's good enough for your great grandma, it's good enough for you", by which he referred to education and employment as well as dress. In other words, the model to be used was the one before WWI.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 12, 2013 17:52:09 GMT
In regard to the Muslims and their lingerie - as a bachelor I am a bit nervous about discussing this, but are you not being a bit harsh in assuming that their purchase of "sexy" lingerie amounts to reducing the women to a sex object? This might be the case if the husband was buying it for the wife and insisting that she wear it, but if the couple are buying it together couldn't it be a legitimate expression of married intimacy?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 12, 2013 18:00:44 GMT
The point about Bishop Williamson is spot on. He's not just reacting against the "second-wave" feminism of the Sixties, he's reacting against the "first-wave" feminism of the suffragette era. He has quite explicitly said that women should not go to university or receive much in the way of formal education, as it distracts them from their God-given role as wives and mothers. Some of his views are even further back than the C19 - he seems to think women are inherently incapable of abstract thought, and that they should never be teachers. To be honest I suspect he may either subscribe to some sort of pagan philosophy which sees women as a separate and lesser species, or he is a particularly visceral misogynist who sees women as strange and repugnant alien beings. (The latter mindset, I am sorry to say, is not unknown either among celibate male clerics or among the sort of Protestant Evangelical who places particular emphasis on male headship.)
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 15, 2013 14:08:13 GMT
I recall reading one of Williamson's sermons where he states women were incapable of rational thought and that Catherine of Siena and Teresa of Avila taught through intuition.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 15, 2013 15:37:50 GMT
In regard to the woman who related the story about certain purchasing preference by Moslems, she had spoken to men and women from the Islamic community and formed the opinion based on those conversations that the man was making the purchase and insisting that the woman wear the merchandise. The lady said in general, female Moslem customers tended to be self-effacing, to regard fairskinned women as ipso facto better looking. The men seemed to insist one of the duties of a wife was to look good for her husband.
|
|