Author Topic: Neo-Caths Still Wondering Whether Pants Are For Men or Women (Read 1443 times)

stevusmagnus · « **on:** July 15, 2009, 10:08:03 PM »

I've run into this same basic inability to distinguish masculine from feminine in the context of our recent culture and history amongst Neo-Trads as well.

Do any of you have an explanation for the absolute mental block of Neo-Caths and Neo-Trads to "get" the reasons why Traditional Catholic teaching on clothing falls consistently against women in pants in our century and culture?

Are they that mired in the world and unaware of any history past 10 years? It seems in their mind the last 200 years never happened. They are either appealing to "feminine pants" of today and ignore the entire feminist revolution or else they bring up centuries old examples of men in some sort of togas that have absolutely no relevance to today or the West. Now they are resorting to describing cassocks as "dresses".

Granted they are trying to justify their own abdication to modern secularist/ feminist culture so that will be impossible for them to overcome it sans some serious graces. That said, is there anything we can do to wake these people up?

Here is but one Neo-Cath example I recently came across. It pretty much sums up the typical sophistry they use.

Quote

Yes and I have plenty of pants where you can not see the panty line and my shirts don't come down that far!

Pants are not strictly male attire, nor are skirts/dresses strictly female attire. Our Priests, good and holy men, wear a "dress" only they don't call it that.

Some pants on either gender can be immodest. Personally if your pants don't show any panty line and they are not skin tight and your shirt is long enough to cover your midriff then what is the problem?

I do not agree that the wearing of pants has de-feminized women! Or made the objects, far more likely it is the short skirts and tops that reveal far more than any man except her husband or doctor should see! Pants making women appear to be whores? What next? I should cover my face when going out of the house? Sorry, you can't mistake me for a man even when my hair is short (which it is) no matter what I am wearing, be it jeans or a dress!

Please OP do not get the book recommended (Dressing With Dignity by Colleen Hammond) although it has some good points there are others that are way out there!

CM · « **Reply #1 on:** July 15, 2009, 10:29:39 PM »

If a woman must work in a manual labour job, then she may wear pants, IMO. For the sole purpose of safety. No sense in getting pulled into a machine. Otherwise, wear a dress or a skirt.

Still, I think it's unfortunate that women are being thrust into the workplace at all, and brainwashed by society to think that they should be there. Women are designed by God to be the nurturers, and men are designed to be the workers.

"Modesty in woman is a virtue most deserving, since we do all we can to cure her of it"
- Author unknown.

Caraffa · « **Reply #2 on:** July 16, 2009, 12:46:04 AM »

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #3 on:** July 16, 2009, 03:20:03 PM »

Haha. Very good responses Caraffa!

sedetrad · « **Reply #4 on:** July 16, 2009, 04:13:40 PM »

As i posted in your other thread Stevus, the way people dress today is the outward manifestation of their rotten soul.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #5 on:** July 16, 2009, 05:04:40 PM »

I think that is part of it for some people.

For others I think it is more cluelessness. Just going along with the culture having no idea what ideology is behind what they wear.

CM · « **Reply #6 on:** July 17, 2009, 12:42:19 AM »

Agreed.

One of the waitresses at work wears low neck lines and shows her cleavage (Blessed Mother, obtain for me the grace of purity like unto thine own). I asked her and another immodest (but not quite as bad) waitress what they think of a man who has a conversation with a woman and stares at her chest.

The really immodest one said "I'd say that's really rude..." or something along those lines.

I said something like, "Interesting. What is a man supposed to think of a woman who dresses in a way that invites it?"

Her face immediately turned 3 shades of red. And she didn't know what to say. The other waitress said something like "Well, I even have a hard time not looking when a woman dresses like that..." She wasn't implying that she is attracted to women I don't think, but simply acknowledging that dressing that way calls attention from everyone around you and says "HEY LOOK AT MY CHEST!"

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #7 on:** July 20, 2009, 03:15:55 PM »

Look at this sincere reflection from a CA poster, as opposed to the unbridled hatred and ad hominems from the Neo-Trads..

Quote

I went to Confession today and I was taking note of what people wore. It humoured me that some women wore long skirts, some wore short skirts, one was in a pair of jeans, another woman was in a pair of pants and crocks. Some dresses/tops were tank tops, men (not all) wore short sleeves. I found all of this funny because we're only there to worship God; not have an audience with the Pope who has a stricter dress code.

I was wearing pants (and, I suppose they show off my figure. One can tell I am fat. I remember a commedian saying something along the lines of, 'You know your fat when your sweats become tights.' I think it was Dave Barry, but, I cannot be positive.) and an ill fitting top. it is supposed to be off the shoulder I think, but, of course, I cannot wear it that way. It also showed that I was fat. As a matter of fact, I have to mend a little tear in it.

Anyway, made my confession, then, after I was given my pennance, I told father I was there last week for his homily and asked him, point blank, with my face hidden, "Is it immoral for women to wear pants?"

And he said: Yes.

I think I told him at this point I cannot agree with him and he pointed out that the Bible said in the end times men would dress like women and women would dress like men. "Men don't go around wearing dresses." Adding to this he continued that women wear pants because they want to hold the same "authority as men." I'm not entirely sure what the exact quote was, but, he made the point of women and "authority as men."

I told him, "But, it's more comfortable."

"I'm not contesting it's more comfortable......It would be more comfortable if I could wake up at 5:45 in the morning, but, as Our Lady told Lucia, 'I will not make you comfortable in this life, but, I will make you comfortable in the next life.' No, he told Bernadette that, *repeats quote*". I think he also added here an example [though, it could have been after the comment about Authority] of a couple wanting to get married who are fornicating. The Church isn't telling them not to get married because they are in love, the Church is saying they cannot marry them if they continue to sin....or something. I forgot when this part came in, but, I understood him to mean that it's not for nothing that he's saying this. It is for a very legitimate reason, and, it's not because he has anything personal against it, but, God set up the standards of men and women.

*Pause*

I told him that I will have to think about this and it is on my conscience now.

So, as an author not quite as good as me but somehow still manages to get published said: How do we make concord of this discord?

Well, I am pretty sure that he is a dresses all the time kind of guy because three weeks ago he told a poem up at the pulpit:

Mr. Business went to Mass
He did it every Sunday
And Mr. Business went to Hell
For what he did on Monday.

Incidentally, his homily last week was who we should have as an idol, NOT how the media covers Michael Jackson.

The church has the relics of the girl last week and St. John Vianny this week which we all had the option to venerate after Mass.

Since the dresses are fairly cheep, I guess it wouldn't hurt to buy one dress for church from that holy clothing site.

I acknowledge, from this thread and from the pm's I have gotten that it is not Church teaching that women MUST be in dresses or skirts. Nowhere does it say that and nowhere does anybody in any great authority really hold to it. Typically, it is because of an interpretation of a passage in the Bible that causes some to think women MUST NOT wear pants (or shorts), but, it is NOT a sin to wear pants. Yes, I know this. AND, it occured to me why I usually don't wear dresses: Don't have a reason. Don't own any because I never go anywhere where dresses or skirts are required. I, again, may make an exception for Easter (always), Christmas (sometimes), and Halloween (lately). Perhaps a wedding or occasional Sunday. Since it is the Mass, and therefore, Heaven, to which I would be wearing this, I SUPPOSE, I could dress my best for Jesus Christ, Himself.

clare · « **Reply #8 on:** July 20, 2009, 03:43:02 PM »

Quote

...he pointed out that the Bible said in the end times men would dress like women and women would dress like... men

Yes, and at that time neither men nor women wore trousers.

Yet people act as though trousers were given to men by God, as though God gave Adam a pair of trousers and Eve a skirt.

That men wear trousers is a tradition of men.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #9 on:** July 20, 2009, 03:53:49 PM »

Clare,

Did you read my previous post on this point. You are ignoring that pants on women is a recent novelty brought about by those opposed to Christian order.

clare · « **Reply #10 on:** July 20, 2009, 04:02:29 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Clare,

Did you read my previous post on this point. You are ignoring that pants on women is a recent novelty brought about by those opposed to Christian order.

It's irrelevant. Trousers, per se (ie bifurcated garments) are not objectively masculine, regardless of the motivation behind the innovators.

And skirts, per se, are not objectively feminine for that matter.

Imagine you could travel back in time and you showed Moses a photo of a man in men's trousers and another photo of a woman in modest slacks. Do you really think Moses would be scandalised at the woman wearing "men's attire", when he would not even recognise the men's attire as such??

Matthew · « **Reply #11 on:** July 20, 2009, 04:05:51 PM »

If he could also see video of modern, pants-wearing women in action: acting like men, doing men's work, etc. and if someone could give him a quick rundown on 20th century history (feminist movement, etc.) so he could understood the context in which they were introduced, he would most certainly be against the idea.

Matthew

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #12 on:** July 20, 2009, 04:09:25 PM »

Clare,

The key is our recent unprecedented revolution and the order represented that was rebelled against. It is undeniable that in the history leading to the revolution pants were undeniably masculine and a sign of the Christian view of the male role of the time. Dresses and skirts were indeed very feminine. These things were deliberately meant to be reversed to reverse Christian order and to cause confusion of male and female roles.

Your logic is like arguing the swastika is a "neutral" symbol and has no negative meaning in and of itself, was used in more ancient history with no ill intent, etc. meanwhile ignoring the last 70 years of history surrounding it and all its implications.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #13 on:** July 20, 2009, 04:11:31 PM »

Quote from: ChantCd

If he could also see video of modern, pants-wearing women in action: acting like men, doing men's work, etc. and if someone could give him a quick rundown on 20th century history (feminist movement, etc.) so he could understood the context in which they were introduced, he would most certainly be against the idea.

Matthew

Exactly.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #14 on:** July 20, 2009, 06:07:22 PM »

Quote from: ChantCd

If he could also see video of modern, pants-wearing women in action: acting like men, doing men's work, etc. and if someone could give him a quick rundown on 20th century history (feminist movement, etc.) so he could understood the context in which they were introduced, he would most certainly be against the idea.

Matthew

Yep.