Oh, my. Megan at Steeples and Stilletos, a blog I hadn’t known about until a Loyal Pigeon alerted me to it today, feels insulted by PeaceBang. Because she read my tirade against wearing leggings as pants, and felt subsequently embarrassed because she has worn this combo, she decided that this blog is all about “shaming” women for their fashion choices, instead of encouraging them to “feel comfortable in their skin.”
Here is Megan’s post which I think makes at least one good point: “We’re still learning,” she argues, and she’s right. We’re all learning, and trying new things, and none of us wants to feel afraid to take risks. If Megan felt like my strong words against wearing leggings as pants were frightening and victimizing, I can only sigh.
I do not like to make generational generalizations but it really concerns me that 20-somethings so consistently have a really, really hard time not feeling personally victimized by other people’s opinions when those opinions don’t affirm their self-esteem.
Megan, part of coming to maturity in this work is not to slam the door against people who have opinions you don’t agree with, or who hold up an unflattering mirror to you on occasion. PeaceBang railed against wearing leggings as pants, and you have committed that particular fashion crime. Well, live and learn. There is no reason to take it personally, or to conclude that this entire blog is devoted to embarrassing women. Take a look around the archives. The accusation is serious, unfair and extremely ungracious.
Have you ever given a sermon where you identified as a sin something that someone in your parish has actually done? And they came up to you, all defensive, and said, “When you called out that sin, it upset me! I feel uncomfortable in my skin now!” Aren’t you glad they didn’t therefore conclude that your entire ministry is about shaming them… or about shaming EVERYBODY?
Steeples and Stilletos is a totally different kind of effort than BTFM. I spent some time looking at your blog just now and I think it’s very nice. You and your co-bloggers are having fun with fashion and connecting it to faith, and I’m glad to see it.
BTFM is intentionally hyperbolic, irreverent, occasionally outrageous and forceful. When I started this work almost six years ago, I knew the topic would demand a strong tone, a flamboyant blogging persona, and a take-no-prisoners certainty or I would be screamed down by earnest Christians who felt that it was inappropriate to even say “fashion” and “God’ in the same sentence. I see from some of your comments that you have experienced the same push-back. I’m glad that I was out there first, taking some of the heat and setting a precedent so that you could have more freedom to do what you’re doing.
You’re welcome.
I’m 33 years old. I’ve often read and heard people talking about the sense of entitlement and preciousness that they’ve felt today’s 20somethings exude, and I’ve wondered what they were talking about. I’ve always assumed I was too close to the generation in question to really see it.
Until now.
As best as I can follow her argument, she seems to be saying that because she has worn a garment combo that you have expressed disapproval of, she has realized that the goal of this blog is the shaming of women. And that what clergywomen really need is someone supportive and empowering, who can help them feel more confident in their fashion choices. Unlike, you know, this blog.
Sorry I can’t be more articulate, but honestly. I just. Wow.
Interesting to see some of the comments over there now (including mine). Your fans are rising to the occasion, as well they should.
You go girl!
I wondered if that post would wend its way over to you. Sometimes I’ve disagreed with your fashion assessments, but I’ve NEVER thought that you were shaming ANYBODY. This 28 year old pastor is trying very hard to NOT exude preciousness – and I’m not the only one.
Yes, PB, we don’t always see eye to eye on fashion (what women DO, seriously?) But I’ve never seen you as shaming anyone.
I’m safely (thank God) out of my 20s and headed for 40 quickly and what I can safely say is thank goodness I came out with this insight: When something REALLY upsets you, I mean knee jerk reaction upsets you the reason is usually internal. It usually has nothing to do with the actual stimulus. And in those cases some good soul searching is called for.
But that kind of thing comes with a lot of experience and maturity and such is hard and painfully won.
I understand why it’s appropriate to respond to an accusatory blog post with a subsequent blog post articulating and defending your point-of-view. As a reader who respects what you do, I want you to know that it feels equally defensive and immature.
I haven’t spent much time on the Steeples & Stilettos website, but here’s my lazy assessment:
S&S: what twentysomething clergywomen want to say and want to hear
BTFM: what twentysomething clergywomen NEED to hear.
There is plenty of room in this conversation for a twentysomething perspective, but a little humility on the author’s part would go a long, long way.
Signed, Katherine
a thirtysomething clergywoman who is so grateful she had BTFM to help guide her through her late twenties and beyond!
We’ve clearly hit a nerve with one another. I have read your archives and your site previous to my post. Your site was the first clergy/fashion blog that I read when I started seminary. I do recognize that your voice on this blog is a persona and over the top at times. You have said you don’t apologize for your opinions and neither will I. Could I have stated my thoughts about your leggings post differently? Yes. Could my midwestern upbringing influence how I hear direct criticism? Yes. It’s not just about leggings though, the leggings post simply pushed me over the edge.
Perhaps I should have engaged you more directly to begin with (as suggested in a comment by AWP). Perhaps, I should have removed your blog name from the story itself—- but the reaction of a 20something should be not surprising, you have written in posts before about how you can hear whining start already- that you come across condescending- and [not to simply proof text your previous articles- but an example of the tone that has turned me off] “I hear the whining start already.
“PeaceBang, you’re being so condescennnnnnding!!†Yes, I am, tootsie. That’s because I’m your veteran colleague and you don’t know anything yet, and it would be wise if you piped down and listened for awhile and took notes.”…
That sort of tone gets me defensive and does not help me learn.
You said that I have you to thank for clearing the path for blogs about fashion and faith. You’re right. There are many women who have paved the way before me in the wide world of ministry. I will thank you. Thank you for inspiring me and my colleagues to do something different than what we had been seeing online. I know that I don’t speak for all 20-somethings, just myself. I don’t think we’ll see eye to eye on this and that’s fine. I’m grateful that there is room for all of us, on the Internet, and in God’s family.
[Oooh, I see. You’ve been mad at mommy for a long time, and a post on leggings pushed you “over the edge.” My goodness. Thanks for making it clear why you feel entitled to degrade a colleague’s pioneering ministry as an expression of “opinion.” Also, it’s cute how you call me “tootsie,” trying to co-opt that sassy PeaceBang voice. I hope you find your own, kid. Best of luck in ministry. – PB]
I’ve said it before, PB. You hold up a mirror. Any time we want to cross cultures (which we continually do as women, Christians, and communicators), we need that mirror so we have a handle on how we’re perceived.
I’m a 31 year old pastor and I’ve been to that blog Stillettoes and Steeples a few times. It’s not creative. It’s not funny. It’s not well-written or original and it never makes me think. The design is really a mess and the authors don’t have anything to contribute that aren’t generic Christian reflections I can get anywhere. PB, don’t sweat it. Too bad Megan fulfilled your generational generalizations so perfectly. What a whiner. It doesn’t bode well for her ministry that she doesn’t know how to properly apologize for insulting a colleague.
It’s an exciting thing to be in your 20s and already a pastor, and exuberance shows in one’s fashion. When I became a lawyer in my late 20s I wore all kinds of outfits that might not have been the best choice–but there you have it. I suppose I am startled to find that Megan feels “shamed”–there’s no reason to feel shamed. This prickliness about hearing criticism may be age related–my 26 year old daughter gets like that. Certainly if Megan is convicted in her fashion choice, she won’t feel shamed. So, it takes time to learn to dress for your professional calling. We live into our call. Now at age 55 and a seminarian who hopes to be ordained before age 60 (God willing) it’s important to strike the balance between looking youthful enough that I can convince my bishop I’m not too old for the priesthood, and dignified enough not to offend the people I serve. –Sincerely, “Another Megan”
In reading Megan’s response, I think the “tootsie” was a part of a quote from BTFM. It doesn’t make sense apart from the rest of the segment in quotes.
I certainly understand the need to respond, but none of this feels like it’s particularly on the high road or doing all that much to further the kingdom of God. [Well, there is that, but there’s also the fact that we’ve all been socialized to regard anger as scary and inappropriate in a woman, and that it’s our job to retreat in the face of conflict or to fix it. Thanks for weighing in. – PB]
Going back to the leggings issue. One problem with modern leggings is that they are much closer to tights than the ’80’s versions ever were. I ended up behind a woman wearing a leggins/short-tunic combination in the grocery store and when the sunlight hit the leggins I could suddenly see much more of her than I ever wanted too. So, regardless of whether leggins/tunic is an appropriate look– always check that the black stretch garment you are wearing doesn’t let light right through– just because it is black doesn’t mean it is opaque.
[This just made me laugh because I have been there. Tushie time! Thanks, Kristin, for your practical advice. – PB]
It seems that the “we’re clergy women but we’re fun and cute and have girlfriends and nice clothes and manicures and stuff” thing has become quite a cliche. I sort of gag at the big red heels/gold shoes/overdone pedicures (or whatever) at liturgical events now. It isn’t just my advancing age–it just seems childish and out of context. I’m not commenting on this blog in particular, I’ve not seen it, but speaking more generally. [Pendulum swing, perhaps? You know how it is: we’re supposed to be freshly scrubbed, sexless servants of the Lord for so long that the pendulum swings wildly in the other direction until, hopefully, it meets somewhere in the healthy middle. – PB]
It’s no surprise that you haven’t heard of our blog before (our readership on a good day is maybe 50 people- most of whom are people we know personally, or maybe 2 or 3 degrees out. And my mom). Your link has sent over 300 people over to us, and your reply hasn’t even posted been half a day (I just checked, it’s been viewed over 10x more today then it has the other 10 days combined that it’s been posted).
We’ve been blogging almost a year [the fruition of a final project for a women in ministry- something that has continued as we graduated seminary, became ordained, and are approaching the 9 month mark of being in calls].
This past year has been a HUGE year of developing pastoral identity. We are now ordained clergy. We are not an ‘intern pastor’ or ‘cpe students’ or ‘seminarians’. We are pastors.
Our post should have been engaged differently by us (we are learning)- and the amount of views and feedback is a bit overwhelming (I see why you have a flamboyant persona & and a strong tone when you write). I will say, I am thankful that many women feel very strongly about the work you do (as we have seen with the replies both to our post & yours). It’s important to have someone in your corner, and I do believe you are in the corner for women in ministry (really, for people in ministry). I really do appreciate the work of this ministry, even though it’s not the right community for me.
And about Megan’s comment- she wasn’t calling you ‘tootsie’. That was a quote from something you wrote. She didn’t mean disrespect or snark by it, but was showing the tone that we have pushed back against (realizing your faithful readers appreciate it).
It was from something you posted under seminary advice.
Our blog is still a ‘work in progress’, we are still finding our voice- and have learned a huge lesson today about how to write when you disagree with another blogger. Thank you for the lesson today and I am sorry that we did not voice our disagreement in a more respectful and productive way. [Thanks, Cassie, good to hear from you! And — wink, wink — didja notice how I increased your traffic by tons and tons? High five me, girl, that’s how we make silk purses out of sow’s ears. Keep on blogging. I’ll be too old and tired to do this for very long and I need spicy successors. – PB]
Yes it’s really not simply an age thing, as I have seen this in women well into their 30’s and 40’s as well, a huge amount of self examination and reflection upon one’s own feelings (which is not exactly itself bad) but then a turning of full responsibility for every emotional reaction onto the other person. No insight, no refinement of one’s own character, little or no growth.
I adore this blog PB and you are a wonderful example in SO many ways!
I’m a 34 yr old pastor, ordained for a few yrs now. PB has been a mentor for me + many of my colleagues. Thanks, as a previous commentor has said, ‘For telling us what we NEED to hear.’ Kiss of peace
Wow. Okay, in all fairness, I never read the original S&S post (never heard of the place before), and it’s down now. But I have to say- as a woman who’s nearing ordination (and who is also rapidly nearing thirty)… PeaceBang, you are not the person I naturally side with here, having read your post and the two comments from the S&S folks.
I have friends who read you regularly. They love your advice, your demeanor, etc. I’ve had this blog recommended to me from a variety of women. I’ve read it off and on for a few years now. But I will never read you regularly, and that’s for personality clash-related reasons, mostly, apparently the same things that got the S&S folks irritated with you. I agree with your mission, I have some issues with your methods, and I mostly don’t worry about it. But the sheer level of condescension in your replies to the S&S women on this post have incensed me beyond my usual tolerances.
“I don’t like to make… generalizations”? Really? You make generalizations all the time, PeaceBang, you’ve done it for years. The one that sticks with me is that you tell women over and over again to never wear (even dress) pants when leading worship on Sundays- well, that may work in New England, but in the MidWest, the culture is sufficiently different for dress pants to be the *norm*, and khakis okay in summer in some places. Fashion rules change by location, but I have never, in the dozens of posts of yours I’ve read, seen you acknowledge that. [Mmm, but by your own admission, you haven’t read me very often. – PB]
But what really got my dander up tonight was your response to Megan and Cassie’s posts. “You’ve been mad at mommy for a long time”- really? You pulled the Mommy card? Treating her like a tantruming five year old, when in that comment she was actually rational and genuinely responsive? And then doubling it by calling her kid again, and that clearly incredibly sarcastic “Best of luck in ministry” at the end is just flat out mean. And beneath you.
Megan, my fellow clergywoman- may I suggest you read 1 Timothy 4:12, take a deep breath, and let this roll off your back. PeaceBang is never going to acknowledge that she was wrong when she claimed you called her “tootsie” as a matter of mockery, rather than as part of a (perfectly well defined) quotation. You have other things to do.
Oh, and as someone who’s been on the ‘net for fifteen years, and moderated communities and journals- sending, from what these comments say, 300 people to a site (that isn’t set up for that kind of traffic) to “defend your honor” or whatever actually happened over there? Isn’t a favor. Is *not* increasing traffic. It’s a flashmob, and it’s the act of someone who doesn’t trust in their own abilities enough to defend themselves, and would rather turn a crowd into doing it for them. I’ve seen it happen in congregations, and it’s an even more obvious tactic online. [This is the most disgusting, baseless accusation I have ever heard from a woman. More below. – PB]
Cassie, for you may I suggest some videos of kittens on YouTube? They do wonders for me after something like this.
PeaceBang, your replies to their comments here do not count as reaching out to those who have wronged you. Don’t count as turning the other cheek. You have, throughout this post, sat there content in your self-image and never once considered that to some women, your demeanor may be frightening. That your snap judgments, swiftly delivered with no caveats, may make them question their own judgment needlessly, may give them a really nasty case of impostor syndrome (another reason I don’t read you a lot).
Treating *women* who are trying to engage in genuine conversation with you as children is a tactic I usually see used by men, in their sixties, who feel threatened. (The ones who call me “that little girl over there” at synod assemblies- and I’m 5’11.) You can be better than this. You can admit that sometimes your opinion is just your opinion, and not a verdict handed down from on high.
If this whole thing is a reflection of anything, actually, I think it’s reflecting the clash between the approaches and styles of second and third wave feminism. We should be working together.
[There is so much wrong with this overly-earnest, finger-wagging letter I really resent that I think it’s important to respond to you point by point. However, your accusations are so serious that I think its warranted.
First and foremost, you didn’t read the offending post on the S & S blog! Are you kidding me? You’re going to judge my response without reading the writing that instigated it? Is that how you engage in rational judgment? I have rarely heard anything so irresponsible and egotistical: “I can make a judgment from on high based on hearing one side of the story.” The implications for your leadership are really scary. Second point: I admit that I’m wrong and change my opinion all the time on this blog. I spar with readers, take teasing from them, respond with “oopses” on regular occasions, and enjoy it when someone persuades me to change my mind. Just because you didn’t or your friends didn’t doesn’t mean that you have characterized my blog accurately. Third point: Blogging is about snap judgments swiftly delivered, or else I’d have to quit my job to have time to blog. That’s the nature of the art form – it’s ephemera. Criticizing a blogger of making snap judgments is to grossly misunderstand how the form works. Fourth: I find it actually disgusting that you insult my readers by thinking that I somehow “sent them” over to the “S &S” blog — because they’re apparently mindless drones following my will (???). I blogged a post and my readers decided to follow a link, or not. I read in your accusation a truly disturbing lack of respect for women — and I think you have major issues in that department. What do you think, really? That the readers of this blog are some sort of hive of worker bees that the Queen dispatched over to sting poor little Megan? Your assumptions are deeply disturbing. Fifth: I didn’t correct my mistake about Megan’s quoting of my “tootsie” line because I didn’t read the comments until a few days after everything had been said. It didn’t seem worth bringing up. Megan got busted for obnoxiously insulting me. She learned something about accountability and how the internet works. She dissed me, she got busted for it, and she delivered a hostile reply that was rampant with mommy/authority issues and then got busted for that. I misunderstood her quote but I was… imagine this, because I don’t think this is allowed in your universe… really angry! Sixth: Readers who find me scary need to stay away, get more secure in themselves and find their own voice and style. The antidote to my being scary is not to silence me, and the fact that you suggest that I should “lower my voice” is astonishing to me : would that be second or third wave feminism that teaches powerful, influential women to diminish themselves so that insecure, easily threatened women can feel safer and more secure? Here’s some advice, Katie: don’t wade in where you don’t know the situation, haven’t read half the story, and enter the conversation loaded with tons of ego, judgment and false assumptions. Your “fifteen years on the internet” (what a bizarre flaunting of credentials – who DOESN’T have “fifteen years on the internet?” at this point?) does not qualify you to attack me because you don’t personally like my style and are offended (or at least ambivalent about) female anger and authority. You know nothing of my ministry to my readers of all ages, the hundreds of e-mails I answer personally each year. I treat women and men like children when they act like children and make no apologies for it. You write, “We should be working together.” Guess what, Katie? I wouldn’t want to work with you under any conditions. I think you’re a nightmare of contradictions, haughty “Christianism,” deeply conflicted feelings about women in authority, and ego. You came at this uninformed, and as someone who says you read my blog infrequently, totally unequipped to make generalizations about its content. Sashay away. – PB]