Pants! ...and my pride

[Aramis]

OK, what’s with the hakama? Is that something that both men and women would wear???

Literally, “Divided Skirt”… flowing japanese trousers worn by men over the kimono, and by some lower class women as well. They fall to mid calf, typically, but may fall to the ankle.

They are the trousers one sees kensai (japanese sword-art practitioners) of either gender wearing.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

It could have been just as easily for women to have started wearing them first. Then you would be arguing that they are a woman’s article of clothing and that men should not wear them and should stick to the traditional dress of men which is a robe (dress), as modeled by Jesus himself.

Right. But if I were Japanese, I would distinguish between various types of kimono for traditional dress et cetera; as we have been saying dress is relative to the culture, and as I said, the controversy on women wearing pants should mostly be over by 2070 (I estimate).

So there is nothing IMMODEST about pants per se–they just symbolize **for you **a woman’s rebellion to her place in society.

I don’t think anyone evr said pants were immodest; the question has always been whether or not women wearing them is disordered - a sin quite different from immodesty and indecency. And the reasons that you list are why many people argue that they are disordered.

Is it possible that pants have different symbolisms to different people(s)–and for some people have no specific symbolism at all?

Yes.

Come to think of it, I’ve had men open doors for me, and give me a seat on the bus when I was wearing pants, too.

And men should always do thinks for women, pretty, ugly, young, old, in rain, in sun, in skirts, in pants, the one we know is chaste, the one we know is having an affair. In my opinion, it is a man’s obligation to do things like that for any woman.

Why can’t the MAN fix lunch? Who made him helpless in the kitchen??

Men are not helpless in the kitchen. A favorite secular author of mine one said something along the lines of “in the past men could not enter the kitchen; today a man cannot survive if he doesn’t know how to cook.” But that’s aside from the point; in this particular example the women are painting because the men are at work. So, that’s why the men can’t fix luch, because they’re at work.

Sometimes if the woman did not do it, it would not get done.

And in that case, which should be the exception, not the rule, it would be a bad thing if she didn’t do it herself.

oh my…how about those of us who LIKE dealing with machinery?? I actually LIKE to mow the lawn. Unfortunately, I do not get to do it much anymore, because our kids like the money they earn by doing it. As for driving, I LIKE to drive. As a kid on the farm, I always drove the tractors and farm machinery for my dad.

I’m sorry but I guess we’ll just have to disagree here; I don’t think that operating machinery is a feminine pursuit. That is not to say that I believe a woman shouldn’t operate such machinery; I am glad you would help your father on your farm the same way I’m glad that when my Great-Grandma was about 10 years she quit school to start working and help her father. And as for driving, if there’s no male to help of course she should do it.
I just happen to believe that if there is physical labor of any sort to be done if there is an available, able, man, he should do the job. Note ‘able’; in otherwords (in my opinion), if there is an elderly man in a wheelchair, a young woman, and no one else, the young woman should be helping the old man. I believe that age and ability are just as important as gender when figuring out who should do what.
On a similar note, have you ever seen the movie Porco Rosso, the scene with the airplane mechanic whose son’s moved away and is left with all the women relatives to help his buisness? FYI, I do not object to that.

If a woman is painting all day, I would fully expect the MAN to prepare the meals! If that meant he had to go to the grocery store, then so be it!

In this example, the men were out. And I do believe it is a good thing for a man to get in the kitchen every once in a while to give his wife a break, especially if his wife has some particular aversion to the kitchen. But my point was if the men were at work and the women were painting, who would make lunch? Man and women need each other complimentarily.

As far as laundry, what makes a male allergic to a washing machine? My DH is like this. He has NO IDEA how to do a load of laundry.He does not know how to put his clothes away either.

It is something that everyone should know.

During the school year, I have 2 jobs. Sunday is laundry day. What that means is that by midnight, the clothes is usually washed and dried, but not necessarily all folded or hung up. DH used to look at his basket of clothes WHILE I WAS WORKING THE NEXT DAY and ask me when I was going to get his clothes folded and put away. (he no longer does this…he now knows how to put his own clothes away…or what more likely happens is that he will pull his laundry from the basket of clean clothes).

Okay. Sure. I’m happy for you.

And in the case of families where the woman wants the things done or where the woman is far better at doing those things! When I need a room painted, I do it. No offense, but he is a very messy painter. I can do it better by myself.

But as I’ve been saying those should be the exceptions, not the rule. There are plenty of exceptions, but what sense does it make to redefine everything rather than simply rearrange and provide clarity for exceptions?

Pax.

 

[Lainey63]

I don’t think anyone evr said pants were immodest; the question has always been whether or not women wearing them is disordered - a sin quite different from immodesty and indecency. And the reasons that you list are why many people argue that they are disordered.
:ehh: There’s nothing disordered about a female wearing pants.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Washers and dryers are machines. A dishwasher is a machine. A sewing machine is a machine. An automobile is a machine. So it appears to me that those men who object to women using machines, perhaps should be doing the laundry, the sewing, the vacuuming (a vacuum cleaner is a machine), and the grocery shopping, running the kids to school, etc., as the automobile is a machine, and we can’t have women driving one.

Had my mother not worked in a shop and operated a machine in the early 60"s, we would have been homeless and starving, as she was a widow with 2 teenagers to raise, and that was the only job she could get that paid enough to support a family, even though she made less than her male co-workers solely because she was a woman. And she wore pants. And no one EVER mistook her for a man! And she is now, and always has been, a modest woman.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

Washers and dryers are machines. A dishwasher is a machine. A sewing machine is a machine. An automobile is a machine. So it appears to me that those men who object to women using machines, perhaps should be doing the laundry, the sewing, the vacuuming (a vacuum cleaner is a machine), and the grocery shopping, running the kids to school, etc., as the automobile is a machine, and we can’t have women driving one.

There is a difference between heavy machinery (i.e. in factories) and household appliances. And you should read the full context of what I said on the availability and ability of men. And there are such things as sinks, needles and thread, dusters, and iceboxes long before you know.
In my opinion, if the old way of thinking was sexist, it was sexist against men - who actually used to treat women with respect… It is more work to treat women with respect that not. And I think all men should be like that. So I really wish some people would stop calling me a sexist just because I adhere to common courtesy ; and I do have common sense by the way - did you read my comments about the availability and ability of men?

Had my mother not worked in a shop and operated a machine in the early 60"s, we would have been homeless and starving, as she was a widow with 2 teenagers to raise, and that was the only job she could get that paid enough to support a family, even though she made less than her male co-workers solely because she was a woman. And she wore pants. And no one EVER mistook her for a man! And she is now, and always has been, a modest woman.

And did you even read half of what my post was about before commenting? I’m sorry; I can take serious complaints, but only if you care to read the entirety of what I’ve written and not select one bit out of context to attack. I’ll quote myself in the part of my previous post that would have answered your question:

JSSebastianoP:

That is not to say that I believe a woman shouldn’t operate such machinery; I am glad you would help your father on your farm the same way I’m glad that when my Great-Grandma was about 10 years she quit school to start working and help her father. And as for driving, if there’s no male to help of course she should do it.
I just happen to believe that if there is physical labor of any sort to be done if there is an available, able, man, he should do the job. Note ‘able’; in otherwords (in my opinion), if there is an elderly man in a wheelchair, a young woman, and no one else, the young woman should be helping the old man. I believe that age and ability are just as important as gender when figuring out who should do what.
On a similar note, have you ever seen the movie Porco Rosso, the scene with the airplane mechanic whose son’s moved away and is left with all the women relatives to help his buisness? FYI, I do not object to that.

Pax.

 

[LilyM]

There is a difference between heavy machinery (i.e. in factories) and household appliances. And you should read the full context of what I said on the availability and ability of men. And there are such things as sinks, needles and thread, dusters, and iceboxes long before you know.

But WHAT is the difference? WHY are some gizmos supposedly ‘male’ and some ‘female’ - or some tasks for that matter? Is it because some require more physical strength? What is it about being a bank manager or storekeeper that requires more physical strength than washing clothes by hand or beating carpets?

Do some require more intelligence? Tell me what a psychologist does that is different from a mother preventing a tantrum from a two-year-old? Or a lawyer or politician from a mother negotiating an argument between two or more of her children?

WHAT is the difference that makes some masculine and some not? I really don’t see it in 99% of allegedly masculine or feminine pursuits.

What about sports? Would you say that sports are unfeminine? If so which ones and why?

 

[cdanison]

I’m quoting this to show that I acknowledge all this. I accept your (name removed by moderator)ut and, logically, I want to hold to this so much.

I also am dismayed to read that you have been in these thread types before, that go round and round, and nothing changes. I would like a straight answer to the question I asked from those who have been hinting at skirts only.

This thread has taught me that I’m not good enough for some people, I just want to know if I continue to wear pants, am I culpable of sin, as per the question I asked earlier.

When I asked in Rome about the proper dress to see the Pope, I was told “sleeves that come over the shoulder and pants or skirts below the knee”. That should cinch it for all of us who wear pants in good taste.

C

 

[atg2]

hello, just tell him there’s too many perverts about.regards

 

[adstrinity]

I don’t think anyone evr said pants were immodest; the question has always been whether or not women wearing them is disordered - a sin quite different from immodesty and indecency.

My original post was because a priest at my parish said pants on women were immodest. As this thread developed, it became more about sin. It originally started as pants (on women) are immodest.

Again: Mini-skirts are to fornication what pants are to sodomy.

And, again, I ask when I wear pants, now that I have read all this, does this qualify me for Hell?

And, I went to Lowes with my mom just now. She was wearing shorts, I was wearing shorts, saleslady was wearing jeans.

 

[aingil]

The Priest today was homilying on the Virgin Martyr and modesty. He said it was on women to remain modest. He mentioned that some priest said that pants were unnatural and this priest (could have been the one he was quoting) said that mini-skirts were more natural than pants. (A mini skirt is work trying to attract a mate, you see…which is natural). It’s not that mini skirt is good or modest, but, pants are more immodest on a woman and more unnatural. He said, “Mini skirts are to fornication what pants are to sodomy.”

This is severe. I am typically the only female who wears pants at Mass, but, I think he meant, regardless, just in general, it is wrong/sinful for a woman to wear pants. He said that a Minor Prophet mentioned that the end of the world would come when women started dressing like men (and he pointed out that this became common in the 1950s).

The priest is FSSP. I am very upset over this, but, if I’m in the wrong… I don’t want to go to Hell because I love pants/jeans/shorts instead of skirts/dresses, and, if they are immodest, and Our Lady said that more people will go to Hell for immodesty than any other reason…

This concerns me.

Do I have reason to be concerned?

Also, how many of the rest of the female Traditionalists here wear pants ever…or at Mass? OR, are you a male Traditionalist who goes to a TLM and see women who go to the Mass there with you and you are upset and disgusted that they wear pants.

Honestly I think that is ridiculous. First of all men and women have usually dressed in similar garments. It’s not like the biblical fashion for men was pants and women skirts. If you really want to simplify it, they both wore dresses. Modesty is not a particular garment or amount of skin covered. It is an attitude and understanding of your femininity. Blaming the modern heresy of treating women like men on pants is like blaming cutting on the existence of razor blades. Clearly the problem is in something else entirely. I wouldn’t even call pants a symptom of the problem. He can use sodomy as analogy if he wants to, but that doesn’t change the fact that he is comparing a subjectively implemented virtue with an actual objective sin.

 

[dragonlady708]

I am a workaholic. Every thing I do, I try to do for the greater glory of God, because He made me in His image and likeness.
I teach sewing. This involves machinery.
I teach artistic skating. This involves exercise and grace and musicality.
I AM a construction electrician. My union, a few years ago, asked my to teach our apprentices, because of my fervor.
I am NOT ashamed of the talents God has given me, nomatter how diverse they are. Wearing pants, wearing skirts, wearing “artistic wearables” all give tribute to my Creator and have nothing to do with vanity. Each venue requires different attire, but in each career, I strive to be a role model to my students.
Each “costume” is a part of my personality, again, all giving glory to God, who will be my judge, in the final analysis.
Will it NOT be Our Lord’s decision as to the appropriateness of my life, my work, my love, and my appearance?

 

[jmcrae]

I am a workaholic. Every thing I do, I try to do for the greater glory of God, because He made me in His image and likeness.
I teach sewing. This involves machinery.
I teach artistic skating. This involves exercise and grace and musicality.
I AM a construction electrician. My union, a few years ago, asked my to teach our apprentices, because of my fervor.
I am NOT ashamed of the talents God has given me, nomatter how diverse they are. Wearing pants, wearing skirts, wearing “artistic wearables” all give tribute to my Creator and have nothing to do with vanity. Each venue requires different attire, but in each career, I strive to be a role model to my students.
Each “costume” is a part of my personality, again, all giving glory to God, who will be my judge, in the final analysis.
Will it NOT be Our Lord’s decision as to the appropriateness of my life, my work, my love, and my appearance?

You know, whenever I look at the parable of the talents, where the guy goes to Hell because he buried his own talent, it occurs to me to wonder what happens to those who go around burying other people’s talents, by convincing them that because they happen to have been born female (or black, etc.), that they aren’t allowed to do certain things, even if God has given them the ability, the means, and the opportunity for training.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

But WHAT is the difference? WHY are some gizmos supposedly ‘male’ and some ‘female’ - or some tasks for that matter? Is it because some require more physical strength? What is it about being a bank manager or storekeeper that requires more physical strength than washing clothes by hand or beating carpets?

Do some require more intelligence? Tell me what a psychologist does that is different from a mother preventing a tantrum from a two-year-old? Or a lawyer or politician from a mother negotiating an argument between two or more of her children?

WHAT is the difference that makes some masculine and some not? I really don’t see it in 99% of allegedly masculine or feminine pursuits.

It’s just tradition, the way things were - and some people liked it that way. And I’ve commented multiple times on exceptions to rules nit defining rules.

What about sports? Would you say that sports are unfeminine? If so which ones and why?

I don’t believe there’s any official doctrine, so I’ll presume you are asking my personal opinion. Personally, I guess I would label some of the more artistic sports as feminine, like gymnastics or figure skating and the rougher ones like football, american football, baseball et cetera as masculine. Although I’m not very sportive myself - I’m the bookworm type…

My original post was because a priest at my parish said pants on women were immodest. As this thread developed, it became more about sin. It originally started as pants (on women) are immodest.

Again: Mini-skirts are to fornication what pants are to sodomy.

How do you get “pants are immodest” out of that?

And, again, I ask when I wear pants, now that I have read all this, does this qualify me for Hell?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but as of yet there is no definitive Church teaching; which is why the discussion on this thread has lasted so long.

Pax.

 

[Marfran]

You know, whenever I look at the parable of the talents, where the guy goes to Hell because he buried his own talent, it occurs to me to wonder what happens to those who go around burying other people’s talents, by convincing them that because they happen to have been born female (or black, etc.), that they aren’t allowed to do certain things, even if God has given them the ability, the means, and the opportunity for training.

This was a really good post!!! Thanks jmcrae!!!
:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Marfran]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but as of yet there is no definitive Church teaching; which is why the discussion on this thread has lasted so long.

I think because it was a **priest **who made statements about this. If Joe Blow down the block made the statement in the OP, this discussion would not have lasted as long, and everyone would just say that Joe Blow has an unusual reaction to women wearing decent, clean, and modest pants, based on his own demons and realities (unrealities).

 

[JSSebastianoP]

I think because it was a **priest **who made statements about this. If Joe Blow down the block made the statement in the OP, this discussion would not have lasted as long, and everyone would just say that Joe Blow has an unusual reaction to women wearing decent, clean, and modest pants, based on his own demons and realities (unrealities).

True, but if I’m not mistaken we also have the dress codes of Saint Padre Pio and at least one Bishop in the thread as well (and I think they’d rank a little bit higher than a parish priest); the fact remains that there is no definitive church teaching.

Pax.

 

[slyboots]

Modestly, though? I mean, how do you stay covered from below, in a skirt, while on a ladder? (Unless you are wearing pants under your skirt? Women from India do that, and I find that look to be very attractive, actually.) Hopefully, it was not a boy holding the ladder for you, or he would have received an unexpected education. The same when you are bending over, and your skirt lifts up behind you to show your knees and thighs.

JMcrae and Marfran,ADStrinity and others,
You seem extremely defensive about women who modestly continue wearing skirts.
Did I wear something under my skirts, yes. But my skirt covered that as well so that my shorts were not emphasizing my lower area. And besides anyone who deliberately attempts to peek up my skirts is not going to be holding my ladders. That’s pure bad manners.
Bending over is easy. My fuller skirts allow for a greater freedom of movement than do jeans which tend to bind at the crotch. But primarily to pick things up I use my knees not my back so this point is moot. “Bend from the Knees” my doctor has always said
Breezy days here in OKlahoma of which we have quite a few are a small challenge. One learns early on how to deal with "skirt alert"days.
Because you cannot concieve of how to do it does not mean it cannot be done.
Also cooking an 8 hour italian meal can’t be done in a skirt? Really? I must be confused. I do all my cooking in skirts.

 

[adstrinity]

slyboots, If other women want to wear skirts, fine. I resent, yes, resent: this thread isn’t about my humility, essentially being told when I wear pants I am immodest and causing great scandal to everybody around me. I am defensive of others wanting to put me in a dress because it’s what they think is proper feminine attire.

Long flowy skirts seem to be the norm of the women here who wear them. Again, that holyclothing site makes them look pretty and comfortable, but, as another poster on this thread, said, she doesn’t want to look like one of those women found in the compound.

I was watching a movie, “Terror From The Year 5000,” and women were wearing skirt suits with stockings and heels. I guess I’m also looking at this from a comfort standpoint. I would be uncomfortable if I had to constantly wear no pants or shorts.

 

[StrawberryJam]

This thread scares the pants off of me.

Seriously, I just can not imagine pants to be a sin for a woman to wear. I’ve read nearly this entire thread and IMHO the priest really needs to use some more back up then his opinion on this, especially in a homily. But, I am sure I am wrong since I just saw a thread about beards!

 

[adstrinity]

This thread scares the pants off of me.

Clever.

Seriously, I just can not imagine pants to be a sin for a woman to wear. I’ve read nearly this entire thread and IMHO the priest really needs to use some more back up then his opinion on this, especially in a homily. But, I am sure I am wrong since I just saw a thread about beards!

Well, I’m pretty sure he was quoting another priest with the mini-skirt quote.