Volume XIX, Issue 1

Publication Team Elias Hage

Editor-in-Chief •

Anthony Halstead Copy Editor •

Courtney Shingle Executive Assitant •

Jacob Baugher Cover Artist •

Michael Sherman Business Manager

Featuring Marilynn Moltane Cover Model

Table of Contents

Letter from the Editor -4How Feminists are Right about Abstinence -5On a Catholic Feminism -8Enslavement or Empowerment: Women, Choice, and Sexuality in American Culture - 11 Feminity and Feminism - 14 On the Frusterating Debate about Female Attire - 17 -

One could say that in case of need, every normal and healthy woman is able to hold a position.

And there is no profession which cannot be practiced by a woman.

-St. Terese Benedicta of the Cross

Letter from the Editor Greetings Barons!

Welcome back to a new semester and a new year! As you can see the Gadfly has undergone a transformation. For the past seven plus years, the Gadfly has had the same layout (every publication, since 2007, is online at www.franciscangadfly.org), and my staff and I felt it was time for a change. We here at the Gadfly take very seriously our position on campus as the voice for “both sides.” We felt that it was time to emulate an image of academic vigor and eloquence. The Gadfly does not stand as an odorous rank against University irritants, but as a foundation for the free expression of our students. We, the students, deserve a sleek foundation to voice our thoughts, and the Gadfly has taken the initiative to provide such a service.

An interesting phenomenon is taking place during our time.

Womankind is going through a maturation process, and the experience she undergoes determines the sociological person that she becomes.

What do I mean by this? Man has been invariably static throughout the ages. Man has been the figurehead of power with Woman as the backdrop. Yet, in our time Woman seems to have hit a point of new development – a puberty of sorts. Woman is no longer a backdrop but the protagonist. After this period of history, Woman as we know her will overcome her preceded role. What Woman is will never change, but what Woman “is” may.

Elias Hage 4

How Feminists are Right about Abstinence Kathleen Monin

Abstinence is, as many a feminist will tell you, one of the most harmful ideologies that has been forced upon modern young women. When I presented this point of view for an argumentative paper last semester, the overall reaction in the classroom was bewildered amusement, since it is likely that my fellow Franciscanites (the word “Franny” can die), much like myself, received a very carefully parent-monitored, virtue-infused, keep-it-in-yourpants introduction to sex.

When I first stumbled upon this anti-abstinence sector of thought in the blogosphere, I was very convinced of the inaccuracy of these people’s views. Many irate feminist bloggers bash every known religious institution, abstinence author and chastity speaker known to man, with claims that these people taught girls to base their personal value on their sexual history. They might also insist that these ways of thinking were all a fiendish construct by the patriarchy to undermine the self-confidence of young women and limit their intellectual development by constantly redirecting their attention to whether or not they were alluring virgins. My heavily biased view point at first saw emotionally driven ranting and widespread hasty generalizations, and I was certain that I could easily produce massive amounts of abstinence based literature illustrating that, No! Catholicism understands the dignity of the woman is a very complex subject, and values her very highly! Our teaching is all about her worth as a human person, and the term “purity” does not refer to the condition of the woman’s body and is no indicator of the level of respect she deserves! We have many books and speakers that spread this message to all the young women out there… But I’m sure many a reader can see where this is going. To my chagrin, I failed to find such literature, and I discovered that we’re not too far from the Mean Girls depiction of sex ed.

Unfortunately, Catholics are great at only defining words such as “chastity” for people with inch thick glasses and large vocabularies. Though John Paul II is fantastic on this subject, and shame on me for criticizing a saint, he’s very disorganized and it can be a bore to read large portions of his writings at a time. There’s a fantastic scholar named Dr. William E. May at CUA who has posted many insightful essays online which delve into the subject quite beautifully. The list of highly knowledgeable, yet dense, authors goes on (my bibliography was huge). But when it comes to materials that are aimed at young people, I don’t think it is even fair to write their names here. I did, however, read many of them, including some well-sold authors, and came away not just unsatisfied, but disturbed. I saw YouTube videos that made me cringe. I read books that made me roll my eyes and consume unhealthy amounts of ice cream to smother my depression. I am no longer astonished at the teen pregnancy rate. I am a few short steps away from sympathetic with the shrinking number of virginal brides and grooms. The truth is that when it comes to abstinence-only education, we’re pretty damn terrible at it. The majority of the material I encountered seemed to be directed toward one purpose—to manipulate or terrify young people into compliance. I am very sure that this affect was never the intention, but I must lay down my pride and admit that yes, the feminist blogosphere is right—abstinence-only educators are mostly succeeding in making young women feel terrible about themselves.

Girls who have had premarital sex are being compared to lollipops that have been unwrapped and sucked and then left to collect bits of lint; gum that’s been chewed; water that’s been sloshed in and out of many people’s mouths; tape that’s got gunk on it from sticking to too many different objects —this, 5

the well-intentioned speakers say, is the equivalent to what a non-virgin offers to her husband on her wedding night. Additionally, erroneous rumors, such as the notion that going on birth control is likely to kill you, are propagated by several sources. Some instructors have painted having premarital sex as a surefire way to contract an STD that will make you infertile. Most material sounds good when preached to the choir, but from the outside girls who engage in premarital sex sound like sluts, boys sound like unfeeling rapists, and they both sound like idiots. It is small wonder that the majority of my friends found deeper meaning in their boyfriend’s bodies than in the words of their desperate mothers and condescending, counterfactual chastity speakers. To many teenage girls, messages such as “True Love Waits,” and “Chastity is for Lovers” often are translated as “If you’re in love, do nothing!” which is a very unsatisfactory conclusion for any pubescent individual. And don’t get me started on the “Virginity Rocks” t-shirts. How can we convince teens that they’re dealing with an important subject if we’re making dumb taglines and cheesy propaganda out of it?

Thus, hear ye all who wish to be youth ministers, I have concocted some rules for your consideration when talking to teenagers about their faith and sex lives becomes your job.

Number One: just be honest about sex and sexuality. Though I was cajoled into sitting through more than my fair share of chastity talks in high school, when I wanted an answer I was always met with a vague response. In a situation where it is assumed that everyone in the room will be abstaining, parents and abstinence instructors like to think in hypothetical terms, or say “you only need to know when you’re ready for sex.” Go ahead and say “purity” and “chastity,” all you want, but bear in mind people between the ages of 13 and 18 tend to not have good definitions for those words. You can’t ask a 13 year old girl to make a purity pledge if she has no idea what she’s doing, so tell her. Misleading her won’t cause her to stumble into grace. At best she’ll be ignorant, not holy. I know that many people might raise the objection that only parents should discuss these matters with their kids, but if a girl is 15 and asking how sex works then it might be safe to assume that someone needs to have 6

a conversation with her. What is more, if you’re not honest, her friends and internet searches will be.

Number Two: know what you’re talking about.

Know the biology. Know the psychology. Know the theology and the philosophy and the history and the terminology. Secular society tells young people that sex is whatever they want, and they should decide what to do with it for themselves. As Catholics, we believe that people have great significance, thus what they do has purpose. One question you’re probably going to have to be answering a lot is: “Why?” Modern abstinence-only education is far too focused on using any means possible to simply keep young men and women from having sex, and is not focused enough on the welfare, growth, or individuality of young human beings. The teenage years are the most formative time of any person’s life, and it will not serve anyone well to develop negative perceptions of sex at this age.

Catholicism is far too enlightened to have so many young people with confused notions that sex and even kissing are gross or shameful. These perceptions are not magically going to disappear on a young woman’s wedding night.

Which brings me to Number Three: love them.

Love every single student, teen, and especially young woman whom you encounter, because they desperately need it. An abstinent but utterly oblivious young person will have a very rough time living a sexually mature marriage. Both men and women need to develop sexual maturity, starting when they are teenagers. As a youth minister, encouraging that maturity is going to be your duty. A young adult struggling to understand sexuality needs to be met with guidance, patience, and encouragement, and if you don’t love them enough to sacrifice your time and energy and give of yourself, then you might be in the wrong line of work.

Knowing the beauty and the purpose of sexuality is a gift that needs to be shared with the rest of the world. The truth about sex isn’t dirty, it’s not shameful, and it shouldn’t be a secret or buried in a heavy tome. Young people need to know what sex is and what it’s for and why we do it, or they’ll make up their own answers, regardless of how much we botch the job by trying to scare them out of doing so.

He thought her beautiful, believe her impeccably wise; dreamed of her, wrote poems to her, which, ignoring the subject, she corrected in red ink.

-Virginia Woolf, Mrs. Dalloway

On A Catholic Feminism Daniel Davis

When the esteemed editor of this publication asked me to write an article about feminism, my initial reaction was that I am not qualified to comment on the subject. However, here I find myself writing on the topic. I suppose an initial question (and a valid one at that) would be: Can a man, properly speaking, comment on feminism? Obviously, as a man, there are many “feminine” topics of which it would be rather silly of me to comment on. There is an unavoidable experience gap between my life as a man and the life of a woman - something which goes beyond the uniqueness of the individual human person. Nevertheless, feminism as a topic encompasses sociological, philosophical, psychological, and even theological elements. Therefore, as a matter of intellectual interest, I believe that I can comment (despite inadequacies) on this topic.

An initial question from the realm of philosophy would be whether or not souls are engendered: Is there such a thing as a male and a female soul? My answer would be yes. We experience our whole lives through the lens of gender which informs our memory and ways of communicating with the world and one another. Furthermore, my view of the human person deviates far from a Platonic dualism that would highlight the division between the body and the soul. The way that I understand the human person is as a unified whole; we have spiritual and material elements and live in the midst of a metaxic world (meaning that we exist in the “in-betweenness” of the material and spiritual universes). Therefore, the notion of an engendered soul works rather nicely with my composite view of the human person.

However, to the question of an engendered soul, many Christians would cite Galatians 3:23-29, here abridged from the New Revised Standard Version: “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” In context, we

know that this section is in reference to the Christian Rite of Baptism. I do not believe that this passage is in any way a rejection of the notion of an engendered soul. On the contrary, I believe that this passage is highlighting a central Christian message: that all are equal who are baptized in Christ. This passage is not a reiteration of a pantheistic (or collectivist) notion that we all lose our individuality within the spiritual realm. Rather, I believe that this passage is a radical affirmation of individual human dignity, despite religious, social, and gender differences. Dare I say, that this is one of the earliest affirmations of Catholic Social Teaching.

If Christ is the head of the Church and if the Holy Spirit is its blood, then Catholic Social Teaching is the heart which pumps the blood to all parts of the Church-body. It is the central affirmation of the dignity and intrinsic equality of each and every human person which defines Catholic Social Teaching.

What then, is a Catholic feminism? I believe that it is one which seeks to eradicate the rampant social injustices in our society. A Catholic feminism recognizes that our gender informs how we see and experience the world. It embraces the Christian message of equality; for example, equal pay for equal work. It is a sobering reflection that even in our progressive twenty-first century society that women still earn less than their male counterparts. Again, equality does not mean a kind of pantheistic commonality. A Catholic feminism is one that emphasizes the unique contribution which each individual human person brings to society.

I believe that this Catholic feminism must focus on what roles women have within the life of the Church.

I recognize that a call for female ordination to the priesthood is not something which would be well received at Franciscan University, so I will not unduly antagonize. However, there are historical roles 8

within the life of the Church for women within the ordained ministry, specifically the role of the deacon.

The Church, which is, in so many ways, sustained by the efforts of Catholic women, is led from the top-down by men. Even if women cannot partake in full pastoral ministry, to exclude them from administrative roles within the Church seems shortsighted. A Catholic feminism should be one that seeks to share the beauty of the female expression in all facets of life, including the life of the Church.

Outside of the institution of the Church, there are many areas where a Catholic feminism can work towards developing a more dignified view of the human person. Even though great inequality still exists in our culture, the effects of the sexual liberation movement have worked towards removing a male-centric view of civil society. A Catholic feminism can help develop a new Christian understanding of marriage. As Catholic feminists we can recognize that marriage is a cooperative effort between both partners and not a male dictatorship. Christians of a more conservative approach might cite passages such as Ephesians 5:22-24 (NRSV): “Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands.”

This passage may sound to many like the definitive Christian view on marriage; however, I would respectfully argue otherwise. In response, I would pair the previously cited passage with 1 Corinthians 7:1-16 (NRSV), here abridged: “For the

wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” This second letter from the Apostle Paul provides a much healthier view of Christian marriage for the twenty-first century Catholic feminist. This understanding of spouses’ mutual belonging fully to one another is a very different notion from that of the wife being a subject of the husband. I propose that the equality of respect between men and women in society must flow forth from our homes and families into the world of society and business. We will never truly be able to achieve social equality between the sexes until there is this view of the mutual dignity of the spouses in marriage. To reiterate: I am not referring to equality as making genders the same.

For this would be a rejection of the entire Catholic feminist movement (which I propose). Sameness denies individuality. Being equal means that neither one is above the other (in terms of social ranking, recognition of personal dignity, etc.).

This call for a rejuvenated sense of a Catholic feminism should be embraced by all who accept the Christian call. The Catholic feminism, which I here propose, originates out of a philosophical and theological view of the human person and has wide-reaching social implications. If we actually believe in our common Baptism into Christ (Galatians) and the mutual self-giving love which can only be given by equal partners (1 Corinthians) then we must recognize ourselves as Catholic feminists and work towards greater equality, in the home, in society, and in the Church.

9

We ask justice, we ask equality, we ask that all the civil and political rights that belong to the citizens of the United States, be guaranteed to us and our daughters forever.

-Susan B. Anthony, Delcaration of Rights for Women

Enslavement or Empowerment: Women, Choice, and Sexuality in American Culture Courtney Shingle

American culture is saturated with sexuality.

We read it in our books, hear it in our music, and see it in our films. And very often, questions arise about the “degradation of women in a matrix of domination,” versus the “sexual empowerment of women.”

Amid arguments that women have been made sexual objects of a male-dominated culture, some cry that the problem is a lack of freedom for women to make choices. In truth, this is not the case; rather, it’s a lack of understanding and a perversion of sexuality that enslaves women – and men, too – and our society will never break free of this enslavement until sexuality itself is redefined.

At the tender age of 21, Miley Cyrus recently threw herself under the public microscope due to her overtly sexual performance at MTV’s Video Music Awards (VMAs), and the response to the event was overwhelming. The Internet was abuzz with cries of outrage, pity, and even admiration in regard to the former child star’s new image. So, the age-old question for young women remains: is she being empowered by her actions or is she being further exploited?

The question does not only pertain to front-page celebrities – it is equally as important to all women in general.

The current generation of feminism – Third Wave (or “Choice”) Feminism – sees this type of action as an example of free choice for women and a bold move of sexual expression for the young performer. They believe that Cyrus’s actions are merely her exploration of her own sexuality and individuality, and that any negative criticism of her is just another example of women being oppressed by society. In an article for The Observer, Bertie Brandes defends the star saying, “Miley Cyrus is 20 (actually 21); of course she wants to be sexy. … I don’t really see why that has to be a problem.” Cyrus clearly identifies with this mindset herself, saying in 11

an interview with BBC Radio 1’s Newsbeat, “I feel like I’m one of the biggest feminists in the world because I tell women to not be scared of anything…

I don’t care what you wanna do in your life, or who you wanna be with, who you wanna love, who you wanna look like.”

These sentiments fit perfectly with the definition of choice feminism given by author Michaele L. Ferguson in an article for the Gender and Sexuality Studies Workshop at the University of Chicago. “[Choice feminism] understands freedom as the capacity to make individual choices,” Ferguson wrote, “And oppression as the inability to choose. Consequently, as long as a woman can say that she has chosen to do something, it is considered by choice feminists to be an expression of her liberation.”

“[Since] the only criterion for evaluating women’s freedom is individual choice,” Ferguson continued, “We should abstain from judging the content of the choices women make.”

This definition reveals the fatal flaw of choice feminism – an attitude that embraces relative morality. In essence, these feminists believe that a woman is incapable of causing her own oppression, regardless of the way she chooses to represent herself. The current wave of feminism embraces ideas that are not practical or beneficial to women.

This fact can be demonstrated with a question: Is having the ability to choose anything freedom, or is it possible that being truly free means there must be some means of evaluating choices?

Are we enslaving ourselves by our choices? At the very least, it is impractical and inconsiderate to believe that our choices are not subject to a set of societal or moral standards. Don’t women have rights because they are held to a standard? If there is no standard to measure the best a woman could be (or could be treated), then there is no standard to

describe the worst a woman can be (or can be treated). While the choice feminist mindset allows each woman the “freedom” to make her own individual choices without judgment, it also provides no scenario in which she can succeed as an “empowered” woman. She cannot overcome oppression at all.

Even more than being a mere object of sexual desire, she actually becomes a being which has no dignity – incapable of obtaining respect because respect is a feeling of admiration towards someone based on who their choices have proven them to be.

Getting back to Cyrus’s performance at the VMAs, the problems with the choice feminist mindset become clear. Cyrus, in her performance, wears as little clothing as possible and dances suggestively alongside another performer, Robin Thicke; he has ironically been criticized for his lack of respect for women in his essentially pornographic music video for, “Blurred Lines.” In both cases, the women chose to perform in such a way. So, how is it possible for Cyrus’s performance alongside the singer to be an example of “empowerment” while Thicke’s music video remains an “enslavement” of women?

It isn’t. It’s merely a double standard that exposes this type of feminism as harmful to both men and women. Since it’s not fair to maintain this double standard and since it isn’t possible for empowerment and slavery to be the result of the same actions, clearly the accepted definition of empowerment is in error.

It seems clear that making the choice to present one’s self as an object of desire by what we wear and how we act puts women in a prison of their own making. That’s all that choice feminism will ever achieve. Choice feminists will never be able to successfully fight for the equality of women because

12

they ignore the influence that moral standards and public perception have on sexuality by necessity.

Women, if held subject to these beliefs, will always be subordinate to men because they themselves choose not to be viewed with respect. This doesn’t mean that men are incapable of degrading women who act virtuously; rather, it suggests that the expectation of being treated with dignity makes sense only if we aim to live in a dignified manner.

But if choice feminism doesn’t provide women with the means to break free, in what manner do women ensure that they are considered equal to men? Really, the answer lies in celebrating the difference between men and women while maintaining their equality, which in part is done by women striving to act virtuously. By having the freedom to choose and choosing well, women command respect from men. It is much harder, though not impossible, to degrade women when they refuse to condescend to a lower standard.

It’s equally apparent that this degradation of women is a result of a society that degrades the general meaning of sexuality. Women will never cease to be objects of lust until sexuality and lust are not considered to be the same thing – which unfortunately is the general mindset of our culture. Our culture equates sex with pleasure, and this view reduces women to creatures that only satisfy the need for pleasure.

Women have to take the first step and say, “I will not be imprisoned by my own choices,” before they can stop being restricted by the choices of others. After that, we must work to redefine the way society looks at sexuality before any real and meaningful empowerment of women can become the standard.

No woman can call herself free who does not control her own body -Margaret Sanger

Feminity and Feminism James Monsour

Wanna hear a sexist joke? What? Why? Oh yeah. No one likes to hear offensive things. Even the people who do like offensive jokes don’t like it if you manage to somehow offend them. Everyone has at least one thing they care about more than anything, and what they don’t care for is to hear it maligned. For most people it’s a lot of things – what we call our “values” – like our integrity, human dignity, virtues, our family, and so forth. It’s no wonder that people should be upset when the things they care about are violated. But it is a wonder, every time it happens: how can the “wrong side” people refuse to release their mistakes? When slavery was finally abolished in America, the attitude of white superiority continued, even in law, and a collective spirit of racism overturned the spirit of the emancipation. A hundred years ago, women fought to gain suffrage, and won – though many begrudged them for it.

And countless groups have fought against prejudice and discrimination, claiming their human rights as ground for change.

Feminists today work on a very different criteria, I propose. Whereas the earlier waves of the movement made strides more directly drawn from fundamental human rights, the social demands of the new idealists derive from a rather hasty assumption that men and women are entirely homogenous.

Feminism, as defined today in several dictionaries, is the belief that men and women should have equal social and political rights. This alone is a fuzzy definition (“social rights” could encompass a lot of things), but if we take a look at how the culture truly defines it, it gets even fuzzier. Because we want the mainstream opinion, the Internet is a good place to search. On feminist.com, a major leading source of contemporary feminist ideology, the journalist for the “Ask Amy” blog defines a feminist as “a person who believes in the full equality of women and men.” Wait a minute – men are fully equal with

women? What does that mean? Is there such a thing as gender? It seems there is, since in another post she champions both sexes, saying feminism is a “fight to free men and women from inequalities. And those inequalities are based mostly on long-term stereotypes that — i.e., that men are conditioned one way and women another.”

So “masculinity” and “femininity” are just words that describe stereotypes? I’m going to go out on a limb and say that my sisters are indeed “conditioned” differently than my brothers. (I guess I also have to go out on a limb to say I have “sisters” and “brothers,” since for all I know they’ve recently chosen to be one gender or the other.) I guess all those years it was just the prejudices of our society that pressured me to like Batman instead of Princess Peach. Another post talks about the goal of feminism: “Both that women do what men have done (be fire fighters and corporate executives) and that men do what women have done (be stayat-home fathers and secretaries). Not until we have it equal at both ends will it be equal.

And I guarantee you—when men start being 50% of secretaries or 50% of fathers—those careers will become much more valued.”

Here I would like to pause to blink a few times. So the careers with high-paying salaries were valued in the past because men were running them, not because the work itself is valuable, or because the money matters. Gotcha.

And this website has no dearth of these ideas flowing through: “[The purpose of feminism is] disrupting the status quo;” “we are all more likely to be conditioned toward sexism than against it;” “liberating all genders from restrictions is one of the main values of feminism,” and so on and so forth. This standard is not a fad, or some ridiculous notion only proclaimed by hippies. It. Is. Mainstream. It runs 14

through public schools, workplaces, and households.

And if you don’t think it’s scary, let me show you one more ghost.

“Annie Sprinkle Ph.D. is the prostitute/porn star turned artist/sexologist. She has passionately researched and explored sexuality in all of its glorious and inglorious forms for thirty six years, and has shared her findings all along the way through producing and starring in her own unique brand of sex films, photographic work, teaching workshops, and college lectures. Annie has long championed sex worker rights and health care.

She was one of the pivotal players in the 80’s ‘sex positive feminist movement’.”

Let’s focus on those last two sentences. Sex workers and health care? How on earth could those two ideas relate, I wonder. And just the phrase “sex positive feminist movement” is taking the feminist ideals in a whole new direction from where they were going back when feminism meant pioneering for women’s rights. But that is where radical feminism is now, no dispute: using sex as an empowerment for women.

These few examples of feminist doctrine are not exactly coming out of every teenager’s mouth, I grant. The problem is, they are being spouted by the

media, upheld by organizations left and right, and in general accepted as “good values” – even called Christian values by some.

The ideal of real feminism is to restore and uphold the value of women in society. It has nothing to do with providing more opportunities to women so they can balance out the men in the workplace, nor has it anything to do with encouraging them to be stay-at-home mothers or secretaries. True Feminism is about upholding femininity by seeking that women earn respect for the role they play in society, whether as housewife or as Senator. Many movements that call themselves feminists because they promote women in higher end professions are glossing over the problem they are trying to address.

In order to gain respect for women, they believe they need the type of jobs that will command it. But if that’s the case then it’s not the person that’s being respected in the first place, but the money!

In many ways, it is too late. The times have changed, and I find myself the one who has to watch out for making a fool of myself by offending the mainstream thinker. I am on “the wrong side of history” this time. All I can do is join the “history” of people that still retain what I retain, and so help the world of true values to thrive in our culture.

15

Unwittingly, the feminists acknowledge the superiority of the male sex by wishing to become like men.

-Alive Von Hildebrand, Privilege of Being a Woman

On the Frustrating Debate about Female Attire Isabelle Farineau

The perpetually waged modesty discussion, which is very familiar to all of us here at Franciscan, raises important questions that never seem any easier to answer: How should we adorn our bodies? How much should our gender affect it? Should what other people perceive about our appearance impact our choices? There are many more, but what our particular process of argumentation does, besides fail to make progress, is polarize our campus.

Now, as someone particularly vocal about my own beliefs, I am not suggesting that this discussion or its motivating concerns are the problem.

This is a conversation that matters to each one of us who have to pick out clothes every morning. What I find concerning is the manner in which we approach the topic. Discussing this problem always evokes the textbook situation in which a woman walks by another who is covering all of her skin and thinks “Prude!” while the other looks back and thinks “Slut!”

Here on campus, I would not cast us all as this harsh, though perhaps you have noticed the same glances. At Franciscan, the response seems to be “Oh, what a poor sheltered girl, she knows nothing about what it means to be feminine” and conversely “Oh, silly thing, if only she knew the value in saving her looks for her husband alone.” The first situation presents the reality of the second. We may cloak our judgments with pale attempts to sympathize, but they are still judgments that impose our personal perspective on the questioners without truly trying to recognize the person at whom you shoot passive aggressive stares.

In the case of female dress, this seems to be the starting place that keeps us from relating properly to our fellow students. If we were to approach this conversation without first checking the other person’s profile picture, or giving their outfit a onceover to figure out “who they really are,” we might 17

stand a better chance of hearing their points. When we base our response upon whether or not a girl is wearing something we approve of we cut her off before she has spoken. We should be open to approaching an opposing arguer as a person, instead of reducing them to a predetermined label.

No matter how well we are sure we have someone “pegged” based on what we see, no matter if their remarks fit that picture or not, we can never account for the innumerable factors that lead to their personal convictions about what to wear. Our habits, cultures, personal histories, traumas and trials build up how much we reveal and conceal our styles and our dislikes. We do ourselves a disservice by leaving these unexamined in ourselves and a greater disservice to our fellow students for not considering the differences of another’s experience.

Those critical of the more extreme mode of modest attire (commonly referred to by its emblematic article as “peasant skirt”) are quick to claim their disgust is really at how the ultra-clad are “brainwashed” into thinking they must wear what they do. Now, perhaps there exists a marked pressure from the family to wear the clothes against the girl’s wishes, but in general this view fails to recognize that many make the choice each morning because they truly enjoy wearing it. Would we look at a girl from rural India and declare her “brainwashed” into wearing a sari instead of what we consider more flattering? No, because we know how culture forms our ideas about dress. The culture of many Catholic families in America tends towards covering more skin than what some of us are used to. We simply cannot pick what customs are hip enough to mimic in fads (I’m looking at you in the “Navajo Print” blouse) and then try to melt away what we find displeasing in the mythical pot.

This is not to propose that we can justify wearing anything anywhere.

Consider how when we travel to foreign places we sometimes adjust our clothing in order to respect the social norms (e.g. an American woman covers her hair in Saudi Arabia, and a New Guinean tribeswomen covers her chest when coming to America). When we change our norms to respect those of different countries, something inside of us rebels in protest. We appropriately ask the question, “Why is this outfit objectionable?”

Though if we were to travel and automatically rebel with our clothing choices, we would anger the native people and close the important discussions that could spring from our discomfort.

The common citation of the ultra-clad in their response to the more freely dressed is that their choices are “immoral.” Those who make this argument can attempt to create standards of dress as a totalitarian manner, declaring the limits of dress down to exact measurements of sleeve and skirt length. When we approach the other simply as a “sinner” based on what they happen to have on before we meet them, of course we treat the discussion as an attempt to convert, instead of converse. To see this issue as a moral one alone is to obliterate the obvious experience of billions around the world who would rightly giggle at you for vehemently demanding that “the cut-out about the neck must never exceed two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat.”

What I’m attempting to say is that although we have a wealth of experience, we ought to remain open in our discussions of modesty to how that experience

informs our choices. A closed-minded attempt to reduce someone to your personal standard or to a moralistic code alone is depersonalizing, impractical, and will cause us to bicker forever over silly things like whether or not I am a whorish pagan for wearing pants.

We just end up contributing to the reduction of women to their personal appearance! Isn’t that the one thing that both sides want to stop?

For some reason, we continue to use language like, “If you dress like a slut, how do you expect to be treated?” and, “If you dress frumpy, like your body is worthless, how do you expect to be treated?” These are used not just by men but by women to vilify other women. Both statements are ludicrous, of course, because no matter how a women dresses it doesn’t excuse her exploitation.

Our language reflects just how far we are willing to go to suppress each other, to the point of dismissing someone’s humanity when it comes to talking about this. In the struggle to relate, even and especially in seeming dissent, we must consider not just the moral principles of our faith but the subjective struggle of each one of us here trying to live them out. Awareness of our internal dispositions is in order if we keep broaching subject in an aggressive manner, for we are in danger of negating the personhood of our fellow students whom we ought to love. Without judgment we must meet our neighbors face to face, not skirt to skirt.

18