Pants! ...and my pride

[JSSebastianoP]

(Jesus wore a skirt.)

A robe is a different article of clothing than a skirt.

What’s male and what’s female attire must be **related to the period of history **in which you live.

Exactly; some people today still remember a time when women didn’t wear pants. The controversy should be over in 50 to 60 years at the latest.

IF we give men’s shoes a name like Manolo, does that give them the masculine credentials needed to clarify which gender thery are for?

Absolutely not. In Italian the word for “shoes” is feminine. That has no bearing on who should wear what. Language is a tricky tool.QUOTE]

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

It was my suggestion for men. But we could go into a whole other debate on that…

OK, now what does JSSebastianoP think of these pumps??? Do you have a pair? Would you wear a pair?

I do not own, nor wouldever purchase for myself or for any other male, a pair. And what is with the feminine bow and cut of the top? It by all practical definition is a woman’s shoe. Sometinmes, very rarely, it could be done - a man with a “heel”, like on cowboy boots, or certain types of dress shoes (in which case they should not be more than say,a quarter of an inch or so in my opinion).

I never thought of this!!! Makes total sense!!! A man, if feeling that his masculinity is in question, should just put on a tie. And, I guess a woman could wear a tie too, to point to the area of her body, that produces children–in case someone was questioning her too.

JESUS never wore a TIE, so it must be **wrong for men of today **to wear ties, and to bring attention to the area which the tie points to.

So would necties work?

Pax.

 

[Bluegoat]

I do not own, nor wouldever purchase for myself or for any other male, a pair. And what is with the feminine bow and cut of the top? It by all practical definition is a woman’s shoe. Sometinmes, very rarely, it could be done - a man with a “heel”, like on cowboy boots, or certain types of dress shoes (in which case they should not be more than say,a quarter of an inch or so in my opinion).

I think that most North American men, at least, would not wear these shoes. But look back at pictures of men in earlier times, since the Renaissance say. There are a lot of the shoes that are very similar to these pumps. I could easily picture the Sun King wearing shoes like that, or maybe George IV.

But for the tux, pumps are still classier than other shoes, and more “correct”. But it’s common now to see people wear a tux at morning weddings, so clearly our civilization is devolving horribly.

 

[jmcrae]

As a woman, wife, mom and grandmother I have done ALL those things in a skirt.

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.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

I think that most North American men, at least, would not wear these shoes. But look back at pictures of men in earlier times, since the Renaissance say. There are a lot of the shoes that are very similar to these pumps. I could easily picture the Sun King wearing shoes like that, or maybe George IV.

But for the tux, pumps are still classier than other shoes, and more “correct”. But it’s common now to see people wear a tux at morning weddings, so clearly our civilization is devolving horribly.

Yes! Now I can remember seeing them - in the French revolution-era paintings/pictures…
Okay- they get some kind of pass for masculinity but I still don’t think the bow is very masculine.

Pax.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Masculine and feminine attire must be judged in the context of the revolution which roared through our culture in the 60’s and 70’s. Part of this revolution was the “sameness” of the sexes and the feminist movement equating women with men in every respect. Out of this revolution came the pushing of pants for women as skirts and dresses were discounted of all value and seen as “feminine” and therefore symbolic of oppression, subjection, and degradation of women. It was a vestige of the patriarchy oppressing women. Pants were a sign of female liberation. “We’re just like men”. “Who wears the pants in your family?” was an oft used phrase in the 50’s, before the revolution. One of the things that had to go in the feminist revolution were all of the vestiges of male authority.

Ironically the feminist revolution was, at its essence, a rejection of femininity. They so devalued women’s God given roles, talents, and place in society throughout Christian history that they made anything associated with motherhood, staying at home, raising children, and dressing feminine, and acting feminine, something to be deplored as vestiges of oppression. We can see today the desire of society to have hard chicks and soft guys. It is the plan of Satan to topple God’s order. If God has ordained men as heads of the family, Satan wants women to head the family. God made them male and female, Satan wants no distinction. Therefore women must become like men and men like women. The ultimate end of this diabolical plan is complete gender confusion and finally homosexuality pervading mankind.

So the “pants” issue must be placed in it’s proper historical and cultural context keeping in mind the recent societal and cultural history in America. If one becomes myopic and only sees pants as a piece of neutral clothing at this date and second in time, one misses the point and the recent historical implications this issue has.

Once you put this in proper context you’ll see that ancient, medieval, renaissance and other historical examples as well as other cultural examples are irrelevant. Those examples are completely divorced from our particular time and culture and how it is just in the last few decades, we got here. Clothes today mean something and that meaning is tied to the unprecedented social and moral revolution we experienced that goes against all Catholic principle.

Those good priests, Cardinals, Saints (Padre Pio) who were against pants on women are not some mean curmudgeons who were simply not “with it” and wanted to deny women any form of freedom. These were wise and holy men imbued with a true Catholic spirit who saw what was coming and the hidden agenda behind these new fashions and styles that was directly opposed to the social order of Christ. They gave their warnings, but the devil has apparently boxed up these warnings and thrown away the key by spreading the lie that these views are “outdated”, “closed minded”, “trapped in their time” as he appeals to our love for personal freedom and freedom of choice.

It all goes back to the apple. “Who says you are not to eat the fruit of this tree? God? He simply wants to take away your freedom. You have a right to this apple. He knows if you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods!” And so it is today. “Who says God’s plan makes man the head of the family? Who says you are any different from a man? Who dares to tell you that you really shouldn’t wear pants? Men are wearing pants.” In the end the devil tricks us into thinking its about power and freedom when it is really about nature and divine order. His methods worked then and they are working now.

 

[Marfran]

A robe is a different article of clothing than a skirt.

How’s that??? What? A robe is from the shoulders to the floor, and a skirt is from the* waist to the floor, *or a little higher??? Well, a robe is definitely a dress then. A dress is from the shoulders to the floor, or to several other lengths. So Jesus wore a (dress) robe, and so did all the other **men and women **of his time–nobody was wearing pants. Pants came later on to the fashion scene. It was someone’s great idea that pants could make some chores easier. Men thought this was a great idea and happiliy latched onto this article of clothing–women were a little later to seize the fantastic invention (maybe it was the advent of indoor plumbing that helped them to realize how great pants were). So just because men started wearing them first, means that women can never wear them? 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.

 

[dragonlady708]

… vestiges of oppression. We can see today the desire of society to have hard chicks and soft guys.

I believe YOU typed this. I guess it’s OK for men to be “GUYS”, but you felt it was OK to reduce females to “CHICKS”!!! We’re not women or girls anymore, in YOUR typing! Sentient beings, of course, but nothing more than FARM ANIMALS! And if we are thought of in THIS context, no wonder why some of us continue tor strive for RECOGNITION, let alone equality!

 

[adstrinity]

What I am understanding is that I am a bad and constant woman for wanting to wear pants. I have offended God, and I make men look at me not only not as a woman, but, simultaneously, directly at my vulva (if it were not covered by pants). Pants were introduced to turn God’s world topsy-turvy. Now, that I know pants are immodest on a woman, about the most sinful thing she can do, because I have knowledge of this, there is a good chance I will go to Hell. AND, it’s not just about wearing a dress in church, I have to always wear a dress, no matter what, no matter where, and, no matter in front of whom. I would do this if I really loved God.

Do I have this correct?

 

[Marfran]

**reply to stevusmagnus **… vestiges of oppression. We can see today the desire of society to have hard chicks and soft guys.

I believe YOU typed this. I guess it’s OK for men to be “GUYS”, but you felt it was OK to reduce females to “CHICKS”!!! We’re not women or girls anymore, in YOUR typing! Sentient beings, of course, but nothing more than FARM ANIMALS! And if we are thought of in THIS context, no wonder why some of us continue tor strive for RECOGNITION, let alone equality!

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Marfran]

What I am understanding is that I am a bad and constant woman for wanting to wear pants. I have offended God, and I make men look at me not only not as a woman, but, simultaneously, directly at my vulva (if it were not covered by pants). Pants were introduced to turn God’s world topsy-turvy. Now, that I know pants are immodest on a woman, about the most sinful thing she can do, because I have knowledge of this, there is a good chance I will go to Hell. AND, it’s not just about wearing a dress in church, I have to always wear a dress, no matter what, no matter where, and, no matter in front of whom. I would do this if I really loved God.

Do I have this correct?

Yes, I think that if all the women of the world burned their pants, in a huge repentant bon fire (reminicient to the burning of the bra of the 19…'s, I don’t know what year/decade that was), we would DRAMATICALLY CHANGE all evil, and put humanity back on the right course.

 

[Marfran]

Masculine and feminine attire must be judged in the context of the revolution which roared through our culture in the 60’s and 70’s. Part of this revolution was the “sameness” of the sexes and the feminist movement equating women with men in every respect. Out of this revolution came the pushing of pants for women as skirts and dresses were discounted of all value and seen as “feminine” and therefore symbolic of oppression, subjection, and degradation of women. It was a vestige of the patriarchy oppressing women. Pants were a sign of female liberation. “We’re just like men”. “Who wears the pants in your family?” was an oft used phrase in the 50’s, before the revolution. One of the things that had to go in the feminist revolution were all of the vestiges of male authority.

Ironically the feminist revolution was, at its essence, a rejection of femininity. They so devalued women’s God given roles, talents, and place in society throughout Christian history that they made anything associated with motherhood, staying at home, raising children, and dressing feminine, and acting feminine, something to be deplored as vestiges of oppression. We can see today the desire of society to have hard chicks and soft guys. It is the plan of Satan to topple God’s order. If God has ordained men as heads of the family, Satan wants women to head the family. God made them male and female, Satan wants no distinction. Therefore women must become like men and men like women. The ultimate end of this diabolical plan is complete gender confusion and finally homosexuality pervading mankind…It all goes back to the apple.

So you object to pants on women, ***because for you ***they symbolize a period of history that you have issues with. The pants themselves are neutral and not evil–but it is the symbolism (as you see it) that evokes your strong distaste of pants on women.

I was not alive in 1950. I stayed home to raise my children when they were young, and I did it wearing pants. Other than wearing pants, I subscribe to the traditional male/female role–out of personal preference. I’m sorry ladies–I do climb ladders and mountains–but I just can’t get into mowing the grass (a traditional male job that has been performed by men since the beginning of time. And the Biblical men were always getting their skirts caught in the blades and having serious accidents–but that’s what men are for–to protect women from danger and to do the dangerous chores.)

So as long as I am not one of those “feminists” that you so despise and are of the Devil–can I wear my pants please while I am cooking the 8 hour Italian dinner I am making to serve my family??? And since my husband does not like the long frumpy skirts should I oblige his request NOT to wear them??? If I started wearing them it would give him reason to divorce me and cause disruption to my family.

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

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

PANTS DEFINITELY SEEM TO BE YOUR APPLE.

 

[Marfran]

What I am understanding is that I am a bad and constant woman for wanting to wear pants. I have offended God, and I make men look at me not only not as a woman, but, simultaneously, directly at my vulva (if it were not covered by pants).

Actually, I think that they are looking at your butt. Which is UNNATURAL, and if they are looking at your butt, IN PANTS, they may as well be looking at a MAN’S butt, hence the homophobia angle.

 

[BlyssfulDreamer]

What I am understanding is that I am a bad and constant woman for wanting to wear pants. I have offended God, and I make men look at me not only not as a woman, but, simultaneously, directly at my vulva (if it were not covered by pants). Pants were introduced to turn God’s world topsy-turvy. Now, that I know pants are immodest on a woman, about the most sinful thing she can do, because I have knowledge of this, there is a good chance I will go to Hell. AND, it’s not just about wearing a dress in church, I have to always wear a dress, no matter what, no matter where, and, no matter in front of whom. I would do this if I really loved God.

Do I have this correct?

I wear pants…never a skirt or dress because at my age I feel more comfortable in pants. I have taken part in several of these pants vs dress threads in this group and they go around and around and nothing ever changes.

If men feel they cannot control themselves from lusting in their heart after a woman who is wearing pants then*** they ***have the problem. If the pants are nicely fitting…not tight and they are clean…there should be no problem. There is no church law as I understand it that precludes women from wearing pants…and as long as the lady is a good person who follows the Commandments and the precepts of the Church they will not be going to hell because of the mere fact they are wearing pants. Whether pants are particular to any specific cultural revolution or not is no importance. Thay are an accepted mode of dress in the here and now. Wearing pants does not make a woman masculine if that women conducts herself as a lady in the first place. I have young men and women 30 years my junior who call me “Ma…am” and hold doors open for me.

What is the big deal??? If people were more concerned about their own salvation and the good they are doing in this world for their fellow man and neighbor and concentrating on the Lord when they are at Mass they would have less time to worry about whether Ms So and So were wearing a dress or pants.

 

[Marfran]

I wear pants…never a skirt or dress because at my age I feel more comfortable in pants. I have taken part in several of these pants vs dress threads in this group and they go around and around and nothing ever changes.

If men feel they cannot control themselves from lusting in their heart after a woman who is wearing pants then*** they ***have the problem. If the pants are nicely fitting…not tight and they are clean…there should be no problem. There is no church law as I understand it that precludes women from wearing pants…and as long as the lady is a good person who follows the Commandments and the precepts of the Church they will not be going to hell because of the mere fact they are wearing pants. Whether pants are particular to any specific cultural revolution or not is no importance. Thay are an accepted mode of dress in the here and now. Wearing pants does not make a woman masculine if that women conducts herself as a lady in the first place. I have young men and women 30 years my junior who call me “Ma…am” and hold doors open for me.

What is the big deal??? If people were more concerned about their own salvation and the good they are doing in this world for their fellow man and neighbor and concentrating on the Lord when they are at Mass they would have less time to worry about whether Ms So and So were wearing a dress or pants.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[jmcrae]

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.

 

[BlyssfulDreamer]

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.

 

[adstrinity]

I wear pants…never a skirt or dress because at my age I feel more comfortable in pants. I have taken part in several of these pants vs dress threads in this group and they go around and around and nothing ever changes.

If men feel they cannot control themselves from lusting in their heart after a woman who is wearing pants then*** they ***have the problem. If the pants are nicely fitting…not tight and they are clean…there should be no problem. There is no church law as I understand it that precludes women from wearing pants…and as long as the lady is a good person who follows the Commandments and the precepts of the Church they will not be going to hell because of the mere fact they are wearing pants. Whether pants are particular to any specific cultural revolution or not is no importance. Thay are an accepted mode of dress in the here and now. Wearing pants does not make a woman masculine if that women conducts herself as a lady in the first place. I have young men and women 30 years my junior who call me “Ma…am” and hold doors open for me.

What is the big deal??? If people were more concerned about their own salvation and the good they are doing in this world for their fellow man and neighbor and concentrating on the Lord when they are at Mass they would have less time to worry about whether Ms So and So were wearing a dress or pants.

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.

 

[Catholic90]

I have not, and will not, read this entire thread…but I had to comment on a few posts…

An Italian dinner can take a full day to cook especially when you’re cooking for a lot of people: all the women who helped and all the men coming back from work; that’s a lot of people and quite a few hours of cooking. And who cooked lunch?
Why can’t the MAN fix lunch? Who made him helpless in the kitchen??

Women are supposed to be feminine, not the ones doing the physical labor. For females who are just friends I’m always holding the door, carrying packages, purses et cetera because that’s what any man should do for any woman.

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

Yes. And why should women be dealing with such machinery; yes it may be necessary sometimes - but that is the exception (that should be rare) to the rule.
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.
Pax.

Are you talking about past times? Because we live in the modern world, today. Dinner doesn’t take all that long to cook - not more than an hour, usually, and most of that time is just spent waiting for things to heat up, during which the woman can accomplish all kinds of other tasks. Lunch is usually something cold that can be put together in just a few minutes, because even if the husband and children are coming home for lunch, they typically don’t have more than an hour or so, including travel time - they get off at noon, and are expected to return to school or work by one.

Yup.

We don’t live in a world where there are men always around. Do you imagine that women just stand there, if there is nobody there to open the door, or to carry her packages, etc.? If the oil in the car needs changing, and the man of the house is away on a business trip, should the woman just remain housebound with no groceries until he returns, perhaps next week some time? No - she has to change the oil herself, and then she carries on with life as usual.

exactly. If I asked my DH to change the oil in my van, he would look at me like I had 3 heads. I run all errands dayside, including grocery shopping.

Women are not required to be completely helpless until a man comes to their rescue. They need to be self-sufficient, because even married women are sometimes left on their own to look after things at home.

Yup.

As a matter of fact, I was talking about the past, but even today a good Italian meal can take a rather long time to cook. And if you’re cooking for a lot of people (as in the example) that adds even more dome just due to sheer volume. And yes lunch can be something heated up but who’s going to do it if all the women are painting? Even then, it’s still a big meal (albeit only for half as many people). And what about other things like cleaning clothes or grocery shopping?

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! 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. 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).

That is true, especially in the case of young widows for example.

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.

Pax.

 

[BlyssfulDreamer]

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.

I have to wonder what sin you think you would be culpable of? If anyone***…anyone ***has adirect link that states “If a woman wears pants to Mass either an NO or a TLM they are guilty of sinning.”…please post it here and now. Not just an opinion piece or a book from a religious pundit. I am very serious here…I would appreciate a link where it states *just that *or otherwise what you are doing is expressing YOUR viewpoint and YOUR preference and that is all. Just as I have done.

 

[Marfran]

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.

adstrinity: there is no official teaching in the Church against pants for women. There are probably only a small handful of people who do not like to see a woman wearing pants. Your intent, or lack there-of in wearing the pants, is what matters. And as long as they are modest, there should be no issue. This applies to all articles of clothing for either sex.