Pants for women?

[Guitar]

er… try riding a bike in a skirt: it will end up around your thighs - not a very modest look!
I wish we could all stop disapproving of what other people wear.

Yep, nope, can’t ride my bike in a skirt, sorry. Nor can I climb a boat mast or the ratlines to perform maintenance, enter designated PPE and other particular areas at my various worksites, shoot on the range at the weekend (prone firing, often in pretty strong winds) … and so on and so forth. I have actually sailed a yacht wearing an Edwardian skirt for a historical regatta, but there were other crew who could deal with emergencies for which the skirt might have got in the way. (A skirt tangled in the engine’s flywheel wouldn’t have been a good look.) There are some things that can’t be done at all wearing a skirt, and some that can’t be done modestly wearing one.

And, by the way, I can’t play either organ or guitar at church in a skirt unless the skirt is short enough to let me see the pedalboard of the organ or my tuner & volume pedals for the guitar between my knees. (I play guitar seated due to a bad back. And yes I know there are blind organists and that Marie-Claire Alain plays recitals in long evening gowns. I need to see the pedalboard occasionally.) By the time a skirt is short enough to allow that, well let’s just say you’d know whether I wear a suspender belt or not. And the area where I sit with the guitar has no modesty screen, and pews facing it.

Pants for me. If it is “prideful” to refuse to have the activities and types of employment I can carry out limited by someone else’s opinion of how I should dress, fine with me.

 

[peregrinator_it]

…but why does it have to be about feminine freedom and gender inequality? I seriously doubt that there are any women out there who say, “I’m going to show society that I can be masculine” just before they put on a pair of pants.

Amen. Pants just don’t have that connotation any more.

But, to all the no-pants-ers: I think this debate places way too much emphasis on clothes. As long as you’re not being deliberately immodest (and, no, I’m sorry, pants are not inherently immodest) I can’t see how it matters what you wear. It makes more sense to fit your to what you need to do in life than try to fit your life to clothes.

No one thinks about the basic need to simply keep warm.

I shouldn’t even say “cold” in your presence as I live in VA, not the frozen North…

ora_pro_nobis:

er… try riding a bike in a skirt

LOL. This was my point last time this came up… I don’t have a car, so yeah, I get you.

 

[laudamus_te]

I’m certainly no expert on the subject; in fact, I haven’t really given it much thought, but why does it have to be about feminine freedom and gender inequality? Maybe some women simply prefer pants either because they provide better warmth in winter or because they in fact do look both professional and “nice” while wearing them. I seriously doubt that there are any women out there who say, “I’m going to show society that I can be masculine” just before they put on a pair of pants. In addition, perhaps wearing pants may in fact be a virtuous and modest thing. As at least one poster has said, when she would wear a skirt to work, many of her male co-workers would become distracted. When she started wearing dress pants, the problem went away.

In response to your question, what I was trying to point out is that it was originally about women’s feelings of “liberty” and feeling the need to be “equal” with men. This is the origin of modern-day pants-wearing by women, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. This is one of the reasons why I don’t wear them, I don’t like the reason behind the fashion. I think most women today are just so used to the idea of wearing pants, they don’t give it a second thought. But perhaps they should? Can it seriously do any harm to provoke women a bit into thinking about it, and to consider more carefully the way they dress?

And I seriously doubt that there are NOT any women out there who wear pants so that they can look more masculine, and therefore feel they are more able to compete with men. I’m not criticizing anyone here who chooses to wear pants, for whatever reason. I’m just stating my reasons for not wearing them. To me, they represent modern feminism, which is abhorrent and against the grain of traditional Catholic teaching. I have yet to find anything that I cannot do in a skirt (even ride a bike - I’ve done that). As far as modesty in certain situations, such as climbing a ladder… if that was something I had to do, I’d wear something under the skirt. And as far as not distracting male co-workers? Pants, as I see them on women the majority of the time, are MUCH more revealing than a modest skirt or dress. If the men here will honestly think about it, which would you be more inclined to look twice at, a woman in a tight pair of jeans or a woman in a modest skirt?

 

[catharina]

In response to your question, what I was trying to point out is that it was originally about women’s feelings of “liberty” and feeling the need to be “equal” with men. This is the origin of modern-day pants-wearing by women, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. This is one of the reasons why I don’t wear them, I don’t like the reason behind the fashion. I think most women today are just so used to the idea of wearing pants, they don’t give it a second thought. But perhaps they should? Can it seriously do any harm to provoke women a bit into thinking about it, and to consider more carefully the way they dress?

And I seriously doubt that there are NOT any women out there who wear pants so that they can look more masculine, and therefore feel they are more able to compete with men. I’m not criticizing anyone here who chooses to wear pants, for whatever reason. I’m just stating my reasons for not wearing them. To me, they represent modern feminism, which is abhorrent and against the grain of traditional Catholic teaching. I have yet to find anything that I cannot do in a skirt (even ride a bike - I’ve done that). As far as modesty in certain situations, such as climbing a ladder… if that was something I had to do, I’d wear something under the skirt. And as far as not distracting male co-workers? Pants, as I see them on women the majority of the time, are MUCH more revealing than a modest skirt or dress. If the men here will honestly think about it, which would you be more inclined to look twice at, a woman in a tight pair of jeans or a woman in a modest skirt?

Pants do not equate to a tight pair of jeans.

A truly modest skirt (and that means several layers of skirting) will always show leg unless one dresses like a practicing Menonnonite, Amish or fundamentalist Mormon. Pants became common dress in this country during WW II. It had nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with safety and modesty. Women entered the workforce replacing men in vital industries and the habit of wearing pants has not disappearewd since then. It might not be to someone’s taste but that’s all we can say Within a universal Chrurch, that is within the Catholic Church, to guideline such things as clothing choices is absurd. Catholics live everywhere.

 

[peregrinator_it]

Can it seriously do any harm to provoke women a bit into thinking about it, and to consider more carefully the way they dress?

I have yet to find anything that I cannot do in a skirt (even ride a bike - I’ve done that).

Sighs deeply Skirts are not practical for someone with an active life. I don’t own a car. If there’s weather, be it rain, sleet or snow, I’m out in it, and skirts are just not warm enough. It’s more important for me to live within my means than try to supplement my wardrobe to the point where I can where a skirt and be warm.

Considering more carefully has nothing to do with it; if I’m going to consider, I’d rather spend my energy pondering something more important than clothes.

I find it hard to believe anyone can ride a bike in a skirt (fast, as your mode of commute transit, not for fun) and arrive at your destination clean, without having exposed yourself, and without having caught said skirt in the chain…

 

[piouswoman]

er… try riding a bike in a skirt: it will end up around your thighs - not a very modest look!
I wish we could all stop disapproving of what other people wear.

I’ve ridden a horse in a skirt, I’ve climbed in and out of a fishing boat countless times in a skirt, I’ve gone fly fishing in a skirt, hiking in a skirt, shooting range in a skirt, crossed Puget Sound in the middle of winter outside on the front of the ferry in a skirt, traveled on airplanes in a flowing ankle length skirt, worked around horses in a skirt, and if someone asked me to go bike riding I would do it in a skirt and if I found I couldn’t, then I wouldn’t bike ride, period. Same with any other activity, if I can do it I will, if I can’t, I won’t. Some things women aren’t meant to do. Face it or accept feminism as your second religion.

 

[catharina]

I’ve ridden a horse in a skirt, I’ve climbed in and out of a fishing boat countless times in a skirt, I’ve gone fly fishing in a skirt, hiking in a skirt, shooting range in a skirt, crossed Puget Sound in the middle of winter outside on the front of the ferry in a skirt, traveled on airplanes in a flowing ankle length skirt, worked around horses in a skirt, and if someone asked me to go bike riding I would do it in a skirt and if I found I couldn’t, then I wouldn’t bike ride, period. Same with any other activity, if I can do it I will, if I can’t, I won’t. Some things women aren’t meant to do. Face it or accept feminism as your second religion.

Or is it as likely that some insist on dictating fashion (for all) as their second religion? There are Catholics all over the world. Some dress very differently from others. Some women never wear skirts. Some men never wear pants. It’s called “reality.”

 

[peregrinator_it]

Some things women aren’t meant to do. Face it or accept feminism as your second religion.

This is the attitude of someone not living in this century.

I’m pretty sure it would be immoral for me to ask my parents to support me at my advanced age… so that I could avoid having to work to support myself… so that I wouldn’t have to live on my own… and walk to public transit or to the grocery store or to church in whatever the weather happens to be, carrying whatever I need to being carrying… and therefore wearing what works.

It’s also a pretty silly attitude.

 

[piouswoman]

Pants do not equate to a tight pair of jeans.

A truly modest skirt (and that means several layers of skirting) will always show leg unless one dresses like a practicing Menonnonite, Amish or fundamentalist Mormon. Pants became common dress in this country during WW II. It had nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with safety and modesty. Women entered the workforce replacing men in vital industries and the habit of wearing pants has not disappearewd since then. It might not be to someone’s taste but that’s all we can say Within a universal Chrurch, that is within the Catholic Church, to guideline such things as clothing choices is absurd. Catholics live everywhere.

World War II is over. And it had everything to do with feminism…the big bold new world dawning where women began to lose their traditional identity as women, mother and nurturer, and instead, began to blend in and compete with men. Then the dawn of the hippie era with free love and women burning their bras, birth control, etc…how can the revolution of modernism be ignored? It can’t. It is up to women to change it back. And if women just shrug their shoulders and keep marching on with blase attitudes then may God have mercy on us all.

 

[piouswoman]

This is the attitude of someone not living in this century.

I’m pretty sure it would be immoral for me to ask my parents to support me at my advanced age… so that I could avoid having to work to support myself… so that I wouldn’t have to live on my own… and walk to public transit or to the grocery store or to church in whatever the weather happens to be, carrying whatever I need to being carrying… and therefore wearing what works.

It’s also a pretty silly attitude.

Then I am old fashioned and I accept it. I don’t care whether or not some accuse me of not living in this century, I do what I believe is right for God. Amen.

 

[laudamus_te]

Pants do not equate to a tight pair of jeans.

A truly modest skirt (and that means several layers of skirting) will always show leg unless one dresses like a practicing Menonnonite, Amish or fundamentalist Mormon. Pants became common dress in this country during WW II. It had nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with safety and modesty. Women entered the workforce replacing men in vital industries and the habit of wearing pants has not disappearewd since then. It might not be to someone’s taste but that’s all we can say Within a universal Chrurch, that is within the Catholic Church, to guideline such things as clothing choices is absurd. Catholics live everywhere.

I never said pants equate to a tight pair of jeans. But for the most part, the way women wear pants is revealing. I can’t think of any pant styles that don’t reveal the shape of the derriere and the crotch, even when they are not “tight” except for balloony palazzo pants, and I don’t see many of those around, especially in the workplace.

Actually, pants did not become common dress in this country during WWII. They were worn in the workplace originally beginning with WWI, but they were not normally worn outside of the workplace. Women still retained, for the most part, dresses and skirts for normal wear until the 1950s.

 

[catharina]

World War II is over. And it had everything to do with feminism…the big bold new world dawning where women began to lose their traditional identity as women, mother and nurturer, and instead, began to blend in and compete with men. Then the dawn of the hippie era with free love and women burning their bras, birth control, etc…how can the revolution of modernism be ignored? It can’t. It is up to women to change it back. And if women just shrug their shoulders and keep marching on with blase attitudes then may God have mercy on us all.

If and when Rome decrees what you propose to all (based on no more than your very personal opinion), then I shall comply. Women continued to be wives and mothers while they worked in munitions and aircraft factories - and toiled as telphone linemen and postal workers and … why should I continue? If you really believe that clothing makes the man or the woman, then Heaven help you. PS - In my opinion, God is quite merciful to me and I thank Him for that.

 

[laudamus_te]

If and when Rome decrees what you propose to all (based on no more than your very personal opinion), then I shall comply. Women continued to be wives and mothers while they worked in munitions and aircraft factories - and toiled as telphone linemen and postal workers and … why should I continue? If you really believe that clothing makes the man or the woman, then Heaven help you. PS - In my opinion, God is quite merciful to me and I thank Him for that.

Why is it that whenever someone speaks their mind about something like this, someone else who disagrees comes out with guns blazing and crying that that person is “proposing to all”? What’s the deal with that?

 

[catharina]

I never said pants equate to a tight pair of jeans. But for the most part, the way women wear pants is revealing. I can’t think of any pant styles that don’t reveal the shape of the derriere and the crotch, even when they are not “tight” except for balloony palazzo pants, and I don’t see many of those around, especially in the workplace.

Actually, pants did not become common dress in this country during WWII. They were worn in the workplace originally beginning with WWI, but they were not normally worn outside of the workplace. Women still retained, for the most part, dresses and skirts for normal wear until the 1950s.

Suit yourself. I’m sure you will and I’m able to do the same. Most women who wear pants and dress modestly do so by adding loooooong tops over their inner shirt. These are available just about everywhere and are called “big shirts” or “tunics” or “outer shirts.” Thanks be to God, you have no power in such things as the clothing of others. Neither you nor piouswoman seems to be able to recognize that the Catholic Church is a universal Church. It’s easy to see that you would do your best to impose the notion of conservative “Western” dress for all, despite other cultural norms. Too bad for you. Big Church - small world.

 

[peregrinator_it]

Why is it that whenever someone speaks their mind about something like this, someone else who disagrees comes out with guns blazing and crying that that person is “proposing to all”? What’s the deal with that?

Um… I think some posters on this thread (eg piouswoman) are “proposing to all.”

And, if you claim that wearing pants in principle, or by connotation, means supporting a false gender equality, then you’re going to ruffle some feathers.

My feathers are ruffled personally, because caring enough to say “all women should wear skirts all the time” or “all women should consider wearing skirts all the time” seems to me to be a case of priorities out of wack. Like the reverse of the popular culture’s demand that one wear trendy clothes all the time. Both seem to me to be focusing too much on something that’s really not that important in the grand scheme of things.

 

[catharina]

Why is it that whenever someone speaks their mind about something like this, someone else who disagrees comes out with guns blazing and crying that that person is “proposing to all”? What’s the deal with that?

Fascinating.

Guess you don’t see this as a blanket condemnation.

from piouswoman:

"how can the revolution of modernism be ignored? It can’t. It is up to women to change it back. And if women just shrug their shoulders and keep marching on with blase attitudes then may God have mercy on us all."

 

[laudamus_te]

Suit yourself. I’m sure you will and I’m able to do the same. Most women who wear pants and dress modestly do so by adding loooooong tops over their inner shirt. These are available just about everywhere and are called “big shirts” or “tunics” or “outer shirts.” Thanks be to God, you have no power in such things as the clothing of others. Neither you nor piouswoman seems to be able to recognize that the Catholic Church is a universal Church. It’s easy to see that you would do your best to impose the notion of conservative “Western” dress for all, despite other cultural norms. Too bad for you. Big Church - small world.

It’s easy to see that, is it? Are you sure you’re not overreacting just a tad?

 

[catharina]

It’s easy to see that, is it? Are you sure you’re not overreacting just a tad?

It’s easy for me to see that since neither one of you has acknowledged the fact that people dress quite differently around the world - although I’ve posted it a number of times. It’s as if some folks exist in a big ol’ American-only vacuum. Yuck.

Dresses/skirts for all women? Says who? Not the Church.

 

[laudamus_te]

Fascinating.

Guess you don’t see this as a blanket condemnation.

from piouswoman:

"how can the revolution of modernism be ignored? It can’t. It is up to women to change it back. And if women just shrug their shoulders and keep marching on with blase attitudes then may God have mercy on us all."

I don’t see that as a “blanket condemnation.” Sorry, I just don’t.

 

[catharina]

Pw and Lt -

I might as well add - since both of you seem to be rather removed from this valley of tears - ensconced instead in some version of Alice’s wonderland - that Sisters (consecrated women religious) from around the world have entered third-world nations such as Thailand to serve in refugeee camps for Cambodians (for one example) and the Sisters had to wear shirts and pants, setting aside their Holy Habits for the sake of souls.

You seem to be quite removed from all manner of reality.