Things People Have Said to Me Opposing My Wearing Plain Dress
Wearing plain dress is a form of public witness that invites all sorts of responses, both positive and negative. Some people assume all kinds of wonderful things about me that may or may not be true. Other people assume negative things--which are never ever true ;) . It seems to me judgments like these (positive or negative) say a great deal more about the person who is judging than the person being judged. I keep it centered where it belongs: God's purpose and will for me. Here are a few of the most commonly raised negative responses to my plain dress witness.Separately, please see,
A couple of things here. One, I have found plain dress to be simple and simplifying. I can see how others might not experience it as such, but it has been so for me. However, this is not why I wear it. I don't have "head" reasons for wearing plain dress. I am not wearing plain dress to witness to the Quaker Simplicity Testimony. Simplicity is a side effect of plain dress. I wear it as an obedience. God asked me to wear it and so I wear it. It is that simple.
For men, it is often argued that plain dress is just too expensive to be simple. Again, if being simple (and inexpensive) is why you are wearing a $300 plain suit and hat, then that would indeed be rather foolish. It is possible for a man to "go plain" and not break the bank. Martin Kelley (the Quaker Ranter) calls it Sears plain.
"God doesn't care what you wear."
"God doesn't know or care about what you wear."
The speaker believes either that God has a will but it is never God's will that a person wear any sort of observant dress, or that God isn't willful. In the first case, the speaker assumes they know the will of God and that I don't. In the second case, the speaker knows that God doesn't have a will for people and I am a mistaken when I believe I am experiencing a God who does. Both types tend to come across as paternalistic and superior, almost as if they are kindly trying to correct a child. Those espousing the second variation seem to imply that if I had simply applied logic and common sense (or checked with them first) I would never have committed such a foolish error in judgment. I always wonder if they expect me to have a de-convincement, suddenly realizing the universe is ordered as they perceive it, and that I'll strip naked on the spot.
"You wear plain dress because you are vain."
"Plain dress is a vanity."
Definition of vanity: "excessive pride or admiration of one's own appearance, the quality of being worthless, futile." Oxford American Dictionaries
In the first variation, I am vain and wear plain dress because of "excessive pride and admiration" of my own appearance. The speaker imagines that I plaster my photos all over my website to encourage people to admire me. Sigh. It simply isn't true. It was excessive pride that caused me to resist posting my photos for months and months. It became clear that this reticence to expose myself on the website was a false modesty: my online witness has to show me and my journey as it is. Honesty and openness are the requirements for my faithful witness. If I were vain, I can't help thinking there would be better ways to express personal vanity.
In the second variation, plain dress is a vanity because it is "worthless, futile." Meaningless. The speaker seems to be assuming religiously observant dress can only serve the purpose of puffing up the self and as is used as a badge of religious purity, a sort of self-righteousness. Here I think the speaker is imagining what the experience would be like for them, coming to the conclusion that it would be meaningless to them, and assuming it is therefore meaningless period. God obviously isn't asking them to wear it. It would indeed be a vanity if they wore it. God is asking me to, and so for me, it isn't a vanity, but an obedience.
"You'd be such a pretty girl . . ."
I want these people to speak to the people who think that I wear plain dress because I am vain. Beauty is obviously in the eye of the beholder.
Definition of modesty: "behavior, manner or appearance intended to avoid impropriety or indecency, also, the quality or state of being unassuming." Oxford American Dictionaries
I really can't believe they are arguing that plain dress is improper or indecent, so it seems their argument is that plain dress is immodest because it attracts attention. I wasn't very surprised to get this from conservative "women should keep there place and be seen and not heard" sorts of people, but others not in that arena have raised this judgment. If modest means trying to make sure no one looks at you, then not going out into public at all would seem the best option. A Muslim solution is purda.
By modesty, some seem to mean "blend in" and "don't stand out." This stance is more along the lines of the definition of being unassuming. The burqa, by this definition, would be immodest in the United States. If I were wearing plain dress to be unassumingly modest, I would indeed be making a mistake. Plain dress is not indecent, which is my standard for modesty. It is my experience that God calls some to live the plain dress witness, which means witnessing to their faith in a public way every day, day in and day out. If that is immodest, then I am immodest.
"Plain dress is a costume."
The complaint here seems to be that I am wearing a plain dress costume to create a personal definition that is a shell only, an empty nothing. Of course this could be true, in theory, of someone who wears plain dress, but the same can be said of Goth regalia and a police uniform and a Roman collar. These things can also all be worn with integrity. An essential part of my convincement and my call to the plain dress discipline was the bonnet. The ultimate in plain dress anachronism. I have to say I resisted the bonnet completely. I kept thinking God must be joking. But it became entirely clear it was what God was asking of me, and so I submitted. Not a costume, but an obedience worn with complete sincerity.
In defense of the bonnet, I have to say it is nice to be able to "give someone the bonnet" by which I mean, if someone is staring a bit to intently or for too long (I concede my mode of dress invites this to some degree) I turn my head and block them out of view with the bonnet. All the more reason to wear the largest, deepest bonnet possible.
It is common for Quakers to bring up Margaret Fell's (Later in life she married George Fox, and was a Weighty, Worthy in her own right.)
Here it is in its entirety:
"Our monthly and quarterly meetings were set up for reproving and looking into superfluous or disorderly walking, and such to be admonished and instructed in the truth, and not private persons to take upon them to make orders, and say this must be done and the other must not be done: and can Friends think that those who are taught and guided of God can be subject and follow such low mean orders? So it's good for Friends of our country to leave these things to the Lord, who is become our leader, teacher and guider, and not to go abroad to spread them, for they will never do good, but has done hurt already: we are now coming into É that which Christ cried woe against, minding altogether outward things, neglecting the inward work of almighty God in our hearts, if we can but frame according to outward prescriptions and orders, and deny eating and drinking with our neighbours, in so much that poor Friends is mangled in their minds, that they know not what to do. For one Friend says one way, and another another; but Christ Jesus saith that we must take no thought what we shall eat, or what we shall drink, or what we shall put on: bids us consider the lilies, how they grow in more royalty than Solomon. But, contrary to this, we must look at no colours, nor make anything that is changeable colours as the hills are, nor sell them, nor wear them: but we must be all in one dress and one colour.
This is silly poor gospel! It is more fit for us to be covered with God's eternal Spirit, and clothed with his eternal Light, which leads us and guides us into righteousness, and to live righteously and justly and holily in this present evil world. This is the clothing that God puts upon us, and likes, and will bless. This will make our light shine forth before men, that they may glorify our heavenly Father which is in Heaven, for we have God for our teacher, and we have his promises and doctrine, and we have the Apostles' practice in their day and generation: and we have God's holy Spirit, to lead us and guide us, and we have the blessed truth, that we are made partakers of, to be our practice. And why should we turn to men and woman teaching which is contrary to Christ Jesus' command, and the Apostles' practice?
...Friends, we have one God, and one mediator betwixt God and man, the man Jesus Christ; let us keep to him or we are undone."
I wish to point out that many admirable, worthy, weighty Quakers throughout the centuries have observed plain dress (and most of them observed plain speech as well). Here is a short list:
- Elizabeth Gurney Fry sermon, portrait portrait
- Lucretia Mott
- John Woolman
- Abby Kelley
