Men's Dress Worn By Women
#41
didishroom Wrote:Firstly, all historical references of past centuries and different cultures are irrelevant.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.

 
The key is "which" trends of the world. Some are good some are bad. There must be discernment.

Quote: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.


Modesty would prohibit women wearing pants to the extent they cling to the buttocks, etc. revealing. Also, to ignore the fact that this phenomenon came out of a spirit of rebellion, liberalism, and feminism, to reinforce the idea of interchangeability of the sexes, the practice should be looked on with, at the least, suspicipon. I would think the opposite spirit would want to be reinforced by Catholics. Namely, drawing clear lines between men and women in dress. That this is so strongly protested against by some Catholics, to me reveals their sharing, at least in part, in the feminist interchangability of men and women in dress. I think they fail to appreciate the message it sends beyond the mere fabric. The feminists and enemies of the Church wouldn't have bothered to try so terribly hard to change the fashion if it wasn't effective in supporting their agenda.

Is women wearing pants intrinsically wrong? If they are tight and reveal the figure or are too low cut, yes. In our culture and age it would be better that women wear more feminine clothes to reinforce the Catholic distinction between masculine and feminine. However, if a woman wears pants that are modest and fairly loose fitting, and styled for women, I don't think it would be intrinsically wrong, although I would say not the best course. Jeans and pants are simply not as feminine as dresses and skirts. Why blur the line and reinforce bad elements of our culture?

The fact that women in other cultures wear grass skirts and coconut bras and are considered to be modest, has no bearing in our time and culture. Likewise, because some women 100's of years ago wore pants somewhere, does not make them feminine, per se, in 2009 Western Culture. Because a guy wears a kilt in Scotland and it is considered masculine there, doesn't mean men can show up for Mass in a skirt in the US. This line of historical and cultural counterexample is simply foolish although consistently repeated in discussion as if it is somehow relevant.
Reply
#42
Anastasia Wrote: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 don't believe they are that much easier. Certainly women in the past had a lot harder tasks to do around the house and they didn't have to wear pants. I never said women should never wear pants. Your examples have nothing to do with formal dress or what is required at mass.

Quote: I'm guessing you haven't been to many weddings or proms lately, becasue you would see pants on women there.

Brides and Bride's maids in pants. Well, not something I think is appropriate.

Quote: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?

If I were living at the times when that was standard dress I would wear them. And women would wear their standard costume, which was distinguished from that of the men. I wouldn't object to the customs that require that men and women to wear traditionally appropriate dress on sacred occasions.

Quote: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)

I'm certain, that except in the most dire circumstances (for example, among the Eskimo) that wherever culture has attained a high level men and women establish customary dress that makes a distinction between the two. Certainly St. Paul says men should not cover their heads, and women should. In other words, there are good reasons they should dress differently.
Reply
#43
Telemaque Wrote:Once again, if pants were considered to be feminine dress for women we'd see women wearing pants at weddings and proms.

Actually, unless the wedding is specifically black tie or white tie, then it's not a faux pas for a woman to attend in dress slacks. Most attendees in non-black tie/white tie weddings show up in either business dress or "Sunday dress", and women's dress slacks fit in both of those categories. Keep in mind that in a black tie wedding, it would also be a faux pas for a man to attend in a business suit or that hideous blue blazer/khaki pants combo. It would also be a faux pas for someone like Our Grace attend in dress that's more formal or more elegant than the groom's. Which sucks, because the average American groom is married in a lousy penguin tux that I can outmatch in my sleep. (Though, having never actually been invited to a wedding, it's actually a non-issue for me at any rate.)

The following is an example of women's trousers that would be typical to see at a wedding, falling under the "Sunday dress" category (definitely not the same as a women's business suit).

[Image: Meeyou14.jpg]

Quote:Mee You's collection can be worn for various occasions, ranging from a family wedding to Sunday church attire [Harlequin: Exactly what I said above]. Each garment's crystals are featured with a sophisticated eye toward making the wearer dazzle with light. By metaphorically weaving these warm ideals into the fabric, the designers aim to create a harmony of stones, textures, and reflections.

Interestingly enough, Mee You is a South Korean fashion company.

There are actually even bridal slacks like these:

[Image: wedding_catsuit.jpg]


That dress was designed by a Taiwanese designer. So it seems that Asians and pants-wearing women are indeed connected, as that other thread implies. It would also suggest that in this department, fashion in favor of women's pants is influenced by Asian culture, not liberal feminism.


:edited to add: And as for all these dress distinctions, I've decided that my wedding, if such a calamitous event occurs, will be neither white tie nor black tie, but a loose definition of court dress. That is, if it's 18th century French, 13th century English, or 8th century Chinese, it's all good, as long as it's decidedly noble.
Reply
#44
Exactly, you would wear standard dress, which is what we've all been saying. Women's pants are standard dress for women now.
Reply
#45
Telemaque,

Great posts. The point is the distinction of the sexes. The feminists want interchangeable androgenous garb to signify that men and women are the same. It comes out of their inferiority complex that masculine clothes denote power and feminine clothes subjection. It goes along with the feminist movement that women shoud work outside the home, play competitive sports, and basically be masculine. It's all part of the same bag of lies.

Sure some women innocently wear pants and jeans because they grew up doing it and don't think anything of it. Our point is that when you look deeper at the practice you see the agenda.
Reply
#46
Anastasia Wrote:Exactly, you would wear standard dress, which is what we've all been saying. Women's pants are standard dress for women now.

Men wear pants and not skirts. Women used to wear skirts and the feminists moved towards pants as a sign of power over their previous subjection in dresses and skirts. They have succeeded in making pants androgynous in our society to an extent and that's just the point. The point is that Catholic nature is against androgeny. Telemaque's point is that there should be clear lines for masculine and feminine dress and pants on women began deliberately to blur that line. We should be reinforcing the line, not caving.
Reply
#47
StevusMagnus Wrote:
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.


Poor guy.  Too busy to remember what he's written before.  My heart goes out to you, it really does.  So that's why they invented the google-- now you don't have to endlessly repeat yourself in a tortured spiral of posting the same thing over and over and over.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awebsitetoolbox.com+%22Men%27s+Dress+Worn+By+Women%22
Reply
#48
Anastasia Wrote:Exactly, you would wear standard dress, which is what we've all been saying. Women's pants are standard dress for women now.

Not in SSPX chapels. We don't have to follow all the fashions of the world. Within living memory standards were different. They were different for a good reason, they were changed for bad reasons. I know the difference between the standards of dress of women in SSPX chapels and those in Novus Ordo.

In the latter there is a typical refusal to wear appropriate dress by many. If anyone suggests they change their dress one can expect a very exaggerated display of outrage. Well, the SSPX is enforcing a code, and part of that code is saying, women in formal dress should wear skirts, not pants. They have good reasons for setting that standard, discerning the reasons for the changes in dress over the years.

There are not good reasons for complaining against those standards.
Reply
#49
WRC,

Your posts in almost all threads responding to me seem to continually be ad hominems, disregarding the substantive discussion in order to inquire into my motivations and discuss me instead of the issues.

Are you afraid of discussing issues? Are you obsessed with my interior motivation for posts? Does this obsession keep you up at night?

You just did detailed research to find previous threads on the issue as well as ones started by me. Why? Do you have time to waste? So that you could prove some sort of minor point nobody is concerned with and distract from the conversation?

If you have a problem with me, or want to inquire into the inner workings of my rationale and mind, please PM me. But out of courtesy for the rest of the posters, please cease with the ad hominems and try to contribute something of substance to the discussion for a change.

I didn't come to FishEaters to argue with you about why I posted this or that thread, nor do posters want to see you continually hijack threads and kill conversations in this manner. Frankly its boring and tirseome.

Unless you have something to contribute to the thread, which it seems you don't, at least give the rest of the posters the courtesy to PM me your diatribes and spare them of this childishness.

Thanks.
Reply
#50
StevusMagnus Wrote:Men wear pants and not skirts.
Where? Ever been to the middle east?

Quote: Women used to wear skirts and the feminists moved towards pants as a sign of power over their previous subjection in dresses and skirts.
Possibly, but factory working was actually the cause for women wearing pants.

Quote: They have succeeded in making pants androgynous in our society to an extent and that's just the point.
Trousers are not "male" except as dictated by society.

Quote: The point is that Catholic nature is against androgeny.
Did you ever see trousers designed for males versus trousers designed for females? Quite different :)

Quote:Telemaque's point is that there should be clear lines for masculine and feminine dress and pants on women began deliberately to blur that line. We should be reinforcing the line, not caving.

Cothes are a minor point. In the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve wore the same thing after they sinned (or at least, there is no separate description).

The real problem is the removal of male features to make men look female.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)