If you were raised in a strict religion, what were some of the church rules that targeted women?
In my case, our first Haiti mission didn't allow women to cut their hair, wear pants, make up, or jewelry, including wedding rings.
Single women weren't allowed to talk to men alone.
The next mission board was more liberal, but women and girls still couldn't wear pants or make up, at least in Haiti, although everyone did in the US.
In subsequent churches I attended through the years, women were expeced to wear nylons, dress shoes, and conservative dresses to church, and to show up every time the church doors were open.
The worst of this kind of bondage and discipline was in denominations other than mine. The bible institute I attended had a dress code but it was not really different from the surrounding culture so long as the girls didn't go in for miniskirts or showing cleavage. In other words nothing that smacked of youth counterculture protest (this was the mid 1970s). The prohibitions for us were more cultural -- no rock music (this was before Christian rock was really a thing), participation in Halloween not exactly prohibited but strongly frowned upon, a homemaker mom held up as the ideal although even then exceptions were being made out of economic necessity. This was also the era of The Total Woman and Dare to Discipline so submission to authority generally and for women your husband specifically was pushed as literally the only path to a happy marriage. Children were to be cheerfully obedient to parents and any sort of disobedience was met with harsh discipline designed literally and overtly to "break the child's spirit" which was assumed by default to be a rebellious spirit.
Indeed, if there was a single big sea change in my thinking when I left Christianity it was that I became far less cynical about my fellow man. I went from seeing them as always looking for a way to "sin", to subvert, to rebel, and basically incapable of real goodness apart from the majick of god's influence, to being people who for the most part meant well and given half a chance would try their best to do well.
That humans are vile and corrupt beyond self-knowledge was really the basic attitute toward all groups, including women. Women were seen as looking to hector, hen peck and diminish and demean their husbands (ironically I think this is because it was the only power women had in relationships). They were seen as desiring forbidden levels of agency, wanting too much of a voice, and being critical and demeaning of their husbands unless heapin' helpin's of social pressure were constantly exerted upon them. They were admonished to be supportive and encouraging 100% of the time. Because men, apparently basically are incapable of leadership which, if followed, would not at least in some ultimate sense lead to some sort of reward for the woman.
Meanwhile men were seen as diamonds in the rough who would magically blossom if a woman, in faith, just let them follow their god-given instincts.
The dichotomy was rooted largey, I think, in the story of the Fall. It was the woman who was deceived, not Adam. It was she who took the leadership in eating the forbidden fruit. Women were constantly reminded of that.
The final 'nail in the coffin' for my religious years was exactly this issue.
I clearly remember my disgust at hearing a minister preach about "how women must be silent in the church". I'd recently moved to Missouri with my husband and our kids and was trying to fit in by agreeing to attend the services of a neighbor's church.
My husband, as usual, was drunk on a Sunday. So I packed up the kids and set off. Mind you, I was already disillusioned and skeptical about exposing my children to the god notion.
This was Church of Christ country. If anyone is familiar with that denomination, you'll know they're pretty fundamental. Dresses, long hair, obey your man, have babies, shut up.
Anyway, yeah. I'd been head of my household for years. My man was likely laying unconscious in his own piss at that moment. And you want me to obey and be quiet. Well f#@k you!
I stood up in the middle of that sermon and gathered up my kids and walked out. I was done.
Good for you. Nothing so clarifying as a watershed moment.
@mordant
Indeed!
Raised Catholic. Seemingly little things as a child: we had to wear hats, gloves and dresses to church. The big one is birth control is not allowed. As soon as I was confirmed in 8th grade I was done. Never bought a drop of it.
It's been a while but I was pentecostal for years. Hair was seen as a woman's "glory" so cutting it was frowned upon. You went to church when the doors were open and dressed up, women in dresses/suits, hose, and dress shoes and men in suits/ties and dress shoes. Mixed swimming was not allowed, going to movies was discouraged. That's about all I can remember from those days. Oh, and make sure you pay your tithe religiously otherwise you'd get these little nasty/nice notices.
@SheThatB I grew up in a less strict denomination but it has always struck me that the various bogeymen and shibboleths of fundamentalism did change over the years and this gives the lie to the notion that god's morality is unchanging. In roughly the 1920s to 1940s the sorts of prohibitions you mention were more the norm -- no dresses shorter than ankle length, radio and movies (and later TV) portrayed as evil influences, no dancing, no public display of affection or unchaperoned dating. The details and the time at which they were loosened up vary by denomination, but vary they did.
Tithing was a somewhat separate issue and the pressures against it had mostly to do with fundamentalists being more predominantly low and lower middle income and a strict 10% of your gross income tithe was too much of an "ask".
I have always said that the only morality that actually exists is societal morality, which is dynamic and constantly being renegotiated as needs and awareness change. If any given religious group varies too much from that, guess what it becomes? Yup, immoral. Even if the religious code of conduct is MORE strict than society's, it becomes suspect. Ultimately most fundamentalists were not willing to be seen as too "weird" as it had direct economic and social consequences and with their anti-higher-education, anti-evolution mindset, they were already not competing for the highest paying jobs, especially in STEM fields. The first thing to go is way out of step dress and grooming codes, and shortly after, any strictures on activities that remove your group from the shared experience of the larger society (e.g. movies, common modes of dating).
The main thing that has survived to this day in fundamentalism seems to be the stay-at-home mom because it's not inherently a bad thing and something that people chose for non-religious reasons. Many women enjoy and prefer that, at least while their children are young. My own atheist daughter is the main bread-winner for her family (she has professional training that her husband lacks) and bemoans that she can't spend more time actively raising / mentoring her children.
@mordant I was a stay at home mom until I got my GED in my thirties. It was partly my ex's whole "I'm the man of the house and you need to be at home with the kids" mentality and the cost of having childcare for three children. Once I got my GED I was able to start college and graduated with my BS. In my third year of my degree I became a divorced single mother. Getting out of the house to work, and getting an education were the guiding force between both my divorce and my slide from religion. My ex actually told me that if he had not "allowed" me to go back to school we'd still be married. The sad part is, he was probably right.
@SheThatB It's easy to see why fundamentalists see allowing women any agency and independence is a threat to "the institution" of marriage and to individual marriages. It is not that educated, working women cannot stay happily married to happily married spouses. It is that the whole basis of fundagelical marriage is dysfunctional to begin with. You're violating a set of rigid, repressive expectations and unless the man can evolve his own understanding along with yours, it is bound to cause discord.
I was one that was able to evolve and was raised in fact to be too respectful of others, women included, to buy into the "keep 'em barefoot and pregnant" concept. I doubt I repressed my wife enough to please my fundamentalist overlords, had they been aware of it. But since my first wife chose to be stay-at-home, we were never challenged on it. If she had wanted to get a degree, I'd have supported that. If she had wanted to work, and the economics weren't such that we'd spend more on day care than she'd make, I'd support that. I would have even considered a little role reversal and become a bit of a house-husband, given that I could earn most of my living from home even in the pre-Internet era.
I suspect a lot of evangelical men are far less stringent in practice than the official teaching of their churches. However -- a lot are not, and it's still a repressive regime.
Not allowing women to wear pants? Gotta like that!
@MichaelPust True, that wasn't all bad. However ... nothing above the knee, either. And in earlier generations, nothing above the ankle.
Omniscient gods..... makers of suns and galaxies, instigator of super novas, builders of mountains and oceans.....angry at females wearing long leggings! All hail our anti-pants gods!
Similar rules.
I just showed up in short-shorts and a halter-top one day and we negotiated from that point.
I had to wear skirts all the time, knee length or longer, except in gymnastics, ballet, and track. Hats for church (which I hated). Short sleeves were only allowed in summer, no tanks, pants, or shorts.
Talking to or touching men was strictly forbidden except relatives. I could only speak with men if their wives were present.
Long hair until I chopped it off at 16. Got into a heck of a lot of trouble for that. No swearing.
Visiting a neighbor's house, I was raped by her cousin from the church. I was 9. He confessed to the priest, which forced me to apologize from the pulpit for being a Jezebel. I didn't confess, because I didn't even have words for what had happened to me at the time.
So sad to hear that.