Men's Dress Worn By Women
#51
Is the argument about wearing dresses/skirts to Mass? Or is it about wearing dresses/skirts all the time?

And Steve, all your guff about androgynous clothing: in the time of Christ, men's clothes and women's clothes were practically interchageable. Didn't you notice in the picture of St Joseph he was not wearing pants but something which looked remarkably like what we would now call a dress?

And what about my question as to why, after centuries of women wearing floor-length skirts, did Cardinal Siri pick half-way up the shin as the standard?
Reply
#52
Again, if you in the SSPX aren't following the fashions of the world, how is it you're wearing pants? Once upon a time, that was a new fashion for men, too.
Stevus, of course the demarkation lines in men vs women's clothing should be clear. But in the majority of cases, they are. No one who knows clothes could mistake a nice pair of women's pants for those worn by men. No one here is arguing for androgynous clothing. Throughout time, there have always been similar, though still distinct, styles for men and women.
Reply
#53
Anastasia Wrote:Throughout time, there have always been similar, though still distinct, styles for men and women.

However, there is an actual problem. Men are constantly taught to remove their facial hair for no reason other than to look like women. (Those in the military or other professions requiring shaving are exempt, just as Joan of Arc was exempt for wearing men's clothing to fulfill her vocation).
Reply
#54
Anastasia Wrote:Again, if you in the SSPX aren't following the fashions of the world, how is it you're wearing pants?

Logic lesson Anastasia:

I said "We don't have to follow all the fashions of the world"

That doesn't mean we don't follow any fashions of the world. It means the world is not our guide, when the world goes down the wrong path. The world doesn't do everything wrong, but it is very flawed, very prone to error, we don't have to follow society when it goes down the wrong path.

Quote:Once upon a time, that was a new fashion for men, too.

Yes, and once it was forbidden in Rome to wear trousers. With good reason. In fact that ancient garb is still worn by our priests, which shows the ancient heritage of our Roman Church.
Reply
#55
Sure, but then who decides what the right path is? Or which fashions we should follow? Maybe remembering the purpose of fashion would be a good idea: to not incite lust insofar as possible while still looking beatiful as a part of God's creation, and still able to go on with everyday life.
Reply
#56
Telemaque Wrote: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.

As I suggested before, there's a discrepancy between SSPX chapels in Europe and America (or perhaps English-speaking and non-English speaking countries, I'm not sure). I'm aware that most SSPX chapels in America are strict about women and pants, but it seems SSPX chapels in continental Europe are not. I see more than a few ladies in the "flagship church" of the SSPX in Paris in slacks, and at least half are unveiled, including the organist and a good number of choir members. Though to their credit, their liturgy sounds extremely robust and it looks like most people know the prayers of the Mass very well (more than can be said for many American SSPX'ers, who seem to be vaguely aware of some Latin being said at the altar but are glad to hear the priest rail against this or that from the pulpit).

I wonder if any European SSPX'ers can confirm whether or not the pants issue is really not that big of a deal there.
Reply
#57
LaRoza Wrote:
StevusMagnus Wrote:Men wear pants and not skirts.
Where? Ever been to the middle east?

What part of the Middle East do you live in LaRoza?

Quote:
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.

Good. Wear a skirt to Mass to prove you will not be dictated to. Let me know how that goes.


Quote:
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 :)

In some  cases there is a difference. In others not so much. And in many cases women wear pants designed for men.


Quote: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).

I can't believe this is a serious line of argument.

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

Or additions like a pony tail. 
Reply
#58
Anastasia Wrote:Sure, but then who decides what the right path is? Or which fashions we should follow?

Surely in your own heart you know which clothing is more reverent and which is less reverent, what is more feminine and less feminine. And certainly you must respect the judgement of those who see pre-Vatican II fashions as being more reverent. When I go to an SSPX mass, I can believe that the women there are good Catholics. I don't see many signs of disrespect or slackness or lack of seriousness.

Quote:Maybe remembering the purpose of fashion would be a good idea: to not incite lust insofar as possible while still looking beatiful as a part of God's creation, and still able to go on with everyday life.

And part of looking beautiful is wearing traditional clothes. Believe me, it is more beautiful. Someone looking for a Catholic wife will consider how a woman dresses at mass. If they don't want to dress traditionally, it provides a hint as to their overall attitudes.
Reply
#59
The_Harlequin_King Wrote:As I suggested before, there's a discrepancy between SSPX chapels in Europe and America (or perhaps English-speaking and non-English speaking countries, I'm not sure). I'm aware that most SSPX chapels in America are strict about women and pants, but it seems SSPX chapels in continental Europe are not. in Paris in slacks, and at least half are unveiled, including the organist and a good number of choir members.
So in other words your proof of this contention comes from one random video on the internet.

Quote:Though to their credit, their liturgy sounds extremely robust and it looks like most people know the prayers of the Mass very well (more than can be said for many American SSPX'ers, who seem to be vaguely aware of some Latin being said at the altar but are glad to hear the priest rail against this or that from the pulpit).

And you of course have extensive evidence for this claim. Surely it is not an irresponsible libelous assertion with no basis in fact.

Quote:I wonder if any European SSPX'ers can confirm whether or not the pants issue is really not that big of a deal there.

I wonder if you could have confirmed this before posting rash generalizations.

Reply
#60
StevusMagnus Wrote:Good. Wear a skirt to Mass to prove you will not be dictated to. Let me know how that goes.
What? That doesn't make any sense, and you are sort of proving my point. Trousers on women are accepted, as the reaction of society is not the same as a man in a dress.

Quote:I can't believe this is a serious line of argument.
It isn't a serious line of argument, but meant to illustrate that the differences between men and women go beyond clothing. Clothing is first just a tool. A tool of protection and modesty, and meant to be functional. Fashion or dressing for specific looks I am against (probably to an extreme, I wear the exact same colour (black) and style each day with no variety). Women wear trousers for several reasons, obviously, fashion and looks are a part, which I'm against, but they also wear them for their function, which I'm not against.

Quote:Or additions like a pony tail. 
What is effeminate about a pony tail? The tying back of hair in that way is only for function, not looks. The men of the British navy, the Han warriors, many Native American nations and most of history had instances of a simple tying back or otherwise constriction of hair to prevent it from obstructive the face or getting caught.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)