Skirts at work

[communio]

well it's better because people shouldn't be devoting so much time to something so insignificant for Catholics. they should be devoting their time to more important things. i'm sure Our Lord would say the same thing, frankly. "skirts at work"?! for goodness sake...

[Sophia]

Don't feed the trolls.

 

[communio]

oh please sophia...

 

i just read the first couple of pages of the thread and saw that it was a light-hearted thread, so if it stayed that way, i take it all back. i thought people were serious about it. including perhaps princess fiona?

[newtolatin]

oops—see below

[newtolatin]

There are three separate arguments throughout this thread. All need to be treated separately. Unfortunately, you're mixing all three, and it's not getting us anywhere.

1. Trousers are men's wear, and the Bible prohibits women from wearing men's clothing
   
2. All pants on women are immodest.
3. Pants are improper not simply because of modesty, but bad effects.

Clearly, Cardinal Siri's letter suggests the third argument, and debunks the second. Since this is the most tenable position, it is the one I prefer to discuss here.

A few people discussed the first argument. I think it has merit, but it's somewhat inconsequential, if three is valid, and it gets overly legalistic.

I think you are right about the 3 separate arguments, and that is what has made this such a roundabout thread.

Re; #1: 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.

Re #2: I would suggest that if all pants on women are immodest, that either a reason that applies only to women needs to be brought up, or that trousers would also be immodest on men.

Re #3: 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, which would bring us back to whether slacks are inherently immodest; and 2. unless we take his comments about lengths of skirts (8 inches below the knee) and sleeves  and necklines 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, as I still don't understand why the Pope's comments about the lengths of skirts was valid, when just a few decades before that, 8" below the knee would have been considered Quite Shocking on any but the shortest women.

[gilbertgea]

'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.

'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.

B.  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.

'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.

'...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... 

[lumengentleman]

It's good, trads arguing like this!

 

It shows we're not a brainwashed sect!

 

Actually, I was just going to suggest something different: that perhaps threads like this provide ample fodder for liberals who suspect that Traditionalists constitute a neo-Pharisaical movement, which thrives and feeds on arguing about the minutiae of the Letter of the Law.

[MikeSearson]

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

[Clare]

Trousers are not, generally speaking, immodest on men.

Says who? I've alluded to the problem men have that women don't. And the fact that men traditionally used to wear tunics over their trousers!

B.  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.

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

'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.

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

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

It's just how selective anti-trousers people are being about the "time" after which new fashions are bad! As has been pointed out, trousers were a new fashion for men once!

 

And there are plenty of new fashions since 1917, some offend Our Lord, some do not.

 

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

Clare.

[Clare]

It seems to me that there is one temptation that women in trousers arouse in both men and women.

 

The temptation to have uncharitable thoughts about their motives for wearing trousers!

 

Clare.