Monthly Archives: May 2013

WIWS: Sans Baby

Ironically, on my first Mothers’ day after Der Kinder was born, I went to Mass by myself. (I was pregnant with him last Mothers’ Day so of course he came along.) The Fardreamer was under the weather, so he had to stay home anyway, and he offered to let Der Kinder stay behind because I was running a twitch late anyway and babies just exacerbate that.

So that means I didn’t have to worry about Baby Logistics when I got dressed! :D And here we are for another round of What I Wore Sunday:

Mmm-hmm, those are Christmas lights not only still strung up, but turned on. We are soooo Klassy.

Mmm-hmm, those are Christmas lights not only still strung up, but turned on. We are soooo Klassy.

Veil: I didn’t have to tie it back pirate-babushka style! Still the same soft black with pink and blue roses and vines.

Blouse: It didn’t need to be nursing-friendly or super-long to sustain repeated hiking-up of the baby! I haven’t been able to wear this blouse for almost two years, which is really sad because I love it. I bought it very soon before getting pregnant so it hasn’t seen a lot of use, which is a shame. It’s from Coldwater Creek; another clearance-plus-other-massive-sale-discount purchase.

Skirt: black riding skirt, Chaps brand, found at … sigh… Goodwill. It looks and feels like soft and substantial wool, but it’s actually polyester-rayon so I can machine-wash it. W00t!

Shoes: Same black heeled Mary Janes from Payless Shoes.

Der Kinder is not pictured as he didn’t wear Sunday clothes, of course.

Modesty Police list of misdemeanors:

1. Neckline: TOO LOW!
2. Sleeves: TOO SHORT!
3. Skirt: SHOWS CALVES! (or ankles, take your pick)
4. Shoes: HAVE HEELS!

Just goes to show that no matter what you do, someone will say it’s not enough.


The Modesty Discussion: Nuns Edition

I was reading a post on WDTPRS that concerned an article written on the Religion and Politics website that compares “conservative” nuns (as exemplified by the Dominican Sisters of St. Cecelia) and “liberal” nuns (as exemplified by the Sisters of St. Joseph). The article has its own point and conclusions, but what leapt out to me from the page was this:

“Their simple, sensible-shoe, old-lady garb was, in its way, more modest than the bright white habits of the Dominicans.”

Did your jaw drop, too? Did you just flinch back and think What?! quite loudly, too?

For a very long time I have been reading the volley back and forth in the discussion of modesty. Sometimes it’s pleasant, a gentle game of badminton. Sometimes it devolves into a harsh battle of racquetball, with both opponents aiming not at the other’s actual position but at something else entirely, both missing – or at least not directly addressing – each other’s points.

Part of the discussion of how to be modest is what modesty actually entails. There are a few working definitions out there but the three prevailing ones are:

1. Make sure X, Y, and Z are adequately covered. Exactly what constitutes X, Y, and Z are hotly contested (thighs, knees, elbows, neck, wrists, hair?) as well as what “adequately” means.

2. Modesty is a matter of the heart. It manifests in one’s attitude, demeanor, and behavior. (This is generally used by people who are defending the shaky position that clothes have nothing to do with modesty, usually because they wore strapless gowns at their wedding Mass and they feel personally attacked.)

3. Do not attract attention to yourself. If everyone’s in jeans and a t-shirt, that’s what you wear. If everyone’s in bikinis, that’s what you wear too. This is often used as a bludgeon to shame women who wear skirts and dresses, and who cover their heads at Mass.

The author of the article is obviously working with the third definition of modesty. For comparison’s sake, let’s see pictures of both sets of nuns.

Continue reading