Let’s Start a Cult
Just once, would it be too much to ask that a creepy scary fundamentalist cult would dress its women and girls un-hideously? This is what happens when men are allowed to strip women of their humanity and treat them like slaves or breeding animals. You end up with Dust Bowl Holly Hobbies, above, or the ever-popular burqa. Or with what I call “Pentecostal Hair”:
Let’s start a cult devoted to exquisite tailoring and chic accessories. We can get tax exempt status from the IRS. Come on, it’ll be fun, I promise.
59 Responses to “Let’s Start a Cult”
By punaise on Apr 9, 2008 1:23 pm |
they look like refugees from the Renaissance Faire.
By Betsy on Apr 9, 2008 1:39 pm |
I dress modestly. Skirts or pants past my knees, shirts or blouses with sleeves. Nothing low cut. I often wear long skirts and long sleeve blouses, especially around my Orthodox (Jewish) friends. I dress that way everywhere except the gym and the pool. Why? Because then people see me as a person and not as a body. They can relate to me and not to my boobs. And YES, I did dress this way even when I was 30 pounds lighter and before the canes and the wheelchair.
No one has ever “made” me dress like this. This is my choice. I can make it look beautiful (or even exquisite!) or make it look frumpy. Nothing wrong with modesty, but a lot wrong with treating women as lesser beings or as sex objects rather than as equals. By choosing to dress as I do, I think I avoid both.
By Mary McCurnin on Apr 9, 2008 1:53 pm |
Lots of the women and children taken from the compound can not spell their last names or know their date of birth.
Crimes against humanity.
By Betsy on Apr 9, 2008 1:56 pm |
Two pix.
This is me, with my best friend, the day before my son’s bar mitzvah. As a married Orthodox woman, she covers her hair except when she is with her husband. Tell me we can’t make modest look beautiful and make you focus on our faces and our souls rather than our bodies:
http://picasaweb.google.com/supermom413/BarMitzvah/photo#5073771751084667746
Second pic. This one when texteen was a tiny babe. I think we look great! (Except for the HUGE sunglasses.) All wearing modest clothing. I was married at the time, and covered much of my hair, but not as much as my best friend covers now. http://picasaweb.google.com/supermom413/NewScans121107/photo?authkey=u7zoUfyxn5g#5143163253615412418
Modesty can be beautiful.
By Betsy on Apr 9, 2008 1:57 pm |
Mary McCurnin said
Then the problem is education and subjugation, not dress.
T, I have a comment in moderation. Please free it.
By peanutbutter on Apr 9, 2008 2:03 pm |
You know, I dress similarly, mostly because it’s in my nature. (I live in southern California; if anything all societal pressure around here is to bare all.)
But the notion behind conservative dress to head men off bugs me, because it shouldn’t be necessary for us to jump through any sorts of hoops for people (read, men) to see us as PEOPLE and not Things With Boobies (ooo!!!). And even then, trust me it doesn’t matter. We’re Things With Boobies regardless of how we dress or look.
I just get so annoyed with this. IT IS NOT MY - OR ANY WOMAN’S - PROBLEM IF MEN GO BERZERKLY OUT OF CONTROL . TIE THE FRICKIN’ MEN UP AND STORE THEM IN CLOSETS UNTIL THEY CAN BEHAVE LIKE NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS IF THIS IS THEIR PROBLEM.
*blinks*
Um. Sorry. *hands the mic and pedastal to someone else.*
By e on Apr 9, 2008 2:12 pm |
hmm, getting into some interesting issues here.
I mean, many women do CHOOSE to dress provocatively, for the specific purpose of being — well, provocative. I don’t have any problem with that — but would some argue that they are “objectifying” themselves?
By Betsy on Apr 9, 2008 2:12 pm |
cutting my other comment into two pieces:
Two pix.
This is me, with my best friend, the day before my son’s bar mitzvah. As a married Orthodox woman, she covers her hair except when she is with her husband. Tell me we can’t make modest look beautiful and make you focus on our faces and our souls rather than our bodies:
http://picasaweb.google.com/supermom413/BarMitzvah/photo#5073771751084667746
By Betsy on Apr 9, 2008 2:13 pm |
Second pic. This one when texteen was a tiny babe. I think we look great! (Except for the HUGE sunglasses.) All wearing modest clothing. I was married at the time, and covered much of my hair, but not as much as my best friend covers now. http://picasaweb.google.com/supermom413/NewScans121107/photo?authkey=u7zoUfyxn5g#5143163253615412418
Modesty can be beautiful.
By WereBear on Apr 9, 2008 2:26 pm |
Of course modesty can be beautiful. As well as more comfortable for us and the onlooker.
But DOWDY… that’s another story. While I’m not much for exposing skin, I do like a form-fitting dress or clingy knit, and that’s verboten too!
Face it, when you are deprived of anything… everything reminds you of it!
By e on Apr 9, 2008 3:04 pm |
Betsy said
of course it can.
Much as I dislike the head scarves worn by Muslim women, they do have the effect of highlighting beautiful facial features.
But it’s all about choice, IMO.
By Liss on Apr 9, 2008 3:20 pm |
e said
It’s definitely about the choice. Also, each of Betsy’s pictures feature character and individualization. Compare THAT to the photos above and you start to see something different.
By peanutbutter on Apr 9, 2008 3:30 pm |
We’re even expressing the dichotomy in this discussion. Notice that a woman’s dress is either SEXY or NOT SEXY.
Pbbbt.
By Betsy on Apr 9, 2008 3:48 pm |
A person’s dress can convey much more that “sexy or not sexy”. It can convey what the person thinks about him or herself, their occupation, their age, gender, wealth, their mood, the weather, their color choices, many things.
YellowdogJim took this pic at Gnome’s birthday party. This kid is definitely expressing her own individual sense of style! She’s 5.
http://picasaweb.google.com/liljimirabble/GnomeDePlumeSBirthday/photo?authkey=ernfLYhg6_g#5186339579810659666
By peanutbutter on Apr 9, 2008 3:54 pm |
Of course it can and should. My point is that in our culture and society it generally isn’t.
Oh, for another angle on my point…I remember reading about this western woman who was travelling through an area that required its women to wear burka. She recounted a conversation with one of the men in her convoy who basically told her she’d be really gorgeous/desireable if she only dressed in a burqa.
*headdesk*
Anyway, my point is along the lines of we can say all we want about what we are conveying with our dress but in the end men feel entitled to declare what we are wearing to be one thing or another regardless.
By madmommy on Apr 9, 2008 4:01 pm |
My beef with these fundy-cult types is that women, as mentioned above, aren’t much better than a posession. The latest reports out of Texas say that these girls were married off as soon as they hit puberty to some horny old goat who promptly got them pregnant. They are completely isolated from the outside world, homeschooling, never going anywhere unaccompanied, financially cut off. Even if they wanted to get away, it is damn near impossible for them to do so.
I have no problem with choosing to dress modestly, I have a big problem with being forced to do it, because some man is so weak-minded he cannot control himself. For groups that place men in such powerful positions of authority, they sure seem to have problems keeping their minds out of the gutter.
That Pentecostal hair comment just kills me. Long hair is easier to take care of in many ways-braids or pony tails can keep it out of the way and there’s no need for regular trips to the salon for trims. But what the heck is up with that mullet Mrs. Duggar has been sporting for ages?
By Betsy on Apr 9, 2008 4:07 pm |
madmommy said
A similar phenomenon was very common among my Laotian students in the 80’s. With this major change The girls had their first baby at 12 or 13 before marriage, to prove they were fertile. Then came the formal wedding and young girl and baby then joined the husband’s family.
By Snokat on Apr 9, 2008 4:15 pm |
I’m pretty sure this was meant to be tongue in cheek. No point in being offended about whether your favorite mode of dress has been attacked or not. I’ll happily join a cult that bans “sensible shoes.”
But the ultra long hair and the exceptionally old fashioned clothing were dictated by men who wished to keep women in an “old fashioned” social norm of being passive, feminine, and beneath them. Wearing pants and cutting their hair would be something a MAN would do and therefore seen as rebellion. And some even see it as a statement of sexuality!
The fact that it is ugly is all very minor when you compare it to what it all MEANS. I too like to be covered up most of the times (long sleeve shirts and pants). But no one but me has dictated my style. And it doesn’t have anything to do with sexuality. The fact that those women have no choices, including in what they wear is what is most disturbing.
By peanutbutter on Apr 9, 2008 5:17 pm |
Yes, the meaning is the problem, and the meaning is all about control. No matter how (ahem) dressed up it is…
By isit2009yet on Apr 9, 2008 5:50 pm |
Betsy said
I like the sunglasses!
By e on Apr 9, 2008 6:20 pm |
This is the affidavit that was filed by the Protective Services investigator before they raided the place.
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/04/09/yfz.affidavit.pdf
Among the many horrors to grapple with here is the fact that “parents” sent their children to this place.
Madmom, I believe you mentioned a while back something about there being no license required to have children, and that is one reason we have children suffering and dying at the hands of killers, sadists, psychotics, fanatics and incompetents. I don’t know what the solution is, but these things make me so furious and heartsick that I would be willing to consider a licensing requirement. Maybe even forced sterilization.
Certainly a requirement that antiabortion zealots spend a month working with abused and neglected children before they’re allowed to carry their fucking signs.
By madmommy on Apr 9, 2008 6:21 pm |
isit2009yet said
Looking at TexTeen now can you even remember clearly when he was that small? I swear I just brought mine home from the hospital a few weeks ago
You are rocking the giant shades, though!
By Karma on Apr 9, 2008 6:47 pm |
All I could think of was…
What were all these young sex maidens thinking when they saw those state troopers with the tight buns?
By punaise on Apr 9, 2008 7:04 pm |
appropriate garb is a not infrequent topic of conversation with 14.5 year old Punaisette. not surprisingly, she tends to err on the revealing side. we try to strike a balance and make sure she understands how others (adults) perceive her.
By e on Apr 9, 2008 7:30 pm |
“I swear I just brought mine home from the hospital a few weeks ago.”
[sigh] Ain’t it the truth.
“My child arrived just the other day, came to the world in the usual way……”
By isit2009yet on Apr 9, 2008 7:44 pm |
e said
Ahhh…Harry Chapin!
By sharonlee on Apr 9, 2008 8:03 pm |
There’s a tension between how one dresses and how one is perceived by oneself and by others.
I began dressing more casually when our church was trying to draw more community people. Most of those people could not afford a “Sunday” wardrobe along with their weekday wear. So I retired my Jackie pillbox hats and the matching shoes and bags for each outfit. And I have enjoyed being “casual.”
As for shoes, I slipped out of the heels and into comfortable flats.
I agree with the comments that being dictated on what to wear is entirely different from choice. (Although sometimes the choices in the stores become a dictate.)
As for becoming a cult, I thought we were a cult (of sorts). The tax status would be welcome, however. Maybe burns could file the papers.
By Betsy on Apr 9, 2008 8:15 pm |
Sharonlee, what kind of a cult should we be?
By punaise on Apr 9, 2008 8:26 pm |
taking responsibility for my share of cult churl activities.
By burnspbesq on Apr 9, 2008 8:26 pm |
Did I count correctly? Are there actually 14 kids in that picture? And does the oldest look to be about 17?
Lady, The Handmaid’s Tale is FICTION (not for her, apparently).
By burnspbesq on Apr 9, 2008 8:27 pm |
Wanna bet that the mom made all the dresses?
By madmommy on Apr 9, 2008 8:28 pm |
Betsy said
A wear what you like, believe what you want, equal opprotunity, pro-human, anti-war, tree-house-dwelling kind. Of course. With justice and Wi-Fi for all.
By isit2009yet on Apr 9, 2008 8:32 pm |
madmommy said
Sign me up…
By Betsy on Apr 9, 2008 8:32 pm |
madmommy said
What? No guarantee of snack food?
By aliasofwestgate on Apr 9, 2008 8:33 pm |
Ugh. Aren’t Amish girls and women allowed more actual individuality? They are required on the dress thing, but there’s something more outright cultural to it. This compound is just plain sickening in the way it forced that uniformity.
Why does it always tend towards that in the way that particular brand of fundementalist dress? It’s a bizarre mindset i can’t fathom either. I dress more or less modestly, especially as we have to have business casual back in the pharmacy under our labcoats/smocks. Outside of work it’s pretty similar too, but there’s ways to actually add dashes of elegance to them. (wouldn’t catch me dead in high heels, pumps or flats. My feet love me forever for that decision as a teenager.)
By sharonlee on Apr 9, 2008 8:36 pm |
madmommy said
Sounds good to me. Just add chocolate into the mix somewhere.
By Betsy on Apr 9, 2008 8:37 pm |
Shopping for back to school with Snarky and Texteen, I noted that she kept choosing outfits that got smaller and smaller and his kept getting longer.
By sharonlee on Apr 9, 2008 8:38 pm |
burnspbesq said
They have a weekly tv show on The Learning Chanel or Discovery. I believe they are up to 17 children.
By Betsy on Apr 9, 2008 8:39 pm |
amish and non-amish teens:
http://www.sailmag.com/features/amishpool.jpg
By Boston1775 on Apr 9, 2008 8:42 pm |
We’re talking hideous little house on the prairie meets the manson family here. This has absolutely nothing to do with modesty.
TRex, between the movie and the burqas; well, I have to give credit where credit is due: Funny, ha ha.
Style. It’s a good thing.
By Betsy on Apr 9, 2008 8:43 pm |
ultra-Orthodox Jewish teens and their teacher:
http://torahmitzion.org/images/features/ladiesLearning_Detroit_Bais_Yaakov.jpg
By aliasofwestgate on Apr 9, 2008 8:43 pm |
Betsy said
Heh, thought so! Thanks Betsy! (Now, i go nap. Putting the large delivery away today was tiring.)
By Betsy on Apr 9, 2008 8:43 pm |
more orthodox Jewish girls:
http://www.halbweb.org/SKA/Website/Skaparchive/senior4.gif
By Betsy on Apr 9, 2008 8:44 pm |
nap well alias.
By Boston1775 on Apr 9, 2008 8:51 pm |
Betsy,
Why are you showing pictures of Amish and Jewish kids? I have an Amish ancestry (not active) and my husband is a Jew.
What is your point?
By madmommy on Apr 9, 2008 8:53 pm |
Betsy-these girls look completely like normal, teen-age girls. No sign of lock-step comformity anywhere.
I didn’t mention the snack/chocolate portion of the cult tenets. I figured that was a foregone conclusion!
Burns-that picture of the Duggars is old, there are at least 17 now, maybe 18. At the rate she’s going she’ll be toting her uterus in a shopping bag any time now. To their credit, they pay their own way and do not take any government assistance. But I cannot imagine that there is any way to really connect to that many children. She has said in interviews that she really doesn’t know much about her kids in terms of their likes and dislikes, especially the younger ones. The older kids have a big chunk of the responsibility in the raising of the little ones. It will be interesting to see how the oldest ones transition out of the family in time. Statistically speaking, you’d think there’d end up being at least one hell-raiser in the group.
By Betsy on Apr 9, 2008 8:55 pm |
Boston1775 said
Just to show that the ranch in Texas pictured at the top of the post is not the only place in th US where girls dress modestly due to culture or religion.
By madmommy on Apr 9, 2008 8:56 pm |
IIRC, don’t Amish kids get a year during their teens to “try out” the outside world? I cannot for the life of me remember what it’s called, but they can go experiment and see how other people live, then decide if they want to be in the world or back where they were raised.
By Boston1775 on Apr 9, 2008 8:58 pm |
Since when have bolts of matching calico meant modesty?
By Betsy on Apr 9, 2008 8:59 pm |
madmommy said
Yes. Usually late teen years. Have to decide by 20 or 21 I think.
By Betsy on Apr 9, 2008 9:21 pm |
Here is the crux of the problem in this case:
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/572947.html
The temple inside a polygamous sect’s outpost was used by husbands when they had sex for the first time with their new underage wives, according to an affidavit released Wednesday by Texas officials.
The search and arrest warrant affidavit said the temple at the YFZ Ranch “contains an area where there is a bed where males over the age of seventeen engage in sexual activity with female children under the age of seventeen.”
By madmommy on Apr 9, 2008 9:26 pm |
Betsy said
Barf. Did the old farts gather around and watch, or did they at least offer these poor kids a bit of privacy? shit.
By Man in the Mists on Apr 9, 2008 9:37 pm |
Betsy said
Ha! They make it sound like the guys weren’t all over-fourty. In fact, I have to wonder if they found any sons in the compound.
By madmommy on Apr 9, 2008 9:47 pm |
Man in the Mists said
Judging only from the news footage I saw, there were many women, lots of tween and teen girls, and little kids, boys and girls. But very few, if any, older boys/teens. This could be that they were segregated from the women and children while the authorities sort out who did what to whom. But with all the girls in the teen age bracket, you’d think you’d see at least a few boys older than elementary age.
By Betsy on Apr 9, 2008 9:54 pm |
If any Trexicans are planning to be in Central Texas on Sunday, I’m having a birthday dinner and would love to have you attend.
By Man in the Mists on Apr 9, 2008 9:55 pm |
“Son, you’re a man now. That means you’re competition, so we’re taking you to the city to fend for yourself.”
Disgusting doesn’t even begin to describe it.
By msmolly on Apr 9, 2008 10:09 pm |
Betsy said
I am there in spirit, Betsy!
By msmolly on Apr 9, 2008 10:11 pm |
madmommy said
It’s called rumspringa — the Pennsylvania Dutch word for “running around”
By TRex on Apr 9, 2008 10:19 pm |
Fresh thread:
http://www.iamtrex.com/?p=634