"laestadian, apostolic, gay, lgbtq, ex-oalc, ex-llc, llc, oalc, bunner" LEARNING TO LIVE FREE: Who's That in a Huivi? Part B

Thursday, April 05, 2007

Who's That in a Huivi? Part B

Another Laestadianesque photo for your contemplation (she's the spitting image of my niece!). One can assume that the cigarette was voluntary, but not much else.

Thankfully, Faye Turney and her fellow sailors are home safe. Now the spinmeisters are eagerly disagreeing as to how and why, leaving this observer convinced that there is much we won't be learning about for decades, if ever.

But on the subject of the scarf: "Take it or leave it, wear it or not, it's homely when it's tied under the chin," says the blogger (a rightwingy catlover) over at sisu.typepad.com. (With a blogname like that, I was surprised to find no references to Laestadian headgear).

Hmmm. I recollect seeing a few OALC women who tied their scarves "behind." Perhaps that is what you call a Laestadian feminist. Heh.

As I see it, a woman (or a man) may reasonably be expected to alter his/her attire (e.g., head covering/no head covering, foot covering/no foot covering) in a place of worship. Pelosi was at a mosque, so it isn't as if she was kowtowing to political neantherdals, although this was undoubtedly the message some wished to convey with that image.

Bottom line: one should do in Rome what wise Romans do, not dumb Romans. Funny how you never hear this rule applied to sexual mores.

That said, I PERSONALLY would wear a scarf in a mosque or cathedral, but not in a Laestadian church. Is that hypocritical? I don't think so. I'm not a foreigner, but an "insider" whose response carries a different message.

What do you think?


  1. Jackie O, Mrs. Bush, Condi Rice--all of them wore scarves sometimes. There are pictures and commentary here: http://www.mahablog.com/2007/04/04/pelosi-wears-scarf-righties-bark-at-moon/

    Jackie was sure a looker, wasn't she?

    The way I see it, we don't create the landscape we traverse: we don't create our own palette of choices. While the compulsion of women to wear modesty scarves is wrong, it is not always wrong for a particular woman to wear one. If the woman chooses to wear it because she knows that doing so is her best option among a set of less than ideal options, her individual choice is not wrong, even if the wearing of modesty scarves originated from misogynistic impulses. Instead of attacking the woman for her choice, it is better to knock down the traditions that require modesty scarves of women.

    Another issue that can come into play is how some women who come choose to wear the scarf as a sign of cultural identity. Again, I don't knock the choice to wear the scarf, even if wearing scarves started because of misogyny. There are many reasons people choose to wear scarves, and not all the reasons are incompatible with ethical and even feminist principles.

  2. For me as an ex-OALCer it would feel hypocritical of me to wear a scarf in when I attend the OALC, and so I do not. I am thinking that if I was out of this country and went to a mosque I would be safer there with a head covering on. That said, I have no reason that I can think of to go to a mosque anywhere in the world!

  3. The way I see it, if a woman wants to wear a huuvi, wear a huuvi. Free, I'm not sure I understand why you'd wear one in a mosque or cathedral, but not the OALC. As a former OALCer, I don't wear one, but I wouldn't in a mosque either. Matter of fact, I have no interest in ever entering a mosque, having no respect for a "religion" or "system", whatever one wants to call it, in which there is no condemnation from its world leaders of the evil actions of many of its so-called followers.

  4. That's a beautiful huivi Pelosi is wearing. I bet it was terribly expensive. Is it OK to wear fancy huivis in the OALC?

  5. Many Trails Home4/09/2007 03:48:00 AM

    There seems to be no injunction against fancy huivis in the OALC. Interesting where each of us draws the line. For years I agonized over whether I should or should not go to church when visiting Mom, even to the point of specifically planning trips to avoid Sunday, hence avoiding a confrontation. Not wearing a huivi to church is not an option. No huivi, no go. The last time I went home, I left my earrings in, in perverse compensation for the fact that my hair was long and plain - I didn't want my mom to think I would accomodate her totally! In the days when I wore makeup, I always scrubbed it off on the plane. My goal has always been to maintain harmony as much as possible, without sacrificing my "principles." Tough, often. I judge nobody else for where they draw the line. Happy Easter. MTH

  6. Are you ignoring God's Holy word?
    Do you choose not to read 1 Corinthians chapter 11?

    4: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
    5: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
    6: For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
    7: For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

  7. backtothefuturecc4/09/2007 10:31:00 AM

    The funny thing about the head covering in the middle east is underneath the covers are women with lots of makeup, salon done hair, and also in the major cities of the middle east there are more intimate apparel boutiques than in the more liberal western countries. So its ok to be worldly in their own home with their husband but not in public. That sort of reminds me of some of the hypocracy I've experienced.

  8. I'm not a biblical literalist, nor do I think Paul is correct in claiming women are "the glory of man" while men are "the glory of God."

    But even literalists must take Paul's words in context. He is helping the Corinthians sort out which Jewish traditions they should follow. He ends his opinionizing with:

    "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God'' (I Corinthians 11:16)

    That's a big but.

  9. The huuvi in Finland was worn tied in the front by the upper class and tied in the back by the lower class.

    The verse in the Bible re: the head covering was Paul setting up the church with some format of rules because people were arguing and complaining-so he decided -not Christ that this would be one way to solve the debate.

    Head coverings-still debated-when we all know that Jesus said to Love