Author Topic: Modesty and how to dress (Read 33160 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.