Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Women’s pants  (Read 3642 times)

1 Member and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline CWA

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 98
  • Reputation: +122/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Women’s pants
« Reply #120 on: July 26, 2025, 02:22:45 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • 4. Not worth the effort. "Blind, Trotworth, blind."

    :laugh1:

    Offline caxap

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 127
    • Reputation: +31/-128
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Women’s pants
    « Reply #121 on: July 27, 2025, 04:53:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • "From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die" ~ Sirach 25:33


    Offline Boru

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 75
    • Reputation: +49/-40
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Women’s pants
    « Reply #122 on: Yesterday at 11:06:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • Th roots of feminism in the 19th century is the right to vote, not a reaction to abuse by men.

    2nd wave feminism was about abortion rights, not a reaction to abuse by men.

    3rd wave feminism was the slut movement. SATC, not a reaction to abuse by men.

    4th wave feminism is the criminalization of white men, #metoo, not a reaction to abuse by men.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Why are feminists silent on woman abuser Epstein?  It's primarily maga/conservative types pushing for transparency.
    "Feminist thought didn’t emerge in a vacuum. Its origins trace back to 17th and 18th-century Europe, where dramatic social transformations created the conditions for questioning traditional gender roles. The Age of Enlightenment, with its emphasis on reason, individual rights, and human progress, provided the intellectual framework that would eventually challenge the subordination of women." - 'Evolution of feminist Thought: A Socio-Historical Overview Feb. 3. 2023, Sociology Institute; Introduction to Sociology.

     
    This Age of Enlightenment conveniently raised its ugly head at the same time as the Industrial Revolution (1760) which had a dramatic impact on the traditional role of women in the home. Once renowned for their "cottage Industry", women could not compete with the machinery of burgeoning industries which squeezed their homesteads dry and forced their husbands, and thus themselves, into the dark and dirty web of industrial town slavery. The inhuman conditions women worked under during this time would make you cry.

    Then came the American Revolution (1765) followed by the French revolution (1789): Liberty, fraternity, and equality: freedom, brotherhood, and equal rights for all individuals.

    The pattern is clear to see: a crisis was manufactured by the revolutionaries of the this so-called age of enlightenment. It is how they always work: create the problem and then offer a "solution", in this case: REVOLUTION; revolution from the traditional hierarchy of mankind. Men rebelled against their kings, and women rebelled against their subjection. The psychological conditioning was complete.

    Women, once an equal partner in a rural family business, was suddenly plunged into a world of abusive slavery where her domestic skills were neither appreciated or considered any economical worth. Struggling in a man's world that did not value them as women marks the origins of why we have what we have today. That is why women fought so hard for the vote. That is why women fought so hard for equal rights in the workforce. That is what it led to abortion - actively encouraged by men who had everything to gain from it.

    So who are the minds behind this Age of Enlightenment: Johannes Kepler, Galileo, Francis Bacon (a major player), Voltaire, Rousseau, and Isaac Newton, among others, as well as the philosophy of Descartes, Hobbes, and John Locke (to name a few).  If you do a background check you will find that they were all Puritans; the same puritans whose philosophy set the stage for all the revolutions right up to the first and 2nd Great wars. Its a deep rabbit hole but even a cursory glance show that yes, the roots of what became associated with feminism stems from women losing there priceless identity and value as women.


    Offline Boru

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 75
    • Reputation: +49/-40
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Women’s pants
    « Reply #123 on: Yesterday at 01:27:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • "It remains therefore that the first inordinateness of the human appetite resulted from his coveting inordinately some spiritual good. Now he would not have coveted it inordinately, by desiring it according to his measure as established by the Divine rule. Hence it follows that man's first sin consisted in his coveting some spiritual good above his measure: and this pertains to pride. Therefore it is evident that man's first sin was pride." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, Article 1.

    Both Adam and Eve sinned through pride.

    Reading further, I came across Article 4 labelled 'Whether Adam's sin was more grievous than Eve's?' St. Thomas Aquinas states that: "As regards the genus itself of the sin, the sin of each is considered to be equal, for each sinned by pride." 

    However, he further states that "as regards the species of pride, the woman sinned more grievously, for three reasons. First, because she was more puffed up than the man. For the woman believed in the serpent's persuasive words, namely that God had forbidden them to eat of the tree, lest they should become like to Him; so that in wishing to attain to God's likeness by eating of the forbidden fruit, her pride rose to the height of desiring to obtain something against God's will. On the other hand, the man did not believe this to be true; wherefore he did not wish to attain to God's likeness against God's will: but his pride consisted in wishing to attain thereto by his own power. Secondly, the woman not only herself sinned, but suggested sin to the man; wherefore she sinned against both God and her neighbor. Thirdly, the man's sin was diminished by the fact that, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xi, 42), "he consented to the sin out of a certain friendly good-will, on account of which a man sometimes will offend God rather than make an enemy of his friend. That he ought not to have done so is shown by the just issue of the Divine sentence.

    It is therefore evident that the woman's sin was more grievous than the man's."

    I see now where Pax and WorldAway are drawing their thinking from. I stand corrected. That said, Pride was still the first sin regardless of the other elements involved. Further, St. Thomas also clarifies that: "I answer that, As stated (Article 3), the gravity of a sin depends on the species (kind)  rather than on a circuмstance of that sin. Accordingly we must assert that, if we consider the condition attaching to these persons, the man's sin is the more grievous, because he was more perfect than the woman." (in terms of reasoning power and not being deceived).

    All more complex than I think most of us were aware of.  Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the summary of this is that both Adam and Eve both sinned through pride, however, despite Adam having less excuse than the woman, his responsibility was somewhat mitigated because of his wanting to please his neighbour (Eve); something Eve had not shown due to her more excessive pride.

    Bottom line: Eve did not make Adam sin and Adam is equally responsible for the fall of mankind:
    Romans 5: “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people” (verse 12).

    “Death reigned from the time of Adam . . . even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam” (verse 14).

    “Many died by the trespass of the one man” (verse 15).

    “By the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man” (verse 17).

    “Through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners” (verse 19).

    See, scripture can work both ways.


    Now, back to pants. So WorldAway, the moment I put on a pair of pants to back a horse, or climb a rock hanging, I'm a an excessively proudful feminist? All I can say is I'm glad you're not my spiritual director because he says its fine, as long as its in cases of necessity and where common sense dictates. :)

    Offline Boru

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 75
    • Reputation: +49/-40
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Women’s pants
    « Reply #124 on: Yesterday at 01:28:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Apologies for the long posts! Have been away so just catching up.


    Offline Cera

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6570
    • Reputation: +3006/-1582
    • Gender: Female
    • Pray for the consecration of Russia to Mary's I H
    Re: Women’s pants
    « Reply #125 on: Yesterday at 01:33:50 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Douay-Rheims Bible

    A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel : for he that doeth these things is abominable before God.

    Deuteronomy 22:5
    Everyone agrees on this. The disagreement is whether or not it is appropriate for a woman to wear modest and feminine pants -- for example loose-fitting pink or other feminine color or flowered pants.
    Pray for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12317
    • Reputation: +7808/-2409
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Women’s pants
    « Reply #126 on: Yesterday at 04:59:44 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!1
  • Feminine pants are still men’s clothing.  

    Offline WorldsAway

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 706
    • Reputation: +568/-74
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Women’s pants
    « Reply #127 on: Yesterday at 05:23:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Now, back to pants. So WorldAway, the moment I put on a pair of pants to back a horse, or climb a rock hanging, I'm a an excessively proudful feminist?
    Strawman

    Quote
    All I can say is I'm glad you're not my spiritual director because he says its fine, as long as its in cases of necessity
    A recreational activity, horse riding for example, will never fall under "cases of necessity". Necessity implies there is no alternative. We cannot willingly enter into a optional activity where we know an immoral choice will need to be made in order to accomplish said activity :facepalm:

    Aquinas gives the example of a woman wearing male attire in order to conceal her identity to avoid death. Far cry from a woman voluntarily partaking in male sport

    Quote
    where common sense dictates
    Catholic sense, which is not common, dictates a woman may never wear male attire when it is not of necessity




    John 15:19  If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.


    Offline Gray2023

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2962
    • Reputation: +1661/-942
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Women’s pants
    « Reply #128 on: Yesterday at 06:00:53 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • Men and women are not able to discuss things together.  Men will always look for the exception to fix and women will always look for charity in society.  (Probably not exactly the right way to say it but hopefully somebody gets the idea.)

    WorldsAway and Pax, at least address the rest of what Boru said.  She admitted she was wrong and showed you how she came to that intellectual conclusion.

    On a side note.  If you are working on a ranch and due to the fact that ranch hands are a lost profession, don't you think a woman who has to break horses out of necessity for the family business would be given a dispensation to wear pants to do so?  (I don't know if this is Boru's case, it is just something to consider.)  Shouldn't that be decided by her husband and a spiritual director, not some random people on the internet.
    1 Corinthians: Chapter 13 "4 Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up; 5 Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil;"

    Offline caxap

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 127
    • Reputation: +31/-128
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Women’s pants
    « Reply #129 on: Yesterday at 06:36:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die. ~ Sirach 25:33

    Offline WorldsAway

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 706
    • Reputation: +568/-74
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Women’s pants
    « Reply #130 on: Yesterday at 06:53:00 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • WorldsAway and Pax, at least address the rest of what Boru said.  She admitted she was wrong and showed you how she came to that intellectual conclusion.
    I don't think there is much else to address..Original Sin is Adam's sin in origin and is passed from Adam to his progeny. For that reason I believe the consequences of Adam's sin are much worse than Eve's

    Quote
    On a side note. If you are working on a ranch and due to the fact that ranch hands are a lost profession, don't you think a woman who has to break horses out of necessity for the family business would be given a dispensation to wear pants to do so? (I don't know if this is Boru's case, it is just something to consider.)
    If there is no one else to do the work and the work must be done to sustain the family's livelihood, I think that would be considered a case of necessity

    Quote
    Shouldn't that be decided by her husband and a spiritual director, not some random people on the internet.

    Yes, it should. In this hypothetical situation random people on the Internet would not be the ones to decide
    John 15:19  If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12317
    • Reputation: +7808/-2409
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Women’s pants
    « Reply #131 on: Yesterday at 09:47:22 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • All I can say is I'm glad you're not my spiritual director because he says its fine, as long as its in cases of necessity
    I don't give 2 cents about some woman wearing pants on a farm or other cases of necessity.  This isn't the feminism that is a problem (but it's still feminism with a small 'f').

    Quote
    Women, once an equal partner in a rural family business, was suddenly plunged into a world of abusive slavery where her domestic skills were neither appreciated or considered any economical worth. Struggling in a man's world that did not value them as women marks the origins of why we have what we have today. That is why women fought so hard for the vote. That is why women fought so hard for equal rights in the workforce. That is what it led to abortion - actively encouraged by men who had everything to gain from it.
    The above is feminist sewage, painting all feminists as the victims.  Saying that women HAD to become independent as some type of "response" to male aggression (i.e. blaming the patriarchy).  Boru, you should be ashamed.  You're swallowing the communist kool-aid, packaged as female "empowerment".  You're being deceived, just as Eve was deceived.  Total nonsense and revisionist history.

    Offline AnthonyPadua

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2372
    • Reputation: +1212/-236
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Women’s pants
    « Reply #132 on: Yesterday at 09:55:44 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • "Feminist thought didn’t emerge in a vacuum. Its origins trace back to 17th and 18th-century Europe, where dramatic social transformations created the conditions for questioning traditional gender roles. The Age of Enlightenment, with its emphasis on reason, individual rights, and human progress, provided the intellectual framework that would eventually challenge the subordination of women." - 'Evolution of feminist Thought: A Socio-Historical Overview Feb. 3. 2023, Sociology Institute; Introduction to Sociology.

     
    This Age of Enlightenment conveniently raised its ugly head at the same time as the Industrial Revolution (1760) which had a dramatic impact on the traditional role of women in the home. Once renowned for their "cottage Industry", women could not compete with the machinery of burgeoning industries which squeezed their homesteads dry and forced their husbands, and thus themselves, into the dark and dirty web of industrial town slavery. The inhuman conditions women worked under during this time would make you cry.

    Then came the American Revolution (1765) followed by the French revolution (1789): Liberty, fraternity, and equality: freedom, brotherhood, and equal rights for all individuals.

    The pattern is clear to see: a crisis was manufactured by the revolutionaries of the this so-called age of enlightenment. It is how they always work: create the problem and then offer a "solution", in this case: REVOLUTION; revolution from the traditional hierarchy of mankind. Men rebelled against their kings, and women rebelled against their subjection. The psychological conditioning was complete.

    Women, once an equal partner in a rural family business, was suddenly plunged into a world of abusive slavery where her domestic skills were neither appreciated or considered any economical worth. Struggling in a man's world that did not value them as women marks the origins of why we have what we have today. That is why women fought so hard for the vote. That is why women fought so hard for equal rights in the workforce. That is what it led to abortion - actively encouraged by men who had everything to gain from it.

    So who are the minds behind this Age of Enlightenment: Johannes Kepler, Galileo, Francis Bacon (a major player), Voltaire, Rousseau, and Isaac Newton, among others, as well as the philosophy of Descartes, Hobbes, and John Locke (to name a few).  If you do a background check you will find that they were all Puritans; the same puritans whose philosophy set the stage for all the revolutions right up to the first and 2nd Great wars. Its a deep rabbit hole but even a cursory glance show that yes, the roots of what became associated with feminism stems from women losing there priceless identity and value as women.
    This is judaeo feminist nonsense.

    Offline AnthonyPadua

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2372
    • Reputation: +1212/-236
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Women’s pants
    « Reply #133 on: Yesterday at 09:57:11 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • "Bottom line: Eve did not make Adam sin and Adam is equally responsible for the fall of mankind:
    Who "makes" anyone sin? Sin is in the will. Adam sinned by his own will, however Eve was accessory to his sin. She sinned again when she "made" Adam sin.

    Online FarmerWife

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 585
    • Reputation: +389/-45
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Women’s pants
    « Reply #134 on: Yesterday at 10:25:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • This Age of Enlightenment conveniently raised its ugly head at the same time as the Industrial Revolution (1760) which had a dramatic impact on the traditional role of women in the home. Once renowned for their "cottage Industry", women could not compete with the machinery of burgeoning industries which squeezed their homesteads dry and forced their husbands, and thus themselves, into the dark and dirty web of industrial town slavery. The inhuman conditions women worked under during this time would make you cry.

    I live on a homestead and most of the physical work is done by my husband. He also runs the machinery like the tractor, chain saw, different saws, etc. that carries more risk than the work that I do. I’d imagine back then, it would have been way harder without the machinery. Can you describe the inhuman conditions women worked under that time? 

    Women, once an equal partner in a rural family business, was suddenly plunged into a world of abusive slavery where her domestic skills were neither appreciated or considered any economical worth. Struggling in a man's world that did not value them as women marks the origins of why we have what we have today. That is why women fought so hard for the vote. That is why women fought so hard for equal rights in the workforce. That is what it led to abortion - actively encouraged by men who had everything to gain from it.

    Again, most of the repairs are done by men. Operating the heavy machinery as well. Women could probably operate a tractor (like driving a car) but it’s uncommon and I don’t think they’d compare to the abilities of men who are more logical.

    I’ll give you an example, my husband built our chicken coop and installed the automatic chicken door as well as some other upgrades and I feed, water the chickens and clean the coop. Honestly, I don’t think I could run a homestead on my own. It just takes so much work and skill. If you don’t want to hire out because you don’t want to blow money, you have to do everything yourself. 

    I think we need to bring back all-male workplaces. They’re more productive, less drama, and less temptations.

    Women can vote and look at the results, it’s disastrous. 

    I think abortion has always been around. And I think women should take full responsibility for doing it. If they didn’t want their child, they shouldn’t have slept around or chose a bad husband.