Pants! ...and my pride

[JSSebastianoP]

If wearing pants is not cross-dressing, what exactly -is- cross dressing for a woman, to dress like a man? Does it, effectively, even exist?

To put on a suit jacket or wear a tuxedo, maybe? Oh! And ties, I think. But also remember, here we are only talking about the western world where gender lines are being blurred… not any other place or time… But you pose a good question…

Pax.

 

[peregrinator_it]

If wearing pants is not cross-dressing, what exactly -is- cross dressing for a woman, to dress like a man? Does it, effectively, even exist?

For a man we -know- what cross dressing is. He puts on a dress.

You know, I haven’t paid attention to this aspect of the anti-pants argument, because it seems so obvious to me it’s silly to discuss it…

I guess it’s late enough at night that I’m willing to be silly.

I disagree with the definition of cross-dressing for men given above. To cross-dress is to wear clothes designed for the other sex. This is as true for women as men.

I saw a man a few years ago in Walmart who had me doing double- and triple-takes. This is because he was wearing those rayon crinkly guacho pants that were popular with the ladies in the early 90s (in CA, anyway, and assuming my memory is correct.)

Guacho pants have very wide legs, not quite wide enough to be a split skirt, but very wide legs. In addition, these particular guacho pants were made of material with a bright red rose patterned print.

The man was wearing women’s clothes. They may have been pants, but they were clearly women’s clothes. I wouldn’t say he was “cross-dressing,” because for all I know he may have been so poor that that was all he had to wear. But he was definitely wearing women’s clothes.

There is such a thing as pants for women and we know this because no right-minded man would be caught dead wearing women’s pants. Thus, pants are not exclusively men’s garments.

As as society, we simply have different ways of distinguishing clothes for either gender. Right now I think it’s fair to say that women’s clothes (besides being cut to fit the female figure: I tried once when a pre-teen on vacation and out of laundry to borrow my brother’s jeans-- didn’t work-- they didn’t fit correctly) are distinguished by the sheer variety in their appearance. Whereas men’s clothes are intentionally limited in appearance.

For example: Men’s pants come in exactly two acceptable lengths. Only floor length is appropriate for formal occasions. Knee length is appropriate for a limited number of informal occasions. And they come in precisely 9 acceptable colors, (or slight variations thereof) to wit: black, grey, brown, kakhi, blue (and navy), olive green, white and denim. Wear any thing else as a man and you call your masculinity and/or origins into question!

A man has a little more freedom in the shirt department-- there are choices of design available to him (dress shirt, t-shirt, polo shirt)-- although only those whose masculinity has been firmly established would venture in the direction of pink or lavender. Generally speaking men’s clothing is not made out of cloth prints, besides (subtle) stripes, checks, and plaid.

But to answer the question about what constitutes “cross-dressing” for women-- besides wearing a traditionally male-only garment, (such as the tuxedo)-- simply wearing clothes that are designed for men. I think (and especially if you’ve lived in the San Francisco area, you’ve seen this and can recognize it) it’s pretty evident when you’ve seen it. I think my experience trying to borrow my brothers jeans is illuminating-- clothes designed for men hand differently on women.

 

[peregrinator_it]

I actually don’t think it is an if=then proposition but I see a lot of current fashions and morality as growing out and a consequence of the general changes in a variety of areas (music, politics, religion, movies, families, right movements etc) that have taken place in our world.

Fair enough.

And I actually agree with your previous post-- that fashion (and therefore clothing) is made much more important than it ought to be by the designers, marketers, entertainment industry, etc. in our society.

And I don’t even necessarily object to Colleen Hammond’s (et. al.) extreme reaction to the extreme conditions today. (Although, I’m not sure how prudent it is to react to the udue importance placed on clothing by our society, by placing extraordinary importance on clothing yourself— just clothing of a more modest design.)

It’s just that I think claiming that an extreme reaction is obligatory on pain of sin seems like intemperate response to the intemperance in the culture. (Not that I got the impression that this was your personal opinion.)

I think it’s a perfectly acceptable response to simply and prudently dress in what’s ordinary (and not designed to flaunt your “goods”) for today.

 

[jmcrae]

You never saw a prostitute in what we used to call HOT PANTS? Or tight pants that showed her anatomy? Or Daisy Dukes?

Why would they wear hot pants? That would defeat the purpose of their clothing - they want their men to have easy access. Pants cut off access.

 

[peregrinator_it]

A man has a little more freedom in the shirt department-- there are choices of design available to him (dress shirt, t-shirt, polo shirt)-- although only those whose masculinity has been firmly established would venture in the direction of pink or lavender. Generally speaking men’s clothing is not made out of cloth prints, besides (subtle) stripes, checks, and plaid.

It’s too late to edit and I just realized I forgot-- the exception to the print rule: Hawaiian shirts!

I am open to any and all corrections to my description of guys’ clothing from persons of the male persuasion. It could only improve this thread!

 

[LilyM]

How so? How would you answer the question about **“have you ever seen the Virgin Mary wearing pants?” **

No but then I’ve never seen her wearing shoes either. Does that mean a) she didn’t wear shoes in life, or b) that for women to wear shoes is wrong?

**And, while saints were on earth they were people, capable of sin. In the very least, this just proves that a woman who wore pants can become a saint. Perhaps when she went through purgatory she was punished for crossdressing; perhaps GOD did not view it as crossdressing - who knows? **I just don’t view it as the definitive proof we’re all looking for to end the debate one way or the other. It certainly helps strengthen the case for wearing pants but it is not definitive.

Pax.

Read up on Joan’s life - she absolutely insisted that it was her voices (namely Sts Michael, Catherine and Margaret, sent to her by God) who told her to dress as she did. That being the case, it’s hardly likely that God would view it as a sin.

And for very good reason - she was living and fighting alongside rough and uncouth soldiers, who were generally older than herself. It was her masculine clothing made them behave around her. It was perfect good sense.

Point being - would she then be the only female in history called upon to wear men’s clothing and take up ‘masculine’ pursuits such as fighting?

For that matter, what the heck ARE ‘masculine’ pursuits? Time was when for a woman to pursue virtually any profession at all - doctor, lawyer, stockbroker, politician and so on - would be seen as ‘unfeminine’, or would even be downright impossible.

For that matter for a woman to run any kind of business, own any property under her own name as opposed to being under the auspices of male relatives - or even vote! - was also at one time seen as unnatural and unfeminine. Which is an entirely false and unscriptural idea - the last chapter of Proverbs shows an ‘ideal wife’, who makes money by her own work AND sells and buys land with the proceeds.

As for fashions and deportment - again, time was when for a woman to ridea horse in any other fashion than side saddle was unfeminine, or even to show a glimpse of ankle. Swimsuits were more than neck-to-knee - Annette Kellerman got charged with a crime for wearing basically a wetsuit, which no-one would blink at today, just because it wasn’t a great huge baggy thing.

Go tell the Queen she’s being unacceptably masculine, then - she always rides normally and almost always shows her ankles Even her knees sometimes Scandalous!

All in all, a great deal of cultural (name removed by moderator)ut goes into what is deemed ‘ladylike’, in terms of behaviour and fashions, at any given point in history.

 

[Shin]

I consider St. Joan of Arc’s, exceptional circumstances to only prove the general rule.

If we want to bring up saints, I am certain if you took a list of the female saints… the number you would find in garb like St. Joan and St. Gianna would be, very few… the consensus would be the opposite.

Exceptions, emergencies, and so forth – are simply just that, and show there is a standard, and that in emergency cases it may be necessary to break it, but only in those cases.

St. Joan of Arc, was used by God to put France and the French men and armies to shame, for not having dealt with the war in a manly and courageous way and put an end to it. He used the most unlikely and unsuitable, a young peasant girl, the lowest of the low as he always did – and a woman, to make a point to the French military and King, that it was He who was putting an end to matters, not they, and not truly – her, save as an instrument – and that they were to be ashamed for having done so poorly.

That said, in paintings, her armor has always looked quite feminine despite being designed for war. If one were to look into the matter further I wonder what one would find?

 

[LilyM]

I consider St. Joan of Arc’s, exceptional circumstances to only prove the general rule.

If we want to bring up saints, I am certain if you took a list of the female saints… the number you would find in garb like St. Joan and St. Gianna would be, very few… the consensus would be the opposite.

Irrelevant. The number of female saints who showed their ankles would also be very few. Purely because they lived in times when it was culturally inappropriate to do so. Does this mean that showing your ankles is any hindrance to sanctity? Of course not, neither is wearing pants!

St. Joan of Arc, was used by God to put France and the French men and armies to shame, for not having dealt with the war in a manly and courageous way and put an end to it. He used the most unlikely and unsuitable, a young peasant girl, the lowest of the low as he always did – and a woman, to make a point to the French military and King, that it was He who was putting an end to matters, not they, and not truly – her, save as an instrument – and that they were to be ashamed for having done so poorly.

And your rule is that other women aren’t ALSO called upon to ‘put men to shame’ when the menfolk fail to step up? How do you reason that, especially in this day and age when so many of them DO fail? Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to assume that MORE women are called on to step up NOW??

That said, in paintings, her armor has always looked quite feminine despite being designed for war. If one were to look into the matter further I wonder what one would find?

In Victorian images of her, yes because they were too brainwashed to even properly conceive of a woman who didn’t wear skirts or ‘ladylike’ attire, even in the heat of battle.

I think you’d find the reality was that she was too poor to have armour specially made to suit her or anything like. She would’ve worn borrowed or government-issue (not specially made for her) armour that was exactly like that of 99.9% of her male soldier comrades.

If she didn’t wear ‘feminine’ skirts when NOT fighting, and it’s well established that she didn’t, then the suggestion that she wore ‘feminine’ armour when she WAS fighting is laughable.

 

[Shin]

I think you’d find the reality was that she was too poor to have armour specially made to suit her or anything like. She would’ve worn borrowed or government-issue (not specially made for her) armour that was exactly like that of 99.9% of her male soldier comrades.

If she didn’t wear ‘feminine’ skirts when NOT fighting, and it’s well established that she didn’t, then the suggestion that she wore ‘feminine’ armour when she WAS fighting is laughable.

I can correct you on this point, in that she was given many gifts because she was quite famous. Her sword, her banner, were all given to her especially – The sword by an especial revelation of God.

The banner had the names Jesus and Mary on it, though in fact, she could not read. She preferred the banner to the sword by far, though she loved both.

I simply do not recall about the matter of her armour.

 

[LilyM]

I can correct you on this point, in that she was given many gifts because she was quite famous. Her sword, her banner, were all given to her especially – The sword by an especial revelation of God.

The banner had the names Jesus and Mary on it, though in fact, she could not read. She preferred the banner to the sword by far, though she loved both.

I simply do not recall about the matter of her armour.

And I can offer a correction in my turn. She may have been given gifts, including armour. Good made-to-measure armour was incredibly expensive - the equivalent of buying a house as a present for someone today.

She emphatically would NOT have worn that type of armour in battle, even if it WAS given to her - such armour was merely for show, worn in military parades and the like.

Just like soldiers today don’t wear their expensive full dress uniforms into battle - they wear battle gear. And a rich high-ranking general’s battle camouflage, I can assure you, would not be significantly different than that of the lowest-ranked private.

Neither is a male soldier’s battle gear significantly different from that of a female, assuming that both are doing the same tasks.

Ignore the pictures of Joan - artists usually know little about practicaliities of military life. Look instead at how the military operates today and tell me that any sensible female (as Joan was) would fight in skirts! They wouldn’t today and they didn’t in her day.

 

[Shin]

I looked into the matter. It’s quite fascinating really.

St. Joan of Arc wore a suit of dazzling white armor especially made for her by King Charles VII at the cost of 100 war horses. It was gracefully shaped, by master armorers especially for a young girl. It gave her an ‘unearthly look’ like a vision from Heaven.

Which was quite fitting for her as her role as a standard bearer and encouragement for the soldiers. . . and Heavenly guide.

She held her banner with the names Jesus and Mary upon it, and lilies, and launched the soldiers off on the war of God.

In other words her feminine beauty, despite being in the armor was quite apparent.

Let’s suppose for inquiry, some other person or she at some other time wore quite masculine armor out of necessity. This, being men’s wear in the general sense, would be an exception to the rule and general norms, and an exception besides in times of war – times of war break most standards and rules, that does not mean that these exceptions legitimate such behavior in normal times and circumstances.

A woman wearing a man’s dress in disguise to escape, for example, from people who would do her harm commits no sin. But a woman who wears a man’s dress, because it makes her feel more masculine, and/or who serves as a bad example to others because of it, leading towards women tending toward manliness or man womanliness, would objectively sin, perhaps gravely, or if it was only a small degree, perhaps be guilty of venial or mere imperfection – how much guilt would be inside her own soul, that is a different question, depending on how much God moved her to correct the sin, and her own conscience, and how much she resisted that grace in her heart.

But we can’t only focus on ignorance, every objective sin offends God, and causes spiritual harm in general, whether or not the person who commits it is ignorant or not.

I don’t want to focus too much on the external. But I don’t want to fall for saying it does not matter at all. Adam and Eve are our example in that, and the scriptures.

We are in troubled times. As Christians we are called to be standard bearers against the errors of these times.

Well… I’ve almost said all I have to say on this thread. Perhaps I have. I don’t want to belabor this, but I think the priest who spoke about this matter in church would be interested to read the half of it himself and glad of the discussion it provoked in those who had not considered the matter before.

I’m very pleased to see how many people have considered the matter of modesty like this and adhered to a more modest standard than is the norm.

When men dress soberly and fittingly, and women do so too, all the world is the better for it. Deo gratias.

 

[Mater]

Mater: that sounds so frumpy!!! And what if you have to break into a fast run??? Mad dog or coyote is chasing you, on the way to church–the long skirt is gonna slow you down… I think that we should ask the priest in the OP if this is OK–to wear our long underwear underneath our skirts and have it hanging out instead of leg skin.

.

Well, maybe you would think it is frumpy. I don’t usually think too much about that. I wear what works for me. I also wear knee socks over my long underwear sometimes. My skirts aren’t that long that they get in the way of running (in my case chasing sons, or dodging cars). BTW, I’ve seen Amish women down-hill ski in dresses and swim and dive in dresses. It may seem odd, but works for them. In England right now, trousers under dresses seem to be in fashion.

 

[Lainey63]

You never saw a prostitute in what we used to call HOT PANTS? Or tight pants that showed her anatomy? Or Daisy Dukes?
You have not been in the same cities I have then.

IMHO if you are at a Traditional mass, “no pants”.
If you are at an NO, they don’t seem to have a problem with it.
I never wear slacks, pants, or trousers. I wear skirts and tops. It is I have discovered cooler in the summer. In the winter I wear tights and boots. So for me it is warmer in the winter.
I can ride horses, garden, baby sit gran kids, cook, paint, lay carpet…you name it I can and have probably done it in a skirt.

Yes! you can wear pants at the TLM. I have done so many times & I’m not the only one. For me, my relationship with God is mostly an inside job, my challenge & goal right now is trying to live the prayer of St Francis. I also cannot tell who is a prostitute just by looking at the way they dress. Although I hear that the escorts are very nicely dressed with beautiful dresses…but I wouldn’t know who they were either. We have a variety of income levels here from the very wealthy to the very poor.

 

[Kit15]

Sometimes…certainly not all the time or even most of the time…but sometimes dressing modestly can be counter-productive and part of that is knowing where you will be and what you are dressing for because different cultures have different ideas regarding what is “modest”.

When I was in high school we had a woman come in and talk to us about dressing modestly. She wore a long black dress that came down to her ankles with long sleeves and her hair tied up. When we went back to the classroom, someone made the comment that because the style is not in fashion anymore, dressing like this causes many people to turn around and notice her.

I personally wear pants often because I usually feel naked and…unprotected in a skirt (skirts feel like “easy access” to me ). I become very uncomfortable and bothered. But the way I dress is nothing special. I’m a “jeans and hoodie” kind of person (though not at church). I don’t dress up to show off my body. But I also don’t dress up in a way that grabs the attention of everyone in the room. I’m invisible. Even if you are covered head to toe, if you dress in a way that causes everyone to to stop and look at you, how is this modest? Everyone is looking at you.

 

[Bluegoat]

The cross-dressing that it warned against in the Bible doesn’t mean wearing gender-neutral clothing, or even actually wearing men’s clothing - it refers to actually trying to be taken as a man, or person of the opposite sex. Not the same thing at all.

There are churches in the world where people wear NO pants, men or women, and no shirts either, because that is what is culturally appropriate. I wouldn’t expect that we should try to start a trend like that here in North America, but we need to realize that there is nothing in pants or skirts per se that says “men only” or “women only”.

 

[Marfran]

have you ever seen the Virgin Mary wearing pants?
Pax.

No, but her husband Joseph and her son Jesus wore skirts. Does that make them cross-dressers in your book? In fact, in the days of the long robes how did you tell the sexes apart??? And everybody had long hair.

 

[Marfran]

Well, maybe you would think it is frumpy. I don’t usually think too much about that. I wear what works for me. I also wear knee socks over my long underwear sometimes. My skirts aren’t that long that they get in the way of running (in my case chasing sons, or dodging cars). BTW, I’ve seen Amish women down-hill ski in dresses and swim and dive in dresses. It may seem odd, but works for them. In England right now, trousers under dresses seem to be in fashion.

OK, but the priest in the OP wants women to wear dresses, and my question is: IS THIS OK with** this **priest? Putting the long underwear or the trousers **under **the skirt–not exactly “feminine.” Why does this priest want women to wear skirts??? If they are wearing pants underneath they are still wearing pants, which he doesn’t like.

 

[Marfran]

http://z.about.com/d/catholicism/1/0/C/-/-/-/Pope_Benedict_Arrives_In_The_US.jpg

Dang! This photo rocks!!! And his shoes are so fabulous! I love how they match the carpet!!!

 

[dang71]

Dang! This photo rocks!!! And his shoes are so fabulous! I love how they match the carpet!!!

Gotta love the shoes

 

[Marfran]

I personally wear pants often because I usually feel naked and…unprotected in a skirt (skirts feel like “easy access” to me ). I become very uncomfortable and bothered. But the way I dress is nothing special. I’m a “jeans and hoodie” kind of person (though not at church). I don’t dress up to show off my body. But I also don’t dress up in a way that grabs the attention of everyone in the room. I’m invisible. Even if you are covered head to toe, if you dress in a way that causes everyone to to stop and look at you, how is this modest? Everyone is looking at you.

Right on, sister!!!