This discussion has nothing to do with modesty. For purposes of this discussion, let's assume that everyone wants to wear modest clothing.

Call me unnaturally objective, but I noticed years ago just how objectively vain female clothing is.

Let's put it this way: what if a man could wear, for church or the office, any type of pants which weren't made of jean material: parachute pants (think: MC Hammer), khakis, suit pants, etc. And let's further imagine what if men's pants could be LITERALLY ANY COLOR IN THE RAINBOW and then some, and not even necessarily monochrome -- all kinds of patterns, stripes, swirls could be used.

In other words, what if the male dress code was similar to the female dress code? The female dress code for Church or office is basically: anything goes, as long as it covers adequately and isn't obviously casual. No jean material, tears in the material, see-through material, slogans, graphics, etc.

Consider the fact that women are encouraged to show off a significant portion of their legs. Even if the skirt was well below the knee, that still leaves quite a bit of leg showing! I couldn't imagine going in to the office or church with any part of my bare legs showing. It would be completely socially unacceptable.

And then there's the arms! Women, even in an office setting, often have arms completely exposed, or have short 2-3" sleeves. You can see their whole bicep (or lack thereof). Now I'm all for short-sleeved shirts; workmen often wear sleeves only to the elbow. But female dress seldom goes anywhere close to covering to the elbow. It is often sleeveless or has token "sleevelets" which don't cover much of the arm.

Along these same lines, the fact that women show off ANYTHING below the neck, or any portion of their shoulders, more than what men would show in a similar setting, is silly as well. Again, I'm not talking about modesty here.

The styles of tops, bottoms, etc. is limited only by the collective imagination of what the fashion industry has produced in the past 100 years. But for men, everything is pretty standard. White/off-white/beige/tan/olive green/dark blue/grey/brown/black slacks, and a button-down shirt (which is always the same style -- never any lace, ruffles, or anything else to make it unique) and a tie. And all ties have the same shape. Ties are about the only outlet for "creativity" or "individuality" for a man.

And don't get me started on Jєωelry! Men only wear a wedding ring. End of list. Women wear baubles on their hands, ears, wrists, neck, etc. which adds even more to the vanity.

And then there's hairstyle!

And let's not forget "accessories" -- hats, sashes, veils, ribbons, lace, sequins, decorative buttons, and other non-functional items added to the clothing.


Watching an episode of Quantum Leap where Sam "leaps" into a female subject really illustrates the double-standard society has for mens' and womens' clothing.

Don't forget, the majority of TradCat women do not wear socks or stockings that are not transparent (at least at SSPX chapels). It is a display of legs, especially now that the skirts are getting shorter. Yet, this is all considered normal, while it would be inappropriate for a man to wear shorts to Church which displays less of the leg than most women.

I forgot to mention socks.

A woman not wearing socks -- essentially barefoot wearing some kind of shoe or sandal -- would not be considered as "casual" as a man wearing his sandals, crocs, or flip-flops equally sock-less.

Even at my old SSPX chapel you saw plenty of bare feet -- on the females of course. If a man didn't have some kind of socks on, he would probably be thrown out.

The double standard is strange, if you think about it. Bare feet should be either welcome or not.

Thanks a lot guys!  After reading these posts, I can't go to Mass without that creepy feeling men are mentally undressing me.  If you see a woman in full Muslim garb---think Taliban style---it'll be me.

p.s.  Just because some trad women bare as much as they think they can get away with, doesn't mean all do it.  Also, the human female is intended to look more attractive than the male.  That's why men's clothes are plainer, have subdued colors, and less variety than clothes for females.  Unlike birds, it is the male who wears camouflage for battle.  The female's job is to look appealing to the male.  

That is true, and I'll admit that some of the criticism must go towards the modern women who claim that "women are as good as men at anything". Yeah, except that they have to be a flashy-feathered female bird instead of a plain "got work to get done" male. They betray their different-ness and different fundamental role by dressing differently -- and drastically so -- from the men.

Even female "suits" often have low-cut V necks, the top 3 or 4 buttons of the blouse undone or non-existent (to the point that you can usually see cleavage), or pencil skirts that barely come to the knee. That is the official formal attire for women! People don't even blink an eye when professional women dress that way.

I think this is an interesting topic, because the topic of female dress is usually talking about modesty (why they shouldn't show cleavage, or why skirts must go below the knee), but it's equally unique for women to be showing bare feet in semi-formal or dressed up occasions, or showing the area right below the neck or around the shoulders (a couple inches below the throat), the upper arms, etc.

Yet it remains true that guys never do that unless they're by the pool or working in the backyard. Guys don't show any flesh except for their faces, neck, and hands. Sometimes a guy will wear a short-sleeve shirt, which means you see his forearm -- but not his whole upper arm/bicep. Guys' shirts always go to the elbow at least.

There's nothing guys wear -- away from the swimming pool -- that requires him to decide "to shave or not to shave" his armpits, for example. But women regularly wear clothing which show off the entire underarm. So naturally they're a bit self-conscious about that area. Ditto for the legs.

It's interesting that even in Catholic circles, even in the realm of "the modest", women are still expected to flash some flesh -- at least a certain amount, and certainly more than "the guys". Isn't that odd, from an objective, philosophical standpoint?

It's interesting that even in Catholic circles, even in the realm of "the modest", women are still expected to flash some flesh -- at least a certain amount, and certainly more than "the guys". Isn't that odd, from an objective, philosophical standpoint?

The world, not the Church, expects women to flash some flesh.  In tropical places, it is customary for men to wear a suit with shorts instead of pants.  I don't think those men shave the parts of their legs that show.  But if a woman showed up with visibly hairy ankles peeking out of her long skirt, would that not be considered bad taste and lack of hygiene?  If I caught a man staring at my ankles or the 4 to 5 inches above them, he'd be a creep.  Should women wear skirts that drag on the ground?  Not exactly hygienic or safe, either!  That's why women used to lift their skirts to walk upstairs and outdoors.  We aren't Puritans.  I've never seen your wife, Matthew, but I'll be very surprised if she wears only solid, dark, drab colors, thick skirts to the floor, black cotton stockings, high-top boots, blouses that cover her wrists and neck, a utilitarian, unattractive hairstyle, or maybe she keeps her hair hidden beneath a drab colored scarf?  
I just returned from a fireworks display.  I'm wearing a long-sleeved red and white striped pullover shirt with collar edging to my neckline.  It closes with anchor shaped decorative buttons at the neck and base of the sleeves.  On bottom is a three-tiered blue denim skirt that ends about 2 1/2 inches above my ankles.  I have on clogs with a navy leather top and wooden soles.  No socks or stockings.  No hair on my ankles or feet. My long hair is neatly arranged in a loose braided bun.  I'm wearing a Miraculous Medal necklace, small pearl earrings, a white gold pinky ring inherited from my great grandmother, and a silver Rosary bracelet.  I carried my possessions in a small red purse with a shoulder strap.  I think I look modest and attractive, appropriate for the occasion.  
However, if a man were to wear my outfit, he wouldn't be a man!  
Women, by nature, are to dress with more flair and variety.  Men are plainer---unless they aren't real men!

What a VERY interesting topic!

You brought up a lot of very interesting points, Matthew.  What most strikes me, however, is the fact that you mention how plainly and utilitarian men dress in comparison to women.  True.  But, during at least part of the middle ages, the cavalier times during King Charles, the Napoleonic and Classical eras--in fact, through a long period of history, up until the last 200 years or so, men would spend as much time and money on their appearance--and hair--as women.  The cavaliers wore their hair long, and some even curled it, I believe.  Then there were the wigs etc during the Revolutionary times.  As far as clothes go, the rich, fashionable men would wear "clocked" stockings, shoes with heels, various colored coats, waistcoats/vests, hats, rings, necklaces, watches, fancy neckerchiefs (cravats) etc, etc.  You know, the "dandies"....

Of course, this was only the rich people.  The poor people--men and women--would wear plain, functional clothes.  I always wondered why it changed.  And when exactly it did, corresponding to world history events. 

The other point I noticed was that you mentioned modesty as not being an issue, but then brought up cap sleeves, barely long enough skirts, and low necklines.  I thought the Marian standards opposed all those things?  Interesting thought on the shoes/sandals, though.  I never thought about it quite like that before!    

And our Blessed Mother appeared barefoot at Lourdes.

Franciscan Priests wear sandals on the Altar...

This is what I learned and still abide by. Neckline no lower than 4 fingerbreadths below the collarbone. 3/4 sleeves at highest in Mass. Skirts at least 3-4 inches below the knee at highest. Heels- ok, as long as they are not "out-there sexy". No clingy clothes but they can have shape and style. (We don't all have to look like we are working at Colonial Williamsburg.)
Some makeup- ok( some people need it- other don't) Femininity is a plus. maybe I am wrong but being modest IS the key. There is nothing wrong with appearing modestly attractive. At least I don't think so.

Another thought; many women enjoy talking about clothing, shopping for them, designing and making them. 
If you heard two women conversing after Mass,  "Barbara, did you notice Donna's pumps?  They go really well with her green skirt."
"Yes, they're so cute.  I wonder where she bought them?  I'd like to get something similar in white to wear with my yellow dress, the one with the daisies."
Not exactly a "spiritual" conversation, but no one would think it odd.
Imagine now, the equivalent between men.  "Dave, did you notice Tom's shoes?  They really make that gray suit with the white tie."
Yes, they're sure manly.  I wonder where he bought them?  I've been looking for something similar to wear with that blue suit of mine, the one I wear with the light green tie." :o :-*