Where does extreme clothing modesty come from?

[KayMS]

I need to clarify one statement I made above:

But you will NOT see a modesty crusader mentioning with ill-language the liberations in dresses caused by feminism because it would undoubtedly point to the real error - feminism, but they will say that pants caused the liberation of women, even though this is false, to convince pratical-minded Catholic women they shouldn’t wear pants.

Cardinal Siri in that same document used by extremists to condemn pants himself notes that the mindset was established FIRST when he says, (my emphasis) “The motive impelling women to wear men’s dress is always that of imitating, nay, of competing with, the man who is considered stronger, less tied down, more independent.” He condemns his logic in the same sentence by saying “always,” making his statement a fallacy. The cardinal did not study fashion history to determine if trousers were exclusively men’s dress; he merely assumed it to be true based on his cultural indoctrination.

 

[fix]

KayMS:

No, but neither does a Protestant err when validating a Truth; however, Catholics are not permitted to attend Protestant services to hear their version of the Truth because they do not hold the fullness of Truth. I have read some rather extreme modesty literature. One work, while claiming to copy the work of a modesty crusader from the 1950’s adds this to the Introduction “we have interjected small bits of copy into appropriate sections to update the text from the 1950’s and from private revelation which we have prayed over for a considerable time and feel comfortably sure of their accuracy.”

Here is a quote from a Society newsletter concerning a clothing issue, “Our Lady has since told privileged souls that Satan has introduced the general wearing of trousers and masculine hair fashions, etc., among woman to propagate homosexuality…”

Who are these people to determine what revelations are authentic, moreover, without even mentioning WHO is receiving these private revelations!

Here is the false logic that jumps out of most of these books, “Certainly not every women’s psychology will be affected in the same way bey the wearing of pants, but in reality, how many women have been affected without even realizing it, and by this, the whole of society? Are they still the heart of their families, desiring to be at home with their children? Are they still subject to the authority of their husbands as our holy religion teaches? Or have they become more independent and taken interest in being out in the world, in competing w/ith men at being the breadwinner and head of the family? All evidence indicates that this trend has already very much changed the psychology of women in society.”

Now, while that sounds SO TRUE, it was not pants that caused this psychological change in women - it was the philosophy of feminism. It is quite clever to link feminist philosophies to pants after saying pants are male garments and saying today’s women act like men, but it is an incorrect analysis. Feminists changed the way women “thought” while they were still wearing dresses! Suggragists fought for women’s liberation ALL while wearing dresses. Today’s dresses and brassieres are REALLY the liberated styles of early feminists - no hoops, no corsets, no bustles, practical lengths, etc - feminists who wanted women to be able to work and get paid equally, to own property, to vote and to divorce. But you will NOT see a modesty crusader mentioning with ill-language the liberations in dresses caused by feminism, but they will say that pants caused the liberation of women.

I agree with you about the private revelations and such in these matters, but the other quote should be taken in context. I do not see that the author is stating women wearing pants is the etiology of radical feminism, but to be honest, I think an arguemnt can be made that dressing like a man may “injure” the psychology of some women. Now, that is a radical notion in our secularized society, but I am open to hearing more about, I do not dismiss it with prejudice.

My wife wears pants, my 8 month old daughter wears pants, my mother wears pants, my employees wear pants, my sisters wear pants, I am not against women wearing pants, but I am not against hearing arguments that are counter cultural either.

 

[KayMS]

fix:

I do not see that the author is stating women wearing pants is the etiology of radical feminism, but to be honest, I think an arguemnt can be made that dressing like a man may “injure” the psychology of some women. Now, that is a radical notion in our secularized society, but I am open to hearing more about, I do not dismiss it with prejudice.

No he was not. Radical feminism and early feminism are very different. What the author failed to say was that early feminism created that mindset of allowing women to act like men. Radical feminist went elsewhere with their arguments.

I would assume when you say “dressing like a man” you mean pants. In some cultures “dressing like a man” would mean a tunic, from which the dress originated. To make a blanket statement such as “dressing like a man” is misleading. If wearing pants could indeed change the psychology of women then why have not all women’s garments derived from tunics, which men wore, or any garment derived from male dress (skirts, underwear, shirts, pockets, etc), not changed the psychology of women before pants (btw, women have been wearing pants longer than men - just not more often than them; similarly men have been wearing skirts longer than women - just not more often than them)?

 

[fix]

KayMS:

No he was not. Radical feminism and early feminism are very different. What the author failed to say was that early feminism created that mindset of allowing women to act like men. Radical feminist went elsewhere with their arguments.

I would assume when you say “dressing like a man” you mean pants. In some cultures “dressing like a man” would mean a tunic, from which the dress originated. To make a blanket statement such as “dressing like a man” is misleading. If wearing pants could indeed change the psychology of women then why have not all women’s garments derived from tunics, which men wore, or any garment derived from male dress (skirts, underwear, shirts, pockets, etc), not changed the psychology of women before pants (btw, women have been wearing pants longer than men - just not more often than them; similarly men have been wearing skirts longer than women - just not more often than them)?

I do not want to argue this point to vigorously, but I can’t accept the argument that because men or women wore one type of garment many centuries ago, that in some way justifies cross dressing today. For example, that women wore some type of pant-like garment many years ago does not mean that wearing them now, in this current environment, is not tending more toward a masculine look. The same can be said of men. Wearing pantyhose and a dress as man cannot be argued as not feminine because men may have worn a tunic 1500 years ago.

Clothes do have an impact. The degree of impact may very from age to age, but to say women wearing pants is not a significant change in this culture in the past few decades is to overlook the obvious.

 

[KayMS]

fix:

Clothes do have an impact. The degree of impact may very from age to age, but to say women wearing pants is not a significant change in this culture in the past few decades is to overlook the obvious.

There is a distinction between cross-dressing and adaptation of dress. Comparing a woman in pants made for women to a man in a dress made for a woman is not a fair comparison: one is cross-dressing, the other is not. Cross-dressing means to wear the immediate clothing meant and made for the other gender (which is prohibited). Women are not cross-dressing unless they are wearing the clothing that has been manufactured for a man. If your point is that all pants are men’s clothes, you will find very few men today who will wear the majority of pants that are manufactured and sold for women. Why? Because women’s pants are feminine in their style and ornamentation. If this were not true, men could readily wear them as male dress. (I am not ignoring the fact that some clothing is unisex in style). If women have been psychologically “injured” by the adoption of pants as a regular mode of dress making them more like men, why are their pants too effeminate for men to wear?

As for men, though a good majority of men do wear trousers today, there are still plenty of trouserless men in kilts, sarongs, tunics, robes and cassocks in the world. All men do not wear pants, just as all women do not wear dresses.

It seems that, now 150 years after women pants have been incorporated into European and Western society as a more customary mode of dress, we are rather far from viewing women’s pants as a new phenomenon.

 

[fix]

KayMS:

There is a distinction between cross-dressing and adaptation of dress. Comparing a woman in pants made for women to a man in a dress made for a woman is not a fair comparison: one is cross-dressing, the other is not. Cross-dressing means to wear the immediate clothing meant and made for the other gender (which is prohibited). Women are not cross-dressing unless they are wearing the clothing that has been manufactured for a man. If your point is that all pants are men’s clothes, you will find very few men today who will wear the majority of pants that are manufactured and sold for women. Why? Because women’s pants are feminine in their style and ornamentation. If this were not true, men could readily wear them as male dress. (I am not ignoring the fact that some clothing is unisex in style). If women have been psychologically “injured” by the adoption of pants as a regular mode of dress making them more like men, why are their pants too effeminate for men to wear?

As for men, though a good majority of men do wear trousers today, there are still plenty of trouserless men in kilts, sarongs, tunics, robes and cassocks in the world. All men do not wear pants, just as all women do not wear dresses.

It seems that, now 150 years after women pants have been incorporated into European and Western society as a more customary mode of dress, we are rather far from viewing women’s pants as a new phenomenon.

Are you arguing that in this culture women wearing pants in such numbers and for so many different occasions that it is not a new development? Why do you think in 1960 that Cardinal wrote what he did?

I do not think anyone can argue that woman have not adopted male dress in many ways. Men in this culture have not adopted female dress as much, yet.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I guess I am confused here. When did dressing modestly and/or wearing a head-covering become legalism? Modest dress should not be a choice but a norm for Mass. We should not have to regulate it as it should be expected to show respect for the situation.:banghead: It is puzzeling to me that covering ones-self is offensive to others. Yet, modern clothing is not considered as offensive.

Dress for MASS, work, public, play and home can and usually is not the same in the USA. Yes, we might have more then we need. Is there anyone on this board that does not (just look in your closet)

 

[otm]

Lisa N:

KayMS OK I do understand what you mean although that extreme modesty sure hasn’t arrived on the “Left” coast! Last week someone in our processional carried the crucifix in wearing shorts and sandals . Frankly wish people were a bit MORE modest, particularly when they are part of the mass.

Say where would you find this book referred to? Do you know when it was written?

Lisa N

I think you are confusing modesty with propriety. Was she dressed is a way that called undue attention to her sexual attributes, or was she dressed modestly bu inappropriately - as would be someone who came to a wedding in a pair of greasy coveralls?

 

[cynic]

fix:

I do not think anyone can argue that woman have not adopted male dress in many ways. Men in this culture have not adopted female dress as much, yet.

\

you ignore the fact that women may have adopted this altered form of male dress for PRACTICAL reasons. It is very hard to do any form of physical activity, play sport, even just going about daily life in a long flowing dress. Or is it that you see women doing these, anouthe artifact of the sexual revolution, ie women should be passive wall flowers who don’t leave the house - anything else is acting like a man? if w a women goes tramping, plays sport etc she is ‘psychologically damaging’ herself. Some things are better left in the past.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

As to the original question: I think more extreme interpretations of modest dress come at least partly from the over-sexualization of women’s dress in our culture. It is not considered whether clothing is appropriate for the occasion. It is supposed to be sexy. It is suppposed to flaunt your wealth and sophisticated tastes. It is supposed to make your friends jealous. It is supposed to make you stand out, maybe even be shocking. Sometimes, it is supposed to “make a statement” or “challenge the status quo.”

It is natural that there is going to be a reaction to that, by women who are appalled by that kind of thinking. Their clothing statements become “I don’t agree with this culture. I am not an object. I don’t think women and men are the same. I have boundaries. I am religiously observant. I think the old days were better.” That kind of thing.

Of course, one of my brothers once said that if women could read minds, they’d all wear the burka.

 

[fix]

\

you ignore the fact that women may have adopted this altered form of male dress for PRACTICAL reasons. It is very hard to do any form of physical activity, play sport, even just going about daily life in a long flowing dress. Or is it that you see women doing these, anouthe artifact of the sexual revolution, ie women should be passive wall flowers who don’t leave the house - anything else is acting like a man? if w a women goes tramping, plays sport etc she is ‘psychologically damaging’ herself. Some things are better left in the past.

Wearing pants for activities that require pants in one thing. Adopting male dress as a custom, no matter the occasion, is a different matter. Keep in mind I have not argued women should not wear pants, I was discussing the concept of what manner of dressing is considered male or female in this current culture and how those changes affect us.

 

[im_wildrose]

Just jumping in here with my own story of why I wear dresses/skirts only. I was drawn to this for a long time but lacked the courage to do anything about it. I’ve now been dresses/skirts only for about a year and a half. I do it for reasons very similar to “backhome” posted. I used to dress very provacatively, knowing exactly what kind of reaction I was getting. I had been a luke-warm Catholic for many years and finally started coming back to my faith about 4 yrs ago. As I did, however, I was disturbed by the constant “need” I had for sexual attention. It showed in the clothes I wore and the way I carried myself, and thoughts of it haunted my brain (and this from a married woman with several children). I knew, however, if I wore longer dresses and skirts, I felt more feminine and, hense, more modest. It is for my own good that I have adopted this lifestyle. I will admit that it started as a desire to be more like the women I’ve known in the more fundamental Christian denominations because they seemed so pretty, so feminine, and so willing to live their faith, even if it meant having people wonder why they were wearing skirts in below zero weather with leggings underneath. But I now know many Catholic women who have also made this choice.

Now, all that said, I do everything in a dress – clean house, play with my kids, yard work, etc. Yes, this sometimes requires some originality, and weather conditions often require some black leggings underneath (I live in ND where winter temps can get to 30 below without the windchill!!), but it can be done. My house dresses are generally roomy and allow for freedom of movement and good coverage as well. I don’t ever judge someone else for not doing this and certainly don’t think myself better or holier. I have, however, commented good naturedly to several friends and relatives that women haven’t always worn pants and it wasn’t that long ago that almost ALL women wore dresses almost ALL the time!! lol I know that this if fulfiling a call that God has given to me personally because it is what is best for my mental state. It is much easier now to keep myself pure of mind. I still struggle, but it’s much easier.

Anyway, I just wanted to share my story and my 2 cents on this.

God bless, Jen

 

[cynic]

fix:

Wearing pants for activities that require pants in one thing. Adopting male dress as a custom, no matter the occasion, is a different matter. Keep in mind I have not argued women should not wear pants, I was discussing the concept of what manner of dressing is considered male or female in this current culture and how those changes affect us.

pants are comfortable, dresses on the whole are not as comfortable, that’s also got to be a factor. Sure being comfortable doesn’t make something right, but you suggest that by women wearing pants, they are conciousely mimicking men in some way… for the sake of mimicking men. That kind of thing gets in the way of liberty, that women by defininition need to be wearng a specific item of clothing to be feminine, or modest, even if pants can offer adequate covering. I don’t see whats revealing about women wearing loose jeans or cargos…

 

[Angels_Watchin]

It comes from the church.

Maybe if we followed the teachings of the church, there wouldn’t be the ‘confusion’ that so many teens talk about when it comes to lesbian and homosexual activity. Maybe girls would grow up to be women and boys would grow up to be men, the way God made them.
Standards of Modesty in Dress

Imprimatur dated Sept.24, 1956

“A dress cannot be called decent 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 materials are improper.”

The Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII

Speaking as the prefect, the document linked below comes from the Magisterium. It has never been changed.
catholicmodesty.com/Popesonmodesty.html
It is the teachings of the church. (Ladies, skirts are much more comfortable than pants or shorts. Just by the nature of the article of clothing. Stop the baloney. Women ALWAYS wore skirts up until VERY recently (the past 60 years)

Angel

 

[PassthePeace1]

demolitionman65:

My wife and I were discussing this topic last night. Where does the movement for extreme clothing modesty (as in, wearing dresses only, covered from neck to ankles and wrists at all times) come from? Is this a Catholic innovation? If so, my wife and I are unclear on its Scriptural or doctrinal roots.
.

I don’t think it is a matter of where it came from, but rather where is it going!!! Each individual might have a different motive. Personally, I think it is a great way to make a statement, about the immodesty in our society today, sadly even in our churchs.

John Woolman, a seventeen century Quaker (I think it was 17th), wore his clothes undye…because all of the dye used for mens clothing back then, was made of indigo(sp) which was grown using slave labor. When confronted by other people about the manner of his clothing, it gave him the chance to discuss the evils of slavery.

Our clothing styles today, at best can be described as worldly, so for scripture referance…how about…“Be ye separate from the world”

Pam… :tiphat:

 

[Lance_Bantz]

Actually, for a Catholic man, it is just common sense. For the woman, it is not creating a Mortal sin in the opposite sex deliberately.

Remember, the Ten Commandmants: “Tho shou not covet another man’s wife.” Modesty aids the man in keeping the commandment. Immodesty is an abomination to God.

Finally, I fail to see why females would want to look like a slut, hooker or madame. Perhaps they are mentally ill?

 

[Blanka]

Lance Bantz:

Actually, for a Catholic man, it is just common sense. For the woman, it is not creating a Mortal sin in the opposite sex deliberately.

Remember, the Ten Commandmants: “Tho shou not covet another man’s wife.” Modesty aids the man in keeping the commandment. Immodesty is an abomination to God.

Finally, I fail to see why females would want to look like a slut, hooker or madame. Perhaps they are mentally ill?

I appreciate hearing a Catholic man’s viewpoint on the issue of women’s modesty.
I think that part of the answer to the question is that the more we identify with the “world” rather than with Christian teachings, the more we become like the world. The world has a whole different set of standards that esteem women dressing like sluts. Just look at what is portrayed on TV, MTV, and in fashion magazines. Those images are supposed to be the acceptable look for American women. That is why women have to make a conscious choice not to be like that and to choose Christian modesty. It is a sad statement on how far we’ve strayed from modesty to the point where a woman will actually attend mass with her midriff showing and skin tight clothing. And even worse, that parent’s will allow their daughters to dress this way. :bigyikes: The argument that we have to dress to “fit in” to society is just part of the lie of relativism. We can choose to “live in the world but not be of the world.”
It is always interesting to me that Mennonite women are easily identified by their particular style of modest dress. Orthodox Jewish women also dress in a manner that meets the Jewish standards of modesty. I’m afraid the same cannot be said about Catholic women. I commend those who have made the choice to embrace modesty. My husband says that a modest woman is always more beautiful than a “worldly” woman.
It’s an uphill battle striving for modesty in a world that promotes just the opposite. :bowdown2:

 

[KayMS]

Angels Watchin:

It comes from the church.

Maybe if we followed the teachings of the church, there wouldn’t be the ‘confusion’ that so many teens talk about when it comes to lesbian and homosexual activity. Maybe girls would grow up to be women and boys would grow up to be men, the way God made them.

It is the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) that is trying to say trousers on women have caused the homosexual mentality - NOT the Church.

Standards of Modesty in Dress

Imprimatur dated Sept.24, 1956

“A dress cannot be called decent 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 materials are improper.”

The Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII

As for this quote, the Imprimatur belongs to a leaflet of Father Kunkel, not the quote. The leaflet which contains the Imprimatur claims that statement was made by Cardinal Sbaretti, Prefect of Congregation of the Council. BUT, he did NOT make that statement. He wrote another document (which can be verified) and is misquoted as the source of the above statement in the leaflet. The Imprimatur only verifies that nothing against morals or Catholic teaching is contained in the leaflet, not that the leaflet is without error.

That quote does appears in other second party literature (not from the Church). The literature, however, contradicts each other: some claim the statement was made by the Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII, while other literature claims it was the Cardinal Vicar of Pius XI. In any case, the statement source is unverified in the other literature and without imprimatur. Check your sources more closely before you claim to quote a statement of the Magisterium. The catholicmodesty.com web site is not the official authoritative voice of the Church.

Women ALWAYS wore skirts up until VERY recently (the past 60 years)

That is false and a narrow view of history. As far back as the Persia era, women can be found to have worn trousers - a society in which women were extremely secluded - pants do not ALWAYS equate to liberation, that is merely our CURRENT interpretation. The Church does not live in a time vacuum. Additionally, it was the case in the past where civilized men did not wear trousers; trousers were considered the clothing of barbarians and regarded as uncivilized BUT civilized men eventual adopted trousers anyway.

The virtue of modesty means to cover oneself in an unassuming way. If you draw attention to yourself with extreme clothing (either immodest or modest in coverage) you are NOT being modest. Perhaps people do not recognize the Catholic women who dress modestly because they have achieved both ends: to dress for coverage in the prevailing styles WITHOUT drawing attention to themselves! That is TRUE modesty.

 

[KayMS]

Angels Watchin:

Speaking as the prefect, the document linked below comes from the Magisterium. It has never been changed.

catholicmodesty.com/Popesonmodesty.html

As for the document of the Prefect (which is the verifiable document of Cardinal Sbaretti made in 1930), it appears incomplete on that web site; it actually has 12 points, not just 9. You are begging the question by saying the document has never changed, especially when it never appears complete in modesty literature. That document had canonical weight (Canon 363, 1917 code) and used to contain verbiage about prayers and mandated reports from bishops to Rome on women’s dress in their diocese. Perhaps you should ask your pastor if he is complying to the requested prayers, and your bishop if he is making the required reports if you want to ignore the fact that the 1983 Code of Canon law changed all of this.

 

[KayMS]

Here is a quote from a post in the scripture forum supporting a reference I had made to biblical Jewish dress being highly similar in style between the genders save for a difference in garment colors for men and women.

…if they all wore the same color, unisex. The sure give away would be their faces. Women, except the most destitute, wore eye-liner and mascara. Job’s third beautiful daughters name, Keren-happuch, translates to cosmetic jar. More precisely the container for a black powder (kohl?) that was used as mascara. I suppose even then women knew squinting in bright sun-light caused wrinkles. And yes, It is possible the Virgin Mary may have worn it also. Dan

Homosexuality is an internal disorder not a visual error promoted by gender “confusion” in clothing. As I see it, it is the radical only-dress supporters who are having a hard time differentiating the sexes - everyone else seems to be able to identify men from women even if the women are in pants with short hair and the men are in contemporary kilts with long hair.