I regularly visit a family member incarcerated in a facility in Colorado primarily composed of sex offenders. I have been told that I could not enter because my bra strap was visible through the thick white fabric of my polo shirt under fluorescent lighting. I've watched women be told to go change for wearing high heeled sandals, women turned away because their skirts come above the knee, or for any number of reasons. And it's always restrictions on female dress, never male. This is because the jails recognize that women are the primary visitors to men in jail, and they like to minimize visitation. By restricting female dress they lower visitation. The facility I visit also has restrictions against any sleeveless garment, any garment which reveals the thigh or stomach, or any neckline more than 2 inches below the notch of the neck.

"Muslim women are discriminated against at the Department of Motor Vehicles."

I don't care. I say good for them. They just should've treated the Christian the same.

From the driver's license article:
"Quaring’s objection to possessing an “image having a likeness of anything in creation� followed from her sincerely held religious beliefs. Quaring did not possess photos of her wedding or of her family. Quaring did not own a television set. When Quaring purchased groceries displaying pictures on the labels, she either removed the labels or covered the pictures with a black marking pen."

Things like this make me wonder... do these zealots even bother to step back and question WHY they are following specific guidelines from their church? As in, what was the moral intent of the authors of each of these books in the days they were written. No likeness of God? Sure, I can understand that. But do they so blindly buy into everything that the bible says without questioning the moral intent of each commandment/quideline/church law? It sounds like a bad joke... like, if I were to make a cult, I would have people do silly things like magic-marker their groceries.

Good point. There is a terrible tendency to tiptoe on egg shells around any sort of religious superstition. In fact, people who believe in invisible deities are treated with more respect than those who believe in rationalism, science, and hard material fact. Every religion is patriarchal and misogynistic and it's time we acknowledged that and adjusted the way we regard religious practices accordingly.

I'm hesitant to say that EVERY religion is misogynistic and patriarchal (even though my first impulse is to agree). At any rate most of the major religions, such as mainstream Christianity are certainly that.
However, I do agree with you completely about our society's absurd preference for religious superstition/faith over rational thought and discourse. I also agree that this needs to change.
Good point, Esme. When will these people wake up and realize that the reproductive health of women is more complicated than the choice to get pregnant or not. Birthcontrol pills are used for MANY conditions. Additionally, the choice to have an abortion is not always simply the choice to be pregnant or not. I've posted before on having an abortion due to an ectopic pregnancy (the preg. might have killed me and the embryo was doomed).
Now, I'll never be convinced of the so called "prolife" logic which links birthcontrol and abortion to cold-blooded murder.
But I really can't understand how the extremist wouldn't at least look at situations, such as mine, Esme, and millions of other women, and conceed that women do need certain forms of health care in which an embryo really isn't even a consideration.
Please let me say again: I am not at all supporting any of the pro-life stance. It just seems that evey they should, by their own morals, be obliged to provide health care in such situations.
But I guess, that would be too logical.

Ok I'm obviously crazy.
I intended to post on the thread about NY and the Catholic Church and Birthcontol.
I got up from the computer and when I returned began typing my comment on the already opened page, rather than the intended page.
The rest is just too weird to explain.
If anyone doubts that something like ADD exists, then I present myself as evidence...
No one can see me, but I'm blushing anway.

I've also had to regularly visit a relative in prison. Most of the dress restrictions for visitors apply to women, but I think that is mainly a function of men's wear being inherantly less revealing then women's wear.

In Vermont prisons, both sexes were under the same general guidelines - bottoms (pants/skirts/dresses) had to be below the knee. All shirts had to have sleeves (I don't recall if there was a restriction on the length of the sleeve). There could be no exposed midriffs. There was a restriction on how far the neckline could plunge (I think it was 2 inches below the neck) Women also had the added restriction that a bra was required. I think the exact wording was 'proper undergarments shall be worn'. I guess this means men as well as women were also required to wear underwear. I don't recall any restrictions on shoes.

The problem with wearing a bra to visit a prison is in getting through the metal detecter. Most bras have metal underwire that will set the detecter off. I do not have large breasts and can often go braless undetected if I wear a baggy sweater. The guards did not physically check for the bra strap.

I am not under the thought that a woman dressed in revealing clothing is somehow 'asking for it'. I do think that woman do dress revealingly such as tight, formfitting, low cut tops loose the right to tell people to stop staring at their breasts.

The feminist in me thinks that woman should be able to dress however they want without fear of repercussion. The realist in me knows otherwise. This is not walking around the neighborhood. When visiting a prison, particularly a prison with a large population of sex offenders, women do need to remember that these are men who have been locked away for failing to control themselves. I do see wearing revealing clothing in a sex offender prison kind of like wearing a Yankees jersey in Boston.

Prison dress codes are also put into place as a form of punishment for the inmates. Most pornography is banned in prisons. Vermont has a very broad definition of pornography, even considering the Victoria's Secret catalog as porn. If the inmates are not allowed to look at still pictures of scantily clad woman, why allow them to look at the real thing?

Can someone clarify something reading the item with the Christian woman and Muslim woman wishing to avoid photo licenses? Do both women live in the same state? It mentions that the Christian woman lives in Nebraska but doesn't state whether the Muslim woman does or not. (The case number includes "Fla." but I can't be sure that refers to Florida.)

If they are in different states then this is a case of apples and oranges, with two different courts giving two different rulings. If they are from the same state then I agree that it's discriminatory, and both women should've been required to have a photo taken to get a license. Either the law applies to everyone or should be repealed, no matter one's religious beliefs. I object to the idea that such beliefs should supersede the law. That's why I want to make a point by starting a religion which permits me to steal Ben & Jerry's from supermarkets and assault people for talking at the movies.

Newsweek profiles Nancy Pelosi, who is poised to become the first female speaker of the house.

Which reminds me (cough, cough) of something I never understood: why are people so afraid of Nancy Pelosi. Perhaps it's actually sexism?

"Sometimes we're working with a person who feels like she's got nothing but bad choices" - Chelian as quoted in Newsweek

This reminds me of something that bothers me greatly about fundie Christian "morality": their belief in the inherent tendancy of humankind to sin and the power of Jesus' salvation leads them to completely ignore the very real moral conflicts experienced by individuals.

Most people are not evil -- when faced with a choice between something that's altogether good and altogether evil, they'll choose the good choice. However, the fact of the matter is that the most difficult decisions are between alternatives of which none really seem at all good. Fundie Christianity has, from what I see, a horrible tendancy to throw it's hands up in the air and say to people in such situations "well, no matter how you choose, you'll commit a sin ... that's why God had to sacrifice Jesus on our behalf and why you must believe in Jesus -- because committing irredemable sins is inevitable".

Maybe it's cause I'm Jewish, and the moral code of my religion is horribly and purposefully complicated and difficult to understand, but it seems to me that any moral system which, when confronted with the complex and difficult choices one makes in life, throws up its hands in the air and says "well, this system has no advice for you -- ya just gotta sin and hope the FSM forgives you", is hardly a moral system in any meaningful sense. And yet it is the people which follow such a moral system, and who fundamentally believe moral legislation is futile anyway as one cannot, in their opinion, help but sin, who want to dictate a so-called moral law we all ought to follow? And reduce it to a set of simplistic talking-points besides -- as if any morality that could possibly guide us through our complicated lives can be simple?

It boggles my mind the hubris and moral turpitude of our so-called guardians of morality ...

I think that is mainly a function of men's wear being inherantly less revealing then women's wear.

I've noticed this phenomenon particularly in dress clothes. What's bizarre is that, while I personally know more than a few women/girls who prefer it cold, it does seem in general (if I can be allowed to postulate sex differences even on this site) women are more cold sensative and less heat sensative than men. Thus, while men, to dress up, are expected to wear at least three layers -- the inner layer being a full duplicate of the middle layer and the outer layer being a thick woolen jacket -- women are supposed to wear thin dresses with relatively little beneath: the result being that the men will be frying and the women freezing in any given formal venue.

I've raised this point before and the response is (somewhat sarcastically): well the men are supposed to offer their jackets to the women.

But what is the deal with dress clothes?

The pro-life day of silence is nothing new here. They ripped off the gay day of silence, and the catholic church here orginizes it. It's mainly done with middle and high schoolers, however. They all wear t-shirts that say "I survived." How? Were you aborted, got up and ran away? Force field?