Peter EspeutPENTECOSTAL BISHOP Herro Blair has triggered a furious debate between feminists and fundamentalist 'Christians' that cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of both. Fundamentalist Christians, Islamic fundamentalists, and (the more apocalyptic) Rastafarians, rule that their women must be substantially covered, albeit to different degrees.
The 'Christians' are the most liberal, requiring skirts below the knees, blouses with high necklines and sleeves down to the elbows. Islamic fundamentalists require married women in public to be completely covered from head to toe with only eyes showing. Rasta queens are somewhere in between, but closer to the Muslims.
Does this reveal more about the men (who make the rules) or their women? The men, of course! When you believe that humanity is fundamentally evil, and that left to themselves men and women will be involved in all sorts of carnal pastimes, you will be forced to go down a certain road: men have 'carnal minds', and when they look at the female form, their natures will rise to the occasion; this lust, this "burning with passion", says this way of thinking, will lead men to mount the challenge, whether the woman is willing or not. Therefore, to protect their women from male-kind in public, females must always be covered in baggy clothes so as to hide their real shapes. Hence the rarity of Muslim women competing at the Olympics, or Rasta women in shorts, or market higglers in close-fitting clothes. If men misbehave, the women can be blamed for improper dress.
COVER-UP
The female cover-up, then, is all about the men. There is no corresponding rule about men having to cover up. Is this because women are more virtuous, not moved to lust (or rape) by the shirtless bodies of men digging ditches, or the bulging costumes of athletes lifting or running or throwing or swimming? Or is it that men must be free to flaunt their assets, in the event that they generate some interest and opportunity?
Every man knows that the former is totally untrue, and few men will ever admit to being raped by a burning woman. But it happens. Yet neither Bishop Blair nor his supporters in the press have called for men to cease dressing in skimpy clothes. A clear double standard! The feminists are caught in a trap of contradictions. Women's Media Watch is a formal women's organisation dedicated to condemning the exploitation of the bodies of women for commercial purposes, ostensibly by men who tempt poor, hungry women to pose nude or in skimpy clothes for money. It is never the women who are criticised for letting down the gender; they are not to blame, since they can't do better in this male-dominated world.
Yet, in response to Bishop Blair's call for women to cover up, the feminists have come out defending the right of women to wear whatever they please no matter how skimpy or revealing! No man must tell a woman to cover up or to wear skimpy clothes. But, presumably, it is OK for women to decide to do either of their own volition.
CHURCH CLOTHES
Very few of the skimpily-dressed or nude models I see in calendars or advertisements look poor or hungry or 'cyah do better'cover-up. Is every revealing media image an instance of sexual exploitation? When Women's Media Watch watches women, how do they tell the difference? There is a contradiction here! What are these middle-class women saying about their sisters? At the same time, some of Bishop Blair's Pentecostal women in choir and congregation dress in some of the closest fitting church clothes I have ever seen!
They are all of the mandatory length, but are supremely well tailored, hugging every curve whether corseted or not. Every undergarment is in place, confirming the lines of hip and waist and bust. Talk about sticking to the letter! It will be a rare man who will not burn with passion during meditation on what the attire of these Christian ladies conceals! Often the unknown and mysterious is more titillating than the exposed. And what happens after church? Christianity is about self-discipline and maturity (so to enter through the narrow door), including in matters sexual.
In my Christian tradition the oldest humanity is fundamentally good. Both male and female are created in the image and likeness of a good God, and our human nature possesses the potential for perfection. Passions we have for pleasure and power and wealth to be sure (Jesus' temptations in the desert) but maturity's task is to subdue these great drives in our lives, and to assert the dominance of the will and the intellect (often through disciplines like fasting, prayer and almsgiving which directly challenge these passions).
PERFECTION
The great religious vows of chastity, obedience and poverty consecrate the life of the Christian towards perfection. The properly formed Christian (and mature secular human being) will not be moved to rape or even to act on passion when faced with skimpy dress or nudity. So many of us Jamaicans remain immature in sexual matters, and never learn to control ourselves, and Jamaica pays the price in low rates of marriage, and high rates of teenage pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, STDs, rape, incest, child abuse, and much more. The solution is not knee- and elbow-length clothing a la Bishop Blair, but mature personality development. But from where shall this come?
The Rev. Peter Espeut is a sociologist and an ordained deacon of the Roman Catholic Church.
