I think a big part of the problem we have with fetishizing modesty, objectifying women and female body-image dysmorphia is directly tied to our absent Female God. We do not know or talk about our Mother in Heaven. We do not sing to or about Her, except in O My Father(!). We do not see Her in our art or read about Her in our scriptures. We have no model for what an ideal female body could look like (unless we accept Cosmo’s version) or what an ideal female person could do and be.
The church we belong to is part of the (male) body of Christ, and the God we worship has a physical male body. There is no perfected female body to pattern our perfecting after.
So instead we hate our bodies and live in fear of the judgments of others:
“Am I sexy enough to keep my husband from straying?”
“Am I modest enough to not get raped?”
Sexy? Modest? SexyModest. Kind of has a ring to it.
I do not accept this: not for myself, and certainly not for my daughters. Something has to change. If I were an artist, I would paint the Mother God. If I were a singer, I would sing Her praises. If I were a weaver, a sculptor, a poet, I would produce something that would bring Her here, to look at and worship and know.
I do want my daughters to be modest.* But I want them to be so for the most immodest of reasons: because they take after a Goddess.
——
Modesty is Love
(to the tune of Reverence is Love)
Modesty’s not about covering shoulders, it’s thinking of Mother above.
It’s knowing my body is just like her body. I’m modest for modesty’s love.
When I’m modest I care for my inner soul, instead of the clothes that I wear.
And when I am modest I know in my heart, Heav’nly Mother and Jesus are there.
See also: Esther’s Courage and Follow the Prophetess and Heather’s With Your Mutual Approbation.
—–
If you’ve missed the modest-pharisee protest online, some of my favorite recent posts include Stephanie’s Fresh Meat, Sue’s epic modesty rant, Cynthia’s cap sleeve art, and How the Modesty Doctrine Hurts Men, too. See also Breastfeeding in Public.
—–
*modest:
adjective
1. having or showing a moderate or humble estimate of one’s merits, importance, etc.; free from vanity, egotism, boastfulness, or great pretensions.2. free from ostentation or showy extravagance: a modest house.3. having or showing regard for the decencies of behavior, speech, dress, etc.; decent: a modest neckline on a dress.4. limited or moderate in amount, extent, etc.: a modest increase in salary.
Subscribe by email
I really like this. It truly is loving yourself to be modest, however you’re choosing to define it.
Shannon Reply:
September 10th, 2012 at 5:32 pm
Thanks, I agree.
Thanks for the linkage! I’ll have to link you back in “September in Review.”
Shannon Reply:
September 10th, 2012 at 5:31 pm
That’s not necessary — I just felt I needed to give you credit, bec. though I made up a few female verses to other songs on my own, I confess that when I first read your Mutual Approbation blog, I was a bit taken aback by your audacity! So audacious. I love it! Heavenly Mother! (my point being that my own views evolve so quickly once I start really thinking about something.))
Are you sure about the (male) body of Christ? Isn’t the Church supposed to be the bride and Jesus Christ the bridegroom?
I do like your poem, by the way. The whole issue of talking about or referencing a Mother in Heaven is kind of a puzzle for me–there could not be a Father in Heaven, or even a male personage in heaven for that matter, without implying a female. At the same time, the fact that the male half of the equation is spelled out “in black and white” is in interesting congruence with the specifics of a man’s training and growth in the Church (at 12, he receives the priesthood, at 14 he’s ordained a deacon, and so on, including the regimented nature of the Boy Scout program of YM) while the female’s development is much more general and fuzzy (there’s got to be a better description). Both are supposed to arrive at the temple as adults ready for nearly identical endowments and covenants. Doesn’t this speak to a difference in the nature of males and females?
Shannon Reply:
September 10th, 2012 at 5:28 pm
I googled “Body of Christ” and here is the first link (wikipedia, fwiw):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_of_Christ I think the church as body of Christ is a more RC and protestant idea, and comes from the letter from Paul about the foot being as important as the head?
I think your point about the endowment and esp the initiatory (where women actually administer a priesthood ordinance) is an important one. Not sure what it means, but it’s significant.
Shannon Reply:
September 10th, 2012 at 5:30 pm
(I mean that I’m not sure how the temple’s discussion/practice of priesthood holding and performing correlate with outside-temple, male-only holding and officiating, not that I don’t know what your comment means. If that makes any sense
I think it wholly appropriate that thoughts of a heavenly mother, and a woman visualizing her place in heaven would provide motivation for modesty. Same goes for men.
Logic would demand, as noted above, that we accept the fact that our heavenly mother exists. Beyond that though, we must remember that any descriptions or, or attributions to a heavenly mother are all supposition. We don’t know what she would approve of, except perhaps to assume that it is the same as what God would. We have been given nothing to go on, probably for a reason. We don’t know what that reason is, but we are still left with 100% supposition.
What we do know, is that we are encouraged to pattern our lives after the attributes of Christ. And there, we do have plenty to go on. I submit that any personality trait or attribute of Christ that we could name, is gender-neutral. When we say he provides a perfect example, I believe that’s saying in part, his example is whole, and is given as all we need.
Sure, some day in the eternities, it will be fulfilling and fascinating to learn all we can about our heavenly mother, and hopefully, to know her personally again. In the meantime though, like so many other topics, we have to content ourselves with what we’ve been given, and admit that our description of things unknown is only as valid as our imagination.
Shannon Reply:
September 12th, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Thanks, Andy. I appreciate your thoughts. I admit it’s hard for me to content myself with what I’ve been given revelation-wise, and I would submit that our entire religion is based on not being content with current revelation. Of course it must be approached in an attitude of faith and humility, but I think it must be approached — at least, raising my daughters day-to-day, in my nurturing aspect as the Proclamation states, forces me to approach these questions.
I’ve been thinking recently about why Heavenly Father sent me only daughters — how/would I feel differently about things like modesty and priesthood, etc, if I also had sons? If I believe Heavenly Father was purposeful in sending me the children He did, I must consider that He wanted me to think about what it means to be a daughter in His kingdom.
Oh, and I agree completely about the Christ-like attributes we see in the NT and BofM being gender-neutral. In fact, I love the maternal (hen gathering chicks, suckling/succoring, etc) imagery Christ often employs.