S
Sword_Brethren
Guest
not even a holy priest? Why do women have such are hard time dressing modestly? Is it the influence of the modern world?
- Status
B
BlyssfulDreamer
Guest
My Mother was a “Rosie the Riveter” in the 40s during World War 2 helping put together planes for our military at a bomber plant… She and the other women wore pants. Now…she was helping the war effort and there was no problem with the ladies wearing pants with the work they were doing…and they were never…to my knowledge thought of as men and there was never a big deal out of the fact that they were wearing pants. Maybe Shin and others who feel that women should be relegated to dresses might think of these ladies. I would like to see ladies trying to do that work in dresses.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Whew, I wear ladies’ pants, not men’s.
B
BlyssfulDreamer
Guest
I have no problem dressing modestly.
In fact here is the definition of MODESTY…
**modesty definition
mod·esty (mäd′is tē)
noun
the quality or state of being modest; specif.,
unassuming or humble behavior
lack of excesses or pretensions; moderation
decency; decorum**
Now…please tell me where wearing pants* in any way at all*…goes against the definition of modesty. It appears to me you might have more of a problem with women in general than women who are modest in their dress by wearing pants.
B
BlyssfulDreamer
Guest
I love this post.
It shows just how utterly ridiculous this whole discussion about pants versus dresses is. We must realize that we can have behavior becoming of a saint and be in pants and we can have one foot in hell while wearing dresses. Folks! It is not whether you wear dresses or pants…it how we worship our Lord and how we treat our fellow man.
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
I just posted an article “35 Amazing Coincidences” over in Water Cooler under Back Fence. Then a friend of mine sent me the following in e-mail, another coincidence since I’ve been participating on this thread, though I’m not sure I believe in coincidence. I often wonder if they are just God’s way of getting our attention or letting us know that He is Lord of all.
"Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 9:37 AM
Subject: Christian women flogged for wearing pants in the Sudan
FAITH UNDER FIRE
Christian women flogged for wearing pants
Ministry cites ‘outrageous’ attack by Islamics
Posted: July 15, 2009
8:15 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
An international Christian ministry is condemning Sudanese Islamic officials for arresting, fining and flogging several Christian women for wearing pants.
“Flogging women for wearing pants is both outrageous and against the dignity of the women,” said Jonathan Racho, regional manager for Africa and the Middle East for International Christian Concern, in a statement today.
The Sudan Tribune reported that among the victims was Lubna Hussein, a journalist and public information officer at the U.N. Mission in Sudan.
Hussein said she was one of nine taken by the Islamic nation’s Public Order Police on Sunday from a ballroom near the capital, Khartoum.
The women were in violation of the law, they were told, for wearing trousers.
The report said the nation’s Criminal Penal Code allows up to 40 lashes or a fine, or both, for anyone wearing “indecent” clothing.
Some of the women arrested were non-Muslims under 18, who were given 10 lashes and a fine.
The report said several women demanded their lawyers, and their cases were delayed.
According to the ICC, a total of 10 were arrested; including three Christian girls under 18 years old.
The ICC said by subjecting the girls to inhumane and degrading treatment, the Sudanese officials violated international human right standards as well as the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed in 2005 by the Islamic government of Sudan and the mainly Christian and animist southern Sudanese.
The ICC said the agreement documented that Islamic laws are “not applicable to non-Muslims.”
David Choat, the congregational affairs officer of the mission of the government of South Sudan to the U.S., told ICC, “The flogging is an imposition of Islamic values on Christians and it’s also a violation of religious freedom. This is telling us (the Sudanese people) that there are certain religions that are more important than the rest.”
According to the Sudan Tribune, the French government also is protesting the actions.
“France strongly condemns whipping of 10 Sudanese women announced yesterday. We are particularly concerned by information that many others could be sentenced to similar sentences,” Eric Chevallier of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs told the news agency.
“France, which is fighting for the abolition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and violence against women, calls on the Sudanese authorities to stop the proceedings against these people,” he added.
On the newspaper’s forum page, a contributor wrote: “This act of humiliating of the innocents sends shock waves of anger through out the civilized world. These … imams must be reminded that their actions are not acceptable and the world will not tolerate these kind of barbaric laws.”
Said another, “Islam and Sudan are innocent of everything … and trust me your days are numbered, mark my words!”
"Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 9:37 AM
Subject: Christian women flogged for wearing pants in the Sudan
FAITH UNDER FIRE
Christian women flogged for wearing pants
Ministry cites ‘outrageous’ attack by Islamics
Posted: July 15, 2009
8:15 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
An international Christian ministry is condemning Sudanese Islamic officials for arresting, fining and flogging several Christian women for wearing pants.
“Flogging women for wearing pants is both outrageous and against the dignity of the women,” said Jonathan Racho, regional manager for Africa and the Middle East for International Christian Concern, in a statement today.
The Sudan Tribune reported that among the victims was Lubna Hussein, a journalist and public information officer at the U.N. Mission in Sudan.
Hussein said she was one of nine taken by the Islamic nation’s Public Order Police on Sunday from a ballroom near the capital, Khartoum.
The women were in violation of the law, they were told, for wearing trousers.
The report said the nation’s Criminal Penal Code allows up to 40 lashes or a fine, or both, for anyone wearing “indecent” clothing.
Some of the women arrested were non-Muslims under 18, who were given 10 lashes and a fine.
The report said several women demanded their lawyers, and their cases were delayed.
According to the ICC, a total of 10 were arrested; including three Christian girls under 18 years old.
The ICC said by subjecting the girls to inhumane and degrading treatment, the Sudanese officials violated international human right standards as well as the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed in 2005 by the Islamic government of Sudan and the mainly Christian and animist southern Sudanese.
The ICC said the agreement documented that Islamic laws are “not applicable to non-Muslims.”
David Choat, the congregational affairs officer of the mission of the government of South Sudan to the U.S., told ICC, “The flogging is an imposition of Islamic values on Christians and it’s also a violation of religious freedom. This is telling us (the Sudanese people) that there are certain religions that are more important than the rest.”
According to the Sudan Tribune, the French government also is protesting the actions.
“France strongly condemns whipping of 10 Sudanese women announced yesterday. We are particularly concerned by information that many others could be sentenced to similar sentences,” Eric Chevallier of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs told the news agency.
“France, which is fighting for the abolition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and violence against women, calls on the Sudanese authorities to stop the proceedings against these people,” he added.
On the newspaper’s forum page, a contributor wrote: “This act of humiliating of the innocents sends shock waves of anger through out the civilized world. These … imams must be reminded that their actions are not acceptable and the world will not tolerate these kind of barbaric laws.”
Said another, “Islam and Sudan are innocent of everything … and trust me your days are numbered, mark my words!”
S
Sword_Brethren
Guest
I see many women wearing pants and many times the pants make thier bottoms look sexy and that is not good.
S
Shin
Guest
Actually that was one of the most harmful things World War II did to our culture, that massive influx of women into the workforce was one of the largest destructions of the traditional family possible because once all the women worked like that, it became far less economically feasible for them to return to the home and not work.
I am not saying in emergencies certain things aren’t necessary – but it is a good illustration also how emergencies making necessities does not necessarily remove all the harm of those necessities that should cause them to be avoided – whether it’s the work, or the bad clothing.
The Fatima prophecies come to mind immediately, the destructive influence of the World Wars was not limited to deaths in the wars, but very very much also a matter of culture and society. The massive amounts of men who died in those wars, also caused the cultural change. There were far fewer men for women to marry of that generation, for many it was simply there was no one, ever they would find to marry – and so again, a massive influx of women required to work, who had no choice but to enter the working world in every sense, and so from a society where working was an option for women but not required for every family, and the men were the breadwinners and understood to have this a chief responsibility… everything became flipped, upside down.
I know plenty of women who would prefer not to have to work if they did not want to, and to be able to stay at home more easily with their children. If women were not now expected by the world to do so, they could, and finances and wages would be adjusted to reflect for it. The main breadwinner of a family should be paid more than a person who doesn’t have to support one, and could be in a properly ordered society.
Well, my little diversion… as I said, I’ve said pretty all I have to say on the main topic. I think it all stands up well what I’ve said and others on the subject, doesn’t need any more I haven’t seen anything compelling said since. Mostly it’s ‘You MEN are telling WOMEN what to do, how dare you!’ or, ‘It’s INCONVENIENT I will wear what I want!’ or ‘It’s all cultural! there’re no absolute standards!’ All of which I think have been addressed and people can think through if they try to think of the minority opinion properly too.
EDIT
And oh, yes, the Muslims are enforcing their standards with floggings so the standards are evil, that too. Or in fact, you wouldn’t have it happen to you in some past Catholic times, quite legitimately even. These are all… dare I say, emotional arguments that are not honest.
I am not saying in emergencies certain things aren’t necessary – but it is a good illustration also how emergencies making necessities does not necessarily remove all the harm of those necessities that should cause them to be avoided – whether it’s the work, or the bad clothing.
The Fatima prophecies come to mind immediately, the destructive influence of the World Wars was not limited to deaths in the wars, but very very much also a matter of culture and society. The massive amounts of men who died in those wars, also caused the cultural change. There were far fewer men for women to marry of that generation, for many it was simply there was no one, ever they would find to marry – and so again, a massive influx of women required to work, who had no choice but to enter the working world in every sense, and so from a society where working was an option for women but not required for every family, and the men were the breadwinners and understood to have this a chief responsibility… everything became flipped, upside down.
I know plenty of women who would prefer not to have to work if they did not want to, and to be able to stay at home more easily with their children. If women were not now expected by the world to do so, they could, and finances and wages would be adjusted to reflect for it. The main breadwinner of a family should be paid more than a person who doesn’t have to support one, and could be in a properly ordered society.
Well, my little diversion… as I said, I’ve said pretty all I have to say on the main topic. I think it all stands up well what I’ve said and others on the subject, doesn’t need any more I haven’t seen anything compelling said since. Mostly it’s ‘You MEN are telling WOMEN what to do, how dare you!’ or, ‘It’s INCONVENIENT I will wear what I want!’ or ‘It’s all cultural! there’re no absolute standards!’ All of which I think have been addressed and people can think through if they try to think of the minority opinion properly too.
EDIT
And oh, yes, the Muslims are enforcing their standards with floggings so the standards are evil, that too. Or in fact, you wouldn’t have it happen to you in some past Catholic times, quite legitimately even. These are all… dare I say, emotional arguments that are not honest.
B
BlyssfulDreamer
Guest
Maybe you should not lust in your heart and direct your intentions elsewhere. Personal reponsibility, you know.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
The headcovering was a sign of respect and a social norm at the time. Women and men wore hats or scarves and they were a normal part of the wardrobe. Today, few men wear hats with their suits, and few women consider a hat as a part of her wardrode. I wear scarves, but not on my head. To put a kleenex or a hankie, something you blow your nose into, makes a mockery of the custom. It’s like substituting grape juice for wine at the Consecration.
Having said that, I recently acquired a Pashmina Shawl, like B. Bhutto (RIP). She looked so lovely in it. I have been wearing it around my head and upper torso when it’s cold out. Only problem is it sheds like crazy.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Only because it would be unusual to see it, and because in our culture, the fashion statement being made would likely not be a very positive one. As you can see from my name, I am Scottish, so I see men in kilts quite often - and they look very masculine, to me. To people not used to seeing them, they look like women’s skirts. So, it’s simply a matter of what one is used to seeing, when it comes to clothing.
Only with regard to modesty - and it is certainly possible to wear immodest dresses, as well as immodest pants.
B
BlyssfulDreamer
Guest
Actually that was one of the most harmful things World War II did to our culture, that massive influx of women into the workforce was one of the largest destructions of the traditional family possible because once all the women worked like that, it became far less economically feasible for them to return to the home and not work.
I am not saying in emergencies certain things aren’t necessary – but it is a good illustration also how emergencies making necessities does not necessarily remove all the harm of those necessities that should cause them to be avoided – whether it’s the work, or the bad clothing.
QUOTE]
Well…maybe you forgot your history. During WW2 most of the men of working age WERE IN THE MILTARY FIGHTING OVERSEAS!!! That is why the women went to work…because they needed someone to help make the planes for our military!! My mother was also single at that time…and how does one support themselves if not by working? Hmmm?
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
Pants many times make mens bottoms look attractive as well. That is not good either, so I guess it must be tunics for all.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Are you suggesting that we should not have engaged in either of these wars because of the consequences on our culture?
I didn’t work when my kids were little. I washed their diapers and hung them in the sun, while others used paper diapers. I breastfed them and made their food. They never got an ounce of “formula” nore jarred baby foods. I did it wearing (gasp) shorts, pants, skirts. I babysat kids and grew vegetables. It was a sacrifice, but well worth it.
You are cherry picking here. EVERY one here agrees that one should dress modestly. No one here thinks there are no moral absolutes. Everyone here says they are faithful mass-goers. The OP even goes to FSSP masses. How much more traditional can you get?
J
jmcrae
Guest
He isn’t making any sort of a theological argument. He is misapplying theology to the realm of fashion.
Why should someone follow a dictate that isn’t even practical?
The days are long gone (if they ever existed) when a woman can afford to merely be a decorative ornament in the home. The Book of Genesis tells us that we were created to be help-mates for our husbands - to assist them in their work. Appropriate clothing for the task is required, in order to fulfill this Divinely mandated mission - which means, when climbing ladders to retrieve objects lost on the roof, running after children, and getting down on one’s knees to scrub the floors, pants are perfectly acceptable.
Y
YADA
Guest
Really? … Not sure that I by your “take” … Priests wear cassocks and albs, etc [and the bishop wears a mitre, etc] becuase that is what they wore in the past … it is clohing that represents the clothing worn in a past era …Actually one of the reasons priests wear garb like that is because of their special dignity. It is recognized as an unusual wear, not fitting for the average man, and tending towards what is more fitting for the female, towards that type of garment.
So, it is not a contradiction, but a part of the entire understanding of what is worn by who.
Much like many presisdents have worn “tails and top hats” during innagurations long after they were the “common” dress …
The church [and the church’s fashions] changes far more slowly then the cultural fashions of the times…
The dress of Jesus’ day was vastly different then the dress of Victorian England or modern day America …
There was immodest dress in Jesus’ day and there is immodest dress today …
The common dress for men and women in the days of Jesus was equally as similar in apearance as a man in a suit [slacks and jacket] and a woman in pantsuit [slack with a jacket] …
In Victorian England men wore high collars, long sleeves and “ruffles” lots of ruffles -
In ‘fashion’ it is important to be prudent in selecting cothes appropriate for the activity.
For example formal business meeting or digging a ditch… and activities like hiking, biking, swimming, hunting, gardening, sleeping … all of these activities could have special ‘attire’ requirements.
We tend to judge fashion by the norms of our own particular society and times … what is the traditional garb of native peoples on the continent of Africa, Australia and Southeast Asia? …
Pants - as we have them today are really a fairly recent trend in fashions [when viewed through the history of mankind] for both men and women …
S
Sword_Brethren
Guest
Why such a mean statement. Are we not Catholic brothers and sisters?Maybe you should not lust in your heart and direct your intentions elsewhere. Personal reponsibility, you know.
I don’t lust in my heart. That is a mortal sin. I was writting about temptation. Personal reponsibility, yes then one should not wear clothes that show off the body. “Love thy neighbor” our Lord taught. Why would want to tempt, another into mortal sin? In the name of vanity or pride,is that why?
S
Sword_Brethren
Guest
good point
S
Sword_Brethren
Guest
Forget how the world defines modesty. What matters is how the HOly Catholic Church defines modesty.
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
Has the Holy Catholic Church defined modesty?
- Status