CathInfo.com

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!

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).

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.

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!

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.

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!

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!