MRS. W. writes:

My husband and I have been following your blog since he discovered you last year. Our journey to find the True Catholic Church has been a difficult one and we are still continuing to learn more about it. As I have said we have been reading you for a while and have come to respect you and your opinions most highly. You are one of the few women who seem to really understand what is going on in the world and, it would seem, that no subject is taboo for you and I therefore trust your opinions. With that I have something to ask you: what are your views on modesty?

Everyone seems to have a different opinion even among traditionalist Catholics, yet they all seem to call it “Marian modesty”. How high should our necklines be? Can we show our elbows? Our wrists? Isn’t just below the knee just a little too short? Mary covered her hair in public, should we all do this? I read somewhere that a Pope (I forget which one) said women’s dress was intended to restrict the activities she does. And Pope Pius XII said that in some sports, gymnastics and dance, “there is a certain nudism which is neither necessary nor proper…The religious and moral sense place its veto on that kind of gymnastics and sport.” I think immediately of swimming.

My husband recently gifted me with a gym membership because I recently had a baby and my house is just a little too busy to exercise in. We thought this was perhaps okay because our priest told the congregation during his homily to go and join a gym but perhaps he didn’t mean for the women to go? I love to swim laps and love being in the water in general. My husband and I have discussed my wearing swimming capris with a skirt that comes halfway down the thigh with a regular full swimsuit under it with a swim cap and having a bath robe ready when I climb out of the pool. We have also discussed my wearing a below-the-knee tunic with baggy pants under it so that I can go running. But (as I am out of shape) baggy clothes just don’t seem to hide the jigglies which may draw some immodest attention. I also enjoy practicing ballet and martial arts which can both be performed wearing modest clothing. But are those sports restricted to me because they involve immodest movement of the body? My poor husband won’t go to the gym anymore because the women there are so under-dressed.

When it comes to modesty I am aware that it is more than simply how one dresses. It applies to make-up and adornment, hairstyles and the “wanting to be seen.” And it does apply to activities too. I fear that I am trying to find out how much I can get away with doing because I enjoy these activities so much. But what I really want is for someone to make it black and white for me. Will my daughters never learn to swim? Am I to not run or practice other “jiggly” sports? Should we cancel this gym membership for reasons of modesty?

Laura writes:

Thank you for writing and for your kind encouragement.

That feminists approve of immodesty is one of the paradoxes of our revolutionary times. A woman’s strength and dignity are, first and foremost, in her soul, not her body. All of society hinges on the dignity of women. Immodesty undermines that dignity. It’s disrespectful of men, who are distracted by what they see.  All of us have been conditioned to dress immodestly so we have to war against that tendency and follow clear standards. It’s a battle and learning process that takes time. “The attire of the body, and the laughter of the teeth, and the gait of the man, show what he is (Eccles 19:27).” As a mother you have an especial interest in preserving your dignity since your children will so love you and look up to you. Try to follow the Marian dress code, which is very explicit (please, no pants). But also try to avoid frumpiness, which is ugly.

Exercise is important. I urge you to find an activity you enjoy and that helps you feel healthy. But bear in mind these words of St. Thomas Aquinas, which I quote from this article (one of many good articles on women’s dress at Tradition in Action):

“Outward movements are signs of the inward disposition, according to Eccl. 19:27 ‘The attire of the body, and the laughter of the teeth, and the gait of the man show what he is,’ and St. Ambrose says (De Offic. I, 18) that ‘the habits of mind are seen in the gestures of the body,’ and that ‘the body’s movement is an index of the soul’” (Summa Theologiae, II, II, question 168, article 1, reply to objection 1).

I recommend women’s-only swim classes or exercise periods if you can find them, wearing one of the many modest swimsuits now available (see a list of companies here).You can buy swim skirts and attractive tops that go to the elbow or are quarter-length. Ideally, men and women would swim separately. They swim at different paces anyway. I realize you probably can’t find these ideal conditions and that you love swimming. Truthfully, I’m divided on that point. I’m not sure.  Cycling or calisthenic classes for women at the gym are other possibilities.

Martial arts and jogging cultivate an aggressive mentality in women, don’t you think? I say that as someone who used to jog. (I also used to swim laps about four or five times a week. I don’t miss it at all. It was like being a shark in a tank. Everyone was subtly competing with each other.) I can’t imagine being thrilled as a child at seeing my mother jogging. It’s also almost impossible to jog in a modest way. I would consider walking, dance, hiking, horseback riding [see comments below on how unlikely it is to horseback ride today], or bicycling. In a ballet class, you are probably going to be just with women, so I don’t see a problem with that.

It’s important for your children to learn to swim and, in my opinion, it’s okay for your daughters to swim in modest suits in co-ed pools up until the age of ten.

I hope I have helped.

— Comments —

Bruce B. writes:

For what it’s worth, men generally aren’t attracted to the overly fit look of the woman in the blog entry picture. Honestly, a somewhat overweight woman is more feminine looking than an overly fit woman. It’s gross when you can see a woman’s muscles. She looks like a skinny man.

Laura writes:

She’s a machine.

Shannon Hood writes:

Am I the only one who finds the grouping of martial arts and jogging as two forms of exercise that cultivate an “aggressive mentality” in women an odd one? Martial arts is an obvious choice for cultivating aggression, but jogging? That seems to be quite a stretch. Of course, the photograph you start this post with tells a different story, but that photograph is extremely misleading, in my opinion. When I have time in my schedule (which is a challenge with four young children) to go running, my attire looks nothing like that. A sports bra, a loose tee shirt, and shorts or pants, depending on the season, would be my outfit of choice. Perhaps I’m missing something, but could you (or one of your readers) explain to me how this would be immodest?

Perhaps you would suggest that I walk instead. I fail to comprehend how walking is a more modest form of exercise than running. Also- with four children six and under, my time is for exercise is extremely limited, and running is the most efficient form of exercise that is also affordable (all you need are good running shoes) and accessible (you can do it anywhere). Sadly, horseback riding is not an option for me.

Laura writes:

Yes, horseback riding is not an option for most of us. : – ) I think I’ve done it a total of twice in my life.

But, heck, it would be fun if it were!

As far as running, it’s just this intuitive sense I have that it is not all that calming. And, of the mothers I really admired when I was little, I have a hard time imagining them running — in the same way I can’t imagine monks running because their lives have a contemplative tone. They had this calm about them. I can’t quite explain it. It was the ballast of existence. (I don’t mean to insult you; I’m sure you are a great mother!) The counter-argument is that aerobic exercise is calming. I know the feeling of that kind of high you get from running. But I don’t miss it. I also think the outfit you mention is not modest or feminine.

With young children at home, it’s impossible for many women to get out to gyms or places like that. It’s either walking, running or calisthenics — aside from the workout of housework and gardening.

Laura adds:

I have an exalted view of the importance of the inner life of women to the general spiritual condition of the world. So what I say must seem ridiculous to most people.

I think a woman should not rush too much or push. She should be as much as possible in a state of potential prayer. There are different levels of jogging. Some people really push themselves.

Laura writes:

I didn’t answer one of Mrs. W.’s questions. She wrote:

Isn’t just below the knee just a little too short?

Yes, it is too short. I’ve tried it and it doesn’t work. Mid-calf is ideal.

Laura writes:

I asked my husband about the issue of jogging.

I said, “Could you imagine your mother jogging?”

He never saw his mother in pants, let alone sweatpants or tight yoga pants. His mother was poor, but she always wore a dress. She was a salt-of-the earth kind of person who raised five children, liked her beer and walked to Mass every day.

Anyway, I asked him the question, “Could you imagine your mother jogging?” He burst out laughing: “No!” I asked him why.

“It’s just undignified!”

Sven writes:

There is a diversity of options for the woman who wants to be both modest and fit.

1) Most towns have several women only gyms or women only fitness classes. While I think that these places can be prone to fitness fads, they’re certainly an option.

2) Daily family walks can be a great option for keeping in shape. Fitness doesn’t have to be nearly as structured or intense as it is made out to be. Have a few babies to carry or put in strollers for added exercise.

3) There are lines of reasonably modest swimming suits for women. Either way, I think that most of the people who wake up early to swim laps are the type of people who are more focused on exercise than on ogling bodies.

4) There are lots of home fitness routines you can do with your own body weight that need no equipment. If you invest in some second hand barbells, kettle bells, medicine balls, and a pull up bar, you can expand your options dramatically. Don’t worry, you won’t grow mannish arms from lifting. Women who do grow freakish muscles are genetic anomalies or are using special drugs. I highly recommend Mark Rippeltoes’ “Starting Strength” book for learning about lifting. Perhaps your husband can get a few lesson with a good personal trainer and then pass on some lessons to you.

5) If you’re lucky enough to live a place with snow, cross country skiing, snowshoeing, and skating are all activities that easily accommodate modest clothes, and in fact encourage it, because you’ll be bundled up.

Laura writes:

Thank you very much. Those winter sports are great.

One point: Regardless of whether men look at a woman when she is swimming, what she wears affects her psychology. Nakedness or near-nakedness around other people, especially the opposite sex, involves a loss of privacy.

Sven wrote:

Fitness doesn’t have to be nearly as structured or intense as it is made out to be.

When I realized this, it was liberating.

The strenuousness and effort which many people devote to exercise can be depressing, They seem like caged animals or machines. But, on the other hand, a car-bound, desk-bound life is very sedentary and people often need this intense exercise to balance it out. Communities totally built around cars have destroyed a lot of spontaneous, naturally-occurring exercise. My husband’s mother walked a lot. She didn’t use a car in her daily life.

Dan R. writes:

A Google search indicates that the photo is of professional stuntwoman Alisa Hensley Lane, who at a minimum falls into a category similar to the genetic anomalies or performance-drug users: the exercise fanatic.

I think of the cult of immodesty as a cousin to the “woman as warrior” syndrome.

Finally, let’s not forget that immodesty is not restricted to women, as the numbers of men running bare-chested in warm-weather months attest. I’ll never forget the moment when I was doing a running workout at my high school track with a much older friend and mentor, very much a traditionalist and also very muscular. In ninety-degree heat we finished an interval lap, and while resting a minute prior to our next go-round this 18-year old took off his shirt before resuming another lap. Instantly I was admonished: “Put your shirt back on, Hercules!” I immediately got the message.

 Laura writes:

Alisa is an anomaly, but culturally, she represents an ideal. The way she is dressed is not unusual. For some, running comes with that “woman as warrior” mentality.

Thank you for the points about immodesty in men.

Mrs. Hood writes:

I live in Texas. In the summers, when the temperature is hot and the humidity is unbearable, running with mid-calf length shorts would be unbearable. Shorts that come to mid-thigh are about as long as you can wear without suffering in the heat. Obviously this attire would be quite immodest for a trip to the library or the grocery store – thankfully both of these places are heavily air conditioned in the summer months – but for a jog or a run around my neighborhood it would be quite appropriate. It seems to me that you are placing the Virtue of Modesty above all else–which is perhaps unwise. If our goal were total and absolute modesty in every situation without exception, we would be unable to wear anything more than a shapeless sack that goes to the floor and to the wrist. Obviously modesty must be tempered.

It is interesting what you say about how a woman should not “rush too much or be pushed.” It reminds me of the feminine ideal I encountered in Victorian literature with the “Angel in the House” concept–that a female should be charming, meek, graceful, pure, pious, etc. This ideal is lovely, but it it also not entirely rooted in reality; sometimes, other virtues trump feminine modesty. Your husband laughs when you ask if he can imagine his mother jogging. Does that make it wrong or unwise to engage in? When I think of my greatest achievements as a female, one of the first things that comes to my mind is the intensely physical act of delivering my children. It is interesting to note that if a women exercises – including jogging! – during her pregnancy, her labor will be much faster and easier than if she had been sedentary. I also find that after a particularly challenging run or hike, I feel a sense of accomplishment similar to how I felt after natural childbirth.

I think my point is that one’s femininity is not at risk if one engages in jogging or running.  This is an interesting article about modesty and it echoes my point that it is possible to be too modest, as Jane Bennet in Pride and Prejudice was. Elizabeth Bennet showed that the ideal level of feminine modesty was tempered by wisdom, circumstance, and common sense.

 Laura writes:

Thank you for your thoughtful points.

However, I disagree with much of what you say. When women in history have wanted to dress modestly, they have found the clothes and the styles to do it, often very attractively. They did not find it necessary to “temper” their modesty to do many physical activities. Pioneer women did all kinds of rough-and-ready things, but they didn’t wear anything like leggings and T-shirts.

I guess modest jogging-wear would be a longer dress-like shirt over pants so that a woman’s rump is not on prominent public display. But I still believe jogging is unbecoming for mothers. This opinion has to do with their dignity and authority in the home. When I say “authority,” I don’t mean stern authority, but warm and loving authority. A mother managing a typical, middle-class home cannot be a Victorian wallflower; it is a demanding job. She’s the center, the heart of it all, and her dignity and tranquility set the tone. Obviously the whole world disagrees with me as many women run around in play clothes all the time, constantly running from here to there, frazzled and looking like over-sized children.(I’m not saying you are one of them.) I think they undercut the position of the mother as a figure of respect. That’s what I see everywhere: women who trivialize the most important things they do.

Your point about childbirth suggests that I’m saying that women should not engage in strenuous exercise of any kind, or are not capable of it. That’s not my point. I’m specifically talking about running, not climbing mountains or lifting bales of hay on a farm.

That’s an interesting article about Pride and Prejudice. I don’t quite see how it’s related. Saying that mothers shouldn’t jog is not saying that they should never assert themselves or should be shy. Mothers have to assert themselves, or they should. Do you really think I believe women should be only meek wallflowers? I certainly don’t live up to that ideal.

Again, we all live in a car-bound world and we just don’t get a lot of naturally-occurring exercise. But then my grandmothers would never have jogged no matter what kind of transportation was available. Not because they were meek or incapable! They were mothers.

Linda N. writes:

More on Sven’s comment that “Fitness doesn’t have to be nearly as structured or intense as it is made out to be.”

You’ve probably heard of the fashionable “paleo” and “Crossfit” movements. Both stress the superiority of short periods of fairly intense exercise — lifting heavy things, sprinting short distances — and outright play, to long, tedious slogs on the treadmill or jogging. (I should say “running.” “Runners” don’t like what they do to be called “jogging.”) In fact, the latest research suggests that long periods of repetitive exercise — running especially — can do more harm than good in the long run, and oodles of anecdotal evidence confirms this. In other words, it turns out that lifting and carrying children, and occasionally sprinting after them when they wander off, are excellent forms of exercise over the long haul! Add to that the rigors of housekeeping and gardening and you’ve got a first-rate exercise regime.

Personally, I’ve always viewed “running” as a form of showing off, whatever the “runner” is wearing. And clearly dressing and accessorizing for ones “run” is crucial.

Laura writes:

I can’t stand all those exercise egotists showing off their high-priced plastic-wear. It’s hideous. What an eyesore.

Linda writes:

In other words, it turns out that lifting and carrying children, and occasionally sprinting after them when they wander off, are excellent forms of exercise over the long haul! Add to that the rigors of housekeeping and gardening and you’ve got a first-rate exercise regime.

I once mentioned these points to a physical therapist who was an exercise expert of some kind. She was horrified — and she seemed panicked. “Oh, no! Work around the house could never qualify as exercise!!!!” Of course, her whole racket would crumble if it did. There’s big money behind artificial exercise.

One of the unfortunate consequences of women leaving the home in droves is that instead of women with common sense and wisdom everywhere we have professionals everywhere. Professionals often cannot see beyond their own noses — or wallets.

I’m sick to death of experts. We need more housewives, who are the quintessential generalists, and fewer experts. I’m sick to death of experts.

Hurricane Betsy writes:

The mild criticism of running for its own sake doesn’t go far enough. I think that everyday running as a form of exercise/getting fit is neurotic, possibly even something worse. Yes, folks, you ARE running from something. And it is not healthy by a long shot. Watch a marathon. These people are nuts. Just because you have the energy to do something does not mean it is good for you.

How did our ancestors, male and female, get by without deliberate, aimless running, day after day? Yes, we all have to run sometimes: if we are late; if a hostile animal is coming after us; if we are living a paleolithic life and need to outrun an animal so that we may have food; in emergencies. But that isn’t what prompts today’s runners.

As to how women should dress, let’s not make a fetish of modesty. Just common sense. We are not living in Muslim Arabia, and overdressing is bad for our health during summer months in that we will not get enough sunshine (for Vitamin D production).

Laura writes:

Talking about modesty is not making a fetish of it.

I never mentioned head-to-toe burka-style clothing. Also, the sun can penetrate some light clothing. And we don’t need to expose upper thighs and chests to get enough Vitamin D.

As for running, people who have to lead a sedentary life in order to make a living and to get around understandably are drawn to intense exercise. But I agree, many go way overboard.

John writes:

Up until the early part of the 20th century, the concept of exercise was little known or needed.  People did activities that were more or less strenuous and the various muscles of the body were kept in order by using them for a purpose.  If you were a blacksmith, your large muscles and physical strength were both a requirement and a result of your work.  The notion of dedicated exercise––strenuous activity that accomplishes no work other than building the body––was pioneered by Bernard McFadden and others of the time.  The word ‘fad” derives from his name, for good reason.

Trying to lose weight by going to a gym is like treating the outcome of a problem without dealing with the actual cause.  In all but a few types of people, being overweight has more to do with simple overeating that it has to do with either inactivity of genetics.  Overeating is a form of compensation for unhappiness, stress, boredom and other negative conditions that are not being faced and dealt with.  At the root, it’s a kind of a spiritual problem that afflicts many, and it is tied in at several levels with the anxieties of modern life.  Problems with food were far fewer when eating was a family centered activity with regular meal times.  Now it is something done at any time, away from home, alone in one’s room, or out of sight.

The best form of exercise is walking, although it should be considered an activity, not an exercise.  Anyone can do it; it costs nothing, and you can and should bring your spouse and children.  There is so much to do and see, and the risk of injury is low.  Swimming is another very good activity that uses other muscles.  I personally do not regard either walking or swimming as inherently unfeminine by the standards upheld here.

As for modesty in dress, my own view has been so conditioned by the changing cultural standards I’ve grown up with that I have little to suggest about where the golden median would lie.  The nuns of my childhood wore a habit that revealed only their hands and a small circle of the face.  I’m not sure why this was necessary, as these women were among the least feminine and most severe of any I had met––at least until I encountered the lesbian feminists of the seventies.

In a society in which success as a woman is increasingly defined by masculine standards of work and appearance––and in which women have thrown out the protections and status they formerly enjoyed––this site is attempting to redefine and recapture what was lost.  Femininity is the great missing element in our contemporary world.  I visit this site daily because I have recognized that what Laura and others are doing here is critical if our civilization is going to have a future.

Laura writes:

Thank you.

I agree with you that swimming is not un-feminine (although it can be masculine — and very immodest — when it comes to competitive swimming). It would be great though if there were men and women’s swimming hours.

You make good points:

Overeating is a form of compensation for unhappiness, stress, boredom and other negative conditions that are not being faced and dealt with.  At the root, it’s a kind of a spiritual problem that afflicts many, and it is tied in at several levels with the anxieties of modern life.  Problems with food were far fewer when eating was a family centered activity with regular meal times.  Now it is something done at any time, away from home, alone in one’s room, or out of sight.

The decline in home cooking parallels the increase in obesity. I think if most people only ate food prepared at home — and mostly non-processed foods — obesity would not be the problem it is.

Abigail writes:

I was in grade school when my mother took up running during the running boom of the 1970s. As a child, I couldn’t have been prouder and more excited. My mother’s hard work, discipline and joy in this sport in no way detracted from her dignity, and I am perplexed as to how it possibly could. In fact, my mother’s running benefited me enormously as a child and continues to benefit me today decades later. My mother’s dedication to this hobby modeled good health habits, self-care, self-esteem, responsibility, discipline, gratitude (for her life and healthy body), and an understanding of the fact that women’s bodies are not merely sex objects. (While it is very interesting to hear what commenter Bruce finds physically attractive in women, thanks to my mother I don’t generally make my life choices based on such considerations.) Her example improved my life enormously in that I took up running at a young age as well and have reaped its numerous physical, mental, and spiritual benefits for decades. As her child, I continue to benefit from her running to the extent that it has undoubtedly contributed to her superb health and vigor up to this day when she is in her mid-70s. While surely long life and freedom from disease are never entirely within our control, I am fortunate to have an elderly mother who is on no medications, is free from any chronic pain or cognitive decline, and has been able to continue without any slacking the traditional feminine duties you laud so highly (such as keeping an immaculate home, cooking a proper dinner ever night, landscaping and gardening, and caring for the people in her life). Her decades of running have surely been a major contributing factor to her ability to do the hard work of a traditional wife and mother with such stamina for so long.

I am saddened to read that your husband would find the idea of his mother running absurd or laughable. I am saddened to hear Mrs. W consider giving up activities that give her pleasure and enhance her health because she thinks that what other people see of her body is more important than her own experience of her body and her own interest in taking care of her body. There is a real sense in her words that, as a woman, she feels her second-class status in her community when she finds herself thinking that her priest’s advice to his congregation to use the gym wasn’t meant to apply to the entire half of the population that is female. You, Laura, say with one breath that “a woman’s strength and dignity are, first and foremost, in her soul, not her body.” But then in the very next breath, you claim that “immodesty” – by which, in this context, you clearly mean the display of the body during physical exercise – undermines a woman’s dignity. I posit that what undermines a woman’s dignity is the notion that she should restrict herself and her daughters from life-affirming, health-enhancing, and pleasurable activities that are clearly congruent with the body’s design because you see her body in this context as primarily a sex object that has the potential to distract men. I can imagine little more humiliating than the idea that men’s views and responses to a woman’s physical self should determine how she should experience and care for and enjoy her own body. (Hurricane Betsy, long distance aerobic activity is precisely what our ancestors did in their lives as nomads, in tracking and hunting down big game, or trekking over the countryside to gather nuts and berries.) Yes, my body has its sexual and reproductive attributes, and those are beautiful aspects of the life that we all have, but we are far more than those attributes. To tell a 10-year-old daughter that she is no longer allowed to go to the pool due to her developing body objectifies her every bit as much as a man ogling her. It is objectifying because it denies her ownership of her own self.

On a personal note, I have been thoroughly enjoying the process of training for my first Marathon.

Abigail adds:

To follow up on my last email, I would also question how running could possibly be considered “unfeminine.” Women are obviously attracted to the sport in droves. I recently read that women comprise 60% of half-marathon participants in the U.S. today. Women do it; ergo, it is feminine. I don’t see how a male priesthood could possibly define femininity for women themselves.

Laura writes:

Just because women do something in droves does not make it feminine. Women get abortions in droves but that does not make it feminine. Women kick their husbands out in droves, but that doesn’t make it feminine. Women plaster their bodies with tattoos in droves, but that does not make it feminine. (I am NOT equating running with any of those things; I am just making the point that just because many women do something in large numbers that doesn’t make it feminine, which does not pertain to the physical but to the psychological and spiritual.) Abigail, I should note, sees nothing wrong with abortion and nothing un-feminine about women leaving their children in the hands of others all day, not out of absolute necessity but out of preference.

As far as the soul/body point, what we do with our bodies reflects — and affects — our spiritual condition.

I don’t see how a male priesthood could possibly define femininity for women themselves.

No, you wouldn’t. After all, you don’t even see the point in a priesthood. Who cares what you think about whether the priesthood is male or female? You’re an anti-supernaturalist who has zero sympathy for most of the values expressed at this website. You could care less about what God thinks of what a woman does with the gifts he has given her. So we’re not speaking on the same terms.

It is objectifying because it denies her ownership of her own self.

Oh, baloney. It tells her that she has something precious, something of great dignity and worth, that should be preserved and guarded. And if she suffers for that, so be it. Suffering is good for women. Ever hear the expression, “the last shall be first?” She has infinite rewards waiting for her. And besides, she never “owned herself” in the sense that you mean. No one does. You don’t own yourself, honey. God does. And you will find that out someday. If I were you, I would cease and desist from your marathon-training immediately!!! You may be in great physical shape, but you are killing your soul with superficiality. You need some serious sedentary activity. It’s called thinking. If your soul could be translated completely into bodily terms, it would probably be a big, fat, obese smoker sitting on a couch all day watching TV. And I don’t give a flying fig how nifty of a runner your mother was. If she doesn’t know the true God and the true Faith, her jogs aren’t gonna mean anything in the end. No one has been saved by running.

I’m not worried about Mrs. W. I’m sure she will do just fine. And I sincerely wish her many happy moments of physical activity.

Laura adds:

Since we’re bringing up mothers we admire, my maternal grandmother lived to 96 and she never went running a day in her life. (She never had to have her knees replaced either.) She did volunteer in a hospital though after her children were raised — and she didn’t brag about it, the way marathoners brag about how much time they spend running and show off their oh-so-sleek physiques. That’s the kind of physical exercise she valued.

Mrs. Hood writes:

This has turned into such an interesting conversation. I am thoroughly enjoying it.

Full disclosure: I am 31. I am not currently a runner, nor do I exercise in any formal way at all. I used to run regularly, but haven’t in about a decade. This subject is important to me because although I am naturally thin and may appear to be in good shape, I am definitely not–and I am looking for some way to stay healthy and active. Linda’s comment, “lifting and carrying children, and occasionally sprinting after them when they wander off, are excellent forms of exercise over the long haul” may sound like good exercise; and indeed, for some, it may be. But it is immediately apparent to me anytime I am engaged in any activity that is even remotely strenuous, that I am woefully unprepared–despite carrying and running after toddlers and children! Again, for some, this level of physical capability may be acceptable. But I have chosen to homeschool my children, and I hope to join them on many outdoor adventures over the years such as hiking the Grand Canyon, among other things. If I don’t start exercising, I will be unable to participate in those types of activities, which would be a shame.

I agree that walking and swimming would perhaps be preferable forms of exercise. But my time is so constrained that it seems like running is my only option since it can be completed in a much shorter period of time than walking, which takes much longer to go the same distance. Or perhaps I should consider some sort of exercise done at home.

Abigail writes:

I am surprised that you view thinking as necessarily a sedentary activity, but thank you for the advice. I like the analogy of my soul to an obese, chain-smoking, couch potato – not that you have any way to know the state of my soul, but your analogy nicely implies that enhancing the state of the soul is a matter of cultivating good habits. I do agree with that!

Has it occurred to you that your perception of women marathoners as “bragging” or “showing off” their “oh-so-sleek” bodies may be a projection of your egotism? And is not egotism a cancer on the soul? Granted, it may well be that some female marathoners do use running to elevate their egos in unhealthy ways. But it’s clear that their success in this area strikes a bitter chord with you, a fact that says more about you and your ego than about them. Have you ever considered, as a spiritual practice, the cultivation of empathetic joy for a woman who has found an activity that makes her happy or gives her a sense of accomplishment? Is there any way you could appreciate the beauty and good health of an athletic woman even if you choose to spend your time in other ways? Do Catholics have the concept of empathetic joy? Can you see how such a practice might enhance your sense of inner peace and your sense of connection rather than separation from others? Doing so, I should point out, would not mean that you shouldn’t make reasoned criticisms of other people’s values and priorities. For example, in my case, a woman like me could criticize the notion that women ought to make the home and the creation of large families a priority – but also celebrate without any rancor the happiness of a neighbor welcoming a fifth baby. There is probably no way to suggest any of this without sounding condescending so I should stress that I am suggesting this merely as a fellow traveler. I fully acknowledge that I could be mistaken in my reading of your mental state, and I am not trying to say any of this as a put-down, or to imply that putting my ego aside is an effortless matter for me.

These on-line exchanges can get heated, particularly between people whose fundamental views are as wildly divergent as ours. Perhaps there is no value in such discussions. But we do all have to share this country and this planet, so I honestly believe that it is worthwhile to engage from time to time – if only as a reminder that when we talk about the “other side,” we are actually talking about flesh and blood human beings, not caricatures. Despite our differences, the highest part of me sees and acknowledges the highest part of you. Or in other words, namaste.

Laura writes:

Abigail, you are a troll.

You have no interest in anything I promote at this site. You only come here when you sense an opportunity to barge in and sow discord.

It bores me.

Sept. 22, 2016

Priscilla writes:

From Catholic Forums:

“Modesty is a virtue that encompasses more than clothing choice, although our clothing choices are a practical working out of the virtue of modesty. Modesty is defined by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2522):

Quote:

Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships…Modestyis decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet.

The Church does not mandate any one clothing choice for women–or men, for that matter. According to the CCC (2524):

Quote:

The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another.”

It seems that discretion and conscience rule the day. There are quite a few bare-breasted Madonnas and nudes in sacred art. Is it possible a fine line exists between modesty and prudery and/or scrupulosity? I can’t imagine stressing over my elbows presenting a near occasion of sin, no offense to Mrs. W. At any rate, ballet is a good exercise option-feminine, beautiful and strengthening.

Laura writes:

Thank you.

The “bare-breasted Madonnas” in sacred art depict the Mother of God feeding her Son. She is not usually bare-breasted for any other reason. But that doesn’t mean women should publicly bare their breasts, even when feeding their children. And the nudes are typically angels or Adam and Eve.

As far as the Church mandating clothing choices, popes have spoken on this issue and advocated that women not wear pants or other masculine clothing. (Citations forthcoming.)

Showing elbows is fine; so is wearing hair uncovered in public.

Bill R. writes:

Laura writes, “Alisa is an anomaly, but culturally, she represents an ideal.” If so, an ideal not many women try to emulate, thankfully. I think most women, based on that picture, would find the look rightfully ugly. If not, given the nature of female vanity (a primordial force, if there ever was one), more women would look like that because they would spend the time on it. Furthermore, and at the risk of falling under your definition of an “internet troll,” let me say that as a jogger and marathon runner myself, I think it is very good when anyone runs, including women, and most of the physical benefits are interior, not exterior. Running alone doesn’t do that much for muscle tone. That woman didn’t acquire that look from running; she got that in a weight room.

I also admire women runners for another reason, which comes from both the love of the marathon and the love of my race; while Kenyans currently dominate the marathon for men, it is the very white Brit Paula Radcliffe who holds the women’s world record in the marathon, with a time so impressive the record has held now for 13 years, and no other woman has yet come close to it (in fact, she owns both the first and second best times ever recorded for a woman, and no woman has even surpassed her second best time).

I can’t say that I’ve ever actually felt a specific high from running, although many runners claim to. I know I just feel much better generally when I run, and I’m sure many women runners would say the same thing. I think it would be a shame to ask anyone to forgo such a healthy and positive way of obtaining such a state, not to mention the joy for both of sharing this activity with a boyfriend or husband, particularly out of no other concern except an unduly severe and arbitrary standard of “modesty.” Muslims have that concern about their women too, and I’m not impressed.

I also think that running is not only a positive for the person doing it, it has an odd way of projecting that positiveness as well. For example, tell me if you don’t feel somewhat better about any neighborhood when you see people running in it. As my brother likes to put it, “Evil people don’t run.”

Martial arts may cultivate an aggressive mentality in women, although it’s probably more to do with women who are already aggressive being attracted to that kind of activity. Martial arts look aggressive because they are. They’re about training people to engage in physical confrontation with another person. The word “martial” itself means war-like. Running does not fit into any of those categories. Indeed, not only is running not aggressive, it’s an activity that, if anything, is associated with the promptest possible withdrawal from aggression! So I see running as positive, but also benign. I can’t see the negative in it, even for a woman. And even following a marathon schedule does not take that much time out of the week. Obviously, these observations would not hold with someone, man or woman, taking running to an obsessive extreme, but that’s true of anything.

Regarding your latest posting of the attractive painting of the woman in the boat and the green dress, yes, in the proper attire, I could easily imagine her jogging and, furthermore, having that fine, appealing, and idealistic waistline the painter has seen fit to envision for her preserved all the better for doing so.

By the way, although she never jogged, I could imagine my mother jogging; I could not imagine her ever drinking beer! Nor, for that matter, could I imagine the woman in the boat and the green dress drinking beer. Well, at least not as easily as I could her jogging. But, obviously, what counts as undignified and immodest for women varies from person to person and period to period, does it not?

Laura writes:

I don’t call someone an Internet troll just because they disagree with me. : – )

When someone rejects every value presented here and yet for some reason wants to engage in discussion (always in a negative way), they fit the definition of a troll. I would not classify you as a troll.

How does a glass of beer offend modesty or femininity? Is beer a male drink only? I’m not sure of your point there. Yes, men like beer more than women, but I see nothing wrong with women drinking it in moderation.

Running is entirely different. A woman typically heads for public streets in tight-fitting and skimpy clothing, which shows the contours of her rump and too much of her body, and then she rushes down the street. This is not an “arbitrary” standard of modesty because I have given reasons for it. Now, you may say that Alisa does not represent an ideal for women today, but then we must live in different cultural environments. Where I live I often see women dressed in that way when they run or work out in gyms and even Hollywood stars strive for similar biceps. Highly-toned muscles are in for high-status women. Haven’t you noticed that?

I don’t think the lovely woman in the boat would have wanted to run (she wouldn’t have even worn pants, for heaven’s sake). Her culture (which was also white, by the way) understood the beauty and purpose of feminine tranquility. They had a sense of decorum and would have seen women pounding the pavement as contrary to feminine serenity and dignity. Well, it’s true, their husbands didn’t have the pleasure of running with them. But then their husbands weren’t routinely kicked out of the home or demonized as abusive bullies at every turn or ruled by female sociopaths. Don’t you see the connection? The bygone culture of the woman in the boat (which was a white European culture too, did I say?) imbued women with the nobility of feminine submission. When women are masculinized, they will indeed collectively hate men. Sorry, that’s just the way it is. Deprived of their true identity, they will fully deploy the aggression they are taught against men. You know, men and women are psychologically different. Women are innately more strong-willed than men. The cultivated willfulness of competitive sports does not always have positive effects on their characters. I’m sure many men who have married Amazons have found this out. Of course, some women are very passive by nature, but there are other physical activities that can help them develop discipline and assertiveness without going overboard or exposing their bodies publicly.

There are many other companionate things a man can do with his wife. They can go fishing together or hunting or boating or bicycling or skiing or walking. I was generally referring to mothers in my comments on running. As for young, unmarried women running in non-competitive situations in modest clothing, I haven’t really thought about it. I am not laying out some program or policy, just giving my opinion.

Truthfully, I could care less about Brit Paula Radcliffe’s record.

Seriously, I could care less, although I am sure she worked extremely hard and sacrificed much for it. Am I supposed to feel proud of my race because it produces female Amazons who run around in midriffs and tiny shorts, embarrassing their future children, if they should happen to have any?

I don’t. Not at all. I definitely don’t.

No wonder so many modern men show lassitude. Competitive, masculinized women are everywhere. They do not inspire male initiative and leadership. They suck the air out of the room.

Far too many women waste huge chunks of their lives in grueling and masculinizing competitive sports that are even detrimental to them physically and cultivate their wills to such an extreme degree that they are subsequently unfit to be calm, contented, nurturing wives and mothers or calm, contented unmarried women devoted to some special work. Surely you have heard how women runners have reduced fertility and sometimes don’t menstruate for years? That kind of training is not necessarily healthy for women and can be damaging. Even nature says it’s not good for them!!

I think it would be a shame to ask anyone to forgo such a healthy and positive way of obtaining such a state, not to mention the joy for both of sharing this activity with a boyfriend or husband, particularly out of no other concern except an unduly severe and arbitrary standard of “modesty.” Muslims have that concern about their women too, and I’m not impressed.

Oh, goodness gracious, now most of Western history was Taliban-like in its standards of modesty. I disagree. When I see an athletic Amazon, I see cultural Marxism. When I see an athletic Amazon, I see Communism, not Western culture. When I see an athletic Amazon, I see the willful destruction of femininity and national sovereignty by those at the top seeking power. Femininity is one thing that stands between them and total power. Do you think the elite promote intense sports competition for women at every turn because they love freedom or the white man? Gimme a break.

Again, why is it a shame to ask a woman to forego running, especially competitive running, when there are so many other activities that she can engage in? I think life is still worth living without it. After all, she has mankind to nurture. She has freedom (in the true sense of the word, which is the freedom to conform to God’s will) to uphold. Isn’t that compensation enough?

Sept. 23, 2016

Bill R. writes:

You write, “But then their husbands weren’t routinely kicked out of the home or demonized as abusive bullies at every turn or ruled by female sociopaths. Don’t you see the connection?” I do, and agree with a lot of your points, particularly in that paragraph, I just think in the case of jogging you’re making the connection too hard and inflexible. It happens that I have recently enjoyed reading the book Sexual Utopia in Power by F. Roger Devlin. I’m not sure if you or many of your readers are familiar with him, but he makes a point similar to yours, that much of the trouble in our society, particularly the relation between the sexes, has been created by the pernicious ability women have been given to enlist the state in their all-too-frequent desire to eventually kidnap their husband’s children and then extort money from him.

But Devlin makes some other interesting points. One I happen to agree with quite strongly is that men spend far too much time over-sentimentalizing and over-romanticizing women, even and perhaps particularly traditionalist men, and are consequently hopelessly imbued with a host of silly illusions and unjustified fantasies about them, for example, that they are naturally monogamous or naturally modest. Ah, if I but had a dime for every sucker, including myself, who fell for that one! Or the one about how women just want a man who’s caring and sensitive and willing to commit. No, what they want is the man they’re already interested in for other reasons (looks/body, status, money) to also have those qualities. The problem is, there are ninety-nine other women interested in the same man and consequently ninety-nine men who’ve spent years stupidly developing their caring and sensitive side (oh, and a sense of humor too) and would commit in a heartbeat and would be faithful husbands all the way to the end, who have no one. From an evolutionary point of view, I take male illusions about the female of the species as another con job nature runs in order to get the job done, that job being reproduction. Why nature found it necessary to delude one sex about the real nature of the other to get the job done is a bigger mystery, somewhat akin to the practical idiocy of the peacock’s tail that we forgive because it’s so lovely. Yes, male illusions about women can feel quite lovely, which is why men have them, but why didn’t nature select for males to be attracted to females as they really are, instead of requiring this elaborate veil of corny illusions about them? In any case, I understand and accept that, for whatever reason, and both on the level of the relations between the sexes, as well as on the individual level, people need illusions about themselves and others, particularly those closest to them, in order to survive, reproduce, and allow civilization to continue and prosper.

The point is that, behind that veil, and like males, females are natural and instinctive creatures, as well as civilized ones, and I simply think that running is an activity that both men and women can do that allows them to do something good for their natural selves without, in my opinion at least, offending any standards of any properly understood Christian European civilization.

Perhaps you’re right and 130 years ago, around the time of the painting of the woman in the boat, a woman jogging would have been seen as immodest. But must there be one single standard for everything forever? Can’t something like what defines immodesty or what looks immodest for women not have at least some wiggle room in the middle cases and over time?

You write, “How does a glass of beer offend modesty or femininity? Is beer a male drink only?” Well, again, like much of what we’ve been discussing, and the point I’ve been trying to make, is that much of what defines immodesty, particularly when we’re talking not about extreme cases but middle ones, is or should be based on more flexible cultural or aesthetic considerations, rather than moral ones, which is a consideration that enables a person like myself to see, on the one hand, no wrong in putting jogging outside the limits of modesty in 1892, nor, on the other, in putting it within those limits in 2016. I don’t see a moral violation of modesty in a woman drinking beer, if that’s what you mean, but neither do I see a moral violation of modesty in a woman smoking a cigar or pipe, or getting a tattoo, or even going to a weight room to acquire biceps that look like those of a well-toned adolescent boy, but, to me, all those things look ugly on them, if not grotesque, i.e., they are immodest in an aesthetic sense, but not necessarily in a moral one. You see, when you base an issue of modesty in morality, rather than aesthetics or culture, you take away any wiggle room you might have, and I think that should be done only for behaviors with seriously negative repercussions. Apparently, you think women jogging falls into that category. I simply don’t. I don’t see the pernicious consequences flowing from it that you do, but I suppose if I did I would have to do what you have done, and make it a moral issue. (By the way, for myself, I neither consume alcohol nor tobacco in any amount or in any form, and my choice not to do so is very similar to why I choose to run; it’s a choice that not only feels good but I am convinced is good for my health and well-being, both physically and emotionally. But it is worth noting, that some Christian denominations make the prohibition against imbibing those substances a very serious moral issue, indeed, to say nothing of an offense against modesty in the case of a woman.)

You write, “I think life is still worth living without it.” Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying a person, man or woman, needs to run to have a fulfilling life or to be healthy. I’m just trying to get you to embrace a little more flexibility when it comes to women who want to, that’s all, and I’m also saying that I think there are ways for women to maintain civilized feminine decorum while doing so.

By the way, I’m very curious as to what your opinion would be if we could restrict our jogging woman to a completely private environment. I know that’s not practical for most, but I’m still curious as to whether or not that would change your view.

You write, “Truthfully, I could care less about Brit Paula Radcliffe’s record.” While it might be a snippy comeback to say, I could care less that you care less, it wouldn’t be true, because I am disappointed and somewhat puzzled as to why you seem so quick and facile about showing your disdain for her. For myself, I don’t disdain any of my race’s accomplishments. I can understand a person not seeing it as any big deal in the great scheme of things, but why the disdain? What purpose does that serve? Furthermore, I would note that Paula Radcliffe is married to a fellow white countryman and has at least two very lovely, white, towheaded children. In short, she is worthy of admiration as a white, a woman, a mother, and an athlete, and I, for one at least, salute her in all those categories.

Laura writes:

For myself, I don’t disdain any of my race’s accomplishments.

Really? Okay, so then I gather you think the accomplishments of Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel are just peachy-keen. Ruth Bader Ginsburg? I assume you like the prune-faced witch’s accomplishments too.

I said I don’t care about Radcliffe; I didn’t express disdain for her.  Generally I think competitive sports have not been a boon for women.

Regarding your general comments about women, I think you gone a little too far into the men’s rights, hypergamy-is-everything mentality. You know, there actually are women who like nice guys who are willing to commit. There is truth in what you say, I just caution you from going too far in the other direction.

Aesthetics are always grounded in morality. Always. Ugliness itself is immoral. 

You see, when you base an issue of modesty in morality, rather than aesthetics or culture, you take away any wiggle room you might have, and I think that should be done only for behaviors with seriously negative repercussions.

As I’ve said, the masculinization of women and the loss of feminine dignity have had seriously NEGATIVE REPERCUSSIONS. This is a big deal, not a little deal. The sexual revolution thrives on a loss of modesty in women. Women have left the home in droves because there is no dignity in being a mother. At least in an office, people take you seriously. I do not believe women drinking beer (in moderation) has had any negative repercussions.

As far as women running in private, for unmarried women, I can see that. But still for a mother, I just can’t. Everything she does should conform to the very important role she holds. Running in place, jump-roping in place, calisthenics — I can see those for her. Can’t quite explain why the difference matters.

 Stephen Ippolito writes:

It’s a small point, but when Laura observes upon her “intuitive sense” that running or jogging “is not all that calming” and as such, when undertaken publicly, is likely beneath the dignity of of women generally, and of catholic women in particular, I could not agree more.

I can confirm that the Australian Army, at least in relation to its officers’ training, (or at least when I went through it), supports the truth of what Laura intuits about running or jogging.

The very first statement delivered in the very first class on the very first day of my army direct commissioning course was the warning that “officers never run”. This may sound a strange thing for a military leadership course to lead off with , as it initially seemed to me then, but as it was explained to my cohort and I, running was frowned upon not simply because it may panic the troops but for the much more important reason that rapid, rushed, hectic action – or any behaviour for that matter that springs from or tends to suggest a lack of control by a leader – is undignified and beneath a person in authority and undermines the quality of dignity that a person in authority must at all times exhibit to earn and hold the respect and confidence of others.

Laura is right to pose as the litmus test whether a mother or any other matron of yesteryear could be imagined running or jogging up and down the local streets or laying on the footpath doing “ab crunches” or “jumping jacks”, or as I witnessed this morning, gathering in a herd of 20 or so beneath a banner titled “Yummy Mummies” to run whilst pushing their babies ahead of them in prams/strollers – and to answer “no”.

This is because people will not respect or follow a person without dignity and wives and mothers, at least until recent times, modelled and set the tone for their families’ behaviour domestically as well as beyond the home at a local level through maintaining their communities’ social and support networks. Laura speaks an essential, (but regrettably forbidden), truth when she observes that: “All of society hinges on the dignity of women”.

Of course, my cohort and I learned that there were also a good many other qualities a leader also had to possess, (or at least emulate), but I have not forgotten that the very first truth imparted to us was that modelling a quiet sense of calm, (no matter how one may actually feel at any given time or in any given circumstance), through poised unhurried movement; through moderate, measured and seemly speech; through upright bearing and through flawless dress is the key to commanding the respect of others.

How commendable it is that this particular site discussion honours those possessing the very special dignity of womanhood itself, as exemplified by Our Lady, the one human being, (other than Our Lord who whilst a man was also divine), granted the ultimate grace and supreme dignity of being born without original sin by exploring fitting forms of dress, action and bearing.

Keep up the great work, Laura.

PS. I apologise in advance for using the collective noun “herd” in respect of the above-named Yummy Mummies but I am unaware of the appropriate term for a rampaging group of jogging women and their babies. Perhaps “a gaggle” or “a flock”?

Laura writes:

Wow, thank you!  This is an awesome comment. You have helped clarify what I have been trying to say. Yes, I have this intuitive sense that something is off, and when I think of the mothers when I was young and of the authority they had and how that authority gave us children a sense of safety, I know that they would never have done something like jogging, and you have explained so well why hectic, rushed action is contrary to that authority. Bravo!! It’s not true that children want their parents to be their best friends. They want clarity. They want firmness. They want confidence. They want adults. When they are adolescents, or even when they are only two years old, they may truly come to despise the parent who has been the mere friend.

There is no question that what I am saying is Catholic. The Catholic sense of modesty and decorum (largely abandoned by the neo-Catholic Counter Church) extend not just from these natural realities but from the supernatural, from the magnificent models of Our Lord and Our Lady but also from the Eucharist, in which God is incarnate in our world. Everything natural is elevated by this divine presence and human physical acts are not so distinct from the realm of the sacred. The Eucharist in the true liturgy has a dramatic, slowing-down effect on human beings. Run? I don’t need to run so much. I am already there.

Hurricane Betsy writes:

Bill R. writes:

By the way, although she never jogged, I could imagine my mother jogging; I could not imagine her ever drinking beer! Nor, for that matter, could I imagine the woman in the boat and the green dress drinking beer

I agree with this commenter. I simply have no info or statistics, but where I come from (rural background) a beer drinking woman was associated with low class or morals. I am not saying women who did so really deserved that pigeonholing, but that was the reality. They consumed other forms of alcohol, mind you, but somehow that was considered more respectable. Beer drinking was considered a masculine indulgence. Do you not recall beer parlors opening up to women coinciding with the all-around negative loosening up of our society?

Indeed, to this day, right or wrong, because of my background I still look askance at women who drink beer. I don’t want to think this way, but it is embedded in my background. And believe me, I am not the only one – I found this in a Psychology text.

Laura writes:

Maybe it’s because beer makes people belch and people secretly don’t like to think of women belching.

I can understand that.

Bill R. writes:

You write, “then I gather you think the accomplishments of Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel are just peachy-keen.” I would have thought the answer to that was obvious but I’ll say it anyway: I regard Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel as criminals and race traitors. I no more consider what they have done “accomplishments” than I do the actions of Charles Manson. [Laura writes: But you seemed to be suggesting that whites are duty-bound to admire any accomplishment by a white person. Certainly, they have accomplished things.] 

Ruth Bader Ginsberg I regard as similarly criminal.

You write, “Ugliness itself is immoral.” You must, then, have a curious definition of “ugliness,” because, at least in the ordinary sense of the word, ugliness can’t always help itself, and didn’t come about because of any blameworthy actions.

Hurricane Betsy writes, “I agree with this commenter. I simply have no info or statistics, but where I come from (rural background) a beer drinking woman was associated with low class or morals.”

It’s something similar, I think, to a woman smoking a cigar. There’s no hard and fast reason why it should feel wrong or out of place for a woman, it just developed that way. Rightly or wrongly, it strikes us as mannish. I don’t think the belching idea really explains it because sodas make people belch too, and no one thinks anything of a woman drinking a soda.

My compliments to Laura on an unexpectedly fascinating and obviously popular topic. :-).

Laura writes:

Thanks!

Hmm. Maybe with beer it’s the combination of belching and low-class drunkenness.

Darn.

What about micro-brewed beer in fancy bottles? Or how about Belgian beer made by monks? Beer made with apricots? Surely they’re okay!!

John writes:

In thinking a little more about this discussion, it occurred to me that certain activities––dancing, for example––can either be feminine or unfeminine.  Most people view ballet dancing as a quintessentially feminine form of expression.  And it’s hard not be impressed by the graceful way in which Ginger Rogers handled her dancing relationship with Fred Astaire (even when she was wearing pants.)

Rock dancing, on the other hand, has always seemed to me to be not just unfeminine, but unmanly at the same time.  The differences are obvious.  While ballet and ballroom dancing require a great deal of self control and self discipline, as well an awareness of how one’s actions affect others, rock dancing is a self centered exercise in losing one’s inhibitions; so the entire stream of these activities is opposite.

In terms of occupations, it may be necessary for a significant portion of the male population to engage in activities that, while necessary, are not essentially uplifting.  I’m thinking of butchering, fighting in wars, working in sewers, etc.  But for women historically, this was not required or even permitted because the central importance of her station in the home both precluded it and protected her from it.  Keeping the home and rearing children had an essential dignity that was greater than what men––at least many average men––had to engage in daily.  Both men and women understood this distinction and sought to preserve it.  Today, we argue over it, and the culture as a whole seeks to eradicate it.

Contemporary women are busy proving they are equal to men in every regard, including emotional hardness and physical strength.  In thinking of where this is headed, it’s important to remember that the logic of feminism will eventually force women to be thrown into the most brutal and unfeminine of occupations––violent war.  The experience will provide ample opportunity for these women––and the men that purport to love them––to rethink the program of the social revolution.

Of course, we could suffer demographic collapse first.  There are several possible outcomes of progressive hegemony.  They are all disastrous––each in it’s own way.

Laura writes:

We’re running off the demographic cliff.

Paul writes:

The idea of jogging to save time is misguided.  Take it from a gratefully healthy older man who was obsessed with financial security such that he wanted to exercise in the most efficient manner possible.  I could not jog for fear of aggravating an old back injury, but I longed to jog or to find the quickest and most effective exercise possible. I focused on my job to the exclusion of everything else.  Since I am now retiring, I realize how misguided it is to go rushing around trying to multitask and to scrounge every minute of the day with mathematical precision.

We are not back in the Great Depression when people had to scrounge breadcrumbs.  So we need not shave minutes by jogging instead of walking, which is what I do.  If dressed appropriately, most women can walk at a good pace without jiggling.

It is hideous to see women jogging with their babies in a jogging stroller.  I shake my head and feel sorry that they are as obsessed as I was.

Moreover, only a small percentage of joggers (male and female) endure.  It is too hard on the body and most people suffer injury.  Walking briskly is natural and can be done daily, but I recommend one or two days off a week to let the body heal in the event there is a micro-injury.  The two days off can be used for other exercises such as swimming (or for men, weights, which is my preference three days a week).  I am sure women can find other activities such as dance, as you recommend.  Indeed, even I might take up Irish dance, which looks hard, instead of walking.  And the women wear chaste outfits and are thin.  (I am lucky to have a studio only a mile away.) It would also provide an opportunity for a mother to socialize instead of going about a grinding jog in order to rush home.  That kind of exercising never lasts for most people.

If the goal is weight loss, the only surefire way of losing weight or staying fit is consuming fewer calories.  The numbers make one realize the folly of obsessing over the degree of exercise needed.  Losing 3600 calories (a pound) requires a 120 lb. person to jog at 5 miles per hour for eight hours if done in twenty minute increments.  Walking briskly for thirty minutes requires sixteen hours to lose a pound.  So that quick jog is pretty pitiful when it comes to losing weight.  Eat less and exercise, which increases the body’s metabolism such that one burns more calories when not exercising.  This can be observed by monitoring one’s pulse, which declines the more one exercises.  But getting those monitors is obsessive, unless one finds it motivating.

Walking briskly for thirty minutes is highly recommended because no time is needed to dress fashionably or to drive to a gym.  It is my prime exercise, and I guarantee results when coupled with eating less.  Most people don’t have my degree of hang-ups, so maybe that will encourage others.  I could walk briskly nightly for an hour and lose a lot of weight with dieting, but my job got more demanding and the demand has only increased.  The only advice is for people to question their priorities, to talk to other people, and to take a hard look at what is most important: spouse and children, financial security (which automatically excludes buying a BMW, a Lexus, or a tricked out truck), job, health, etc.  Each person is different.  I am blessed to have good health as I retire.  My new job is to maintain my health without obsessing such as watching my pulse.

“Professionals often cannot see beyond their own noses — or wallets.”  I agree.  I was one of them until a week ago.

My mother lived to three months short of eighty-eight, and she never jogged a day in her life.  She died a few weeks ago of dementia and lung cancer (from smoking until her fifties) not because she failed to jog or walk.  She had a lot of energy.  She excelled at cabbage ball and basketball in grammar school and high school.  Female athletic dress was modest in the thirties and forties.  Here is her high school graduation photo from St. Joseph’s Academy in Picayune, MS.  She wore a modest two-piece swimsuit (not a bikini) when she took us swimming.  She loved swimming as much as we did.  I never perceived it as immodest for obvious reasons.  (Freud got some things wrong.)  Because Pandora’s Box has been opened, it is going to be hard to put modesty back in the box, a worthy goal that you adhere to.

Concerning whether or not females should be jogging or, aghast, running marathons as Halloween costumes, the women gain nothing from these unnecessary, wasteful activities except lauding by femi-nazis who have brainwashed them.  It is a pathetic attempt to become equal to men, an impossibility.  Do men want to endure the pain of menstruation and childbirth?  Not a chance.  So why do women want to behave as men instead of behaving in accordance with the natural law?  Because of liberal brainwashing.

Mary Susan McAuliff writes:

I read the blog and comments about women jogging. I agree that women and men should exercise separately in modest clothing. However, I see that woman in the painting as uncomfortable and just waiting to get home.

I am a mother of 8 children. I have had the pleasure to be active with my children and teach them sports, as unfortunately, we did not live in a perfect situation, and their father was away working. Many girls like to be active. It is healthy and enjoyable. When they are made to wear skirts all of the time, it is completely unrealistic.

In my opinion, as long as the body is covered in a modest way, girls and women should be allowed and encouraged to climb trees, run, and play. The woman in the painting, to me, looks like a woman (so pretty and attractive to men) who would like to be wearing pants and a tee shirt while casting her fishing rod in to the exciting anticipation of catching a fish!!!

Laura writes:

I’m not sure where you got the idea that I condemn girls playing! I was talking mostly about grown women jogging in the streets!

Girls should do everything you mention — run around, climb trees, and do all kinds of active things outside. When I was young, I played practically every day outside. A friend and I spent the happiest eight-day period I have ever had, exploring through the woods alone together when we were 13, climbing a mountain alone together, and fishing in a lake. That’s the way it should be for girls today too.

It is not physically impossible or impractical for all these wonderful activities to be done in playdresses. Sometimes, leggings or capris underneath make sense. (I believe that was the purpose of bloomers too.) But girlhood play outside wasn’t just invented yesterday! Girls have done it for thousands of years and often they did it without wearing pants.

As for the painting, I see a woman in reverie, not someone dissatisfied and annoyed.