A bigger fool

Innumerable times I have heard a quote mentioned in church that is attributed to one Brigham Young: 

He who takes offense when none is intended is a fool; he who takes offense when offense is intended is a bigger fool.

An Ensign article from 1974 mentions that Mr. Young apparently said this, but when I Google the quote, the top result says that Confucius said it.  Eh...Confucius, Brigham Young—basically the same person, right?  I always get them confused, personally.

Anyway, at least twice in the last couple of years I've been accused of being "offended."  I say "accused" because it seems that, because of this quote that's tossed around, being offended is seen as foolish—not valid or warranted.  In both of these situations that I can easily recall, the person who believed I was offended was a church authority figure who had said some arguably offensive things (example: Drew Barrymore did things like end up in rehab and flash David Letterman because she was raised by gay fathers).  One did say, I think, something like, "I'm sorry if I've offended you" (in what I perceived to be a not-very-sincere voice), but the other only said, "I've clearly offended you," to which I said, "I'm not offended," because I was offended by his assumption that I was offended!  (Insert emoticon here.)

The reason I get offended by the word "offended" is because it seems dismissive of pain and hurt to me.  It seems to put the blame on the person that's offended (because, after all, s/he is being a fool) and let the offender off the hook.  Seriously, within this paradigm, someone who gets offended seems stupider than the person who was possibly intentionally offensive.  

Often, being offended is a reason given for why people leave the church.  Lessons about apostasy usually include two stories about people who got offended: Symonds Ryder and two women who shared a cow.  Ryder got mad because his name got misspelled on a document, which to him meant that the church wasn't true, because God wouldn't let his name be spelled wrong or something.  The two women who shared a cow somehow disagreed over who got what amount of cream or something.  Perhaps you can tell by my flippant attitude that I don't respect these stories as sources of offense very much.  These are petty examples that discredit people's valid, painful reasons to be offended.  Someone who was sexually abused by his/her bishop could be called "offended."  That is not like being upset over a misspelled name. 

True, people get offended over silly things, petty things, things they should forgive.  But the term "offended" seems to lump all sorts of cases of varying degrees of severity together.

Of course, this whole post could be dismissed as the angry ramblings of another "offended" person.  Don't care.  I demand my offense to be recognized as valid.

One of my least favorite Viewpoints

It has been a week since the viewpoint "A Rising Epidemic" has been published, which means it's been a week since I wanted to write in and respond.  I haven't yet because there are so many angles of this column that need to be addressed that I don't think I could cover them all.  I want to write in, but maybe I won't cover all of the angles.  

I find two main things wrong with the article: 1. The two halves are contradictory.  2. The second half is judgmental and misguided.  Here it is, with my responses to it.

  

A Rising Epidemic

by Allie McCoy

Students at BYU are incredible.  This reminds me of a toothpaste commercial where they begin with, "Your mouth is amazing," lulling you into the belief that they're going to compliment your mouth, but no—then they start in on how much bacteria and nasty stuff is in it.
Where else is “Stone Cold Sober” a badge of honor or NiCMO considered a terribly scandalous activity?  You spelled 'NCMO' wrong.  There's no 'i.'
Where else can you get thousands of students to attend not only church meetings on Sunday, but FHE Mondays, Devotional Tuesdays and Institute Thursdays.
Even for members of the Church, where else can you find a busier temple where hard-working students wait hours to perform three baptisms?
BYU, and the students who attend, are one of a kind, and that’s something to be proud of.
There are two epidemics rampant on campus that I believe deserve an extra word.
The first is perfectionism — something President Cecil O. Samuelson spoke of during Devotional Tuesday.
“Some mistakenly consider worthiness to be the same as perfection; this is not true,” Samuelson said. Good point.  Very, very true.  “All of the standard works are replete with references to the expectation of perfection and yet all seem to acknowledge that the perfecting of the saints is a process that is likely never to be absolutely complete in immortality.”
If you’re trying to do your best, then you are succeeding. Don’t get yourself down.
You must follow the commandments, you must listen to your church leaders, you must study the word of God — however, those of you who forgot to say your prayers this morning are not ruined.  What's with this list of "you must"s?  And where's the "you must be nice to people" and the "you must not judge others"?
Strive harder, do better, but do not beat yourself up for small failures.
That being said, a second epidemic plagues this school. This is the epidemic of justification.  I'm hoping that she meant to address this second half to a different audience than the first half, because what she's about to say are some of the worst things you can say to a perfectionist.
Many of you may remember a talk President Julie B. Beck gave on campus last year. The stand-out quote went something like this:
“You’re doing better than you think you are, [but] we’re not doing as well as we could.”  AAAAGHHH!  Sentiments like this make me want to pull my hair out!  Let's not focus on how we're not thinking enough of ourselves—let's lightly touch on it and then slam the focus into how we're not doing enough!
It’s true. BYU stands far above other universities when it comes to personal standards; however, at times I think we get too comfortable.  I don't think you're including yourself in this "we."
Some believe since we’re doing better than other people (I know I always have the attitude that I'm better than everyone else), it’s OK if we slip up sometimes.  Um, isn't it?  We are not expected to be flawless!  Get that through your head!!!
Since we don’t drink alcohol, it’s OK we’re consuming energy drinks by the case.  I'd rather have you consuming energy drinks and being nice to people than not and being judgmental.
Since we don’t wear sleeveless shirts, it’s OK if our skirts don’t make it quite to our knees.  Enough with the to-the-knees arguments!  Skirt length does not equal spirituality or personal worth no matter how hard you try to make it so!  What do the inches above another girl's knees have to do with you?  NOTHING!  Why does it bother you so much?  I don't get the feeling that you're doing it out of genuine concern for the spiritual climate of BYU.  And even if it were for that reason, you don't need to worry about it because it isn't your concern.
Since we don’t have full-blown beards, it’s OK if we don’t shave every morning.  What is so awful about stubble that you have to make a special point of mentioning it?  Do short hairs on a man's face really bother you that much?  If so, why??  (And see that she is conveniently not included in this.)
Since we don’t watch every rated R movie in theaters, it’s OK if we can justify it for academic reasons.  R-rated movies are not a black and white issue!  If they were, there wouldn't be so much debate about them!  Do we drink alcohol?  Definitely not.  Do we watch R-rated movies?  Well, that is a personal choice.  Might I also bring up that the R rating is only an American thing, so you're excluding every other country from this classification?  Let people use their own judgment about what they're comfortable watching.  (I do watch R-rated movies, but even if I didn't, I would defend others people's choice to do so.)
“I have been quoted as saying, ‘Do the best you can.’ But I want to emphasize that it be the very best,” President Gordon B. Hinckley said in a leadership conference.  NO NO NO NO NO!  As a perfectionist, you are killing me here.  Best is not good enough!  Do the very best! “We are too prone to be satisfied with mediocre performance. We are capable of doing so much better.”   Some people are, but not everyone is!  Some people are all of the time, but some people are only some of the time.  There is no distinction made about the audience.  There are a lot of people who actually have the problem of never being content with their performance, no matter how great.  This is not what those people (including me) need to hear.
Cougars, we are capable of being better. We are capable of leaving the justifications behind and grasping to the gospel we love.
Honor the Honor Code. Whether or not you believe in it, you signed it. Don’t forget that. 
This epidemic is not limited to students. Teachers, you’re expected to live these standards as well.  We're in college.  They're called professors.  And I know that they're not infallible, but I think it's especially self-righteous to call faculty (as well as students) to repentance.
I’ve been in classes where my teacher defends everything from swearing to viewing rated R movies.  THE HORROR!  Sweetie, it is only your opinion that we should strictly avoid rated R movies.  I hate to break it to you, but not everyone agrees that this is a black-and-white issue.
Yes, they are always justified, but they are not always right.
Please remember you stand for so much more than you think you do. Your actions are an example to someone and you can’t lead them astray.
If you find yourself justifying small mistakes, don’t worry. Repent, work harder. Whatever you do, don’t get caught in complacency.  Who are you to call us to repentance?  What authority do you have?
Just remember President Beck: You are doing better than you think, but you are capable of so much more.

One angle I would attack is how one minute she's comforting perfectionists, and the next minute she's telling them they need to do better.  True, she could be addressing different audiences, but she doesn't make that clear.  Even if she were addressing different audiences, it's not her place to call the complacent to repentance.  

The other angle: Stop picking on the way girls dress!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  When I say this, some people will be quick to remind me that we all as BYU students signed an Honor Code.  That is true.  It is a matter of personal integrity that they obey the Honor Code.  But it is none of your business if they do or not.  I am really trying to understand why it (the fact that girls' dress breaks the Honor Code) bothers people so much that they write in letters to the editor.  My main theory is that they get mad that they are obeying the rules and not getting any sort of recognition or reward for it while other people are flaunting the rules and not getting any negative consequences.  I welcome ideas about why this bothers people so much.

I waited with glee for the Tuesday after this letter for the rebuttals, but there was only one.  The first sentence of it especially was golden:  "Calls to repentance without any indication of self-inclusion or humility always fall flat."

Problem: What defines "righteousness"? The pharisees were wrong.

One problem I've found that we have is judging how good a person is based on some details that are misleading and/or superficial.  Many of the tenets of the Honor Code can be observed based on your outside appearance: do you have piercings?  Do your sideburns not extend below your ear?  Is your skirt knee-length?  Are you smoking?  But really, none of these details is saving.  Details about a person that you can quickly see without even taking to that person are not as telling as people think they are.

Often, someone who is an RM, attends the temple regularly, has a calling and is active in church, doesn't drink, etc. is held up as the standard of righteousness.  BALONEY!  Yes, someone with all of these qualities can be an upstanding citizen, but it doesn't automatically make him or her one!  You could be living the Word of Wisdom and going to the temple every single day, but if you're heart's not in it and you're going through the motions only, it's not much benefit.  And even more importantly, if you're a judgmental jerk who talks condescendingly to lesser mortals, that's much more telling than if you're a full tithe payer.  It's harder to be kind and compassionate than to dress modestly.

I'm tired of people with certain qualities being automatically defined as righteous.  This is not because I do not like these actual people; it's because other people who don't do such obvious "good" things but are still great people aren't considered so.  I'd rather live with a stoner who was nice to me than with someone who doesn't even drink caffeine but is gossipy.  This reminds me of a Board question written by a girl who clashed with her roommates: she seemed to be a stereotypical super Mormon girl, while they skipped church and class and had non-member friends over.  I do not know this girl at all, and my assessment of her might be inaccurate.  I feel that she is one whose heart is in the right place who is trying to do the right thing, but is getting caught up in all of the extra things and ignoring the center of the Gospel.  This sentence sums it up for me: "I am really trying to be more religious and do better with scripture reading and journal writing, etc."  Writing in your journal doesn't save you.  Although it is a great idea, it is really eclipsed by more important actions.  A nice little Mormon girl can sit in her room with her cap sleeves and long skirt, reading scriptures about repentance and writing in her journal, but that's really not what it means to be righteous.  At all.

The asker of the question also mentioned how it was hard to feel the Spirit with the roommates' friends over.  This is a big one for me, because having the companionship of the Holy Ghost is a huge deal in youth.  If you so much as step foot in a less-than-great area, the Spirit will apparently flee.  To that I say, "NONSENSE!"  The Holy Ghost isn't uptight and he wants to stay with us as much as possible.  It's one thing to seek out the dark places, but if you somehow wind up in a situation, the Holy Ghost is going to stay there to help you; it would be ridiculous for him to run away when you need him most.  In addition she said how her roommates left church after sacrament meeting.  Also, at least the roommates are going to sacrament meeting, which is arguably the most important part of church!  

Anyway, perhaps I'm misjudging this girl, but she seems to embody so many of the beliefs that I am against.   Too many people act like Pharisees and judge someone's spirituality based on public actions Another perfect example of this belief, and the thing that inspired this post, is this nice little flyer that you find around the library:

I agree that music piracy is a major issue for this generation--that's not my complaint.  My complaint is the first part, which is trying to show that Brad is a righteous guy!  Why is he righteous?  Because he's an eagle scout and an RM!  Seriously?  

And yes, I suppose that the "Be Consistent" does kind of fit with my view, because it's saying that being married and an RM doesn't guarantee you're living all areas of your life well.  But still, it still is rather judgmental, and it's proof that the belief that certain things seem to guarantee you're a righteous person does exist.

the Mormon Poster Child

For years, I aspired to be a Model Mormon: which to me meant a member who dresses conservatively (skirts to the knee, buttoned shirt buttoned all the way up*

, sleeves, no extreme or even different hair styles), is attentative in class and always volunteers to read and gives knowledgable, spiritual answers, is polite and kind, always smiling, and always helpful.  

I don't want to be that anymore!  And I don't like the dramatic (line break and dramatic one-liner), so I'm adding another sentence.

I don't like that teachers preach messages of conformity and  treat any degree of deviance as the threat of sin creeping into your life.  If your form of deviance is building an altar to Satan and worshiping it, OK, that's not good.  But if deviance to you is dying your hair pink, I think you're fine.  But there are some people who would judge you for it and think you're not a good Mormon.

A couple weeks ago, my institute teacher mentioned that we should use technology for good and to spread the message of the Gospel.  He spoke derisively of people who go online and use the the internet to criticize the Church and told us we must not do that.  He would probably disapprove of my blog, but I don't think I'm criticizing the Church; I'm criticizing its members who preach falsehoods.  I find this blog is good for me, even though the circulation (that I know of) is about three.  I'm just happy knowing that somewhere out there in cyberspace is my opinion that anyone can stumble upon and read.

*I was watching the BYU channel once at a hotel in Utah and listened to part of a talk by some lady.  I don't remember who it was; it could have been Susan W. Tanner, but I don't think it was.  This mystery woman was talking about modesty and about young women who had really internalized the message and were completely modest.  She said that we (young women) should all button our button-front shirts all the way up to the top–it was like securing the final chink in your armor.  As she said this,  there was even a visual of a young woman standing in front of the mirror, buttoning up her shirt to thte top and smiling.  I  did think her exhortation was a bit odd at the time, but I thought that she must be right; after all, she was giving a fireside or devotional and was on BYUTV!  I started wearing my button-up shirts all the way to the top for awhile until I realized it looked dumb and was a little extreme.  Subtley extreme, but extreme nontheless.

Top responses to "I Have Depression."

Happy one-year anniversary to me of having depression!  Yaaaaay.  It started last summer, got  worse Fall semester, then spiraled out of control Winter semester.  And that's my story so far.  Here are my favorite responses I've heard when I tell people (at church) about my situation:

1. Everyone has their ups and downs.

2. What made you so sad?

3. Pray and read your scriptures/conference talks and you will get through this!

4. This is very common.

My responses:

1. Yes, everyone has sad and happy times in their life.  Did you honestly think I didn't know that?  The thing is, not everyone has the same challenges.  Not everyone has clinical depression.  Just because it has emotional symptoms does not mean it's not a medical disease.

2. A chemical imbalance in my brain that not even science has figured out yet.

3. Praying/reading scriptures/any other gospel activity will help the same way they will help you during any struggle or problem: they provide perspective and comfort, for example.  But they do not cure depression.  They could also help someone with diabetes feel better, but it's not going to take away the diabetes!  I think this is the misconception that makes me angriest: Depression is purely emotional, so it can be cured the way other negative emotions are cured.  If you're sad or mad, reading the scriptures can make you feel better, so naturally reading them can get rid of your depression.  

4.  You're nothing special.  Quit complaining.  Lots of people get really sad (see #1).

In short, people who respond this way mean well (I think), but what they really are is dismissive.  They're not trying to understand how I feel; they're just trying to patch it up and make it better.  But you can't fix something if you don't know how it broke in the first place and in what way it's broken now.

Do you know why, as someone with clinical depression, I identify with those who are Mormon and gay?  Because a similar misunderstanding exists and similar excuses are made.  Depressed people don't deal with nearly as much stuff as gay people do, but I do see similarities, such as:

Both groups are living contrary to God's law.

Depressed people are obviously still living with some sin they haven't repented of, or they wouldn't be so sad!  They are probably not reading their scriptures, praying, going to church, paying tithing, fulfilling their callings, etc. enough!  Being happy all the time means you're being righteous all the time!

Gay people are just plain wrong.  They should stop liking the same gender and switch to liking the other one.  Duh.

They could be cured if they just have enough faith.

If you still have depression, you must have not had enough faith so far to be healed.  It's all up to you.  This is not an actual "medical" disease that needs to run its course at all!  You're just sad!  Really sad, that is, but still–it's just an emotional problem.  See above for why you are so sad.

Homosexuality is a temptation nigh unto a disease.  Have faith and you will be cured.  If you haven't been cured already, you must not want to be badly enough.  Even though it is a temptation, just ignore Paul's bit about having a thorn in his side that was never taken away even though he prayed for it.  Paul obviously wasn't faithful enough!  Yes he was an apostle, but. . . .let's change the subject.

Blacks = Gays?

It's very hard to try and rectify seemingly conflicting principles and values, but I'm trying.

On the one hand, there's the idea that the same arguments against gay marriage were made against inter-racial marriage.  Fair enough.  But on the other hand, aren't race and gender separate issues?  Isn't it said that race is a social construction?  But then on the other hand, couldn't you say then that gender might just be a social construction too?  But the Proclamation to the World says that gender is a part of everyone's divine identity, so it wouldn't seem that gender is just a social construction.  But then what does that mean for gay people?  

And then my head hurts.

P.S. As a straight white person, I am ignorant of the monikers people who are homosexual or of African descent prefer: Homosexuals?  Gays?  Gay people?  / Blacks?  Black people?  African-Americans?  

That "they" they're always talking about

So who am I afraid of when I'm afraid of being judged?

Fire side speakers and general authorities whose messages seemed restrictive at the time I probably just took too literally, so not them.  And even though I think that everyone in the ward is just waiting to call you out for doing something wrong, I don't think that's how they really are.  I think I should instead direct my anger towards Satan, because he's the real culprit.  He's the one making me feel judged, because he's judging me!  He wants me to feel awful and bad about myself.

Even though I do have an exaggerated view of who is just ready to judge me, there are a few people who bother me mainly because they are this nightmare come true: they really do judge me.  I do mainly blow it out of proportion, but these people I'm right about.  They include the former youth leaders who tell me that praying and reading scriptures will end my depression because I won't be separated from God.  And it's those dang Daily Universe readers' forum writers.  Those are the judgmental, narrow-minded idiots I loathe and am afraid of.  

In the end, it doesn't matter what people think of me.  All that matters is what I think and what God thinks --not because I'm afraid of Him, but because He has the clearest view of how I am and the best intentions.  

Peace, love, and happy Easter!

Don't judge me

You know what I wish?  I wish people weren't so quick to label someone as doing something or thinking something that's "wrong."  It's not necessarily wrong; it just may be different.  People seem to just automatically denounce someone without learning his/her (werf's) whole story.

People who do this peeve me so much, and a large part of the reason is I used to totally be like that and have since seen how wrong I was.  

Don't denounce people who are emo/suicidal/depressed.  They're not just some selfish, overly dramatic person.

Don't denounce gay people.  They're looking for love too, and you have no idea how they feel.  I think it would be cool to make a version of West Side Story/ Romeo and Juliet where instead of the two leads being from different families, they were both the same gender and from bigoted families.  That would get people thinking.

Don't denounce feminists.  It's not that we don't want to be mothers, it's that we don't want that to be a choice made for us by society.  And whoever says she doesn't need an education because she's just going to be a stay-at-home mom is an idiot (and will stay that way.  Ha ha.)  If you know me well, you know that I want to be a mom so much.  I really do dream about being a mom and having kids.  But that doesn't mean I don't have other dreams, too (like being a teacher and doing humanitarian work and getting an education).  To me, being a mom is more important than these other goals I have, but I still have other goals and don't want to be told by some pinhead that I'm listening to Satan when I say that (OK, this was inspired by today's Daily Universe letters "What Is Most Important" and "Refresher Course."  I really need to write a separate post on this.)

Don't denounce people of other religions.  They aren't necessarily hard-hearted (though I will admit that some are; but there are hard-hearted Mormons too, folks), and they're not backwards, sinful, or ignorant.  Instead of saying that other religions have "slivers of truth" that are just little pieces of what we believe, we need to see what doctrines other religions talk about that we have forgotten about or ignore.  There are good people searching for truth in every religion.  And there are stupid, narrow-minded, hypocrites and every religion too, probably.  Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare.

That's about it for now.  Basically every point I need to expand into a separate post (and I will, I promise).  I have already addressed the emo/suicidal/depressed issue in the post "Happy Happy Joy Joy."

Peace and love.

I read the news today, oh boy.

I thank the Daily Unifarce and its pinheaded minions for giving me fodder for this blog. Thank you for allowing dimwitted students, through the "Readers' Forum" voice their narrow-minded, offensive viewpoints. I swore off reading the Readers' Forum for awhile on behalf of my blood pressure, but the feeling still lurked that even though I wasn't reading about these opinions, there were still plenty of students around me who held them--ignoring these idiots doesn't make them go away.

I read today's Readers Forum during an hour lunch break but was still steaming mad when I got to German. I had stopped going to class because of my medical condition, but I came back today because we were talking about the Holocaust; to stop a horror and atrocity against humanity like that from happening again, we need to know about it, so I went to learn (and because I wondered how it would be different learning about it in a German class). I listened, and then before too long I realized I needed to write the response to these nincompoops I had been brewing in my head. So, while listening to my professor talk about those evil "democratic socialists," I fired this lovely letter off to some modern-day Nazis:

(by the way, here is the opinion page from today; my letter is directed to "Respect Yourself" and "Considerate Clothing." Man, those titles just say it all.)

To the self-righteous, arrogant pigs who had the gall to write letters to the editor:

What authority do you have to lecture your fellow students? How do you even have the nerve to chastise and talk down to them? I am not even one of these horrid sinners who burn copies of the Honor Code for fun and show affection on the grass, but I am still insulted. I am embarrassed that people like you go to this university. How is it your business what couples do in public? If it bothers you, don't look, you idiot. If couples lying (not laying, you uneducated slob) on each other sends you into such an uproarious tizzy, maybe it's you that needs help.

As to your suggestion to not do anything you wouldn't be comfortable doing in front of a parent or general authority–This is an oft-used method to keep people in line. For example, John Bytheway asks youth (well, female youth) how they would feel if the prophet was staying at the same hotel where your prom was and he saw you in your immodest dress?! Well, I don't want to dress modestly out of fear of being caught, judged, and embarrassed. I also think that if I, clad immodestly, did run into the prophet, he would be kind and loving, as you ought to be. He would not make me feel bad or ashamed. There are many things I would want to do in front of a parent or GA, such as enthusiastically play air guitar complete with slashing windmills or pretend to be a duck, but that doesn't make those things wrong. We shouldn't have to live in fear of being caught doing bad things by others like parents, GAs, or back biting morons like you. Thank you, Honor Code police for keeping us all in line.

And to the sexist premie (who with his appropriate Priesthood authority, of course) blamed the young women of Helaman Halls for his unclean thoughts: how dare you. You are just perpetuating unrighteous dominion and the beating down and blaming of women for what is not their fault. If their being "half naked" (what a hyperbole) offends you, don't look at them. If they're wearing a tank top and shorts (the absolute horror!!!!), that's more modest than a bathing suit. Do you flagellate yourself after accidentally glimpsing a girl at a pool or beach? I hope you douse your eyes with acid as you should after seeing such a horrendous sight. Would you prefer us women to wear veils and long sleeves and skirts so as not to tempt you? I mean, women are sinful creatures who are temptresses to otherwise righteous men. It is always our fault that we are your pornography.

No, I'm sorry, I'm being ungrateful. I'm glad you've pointed out whom we can blame if the freshmen men of BYU aren't worthy for missions–those devilish young harlots in their slutty clothes.

Authors, maybe these iniquitous, hard-hearted people in question would actually be willing to respect what you say if you weren't so condescending, holier-than-thou, and didn't speak as if you were calling these people steeped in iniquity to repentance.

Get over yourselves and stop judging others. You are absolute jackasses, and I'm ashamed on behalf of all Latter-day Saints that there are such myopic, misguided, pompous, unspeakably arrogant moron Mormons like you.

On Friday, the issues & ideas editor Samantha Strong (whose piece on R-rated movies I actually liked) described the letters that come in reaction to other letters to the editor:

"Usually, the knee-jerks pop in first–the letters that vehemently applaud or condemn the original message. The authors of these letters have either already thought through the issue and are eager to communicate the conclusions they have carefully arrived at previously, or they are simply reacting. They say the first thing that comes to their minds, often impassioned and often unintelligible. It's usually the latter."

Yes, this characterizes my letter. Yes, it could be viewed as hypocritical since I'm berating these idiots for berating others. But whatever. I'm not sending it in. And even though it is an impassioned reaction, that doesn't mean that it has no value or is not correct.

I really wonder how those students would function at a more liberal university (and I know, there's not many that are more liberal than BYU, let me tell you!). I imagine them curled up in the corner of a dark room, holding up a crucifix to the unwashed heathen who try to communicate with them. I wonder how they survived high school; maybe they're from Utah or were home schooled.

My main issue with these letters' authors is that they feel the need to correct others, feel justified to do so, and their tone suggests that they are a moral compass to these wayward souls, who definitely need to listen to them.

Also, I had just read my sociology textbook's chapter on gender inequality, which made me notice the sexism in "Considerate Clothing" more. We discussed last semester in New Testament class that in New Testament times (plus before and after, as we see it still exists today), if a man and woman committed adultery it was always the woman's fault. Women were temptresses who needed to be contained to protect the virtue of men. My terrific professor, Dr. Holzapfel, pointed out that even nowadays, if a guy messes around and then repents or whatever people let him move on. But if a girl does that, she has soiled her name forever. There are different standards for men and women. This dumb"Considerate Clothing" letter is just another example of those horrible letters to the editor about how the women on campus are disobeying the Honor Code and need to cover up more, because they are disturbing the men. PIGS! Those people make me sick.

Stay posted for more. . . posts mocking Daily Unifarce letters to the editor! It'll be fun!