Skirts at work

[Clare]

I have to be a part of my non-traditional family, non-Catholic profession, and non-Christian school.  Should I have to conform to their ideals of dress out of respect for them?  Should I have to wear pants in my house out of respect for my mother? 

That doesn't follow, because our society doesn't say women shouldn't wear skirts!

 

It just says they may wear trousers.

 

Islam is opposed to a lot of the decadence of Western Society. All Muslim women that I've ever seen wear trousers!

 

Trousers is not a symptom of our immoral society. It's not even a cause.

 

Immodesty is a bit of both.

 

But trousers are not immodest per se. Trousers and skirts are both capable of being immodest.

 

Clare.

[Clare]

Once again, there were no pants at the time of Dueteronomy, and any assumption that the quotation refers them is nothing more than begging the question.

 

There are pants for men, and pants for women. Cross-dressing is wrong. That's what is being referred to.

 

Yes! Exactly!

 

Clare.

[Clare]

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, ...

 

Certainly the BVM has never been depicted wearing pants

 

I have received a Christmas card or two in the past featuring Our Lady depicted with a neckline much lower than that stipulated above!

 

Does the fact that an artist has depicted Our Lady with a low neckline make low necklines ok?

 

Clare.

[MagisterMusicae]

However, it is a different aspect of women's wearing of men's trousers which seems to us the gravest.  

The wearing of men's dress by women affects firstly the woman herself, by changing the feminine psychology proper to women; secondly it affects the woman as wife of her husband, by tending to vitiate relationships between the sexes; thirdly it affects the woman as mother of her children by harming her dignity in her children's eyes ... This changing of the feminine psychology does fundamental, and, in the long run, irreparable damage to the family, to conjugal fidelity, to human affections and to human society.

Well, let's say this were true for the sake of argument. What of those women who don't have a "feminine psychology," a husband to affect with her shameless leg-sleeves, and children whose could be offended by seeing their mother shamelessly dressed in clothes she can do things in, that all the other mothers in the culture wear, that are comfortable, that are seen everywhere, all the time on women, etc.

That's an entirely different question, that, in a thread already pushing 16 pages, I shall avoid with a three meter pole.

No, it's entirely relevant. There's this assumption about "feminine psychology" (meaning what, exactly?), an assumption that all women have this "feminine psychology," and an assumption that wearing pants betrays all that. Sounds like a lot of assumptions to me, and I want to know about the typical woman who doesn't like walking around like a piece of fluff, who likes to wear clothes she can feel and be effective in, and so on.

My perception of the heat inspired by this topic is this: the matter has not one thing to do with modesty, and not one thing to do with anything inherent to "femininity." What it is about is this: skirts are, for some "modern trads" (ahem) a pure symbol. They're a flag. A woman wearing pants is seen as having let fall some standard she should be waving. Some of the "he-boy" types about in certain trad circles -- the ones who think of women as "should be uneducated, sexless, needless maids/child-bearers" -- see the skirt in the same way we Yanks see the flag at Iwo Jima. It's sick.  It's arbitrary. It is damaging to real women. And, as said, it has nothing to do with "modesty" or "feminity." It's about flag-waving and some people's personal preferences.

Vox,

Perhaps some men do look at the issue that way. Perhaps it's their "standard". That does not make all men who wish that women would wear dresses and long skirts into men who want "uneducated, sexless needless maids/child-bearers". A good Catholic man would want women to wear feminine attire, and whether they were educated (I assume you mean a college degree) or not should not matter. What should matter is that a woman is a good Catholic and will make a good wife and mother. That is a woman who is balanced in all aspects, educated in the Faith and in her duties (irregardless of her formal education), a woman with balanced passions (not sexless but not licentious), and the true heart of the family (not just a maid/child making machine).

It's fairly unfair to make that comparison, and it's really inaccurate poisoning of the well. It turns the whole skirts argument into "sensible women" versus "domineering men".

About the "feminine psychology", I was merely presenting Cardinal Siri's main thesis, opposed to Clare who wrote that the Cardinal said pants were not really a modesty issue. A full read of his letter clearly indicated what his thesis is.

And honestly, as far as I know neither you or I are terribly studied in psychology, nor was I intending to make Cardinal Siri's argument. I'm not studied enough now to have any expertise, so it would just be an uneducated opinion. Since this thread is full of those rather than educated arguments and evidence, I'm not going there.

I'm not using the Victorian era as a standard at all. But the pictures do paint a very different picture of the differences.

I find, however, that people, in a sense, refuse to admit that there is an objective difference between a skirt and pants. It's like music, a field in which I do claim expertise. People really hate hearing that "rock music" is bad. And that's an awful generalization and usually poorly supported. In order to understand what makes music good and bad, objectively, you have to admit that one piece of music is different from another. We know it, but I am amazed at how many high school students hear a difference, but when asked what it is, they suggest there is no real difference.

The pictures paint a difference. We can see objective differences. Between skirts and pants there are objective differences, good and bad.

[MagisterMusicae]

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, ...

Certainly the BVM has never been depicted wearing pants

I have received a Christmas card or two in the past featuring Our Lady depicted with a neckline much lower than that stipulated above!

Does the fact that an artist has depicted Our Lady with a low neckline make low necklines ok?

Clare.

Clare,

For the two or three good points you've put forth, stuff like this does not help the discussion at all, and it's pointless for me, or anyone else to respond to it.

You've accused me of non-sequitors, but every other post you've put up here is full of these. This one included.

Our Lady has appeared in the Brooklyn Museum of Art with female genitalia surrounding her, and her statue smeared with dung. Does that it okay for us to do the same?

[lefebvre_fan]

Enjoy!



 

WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING: Objections    You Cannot Condemn Women Wearing Trousers Today  Steps of this Controversy         In an article published in The Remnant, November 15, 2002, Three Photos Tell The Story: Good Ideas Fit with Good Customs, Marian T. Horvat analyzes difference in clothing between some leftist demonstrators of the 1950s and some rightist demonstrators today to show how the customs have become more revolutionary. Objection -  A reader in London accuses the author of being narrow-minded in her moral judgments and without charity toward the young pro-life demonstrators. Response -  Dr. Horvat brings strong documentation by Popes and Saints on the contested points.      Objection to the Article "Three Photos Tell the Story: Good Ideas Fit with Good Customs" Letter to the Editor of The Remnant    Dear Editor:    I am writing in protest at Marion Horvatt's article "3 Photos Tell the Story" (15th Dec 2002) in which she saw fit to criticise the appearance of those taking part in a pro-life rally. I was appalled by the bitterness and lack of Christian charity shown by Dr Horvatt. How dare she criticise women on a pro-life demonstration! A demonstration is not the time when a woman's elegance is of any real relevance to the issue. I took part in a Rescue in London in the late eighties when I was a student at London University in which Joan Andrews also took part. As we were being carried away by policemen I was glad that I was wearing trousers.  Horvatt cites a letter Cardinal Siri written in 1960,  but the voice of one Cardinal is not the voice of the Church.  There is a great danger in  traditionalists setting themselves up as arbitrators of Catholic teaching.  Some traditionalists carry this argument to an extreme, in saying that women should not go to University because, among many other things, their  education would, apparently, make it difficult for them to obey their  husbands. (SSPX website for Canada).  While asking what it would actually  say of Catholic teaching if it were indeed true that the success of a  marriage can only be built on the ignorance of women, I also ask where does that leave Ms. Horvatt with her PhD, if this is the type of extreme thinking that she adopts? In our cold climate I regularly wear trousers as a way of keeping warm. I can assure Ms. Horvatt that my gender has never been called into question. Those who distort the issue into a question of gender identifiction gratuitously insult women. If one morning I suggested to my husband that he wear a pair of my trousers he would give me the most weird look imaginable! If I went into a local men's store and asked to be measured for a pair of trousers, they would direct me to the women's store where I would find WOMEN'S trousers.  If women wearing trousers is women cross-dressing, then men shaving is men imitating women. Dr. Horvatt cannot have it both ways.  A blanket  condemnation of trousers is out of proportion, and is turning young people  away from the traditional movement since it does not reflect reality.  However,  what alarms me the most about Dr. Horvatt's article is her  distinct lack of charity.  One of the women's crimes in the top photo is  that she is "not as pretty" and is shorter and fatter than the woman on her right.  The poor young man who's spending his free time at a pro life demo is  accused of vanity since Dr. Horvatt speculates "his sleeves are rolled under for vanity's sake (to give an even tan on his arms)."  Horvatt does seem  possessed of quite a fertile imagination when it comes to the people's  motives for what they are wearing, and she always imparts uncharitable  motives to them.    No, that's not quite true. The women from the 1972 demonstration calling for divorce is Italy is praised for her "well-coiffed hair..pulled back into what would be an elegant twist or roll. Her outfit is distinguished by tasteful jewellery that reflects a desire to appear distinguished and noble." The poor young pro-lifers and other Catholic demonstrators way of being and walking is later contrasted with the pro-divorce woman's "Catholic way of being and walking".  So women who are pro-divorce Horvatt sees fit to praise with the adjective "Catholic" and the pro-lifers of 2002 are described as "vulgar". What sort of twisted values are these? Perhaps instead of spending so much time analysing photographs Dr. Horvatt should spend some time reading the Bible where Our Lord in his life on earth condemns the Pharisees more than any other single thing and the Our Lord in the Divine Mercy apparitions (which are accepted by the Conciliar Church and traditionalists alike) condemns those who lack mercy.  No one escapes Dr. Horvatt's arrogant and obsessive censure! She comments  on one young lady's "not so elegant legs".  She also condemns this young  woman for drinking "straight from a gallon jug container."   I advise  Horvatt never to go on the Chartres Pilgrimage.  I can only speak for the  one organised by the SSPX , not that organised by the SSPeter so  enthusiastically promoted by the Remnant, but I can assure Horvatt that,  horror of horrors, women actually drink from wine bottles, and yes, wear  trousers...  Horvatt ends her article with a warning that "I hope these photos will  serve as a warning to traditionalists...".  Sadly, it is not the photos  which serve as the warning but her article, which shows that we are becoming  those "ugly traditionalists" which I recall the editor, some issues ago, was       Yours sincerely       Julia Howell, London, England      The Response  Marian Therese Horvat, Ph.D.     Objections For brevity’ sake, I will divide the objections into parts. According to Mrs. Howell:    1. The use of trousers for women would be acceptable because:   A.   Only Cardinal Siri condemned it, and he does not represent the thinking of the Church.   B.   Women need to wear them in cold weather.  C.  To condemn the use of trousers would set the youth against the Church.  D. Mrs. Howell felt more comfortable wearing trousers when she was carried out by the police during a pro-life demonstration.    2. It is a lack of charity to point out that the two young people in the photo are badly dressed because:   A. They are defending a good cause, the pro-life position;  B. One cannot judge the intentions of a person from his or her gestures and clothing;  C. Clothing should not be a matter of concern at a rally or demonstration.  Answers   1. Let me respond to the first block of objections.  A. The quoted text of Cardinal Siri represents the moral teachings of the Church perfectly until Vatican II. In the History of Western Civilization, the use of trousers has been characteristic apparel for lay men since the 14th century, with the obvious exception of the Scotch who wore kilts. Here also, however, the clothing of Scotch lasses was different from that of the lads, and there could be no confusion between the two.  Deuteronomy is very clear on this point: “A woman shall not be clothed with a man’s apparel; neither shall a man use woman’s apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God “(22:5). With this base, the Church consistently and constantly condemned the use of trousers by women.  An example of this teaching is St. Thomas Aquinas’ doctrine: “Outward apparel should be consistent with the state of the person according to general custom. Hence it is in itself sinful for a woman to wear man’s clothes, or vice-versa; especially since this may be the cause of sensuous pleasure; and it is expressly forbidden in the Law (Deut 22) …. Nevertheless this may be done at times on account of some necessity, either in order to hide oneself from enemies, or through lack of other clothes, or for some other such reason” (Summa Theologiae II, II, question 169, article 2, reply to objection 3). Similar orientation can be found in any good book on Morals before Vatican II.  The problem with Mrs. Howell’s criticism of Cardinal Siri's teaching is that she seems to think that a moral principle can changes with the times. Catholic Morals do not change. What changes with the times is the Situation Ethics of the Conciliar Church. However, this “New Morals,” as it was also called by Pius XII, was expressly condemned. Probably Mrs. Howell is like many Catholics today who do not realize that this progressivist system was condemned, and since I believe that her critiques were made in good faith, I think she will no longer defend such a position.  B. I don’t think that the use of trousers is a necessity for cold weather. If this were the case, women would have adopted this style of dress centuries ago in Catholic countries, especially where it is very cold.  I know Mrs. Howell does not like my use of photographs to illustrate for readers various points of how the Cultural Revolution has progressed, but I find it very useful. My generation was called the “generation of the image,” and can understand a principle much better when it is illustrated than when it is explained with words alone. The generations after me have become so image oriented it is almost useless to try to explain the progress of the Revolution in the realm of customs and Morals without pictures. Therefore, I consider the use of pictures a good pedagogical tool.  This picture illustrates, for example, how trousers were not necessary in a cold weather. You can see from this photograph of a sports scene in northern Sweden that the women in the past adapted to cold weather, and even practiced a sport like snow skiing, without the need to don trousers. Further, the ladies in the picture do not seem inconvenienced and appear to be enjoying themselves.  My grandmother, who came to Kansas from Croatia, worked almost every day (except in wintertime) in her large garden -- always, always in a dress. The winters in Kansas can be bitterly cold, and the upper two stories of her house did not have heat until after World War II, but she did not find this a reason to change to trousers.    As for religious women, I have never heard of nuns in very cold countries or missionary sisters in difficult practical situations exchanging their habits for trousers because it would be more convenient.  C. With regard to the question of the youth, who might be alienated from the Church if one insists too strongly on proper dress, I would have this to say:  The youth of the greatest importance for the Catholic cause are not the ones turned toward pleasures and convenience. The youth who are always attracted to the Catholic Church are turned toward heroism, willing to sacrifice for her and resist the fads and seductions of the modern world. These young people see and admire her grandeur and her immutable Morals, and realize that even though it is difficult to go along with all the moral precepts, they want to follow the steps of Our Lord on the narrow road to Heaven. Adapting Catholic Morals to the Modern World, as Vatican II did, had disastrous effects. Instead of attracting young people to the Church, the seminars, convents and monasteries were emptied.   D. Perhaps the case described by Mrs. Howell - when she wore trousers to avoid immodesty when being carried out by the police at a pro-life demonstration - would fall into one of the exceptions that St. Thomas mentioned above. It could well be the case.   2. As for the second block of objections I will repeat each criticism and then respond:  A. To the objection: One should not criticize those who are defending a good cause, e.g., the pro-life position, for the clothing they are wearing;    I answer: When I criticized the valorous young man and women who were dedicating themselves to the pro-life cause, it was not my intention to belittle or despise their persons, but rather, to bring both the young man and the young woman, as well as my readers, to a better and more consistent Catholic position. I was trying to point out the discrepancy between the high idea they were defending, and what certainly is a lack of decorum in their persons. Their clothing and demeanor do not reflect their idealism and the nobility of cause they defend.  Are the points I mentioned in my article defects? Yes, according to Catholic morals and teaching on dress. I would ask Mrs. Howell to refer to the teaching of Pope Pius XII "On Style," of November 8, 1957 for his comments on the importance of decorum and modesty in clothing, and especially for women. He clearly protests against “the frequent attempts of many contemporaries to separate the exterior activities of man from the moral realm as if the two belonged to different universes.” He reminds the Catholic of the “consistency that must exist between what one professes and one’s external practices.”  Are the points I mentioned defects only in this particular young man and woman? By no means. I am not trying to point out here any one particular person or his personal style, but rather a style of our times. Yes, there is a defect, a defect in a whole conception of personal decorum and modesty.   B.  Mrs. Howell maintains that one cannot judge the intentions of a person from his or her gestures and clothing.  To this objection, I answer: We know that the bearing and the thinking of a person should harmonize from the clear words of Scriptures: “The attire of the body, and the laughter of the teeth, and the gait of the man, show what he is (Eccles 19:27).”  Scriptures tells us we can be even more judgmental than this: “A man is known by his look, and a wise man, when thou meetest him, is known by his countenance.” (Eccles 19:26). We are told that we can know a man just from his look and countenance! The modern notion that a man should not be judged by his appearance contradicts the Gospel, common usage, and good sense.  St. Thomas, the great Universal Doctor of the Church, comments these words of Scripture in his teaching on outward demeanor: “Outward movements are signs of the inward disposition, according to Eccl. 19:27 ‘The attire of the body, and the laughter of the teeth, and the gait of the man show what he is,’ and St. Ambrose says (De Offic. I, 18) that ‘the habits of mind are seen in the gestures of the body,’ and that ‘the body’s movement is an index of the soul’” (Summa Theologiae, II, II, question 168, article 1, reply to objection 1).   Therefore analyzing the gestures and postures of the body, as well as one's way of dressing we can know the interior of the person. So, I do not think I was violating Catholic practice in my analysis.  With regard to the charity I am accused of violating, I think it was clear in the ensemble of my article that my intention was not to take personal attitudes toward the subjects of the pictures. Following the words of Scriptures and the wise counsels and teachings of the Saints, my aim was to point out the strides made by the Cultural Revolution, and how unwittingly we can go along with postures, attitudes and styles that oppose Catholic culture and Morals.  Is it a lack of charity to instruct and correct? In fact, Scriptures and the example of Our Lord Jesus Christ tell us the opposite. You can find many verses in the Old and New Testament that speak of the importance of instruction and correction of the young. For “charity is this: to walk according to the commandments of God” (2 John 1:6).  It was in the spirit of charity that Pope Benedict XV made this strong critique of women who appeared in public in the kind of immodest clothing many women wear today in the service of good causes, like pro-life rallies, and even going to Mass: “One cannot deplore sufficiently 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 at such apparel as a grave fault against Christian modesty. Now it does not suffice to exhibit themselves on public thoroughfares, but they do not fear to cross the threshold of churches to assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (Encyclical Sacra Propediem)."   There is a mistaken idea of charity that has gained ground in our times, that is, to never criticize immodest clothing or make corrections about bad customs for fear of hurting feelings or damaging self-esteem, or other similar reasons. This was not the attitude of the pre-conciliar Popes and the great Saints and Doctors of the Church.  C. Mrs. Howell affirms that a demonstration is not a place to pay attention to clothing and such things.    To this objection, I answer: I positively disagree with her. I think that a Catholic should always be aware of being a Catholic and represent himself as such everywhere and on all occasions, and especially when he is in public.  On this point I could quote innumerable Saints, Doctors of the Church and even simple manuals on Catholic etiquette and behavior. Let me close with only three quotes. The first is a line from Scriptures that makes no exceptions of time or place: “In like manner I wish women to be decently dressed, adorning themselves with modesty and dignity.” (1 Tim 2:9)  The second are the words of Pius XII in his allocution on fashion (1957) which clearly shows that a person should always be aware that her clothing reflects her being and way of thinking: “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.” The third is from St. Francis de Sales' famous book of counsels for a laywoman, Introduction to the Devout Life. In his chapter on attire, he instructs devout women to follow the advice of St. Paul, that is, to always be “attired in decent apparel, adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety (1 Tim 2:9).” The shorts and form-fitting clothes worn today in public offend both modesty and sobriety.  I imagine that St. Frances de Sales would speak even stronger to the young women of our days, given the bad customs and styles in vogue. But even then he had this to say about how a Catholic should appear in public: “I would have devout people, whether men or women, the best dressed of the company, but the least pompous and affected. I would have them adorned with gracefulness, decency and dignity.” *  This are the answers I would like to make to the objections of Mrs. Howell. I did not comment on the education of women, since I have always maintained in public and private that girls should be properly educated and receive a good formation.  I can assure Mrs. Howell that although the tone of her critique was not very friendly, I enjoyed having her as my correspondent. If she would like to reply to my points, I certainly would continue our interesting exchange.               Objections  |  Questions  |   Comments  |  Home  |  Books |  Tapes |  Search  |   Contact Us   ©2002-2006   Tradition in Action, Inc.   All Rights Reserved

 

[MagisterMusicae]

You're still begging the question. No one here (and no one I've ever met) has been able to provide proof that it is a sin for a woman to wear pants.

No one here has said it is a sin. More than a few have suggested that either pants are immodest or that it is harmful to a woman, but no one has suggested that it is a sin for a woman to wear pants.

Still, this line of reasoning is terribly flawed. It assumes that only if something is a sin should it be avoided. It is akin to being sorry for your sins because they may send you to Hell, not because they offend God.

Should sin be the determining factor in whether we do something? Should we be allowed to do something imprudent or harmful, even if it is not a sin? Or should we look for a higher ideal, like the glory of God?

Should we not ask the question, "Does this help me to grow in my spiritual life, and does it help glorify God?" instead of "Is it a sin?"

Once again, there were no pants at the time of Dueteronomy[sic], and any assumption that the quotation refers them is nothing more than begging the question.

Well, we did not have pornographic photos at the time of the Ten Commandments, so any assumption that that "neighbor's wife" bit means pornographic photos are immoral is, according to your logic, begging the question.

[ChantCd]

I hope everyone realizes that there is a big difference between looking more attractive to men (e.g., by wearing a feminine skirt or dress) and dressing to inflame a man's lust.

I am a man, so I can speak from experience here.

If I see a young lady in beautiful yet modest attire, I might think "there's a beautiful lady". But if a girl is wearing shorts, or other "revealing" attire, I think "modesty alert! Avert the eyes!"

There's a big difference. In the former case, a woman might attract herself a husband. In the latter case, she might attract a lover, or a drooling pig to "hit on" her. Not the kind of man a good Catholic girl is looking for, at any rate.

In Christ,

Matthew

[MagisterMusicae]

I hope everyone realizes that there is a big difference between looking more attractive to men (e.g., by wearing a feminine skirt or dress) and dressing to inflame a man's lust.

I am a man, so I can speak from experience here.

If I see a girl in beautiful yet modest attire, I think "there's a beautiful lady". But if a girl is wearing shorts, or other "revealing" attire, I think "modesty alert! Avert the eyes!".

There's a big difference. In the former case, a woman might attract herself a husband. In the latter case, she might attract a lover, or a drooling pig to "hit on" her. Not the kind of man a good Catholic girl is looking for, at any rate.

In Christ,

Matthew

Well said, Matthew.

Alot of men will admit that they find a lady in a modest skirt or dress much more attractive. I'm surprised that some have not used that as a reason not to wear a skirt.

From my personal perspective, A woman dressed in a modest dress or skirt is much more attractive to me, but not in a physical way. She is more beautiful, more demanding of respect, and more sacred. Hence, thoughts are rarely about immoral things.

A woman dressed in revealing attire (covering and clingy or just large amounts of flesh shown) is, to me, not attractive, nor beautiful, but, often, a propane torch to the passions. (Fires them up quickly, whether it is desired or not). If she's not so fit, like many who wear such awful fashions -- I'll quote a priest, who is a good friend, upon seeing an overweight woman with stomach showing and tight pants -- "Sometimes modesty is just charity".

[Clare]

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, ...

Certainly the BVM has never been depicted wearing pants

I have received a Christmas card or two in the past featuring Our Lady depicted with a neckline much lower than that stipulated above!

Does the fact that an artist has depicted Our Lady with a low neckline make low necklines ok?

Clare.

Clare,

For the two or three good points you've put forth, stuff like this does not help the discussion at all, and it's pointless for me, or anyone else to respond to it.

You've accused me of non-sequitors, but every other post you've put up here is full of these. This one included.

Our Lady has appeared in the Brooklyn Museum of Art with female genitalia surrounding her, and her statue smeared with dung. Does that it okay for us to do the same?

It is not a non sequitur, MagisterMusicae.

 

You have given the fact that Our Lady has never been portrayed in trousers as a reason against women's trousers.

 

It follows logically from that, that if Our Lady has been portrayed in a particular way, then that must be acceptable for us to copy.

 

My point is that it is irrelevant that Our Lady has never been portrayed in trousers.

 

Has Our Lady been portrayed without a veil? Not to my knowledge. Are Muslim women therefore onto something? Should Catholic women also be "counter-cultural" by wearing veils at all times, not just in church?

 

I've pointed out that Our Lord hasn't been portrayed in trousers either. Does that stop the menfolk wearing them?

 

Clare.