I found a REALLY GOOD post on another message board about this same topic. She is responding to the first paragraph, in italics.



Like it or not, we live in this society. It's impractical, irrational and impossible to behave as though we were living in the same society our grandparents and great-grandparents lived in. We can't live their lives, much as we'd like to. That means that to some extent we do have to conform our current situation. Otherwise we're just living in some isolated little bubble instead of living our lives. And if a girl has to work to help pay her way through college (or for whatever reason) and it's a choice between wearing non-immodest pants and losing her job, the practical thing is for her to wear those pants since there is no sin involved.


Well, if the person doesn't know it's a sin, then usually it is not a sin (hey, but if the person doesn't know it's a sin to dress for the purpose to provoke lust, but they know it's a sin to have lust in one's heart, by their intent they are sinning --- even with their hardened conscience, yes it's true). But for something like wearing pants because it's what the boss wants, then it's an issue of one's spiritual, interior disposition. If one is less zealous, then the sin could very well be that of spiritual sloth. Now, that's not condoning disobedience to one's superior, but there are other jobs out there.

I know a woman who did NOT live with her parents and supported herself. When she was laid off (along with over 7 thousand other employees from the same company --- mostly in her local area), the only good job offer she received was in ... guess what... the FASHION INDUSTRY out in a city that had a very liberal culture. The job would have had her working long hours, and often "on call". There was no regular 24/7 place to adore our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament because it was a big city, so she made one of the most difficult decisions of her life: to not accept the job. This decision she made having no job lined up, and NO FAMILY to help her. She knew that it was not likely that she would find a job in her industry in that area, and that she would be working entry level temp jobs for about half what she used to make. This woman sacrificed more than you care to know, but many other people make such sacrifices, too, for the love of their Lord. She still works temp jobs that are even entry level (making less than half what she used to make and struggling to survive), but she has lived according to discernment of God's Will, and for a higher good than anything the temporal world can offer.

Choosing to wear only skirts is a small sacrifice. Many good Catholic families often make greater sacrifices frequently, simply by living a good, holy life. They choose to do the holy Will of our Lord, against what the world would have them do. They are open to new life, and prefer poverty than to hold off having more children so they can go on more trips (or any), or have a new vehicle. Many of these holy mothers homeschool their own children, which is a tremendous sacrifice, since the mother never has time for herself. Her joy is in Christ, in through Christ for her children's welfare. This she considers greater than her desires for herself, to the point that her very desires for Christ and for her children is her life. This is a daily, committed sacrifice. If we cannot make the small sacrifices, how can we be successful at the bigger ones like those of these holy women?

I'd imagine that there would likely be another supermarket that would allow her to work wearing a long skirt.

While it is true that we don't live in the same society that our grandparents lived in, that doesn't make it right for us to assimilate to the spirit of today's culture. Its collective conscience is hardened, and there is little to no room for true submission to the Kingship of Christ.

What is impractical about wearing a skirt in a job where you are simply standing most of the time? Does a skirt make it harder to stand? What seems impractical is that it doesn't allow one to assimilate into the culture in the sense of being accepted in the "norm", but we don't need to be accepted by the general populace who lives by the spirit of the world, rather or at least more so than by the Spirit of Christ. We are called to be signs of contradiction, not signs to show we are just like everyone else. We are living for something that is a higher good than what the world can give us, not that public acceptance doesn't have an attraction to many who are so disposed, but to be seeking it is not to seek the will of God. We are not supposed to be concerned with human respect, but with what God thinks. God has made man and woman different in such a way that we are physical signs of a spiritual reality. Wearing clothes that either diffuse this truth, or exploit this truth in a perverse way are not living in accordance with Truth (he that is Truth).

I would say that women of good will who wear pants will at least try to help their brothers in the Faith by keeping them sufficiently baggy/loose, and/or including a long shirt in the ensemble.

That should give all the "freedom benefits" of pants, while taking away most of the concerns about modesty.

Anyone arguing "for" pants shouldn't have a problem with that, right?

But to just mindlessly wear what everyone else wears, considering only how "fashionable" or "cute" something is...

Matthew

I'll repeat a few of the points I've made "elsewhere"!

Off the top of my head, in no particular order:

1. Our Lord didn't wear trousers.
2. Our Lady is never depicted in a blouse and calf length skirt, or without a veil.
3. Men didn't use to wear trousers. They wore robes.
4. Men have more cause to be concerned about wearing trousers without a longish top covering them, since they risk embarrassing themselves when they get aroused (for example, by a woman in "man's clothes" which men don't find as attractive as skirts anyway! (Having it both ways, or what?))
5. Muslim women (who are very concerned about modesty) wear trousers.
6. Had there been public loos for ladies and gents some centuries ago, the signs on them would have been harder to discern than our modern "skirt=ladies'" "trousers=gents'" contrast.
7. Some trousers are more modest than some skirts.
8. That men wear trousers is not a God given tradition. It is a tradition of men. It didn't start in the Garden of Eden.

Clare.

I forgot to add that short hair might just as easily be a fashion which offends Our Lord very much.

Our Lady had long hair.
St Paul says women shouldn't cut their hair.
It's copying men.
It's vanity in some cases (as distinct from the motivation behind nuns' short hair, which cannot be said to be vanity!).
It became fashionable courtesy of Coco Chanel.

So why is it ok?

Clare (yes, I have short hair! I just raise this issue, because it's an anomaly).

Now that's just silly. Why men and women cover themselves at all is mostly psychological. Does this mean that bathing should be done while dressed for fear that we may be psychologically affected by the 10 minutes in the shower?

Not applicable, because bathing is a necessity. Wearing trousers isn't. As the ultra-rigorists argue, if a woman can't do it in a skirt, she shouldn't be doing it at all! And women managed is skirts before!

When I wear pants in my home, I don't feel completely dressed. If the doorbell rings and I'm wearing pants, I head to grab a skirt and let my dh answer the door. I do work in the backyard in pants during the day, but avoid doing so in the evening when the neighbors have returned home from work and school. Does this sound like I've been adversely affected by wearing pants in the privacy of my home?

Most women are not adversely affected by wearing trousers at all.

It's scruples again. This whole issue plants the idea that something neutral is sinful. And people waste a lot of time agonising over it.

Clare.