Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum
May 24, 2013, 03:36:AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The man still needs help!
 
   Fish Eaters    Forum Index   Forum Rules   Help Calendar Members Chat Room   Who's Chatting   Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
 
Author Topic: Skirts at work  (Read 19132 times)
Clare
Dumb Blonde
Member

Gender: Female
Location: UK
Posts: 2,484


Ask dad; he knows.


WWW
« Reply #220 on: January 06, 2007, 04:33:AM »

Quote from: DominusTecum

LOL! If the men didn't have women in pants all around them to cause this, then they ought to be able to keep good enough control over themselves not to become *ahem* physically interested.

What kind of man is aroused by seeing a woman in "men's" trousers?

 

 

Not the average one! And I did quote some preV2 moral theology way back which said that any form of clothing which doesn't pose a danger for the average person beholding it is regarded as permissible!

 

Clare.

Logged

Clare
Dumb Blonde
Member

Gender: Female
Location: UK
Posts: 2,484


Ask dad; he knows.


WWW
« Reply #221 on: January 06, 2007, 04:36:AM »

When did people start wearing "separates"? ie tops and trousers or skirts.

 

It has led to the immodesty of crop tops and hipsters! As gradually the bottoms of tops have risen, and the tops of trousers/skirts have lowered!

 

That's when it all started.

 

When all in one robes were abandoned for separates!

 

Clare.

Logged

Varus
Official Bouncer
Member

Gender: Male
Location: Norway
Posts: 868


My old avatar is back!


« Reply #222 on: January 06, 2007, 06:42:AM »

Marylou,

 

  What a funny story!!!!!!!  I bet she caught the Jansenist "with his pants down", so to speak.

 

Otherwise...this thread is humourous. The conspiracies are lacking, but it is still one of those that makes you laugh when reading through the (rapidly approaching) allmost 20 pages. I'm currently waiting for someone to break the ice and introduce "Jewish pants/trousers". Too bad some of the most conspiratious posters are gone from the forum. Once in a while, they were great fun.

 

 

 

Quote from: Marylou

Once a friend of mine, a very gutsy mum of eight was serving afternoon tea to man who is a very dominating trad acquaintance of hers. A real pain in the butt type - always correcting other people's children in public etc. (my kids call him by his Christian name! - just to upset him not because they are disrespectful !)
Anyway, he had a go at my friend because her little girls were playing in the sandpit in shorts. She put him out of her house accusing him of being a pervert!!!! "How dare you think of my little girls in this way! Are you sick or something! " she bellowed at him!

Vox, please post that wonderful story about the two monks - the younger one scandalized while the older one carries the lady across the river - I can't find it anywhere.
I think it's message is at the heart of a lot of this discussion.

Logged
Clare
Dumb Blonde
Member

Gender: Female
Location: UK
Posts: 2,484


Ask dad; he knows.


WWW
« Reply #223 on: January 06, 2007, 08:14:AM »

Quote from: MagisterMusicae
Our Lady at Fatima to Jacinta : "Certain styles and fashions are being introduced which gravely offend my Divine Son!"

Certain fashions. Not "all fashions that are being introduced gravely offend" Our Lord. Several fashions have been introduced since then. Short hair. Calf length skirts. Why not pick on those fashions? It's just guesswork assuming that Our Lady included trousers.

 

Quote
Ven. Pope Pius XII (Allocution, July 17, 1954) : "How many young girls there are who do not see any wrongdoing in following certain shameless styles like so many sheep. They certainly would blush if they could guess the impression they make and the feeling they evoke in those who see them. Do they not see the harm resulting from excess in certain gymnastic exercises and sports not suitable for virtuous girls? What sins are committed or provoked by conversations which are too free, by immodest shows, by dangerous reading. How lax have consciences become, how pagan morals!"

Yes. Not trousers though!

Quote
Pietro Cardinal Ciriaci, Congregation of the Council (Aug 21, 1954): "Everyone knows that during the summer months particularly, things are seen here and there, which are certain to prove offensive to anyone who has retained some respect and regard for Christian modesty. On the beaches, in country resorts, almost everywhere, on the streets of cities and towns, in public and private places, and, indeed, often even in buildings dedicated to God, an unworthy and indecent mode of dress has prevailed.
"Because of this, the young particularly, whose minds are easily bent towards vice, are exposed to the extreme danger of losing their innocence, which is, by far, the most beautiful adornment of mind and body. Feminine adornment, if it can be called adornment, feminine clothing, if that can be called clothing which contains nothing to protect either the body or modesty, are at times of such a nature, that they seem to serve lewdness rather than modesty . . . Well did the ancient poet say of this matter, 'Vice necessarily follows upon public nudity.'"

Again, none of that applies to trousers! How many women wear trousers on the beaches?

Quote
Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer : "Unfortunately, we are living in times that have lost the sense of sin and, as a result, we see around us an eruption of styles of dress which are, in every way, contrary to Christian modesty. Christian people must not allow themselves to be carried along by the spirit of the world but must firmly resist such deviations... Jacinta Marto, one of the little seers of Fatima, although she was only eleven years old at the time, had a wisdom taught her by the Mother of God.
"She merits, therefore, our attention. Here is what she said with regard to styles of dress: "Fashions will arise which will greatly offend God." When we consider the fashions of our day, we are led to conclude that the times foretold by the little seer have arrived. Indeed, the styles of dress of the women and girls of today such as: very tight clothing; dressing like men, including slacks and tights; low necklines; skirts with hemlines or slits which do not cover the leg below the knee – are absolutely contrary to the norms of Christian modesty."

At last trousers get mentioned. But he's just interpreting Our Lady's words and including trousers.

Quote
Decree of the Congregation of the Council (Jan 12, 1930): "We recall that 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 knee. Furthermore, dresses of transparent material are improper.
"Let parents keep their daughters away from public gymnastic games and contests; but, if their daughters are compelled to attend such exhibitions, let them see to it that they are fully and modestly dressed. Let them never permit their daughters to don immodest garb."

Trousers?

 

I don't think any advocates of trousers on this forum are advocating the things that are condemned in these passages! They are not synonymous. So there's no point in quoting them. You're preaching to the converted regarding the fashions specified! We don't need to be told that low cut dresses and short skirts and see through clothes are immodest! We know! And our support for women's trousers need not be taken as proof that we think transparent, low cut, short clothes are acceptable! It's a non sequitur, again.

Quote
Rufino Cardinal Santos, Pastoral Letter (Dec 6, 1959): "O Christian mothers, if only you knew the future distress, peril and ill-restrained shame that you prepare for your sons and daughters by imprudently accustoming them to live barely clothed, and permitting them to lose the sense of modesty, you would be ashamed of yourselves, and of the harm done to the little ones entrusted to you by Heaven to be reared in a Christian dignity and culture."

Barely clothed does not equate to trousers!

Quote
Ven. Pope Pius XII, Allocution (May 22, 1941): "Numbers of believing and pious women...in accepting to follow certain bold fashions, break down, by their example, the resistance of many other women to such fashions, which may become for them the cause of spiritual ruin. As long as these provocative styles remain identified with women of doubtful virtue, good women do not dare to follow them; but once these styles have been accepted by women of good reputation, decent women soon follow their example, and are carried along by the tide into possible disaster.

Again, this needn't be referring to trousers.

Quote
Dom Bernard Marcheaux : "The evil of our day is this: that the line of demarcation between Christian and non-Christian, between Christian and heretic, between Christian and idolater, is gradually fading away. The cancer of Liberalism attacks everyone and we must be careful not to be infected ourselves. Those who still call themselves Catholic live, too often, like those who have renounced this title. Women who go to church dress just the way women who do not go to church dress;

Didn't they always?

 

Quote
they read the same books and magazines as these women; they go to the same – often immoral – shows as these women; they no longer pray or do penance. It is a confusion of license and worldliness. As a result of these customs, the Church is beginning to disappear in the world. Christianity is being lost. Only rarely does one find Catholics to whom the following words of Saint Paul can apply: "...be blameless and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world". (Phil.2:15).

And this has nothing to do with trousers.

 

Quote
The early Christians stood out among the pagans like shining torches in the dark, and the example of their courage and their virtue attracted the pagans strongly to the Faith. This is something which we do not see today, except in rare cases. Everything is a mish-mash of unrestraint."

Did they dress differently though?

Quote
Pope Benedict XV, Encyclical Letter Sacra Propediem (Jan 6, 1921) : "One can not sufficiently deplore the blindness of so many women of every age and station. Made foolish by a desire to please, they do not see to what degree the indecency of their clothing shocks every honest man and offends God. Most of them would formerly have blushed for such apparel as for a grave fault against Christian modesty. Now it does not suffice to exhibit themselves on public thoroughfares; they do not fear to cross the threshold of churches, to assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and even to bear the seducing food of shameful passions to the Eucharistic Table, where one receives the Heavenly Author of Purity."

Nothing to do with trousers. Everything to do with short skirts, low cut tops, and see through clothes.

Quote
Ven. Pope Pius XII, Allocution on Fashion (Nov. 8, 1957) : "One cannot minimize the importance of style's influence for good or for evil. The language of clothing, as we have already said, is the more effective when it is more ordinary and is understood by everyone. It might be said that society speaks through the clothing it wears. Through its clothing it reveals its secret aspirations and uses it, at least in part, to build or destroy its future."

Ven. Pope Pius XII, Allocution on Fashion (Nov. 8, 1957) : "There always exists an absolute norm to be preserved, no matter how broad and changeable the relative morals of styles may be."

Every one of these quotations comes from before 1960, and before the "Sexual Revolution".

And only Bishop de Castro Mayer's mentions trousers.

 

Clare.

Logged

ErinIsNice
Guest
« Reply #224 on: January 06, 2007, 10:14:AM »

Quote from: Clare

Quote from: MagisterMusicae
Our Lady at Fatima to Jacinta : "Certain styles and fashions are being introduced which gravely offend my Divine Son!"

Certain fashions. Not "all fashions that are being introduced gravely offend" Our Lord. Several fashions have been introduced since then. Short hair. Calf length skirts. Why not pick on those fashions?



Can I ask why you keep bringing up short hair?  As far as I know, having short hair is not a sin against modesty.

Logged


mojomama
Guest
« Reply #225 on: January 06, 2007, 10:23:AM »

Unless nuns were supposed to be immodest.
Logged
Credo
Member

Posts: 6,513



« Reply #226 on: January 06, 2007, 11:07:AM »

       Even from just a fashion point of view, I personally find women in dresses to be much more attractive than the woman in a pants-suit. Especially when they are in what I think are called Peasant Skirts - very nice.

Logged

I promise not to put anything here which might help us question our mind-forged manacles, inspire us, or help us in any way at all.

N.B.: I will not be posting on this site again until the Christmas octave. Have a good Advent.
Varus
Official Bouncer
Member

Gender: Male
Location: Norway
Posts: 868


My old avatar is back!


« Reply #227 on: January 06, 2007, 11:42:AM »

Quote from: Credo

       Even from just a fashion point of view, I personally find women in dresses to be much more attractive than the woman in a pants-suit. Especially when they are in what I think are called Peasant Skirts - very nice.

I agree with you. I've always urged my former girlfriends to wear skirts, because I find it a lot more appealing.

Logged
lefebvre_fan
Member

Posts: 416


« Reply #228 on: January 06, 2007, 12:16:PM »

I know I'm going to be murdered for this, but . . .
 
 The following article is from a Protestant website, so read with caution. I think it might give you an idea of where I was coming from when I linked women wearing pants to "the rise of homosexuality, transgenderism, etc." Obviously, I don't agree with everything in this article (like women not being allowed to work), but I figure it's worth posting just to give you a general overview of my understanding of the historical origins of women's pants and the negative effects it has had on society. I distinctly remember reading something like this on a traditional Catholic website, and that it was more convincing than this article, but I can't seem to find it. I'll keep looking for it, though.
 
 Perhaps I will appear less 'ridiculous' after this (or, more likely, you will see that I'm not the only ridiculous person out there ;)). Feel free to rip this article apart, but please be gentle on me. Tomatoes
 
 
Quote
                           
The gender of pants                      


The             Gender of Pants

Most             women declare that pants does not have a gender and can be worn by             both sexes.

by             Lynford Heron
             The             Centurion Press - Friday, July 19, 2002


Much has been             written on the significance of dress and the language of clothes. Alison Lurie,              fashion historian, writes that "before we are

                     
                                           

near enough to talk, our clothes              announce our sex, age, social class,             and possible information (or misinformation) as to          occupation, personality, opinions, sexual desires and mood." Like any other language,          we must choose our clothing carefully, remembering that meaning depends on           gender, place and circumstance.

The prince of this world           has erected a dark wall of deception between truth and error,           preventing the citizens of earth from seeing the unadulterated truth           on the issue of dress from the inception of time.  Until the           walls of perceptions are cleansed, we will never understand the great           significance of dress and gender.  Therefore, dear reader, before           moving on, consider this story from the bible.

Mark           8:23-25
23 And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.
           24  And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking.
 25 After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly.

           The Lord wants us to see clearly where this issue of pantswearing by           women is concerned.  The objective of this article is to expose           the deceptive plans of the devil, which seem to benefit humankind in           some form or fashion, by removing all scales from our eyes through the           employment of God's words, so that we can see his savvy workings           clearly.

God's Position
           Does the Lord have a voice on this issue?  And if yes, did he           establish any clear distinctions between the apparel of man and women?           These and other questions will be answered in this article.  Now,           let us read God's position:
           
Deuteronomy 22:5
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
           
The Lord never leaves His people in           darkness, because we are the children of light.  Therefore, if           the Lord feels so strongly on this issue that He considers it an           abomination if violated, then He must have given instructions as to           what a woman and a man should wear.  The Lord did not stop at           saying that He made "man," he went on the say that He made           them male and female.  The Lord never advocated sameness, the           elimination of gender differences.  No, the Devil is the author           of the same- sex and unisex clothing agenda.  He is also the           author of feminism/women liberation and women in the work force which           are a few of the principal factors that fanned and set ablaze           this cross-dressing flame.  Before turning to the Word of God in           highlighting the established differences in dress, let us look at the           factors mentioned above.

World War ll (1941 - 1946)
         

                                                             
               

"World War II could be considered           the turning point for women’s social and economic liberation. When           men went off to war, wives and sisters took over their duties at home           and moved into industrial plants around the nation. During this           movement, “Rosie the Riveter” became the symbol of women who hung           up their aprons and dresses and put on pants and boots to pick up a           welding torch.  “Rosie” represented the strength and ability           of women to perform a man’s task."            

             
Women from the Ford, Bacon and Davis detonation plant posed for the camera, c.  World War II
         

"As a young pre-boomer, I           had known that my own father was slogging around France and Germany in           a "half-track", a semi-tank, semi-4x4, armored patrol           vehicle. Later, I would learn that industry positions left vacant by           the volunteer and drafted males sent to the European frontlines, were           being filled, of national necessity, by the women, wives and           girlfriends who had been left to maintain the homefront.

         
This was a distinctive event           because, prior to this national emergency, most women had been           primarily engaged in the traditional roles of homemaker or pre-           homemaker. When women did work, usually in their youth, or as           spinsters, the majority held supportive positions as secretaries, bank           tellers, receptionists and elementary school teachers. Notably, Rosie           characterized the uncommon woman in that she wore pants, in an           era when only men wore the pants. To this day I can remember an early           fifties sermon in which our pastor was railing on about women           appearing in public in pants in the nearby suburban shopping area, as           well as the fact that some were seen smoking cigarettes.                      

                                                                       
               

In a recent edition of the           Detroit Free Press, which celebrated the 50th anniversary of the end           of WWII, was a retrospective story of the transition faced by the           typical "Rosie" on the Homefront. This particular young woman had           gone to work for the Murray Body Plant "because it was on the           busline near her house, and she got hired on the spot. The work           required her to trade her wraparound housedresses for pants. She           agonized over the blue overalls, trying them on several times before           getting up the nerve to wear them. She grew to love them for their           comfort and their freedom and their daring. (She) didn't know the end           of the war would mean that she'd be expected to leave her job at the           factory. You've done your duty, the government would say, now it's           time to do the patriotic thing: Return home so the veterans can have           the jobs."  (Gerald           L. Rowles, Ph.D)                            

             
Rosie photos from Smithsonian Magazine
         

The move of women into the           workplace, whatever the reason, was not heralded as positive by           everyone. As one seventy-six year old woman said, “They [women]           became more independent and being separated from their husbands and           working with other men resulted in many divorces and broken homes           -neglected children.”            

Woman's Liberation           Movement
Pants, which once symbolized male authority (and was           accepted by all via the use of this famous cliché "we know who           wear the pants in this family"), was redefined to symbolize           equality by feminist groups after the war. Women after working with men during World War ll were           reluctant to retire pants wearing for it was a stepping stone towards           the goal of liberation.

Consequently, The           National Organization for Women (N.O.W.) was founded by Betty Friedan           in 1966 because the Commission on the Status of Women established by           President Kennedy in 1961 was not aggressive enough to accomplish           their objectives.  N.O.W. advocates equal opportunity.            However, equality is not what feminist groups are after.  What           they want is the elimination of any distinction between the genders           and the devil has employed this movement for such a purpose.            Apparel before the war defined sex, conduct and roles.  In an attempt           to change the language of clothes, N.O.W.           campaigns that roles are confining.  Roles put people into a           box.  Roles limit choices.  Roles keep women "in their           place."  Any talk of roles brings ugly images of oppression,           that women want to break away from.  Roles are now considered a           chauvinistic way of defining the genders.  So they sought out to           redefine any symbol (ex. pants) which identifies the sex and thus           role.

Cross-dressing, unisex clothing and homosexuality
One           method of advancing the liberation movement was to assume the prerogatives           of a man by cross-dressing - wearing his pants.  However, the           attire of men and women in the eighteenth century cemented their           roles. The apparel made for man complimented his nature and allowed           him to perform his duties, whereas the woman, arrayed in her modest           apparel, hinders her from filling in for a man, yet totally empowering           her to be queen of her domain.  A sphere of influence, behavior           and conduct were also natural attributes of both sexes; each were responsible           for separate tasks.  Those gender distinctions did not allow any overlapping           between genders or cross-dressing.  Quite simply, men wore pants and women wore           dresses.

The cross-dressing "devil-ution" was used to "unsex" the participant.  Therefore, N.O.W. embraced the fashion of pantswearing as an act of empowerment on the part of women based on what it symbolizes.  This fashion did not only remove the lines of demarkation between the sexes, the practice of usurping male authority by wearing male attire also led to androgyny - the union of both sexes in one individual.  There is a strong connection between the body and the mind.  (Marsden, 28)  If women disguise themselves as men in an attempt to acquire male social status and characteristics, the gender distinctions become blur as a result.

One           writer had this to say, "There is still another style of dress which will be           adopted by a class of so-called dress reformers. They will imitate the           opposite sex, as nearly as possible. They will wear the cap, pants,           vest, coat, and boots, the last of which is the most sensible part of           the costume. Those who adopt and advocate this style of dress, are           carrying the so-called dress reform to very objectionable lengths.           Confusion will be the result....           In           this style of dress God's order has been reversed, and his special           directions disregarded.  This style of dress, God would not have           his people adopt. It is not modest apparel, and is not at all fitting           for modest, humble females who profess to be Christ's followers."           (Selected Messages BK 2, pg 477)

Therefore, while           feminist groups are advocating sameness, this practice of           cross-dressing also complemented the homosexual agenda.  Rudi Gernreich, the inventor of unisex clothing was one           of the founders of the Mattachine Society, one of the first gay rights           organizations.  He called his UNISEX clothing "an anonymous           sort of uniform of an indefinite revolutionary cast."  Bisexuals,           Transsexual,           and Cross-dressers           are claiming the right to wear skirts and are actively pursuing its           fulfillment           by creating a new line of men clothing via the top designers of this           world.  Men skirts will be the next fashion explosion of the 21st           century.  The unisex advocates argue that, "If women can           wear pants, them men can wear skirts." Is it really that           farfetched?  Will it ever become a reality?  Well, no one           ever dreamed that men would plait their hair and even worst, pierce           their ears.  Not just one, but both ears are sporting earrings.            How farfetched is the idea of men in skirts, now that you are reminded           that men are wearing earrings?  Their plans are picking up momentum as well.  In           fact, Ohio University has a unisex restroom because their transgender           students wanted a symbol on the restroom door that identified their           sexuality.  

Many Christian women are fanning           the flame of this "devil-ution" ignorantly, while some are           indifferent, because           many churches are desensitized towards social slackness and have           become conditioned to women wearing pants as a new normality.            Twenty five years ago, a woman would never wear a pants to church or           get caught on the road with it on.  It was considered a sign of           rebellion and as the Bible says, rebellion is like witchcraft (1           Samuel 15:23).

         

 By nature there is a marked           difference between the male and female, even in the animal kingdom. It           is a shameful thing to destroy the lines of demarcation that God has           established. It is not only a shame unto the person, it is an "abomination           unto the LORD thy God."  The Bible does have a voice on           this issue, and it speaks to preserve the difference between the           gender by assigning distinguishable garments for man and women.

A           word from God
The word 'breeches' according to Webster means           "pants" and  Dictionary.com says, "it is a garment worn           by men, covering the hips and thighs."   In fact, the           term:"TO WEAR THE BREECHES" means "To usurp the authority of the husband; --           said of a wife."(Collegiate Dictionary).  An unbiased source           such as the dictionary has           maintained the assignment of pants to males.  The Lord used           breeches to prevent confusion when identifying the sexes.  God           gave coats to Adam and eve, but in addition, He also gave breeches to           man.

Genesis 3:21
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
           
Exodus 28:42
And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
           43  And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons.

           There are four references in the Bible pertaining to breeches (Exodus 28:42, Exodus 39:28, Lev 6:10, Ezek 44:18)           and each quote is directed to man. Therefore, when the Lord said,           "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man"           He was saying that the women were not suppose to wear breeches. In today's           language as explained by a universal standard, the dictionary, it is           now called pants.
           
The Lords has spoken.  Choose today, dear friends, to whom           are you going to be obedient.  The prince of this world, the           devil, or a Loving Savior, God the Father?

Logged
DominusTecum
Guest
« Reply #229 on: January 06, 2007, 01:09:PM »

There's definitely a lot of cultural blindness. As one person said earlier, "we are all children of our age, whether we'll acknowledge it or not." Due to the omnipresence of pants among the women in our society today, we easily forget that it was, not so very long ago, a very revolutionary thing to wear them.

This alone should predicate that they be abandoned, "for the cause of counter-revolution." Sure, they're convenient, but the easy way isn't always the best.

 

 

That aside, you probably won't see too much more of me in this thread -I'm going back to school today, and have more important things on my plate than debating the finer points of a woman's attire!

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
 
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC