Author Topic: Pro-pants in France (Read 1273 times)

Telesphorus · « **on:** February 21, 2013, 06:33:24 AM »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9845545/Women-in-Paris-finally-allowed-to-wear-trousers.html

Quote from: Telegraph

The law was kept in place until now, despite repeated attempts to repeal it, in part because officials said the unenforced rule was not a priority, and part of French "legal archaeology."

In July however, in a public request directed at Ms Vallaud-Belkacem, Alain Houpert, a senator and member of the conservative UMP party, said the "symbolic importance" of the law "could injure our modern sensibilities," and he asked the minister to repeal it.

Ms Vallaud-Belkacem agreed, and in a published statement on Jan. 31st wrote: "This ordinance is incompatible with the principles of equality between women and men, which are listed in the Constitution, and in France's European commitments.

"From that incompatibility follows the implicit abrogation of the ordinance."
The restriction focused on Paris because French Revolutionary rebels in the capital said they wore trousers, as opposed to the knee-breeches, or the "culottes," of the bourgeoisie, in what was coined the "sans-culottes" movement. Women rebels in the movement demanded the right to wear trousers as well, but were forbidden to do so.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** February 21, 2013, 06:34:27 AM »

Liberals support pants on women. They are very insistent on it.

If you see people upset at bans on pants on women - odds are you're dealing with a liberal.

Tiffany · « **Reply #2 on:** February 21, 2013, 08:11:13 AM »

You should send that to Ladies Against Feminism. I remember a few years ago they had an article about WA state repealing an anti-slander law concerning a women's virtue.
Have you see the misguided young woman that walks around NYC topless educating her community that it is not illegal. :read-paper:

Telesphorus · « **Reply #3 on:** February 22, 2013, 06:55:47 AM »

Perhaps someone should start a thread detailing dress liberalization at SSPX chapels?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #4 on:** February 23, 2013, 12:03:15 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Perhaps someone should start a thread detailing dress liberalization at SSPX chapels?

Why not make it this thread? -- oh. title. right..

So, to make any progress on keeping women out of pants you have to make
it a law, apparently! Do they have any problem in Saudi Arabia with women in
pants? I haven't been there, but I've heard they don't have any problem with
that kind of thing.

I've heard that if men stopped paying any attention to women who wear
pants, women would stop wearing pants in one day.

How do you like them apples?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #5 on:** February 23, 2013, 02:22:53 PM »

Quote

I've heard that if men stopped paying any attention to women who wear
pants, women would stop wearing pants in one day.

You expect all men to do that, so that women will supposedly spontaneously do what they should be required to do, which is to wear appropriately feminine garb?

I have no problem banning men from wearing skirts, and I have no problem barring women from wearing pants.

Renzo · « **Reply #6 on:** March 03, 2013, 11:22:36 PM »

All we ever hear about is women wearing pants and it's almost never about men wearing dresses.

When men wear dresses, we think it must be a joke, but when women wear pants we are taught to think nothing of it. Most often, I think, women wear pants because everyone else is.

Nevertheless, it still seems as if the whole pants thing (aside from some of the practical concerns, which seem to be a product of sɛҳuąƖ liberation and the cultural expectation for women to work) is about attacking patriarchy and establishing gender equality/matriarchy, in its place.

bowler · « **Reply #7 on:** March 04, 2013, 09:04:31 AM »

Quote from: Renzo

All we ever hear about is women wearing pants and it's almost never about men wearing dresses.

When men wear dresses, we think it must be a joke, but when women wear pants we are taught to think nothing of it. Most often, I think, women wear pants because everyone else is.

Nevertheless, it still seems as if the whole pants thing (aside from some of the practical concerns, which seem to be a product of sɛҳuąƖ liberation and the cultural expectation for women to work) is about attacking patriarchy and establishing gender equality/matriarchy, in its place.

Men don't wear skirts, and it would be very impractical for them to wear skirts, so that is not really equal example to women wearing pants.

Here's a better comparison: Trad men wearing shorts vs. women wearing pants. That would be more equal. I don't wear shorts except to go into the water swimming. I remember the SSPX published articles years ago saying that shorts were for little boys till like 9 years of age. That men wear pants.

If men tell the women that it is not appropiate to wear loose pants (I'm not talking about form fitting pants, which are a sin against modesty), then men should not wear shorts.

I tell women that they can't wear pants, except under a dress for cold weather, or bug bite protection, or swimming ect. I don't wear shorts

Let's see how you trad men handle that!

Graham · « **Reply #8 on:** March 04, 2013, 09:11:36 AM »

Quote from: Renzo

Nevertheless, it still seems as if the whole pants thing (aside from some of the practical concerns, which seem to be a product of sɛҳuąƖ liberation and the cultural expectation for women to work) is about attacking patriarchy and establishing gender equality/matriarchy, in its place.

In addition to modesty, clothing has an important semiotic function indicating social roles. And women are more attuned to that than men. This is why some of them in tradition make pants an issue, when it is inarguably a good thing and a simple thing for traditional women not to wear them. They like what wearing pants says: liberated and equal.

edit: Actually, the latter is a part of modesty too.

Renzo · « **Reply #9 on:** March 04, 2013, 01:10:25 PM »

Quote from: Graham

Quote from: Renzo
Nevertheless, it still seems as if the whole pants thing (aside from some of the practical concerns, which seem to be a product of sɛҳuąƖ liberation and the cultural expectation for women to work) is about attacking patriarchy and establishing gender equality/matriarchy, in its place.

In addition to modesty, clothing has an important semiotic function indicating social roles. And women are more attuned to that than men. This is why some of them in tradition make pants an issue, when it is inarguably a good thing and a simple thing for traditional women not to wear them. They like what wearing pants says: liberated and equal.

edit: Actually, the latter is a part of modesty too.

I agree. Modesty is synonymous with humility and "poor in spirit" or a "spirit of poverty."

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?action=search&word=modesty&resource=Roget%27s&quicksearch=on