Men's Dress Worn By Women
#31
Credo Wrote:
SaintRafael Wrote:It seems then that you are advocating relativism. That Catholic morals are not objective and eternal.

.... 

Pants have a certain nature because every single thing has an objective nature. The nature of pants itself is one of the male sex. By its very nature, it is intended for the male body.   

Whatever good points can be made regarding men= pants/ women= dresses, this is pushing it too far. Did Jesus wear pants? The Prophets? The Apostles?

Infidelity and polytheism is on the rise, charity to the poor goes neglected, abortion is through the roof, and families are breaking up left and right, and we're talking about pants on women. With all this belly gazing, no wonder the Gospel has reached a paltry number of men the world over!

Here, Here!!!!  My point exactly!!!  Pants have no nature (or sex for that matter) therefore I'm not sure where that came from other than to try and sound logical.  We have sooooooooo  many other much higher concerns rather than stating that a hemline is 2mm higher than it should be or that pants are ALWAYS mortally sinful.  IF the church felt that this was an issue for all time, there would be a dogmatic decree.  I respect and hail the site owner for his good judgment and logic regarding the posts and threads.
Reply
#32
StevusMagnus Wrote:Here's my two cents. I hope we can all agree that Catholics should wear modest clothing and men should wear masculine clothes and women feminine clothes. Said in reverse, women should not wear masculine clothes and men not wear feminine clothes.

Firstly, all historical references of past centuries and different cultures are irrelevant. Almost all of us live in 2009 Western Culture. We must apply the general principles I spoke of above to 2009 Western Culture.

In applying these principles we can disagree as to where exact lines should be drawn. However, one thing is for certain. Men wearing dress pants in 2009 are modest and masculine. Women wearing long skirts or dresses in 2009 are modest and feminine. If the Society or other Trad Chapels want to make this the norm for Mass, since it is clearly within the principles stated above and there is no gray area, then I think that is a good and laudable stance.

Again, with all due respect, this only applies if you see fashion as an unmoving and fixed aspect.  Since it is not and as long as women are modest in the current fashion I don't see the point to make to state that a currently accepted norm i.e. fashion of America 2009 and pants on women is not feminine or could possibly be sinful? 

Thanks to all for the logical responses.
Reply
#33
Cantus Wrote:
StevusMagnus Wrote:Here's my two cents. I hope we can all agree that Catholics should wear modest clothing and men should wear masculine clothes and women feminine clothes. Said in reverse, women should not wear masculine clothes and men not wear feminine clothes.

Firstly, all historical references of past centuries and different cultures are irrelevant. Almost all of us live in 2009 Western Culture. We must apply the general principles I spoke of above to 2009 Western Culture.

In applying these principles we can disagree as to where exact lines should be drawn. However, one thing is for certain. Men wearing dress pants in 2009 are modest and masculine. Women wearing long skirts or dresses in 2009 are modest and feminine. If the Society or other Trad Chapels want to make this the norm for Mass, since it is clearly within the principles stated above and there is no gray area, then I think that is a good and laudable stance.

Again, with all due respect, this only applies if you see fashion as an unmoving and fixed aspect.  Since it is not and as long as women are modest in the current fashion I don't see the point to make to state that a currently accepted norm i.e. fashion of America 2009 and pants on women is not feminine or could possibly be sinful? 

Thanks to all for the logical responses.

No one said it was necessarily sinful for a women to wear pants - just that it's not a good idea, and not something that's wanted in Church. I think it betrays liberal and feminist attitudes to object to a simple dress requirement which has very good intentions and effects.
Reply
#34
Firstly, all historical references of past centuries and different cultures are irrelevant. Almost all of us live in 2009 Western Culture. We must apply the general principles I spoke of above to 2009 Western Culture
But when we bring up the fact that in 2009 Western Culture women wearing pants is not considered un-feminine the usual responces are we shouldn't follow the trends of the world.
 
So then does this mean women wearing pants is intrinsically wrong? And that's why we bring up past centuries and different cultures. To show the argument for pants is relative.
 
Forgive me, but the no pants crowds always seem to be switching their reasons so no one can effectively counter their points.
Reply
#35
StevusMagnus Wrote:There are new members and those who have not heard of or read Cardinal Siri's letter. Since this debate won't go away I thought it opprtune to provide the Cardinal's views for those who did not have the chance to read them previously.

I suppose there was some other thread discussing cultural differences, but I don't think the OP there was focusing in particular about Cardinal Siri's claims as it was about cultural issues.

Didishroom hijacked Gerard's Williamson thread getting into a trousers argument with bonifacio, so I thought this thread would provide an outlet for them and a good starting point, and get the discussion out of the thread it was hijacking.

You couldn't have bumped this thread that you started:
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/...id=2563921

Or the time that you posted it here:
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/show_single_post?pid=30490234&postcount=74

Or the time it was posted here:
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/show_single_post?pid=26851251&postcount=97

Or any of the other times?
Reply
#36
Telemaque Wrote:
Cantus Wrote:
StevusMagnus Wrote:Here's my two cents. I hope we can all agree that Catholics should wear modest clothing and men should wear masculine clothes and women feminine clothes. Said in reverse, women should not wear masculine clothes and men not wear feminine clothes.

Firstly, all historical references of past centuries and different cultures are irrelevant. Almost all of us live in 2009 Western Culture. We must apply the general principles I spoke of above to 2009 Western Culture.

In applying these principles we can disagree as to where exact lines should be drawn. However, one thing is for certain. Men wearing dress pants in 2009 are modest and masculine. Women wearing long skirts or dresses in 2009 are modest and feminine. If the Society or other Trad Chapels want to make this the norm for Mass, since it is clearly within the principles stated above and there is no gray area, then I think that is a good and laudable stance.

Again, with all due respect, this only applies if you see fashion as an unmoving and fixed aspect.  Since it is not and as long as women are modest in the current fashion I don't see the point to make to state that a currently accepted norm i.e. fashion of America 2009 and pants on women is not feminine or could possibly be sinful? 

Thanks to all for the logical responses.

No one said it was necessarily sinful for a women to wear pants - just that it's not a good idea, and not something that's wanted in Church. I think it betrays liberal and feminist attitudes to object to a simple dress requirement which has very good intentions and effects.

It seems that the argument has become semantic.  Since the length of the skirt is relative, and the culture of the pants on women is relative, why then assign a problem to it.  Simply because feminists and modernists (condemned error) wear pants doesen't mean that modest women shouldn't?  Feminists and haters of the church also eat, sleep, shop, work, have kids, and generally live their lives normally (albeit sinfully) and are not labeled as feminists until extraordinary attention is given them as they are speaking on the subject.  That being said, is it sinful to do all those things as well?  I also don't recall any feminist stating that they wear pants SPECIFICALLY to act in the authority of a man (wait for it Cantus, you'll be bombarded by examples soon) so I don't think that reason has credibility.  If we live by emotional attachment without the ability to understand to the smallest degree why we believe what we believe, then why live a Catholic life?  The church, and God are ALWAYS logical.
Reply
#37
Cantus Wrote:
Telemaque Wrote:
Cantus Wrote:
StevusMagnus Wrote:Here's my two cents. I hope we can all agree that Catholics should wear modest clothing and men should wear masculine clothes and women feminine clothes. Said in reverse, women should not wear masculine clothes and men not wear feminine clothes.

Firstly, all historical references of past centuries and different cultures are irrelevant. Almost all of us live in 2009 Western Culture. We must apply the general principles I spoke of above to 2009 Western Culture.

In applying these principles we can disagree as to where exact lines should be drawn. However, one thing is for certain. Men wearing dress pants in 2009 are modest and masculine. Women wearing long skirts or dresses in 2009 are modest and feminine. If the Society or other Trad Chapels want to make this the norm for Mass, since it is clearly within the principles stated above and there is no gray area, then I think that is a good and laudable stance.

Again, with all due respect, this only applies if you see fashion as an unmoving and fixed aspect.  Since it is not and as long as women are modest in the current fashion I don't see the point to make to state that a currently accepted norm i.e. fashion of America 2009 and pants on women is not feminine or could possibly be sinful? 

Thanks to all for the logical responses.

No one said it was necessarily sinful for a women to wear pants - just that it's not a good idea, and not something that's wanted in Church. I think it betrays liberal and feminist attitudes to object to a simple dress requirement which has very good intentions and effects.

It seems that the argument has become semantic.  Since the length of the skirt is relative, and the culture of the pants on women is relative, why then assign a problem to it.

The shorter the skirt, the greater the problem. Once again, if pants were considered to be feminine dress for women we'd see women wearing pants at weddings and proms. This isn't "relative" to anything. Stop using relativistic arguments. They are not appropriate. There is a proper role and custom for men and women. These customs are not just arbitrarily derived or arbitrarily followed. There are good reasons for following such customs, there are very bad reasons for rejecting them, and one bad reason is an embrace of cultural relativism to justify individual defiance of collective norms for bad reasons. The fundamental natures of men and women are not something just relative to time and circumstance. Now it is an expression in harmony with the complementarity of their natures that there is a form of dress considered appropriate to each.

 
Quote:Simply because feminists and modernists (condemned error) wear pants doesen't mean that modest women shouldn't?  Feminists and haters of the church also eat, sleep, shop, work, have kids, and generally live their lives normally (albeit sinfully) and are not labeled as feminists until extraordinary attention is given them as they are speaking on the subject.

Sorry, but if someone rejects to a requirement to a long skirt at Church, what possible justification can there be other than defiance based on feminist and liberal values? There is no good reason not to conform to the requirement. People didn't start objecting to conforming to those requirements until feminism became a major social problem.

 
Quote: That being said, is it sinful to do all those things as well?  I also don't recall any feminist stating that they wear pants SPECIFICALLY to act in the authority of a man (wait for it Cantus, you'll be tbombarded by examples soon) so I don't think that reason has credibility. 

You don't think it has credibility that women often refuse to wear feminine dress out of a desire to assert independence from traditional values? That is just absurd

Quote: If we live by emotional attachment without the ability to understand to the smallest degree why we believe what we believe, then why live a Catholic life?

What sort of crazy non sequitur is that? I know what I believe about the nature of the sexes and God's plan for them. That's why I believe in the appropriately reverent and feminine dress for women.

 
Quote: The church, and God are ALWAYS logical.

Yes, but I certainly don't think it's logical to suddenly say that it no longer matters if women wear veils in Church. Or that since styles of dress change over time, that it is therefore appropriate for a woman to wear something that is less reverent less feminine less appropriate for mass.
Reply
#38
WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote:You couldn't have bumped this thread that you started:


And waste needless time like you just did hunting dead threads? No thanks.
Reply
#39
There are a myriad reasons why a woman would wear pants that are not feminist: fundamentally, they're a lot easier to move around in, which is important if you're doing houwrok or chasing kids and other feminine activities. I'm guessing you haven't been to many weddings or proms lately, becasue you would see pants on women there.
Also, if you're going to go with the masculine vs feminine dress isn't relative to culture, how is it you're not wearing a tunic and sandals? Or go even further back, a tunic made of the skins of wild animals?
Ugh, we've had this debate enough times.
Person 1: Pants aren't feminine.
Person 2: Who decides what clothes are feminine?
Person 1: They just aren't, and if you don't see that, you're a feminist! (who cares if you're actually a man)

Reply
#40
Telemaque Wrote:
Cantus Wrote:
Telemaque Wrote:
Cantus Wrote:
StevusMagnus Wrote:Here's my two cents. I hope we can all agree that Catholics should wear modest clothing and men should wear masculine clothes and women feminine clothes. Said in reverse, women should not wear masculine clothes and men not wear feminine clothes.

Firstly, all historical references of past centuries and different cultures are irrelevant. Almost all of us live in 2009 Western Culture. We must apply the general principles I spoke of above to 2009 Western Culture.

In applying these principles we can disagree as to where exact lines should be drawn. However, one thing is for certain. Men wearing dress pants in 2009 are modest and masculine. Women wearing long skirts or dresses in 2009 are modest and feminine. If the Society or other Trad Chapels want to make this the norm for Mass, since it is clearly within the principles stated above and there is no gray area, then I think that is a good and laudable stance.

Again, with all due respect, this only applies if you see fashion as an unmoving and fixed aspect.  Since it is not and as long as women are modest in the current fashion I don't see the point to make to state that a currently accepted norm i.e. fashion of America 2009 and pants on women is not feminine or could possibly be sinful? 

Thanks to all for the logical responses.

No one said it was necessarily sinful for a women to wear pants - just that it's not a good idea, and not something that's wanted in Church. I think it betrays liberal and feminist attitudes to object to a simple dress requirement which has very good intentions and effects.

It seems that the argument has become semantic.  Since the length of the skirt is relative, and the culture of the pants on women is relative, why then assign a problem to it.

The shorter the skirt, the greater the problem. Once again, if pants were considered to be feminine dress for women we'd see women wearing pants at weddings and proms. This isn't "relative" to anything. Stop using relativistic arguments. They are not appropriate. There is a proper role and custom for men and women. These customs are not just arbitrarily derived or arbitrarily followed. There are good reasons for following such customs, there are very bad reasons for rejecting them, and one bad reason is an embrace of cultural relativism to justify individual defiance of collective norms for bad reasons. The fundamental natures of men and women are not something just relative to time and circumstance. Now it is an expression in harmony with the complementarity of their natures that there is a form of dress considered appropriate to each.

 
Quote:Simply because feminists and modernists (condemned error) wear pants doesen't mean that modest women shouldn't?  Feminists and haters of the church also eat, sleep, shop, work, have kids, and generally live their lives normally (albeit sinfully) and are not labeled as feminists until extraordinary attention is given them as they are speaking on the subject.

Sorry, but if someone rejects to a requirement to a long skirt at Church, what possible justification can there be other than defiance based on Feminist and liberal values. There is no good reason not to conform to the requirement. People didn't start objecting to conforming to those requirements until feminism became a major social problem.

 
Quote: That being said, is it sinful to do all those things as well?  I also don't recall any feminist stating that they wear pants SPECIFICALLY to act in the authority of a man (wait for it Cantus, you'll be tbombarded by examples soon) so I don't think that reason has credibility. 

You don't think it has credibility that women often refuse to wear feminine dress out of a desire to assert independence from traditional values? That is just absurd

Quote: If we live by emotional attachment without the ability to understand to the smallest degree why we believe what we believe, then why live a Catholic life?

What sort of crazy non sequitur is that? I know what I believe about the nature of the sexes and God's plan for them. That's why I believe in the appropriately reverent and feminine dress for women.

 
Quote: The church, and God are ALWAYS logical.

Yes, but I certainly don't think it's logical to suddenly say that it no longer matters if women wear veils in Church. Or that since styles of dress change over time, that it is therefore appropriate for a woman to wear something that is less reverent less feminine less appropriate for mass.

I'm sorry but I can't refute such illogical assumptions and responses, I simply don't have the time and I fully believe that my statements would be responded to with a continuation of above.  Please don't consider this as a criticism of your opinions, just a statement that an opinion is not logic.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)