With this way of thinking why stop at skirts? I mean, even skirts define the waist after all. And what about skirts that reveal your ankles? Did you know in times past it was considered provocative for a woman to reveal her ankles? It was.

With this way of thinking maybe we should all just wear really long potato sacks with no waist that cover our ankles. And they shouldn't be nice potato sacks either because that would be vain and they would of course be uncomfortable and so that would be good also because we could impose some penance on everyone as well. I mean really where does it end?

Did you know there are lots of good traditional Catholic women who wear pants regularly? I have never even heard of this idea until Seeing it on the internet and I have been a traditional Catholic who only attends traditional Catholic masses my entire life.

You say to not pay attention to fads/fashion--well this sounds like a very odd fad. I thank you for the reminders to modesty, but I'm going to pass on the all skirts fad.

I dont like it when women wear pants, especially to Church. Men don't go to Church wearing skirts or dresses. I wonder if it is a sin for a woman to wear pants. Bishop de Castro Mayer thought it was. He said that if one had to, it was better for a woman to wear a miniskirt than to wear pants and as traditional Catholics I hope we can all agree that it is a sin for a woman to wear a miniskirt in public.

PS Who said anything about tight stretchy material? I just said pants. I didn't say skin tight pants or spandex or leggings as pants. To try to act like people are sinning by wearing pants in general is kind of fanatical. If that is your standard then why are men wearing pants as well? Couldn't that also cause women to look at that area and sin according to the ideas stated here? Men are more visual but women aren't blind either... This really is a bit overboard.

Gabriella, I am wondering your age. You seem young and naive and not discerning the difference between Catholic and worldly behaviour and how society has been worked upon to undermine what is good and holy.

I introduced skin tight apparel in order to make a point, and that is that our society is being progressively undermined by evil forces. You see, fifty years ago or even a lesser period, a woman "would not have been seen dead" walking around in underwear-like apparel. Nowadays it is common to see such sights. A woman would have been arrested, or even thought to be insane, if she looked like some women do today.

The drop in standards did not happen overnight but has been filtering down through the years with brainwashing done through the media, by promoting famous people dressed distastefully, etc. Maybe you are too young to have noticed.

But it started with female public figures (in movies, TV etc) wearing stylish well tailored pants. I hope that helps...

 

Quote from: Gabriella

I also chose St. Joan of Arc as my Confirmation Saint. I just think it is amazing that men were not scandalized by a woman in her time wearing pants, while in our time for some  reason when it is a normal thing to wear you think men are somehow scandalized by this. Modesty is about so much more than merely dress. We are Traditional Catholics not Puritans. And I can assure you I am no feminist.

Ahem! Was not one of the charges laid against her, the wearing of men's apparel? She was burned at the stake for it!

Point made--this is the same type of fanaticism that burnt a Saint at the stake...courtesy of other Catholics...pretty sad.

Good post, MW. So I'm reposting for those who missed it.

Quote from: mw2016

I'm a convert, and I was a pants-wearer in my adult life previously. It took me about six months to get on board with the no-pants thing.

But, when I did, I have to say the difference is dramatic.

1. Jeans are not comfortable. If any woman says they are, she lies. There are medical studies that show the health problems associated with wearing jeans.

2. Pants are not that comfortable either.

3. Skirts are comfortable. You don't need to be wearing a tight pencil skirt. Ordinary skirts of whatever length are comfortable.

4. Pants change your GAIT. As a woman, you stomp around town a lot differently in pants than you do in a skirt. It has a way of masculinizing a woman that I did not realize until I stopped wearing them myself. Ladies who try to claim otherwise are lying.

5. Men in public treat you differently when you wear skirts. Do this experiment for yourself and find out.

The women here are throwing out a lot of excuses. I think most of them just revolve around the inordinate desire for human respect. They want to look like everyone else in the secular world. They don't want to make themselves stand out. But, you don't have to dress in SSPX-compliant Little-House-On-The-Prairie skirts. You too can shop at Ross, and TJ MAXX, and Kohl's and look like a NORMAL present-era female.

The women who claim otherwise are lying - to themselves!

Most women can identify with this list. I wish I did so skirts wouldn't bother me so much. But I gotta admit they really aren't my thing. This is only my opinion, but I hate skirts.  I wear them, but they drive me nuts.  I live in a warm/hot climate and the skirt really has to be light weight.  But that means wearing layers under the skirt which defeats the hope that I won't roast. Skirts seem to enhance any extra wiggle, so, add a girdle and you're in 3 layers.  I know, tough beans.  But I still hate skirts.  Wispy nylon ones are not very modest so I avoid them. When you're out and about, you gotta worry about where your skirt is while standing/sitting, reaching, crouching, climbing in and out of the car, etc.  They fly up, shimmy up, catch on stuff... I live on a ranch and have chickens and horses.  I know ppl say that they do everything in a skirt, but boy I don't get it.  They are such a pain when trying to keep acreage and animals.  Sure, people did it just fine before, but I was raised in pants and trying to move with any efficiency in a skirt is a no go.  As for men appreciating women more...bzzt! I really don't want men appreciating.  Except for scandalizing, I could care less what my clothes do for men or women.  Slipping in and out of town without interacting with anybody at all is one of my favorite things in the world, so human respect is not my thing.  Its true, you probably clunk around in pants more than skirts, but that's because, in a skirt, you're holding back, constantly checking, smoothing, moving slower, being more self-aware.  Personally, I wish I could go back to pants and big t-shirts and avoid the anxiety of how I look or worry about the trads I'm offending or think about what my skirt is doing to embarrass me today. I wear skirts strictly in imitation of Our Lady, but it is a real penance to have lost the freedom I enjoyed in pants.  IMHO.      

If pants are SO acceptable, then why didn't women wear pants for the first 5,000 years of existence?

And why didn't men either, for the first few millennia?

St Padre Pio was against pants.  So was Cardinal Siri, and he wrote an exhortation against it in his diocese.  Women in pants is a modern thing; not around until the 40s/50s.  It's part of feminism.  That's reality.  Can you imagine Our Lady in pants?

I can't imagine Our Lord or St Joseph in them either. Ergo, men should not wear them.

Quote from: Pax Vobis

St Padre Pio was against pants.  So was Cardinal Siri, and he wrote an exhortation against it in his diocese.  Women in pants is a modern thing; not around until the 40s/50s.  It's part of feminism.  That's reality.  Can you imagine Our Lady in pants?

I can't imagine Our Lord or St Joseph in them either. Ergo, men should not wear them.

Good point, this logic is seriously flawed as doesn't hold up--it's not even Catholic. It is a made up fad.

Again, this is the same type of thinking that burned a Saint at the stake.