<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Plain Dress–Some Reflections	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.quakerranter.org/plain_dresssome_reflections/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.quakerranter.org/plain_dresssome_reflections/</link>
	<description>A Weekly Newsletter and Blog from Martin Kelley</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Nov 2023 22:30:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Martin Kelley		</title>
		<link>https://www.quakerranter.org/plain_dresssome_reflections/#comment-948600</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Martin Kelley]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Nov 2023 22:30:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quakerranter.org/?p=70#comment-948600</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.quakerranter.org/plain_dresssome_reflections/#comment-948597&quot;&gt;Reva Katz&lt;/a&gt;.

Hi Reva, however you found an almost-20 year old post but I&#039;m glad you did. There are a lot of cultures that have adopted plain dress independently. I like your description of a plain style that also maintains some individuality. That seems like a good balance!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.quakerranter.org/plain_dresssome_reflections/#comment-948597">Reva Katz</a>.</p>
<p>Hi Reva, however you found an almost-20 year old post but I’m glad you did. There are a lot of cultures that have adopted plain dress independently. I like your description of a plain style that also maintains some individuality. That seems like a good balance!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Reva Katz		</title>
		<link>https://www.quakerranter.org/plain_dresssome_reflections/#comment-948597</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Reva Katz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Nov 2023 04:20:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quakerranter.org/?p=70#comment-948597</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.quakerranter.org/plain_dresssome_reflections/#comment-133&quot;&gt;Martin Kelley&lt;/a&gt;.

I don’t know how I ended up on this page, but became interested in your column and the replies because being from a Chasidic Jewish family, we have always dressed modestly and simply (though we women do dress up for weddings).  We consider vanity as something that reduces the attention we can give to G-d. Clothes are not for attracting and should not embarrass others by showing-off our own wealth or fashion knowledge— but should be clean and neat, and modest. Some men do adopt the same dress as their Rabbi as a show of respect but most just wear black and white. Women can wear colors but should still focus on modesty not style. But we never consider uniform dress which would simply stress our differences: who afforded better fabric or tailoring, who had a difficulty with fitting the style (ala the infamous bridesmaid dresses in modern society), who had more of each item, etc.  Without a uniform, each can buy or make what they like and can afford and what fits well while focusing on modesty and functionality. When we pray, we must read the prayer aloud, not reciting by heart or silently. This means we are forced to be conscious of every word — an overt declaration of our faith with every syllable — but we’re not robots, just reciting the same memorized prayer. Clothing is similar. Modesty, yes, which shows our shared faith. But we’re each created as an individual within that shared faith. Anyway, I found the subject you discuss very interesting even though I am not of your faith or even Christian.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.quakerranter.org/plain_dresssome_reflections/#comment-133">Martin Kelley</a>.</p>
<p>I don’t know how I ended up on this page, but became interested in your column and the replies because being from a Chasidic Jewish family, we have always dressed modestly and simply (though we women do dress up for weddings).  We consider vanity as something that reduces the attention we can give to G‑d. Clothes are not for attracting and should not embarrass others by showing-off our own wealth or fashion knowledge— but should be clean and neat, and modest. Some men do adopt the same dress as their Rabbi as a show of respect but most just wear black and white. Women can wear colors but should still focus on modesty not style. But we never consider uniform dress which would simply stress our differences: who afforded better fabric or tailoring, who had a difficulty with fitting the style (ala the infamous bridesmaid dresses in modern society), who had more of each item, etc.  Without a uniform, each can buy or make what they like and can afford and what fits well while focusing on modesty and functionality. When we pray, we must read the prayer aloud, not reciting by heart or silently. This means we are forced to be conscious of every word — an overt declaration of our faith with every syllable — but we’re not robots, just reciting the same memorized prayer. Clothing is similar. Modesty, yes, which shows our shared faith. But we’re each created as an individual within that shared faith. Anyway, I found the subject you discuss very interesting even though I am not of your faith or even Christian.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: flowergirldressforless		</title>
		<link>https://www.quakerranter.org/plain_dresssome_reflections/#comment-194551</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[flowergirldressforless]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Jul 2011 07:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quakerranter.org/?p=70#comment-194551</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Communion Dress is worn by people all over the world. It&#039;s for holy occasions. When young kids wear the communication dress they look adorable.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Communion Dress is worn by people all over the world. It’s for holy occasions. When young kids wear the communication dress they look adorable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Paula		</title>
		<link>https://www.quakerranter.org/plain_dresssome_reflections/#comment-142</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Paula]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:59:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quakerranter.org/?p=70#comment-142</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I, too, have been a plain dresser intermittently, for 36 years.  I love the prairie look, but it&#039;s not practical.  I end up stepping on my skirts when I stand up after having bent down, and I almost fall over.  I do all my yard work myself, which requires a lot of kneeling, bending, pushing a mower, reaching, heavy lifting, etc., as we all know, and must wear pants for this.  Also, no one in my neighborhood dresses plainly (suburbia), and if I were to wear dresses exclusively, I&#039;d probably get beat up.  So, would that be suffering for the name of Christ or suffering unnecessarily for being an oddball?  No one in my church dresses in the prairie style, either.  I first was introduced to plain dressing while briefly being involved in a small Christian cult in the early &#039;70s.  I guess the desire to dress that way never left me.  I do think that many times dresses are far more modest around the hip area than pants could ever be.  That is, if all you are doing is sitting, standing and walking.  And snug fitting pants on us middle aged women are most unflattering.  Wearing a skirt can hide many figure imperfections and prevent men from staring.  Curiously, hardly any women in our large town ever wears skirts or dresses.  It&#039;s almost exclusively pants, at all times of the day.  How did we women make the crossover into excluding skirts, dresses and jumpers from our wardrobes?  I think it must have crept into our culture very slowly and subtly.  Simple dressing, wearing khakis, jeans and simple shirts without jewelry can end up looking unisex or gender-confused.  I don&#039;t want to do that, either! Without a doubt, we have 2 legs, the same as men, and pants are comfortable and convenient.  So, I too am not sure just how to dress simply, modestly and femininely while wearing pants, little make up and no jewelry.  If the weather&#039;s not too hot, I try to wear an open long blouse over a t-top, to provide some modesty over the hips, but I think wearing dresses exclusively would make me an easy target for  harassment, no matter what our pop culture says about &quot;tolerance&quot;!
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I, too, have been a plain dresser intermittently, for 36 years.  I love the prairie look, but it’s not practical.  I end up stepping on my skirts when I stand up after having bent down, and I almost fall over.  I do all my yard work myself, which requires a lot of kneeling, bending, pushing a mower, reaching, heavy lifting, etc., as we all know, and must wear pants for this.  Also, no one in my neighborhood dresses plainly (suburbia), and if I were to wear dresses exclusively, I’d probably get beat up.  So, would that be suffering for the name of Christ or suffering unnecessarily for being an oddball?  No one in my church dresses in the prairie style, either.  I first was introduced to plain dressing while briefly being involved in a small Christian cult in the early ’70s.  I guess the desire to dress that way never left me.  I do think that many times dresses are far more modest around the hip area than pants could ever be.  That is, if all you are doing is sitting, standing and walking.  And snug fitting pants on us middle aged women are most unflattering.  Wearing a skirt can hide many figure imperfections and prevent men from staring.  Curiously, hardly any women in our large town ever wears skirts or dresses.  It’s almost exclusively pants, at all times of the day.  How did we women make the crossover into excluding skirts, dresses and jumpers from our wardrobes?  I think it must have crept into our culture very slowly and subtly.  Simple dressing, wearing khakis, jeans and simple shirts without jewelry can end up looking unisex or gender-confused.  I don’t want to do that, either! Without a doubt, we have 2 legs, the same as men, and pants are comfortable and convenient.  So, I too am not sure just how to dress simply, modestly and femininely while wearing pants, little make up and no jewelry.  If the weather’s not too hot, I try to wear an open long blouse over a t‑top, to provide some modesty over the hips, but I think wearing dresses exclusively would make me an easy target for  harassment, no matter what our pop culture says about “tolerance”!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Barb		</title>
		<link>https://www.quakerranter.org/plain_dresssome_reflections/#comment-141</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Barb]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:02:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quakerranter.org/?p=70#comment-141</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I too feel drawn to more simplicity and plainness in living. I greatly admire those who can wear the more historical clothing, because it&#039;s lovely and has much that&#039;s of value today. Cape dresses, for example, could be updated for office wear. For me, though, the purely historical dress would be a costume, not a conviction, so I find myself drawn to what the quakerjane website refers to as modern plain attire. Also, I&#039;ve reached the age where I simply look better and healthier with almost no makeup. I work full time, am of managerial rank, so that will affect my choice of what to wear to send the message I&#039;m trying to send. I feel that I&#039;ve embarked on a promising journey by stopping to think about these things. Since I don&#039;t come from a religious background like a Quaker, I&#039;m wondering if this is perhaps a spiritual leading. I understand that a lot of women from diverse backgrounds are feeling similar promptings. Thank you for your website.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I too feel drawn to more simplicity and plainness in living. I greatly admire those who can wear the more historical clothing, because it’s lovely and has much that’s of value today. Cape dresses, for example, could be updated for office wear. For me, though, the purely historical dress would be a costume, not a conviction, so I find myself drawn to what the quakerjane website refers to as modern plain attire. Also, I’ve reached the age where I simply look better and healthier with almost no makeup. I work full time, am of managerial rank, so that will affect my choice of what to wear to send the message I’m trying to send. I feel that I’ve embarked on a promising journey by stopping to think about these things. Since I don’t come from a religious background like a Quaker, I’m wondering if this is perhaps a spiritual leading. I understand that a lot of women from diverse backgrounds are feeling similar promptings. Thank you for your website.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Meagn		</title>
		<link>https://www.quakerranter.org/plain_dresssome_reflections/#comment-140</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Meagn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:06:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quakerranter.org/?p=70#comment-140</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Melinda,
I found your article here very serendipitously.  I am not a member of any church (although I am a Deist), and have been dressing &#039;plain&#039; for most of my life, albeit without a particular plan to do so.  I arrived at this simply because I didn&#039;t like contemporary clothing as I was growing up (the very awkward transitional period between the late 1960s/early 70s), and it has gotten only very marginally better since then.  As a result, I&#039;ve adopted a sort of uniform for daily wear - primarily solid colors, nothing that can&#039;t be worn for many, many years.  I also, rather unfortunately for a shy and modest girl, had a figure that attracted the wrong kind of attention.  Dressing plainly as much as possible helped me keep my dignity then, and now, as I approach 50 (I am 48).  It&#039;s ageless.
This particular passage resonated with me: &quot;And my heart rises up against the whole range of “modest” clothing presently available—floral prairie dresses and pinafores, sailor dresses, denim jumpers, and head coverings—all with nursing apertures and maternity inserts, and marketed by companies with terrifying names like “Daddy’s Little Princess,” “King’s Daughters,” and “Lilies of the Field.” &quot;
While I don&#039;t entirely know your reasons for disquiet with this, I wonder if they are the same as mine?  I very strongly believe in a woman&#039;s identity that is not necessarily enmeshed with her family connections or reproductive status;  nor one that is subservient to or subject to any will but her own conscience.   I am worried that if I express further interest in any sort of plain community, I would be seen there as a third-class person because I have consciously chosen to not have children, and consider men to be my equal.  Can anyone shed some light on this?
Otherwise - my dislike of ugly, contemporary clothing has led me to a lifelong, fascinating hobby - reproducing historical clothing.  A busy life (full time, self-supporting  work, doing all work and as much maintenance as possible on a 98-year-old home by myself) precludes dressing as prettily (plainly) as I&#039;d like much of the time - but plain dress and simple living remain very close to my heart.
If anyone could provide me with further information, I would be very grateful.  Many thanks.  TudorLdy@aol.com
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Melinda,<br>
I found your article here very serendipitously.  I am not a member of any church (although I am a Deist), and have been dressing ‘plain’ for most of my life, albeit without a particular plan to do so.  I arrived at this simply because I didn’t like contemporary clothing as I was growing up (the very awkward transitional period between the late 1960s/early 70s), and it has gotten only very marginally better since then.  As a result, I’ve adopted a sort of uniform for daily wear — primarily solid colors, nothing that can’t be worn for many, many years.  I also, rather unfortunately for a shy and modest girl, had a figure that attracted the wrong kind of attention.  Dressing plainly as much as possible helped me keep my dignity then, and now, as I approach 50 (I am 48).  It’s ageless.<br>
This particular passage resonated with me: “And my heart rises up against the whole range of “modest” clothing presently available—floral prairie dresses and pinafores, sailor dresses, denim jumpers, and head coverings—all with nursing apertures and maternity inserts, and marketed by companies with terrifying names like “Daddy’s Little Princess,” “King’s Daughters,” and “Lilies of the Field.” ”<br>
While I don’t entirely know your reasons for disquiet with this, I wonder if they are the same as mine?  I very strongly believe in a woman’s identity that is not necessarily enmeshed with her family connections or reproductive status;  nor one that is subservient to or subject to any will but her own conscience.   I am worried that if I express further interest in any sort of plain community, I would be seen there as a third-class person because I have consciously chosen to not have children, and consider men to be my equal.  Can anyone shed some light on this?<br>
Otherwise — my dislike of ugly, contemporary clothing has led me to a lifelong, fascinating hobby — reproducing historical clothing.  A busy life (full time, self-supporting  work, doing all work and as much maintenance as possible on a 98-year-old home by myself) precludes dressing as prettily (plainly) as I’d like much of the time — but plain dress and simple living remain very close to my heart.<br>
If anyone could provide me with further information, I would be very grateful.  Many thanks.  <a href="mailto:TudorLdy@aol.com">TudorLdy@aol.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Mary Lehrbaum		</title>
		<link>https://www.quakerranter.org/plain_dresssome_reflections/#comment-139</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mary Lehrbaum]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2005 12:08:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quakerranter.org/?p=70#comment-139</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Have you seen the photo of Jane on her headcovering page of the Plain Jane website.
I think she looks beautiful, simple, modest and somehow very Quaker in what she is wearing. I my self wear mostly denim jumpers, a turtleneck and a small matching kerchief because that is the type of Modest dress that my husband prefers.
Mary-in-Philly
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.quakerjane.com/spirit.friends/plain_dress-caps.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.quakerjane.com/spirit.friends/plain_dress-caps.html&lt;/a&gt;
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Have you seen the photo of Jane on her headcovering page of the Plain Jane website.<br>
I think she looks beautiful, simple, modest and somehow very Quaker in what she is wearing. I my self wear mostly denim jumpers, a turtleneck and a small matching kerchief because that is the type of Modest dress that my husband prefers.<br>
Mary-in-Philly<br>
<a href="http://www.quakerjane.com/spirit.friends/plain_dress-caps.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.quakerjane.com/spirit.friends/plain_dress-caps.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Anita		</title>
		<link>https://www.quakerranter.org/plain_dresssome_reflections/#comment-138</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anita]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:04:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quakerranter.org/?p=70#comment-138</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Hi Melynda ~ I&#039;m fairly new to Quakerism, having become convinced about two years ago.  A plain and simple life was but one thing that drew me to Friends, and I&#039;ve struggled with the issues you write about ever since.  I feel the need for modest dress and a cover, but when I have tried to adopt some of what seems to be &quot;out there,&quot; I&#039;ve ended up feeling like a fraud or a pseudo-Mennonite.  That seems to violate everything Friends stand for, so like many others, I&#039;m at a loss for what to do.  But I&#039;ll be following others&#039; comments eagerly.  Blessings to you ~ Anita
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Melynda ~ I’m fairly new to Quakerism, having become convinced about two years ago.  A plain and simple life was but one thing that drew me to Friends, and I’ve struggled with the issues you write about ever since.  I feel the need for modest dress and a cover, but when I have tried to adopt some of what seems to be “out there,” I’ve ended up feeling like a fraud or a pseudo-Mennonite.  That seems to violate everything Friends stand for, so like many others, I’m at a loss for what to do.  But I’ll be following others’ comments eagerly.  Blessings to you ~ Anita</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
