Woman at church shamed my daughter.

[FloralBunting]

Some of my kids are away at a Christian youth camp. One of my daughters is an older teen, involved in junior leadership.

One of the women leaders has taken her to one side and given her some 'advice' about the way she dresses. My daughter is well endowed in norkage, and frankly, delightfully unfussed about wobbly bits in other places. She's not fat, she's not thin, she's just a normal teen girl. She's more than happy in her own skin, and enjoys clothes. She has been wearing shorts this week, and all manner of floaty blouses and strappy tops, because she's been camping, it's hot, and she was comfortable.

I'm angry at having to describe how she dresses, because it shouldn't be bloody relevant, but it's necessary to underline that she is just a regular teenager.

This woman took her to one side, having already discussed it with another female leader, and told her that what she wears is too revealing, shows off her nipples and distracts the boys and will bring her 'the wrong kind of attention'.

She phoned me up, half laughing at the absurdity, but also clearly quite upset. I am livid. We came out of an environment where clothes were exceedingly conservative, because I wanted my girls to stay well away from that kind of restriction, and my DP and kids go to a really run of the mill CofE now.

My daughter spoke to my DP about it and he made it clear that if boys are finding her distracting they need to sort themselves out, which I'm pleased about, but I am absolutely horrified that at least two of the female leaders thinks it's appropriate to shame my daughter for looking like a normal teenaged girl, and dare to suggest this is some kind of bad behaviour on her part.

I've emphasized that this kind of nonsense is sadly a conservative evangelical thing, and that she must let it roll off like the sexist crap it is, but it's so galling that it's women doing this kind of policing.

I told her to try and slip 'nipples' into the conversation on the minibus home.

The boys are having difficulty focusing on God, not your daughter. Your daughter should carry on just as she is. If the women in charge want to police what people are wearing, maybe they should introduce some blinkers for those too-easily-distracted boys!

I doubt the boys are paying as much attention as this woman.

Blinkers for her then!

Ha ha - good idea. To go with those pearls she’s clutching

Blinkers with built in pearls. We need to market this and make a fortune

Not surprising for a Christian summer camp. Modest dress is a part of christianity, even though it's mostly ignored nowadays.

And so it starts. The girls told to wear more restrictive clothing, and told they are to blame for ‘distracting.’
The boys allowed to do what they like, with the added bonus of never needing to learn a spot of respect or restraint.

And we wonder why we have a generation of teen girls desperate to opt out of their bodies and femaleness and boys who can’t take responsibility for a thing.

floral I would be very pissed off. I’d be making an appt with the leader and bringing up the following points.

1. That presumably leader believes that an infallible being created your daughter
2. Deconstruct the idea of modesty - modesty basically means shame. Shame in this situation is directed one way only - at the girl and not at the boys. Modesty as a concept is a get out of jail free card for men

It means they can blame all their actions on the woman. -

1. That we have above epidemic of girls literally trying to opt out of their bodies due to this sort of thing.

Any silliness, I’d be going with the ‘I’m shocked you had impure thoughts about my child’ idea above.

Basically, lay it down that this sort of thing encourages rape culture.

Timothy 2:9-10 “likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.”

Corinthians 12:22-24 “, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty,

Corinthians 11:6 Yes, if she refuses to wear a head covering, she should cut off all her hair! But since it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or her head shaved, she should wear a covering.

The bible is responsible for this misogynistic thinking.

They don't call it Christian camp for nothing. If you don't want your daughter body-shamed and taught that the sexual impulses of boys are her responsibility, then keep her away from Bible-bashers.

If there is a dress code then it should be made clear.

As a female priest in the C of E I can say categorically that there is no dress code for women or men in Christianity. I wear a clerical collar which signifies that I'm ordained and during services I wear robes which are part of the role.

Where it gets confusing is that there are cultural expectations about what to wear in church and that changes through time and where you are. Some of my elderly congregation still wear 'Sunday best' but I never bothered.

I suspect that the camp where the OPs daughter is at the moment is evangelical. There is a strand of evangelical that is conservative and this extends to the roles women can have. All Christians are not evangelical. All evangelicals are not conservative.

I would be livid if my daughter was spoken to like this. Is this a group where some of the leadership have issues with headship ie that women cannot be leaders? If so I'd find another way for my daughter to explore her faith.

This sounds like it's 100% about the DD having larger than average boobs. She could be wearing a polo neck and a floor length skirt and some people would complain.

The woman who took it upon herself to try to shame DD needs a little chat from someone higher up about the appropriateness of shaming young women for having the bodies that they happen to have, and the need to instill in male students a sense of responsibility for their own actions.

Maybe she should show willing and turn up in an authentically biblical fig leaf bikini next time?

The only reason I say no vest tops on Guide camp is the increased area to get sunburnt. So from that POV, I agree with no vest tops.

From every other POV, she can wear what she feels comfortable in, is weather appropriate and not covered in obsence words.

Make sure you send the woman this painting as a Christmas card . (Always been one of my favourites - specially since breast feeding - even the Virgin Mary had to work to get her nipples into the right shape!)

I think the poster who said it's only the girls with big breasts who get shamed this way is spot on - I was flat chested and it never happened to me.

Yes, it's a thing with some organised religion, but it's also a thing in some offices (we always have at least one thread on here every summer by some numpty saying "AIBU to body-shame a colleague who's wearing a lighter blouse and thinner bra now the office has hit 30 degrees in the afternoon?"), and in some schools ("sixth form girls shouldn't be wearing singlets in the heat because it will distract the boys.") So I'm not going to say "pull your daughter out of a patriarchal religious set-up" because patriarchy is everywhere.

If it really is that much of a problem, why doesn't someone suggest the boys wear cardboard boxes on their heads? Then they wouldn't be able to look.

YANBU, I’d be having a word on her return.

Those poor boys who can’t control themselves, FFS.

There is nothing in the Bible - that I can recall - about dressing modestly. Nothing.

Similarly this has nothing to do with faith or religion.

This is 100% a feminist issue.

Women and girls should not be policed by what they wear.

People - men and boys included - should be policed by what they do.

witty

Timothy 2:9-10 “likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.”

Corinthians 12:22-24 “, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty,

Corinthians 11:6 Yes, if she refuses to wear a head covering, she should cut off all her hair! But since it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or her head shaved, she should wear a covering.

The bible is responsible for this misogynistic thinking.*

*Similarly this has nothing to do with faith or religion.

This is 100% a feminist issue. *

And religion has nothing to do with feminism or patriarchy.

Er OK

I’m a bit confused - it’s fine for her to go to a camp all about a book of fairy stories that repeatedly place women as subsurvient to men, but not ok for someone to tell her at said camp that she’s subsurvient to men....?

Yes but Leviticus also says that those who wear mixed fibre clothing should be put to death.

Short of massacring anyone who has possession of polycotton, one might hope that in this day and age people would see a millennia old text as being what it is - put together by committee, relevant to the time it was written and containing a mix of history, allegory, genuine wisdom and the social mores of the time.

Leviticus is probably spot on for keeping a tribe of thousands fairly hygienic in a desert crossing but it’s not terribly relevant for Surbiton in 2018.

So camp leader needs to be told to stop focusing on Dds tits and start focusing on the behaviour of her charges, their safety and dignity at camp and them all having some good outdoor fun, safely and with respect for each other.

Bowlofbabelfish are you suggesting the old testament should be ignored- or simply cherry picked?

I feel what she might have been doing is hold both genders responsible for reducing sexual exposure in a religious camp which seeks to maintain focus on spiritual growth which is certainly clouded by things like sexual desires.

Actually she was holding ONE sex (or actually one person, female as usual) responsible for reducing sexual exposure, that is the crux of what is so wrong.

Bowlofbabelfish are you suggesting the old testament should be ignored- or simply cherry picked?

Either or really. I tend to ignore it completely because I’m an atheist. Most Christians I know pick and choose. Only a very few see it as the literal Word.
I’m suggesting it should be read in context. As the product of a violent tribal society. In the context of a bible whose contents were decided by committee. Lot sending his daughters to be raped by the mob to spare his sons is hardly an ethos to live by is it?

Yes all religion should be cherry picked. Most religions have a core of decency. The problem is all the stuff that aggregates around it. Most religions have a core of folk history - there does seem to be geological evidence for at least one catastrophic flood in the area for example.

The concept of how a religious text gets interpreted and not seen as literal any more has a name and I can’t remember it (anyone know..?)

Stuff like what the OPs daughter has experienced is yet another reason to ignore it all. It’s ‘the baggage aggregating around religion’ rather than the ‘love thy neighbour’ and ‘be decent to people’ side of Christianity.

I think Bowl is pointing out that all Christians, no matter how literally they try to take the Bible, cherry pick, and therefore the only way to tackle it if you do believe is to think about the underlying intent - which, can, if you're a feminist Christian, include teasing out the difference between what you believe to be God's underlying message and what you think is religion playing a social and anthropological role within a particular culture and time. (I personally am an agnostic, but one who knows many thoughtful Christians, including some working scientists who are Christians.)

Anyway, a couple of fun links:
"Why can't I own a Canadian?"
www.beliefnet.com/columnists/areasontosmile/2011/11/dear-dr-laura-why-cant-i-own-a-canadian.html

and the Brick Testament does Leviticus (NSFW and also despite the lego, not a good idea to open in front of small children who may ask some very awkward questions...)
www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html

Cross-post with Bowl