I have many problems with women in pants:

1. Pants are not modest attire for women. 
2. They allow women to do everything a man does. They "liberate" women in a bad way.
3. They show off the female form (men's butts are NOT equal to women's butts, any more than men and women are the same) Most women will joke about how men "don't have a butt" and it's true. There's a reason men wear their pants differently than women. They don't have nice wide "birthin' hips", they don't have a plump butt. Excess fat doesn't prioritize accuмulating in the butt area (it goes to their gut instead) and so on.
4. Men are more visual than women, and studies have shown that the 2 legs intersection (the crotch) is where the pants direct a viewer's eyes. As a man, I can tell you this is true. This would be a problem for men wearing pants as well, except that women aren't wired the same way or "instantly turned on by sight" as men are.

In conclusion, men can wear pants because A) they are supposed to do all the male jobs, which require pants, and they don't have a butt to show off by pants, and even if they did, women aren't visually oriented to be instantly turned on anyhow. And even if women were visual, they wouldn't be psychologically/primally looking for "nice wide birthing hips" since men don't give birth! Women would be looking at other features.

Again, I repeat: not letting your eyes follow a psychologically demanded path (right to the crotch) is about as easy as avoiding looking at a polka-dotted elephant that burst into the room. You can catch yourself, refuse any willful consent, etc. but you do it without thinking about it, even if you have quite a bit of virtue built up. And you do it the 1st time, the 100th time, and the 1000th time just as easily. It's like a reflex action. You ask yourself, "Why did I look? She's my grandmother." and so on. It has nothing to do with lust or leering at women.

Scientists can track precisely what a viewer looks at when viewing a webpage, advertisement, etc. and we're talking split-second movements and focus. They have advertising down to a science; it's scary. Anyhow, they used this technique on men looking at a woman in pants and they found that his eyes follow the two lines (legs) right up to the point of intersection: the crotch.

Women who wear pants want men to look at their crotch. 

What? You were ignorant of this? That's not your motivation for wearing pants? Well, now that I've explained it to you, you either stop wearing pants or you don't care that your attire psychologically forces men to look at your crotch.

My literature teacher once said that there wasn't one female author who has ever written a believable male character because women can't understand men (and God didn't design them to).  Women are oblivious to the male psyche which also is one reason they can't measure modesty accurately.  Thus, women must be told how to dress by their family and the Church.  Else, left to their own impulses, even good women will act like mini-eve's, and will always push the modesty line into the gray area, as our modern world shows.

... fool!
.
...idiot.
.
smh

Mr./Mrs. smh,
Please keep it civil. Name-calling doesn't help your side of the argument, and it only makes you look bad.

Matthew

Mr./Mrs. smh,
Please keep it civil. Name-calling doesn't help your side of the argument, and it only makes you look bad.

Matthew

Is that Croix/Quid/Judith again?

I'm not sure they draw the eye to the crotch ... as I think it depends on how they're cut.  Often they're more revealing on the backside.  Some pants are not immodest depending on how they're cut.  

I have a good friend that wears capris with tunics and she always looks modest and feminine, and definitely not a manly thing about her. Now granted that’s just one person out of most who don’t bother. But I really don’t understand the continued beating of the dead horse of women in pants. Because foolishly those here who are constantly criticizing folks for what they wear think they will change the world and make it a more modest place, but they won’t improve it in any way whatsoever. Because it’s by being a better example is how we change the world, and it starts by changing ourselves, not others. 

I have a good friend that wears capris with tunics and she always looks modest and feminine, and definitely not a manly thing about her. Now granted that’s just one person out of most who don’t bother. But I really don’t understand the continued beating of the dead horse of women in pants. Because foolishly those here who are constantly criticizing folks for what they wear think they will change the world and make it a more modest place, but they won’t improve it in any way whatsoever. Because it’s by being a better example is how we change the world, and it starts by changing ourselves, not others.

I think that what's causing such an uproar here is not the mere fact that the women are wearing pants, but the fact that an official SSPX publication published a photo of their official employees ALL wearing pants.  Now, if one of them had had pants on, I think nobody would have said too much.  I agree that you don't want to run around like Jansenists practically swooning from scandal every time you see a woman in pants.

But this is sending a quasi-official message, that there's NOTHING WRONG with women wearing pants.  Think of the scandal caused here.  Some people have mentioned that their local SSPX priest came out against pants.  How does this not completely undercut him?  Now, if someone tries to dissuade a woman from wearing pants, she could just whip out this photo and say, "See here.  Even a Traditional Catholic organization has no problem with women wearing pants.  Are you more Traditional than the SSPX?"

I had this same kind of issue at one point with my daughters.  I don't let them listen to bad music, especially from depraved artists like Katy Perry.  So our kids' perception is that we're very strict.  But it's easier to win the argument against "but all my friends are allowed to listen" by simply pointing out that these are worldly people lacking faith.  But one of the teachers at their Traditional school was talking about how much she liked Katy Perry.  So now it's a much more difficult case to make.  "Are you more strict and rigorous than even the Traditional Catholics?"  If a Traditional Catholic husband tries to dissuade his wife from wearing pants, all she has to do is whip out this picture and the argument is lost.  It would be quite another matter if unofficially the women dressed like this at the office, but FOR CRYING OUT LOUD DO NOT put a picture like this in an official publication.  At least require that they dress up for "picture day".

I don’t know why it’s being said women aren’t visual creatures... I find it very hard these days when presented with men like Jason Momoa, Sam heughan, or Henry cavil. It’s just as hard for a women to keep her mind straight too. That’s why modesty in both genders is absolutely paramount to helping everyone keep their mind on healthy topics.

I'm sorry, but the whole body of human culture is against you on this one. Not just stereotypes, but truth. Men are always "up for it" whereas women need to get in the mood. If it weren't for female needs, there would be a lot of industries out of business.

A man's interest is turned on in seconds. Just a visual of his wife, or a suggestion that his wife is interested, and he's up for it. Doesn't matter what he was busy with, it can wait. The rest of the world disappears very easily for him.

If what you said were true about many or most women, there would be a lot less conflict between the sexes. All a man would have to do is take off his shirt, and his wife would be putting the kids to bed early. That's hilarious and not funny because it's true, but funny because it's ironic or the exact opposite of true.

I'm sorry, but the whole body of human culture is against you on this one. Not just stereotypes, but truth. Men are always "up for it" whereas women need to get in the mood. If it weren't for female needs, there would be a lot of industries out of business.

A man's interest is turned on in seconds. Just a visual of his wife, or a suggestion that his wife is interested, and he's up for it. Doesn't matter what he was busy with, it can wait. The rest of the world disappears very easily for him.

If what you said were true about many or most women, there would be a lot less conflict between the sexes. All a man would have to do is take off his shirt, and his wife would be putting the kids to bed early. That's hilarious and not funny because it's true, but funny because it's ironic or the exact opposite of true.

Agreed.  Women do not understand.  Their "visual" is completely different from a man's visual.  When  woman says  that she is visual also, she doesn't realize that it's not even really in the same category as what a man experiences.