Skirts at work

[mojomama]

[Mommie2Boys]

If you can't tell the difference between a man wearing trousers and a woman wearing pants, you have other issues.

 

I agree. I doubt any man would mistake the pants I wore the other night for his own. Those embroidered flowers in pretty silvers and browns would look oh so fetching on a man... :lol: Honestly, women wearing pants now days is NOT cross dressing. As a man, have any of you tried to get into a pair of women's pants? They're not even cut the same! Men's clothes are boring compared to mine. :wench

[newtolatin]

'I would suggest that since a woman wearing women's slacks can be easily distinguished from a woman wearing men's trousers, that this argument can be dismissed.'

I would suggest that there is absolutely no difference between a woman wearing 'women's slacks' and one wearing trousers.

OK, would you wear those slacks the woman a few pages back was wearing?

I would suggest that if all pants on women are immodest, that either a reason that appolies only to women needs to be brought up, or that trousers would also be immodest on men.'

A.  Trousers are not, generally speaking, immodest on men.

What leads you to believe this?

The reason that all pants are immodest on women is that wearing pants is not feminine and does not promote a traditional feminine identity, esp. vis a vis a traditional masculine identity.

What tradition are you talking about? because the "tradition" of men's wearing trousers does not go back all that far.

Moreover, the clothing worn in Biblical times was fairly similar: ankle-length garments which were treated differently for men and for women. But there was no major difference like that between trousers and skirts.

'And I would suggest that there are 2 points against the last argument: 1. women are no longer necessarily wearing slacks because of a rebellious nature,...'

I would suggest that they are.

 

Proof: Tell women to stop wearing pants.  Even 'traditional Catholic' ones.

 

Observe the results.

I only wear skirts (except when killing chickens—I mean, snakes and cleaning the chicken coop!). You are not telling me anything.

I am looking at this from a theoretical point of view. I have seen very feminine outfits which include slacks and cannot see the problem with them. I do not see that there is an inherent problem with women's wearing slacks.

...which would bring us back to whether slacks are inherently immodest;...'

On women, yes.  On men, not necessarily.

...and 2. unless we take his comments about lengths of skirts (8 inches below the knee) and sleeves just as seriously, then we are thinking he was writing from a chrono-centric point of view and just using his comments about slacks to bolster an argument about them.'

'Chrono-centric'.  Oh my...  Tradition itself is 'chrono-centric'!  Now we're going to dismiss a traditional practice because it is 'chrono-centric'?

BT

I hope someone passes me whatever it is that everyone appears to be smoking.  It must be good: all I have is regular tobacco... 

I am a Traditional Catholic, not a traditional Catholic. The Traditions to which I adhere are related to Truth, Faith, Morality...

You are looking at this from a chronocentric point of view. Where does your tradition come from? Because Christ did not wear trousers.

[Clare]

Tell women to stop wearing pants.  Even 'traditional Catholic' ones.

 

Observe the results.

 

I stopped wearing trousers out of obedience to the SSPX's policy against them!

 

Have I changed my mind that they are ok? No.

 

I occasionally wear tracksuit trousers round the house. I got them for physiotherapy purposes. I never wear trousers to Mass.

 

Yet, I still see nowt wrong with a pair of decent, loose fitting, women's trousers.

 

Clare.

[Clare]

You are looking at this from a chronocentric point of view. Where does your tradition come from? Because Christ did not wear trousers.

As I've said, it's a "tradition of men". We can take it or leave it.

 

Clare.

[gilbertgea]

'Now why should trousers offend Him, but short hair not?'

A word about hair...

'Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him?  But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.'
--1 Corinth. XI:14-15

Anyhow...

'Says who?'

Common sense.

'Even if that were true, it doesn't make them immodest.'

Regardless of whether or not one personally considers women wearing pants immodest, it is still wrong.

 

'Tell anyone to stop doing something which isn't wrong, and see the reaction!'

But, it is wrong.  That's the point.

'I have seen very feminine outfits which include slacks and cannot see the problem with them.'

This doesnt surprise me.

'I do not see that there is an inherent problem with women's wearing slacks.'

I dont have the desire to go back through 22 pages of banter, so I'll just assume that Giuseppi Cardinal Siri's letter has probably been brought up.  However, I will post the following nonetheless:

URL: http://www.lffa-ollmpc.com/siri.htm

'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.'

*SNIP*

'We do not deny that modern life sets problems and makes requirements unknown to our grandparents. But we state that there are values more needing to be protected than fleeting experiences, and that for anybody of intelligence there are always good sense and good taste enough to find acceptable and dignified solutions to problems as they come up. Out of charity we are fighting against the flattening out of mankind, against the attack upon those differences on which rests the complementarity of man and woman.'

*SNIP*

'When we see a woman in trousers, we should think not so much of her as of all mankind, of what it will be when women will have masculinized themselves for good. Nobody stands to gain by helping to bring about a future age of vagueness, ambiguity, imperfection and, in a word, monstrosities.'

I dont know if that counts as infallible: probably not.  But, very authoritative and clear coming from a Catholic cleric pretty high up on the food chain.

So, again, you can try to justify to yourself whether or not women wearing pants is immodest.  The point is that it is wrong for women to do so, generally speaking.  Therefore, the modesty question is irrelevant.

[CaroleK]

I dont know if that counts as infallible: probably not.  But, very authoritative and clear coming from a Catholic cleric pretty high up on the food chain.

So, again, you can try to justify to yourself whether or not women wearing pants is immodest.  The point is that it is wrong for women to do so, generally speaking.  Therefore, the modesty question is irrelevant.

Probably not?  Hahaha  Sorry but that is funny.  You have here the personal opinion of a Cardinal (who are after all human beings with opinions that can be right, wrong and indifferent) and you don't know it if is infallible?  "Probably not" Puh-leeze.  You know it is not infallible.

Further you know that this is the opinion of one cleric which is not binding on the faithful.

Thus you know this is not objective proof that women wearing pants is wrong. 

I mean Cardinal Mahoney is "pretty high up on the food chain" and I wouldn't try to use his personal opinions to prove that the sky is blue.  Now I am not saying that Cardinal Siri is in anyway the equivalent of Cardinal Mahoney.  Simply pointing out that one's rank in the Church is not necessarily indicative of the esteem in which his personal opinion should be held.

[newtolatin]

Gilbert:
So, women wearing slacks changes women's psychology, but doesn't change men's? Don't you think when men who weren't slaves first started wearing trousers (they were first worn only by slaves) that some people might have said that trousers were changing men's psychology, showing some sort of weird lack of self-esteem thing, dressing like slaves? Maybe it was men's starting to wear these slave clothes which caused them to become such wimps that now women need to at like feminists?

[gilbertgea]

'Probably not?  Hahaha  Sorry but that is funny.  You have here the personal opinion of a Cardinal (who are after all human beings with opinions that can be right, wrong and indifferent) and you don't know it if is infallible?  "Probably not" Puh-leeze.  You know it is not infallible.'

If you would take the time to understand the definition of the ordinary infallibile magisterium, you would understand why I leave room for doubt.  It is actually more likely that the cardinal's words were infallible than not.

'Further you know that this is the opinion of one cleric which is not binding on the faithful.'

This comment merits no response.

'Thus you know this is not objective proof that women wearing pants is wrong.'

I know nothing of the sort.  The objective fact of the matter is that women wearing pants is just plain wrong.  Women began wearing pants as a visible sign of the feminist movement which was and is wholly anti-Catholic.

'Simply pointing out that one's rank in the Church is not necessarily indicative of the esteem in which his personal opinion should be held.'

Only if you are incapable of distinguishing between personal opinion and Catholic tradition.

[CaroleK]

Gilbert talking to you is like beating my head against a brick wall.  Pedantry is boring.  I'm done now.  Good night.