Feminine Dress/Behavior

  • Thread starter Thread starter SweetLambs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SweetLambs said:
Is it wrong to questionable to feel no desire whatsoever for feminine this and that? Don’t get me wrong- I am glad to be female, and I personally think it is very possible to be a true Catholic lady and imitate our Lady- and still wear Carrhart’s and wrestle cattle (kindly, of course).

Or am I getting it all wrong?

Pax et bonum.
Click to expand...
I think you are doing just fine!!! And God bless you for caring for God’s creatures. Don’t let social norms get to you - it sounds like you have it all in perfect perspective. You are dressing appropriately when you should be – be that Mass, or working with an animal.

👍

~Liza
 
I think this is also effected by cultural and regional norms. I now live in NYC, and I often feel as the OP does. I just don’t like to do myself up in a very feminine way. I often feel self-conscious about it, but feel inauthentic when I dress more feminine. However, I recently vacationed in Stockbridge, Mass. and lots of women there had dressed in a similar way to me, and wore ponytails as well. It’s more of a rural place.
 
edwest2 said:
The fiction that feminine beauty products are recent should be called a fiction every time anybody sees it. The 1950s were filled with beehive hairdos and teen girls wanting their hair cut to look like their favorite singer or actress. Nail polish, mascara? My sister had that. Skirts? Yeah. So what? Pearl necklaces. The list goes on.
Click to expand...
That is still recent, considering that humanity has existed for at least tens of thousands of years.
 
Baelor said:
That is still recent, considering that humanity has existed for at least tens of thousands of years.
Click to expand...
Check your demographics and check on the book I provided a link to. The recent decline in Christian and secular behavior, including dress, can be clearly traced to the late 1960s. Oh sure, you had the Beats, or Beatniks, of the 1950s but they were clearly considered an anomaly.

There was a time when young men and young women were on the same page. Common decency was a lot more common. Oh sure, I heard the occasional swear word growing up, but personal restraint was the norm. The overwhelming norm. You listened to your mother and father because they had been your age once too. If you were Christian, or Catholic, standards were set in school. All the girls wore skirts and they were required to just cover the knees. The mini-skirt was immodest and a scandal. Boys were taught to be well-groomed and respectful of young ladies.

The moms dressed beautifully, there was sense of decorum and they passed their lady-like behavior on to their daughters. The majority of us guys did treat young women with great respect, as well as their moms. We had something called communities of shared values at the time. NO, it was not perfect. We had a few bad apples and crime, but were taught to avoid the bad kids and not imitate their behavior. And we had a few punks in high school that thought smoking cigarettes and drinking made them “men.” And woe unto you if you looked down on that.

Then the radical, anarchist perverts (dictionary definition) and sexual deviants showed up. They were openly non-comformist and “hey, mister businessman, you can’t dress like me” (Jimi Hendrix). And the dope and the sex and “Don’t trust anybody over 30.” Oh they worked very, very hard to convince us truly normal people not to listen to mom or dad or priests or nuns. And we partly believed them, until it was too late.

Their way was the best way, but they had rules and rituals to follow that were dysfunctional and totally regressive.

“Let it all hang out man.” Profanity was common.

Make sure you had a roach clip and smoked weed on a regular basis. Maybe drop some acid. Smoke some hash. Yeah, that’ll help.

Corporations were evil. Laws that didn’t let them do what they wanted - like a bunch of spoiled rotten 5 year olds - were oppressive.

And they were angry. Really angry at anybody that tried, including mom and dad, to point out the error of their ways. “Leave us alone!!! We’ll do what we want!! We’re grown adults!!!”

Have sex with whoever whenever. Oh yeah, gotta have a bunch o ladies. Get high, have sex, leave the next morning. Have three kids with 3 different women.

The Church? Old, antiquated, backwards, oppressive. I’m young and I’ll satisfy my flesh.

And regulation length long hair.

The 1970s saw vicious anti-woman groups appear in the West. They hated feminine behavior. They stopped wearing bras. They wore pants that were - scandalous, and they made sure people saw it. They couldn’t be ladies in any sense of the word. They couldn’t even use the word Miss anymore, it became Ms. (Gloria Steinem, early 1970s). Women would choose, and women were now the aggressors. Guys? Who needs 'em? “A woman needs a man like fish needs a bicycle.” Gloria Steinem

STAY AT HOME MOM? ARE YOU NUTS!!! You are REQUIRED to get a career, to overthrow the patriarchy - comrades! Flowers, candy? Those lying, dirty, deceitful men. We spit on romance.

To my fellow Catholic sisters and brothers: modesty, decency in word and dress, self-restraint in word and action. Realize we are complimentary. Realize that relationships matter. Hooking up, adultery, fornication and going to prostitutes are wrong. Profanity is always wrong.

Friendship
Earn each other’s trust
Shared values
If both agree, a steady relationship
Perhaps courtship
Perhaps engagement, and then,
Marriage - not to be entered into lightly and a commitment for life that is open to life.

That. And realizing what it really means to be a man and a woman.

Peace,
Ed
 
Ed -

I’m glad you seem grateful for the lovely, peaceful childhood. I also grew up in the '50s & '60s - but in a different world. It wasn’t anywhere as nice as your world.
 
I wear jeans and t-shirts/sweatshirts all the time. I only wear dresses as Halloween costumes. They aren’t practical for everyday wear if you do anything more active than sitting in one spot all day.

No one has mistaken me for a man yet. 😉

Jala
 
SweetLambs said:
Greetings!

I am a young college student and I was wondering about something that actually hasn’t really bothered me…but I guess what I am wondering if my position is reasonable?

I have never been really into feminine anything. I could care less about my nails (which are actually super short…I bite them…:o) and my hair is always only in a very simple ponytail. I wear very modest dresses or skirts and a veil to Mass. I will not wear dresses/skirts otherwise, except for very formal things like job interviews and awards receptions. Never wore makeup.

Outside of church, I wear modest, full-cut women’s jeans and again, very modest shirts, like polos, etc. I wear steel-toed leather ankle-high livestock-work boots normally…or rubber chore boots if I am mucking…🙂

Never ever did tea parties or played with dolls. I actually don’t like the color pink. Not really a flowery person either.

The thing is, even if I loved these things, they’d be very impractical for my position in life. I am a prevet student and work with livestock and large animal vets regularly. I have always felt a calling to be a livestock vet and I deeply enjoy every minute of it (even when it isn’t so pleasant). This is some of what I do or help with- there is absolutely no way anything but pants would work: [warning a bit graphic] palpating cows (involves sticking your whole arm into the cow’s rectum to feel for her uterus and ovaries below, in order to determine pregnancy and sometimes stages in estrus), surgically castrating bulls and lambs, doing lameness exams on horses, artifically inseminating sheep, going inside a ewe or cow or mare in labor to reposition a dystocia baby so it can be delivered safely, replacing vaginal and uterine prolapses, etc. All very messy, potentially dangerous work, and more often than not, you are holding an animal’s head or leg in between your legs (ever watched a farrier work on horses?).

Not to mention, most of the vets I am working with are guys, and so are many of the farmers. They are wonderful and very respectful. I act ladylike but certainly tough enough to do what needs to be done, and I can easily establish rapport and respect.

Is it wrong to questionable to feel no desire whatsoever for feminine this and that? Don’t get me wrong- I am glad to be female, and I personally think it is very possible to be a true Catholic lady and imitate our Lady- and still wear Carrhart’s and wrestle cattle (kindly, of course).

Or am I getting it all wrong?

Pax et bonum.
Click to expand...
This might come in a bit of an unexpected direction but I thought it worth mentioning.

As a woman, there are generally two major roles one can choose to take on in life (and a third, single-life, which one might end up in) i.e. celibate consecrated life or a spouse/mother.

If you are choosing to be celibate, your career path and choices might not matter much. But if you are considering becoming a spouse/mother, you will have to reconsider some of your choices. Would your husband or potential/current interest approve of your ways. Would your career choice allow you to spend time with your children. Would your example be misunderstood by your children in a culture where “gender choice” has become a common theme. and so on…

Usually at this point many will say that the father can stay at home and you can be the bread winner. This sounds fair enough at first. BUT, contrary to what many might have you believe, the father’s role and mother’s role are not interchangeable. A mother carries a child in her womb for 9 months and gives birth to the child through suffering of enormous pain (even in a c-section birth, the mother needs to be super careful afterward). Then the mother will feed the child with her own breasts for sometime later. All this means that a mother has the best chances of forming and nurturing a bond between her and the child.

Having a career to juggle can mean split priorities. No matter how much we might feel like we can balance, we are most successful when we can give our devoted attention toward one thing. Later on in your life, you will have to choose in the path you have taken.

Then comes the issue of setting an example for a growing female child. Let us assume that somehow you managed to pull it all off in your current status of things. Your child might not be as lucky. You would be the odd success. If your child follows you, she might end up in a situation where she will be more likely to fail in trying to juggle a career with her family life (husband and kids). With a male child, the same might happen. He might pursue a wife who is career driven and later find out that he can’t make things work as your future husband might have done.

I know this reply is a bit unorthodox but I thought it worth mentioning because this is a side many ignore. It is also not as much a religious issue but a more practical one.

If you are concerned of morality, your moral culpability will probably depend on how well you were able to assess the situation. But regardless of moral culpability, what usually ends up making life difficult and leading us to sin are the results of morally neutral looking decisions we make. So pray to the Holy Spirit for counsel, wisdom and understanding and make sure you evaluate the situation using reason.
 
Bonnie said:
Ed -

I’m glad you seem grateful for the lovely, peaceful childhood. I also grew up in the '50s & '60s - but in a different world. It wasn’t anywhere as nice as your world.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t change anything.

amazon.com/Extreme-Makeover-Transformed-Conformed-Culture/dp/1586175610

And it’s not just my “opinion.”

“seem grateful”? I grew up with almost daily warnings that Russian ICBMs were about 30 minutes away. I lived in Detroit, which I learned was target number 5 on the hit list. We had a Civil Defense sign on our school gym and other buildings. Then we learned the Russians had figured out how to put more than one warhead on one missile. And none of us lost a minute of sleep over it. Then the wolves arrived in our neighborhoods.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Check your demographics and check on the book I provided a link to. The recent decline in Christian and secular behavior, including dress, can be clearly traced to the late 1960s. Oh sure, you had the Beats, or Beatniks, of the 1950s but they were clearly considered an anomaly.
Click to expand...
I never said there was not a decline. I was responding to your claim that makeup, etc. are not recent inventions because they existed 50 years ago. I simply stated that 50 years ago is simply a moment in a very long history of humankind.

For the record, both men and women thousands of years ago had decorations and grooming products and jewelry, so I do not really understand why this is such a big issue.
They stopped wearing bras.
Click to expand...
They stopped wearing BRAS? :eek: How were they not EXECUTED for this OUTRAGE!!!
They couldn’t be ladies in any sense of the word. They couldn’t even use the word Miss anymore, it became Ms. (Gloria Steinem, early 1970s).
Click to expand...
Which makes perfect sense, since there is no reason to differentiate between married and unmarried women when that same distinction is not preserved in the male title. I just do not see this is an issue of femininity.
STAY AT HOME MOM? ARE YOU NUTS!!! You are REQUIRED to get a career, to overthrow the patriarchy - comrades! Flowers, candy? Those lying, dirty, deceitful men. We spit on romance.
Click to expand...
No, we are not. And no, we do not.

At this point, you are just engaging in a baseless rant. It is like you watched an episode of Jersey Shore and then decided that every single person on the face of the planet is that way. I am sure that you can see – despite your myopia and frankly offensive whitewashing of the period of your own upbringing – why that association is invalid.
 
Baelor said:
At this point, you are just engaging in a baseless rant. It is like you watched an episode of Jersey Shore and then decided that every single person on the face of the planet is that way. I am sure that you can see – despite your myopia and frankly offensive whitewashing of the period of your own upbringing – why that association is invalid.
Click to expand...
As much as I’m a supporter of modesty - in my own quiet way, which means “speak only if you must!” - I’ll have to agree that “rant” is a very good description of what we’ve just seen.

It’s true that there has been a moral decline in Western society, but our job is not to moan about it. If you look at the OT prophets, they denounced social evils and then proceeded to call people back to the right path. Painting every single post-1950 human being with the same brush, and blaming it all on the “wolves” (when everyone knows that parents are also morally responsible, and that good parents can and will keep the “wolf” from the door) is a very incomplete representation of truth.

Not to mention that it’s a complete derailment of what the OP was asking about. All she wanted to know was whether preferring modest pants and shirts was all right, given her work and educational choices. Going on about the decline of American civilization, and how everything was perfect in the “good old days”, is not going to help her too much, and is defeatist.

Besides, modesty is a virtue, but it is not an end in itself. If “more modest” actually was equal to “more moral”, then Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran would be the Garden of Eden by now, and salvation would be by works alone. 😃

(waits to be told that kids shouldn’t speak so disrespectfully to their betters, and that I would’ve been spanked if I’d tried to post this in 1950… :))
 
Just for fun, I googled “history of makeup.” As I suspected, cosmetics have been around for 6000 years in almost every country and culture.

There are statements throughout the Little House books about Laura, her mother, her aunts, and her sisters “primping” and making themselves look attrative.

Someone mentioned “middle class women.” Actually, the “middle class” is new in history. Until fairly recently, society consisted of the “rich” and the “poor.” And the poor women didn’t deliberately “choose” to go without makeup–they just didn’t have the money. Once the middle class started earning money, they bought and wore makeup. Makeup is one of the three depression-proof products. (The other two are beer and movies.)

Anyway, I grew up on a farm, and all my life I’ve known women who do a man’s heavy work and dress appropriately for this work. Even when I saw women wearing overalls, leather jackets, work gloves, and rubber galoshes, and shoveling manure or baling hay, I never had any problem distinguishing these women from their menfolk.

I think what the OP needs to think about is whether or not she is happy to be a female, a woman, or whether she wishes that she were a man and tries to emulate men in her dress and mannerisms. IMO, this is what the Bible is talking about when sex roles are discussed. This “gender confusion” is what makes other people feel “uncomfortable”.

I frankly have a hard time feeling comfortable when I’m not really sure whether someone is a man or a woman. I know that there is a movement to make all of us feel “comfortable” with people like this. I’m not sure what I think of this movement. I realize there are people who are born with various syndromes that make their gender hard to determine. But I think there are others who are determined to reject what God has made and be a different gender than what they really are. That makes me feel uncomfortable. I do try hard not to show my discomfort, and to be courteous and charitable with people like that, and often, these people are kind and considerate as well. I don’t feel it’s my place to judge such people (because I don’t know the basis of their gender confusion–if it’s physical, they might have no choice). I certainly don’t feel that it’s my place to “preach” to these people. I just try to accept them and be kind and polite.

It doesn’t sound like the OP has this problem at all. It sounds like she is happy to be a woman and is living out her calling in a practical way that does not compromise her inner femininity…
 
JReducation said:
If someone believes that jeans and feminine don’t go together, they forgot to send the Poor Clare nuns the memo. LOL

Poor Clare Nun in jeans and coif

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
Click to expand...
What a nice-looking Belted calf! Thanks for the picture! 🙂

Back on track…thanks again for all the replies. Makeup and dressy clothing and hair are certainly nothing new…I’ve always known that.

For what it’s worth, I have always felt a calling to be single, but not to the religious life. I’ve always been very strongly attracted to livestock, the outdoors, hard physical labor, science and medicine, problem solving, etc. I have never been very interested in boyfriends (a huge shock to those here at college!), never played with dolls, and never played wedding. I appreciate men and women and have enormous respect for marriage and children, but it’s not what I am called to. I am open to it, but I don’t think that is God’s plan for my life.

I am very happy to be female, but I’ve not been attracted to many of the things that women typically are interested in. I suppose this could have to do partly with the fact that I have Aspergers, and have difficulty forming bonds with people I have little in common with. I am intensely interested in livestock and have a good mind for understanding the science behind them, and have a rich interest in liberal arts (philosophy, theology, art, music, etc.). I probably think a little more like a man than a woman, but so what? I certainly don’t wish to be male- I am very happy being what I was created to be. I just don’t necessarily want to be worried about my hair or clothes beyond being clean and modest.

As for “romance”, I’d probably fall far more for a good Catholic guy who could replace cattle prolapses and yet be gentle enough to deliver lambs…I always say that if he’d wrap the lambs in his coat before bringing them into the house, with himself in short sleeves when it’s 2 degrees outside, I’d know he was a great pick! 👍 Flowers and candy don’t really appeal to me. 🙂 Maybe that says more about me than anything else, I don’t know.

Pax et bonum!
 
SweetLambs said:
What a nice-looking Belted calf! Thanks for the picture! 🙂

Back on track…thanks again for all the replies. Makeup and dressy clothing and hair are certainly nothing new…I’ve always known that.

For what it’s worth, I have always felt a calling to be single, but not to the religious life. I’ve always been very strongly attracted to livestock, the outdoors, hard physical labor, science and medicine, problem solving, etc. I have never been very interested in boyfriends (a huge shock to those here at college!), never played with dolls, and never played wedding. I appreciate men and women and have enormous respect for marriage and children, but it’s not what I am called to. I am open to it, but I don’t think that is God’s plan for my life.

I am very happy to be female, but I’ve not been attracted to many of the things that women typically are interested in. I suppose this could have to do partly with the fact that I have Aspergers, and have difficulty forming bonds with people I have little in common with. I am intensely interested in livestock and have a good mind for understanding the science behind them, and have a rich interest in liberal arts (philosophy, theology, art, music, etc.). I probably think a little more like a man than a woman, but so what? I certainly don’t wish to be male- I am very happy being what I was created to be. I just don’t necessarily want to be worried about my hair or clothes beyond being clean and modest.

As for “romance”, I’d probably fall far more for a good Catholic guy who could replace cattle prolapses and yet be gentle enough to deliver lambs…I always say that if he’d wrap the lambs in his coat before bringing them into the house, with himself in short sleeves when it’s 2 degrees outside, I’d know he was a great pick! 👍 Flowers and candy don’t really appeal to me. 🙂 Maybe that says more about me than anything else, I don’t know.

Pax et bonum!
Click to expand...
Hi SweetLambs,

👋

I also am a woman with Aspergers.

I am an engineer by trade. Not a typical feminine profession. I love physics and astronomy and have an interest in geography, history and physical anthropology.

I also love to cook, bake, embroider and crochet and basically am a homebody.

Masculinity and Femininity are archetypes but society usually defines them as stereotypes. I think each woman brings her own spin to femininity. We are individuals after all.
 
edwest2 said:
Check your demographics and check on the book I provided a link to. The recent decline in Christian and secular behavior, including dress, can be clearly traced to the late 1960s. Oh sure, you had the Beats, or Beatniks, of the 1950s but they were clearly considered an anomaly.

There was a time when young men and young women were on the same page. Common decency was a lot more common. Oh sure, I heard the occasional swear word growing up, but personal restraint was the norm. The overwhelming norm. You listened to your mother and father because they had been your age once too. If you were Christian, or Catholic, standards were set in school. All the girls wore skirts and they were required to just cover the knees. The mini-skirt was immodest and a scandal. Boys were taught to be well-groomed and respectful of young ladies.

The moms dressed beautifully, there was sense of decorum and they passed their lady-like behavior on to their daughters. The majority of us guys did treat young women with great respect, as well as their moms. We had something called communities of shared values at the time. NO, it was not perfect. We had a few bad apples and crime, but were taught to avoid the bad kids and not imitate their behavior. And we had a few punks in high school that thought smoking cigarettes and drinking made them “men.” And woe unto you if you looked down on that.

Then the radical, anarchist perverts (dictionary definition) and sexual deviants showed up. They were openly non-comformist and “hey, mister businessman, you can’t dress like me” (Jimi Hendrix). And the dope and the sex and “Don’t trust anybody over 30.” Oh they worked very, very hard to convince us truly normal people not to listen to mom or dad or priests or nuns. And we partly believed them, until it was too late.

Their way was the best way, but they had rules and rituals to follow that were dysfunctional and totally regressive.

“Let it all hang out man.” Profanity was common.

Make sure you had a roach clip and smoked weed on a regular basis. Maybe drop some acid. Smoke some hash. Yeah, that’ll help.

Corporations were evil. Laws that didn’t let them do what they wanted - like a bunch of spoiled rotten 5 year olds - were oppressive.

And they were angry. Really angry at anybody that tried, including mom and dad, to point out the error of their ways. “Leave us alone!!! We’ll do what we want!! We’re grown adults!!!”

Have sex with whoever whenever. Oh yeah, gotta have a bunch o ladies. Get high, have sex, leave the next morning. Have three kids with 3 different women.

The Church? Old, antiquated, backwards, oppressive. I’m young and I’ll satisfy my flesh.

And regulation length long hair.

The 1970s saw vicious anti-woman groups appear in the West. They hated feminine behavior. They stopped wearing bras. They wore pants that were - scandalous, and they made sure people saw it. They couldn’t be ladies in any sense of the word. They couldn’t even use the word Miss anymore, it became Ms. (Gloria Steinem, early 1970s). Women would choose, and women were now the aggressors. Guys? Who needs 'em? “A woman needs a man like fish needs a bicycle.” Gloria Steinem

STAY AT HOME MOM? ARE YOU NUTS!!! You are REQUIRED to get a career, to overthrow the patriarchy - comrades! Flowers, candy? Those lying, dirty, deceitful men. We spit on romance.

To my fellow Catholic sisters and brothers: modesty, decency in word and dress, self-restraint in word and action. Realize we are complimentary. Realize that relationships matter. Hooking up, adultery, fornication and going to prostitutes are wrong. Profanity is always wrong.

Friendship
Earn each other’s trust
Shared values
If both agree, a steady relationship
Perhaps courtship
Perhaps engagement, and then,
Marriage - not to be entered into lightly and a commitment for life that is open to life.

That. And realizing what it really means to be a man and a woman.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Aren’t you forgetting about the “Roaring” 20’s?
 
Try not to derail please. The topic is feminine dress/behavior, not world history. I think most people should become more acquainted with the last 40 years to understand the current problem. Instead, I’m getting dodges about thousands of years and the 1920s.

mycatholicsource.com/mcs/qt/catholic_life_reflections_modesty_dress.htm#Modesty%20-%20Dress

“In our times the question of “women’s rights” has taken on new significance in the broad context of the rights of the human person. The biblical and evangelical message sheds light on this cause, which is the object of much attention today, by safeguarding the truth about the “unity” of the “two”, that is to say the truth about that dignity and vocation that result from the specific diversity and personal originality of man and woman. Consequently, even the rightful opposition of women to what is expressed in the biblical words “He shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16) must not under any condition lead to the “masculinization” of women. In the name of liberation from male “domination”, women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine “originality”. There is a well-founded fear that if they take this path, women will not “reach fulfilment”, but instead will deform and lose what constitutes their essential richness. It is indeed an enormous richness. In the biblical description, the words of the first man at the sight of the woman who had been created are words of admiration and enchantment, words which fill the whole history of man on earth.”

Full document here: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

“A second tendency emerges in the wake of the first. In order to avoid the domination of one sex or the other, their differences tend to be denied, viewed as mere effects of historical and cultural conditioning. In this perspective, physical difference, termed sex, is minimized, while the purely cultural element, termed gender, is emphasized to the maximum and held to be primary. The obscuring of the difference or duality of the sexes has enormous consequences on a variety of levels. This theory of the human person, intended to promote prospects for equality of women through liberation from biological determinism, has in reality inspired ideologies which, for example, call into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality.”

"Therefore, the promotion of women within society must be understood and desired as a humanization accomplished through those values, rediscovered thanks to women. Every outlook which presents itself as a conflict between the sexes is only an illusion and a danger: it would end in segregation and competition between men and women, and would promote a solipsism nourished by a false conception of freedom.

Without prejudice to the advancement of women’s rights in society and the family, these observations seek to correct the perspective which views men as enemies to be overcome. The proper condition of the male-female relationship cannot be a kind of mistrustful and defensive opposition. Their relationship needs to be lived in peace and in the happiness of shared love."

Full document here: vis.pcn.net/doc/040731x_en.htm

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
In the name of liberation from male “domination”, women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine “originality”. There is a well-founded fear that if they take this path, women will not “reach fulfilment”, but instead will deform and lose what constitutes their essential richness. It is indeed an enormous richness. In the biblical description, the words of the first man at the sight of the woman who had been created are words of admiration and enchantment, words which fill the whole history of man on earth."

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I have always been interested in science ever since I was very young and now as an adult I am engineer which is a field mostly populated by men. I did not do this in order appropriate for myself male characteristics or in the name of liberation. My interest in nature and its working is part of who I am.

So tell me am I wrong or am I in sin to be what I am?
 
edwest2 said:
Try not to derail please. The topic is feminine dress/behavior, not world history. I think most people should become more acquainted with the last 40 years to understand the current problem. Instead, I’m getting dodges about thousands of years and the 1920s.

mycatholicsource.com/mcs/qt/catholic_life_reflections_modesty_dress.htm#Modesty%20-%20Dress

“In our times the question of “women’s rights” has taken on new significance in the broad context of the rights of the human person. The biblical and evangelical message sheds light on this cause, which is the object of much attention today, by safeguarding the truth about the “unity” of the “two”, that is to say the truth about that dignity and vocation that result from the specific diversity and personal originality of man and woman. Consequently, even the rightful opposition of women to what is expressed in the biblical words “He shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16) must not under any condition lead to the “masculinization” of women. In the name of liberation from male “domination”, women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine “originality”. There is a well-founded fear that if they take this path, women will not “reach fulfilment”, but instead will deform and lose what constitutes their essential richness. It is indeed an enormous richness. In the biblical description, the words of the first man at the sight of the woman who had been created are words of admiration and enchantment, words which fill the whole history of man on earth.”

Full document here: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

“A second tendency emerges in the wake of the first. In order to avoid the domination of one sex or the other, their differences tend to be denied, viewed as mere effects of historical and cultural conditioning. In this perspective, physical difference, termed sex, is minimized, while the purely cultural element, termed gender, is emphasized to the maximum and held to be primary. The obscuring of the difference or duality of the sexes has enormous consequences on a variety of levels. This theory of the human person, intended to promote prospects for equality of women through liberation from biological determinism, has in reality inspired ideologies which, for example, call into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality.”

“Therefore, the promotion of women within society must be understood and desired as a humanization accomplished through those values, rediscovered thanks to women.** Every outlook which presents itself as a conflict between the sexes is only an illusion and a danger: it would end in segregation and competition between men and women, and would promote a solipsism nourished by a false conception of freedom.
**
Without prejudice to the advancement of women’s rights in society and the family, these observations seek to correct the perspective which views men as enemies to be overcome. The proper condition of the male-female relationship cannot be a kind of mistrustful and defensive opposition. Their relationship needs to be lived in peace and in the happiness of shared love.”

Full document here: vis.pcn.net/doc/040731x_en.htm

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I’d say – you promote an outlook – that creates conflict between men and women. There is nothing wrong with a women vets and the OP’s manner of dress – yet you jump into this thread to create discord.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top