Pants vs. Dresses/Skirts

[Bluegoat]

The thing with females in pants is that it’s more than just dress… there is a mindset to it. It alters your self perception. My wife decided to forego wearing pants and dresses solely in feminie attire and she has admitted that it alters a woman’s psychology about herself and the treatment you receive from others. Interestingly enough Colleen Hammond’s book, Dressing with Dignity, speaks of this as well.

Kind of funny how we can tell which restroom to go in by the symbol on the wall:

Figure with long hair and skirt - Female
Figure with short hair and pants - Male

Too bad society pays no heed to the symbology other than to figure out which bathroom to use.

You realize that those symbols aren’t used everywhere. It is an issue sometimes at international events - what signs to indicate toilets without using writing, that everyone will understand?

 

[Bluegoat]

Thanks to everyone for your replies. I don’t know. I don’t condemn anyone, so please don’t misunderstand. But, women always dressed differently, dresses/long skirts and heads covered until the early 1900’s. Why is that? What changed? Has the change been for the better or for the worse? Why does this topic offend some?

I think this is certainly something to be researched with an open heart.

Your history is a bit undeveloped.

First, you are talking only about the West. Secondly, even in the West, skirts on men, like kilts, are not unknown. Robes as well. In some periods within the last 500 years, men have worn “bloomers” that showed off their legs - in order to be sexy, essentially - lacy frothy clothes, make-up, wigs, and high heeled shoes. They were not trying to look like women though, that was concidered manly.

The Church says women should not try to be men, or be mistaken as men, and vice versa. We are to understand that our sex is part of who we are, and that it has certian implications.

Various cultures have signals of clothing, behavior, or whatever that follow gender - that is ok as long as they are not sinful in themselves, or used to oppress or hurt other people. So there is really nothing wrong with a culture where men wear beards and women cover their hair. A person living in those places should respect those norms.

In the West, the norms have changed, recently. So things are a bit mixed. There are other norms related to sexuality that have changed too, some good and some not. Denial of gender differences - not good. Women are people under the law and not property - good. A mixed bag, and it’s hard to see how it will come out, since we are rather in the middle of it.

So should an individual wear pants? Well, I would say, in the West, that one can wear pants without scandalizing social norms, or denying gender differences. So pants are ok. There are those who equate pants with wholly negative changes in our ideas about gender, but I think the changes are not wholly negative, so that doesn’t wash with me. Others suggest that pants are more revealing - also not convincing, there are many that are, just as many skirts and dresses are. (This too is partly cultural leanings - what is a sexual signal is learned, as ankles were in the Victorian period. And there are no clothes that will totally swallow sexual differences. Even in a burka, we’d notice a man’s broad shoulders and a woman’s smooth walk.)

And there is no good argument to say that pants, per se, are male garments. They are just a particular formation of cloth.

 

[redrosetea]

Sorry, it was actually under the Pontificate of Pius XI, although Pius XII did speak of the neccessity to avoid following fashion.

The text below is from cora.dashjr.org/trad/modesty.html (I can’t vouch for the rest of the website since it appears to be down.)

I didn’t read a thing about ladies wearing pants at all

 

[JOL]

Your history is a bit undeveloped.

First, you are talking only about the West. Secondly, even in the West, skirts on men, like kilts, are not unknown. Robes as well. In some periods within the last 500 years, men have worn “bloomers” that showed off their legs - in order to be sexy, essentially - lacy frothy clothes, make-up, wigs, and high heeled shoes. They were not trying to look like women though, that was concidered manly.

The Church says women should not try to be men, or be mistaken as men, and vice versa. We are to understand that our sex is part of who we are, and that it has certian implications.

Various cultures have signals of clothing, behavior, or whatever that follow gender - that is ok as long as they are not sinful in themselves, or used to oppress or hurt other people. So there is really nothing wrong with a culture where men wear beards and women cover their hair. A person living in those places should respect those norms.

In the West, the norms have changed, recently. So things are a bit mixed. There are other norms related to sexuality that have changed too, some good and some not. Denial of gender differences - not good. Women are people under the law and not property - good. A mixed bag, and it’s hard to see how it will come out, since we are rather in the middle of it.

So should an individual wear pants? Well, I would say, in the West, that one can wear pants without scandalizing social norms, or denying gender differences. So pants are ok. There are those who equate pants with wholly negative changes in our ideas about gender, but I think the changes are not wholly negative, so that doesn’t wash with me. Others suggest that pants are more revealing - also not convincing, there are many that are, just as many skirts and dresses are. (This too is partly cultural leanings - what is a sexual signal is learned, as ankles were in the Victorian period. And there are no clothes that will totally swallow sexual differences. Even in a burka, we’d notice a man’s broad shoulders and a woman’s smooth walk.)

And there is no good argument to say that pants, per se, are male garments. They are just a particular formation of cloth.

Hey, I never said I was a history buff…I am just beginning my search in this.

Anyway…

Please don’t take offense to this…but…what is your authority to say what is right and what isn’t? I mean, we have Pope’s and Saints who speak of what is right dress and what isn’t. The link in my OP that explains what Padre Pio did by not allowing women to confess unless they had a skirt on that went a certain length past their knees. Was Padre Pio an authority for the whole Church?..No…but…was he a tremendously Holy man who tried to live as Holy as he could, certainly. And if we are all aiming for holiness, where should we turn to look for guidance?

I read somewhere about a test a group of women did who were discerning what is proper dress. They would open their eyes and look at a woman in pants versus a women in a dress and see where their eyes were naturally drawn. When they opened their eyes, where did their eyes naturally rest on the woman’s body? For the women in dresses their eyes naturally rested on the woman’s face, but for the women in pants, their eyes naturally rested on the women’s mid-section. Is there something to this?

When a man is walking behind a woman in pants, do they look at the woman’s butt? Do they do the same for a woman in a dress or skirt?

We are to hold ourselves in a manner to not cause our brother to stumble. Would a man checking out a woman’s butt be a stumbling block? What if this man was married?

There is more to modest dress than social norms.

 

[ac_claire]

Good post, JOL.

 

[daeve]

I don’t think there is a schism just a bunch of bossy boots think they have the right to choose for other people…i listen to the Holy Father and not to them

I don’t care what they say or what they think… I am a grown woman and I will decide for myself, unless the Holy Father speaks on the matter, and as far as I can tell he doesn’t care

My sentiments exactly.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

Hey, I never said I was a history buff…I am just beginning my search in this.

Anyway…

Please don’t take offense to this…but…what is your authority to say what is right and what isn’t? I mean, we have Pope’s and Saints who speak of what is right dress and what isn’t. The link in my OP that explains what Padre Pio did by not allowing women to confess unless they had a skirt on that went a certain length past their knees. Was Padre Pio an authority for the whole Church?..No…but…was he a tremendously Holy man who tried to live as Holy as he could, certainly. And if we are all aiming for holiness, where should we turn to look for guidance?

I read somewhere about a test a group of women did who were discerning what is proper dress. They would open their eyes and look at a woman in pants versus a women in a dress and see where their eyes were naturally drawn. When they opened their eyes, where did their eyes naturally rest on the woman’s body? For the women in dresses their eyes naturally rested on the woman’s face, but for the women in pants, their eyes naturally rested on the women’s mid-section. Is there something to this?

When a man is walking behind a woman in pants, do they look at the woman’s butt? Do they do the same for a woman in a dress or skirt?

We are to hold ourselves in a manner to not cause our brother to stumble. Would a man checking out a woman’s butt be a stumbling block? What if this man was married?

There is more to modest dress than social norms.

JOL, your post shows a lot of wisdom.

 

[Bluegoat]

Hey, I never said I was a history buff…I am just beginning my search in this.

Anyway…

Please don’t take offense to this…but…what is your authority to say what is right and what isn’t? I mean, we have Pope’s and Saints who speak of what is right dress and what isn’t. The link in my OP that explains what Padre Pio did by not allowing women to confess unless they had a skirt on that went a certain length past their knees. Was Padre Pio an authority for the whole Church?..No…but…was he a tremendously Holy man who tried to live as Holy as he could, certainly. And if we are all aiming for holiness, where should we turn to look for guidance?

I read somewhere about a test a group of women did who were discerning what is proper dress. They would open their eyes and look at a woman in pants versus a women in a dress and see where their eyes were naturally drawn. When they opened their eyes, where did their eyes naturally rest on the woman’s body? For the women in dresses their eyes naturally rested on the woman’s face, but for the women in pants, their eyes naturally rested on the women’s mid-section. Is there something to this?

When a man is walking behind a woman in pants, do they look at the woman’s butt? Do they do the same for a woman in a dress or skirt?

We are to hold ourselves in a manner to not cause our brother to stumble. Would a man checking out a woman’s butt be a stumbling block? What if this man was married?

There is more to modest dress than social norms.

The Church has good reason not to make a statement on what specific types of clothing people should wear. The Churches doctrine is meant to be for all time, and all people. So it must apply to the 3rd century, and the 21st century, and the 40th. It must apply to North Americans, Afghanis, Polynesians, people on the Mars Colony, or those aliens made of gas that get converted in the year 3000. So it is not really possible to say “skirts for women, pants for men.”

The Church can give direction on the meaning of modesty, the appropriate use of sexuality, and our duty to our neighbour.

Sometimes it also gives direction to people living in a specific situation. It might tell Catholics living in a particulary very conservative Muslim country to be sure to obey the social dictates of dress, for example, or to abstain from alcohol, in order to show respect for the morality of others, to avoid bringing difficult situations on other Christians, and to avoid scandalizing Muslims and creating a stumbling block between them and Christ. But that is a situational direction.

I can’t take the example of the “discerning” women very seriously. It seems like an exercise to uncover ones own cultural biases and emotions. It might mean they should not wear pants, but it could not be generalized much beyond that. They might be attracted to bums; on the other hand, in places where women wear no shirts, people are not all staring at their breasts. Breasts are not seen as sexual objects any more than ears. Sexual cues are largely learned. (It is also very difficult to escape the ones you are raised with.)

There is a very good chapter on the topic of clothing and modesty in Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis.

I’m interested, though, at why you stop at skirts. Surely the most conservative and modest clothing would involve covering everything?

Edit: I also think, given the kind of considerations that are appropriate, telling women in the West that they have a moral religious obligation to wear skirts is more likely to fall afoul of them. It does scandalize people and drive a wedge between them and the Church, it shows a lack of respect to people who are not, in fact, behaving immodestly, and it does these things without any reason the Church deems worthwhile.

 

[tcraig]

The link in my OP that explains what Padre Pio did by not allowing women to confess unless they had a skirt on that went a certain length past their knees. Was Padre Pio an authority for the whole Church?..No…but…was he a tremendously Holy man who tried to live as Holy as he could, certainly. And if we are all aiming for holiness, where should we turn to look for guidance?

Padre Pio made his dictates on women’s dress during a time when the mini-skirt was making strong inroads into women’s fashion. I sometimes have this vision of the good priest being asked “How long must the skirt be?” over and over again, and then him answering in a fit of pique: “Eight inches below the knee!!”

Additionally, Padre Pio stated that no nude stockings/nylons should be worn by women. This is generally ignored by those who otherwise cite him for dress/skirt standards.

 

[slyboots]

I don’t wear pants, trousers, slacks, capris or shorts.
I wear skirts and blouses, tops, kurtas, sweaters, and jackets.
In summer I am cooler because air circulates on my legs.When the skirts are gauzy and sheer I wear a half slip.
In winter I wear tights, stockings, socks, and sometimes boots under my skirts.
I do not at anytime feel the need to wear slacks, trousers, pants, gauchos, capris or shorts.
I also do not wear short skirts. I have problem knees for one thing and frankly don’t see the point in showing them off. But also I like wearing longer skirts.

I do not understand what the hue and cry is for women to wear pants. I used wear them. They were always uncomfortable. Levis, Wranglers, Sag harbor, Alfred Dunner you name it I wore them.

Then I gave up and started buying only skirts. Not once have I regretted not wearing pants. That was about 20 years ago.

You can obviously do and say whatever you want but please don’t treat those of us who are skirt wearers as if we are foolish for doing so. I don’t wear them ( or my mantilla/scarf for mass) for you or to make you uncomfortable.

Let it go folks. On both sides.

 

[JOL]

The Church has good reason not to make a statement on what specific types of clothing people should wear. The Churches doctrine is meant to be for all time, and all people. So it must apply to the 3rd century, and the 21st century, and the 40th. It must apply to North Americans, Afghanis, Polynesians, people on the Mars Colony, or those aliens made of gas that get converted in the year 3000. So it is not really possible to say “skirts for women, pants for men.”

The Church can give direction on the meaning of modesty, the appropriate use of sexuality, and our duty to our neighbour.

Sometimes it also gives direction to people living in a specific situation. It might tell Catholics living in a particulary very conservative Muslim country to be sure to obey the social dictates of dress, for example, or to abstain from alcohol, in order to show respect for the morality of others, to avoid bringing difficult situations on other Christians, and to avoid scandalizing Muslims and creating a stumbling block between them and Christ. But that is a situational direction.

I can’t take the example of the “discerning” women very seriously. It seems like an exercise to uncover ones own cultural biases and emotions. It might mean they should not wear pants, but it could not be generalized much beyond that. They might be attracted to bums; on the other hand, in places where women wear no shirts, people are not all staring at their breasts. Breasts are not seen as sexual objects any more than ears. Sexual cues are largely learned. (It is also very difficult to escape the ones you are raised with.)

There is a very good chapter on the topic of clothing and modesty in Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis.

I’m interested, though, at why you stop at skirts. Surely the most conservative and modest clothing would involve covering everything?

Edit: I also think, given the kind of considerations that are appropriate, telling women in the West that they have a moral religious obligation to wear skirts is more likely to fall afoul of them. It does scandalize people and drive a wedge between them and the Church, it shows a lack of respect to people who are not, in fact, behaving immodestly, and it does these things without any reason the Church deems worthwhile.

It is understandable that the Church couldn’t come out with a standard of dress (exactly what to wear) for all people for all time. The Church can, and infact has, come out with a standard of how to dress. RosaryCrusader posted it yesterday at 2:53, a quote from Pope Pius XI, here it is again:

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE CHURCH APPROVES? HAS SHE GIVEN SPECIFIC STANDARDS OF MODESTY IN DRESS?

Yes! The Church has issued specific standards. But they were almost completely ignored by our liberal press, so that we were unable to fully establish their authenticity until 1965, more than 35 years after their publication. We are indebted to Father Jesus M. Cavanna, C.M. (of the Philippino College in Rome) for discovering them in the Bulletin of the Roman Clergy, issue of October 1928. Father Cavanna graciously sent us a translation of the document containing the standards of modesty (dated Sept. 24, 1928), which we proceeded to publish. The discovery of this “missing link” enables us now to publish a fully authenticated history of the Roman Standards. We give here only the bare essentials.

On August 15, 1928, Pope Pius XI, in the consistorial chamber, “denounced once again the danger (of immodest dress) which, by its seductive fascination, threatens so many unwary souls.”

On August 23, only eight days later, the Holy Father ordered the Sacred Congregation of the Council to issue a very strongly worded letter to all the Bishops of Italy inaugurating a “Crusade Against Immodest Fashions.” The Bishops were to communicate the specific injunctions of this letter to be enforced “in all schools, academies, Sunday schools and laboratories directed by female religious,” to ensure “perfect conformity of conduct among all institutes of female religious in the diocese.”

To ensure such “conformity” Pius XI, on September 24, 1928, only one month later, ordered the Sacred Congregation of Religious to issue another letter on the “Crusade against Immodest Fashions.” It was in this letter that the following standards were prescribed:

"We recall that a dress cannot be called modest which is cut deeper than two fingers’ breadth under the pit of the throat, which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows, and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent material are improper."

I can’t even tell you how many times or how many people come to Mass to celebrate the Eucharist wearing shorts of varying lengths as well as low cut tops or speghetti strap tank tops, or very tight clothing.

As to why stop at skirts and why not cover up everything? LOL. Honestly, I absolutely love the way women dressed long ago, I love the way we see our Blessed Mother. But, we can’t all dress like that now because clothing has evolved away from that. We do have to pay attention to social norms to an extent while maintaining decency and modesty. If we were all to dress the way they did 2,000 years ago, I doubt we would be able to bring converts into the Church. So, we adobt the style of today in the most modest of manners.

Women in the West may think they are behaving modestly when in fact, they are not. An example of this may be if you went to a beach. Some women wear bikinis, some wear a one-piece and think that is the modest choice. In reality, no swim suit is modest, regardless if it is a one-piece or two. So, it truly is our responsibility to 1) demonstrate modesty, 2) teach modesty and 3) promote modesty.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Up until a day or so ago, I had no idea that this was even an issue. I am really surprised that there are two active threads going on this topic. Anyway, below is a link to the other ongoing discussion for those who might be interested.

Pants!..and my pride
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=356175

 

[SwizzleStick]

…But, women always dressed differently, dresses/long skirts and heads covered until the early 1900’s. …

Not always. In the time of Christ and beyond, men and women dressed pretty much alike. Dress only changed for the sexes within the last several hundred years.

 

[SwizzleStick]

From what I gather from this and the other discussion, some folks would have all of us wearing tunics. Pants are unacceptable for a woman to wear because of where the lines draw the eye. But, they are also unacceptable for a man to wear for the same reason. So, I guess we all need to go back to dressing in robes and tunics.

 

[Tamsulosin]

Women should have long hair and wear skirts around the legs.
Men should have short hair and wear pants.
Not to blurr the sexes.Right?
All these statements are silly.
Well ,Jesus is depicted with long hair and long skirted gowns .He was a man.
Joan of Arc wore her hair short and dressed somewhat like a man.She became a saint.

Whores ,at least in the movies, are depicted with mini skirts more than with pants.
They appear more sexy that way.
Legs become more visually prominent with skirts than with pants,if you bend or go up the stairs more of your body is shown.That much for modesty.

There is a time and place for wearing pants or skirts,and both are fine with me.
And I have been told I am a very femenine woman.

 

[JAGCath28]

I’m undecided on the pants vs. dresses/skirts issue. I definitely feel more feminine when wearing dresses and skirts, and will only wear them when going to Mass. That is a personal choice.

However, my question is this…what about the women who’s profession requires pants? For example, I am a marine engineer. Next week, I’m going to be doing a ship survey. I will be required to wear a boiler suit which is essentially pants and long sleeves. Will I be condsidered immodest? Should I not be allowed to work in profession because I am a woman and woman should wear a long skirt? I am also an LT in the Navy Reserve. In the few times a year that I wear a uniform, the only practical application is in pants. Should I not be allowed to serve in the reserves because a woman shouldn’t wear pants? Does the Church frown on women in these professions?

God Bless,

Jessica

 

[JAGCath28]

Women in the West may think they are behaving modestly when in fact, they are not. An example of this may be if you went to a beach. Some women wear bikinis, some wear a one-piece and think that is the modest choice. In reality, no swim suit is modest, regardless if it is a one-piece or two. So, it truly is our responsibility to 1) demonstrate modesty, 2) teach modesty and 3) promote modesty.

What would you consider modest swim attire? Keeping in mind social awkwardness…

 

[JOL]

What would you consider modest swim attire? Keeping in mind social awkwardness…

The conventional one piece or two piece is not modest. What we must keep in mind is that we shouldn’t be revealing great portions of our bodies to anyone except our spouse. This would go for men as well. I imagine most women would never wear something like THIS. I don’t own one of these either. Many frown upon public swimming even. Of course, if you are in the privacy of your own pool with your own children and spouse, it probably wouldn’t matter. But, when you are out publicly swimming, cover up! Me, I would wear a big t-shirt over my swimsuit which keeps me very covered.

What I think you may find interesting is that when you are younger, you don’t like to be exposed. For instance, today my kids are going to vacation bible school and they are going to be playing water games. The teacher asked that the children who want to participate wear a swimsuit to class. My daughter said to me, mom, I will wear my swimsuit, but I am not taking my shorts and t-shirt off. I am happy about this because she is showing concern for undressing in front of others.

Sadly, when you go to the beach you will find many who don’t care how much they reveal to the world.

None of this would be considered socially ‘normal’ though, would it? We are supposed to be separate from the world, ya know?

 

[JOL]

Women should have long hair and wear skirts around the legs.
Men should have short hair and wear pants.
Not to blurr the sexes.Right?
All these statements are silly.
Well ,Jesus is depicted with long hair and long skirted gowns .He was a man.
Joan of Arc wore her hair short and dressed somewhat like a man.She became a saint.

Whores ,at least in the movies, are depicted with mini skirts more than with pants.
They appear more sexy that way.
Legs become more visually prominent with skirts than with pants,if you bend or go up the stairs more of your body is shown.That much for modesty.

There is a time and place for wearing pants or skirts,and both are fine with me.
And I have been told I am a very femenine woman.

I have stated in an earlier post when speaking of skirts and modesty, we are speaking of long shirts, at the very least, past the knee. It is no doubt that a short skirt is absolutely NOT modest.

 

[Bluegoat]

I have stated in an earlier post when speaking of skirts and modesty, we are speaking of long shirts, at the very least, past the knee. It is no doubt that a short skirt is absolutely NOT modest.

Then why not make the same distinction for pants?