02-06-2009, 02:20 PM
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.