This is gonna shake things up in Japan. Most brothers here wear tight and I mean tight(!) suits. I find many of them to be quite effeminate. My wife and I used to joke about which brother would make the cutest sister if they changed a few things up. Maybe AM3 came here last year for the branch visit and didn't like what he saw.
No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'
by wizzstick 362 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
LoveUniHateExams
One word: Born-in - actually, that is a good point that I hadn't thought of. -
Simon
I find it strange that so many people seem so surprised that a conservative christian group would want their members dressing differently to the general populace. It's almost one of the defining characteristics of "conservative christian" so why is it such a surprise?
Is it that they are controlling and want to influence people's lives and decisions? Check ... conservative christian rule book 101. Though shalt / though shalt not and no complaining.
Given that the general population is where new fashion trends happen and boundaries are pushed, it would be strange if any conservative christian group was ever more relaxed in their dress code or encouraging their members to dress less modestly than they otherwise would.
-
DATA-DOG
JWs believe that the GB represent God, we all know this. That's why they stay in the abusive enviroment. They don't believe they have anywhere else to go.
DD
-
sparrowdown
The more the elders become style-nazis the more people will wake up.
At some point you have to ask yourself if this religion is worth all this shit.
For many JWs this may be their personal tipping point.
-
Simon
You think a bunch of moronic, untrained Elders profiling people at the behest of their religious leaders is not a human rights violation? Larger issues in the world don't mean this smaller issue should be ignored. Are smaller violations of human rights permissible? We can't point to an extreme example and use it to negate a less extreme example. That's intellectually dishonest.
I admit that they arent beheading people for being gay, but that's not the issue and this should not be downlplayed because it's less extreme. Ask yourself this, "What would the WTBTS do to these people if the law allowed them to act as they pleased?"
Sorry, are you now talking about people being gay or people wearing what some fuddy-duddy thinks are "gay clothes". It seems you're talking about people being gay, not people wearing tight pants.
The WTS can't tell if you are gay or not but they can tell what clothes you wear. They can make rules for either though can't they? Is there any law that says churches can't preach that homosexuality is a sin? They can believe what they want and people can decide whether the life they want to lead is compatible with that belief system.
It's not "nice" and they should be called out for it, but they have the right to believe and preach it. I expect campaigning to change this right now is utterly pointless. The debate is over whether religious people should be able to impose their discrimination on other, non-members, non-believers.
Do you think the WTBTS started out being this abusive? Do you think people in other countries just woke up one day and decided to cut people's heads off, or degrade women?
Yes. Someone was a misogynistic asshole and write it in a book for other assholes to follow.
As long as they don't violate laws, the WTS does nothing "wrong" other than one thing: they practice shunning. They make it more difficult and challenging to leave. But even that is not unlawful. It's a dick move and cruel and inhuman but their right and extremely difficult to change.
But THAT is the one thing that changes everything else. Their attitudes to gays, their dress code, whatever ... it becomes dangerous because of the shunning. It takes away the "just leave" option or makes it difficult.
But I don't think anyone cares because as they see it everyone impacted either a) signed up for it or b) was born into a family that signed up for it and surely it's their fault? If your family cut you off because you leave their faith or are gay then you have a backward family. Welcome to the club.
Trying to make an issue of the dress code as 'a big deal'? It's too nuanced to have legs as a marketable issue IMO.
-
GrreatTeacher
Not surprised, Simon, but outraged that such a subjective thing could actually be used to deny participation in field service.
Refusing to allow people to participate in field service is actually a new thing. It is a signal of ever-tightening control.
-
Oubliette
I find it strange that so many people seem so surprised that a conservative christian group would want their members dressing differently to the general populace.
Wow, we're on page 14 of this thread and you still think it's about a dress code.
-
Finkelstein
Effeminate mannerism = Satan's evil wicked forces are close by, probability of a sin to occur is highly probable !
Must watch out for this now !
Two elders talking about someone new they met at the Hall Sunday morning ........
So did you meet Bob Smith's brother ?
... yes I did, I had a brief chat with him after the meeting.
Did you notice he talked kind of effeminately ?
... Yah I did notice that and I also noticed he what he was like wearing bright colored socks and tie.
Do you think he might be gay ?
.... Yeh those thoughts did cross my mind during the conversation.
I guess it might be a good idea to keep an eye on him while he's around, we wouldn't want him to
stumble someone else in the congregation.
......Good point, I'll alert the other elders just to give them a heads up.
-
OrphanCrow
Simon: Trying to make an issue of the dress code as 'a big deal'? It's too nuanced to have legs as a marketable issue IMO.
I agree that enforcing dress rules seems rather trivial in comparison to other more, dire issues that the JW religion faces.
However, what the rules around and policing of dress codes is a symptom of, is "micro managing". Micro management is generally a sign of an unhealthy individual or institution.
So, in that sense, as a symptom of an unhealthy institution, the dress code issue is important.
6 big dangers of micromanagement
Micromanagement: Everyone knows the term. Some fear and even avoid any company that’s associated with the word. But what is it, really? By definition, micromanagement is a management style whereby a manager closely observes or controls the work of subordinates or employees. Micromanagement generally has a negative connotation.
In reality, most of us see it as management’s attempt at digging its fingers deep into the pie of those actually doing the work. It’s a way for management to ensure that tasks are performed in a very precise manner – in other words, management’s way. Problem is, this isn’t always the right – or most productive – way of doing things. And that’s just one of the issues with micromanagement. Let’s take a look at some of the other dangers that come along with this style of management and why you should avoid it.
Danger No. 1: Loss of control
When you micromanage your staff, the management tools at your disposal become very narrowed, until the only tool you have in reach is control. And the funny thing about control is that when it’s your only means of management, you usually end up losing it. It’s important to realize that there are many valid management styles and every staff member reacts differently to each.
Takeaway: When you drastically limit your style you also limit your ability to communicate and, in the end, your ability to manage.
Danger No. 2: Loss of trust
Micromanagement will eventually lead to a massive breakdown of trust. Your staff will no longer see you as a manager, but a despot whose only desire is to wall up its staff until the only thing they see is the job. This crushing act breaks what little trust already exists between employee and manager. When trust is gone, two things can happen: A serious loss of productivity, along with a loss of employees. Yes, the latter is a worst-case scenario, but happens.
Takeaway: Remember, trust is a two-way street: Your staff must be able to trust you as much as you trust them. Micromanagement destroys trust.
Danger No. 3: Dependent employees
After being micromanaged, your staff will begin to depend on you, rather than having the confidence to perform tasks on their own. Micromanagement makes your team feel like they can no longer handle the work without your constant guidance. You have to remember that those employees were initially hired because they brought something to the table; skills, talents and insights all unique to each and every staff member. When your employees aren’t dependent upon you, they’ll continue to think on their own – and when employees have the freedom to think on their own, great things can happen.
Takeaway: If you micromanage too much, your employees’ skills, talents and insights can fall to the wayside, leaving you with a team that only knows how to do what it’s told. You must allow your employees the freedom to think and act on their own.
Danger No. 4: Your own burnout
Here’s one big, yet simple reason that micromanagement is something you should never practice: It’s downright exhausting. Looking over so many shoulders every day will very quickly burn you out. Eventually you’ll grow to hate your job, straight down to the very company that employs you. Hate it enough and you may even end up leaving it, never wanting to revisit a management role again. Sure, burnout is always a danger in any job. But the energy burned while micromanaging will ignite that wick faster than anything. And don’t forget, that burnout can infect those beneath you. Managers are not the only victims of burnout; as you flame out, you will very likely take your staff with you.
Takeaway: Micromanagement is not only bad for your employees, but it can take a terrible toll on your physical and mental health. Take time to step back, breathe and realize that your team can handle its tasks without you constantly hovering over shoulders.
Danger No. 5: High turnover of staff
Let me put it simply: Most people don’t take well to being micromanaged. When employees are micromanaged, they often do one thing; quit. Considering the reasons why managers micromanage (ego, insecurity, inexperience, perfectionism, arrogance), it’s simply not worth the high turnover rate. Having to constantly train and re-train staff not only robs your department of momentum, it affects the company’s bottom line and destroys morale. Friendships are made and destroyed, and eventually this will crush the spirit of your staff.
Takeaway: Micromanagement often leads people to quit.
Danger No. 6 Lack of autonomy
When you micromanage, your employees begin to feel like they’re losing their autonomy. When this happens, they’ll slowly lose the desire to do anything but that which you demand, and little more. No one will step outside the proverbial box or go the extra mile for a task. You hand those same people a certain level of autonomy and they will take pride in what they do and how they do it.
Takeaway: A lack of autonomy will squelch growth in your employees. One of the goals of management should be to see staff members rise in the ranks.