Author Topic: Modesty and how to dress (Read 19330 times)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #135 on:** September 25, 2010, 09:52:01 AM »

Quote

On the one hand, women should not wear trousers because they are men's clothes.
Quote
Why should I admit something I am not convinced by?

Because you shouldn't pretend that the reasons for opposing trousers on women have no merit at all. Obviously feminists can clearly see why they wanted women to dress more like men. They weren't reacting to nothing.

I can admit arguments against the position that women shouldn't wear pants. That customs and styles change and something that is relatively superficial shouldn't become an acid test. That women in non-western cultures wear pants. That relatively modest pants do exist, etc. I can admit all those things. But none of those things neutralize my points: that the adoption of pants by women was a development of feminism. That pants are aesthetically less feminine. That pants are generally less modest than long skirt and dresses. That the defense of pants and anger at those who want men and women to dress according to old customs is based in part on defending an aspect of social revolution: the revolution in dress. Dress is superficial but it affects us more deeply. Nothing is more striking than the contrast between a congregation of well dressed women with veils, hats, dresses and long hair and congregation of poorly dressed unveiled women in pants with short hair. And finally, the custom of women wearing dresses remains. A very old custom that prevailed through many Christian centuries. It is wrong to suggest that it was purely arbitrary circuмstance that led to the costumes of Christian peoples.

Quote
On the other hand, women should not wear trousers because they are immodest and present an occasion of sin for men.

How are those reasons in conflict with one another? In fact they complement each other. There are obviously good reasons why men adopted trousers many centuries ago and women didn't. Aesthetic reasons, reasons of modesty, etc.

clare · « **Reply #136 on:** September 25, 2010, 10:09:09 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Obviously feminists can clearly see why they wanted women to dress more like men. They weren't reacting to nothing.

I don't consider feminists to be infallible judges of what will successfully undermine the family. I say we prove them wrong!

Quote

I can admit arguments against the position that women shouldn't wear pants. That customs and styles change and something that is relatively superficial shouldn't become an acid test. That women in non-western cultures wear pants. That relatively modest pants do exist, etc. I can admit all those things.

I'm glad.

Quote

But none of those things neutralize my points: that the adoption of pants by women was a development of feminism.

As I said, feminists are not infallible. You could say the same about short hair (as I've mentioned before). We can prove feminists wrong that short hair makes women more like men and undermines society. I say the same goes for trousers. We should be able to say, "You thought you could ruin Christendom by getting women to cut their hair and wear trousers! Ha! You were wrong!"

It's true that Christendom has been harmed, but I do not think that those two things are responsible.

Quote

That pants are aesthetically less feminine.

In this culture, maybe

Telesphorus · « **Reply #137 on:** September 25, 2010, 10:21:35 AM »

Quote from: clare

I don't consider feminists to be infallible judges of what will successfully undermine the family. I say we prove them wrong!

Except you use the argument that the difference in dress doesn't matter. And you can't admit the harm that the feminist conception of dress has caused.

Quote

I'm glad.

But I'm rather displeased at the way you ignore my arguments and refuse to concede that those who are against pants have good reasons for their position.

Quote

As I said, feminists are not infallible. You could say the same about short hair (as I've mentioned before). We can prove feminists wrong that short hair makes women more like men and undermines society. I say the same goes for trousers.

Except if they can dominate fashions and cause women to follow them in dressing in a less graceful and feminine manner they can manipulate women in more serious ways as well.

Quote

We should be able to say, "You thought you could ruin Christendom by getting women to cut their hair and wear trousers! Ha! You were wrong!"

Clare what has happened to Christendom?

Quote

It's true that Christendom has been harmed, but I do not think that those two things are responsible.

Do you think it's a coincidence that revolutionary periods were accompanied by drastic changes in dress? No one is arguing that the change in dress caused the social problems, but certainly it was seen as highly desirable by the social revolutionaries to change dress. They have a keen appreciation of psychology. They can understand how drastic changes in fashions that aesthetically reinforce their view of humanity can advance their goals. A great example of this change is in architecture and of course music.

Quote

That pants are aesthetically less feminine.

In this culture, maybe[/quote]

Without any doubt. Why say maybe Clare? Surely you can recognize that wedding gown is more feminine than a wedding suit?

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #138 on:** September 25, 2010, 10:24:02 AM »

A very easy way to answer the question as to whether something is modest....

"Would Our Lady wear this?"

clare · « **Reply #139 on:** September 25, 2010, 11:03:59 AM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

A very easy way to answer the question as to whether something is modest....

"Would Our Lady wear this?"

Not everything that she would not wear is immodest.

She wouldn't have her head uncovered.

I doubt she'd wear synthetics.

clare · « **Reply #140 on:** September 25, 2010, 11:14:02 AM »

Telesphorus,

I'm not ignoring your post. I'll try to answer it later. I have to do stuff now, like cook dinner!

clare · « **Reply #141 on:** September 25, 2010, 03:33:39 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Except you use the argument that the difference in dress doesn't matter.

No, I don't. Of course men and women should dress differently. They can still dress similarly though. Similar does not mean the same. Men's trousers are different from women's, just like men's robes were different from women's. But men's robes were not as different from women's as trousers are from dresses. So men and women need to dress differently from each other, but not that differently. If you see what I mean!

Quote

And you can't admit the harm that the feminist conception of dress has caused.

I can admit that there was a negative motivation. I just don't regard that as infallible proof that the method used by the feminists need necessarily have produced the desired result.

Women's trousers could just as easily have been promoted because they make some jobs that women have to do easier. Or that women are safer wearing them (I know of women who feel less vulnerable in them).

Quote

But I'm rather displeased at the way you ignore my arguments and refuse to concede that those who are against pants have good reasons for their position.

I'll try to explain why I find it hard to concede that.

I stopped wearing trousers about 10 years ago, because I was getting into the SSPX and I knew they had a reputation for frowning upon women's trousers! But, I never managed to buy the reasoning behind it. When a colleague at work asked why I did not wear trousers, I could not come up with an unanswerable answer. And I mean unanswerable by me. Every reason I could think of, I had an answer to! And my answers were unanswerable if I do say so myself! I don't think I gave a reason in the end. I can't remember. All I remember was that I could not think of a single reason that would convince me that women's trousers were intrinsically wrong, let alone convince one of my Pagan colleagues!

So, that is why I am struggling to concede anything. I've tried, but the position is illogical, IMHO.

Quote

Except if they can dominate fashions and cause women to follow them in dressing in a less graceful and feminine manner they can manipulate women in more serious ways as well.

I manage to be graceless and inelegant in a skirt, Telesphorus! I don't need trousers to pull that off!

Quote

Do you think it's a coincidence that revolutionary periods were accompanied by drastic changes in dress?

Probably not. But I am looking objectively. I don't see women's trousers as objectively wrong, regardless of the motivation of subversives.

Quote

Surely you can recognize that wedding gown is more feminine than a wedding suit?

Yes, of course. Wedding gowns are more feminine than a lot of dresses. But they are often immodest these days, since most of them seem to be sleeveless and strapless. But yes, modest or not, they are more feminine!

Telesphorus · « **Reply #142 on:** September 25, 2010, 03:48:24 PM »

Quote

When a colleague at work asked why I did not wear trousers, I could not come up with an unanswerable

You can simply answer that skirts and dresses are more womanly.

It is very simple, very true.

Reductionists don't accept answers that relate to aesthetics and customs, but that is a defect in their way of thinking. It's why we see the sort of "art" and "architecture" that is "popular" today.

clare · « **Reply #143 on:** September 25, 2010, 04:07:55 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote
When a colleague at work asked why I did not wear trousers, I could not come up with an unanswerable

You can simply answer that skirts and dresses are more womanly.

It is very simple, very true.

It's how you wear them. I have never been particularly elegant, and I think that if I had tried to claim to be more womanly in a skirt than all the other more fashionable and, yes, feminine women in the office who wore trousers, there would have been some politely stifled chuckles!

Alexandria · « **Reply #144 on:** September 25, 2010, 04:38:00 PM »

Humiliations properly received lead to humility.

clare · « **Reply #145 on:** September 25, 2010, 04:41:55 PM »

Quote from: Alexandria

Humiliations properly received lead to humility.

Indeed. but it would defeat the object wouldn't it? It would just prove that I was talking nonsense. And, while it may help me to be humble, it still wouldn't convince them or me that women shouldn't wear trousers!

Telesphorus · « **Reply #146 on:** September 25, 2010, 04:42:25 PM »

Quote from: clare

It's how you wear them. I have never been particularly elegant, and I think that if I had tried to claim to be more womanly in a skirt than all the other more fashionable and, yes, feminine women in the office who wore trousers, there would have been some politely stifled chuckles!

It's not about you versus them. It's about pants versus skirts.

"In the office"

Doesn't exactly sound like a bastion of femininity.

clare · « **Reply #147 on:** September 26, 2010, 04:08:56 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: clare
It's how you wear them. I have never been particularly elegant, and I think that if I had tried to claim to be more womanly in a skirt than all the other more fashionable and, yes, feminine women in the office who wore trousers, there would have been some politely stifled chuckles!

It's not about you versus them.

My point is that I would hardly have been regarded as a more feminine and womanly specimen than the other women in the office who wore trousers. See, they wore make-up too and had nice hair. I don't, and my hair is a law unto itself. A skirt doesn't make me more elegant and ladylike!

Quote

It's about pants versus skirts.

I don't see an opposition between them. Most women who wear trousers also wear skirts. Usually quite short ones though.

Interestingly, as I recall from my time when I worked in an office, there were a couple of women who always wore trousers. They were Muslims, and they wore veils as well. Not feminists!

Quote

"In the office"

Doesn't exactly sound like a bastion of femininity.

Better than "On the building site"!

clare · « **Reply #148 on:** September 26, 2010, 09:51:16 AM »

I was reflecting on the importance of feminity to get a woman to Heaven, and I remembered a saint I had read about years ago.

St Wilgefortis. Her dad wanted her to marry. She didn't want to marry, as she had made a vow of chastity. She prayed to be made repulsive, and her prayer was answered: She grew a beard!

JoanScholastica · « **Reply #149 on:** September 26, 2010, 10:22:20 PM »

Quote from: clare

Quote from: JoanScholastica
Quote from: clare
Although, obviously, if the issue crops up, I will argue about it, but I won't raise it by wearing trousers and inviting bother.

It sounds contradicting but I will leave it as that...

It isn't contradictory.

How come? You don't practice what you preach. Do you still believe it's not contradictory?

Our Lady had told us that certain fashion would offend God. Considering what pants do to most women nowadays, don't you think it's high time to cease defending something that's offending Him? I don't know until when you'd come to your senses but one thing is certain. It is an occasion of sin to both men and women. For men - because it can lead to impurity. For women - because it can lead them to false notion of equality with men. And if our Catechism teaches us to flee any occasion of sin, why not do the same here? I don't know what's keeping you adamant against something that's truly Catholic and simple logic.

As both of us are from the Society camp, it's not good to see that we're having a debate here. It hurts but this is the sad fact.

So long, may Our Lady enlighten you.