Mary-like modesty and outdoor work?

[SecretaryMonday]

Hello, I would like to make the Total Consecration to Mary at some point. For right now I am trying to dress less androgynously (I’m female); this is easy for church, and not that difficult for casual events, but I’m not sure how to do this for work. I am a landscaper, so I’ve always worn loose jeans and a T-shirt (usually a guy’s shirt, because ladies’ shirts tend to be form-fitted, which feels awkward to me).
All of the sources that I have found on “Mary-like modesty” for women frown on slacks or jeans. Maybe I’m exempt because of the kind of work I do, but I’d like to see if it would be feasible to wear something more “woman-y” (of course, I’m wearing women’s jeans, maybe that’s “woman-y” enough? )

Does anyone here have advice or a favorite source on women’s clothing that doesn’t look dumpy, is modest and feminine but still functional for outdoor labor?

 

[mommyof4]

In all honesty, I don’t see that jeans are a detriment to modesty, especially considering your type of work. I love modesty in both men and women as much as anyone, but I am also a part-time farmer. There is no way I’m wearing a dress outside to feed and water the cattle, fix fences, move hogs, etc. Jeans can be modest- just wear the “mom jeans” as my children call them- no low rise, or jeans that are too tight. Also, loose fitting t-shirts would work, too (yes, they are available).

 

[theistgal]

How about a jeans skirt? They’re easy to make and super comfortable, if you’re not prone to chafing.

 

[Veronica97]

Please don’t wear “mom” jeans! Sorry, but I think they’re awful. You can find jeans that are not low rise but that have a flare or boot leg that is much more flattering to a woman’s figure.

 

[LightBound]

Hello, I would like to make the Total Consecration to Mary at some point. For right now I am trying to dress less androgynously (I’m female); this is easy for church, and not that difficult for casual events, but I’m not sure how to do this for work. I am a landscaper, so I’ve always worn loose jeans and a T-shirt (usually a guy’s shirt, because ladies’ shirts tend to be form-fitted, which feels awkward to me).
All of the sources that I have found on “Mary-like modesty” for women frown on slacks or jeans. Maybe I’m exempt because of the kind of work I do, but I’d like to see if it would be feasible to wear something more “woman-y” (of course, I’m wearing women’s jeans, maybe that’s “woman-y” enough? )

Does anyone here have advice or a favorite source on women’s clothing that doesn’t look dumpy, is modest and feminine but still functional for outdoor labor?

First of all, let me say that if you are wearing women’s pants, you are not clothing yourself in men’s attire. No matter what some website may tell you.

In your devotion to Mary, it sounds like you’ve gotten caught up in “sola skirtura”- which tends to appear quite frequently on those “Mary-like modesty” sites. While the actual thread here on CAF was removed, due to some extreme radical traditionalists stirring up trouble, I did manage to save this bit of wisdom from CAF’s own Brother JR (if you’re not familiar with him, he’s a treasure of spiritual wisdom and is usually found posting in the Traditional Catholicism section). Brother JR penned these wise words of counsel for women who wished to be more “Mary-like” in many aspects, but #2 seems to fit your concern best:

"As someone who does a lot of pastoral care, I would make several suggestions.

1. If you wish to wear a veil or hat or other head covering at either form of the mass, that is your right. Ignore what other people wear or what they think. Most of the time, people won’t even comment on it. Those who do are busy bodies. Unless they’re paying you a compliment. In that case, they’re being kind.
2. It is true that Our Lady is the model of virtues and the role model for all Christians. However, taking her out of her historical context has created a lot of anxiety for many people. Let’s put her back into her historical context and leave her there. It’s impossible for us to know if Our Lady would wear slacks or not, were she in another culture or another time. Let’s say that she had been from the far East. She probably would have worn pants, because it was the common way of dress for peasant women. Miriam of Nazareth was part of the lower economic class. Had she been from China or Viet Nam or Korea, she would have dressed like the poor people of those nations. Had she been a poor working girl from Europe or the Americas, that’s how she would have dressed. A wonderful example of this is Our Lady’s appearance in Mexico. She did not look like a Jewish woman or a European woman. She looked like a Aztec, even wearing the typical black band that pregnant Aztec women wore. We want to imitate her virtues, but not take her out of her historical context. To say that Catholic women in America should not wear slacks, because Our Lady did not wear slacks does not work. She was not a 20th century American woman. Had she been, she probably would have been a factory worker or a migrant worker or a farmer’s wife. Who knows? Then we would have to get all tangled up in what do migrant workers wear in the field? What do women working in factories wear? What do rural poor women wear? Can you see how this gets very complicated?
3. The best way to imitate Our Lady is a theological approach. What does she stand for? What are her virtues? What is her relationship to her son and to his Church. Then we try to improve our life of virtue, work on our relationship to Jesus and our relationship with the Church.

Keep this in mind. When you attend mass, the focus is Christ. Train yourself to focus on him alone. Let the world around you cease to exist during that time in which you’re praying the mass. It takes practice, but it works.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF"

I loved his words of wisdom so much I forwarded his post to a friend since I couldn’t get it to link from the CAF thread after it was posted a few months ago. As I stated earlier, sadly enough the post was gone when the thread was removed due to uncharitable posts by others.

 

[Ophelia23]

I’ve never heard that wearing jeans is immodest. Really? Why?

 

[kozlosap]

I****n your devotion to Mary, it sounds like you’ve gotten caught up in “sola skirtura”-
:clapping:
Light bound - you have made my day!!! I totally understand both men and women wanting to consecrate themselves to the Blessed Mother, but failing to put historical context into the equation makes no sense. If the BVM was working as a landscaper today, in 2012, she would dress appropriately for today’s modesty norms, not those of 2000 years ago.

 

[louisak]

I’ve never heard that wearing jeans is immodest. Really? Why?

Because they are form-fitting by nature, in other words they make the shape of the legs visible. This is especially true when the jeans are tight-fitting; which I think it goes without saying, we should all avoid. Even when jeans are loose-fitting on the wearer, they still reveal the underlying physical form, in a way which other styles of clothing (dresses, skirts, robes etc.) do not.

As far as women’s modesty is concerned, special consideration has to be given to the legs, for the simple reason that this part of the female figure gives the most attraction/stimulation to men (I am a man, so I know whereof I speak)! This is why both shorts and tight-fitting pants are so strongly frowned on.

I am not saying that women shouldn’t wear jeans, I’m just trying to explain why many Christians consider them inherently immodest. Personally I think it is possible for a woman to dress modestly in jeans, but she needs to be careful that they are not too tight.

 

[mommyof4]

First of all, let me say that if you are wearing women’s pants, you are not clothing yourself in men’s attire. No matter what some website may tell you.

In your devotion to Mary, it sounds like you’ve gotten caught up in “sola skirtura”- which tends to appear quite frequently on those “Mary-like modesty” sites. While the actual thread here on CAF was removed, due to some extreme radical traditionalists stirring up trouble, I did manage to save this bit of wisdom from CAF’s own Brother JR (if you’re not familiar with him, he’s a treasure of spiritual wisdom and is usually found posting in the Traditional Catholicism section). Brother JR penned these wise words of counsel for women who wished to be more “Mary-like” in many aspects, but #2 seems to fit your concern best:

          "As someone who does a lot of pastoral care, I would make several suggestions.

1. If you wish to wear a veil or hat or other head covering at either form of the mass, that is your right. Ignore what other people wear or what they think. Most of the time, people won’t even comment on it. Those who do are busy bodies. Unless they’re paying you a compliment. In that case, they’re being kind.
2. It is true that Our Lady is the model of virtues and the role model for all Christians. However, taking her out of her historical context has created a lot of anxiety for many people. Let’s put her back into her historical context and leave her there. It’s impossible for us to know if Our Lady would wear slacks or not, were she in another culture or another time. Let’s say that she had been from the far East. She probably would have worn pants, because it was the common way of dress for peasant women. Miriam of Nazareth was part of the lower economic class. Had she been from China or Viet Nam or Korea, she would have dressed like the poor people of those nations. Had she been a poor working girl from Europe or the Americas, that’s how she would have dressed. A wonderful example of this is Our Lady’s appearance in Mexico. She did not look like a Jewish woman or a European woman. She looked like a Aztec, even wearing the typical black band that pregnant Aztec women wore. We want to imitate her virtues, but not take her out of her historical context. To say that Catholic women in America should not wear slacks, because Our Lady did not wear slacks does not work. She was not a 20th century American woman. Had she been, she probably would have been a factory worker or a migrant worker or a farmer’s wife. Who knows? Then we would have to get all tangled up in what do migrant workers wear in the field? What do women working in factories wear? What do rural poor women wear? Can you see how this gets very complicated?
3. The best way to imitate Our Lady is a theological approach. What does she stand for? What are her virtues? What is her relationship to her son and to his Church. Then we try to improve our life of virtue, work on our relationship to Jesus and our relationship with the Church.

Keep this in mind. When you attend mass, the focus is Christ. Train yourself to focus on him alone. Let the world around you cease to exist during that time in which you’re praying the mass. It takes practice, but it works.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF"

I loved his words of wisdom so much I forwarded his post to a friend since I couldn’t get it to link from the CAF thread after it was posted a few months ago. As I stated earlier, sadly enough the post was gone when the thread was removed due to uncharitable posts by others.

Wonderful post, I love it.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I’ve never heard that wearing jeans is immodest. Really? Why?

I’m not taking a position on this, but the thinking is any kind of tight pants can be rather revealing.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Because they are form-fitting by nature, in other words they make the shape of the legs visible. This is especially true when the jeans are tight-fitting; which I think it goes without saying, we should all avoid. Even when jeans are loose-fitting on the wearer, they still reveal the underlying physical form, in a way which other styles of clothing (dresses, skirts, robes etc.) do not.

As far as women’s modesty is concerned, special consideration has to be given to the legs, for the simple reason that this part of the female figure gives the most attraction/stimulation to men (I am a man, so I know whereof I speak)! This is why both shorts and tight-fitting pants are so strongly frowned on.

The legs, and the other parts of the body pants cover up. Not that an individual skirt or dress may not be much more revealing than an individual pair of pants, even jeans.

Responding to the OP, in previous centuries women worked on farms a lot, wearing some kinds of skirts or dresses. It might be worth it to look up what clothing of female workers prior to the 20th century wore and see of any modern clothing is as functional.

 

[kozlosap]

Because they are form-fitting by nature, in other words they make the shape of the legs visible. This is especially true when the jeans are tight-fitting; which I think it goes without saying, we should all avoid. Even when jeans are loose-fitting on the wearer, they still reveal the underlying physical form, in a way which other styles of clothing (dresses, skirts, robes etc.) do not.

As far as women’s modesty is concerned, special consideration has to be given to the legs, for the simple reason that this part of the female figure gives the most attraction/stimulation to men (I am a man, so I know whereof I speak)! This is why both shorts and tight-fitting pants are so strongly frowned on.

It must be so hard to live in 2012 with these views. I will pray for you to find peace and to realize that not every woman who shows her legs or “form” is trying to entice and seduce poor gullible men.

 

[louisak]

It must be so hard to live in 2012 with these views. I will pray for you to find peace and to realize that not every woman who shows her legs or “form” is trying to entice and seduce poor gullible men.

Human nature doesn’t change over time. What difference does it make whether it is 2012, 1950, or some earlier time? Male and female nature are what they always have been.

And where in my post did I say that women who dress in a certain way are trying to entice or seduce men? I said nothing about motivation at all. I only made an observation about how men are affected by women’s appearance. Since I am a man and you are not (I looked at your profile), I have to ask you to accept that I know about this from my own experience, as well as numerous conversations with male friends.

And why on Earth do you say that you will pray for me to find peace? You are implying that I don’t have peace. How do you know that? You have never met me.

 

[Aidan12]

There has been some sensible advice here. I would only add that you can ensure a modest silhouette when you wear jeans if you maybe wear a blouse with extra-long shirttails that cover your torso, or a tunic. You can always belt it so that it doesn’t get in your way as you work. There is no reason you cannot look fashionable and yet still remain modest.

Personally, I think it is important for a Christian woman to look nice, neither immodest nor dowdy. If the temple was made beautiful for the ark, and the tabernacle for the Blessed Sacrament, so should our bodies, each a temple of the Holy Spirit.

 

[louisak]

The legs, and the other parts of the body pants cover up. Not that an individual skirt or dress may not be much more revealing than an individual pair of pants, even jeans.

“Covering up” is not the only important thing. A woman wearing tight-fitting jeans will “turn on” men almost as much as a woman who has nothing on her legs at all. Not quite, but almost.

edit] Since at least one person on this thread seems to have come to the conclusion that I must be a prude, let me emphasize that I said **tight-fitting **jeans. I am not making a blanket condemnation of jeans or pants.

But I agree that skirt and dresses can also be immodest. It depends on how long they are and how tightly they fit, and so on.

 

[Ophelia23]

It must be so hard to live in 2012 with these views. I will pray for you to find peace and to realize that not every woman who shows her legs or “form” is trying to entice and seduce poor gullible men.

Let’s be fair here. I don’t think that he was even insinuating that women show their legs to try to entice and seduce men. …He also states that he isn’t taking a stance on whether women should wear jeans or not. He was just answering my question.

Personally I don’t believe that jeans are immodest. I absolutely do agree that any pants or skirt or anything that is too tight is, indubitably, immodest.

Sweet. I worked ‘Indubitably’ into a post. Big pat on the back to me.

 

[Seira]

It must be so hard to live in 2012 with these views. I will pray for you to find peace and to realize that not every woman who shows her legs or “form” is trying to entice and seduce poor gullible men.

+1

Especially if they’re wearing loose jeans to work in the field. Then again I got whistled at once while wearing loose fitting overalls & a long sleeved shirt underneath. These men need to get a life if they’re turned on by a pair of Dickies.

 

[daeve]

Wearing a dress or skirt to do physical work makes me feel uncomfortable and exposed, but how about the denim skirt and tights or leggings under it? You could also wear a split skirt or culottes. I would think that if you’re doing landscaping, you’d need to protect your legs from poison ivy and twigs and tics. As a Cub Master, I always covered my legs when we were in the woods for those reasons. And too much sun could be a problem too.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

“Covering up” is not the only important thing. A woman wearing tight-fitting jeans will “turn on” men almost as much as a woman who has nothing on her legs at all. Not quite, but almost.

edit] Since at least one person on this thread seems to have come to the conclusion that I must be a prude, let me emphasize that I said **tight-fitting **jeans. I am not making a blanket condemnation of jeans or pants.

But I agree that skirt and dresses can also be immodest. It depends on how long they are and how tightly they fit, and so on.

Yes, it’s the total effect of the garments: how much they cover, how tight they are, etc. It’s also possible for a long and fairly loose skirt to fit in such a way that it’s quite revealing/tempting. I’d rather not get too detailed.

I think it’s worth setting the issue in an even wider context though.

Avoiding tempting others to lust is one legitimate aim of modesty, one which by the way cannot be ignored just because it’s not one’s goal to tempt or because something has become socially acceptable. The primary purpose of modesty though, of which avoiding tempting others is just one application, is preserving the dignity of the human person. This is why the burqa, for example, also violates a Christian sense of modesty. Too much clothing dehumanizes a person just as much too little, after the fall of humanity, does.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

First of all, let me say that if you are wearing women’s pants, you are not clothing yourself in men’s attire. No matter what some website may tell you.

In your devotion to Mary, it sounds like you’ve gotten caught up in “sola skirtura”- which tends to appear quite frequently on those “Mary-like modesty” sites. While the actual thread here on CAF was removed, due to some extreme radical traditionalists stirring up trouble, I did manage to save this bit of wisdom from CAF’s own Brother JR (if you’re not familiar with him, he’s a treasure of spiritual wisdom and is usually found posting in the Traditional Catholicism section). Brother JR penned these wise words of counsel for women who wished to be more “Mary-like” in many aspects, but #2 seems to fit your concern best:

          "As someone who does a lot of pastoral care, I would make several suggestions.

1. If you wish to wear a veil or hat or other head covering at either form of the mass, that is your right. Ignore what other people wear or what they think. Most of the time, people won’t even comment on it. Those who do are busy bodies. Unless they’re paying you a compliment. In that case, they’re being kind.
2. It is true that Our Lady is the model of virtues and the role model for all Christians. However, taking her out of her historical context has created a lot of anxiety for many people. Let’s put her back into her historical context and leave her there. It’s impossible for us to know if Our Lady would wear slacks or not, were she in another culture or another time. Let’s say that she had been from the far East. She probably would have worn pants, because it was the common way of dress for peasant women. Miriam of Nazareth was part of the lower economic class. Had she been from China or Viet Nam or Korea, she would have dressed like the poor people of those nations. Had she been a poor working girl from Europe or the Americas, that’s how she would have dressed. A wonderful example of this is Our Lady’s appearance in Mexico. She did not look like a Jewish woman or a European woman. She looked like a Aztec, even wearing the typical black band that pregnant Aztec women wore. We want to imitate her virtues, but not take her out of her historical context. To say that Catholic women in America should not wear slacks, because Our Lady did not wear slacks does not work. She was not a 20th century American woman. Had she been, she probably would have been a factory worker or a migrant worker or a farmer’s wife. Who knows? Then we would have to get all tangled up in what do migrant workers wear in the field? What do women working in factories wear? What do rural poor women wear? Can you see how this gets very complicated?
3. The best way to imitate Our Lady is a theological approach. What does she stand for? What are her virtues? What is her relationship to her son and to his Church. Then we try to improve our life of virtue, work on our relationship to Jesus and our relationship with the Church.

Keep this in mind. When you attend mass, the focus is Christ. Train yourself to focus on him alone. Let the world around you cease to exist during that time in which you’re praying the mass. It takes practice, but it works.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF"

I loved his words of wisdom so much I forwarded his post to a friend since I couldn’t get it to link from the CAF thread after it was posted a few months ago. As I stated earlier, sadly enough the post was gone when the thread was removed due to uncharitable posts by others.

For a minute there, I thought Brother JR had changed his user name…