Accidents Happen

And it's a good thing they do! After all, it was by accident that I came across this unique blog, Modestly Yours, while I was playing catch up on my oft-forgotten blog this week.

Take note, I am not one to put myself in the "modesty camp", per se. Heaven knows I love a tube top/strapless sundress as much as the next girl. However, I do like that this is a blog by women for women and on-the-whole they seem rather reasonable on the subject. The fact that they have some college-aged women contributing gives me a great sense of hope. Take for instance their take on Wendy Shalit's book, A Return to Modesty. I am sad to say I haven't read this book, but have no fear, I plan to do so ASAP.

In the meantime, I offer up this thoughtful review (a bit out-of-date) from Christian Century (scroll down to see the text). This excerpt from the book piqued my interest:

If men are brought up, as today's boys are, believing that girls always want the same thing they do from sexual encounters, and that it's evil and sexist to assume otherwise, then they are that much more likely to be impatient and uncomprehending of a woman's "no." Female modesty gave men a frame of reference for a woman's "no." Without that frame of reference, but instead taught from day one that women are always as ready to receive advances as they are eager to make them, the modern male always takes a "no" as a personal rebuke. That is why women today must link arms, charge down campus in their anti-date-rape rallies, screaming "No means no!"

For a bonus treat, go to this 1999 edition of First Things to check out a review by Ms. Shalit, "Daddy's Little Girl" as well as a review of her own book, "A Return to Modesty" by Sarah Hinckley. I must say I am a bit wary of this stereotype described by Hinckley:

Exhibit A of this need is Shalit’s description of end–of–the–century American mating rituals. First there’s the hook–up. That’s where young men and women gather in some communal territory, like a frat house or bar, medicate themselves with liquor, and then engage in any range of sexual activities, oblivious to all factors beyond momentary attraction. The next stage is the dumping: the male disentangles himself from the perceived "clinginess" of the female’s attempt at emotional involvement. The final stage is the check–up, in which the thoughtful male makes sure that the dumped female is still in fairly good health and, if he is especially enlightened, offers her the chance to talk about "what went wrong." This three–tiered process is what is known as "having a relationship." Get used to it or get out.

It is a critique, only because I think one of the more destructive trends in college circles is not the sexual aggression and flippancy of men but of women. However, I am far from dismissing the book for this small critique (especially having not read it) and I am encouraged by what she goes on to say:

Shalit wants women to be women again. She sees the deep perversity of the "androgyny project" of the past thirty years that demands manhood of women and a diminution of manhood among men, but refuses to tolerate womanhood in women. It is anything but a liberation from old shackles: instead, it is a suppression of femininity, a direct assault on the oft–touted blessing of diversity.

As soon as I (finally) return my current stack of books and thus get of the library blacklist, this will be the next one on my shelf. Check it our for yourself.