Quote

And, I've often made this point, and someone alluded to it earlier in this thread as well: Why should the feminists' promotion of women's trousers subvert the moral order, but feminists' promotion of short hair doesn't? Everything that can be said about trousers, and imitating men, and modern fashions offending Our Lord, can be said about short hair. Yet, somehow Catholic women are capable of having short hair without it meaning that we have sold out to the feminist agenda. Did Padre Pio tell women not to cut their hair? Is there a notice on our churches about Marylike standards of haircut? No. Somehow, this one modern fashion, which makes women a bit more like men, does not offend Our Lord. I would wager that loose-fitting trousers under a tunic do not offend Our Lord either.

I agree with you about the hair, by the way, and fashion doesn't just apply to trou.

I wasn't saying women must grow their hair long. The Church doesn't say they must. Women don't get turned away from confession until their hair grows! I haven't heard that Padre Pio did that either.

I was just wondering why trad Catholics can accept that short hair doesn't undermine the family, but not that trousers don't either. I would say that, if either is a "crime" short hair is more likely to be one than trousers.

Hair is a bit confusing. The NT says men shouldn't have long hair and women should. Yet Our Lord had long hair, so maybe it's relative! Women should have longer hair than men!

Modern women's fashions are a direct result of the dechristianization of society.  That fact fatally undermines arguments that say the acceptability of women's fashions are a matter of time and place.  In fact, today's fashions are not only contrary to Christian morality, but contrary to natural morality that was accepted in most places.

I wouldn't argue that women wearing pants in certain contexts is necessarily sinful, or having a short hair style necessarily sinful, or having a skirt that doesn't go to the ankles or below is necessarily sinful.

But to defend pants on women, to defend hems just below the knees, to defend short hair styles as though it were just as good as wearing long hair, I think it's worse than dressing in that manner, especially using the argument of cultural relativism.  Because the difference in today's culture is that society is not Christian, and that accounts in large part fort he difference in dress.

The vehement defense of the fashions of the 20th century and the ridicule and mischaracterization of those who make valid criticisms of them is indefensible.

The vehement defense of the fashions of the 20th century and the ridicule and mischaracterization of those who make valid criticisms of them is indefensible.

Mischaracterisation? A bit like how people who defend women wearing trousers apparently also believe that there is something wrong with wearing skirts? That women who wear trousers never wear skirts!

I think women should not wear pants because I think pants make women look ugly and longer dresses and skirts make women look beautiful.

But they did wear men's clothes.  Not women's clothes.  

Indeed, and men's and women's clothes were not as dissimilar as they became when men started wearing trousers.

Trousers have been men's clothes, and remain men's clothes and not women's clothes, except among people who accept feminist fashions.

Men's trousers are men's clothing. Women's trousers are women's clothing. Men's robes were men's clothing. Women's robes were women's clothing.

Pants outline more, and generally speaking, they fit snugly around a womans waist, hips and upper legs.

And men have more to outline. Men and women should both wear long tops covering the hip area if they are going to wear trousers.

I can't imagine why anyone is so supportive of fashions that come from the de-Christianizing of society.

I do not support fashions that come from the de-Christianising of society. I don't think women's loose fitting trousers do. Short skirts do, tight trousers do. Tattoos do! Lots of piercings do! But modest trousers do not.

I don't think a woman who wears pants is necessarily sinning, but, I think a woman who realizes that pants are less feminine, that the wearing of pants by women became common because of the de-Christianization of society and the advance of feminism, would ever wear pants except for rough work or possibly sports.  Certainly never for social purposes.

Most women who wear pants are wearing immodest ones.

Well, I only ever wear them for physiotherapy, and they are perhaps a bit figure-hugging, so I generally wear a long top covering the hip area. But I hardly ever wear them anyway.

I am not flailing around doing physio in a skirt though!

(I don't know what is wrong with the formatting of this post, all the quote tags are in the right place, and I'm running out of editing time!)

One: Men tend not to understand that not all women have the kind of hair that can easily be worn long. I for one do think long hair is more feminine, and tried in my 20s to keep mine that way for quite some time; but I had an unruly bush that was not neat and presentable.

You didn't get a buzz cut though.  :wink:

Modern women's fashions are a direct result of the dechristianization of society.  That fact fatally undermines arguments that say the acceptability of women's fashions are a matter of time and place.  In fact, today's fashions are not only contrary to Christian morality, but contrary to natural morality that was accepted in most places.

I wouldn't argue that women wearing pants in certain contexts is necessarily sinful, or having a short hair style necessarily sinful, or having a skirt that doesn't go to the ankles or below is necessarily sinful.

But to defend pants on women, to defend hems just below the knees, to defend short hair styles as though it were just as good as wearing long hair, I think it's worse than dressing in that manner, especially using the argument of cultural relativism.  Because the difference in today's culture is that society is not Christian, and that accounts in large part fort he difference in dress.

The vehement defense of the fashions of the 20th century and the ridicule and mischaracterization of those who make valid criticisms of them is indefensible.

This is a wonderful post!