New open sleeve garment top
New open sleeve garment top
Picture of Linda Hamilton
Linda Hamilton
Linda is a historical fiction author, history grad student, and mom of four. Her first book, The Fourth Wife, comes out in 2026 from Kensington Books. TT/IG: @lindahamiltonwriter

Why I Can’t Get Excited about “Sleeveless” Garments

Note: This blog was originally posted on my Substack.

This week news broke through social media that the LDS church is introducing “open sleeve” garments in select hot climates around the world. These styles will come to the United States in the 4th quarter of 2025. People around the internet are rejoicing about this change, but I can’t join in.

I feel like I should be celebrating. This is what I wanted, right? More garment options? But as I think it through, I realize no, it’s actually not at all what I want. It’s a crumb, an appeasement, something people can hold up and say “see, the church is changing” then ignore fundamental frustrations.

I can’t feel excited because at the core of it, my underwear is still being dictated by men. How and when it changes is completely up to men. I’m frustrated because the many decades of advocating, activism, and begging have finally culminated in women receiving one inch from men. Literally.

Why I Can't Get Excited about "Sleeveless" Garments
The new “sleeveless” garments coming 2025 to the US. I don’t see much change in the shoulders from the cap sleeve to the open sleeve. Yes, I think some tank tops will work with this new style. Most, however, will not. Plus the high armpit will continue to restrict. I fear the excitement of “sleeveless” garments might be a bit premature until it’s verified what is possible to be worn with them.

There are so so many things to say about garments. You can read my previous piece about them here. For the sake of post length, I’ll keep my thoughts today to the newest change. I also highly recommend posts like this or this that share more about this change and the painful feelings it brings up.

So why aren’t I rejoicing with the Saints over this “win?” Because nothing has fundamentally changed. The church has doubled down on garment wearing recently, instead of acknowledging that all bodies and circumstances are different. Instead of trusting members to do what is best for themselves, they are trying to appease us with small changes while maintaining ultimate control.

At the end of the day, women’s underwear is still being dictated and controlled by men. The patriarchal structure of the church makes it so no women ever has final say on decision made about their bodies. Male leaders may ask for input or suggestions, but they are always the final decision makers and gatekeepers. Whether women have long sleeves, short sleeves, no sleeves, is all up to men. By controlling garments, men control how women dress. They’re the ones who get to decide what is “modest” and what is acceptable for Mormon women to wear every day. Men get to dictate when women wear what clothing, down to the specific activity they are doing.

I’m glad that the men in charge seem to be listening to women’s struggles; that is an improvement. But how long have women been asking for changes to the garment? Literally decades! Decades of advocating have finally brought us in 2024 an inch of fabric difference that might allow for a few different articles of clothing to be worn. And nothing has changed to improve the many health issues women face while wearing garment bottoms.

We’re still going to get infections, bleed through the white fabric, struggle to keep a pad in place. We’re still going struggle with body issues when we look in the mirror. We’re still going to cry when we go into a dressing room and try on a dozen perfectly modest dresses that don’t work with one small curve of the garment neckline. We’re still going to struggle with never-ending guilt when its 100 degrees outside and we longing stare at the women wearing sundresses. We’re still going to judge and police each other, as if the perceived length of a sleeve or pant leg is the ultimate sign of righteousness. We’re still going to gaslight ourselves and tell ourselves it’s all in our heads and it’s only our fault we struggle, not the church’s. We’re still going to feel like Joseph Smith and the legacy of his polygamy is holding us hostage from almost 200 years ago.

So no, I cannot join in the celebration. I cannot thank the men for deigning to modify a style or add a new one because it doesn’t root out the real problems.

What we need is true equality and freedom in our own choices. We need women in the structures of power in the church and in every room where decisions are being made. (Diverse women. Women who aren’t specifically chosen because they bend to patriarchy either way.) We need to truly examine the history and purpose of garments and see if they’re actually serving us, or if they’re simply a tradition entrenched in our dogma. We need to allow every member to wear the garment as they see fit for their personal bodies and circumstances without judgment or punishment.

If you’re excited for this change, I hold space for you and I’m honestly very glad for you. If you love your garments, I love that for you.

But I am mourning and I feel my Heavenly Mother weeping with me.

Read more posts in this blog series:

Linda is a historical fiction author, history grad student, and mom of four. Her first book, The Fourth Wife, comes out in 2026 from Kensington Books. TT/IG: @lindahamiltonwriter

4 Responses

  1. I hear you and don’t feel very excited as well, given that I’m not personally drawn to the compulsory rhetoric around garments. Like you, I would have loved to see that rhetoric change. For those women who do love garments and want to wear them, I am happy for them if they are happy with these changes.

    I do see the slip option as a great step forward for women who want to wear garments and who often also wear a lot of dresses. This is also a good option for women who can now sleep in just that slip and hopefully have better health outcomes because of it.

  2. All this.

    Also, I am just stymied by the way it was rolled out internationally first. If it’s a “weather conditions are dire enough” situation to cut off a few inches at the top and switch to a skirt – then that signals that the church has the moral authority to determine which garments are appropriate for the situation – even though it is the voices in primarily America that have been bringing the issue up for decades. If it’s a “business decision”, then I’d argue that “not even allowing the primarily American segment to opt in at the beginning” is poor marketing, poor to neutral public relations, and opportunity cost to make money/lose less money overall by selling garments at the higher American prices to the primarily American women who brought the issue up in the first place. NOTE: Economics is not my strong point, so I am going off of a few general economics classes and my real-world experience in micro-economics.

    Any way you look at it – there is “we really didn’t think this through and care enough talk to people about it” written all over the scenario.

  3. When men police what women wear, say, eat, and do in the Church, women become mere robots where agency is denied and thoughts are policed. My neighbor was recently visited by the Elders Quorum President, who shamed and condemned her in front of her children for not wearing her garments properly. She will not be returning to Church.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Our Comment Policy

  • No ads or plugs.
  • No four-letter words that wouldn’t be allowed on television.
  • No mudslinging: Stating disagreement is fine — even strong disagreement, but no personal attacks or name calling. No personal insults.
  • Try to stick with your personal experiences, ideas, and interpretations. This is not the place to question another’s personal righteousness, to call people to repentance, or to disrespectfully refute people’s personal religious beliefs.
  • No sockpuppetry. You may not post a variety of comments under different monikers.

Note: Comments that include hyperlinks will be held in the moderation queue for approval (to filter out obvious spam). Comments with email addresses may also be held in the moderation queue.

Write for Us

We want to hear your perspective! Write for Exponent II Blog by submitting a post here.

Support Mormon Feminism

Our blog content is always free, but our hosting fees are not. Please support us.

related Blog posts

Women pay a higher garment tax than men. What do I mean by ‘garment tax’? I don’t mean the monetary cost of garments. I mean that it costs women more time and effort to find clothing that covers the garment. I mean that the garment makes it harder for women to deal with normal human biology. I also mean that women repeatedly have to make value judgements between what they want to express with their clothing and what the garment patterns permit. Men pay a garment tax as well, but it’s not nearly as high as the cost women are obliged to pay.

Never miss A blog post

Sign up and be the first to be alerted when new blog posts go live!

Loading

* We will never sell your email address, and you can unsubscribe at any time (not that you’ll want to).​