So, there's apparently a movement to get LDS women to wear pants (dress pants) to church on Sunday. This Sunday. And for men to wear something purple (such as a tie).
I've heard all kinds of reasons for it, from supporters and detractors. The most extreme being that it shows slack-wearing women want to be just like men, hold the priesthood, etc.
The most mild being that women are tired of being frowned on for showing up in dress slacks, and sometimes even told that nice dress pants are inappropriate.
And the conversation gets lost, as people incorrectly assume one or the other, and incorrectly assume that everyone behind the movement supports the extreme, or everyone against the movement opposes the mild.
It's true. A few women are apparently doing it because of the extreme. And plenty of people are doing it because the cultural norm of no pants is just stupid. (For the record, so is the cultural norm of only white shirts, a norm which I plan on "protesting," like I've done a few times in the past two or three months, on Sunday).
And those many, many men and women who aren't doing it because of the extreme, but believe the pants are just a symbol--they're asking for the right to have a woman give a prayer in General Conference, for women to be in Sunday School Presidencies (unlike just a few years ago, they can't even be the secretary any more) and other entirely non-doctrinal changes in rights and responsibilities. None of which require that women hold the priesthood.
And of course I'm sure there will be many women wearing pants and many men wearing purple who are doing so for reasons entirely unrelated to this whole drama.
So don't assume you know people's reasons for wearing slacks, purple, or a colored shirt. Because if you do there's a good chance you're assuming too much. And we always know what happens when you assume...