Modesty is About Protection of Women?

Modesty is About Protection of Women? September 24, 2018

It’s been a very long time since we looked at Stacey Mcdonald of Your Sacred Calling. It seems that she’s not updated much in previous years, and she does not seem quite as engaged at Ladies Against Feminism. She’s claiming in this tiny quote from a post on modesty that modest is about protection of women.

No, it’s about control, controlling every aspect of a woman’s being, like she’s cattle, or a possession or something that could be tarnished with use. Protection, real protection, does not enter the equation anywhere.

Really? Policing the bodies of random women is the most pressing issue in Christianity today? I wonder if any of them ever bothered reading the words of Jesus?


Stay in touch! Like No Longer Quivering on Facebook:

If this is your first time visiting NLQ please read our Welcome page and our Comment Policy! Commenting here means you agree to abide by our policies.

Copyright notice: If you use any content from NLQ, including any of our research or Quoting Quiverfull quotes, please give us credit and a link back to this site. All original content is owned by No Longer Quivering and Patheos.com

Read our hate mail at Jerks 4 Jesus

Check out today’s NLQ News at NLQ Newspaper

Contact NLQ at SuzanneNLQ@gmail.com

Comments open below

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement by Kathryn Joyce

I Fired God by Jcoelyn Zichtermann

13:24 A Dark Thriller by M Dolon Hickmon

About Suzanne Titkemeyer
Suzanne Titkemeyer went from a childhood in Louisiana to a life lived in the shadow of Washington D.C. For many years she worked in the field of social work, from national licensure to working hands on in a children's residential treatment center. Suzanne has been involved with helping ithe plights of women and children' in religious bondage. She is a ordained Stephen's Minister with many years of counseling experience. Now she's retired to be a full time beach bum in Tamarindo, Costa Rica with the monkeys and iguanas. She is also a thalassophile. She also left behind years in a Quiverfull church and loves to chronicle the worst abuses of that particular theology. You can read more about the author here.
"Yes. Men still have to register at age 18. But there is no law to ..."

Create a Better Brain Through Neuroplasticity ..."
"The draft was dropped, but selective service is still active and mandatory."

Create a Better Brain Through Neuroplasticity ..."
"I suspect that when the data comes in it will not be the screen itself ..."

Create a Better Brain Through Neuroplasticity ..."
"I kinda freaked out a consultant and some coworkers one day in a mandatory training. ..."

Smile or Else?

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Saraquill

    One of my current favorite non-fiction books is called “Pious Fashion,” detailing hijabi fashion, the ideologies behind them, etc from three different cities in three different countries. It’s a fascinating read and I keep picking it up for another flip through.

    Stacy Mcdonald would likely have a hissy fit, denouncing the styles despite their modesty because Those People wear them.

  • Jennny

    Re:protecting women. The Transport Authority for London, UK proposed the re-introduction of ‘Women Only’ carriages, not used since the 1950s. First comments were positive, supposedly it would help hijab/niqab wearing women. Then others began to say, no, women have the right to travel in mixed carriages without fear of harrassment…and the idea seems to have been quietly dropped. Now that we have public awareness of trans people, I imagine some religious types would make as much fuss about who could use their female train carriages as they did in the USA about bathrooms!

  • Tawreos

    Chastity, decency, respect, love, and dignity can all be abundantly present in the nakedest of women, because what you wear does not change who you are inside.

  • SAO

    No, modesty is not about decency, respect, dignity or love. It’s about denying those things to women who don’t follow whatever rules the observer happens to have. It justifies disrespecting women who are judged to look less than modest — the women who have prominent busts who aren’t wearing clothes designed like potato sacks, the women who don’t want to bundle up on a hot summer’s day.

    Decency is about treating everyone aa worthy of respect because they are your fellow human. Respect and love are about the content of one’s character, not their clothes or outer appearance.

  • Iain Lovejoy

    Stacey McDonald seems to me in the article to be in fact trying to climb down from the extremes of the whole modesty thing with as much dignity as possible. What she is disingenuously and not very plausibly trying to do is say is that all this modesty business was really about was suggesting that wandering about in public inappropriately practically naked was a bit rude and not very considerate to other people, who might find it awkward and embarrassing, and that Christians therefore might want to cover up a bit as a consequence out of love and consideration for their neighbour, and it was just that some people might have made a bit too much of a thing of it, and gone too far.
    A complete BS retrospective justification for the whole idiotic idea, but a couple of grudging brownie points at least for her apparently realising that it was indeed idiotic and some kind of retrospective excuse for such idiocy was indeed required.

  • Raging Bee

    Or because Those People dress according to rules that aren’t her own.

  • Anthrotheist

    “…what we’re really talking about is chastity, decency, respect (self and others), and the overall extension of love and dignity[.]”

    So as far as I can tell, she seems to be saying (my interpretation of her meaning):
    Chastity: because women having sex is poison, and the only antidote is marriage to a godly man
    Decency: because women’s bodies are naturally indecent
    Respect: I can only assume she means respecting the woman’s husband/father/brothers by keeping her from strutting around with an underdeveloped sense of shame (?)
    Love and dignity: because a woman’s body, her sexuality, and her independence are all undignified and anti-loving (just like all feminists are)

    The entire statement is nauseating. I can’t imagine any way that this is supposed to be about protecting women, and not about protecting patriarchy.

  • Martin Penwald

    The main problem I see is that a woman taking a mixed bus would be considered to be “looking for it” and wouldn’t bé able to complain for harassement.

  • AFo

    Of course it’s not about protecting women. It never is. It’s about protecting men from their own penises, because apparently seeing a woman in pants is enough to send even the godliest of men into a lust spiral that inevitably ends in rape that “she was asking for.” It’s yet another way for men to take no responsibility for their own behavior.

  • Jen (*.*)

    My thoughts exactly. She’s adding more rules.

  • “The continuance of godly seed” – that sums it up. Keep the women covered up, under the protection of father and husband to make sure the babies belong to the “godly” man. Barf. Controlling women’s bodies.

  • Zeldacat

    I dare say that except that I wear pants (which I think are more modest than skirts – I’ve always wondered why the fundies didn’t see skirts as “easier access” and ban them for that reason, unless that’s the reason they like them of course…) I prefer to cover up, especially in winter. Not sure how you can get more modest than a turtleneck and pants with long underwear beneath. My body, my clothes, my choice. Nobody’s protecting me from anything except I’m protecting myself from the cold!

  • Samantha Vimes

    It’s really about having a way to blame women for the aggression of men– as well as for men to figure out who was likely taught to be meek and will be shamed into silence.

  • Samantha Vimes

    It’s just a holdover from the days when women were forbidden to wear trousers. The real reason was the law demanded gender hierarchy be enforceable by telling the difference between sexes by clothing. But the excuse was that trousers were immodest because, by showing that the legs were separate, they made men think about what was between the legs.

  • Sunshine

    During my 13 years in Fundy land, I never got a straight answer as to why women couldn’t wear pants.

  • persephone

    Pretty funny, considering how women in full veils, including their eyes, are still raped and assaulted. Clothing is no protection. Women in their locked homes have been raped by men breaking in. There’s no protection. None.

  • persephone

    That’s been my thought for years re: pants giving less easy access.

  • persephone

    The whole “godly seed” thing is exactly not what Jesus and, even, Paul talked about. They were in favor of not marrying, if at all possible, which is quite revolutionary in a society that encouraged marriage and children.

  • But never a word about teaching men and boys to respect other people’s boundaries…

  • I was wearing a t-shirt and sweatpants on one occasion. On others, skirts, shorts, whatever. It didn’t matter what I was (or wasn’t) wearing, he didn’t care, he just wanted to use me as a fleshlight at his convenience.

    Modesty? The very idea is a complete joke.

  • TinnyWhistler

    Saturday I was out in baggy sweatpants and a hoodie. Got honked at twice and yelled at once.

  • zizania

    Sometimes I’m glad that I’m in my sixties and was never particularly attractive. And it’s pretty sad that I feel that way.

  • I know what you mean. I am 52, my hair ist turning grey, I put on some weight, and I move more freely about town than I ever did before.