Author Topic: "Society Becomes Corrupted When Women Wear Masculine Clothes" (Read 377 times)

Maria Dolorosa · « **on:** March 18, 2026, 03:35:23 PM »

Cardinal Giuseppe Siri
Genoa, June 12, 1960

To the Reverend Clergy, all the teaching Sisters, my beloved sons of Catholic Action, and educators who truly want to follow Catholic Doctrine,

I. The first signs of our late arriving Spring indicate a certain increase this year in the use of men’s clothing by women and girls, even mothers of families.

Up until 1959, in Genoa such dress usually meant that the person was a tourist, but now there seems to be a significant number of girls and women from Genoa itself who are choosing, at least on pleasure trips, to wear men’s clothing (trousers).

The spreading of this behavior obliges us to seriously address this subject and we ask those to whom this Notification is directed to give this problem all the attention it deserves, as is proper for persons who are conscious that they must stand responsible before God.

We seek above all to give a balanced moral judgment on the matter of women who wear men’s dress. In fact, our considerations here bear only on the moral aspect.

First, with regard to covering the female body, the wearing of men’s trousers cannot be said to constitute in itself a grave offense against modesty, because trousers certainly cover more of a woman’s body than do modern skirts.

Second, for clothing to be modest, however, it must not only cover the body but also should not cling too tightly to the body. It is certain that some women’s clothing today fits more closely to the body than trousers, but the latter can also be tight fitting – and in fact generally are so. Therefore, wearing such tight fitting clothing causes us no less concern than exposing the body. Thus it is that the immodesty of men’s trousers on women is one aspect of the problem that must not be left out of a general judgment on the topic, even if it should also not be artificially exaggerated.

II. There is, however, another aspect of women wearing trousers that seems much graver to us.

The wearing of men’s dress by women primarily affects the woman herself, first by changing the feminine psychology proper to women. Second, it affects the woman as the wife of her husband by tending to corrupt the relations between the sexes. Third, the woman as the mother of her children loses dignity in the children’s eyes. Each of these points should be carefully considered.

1. Masculine clothing changes the psychology of women

In truth, the motive that impels women to wear the clothing of men is not always to imitate him, but rather to compete with the man who is considered stronger, less encuмbered and more independent. This motivation shows clearly that masculine dress is a visible support to bring about a mental attitude of being ‘like a man.’ Further, since the existence of man, the clothing a person wears conditions, determines and modifies the gestures, attitudes and conduct of a person. Thus, just by its wearing, the clothing comes to impose a particular state of spirit in the person.

Permit us to add that a woman who always wears the clothing of men more or less indicates that she is reacting to her femininity as if it were inferior, when in fact it is only different. The perversion of her psychology is clearly evident.

These reasons, added to many others, are sufficient to warn us of how mistaken is the thinking of women who wear men’s dress.

2. Women wearing men’s clothing tends to corrupt the relations between the two sexes

In fact, as relations between the two sexes unfold with time’s passing, an instinct of mutual attraction becomes predominant. The essential base of this attraction is a difference between the two sexes that is made possible only by the fact that one complements the other. If, then, this difference becomes less marked because one of its major external signs is eliminated, and because the normal psychological structure is weakened, then a fundamental factor in the relation changes.

The problem goes even further. Chronologically, the mutual attraction between the sexes is naturally preceded by that sense of shame that restrains the rising of the primary instincts, imposes respect for one another, and tends to elevate the mutual esteem and a salutary fear to a higher level regarding those instincts, which otherwise would push forward to uncontrolled acts. To change the clothing – which by its difference reveals and maintains the limits of nature and its natural defenses – levels such distinctions and helps to diminish the vital defenses of the sense of shame.

At the very least it obstructs that sense. And when this sense of shame is absent because of some obstacle or impediment, then the relations between men and women degrade into pure sensuality, devoid of all mutual respect or esteem.

Experience teaches us that when the woman is de-feminized, then defenses are undermined and weakness increases.

3. Masculine clothing harms the dignity of the mother in the eyes of her children

A child has an instinct for the sense of dignity and decorum of his mother. Studies on the first internal crisis of children when they awake to the life around them, even before they reach adolescence, show how important their mothers are to them. Children are very sensitive at this age. Adults normally leave all this behind them and no longer think about it. But we should remember the strict demands that children instinctively make on their mothers, and the profound and even terrible reactions roused in them by observing bad behavior on the part of their mothers. At this age and by these first dramas of infancy and youth many of the later roads they will take in life are marked, not always for the good.

The child may not know the definition of immodesty, frivolity and infidelity, but he possesses an instinctive sense to recognize them when they occur. Further, he suffers from them and is bitterly wounded of soul because of them.

III. We should think seriously about the importance of everything said so far, even if the appearance of the woman wearing masculine clothing does not immediately produce the same harm as that caused by a grave immodesty

The change in the feminine psychology causes a fundamental and – in the long run – irreparable damage to the family, to conjugal fidelity, to human affections and to human society. True, the effects of wearing unsuitable clothing are not seen in the short term. But one must think of what is being slowly and insidiously lowered and perverted.

If the feminine psychology is changed, is there some change in the reciprocity between husband and wife? Or is a true education of the children imaginable, which is so delicate in its procedure, so interwoven with imponderable factors in which the mother’s intuition and instinct play the decisive part in those first years? What can these women give their children when they have worn trousers for so long that their self-esteem is determined more by their competition with men than by their function as women?

We ask ourselves why it is that since the beginning of man’s existence – or rather, since he became civilized – has mankind in all epochs and places been irresistibly led to differentiate and divide the functions of the sexes? Do we not have here a strict testimony to the recognition by all mankind of a truth and a law higher than man?

In summary, wherever women wear men’s clothing, this should be considered a long-term factor of a disintegration of the human order.

IV. The logical consequence of everything presented so far is that each person in a position of responsibility should feel a sense of danger – in the true and proper meaning of the word – a strong and decisive danger.

We direct a grave warning to parish priests, to priests in general and to confessors in particular, to members of every kind of associations, to religious brothers, to nuns, and especially to teaching sisters.

We ask that they become clearly conscious of the problem so that an action will follow. This consciousness is what is important. It will suggest the action appropriate for each time. But it should not counsel us to give in to an inevitable change, as if we were confronting a natural evolution of mankind.

Man comes and goes, and God has left much room for the coming and going of the free will. But the substantial lines of nature and the no less substantial lines of Eternal Law have certainly never changed, are not changing now, and will not change in the future. There are boundaries that one can transgress if he so desires, but doing so ends in death. An empty philosophy [Freudian psychoanalysis] can allow one to ridicule and trivialize those boundaries, but they constitute an alliance of objective facts and the natural order that chastises anyone who steps beyond them. History has clearly taught – with impressive proofs of the life and death of nations – that the response to all these violators of this ‘structure of man’ always ends – sooner or later – in a catastrophe.

Since the dialectic of Hegel, we have been taught what amounts to nothing more than fables, and from hearing them so often, many persons end up by conforming to them, even if only passively. But the truth of the matter is that Nature and Truth, and the Law bound up in both, continued on their imperturbable way, cutting to pieces those simpletons who, without any grounds, believed in radical and far-reaching changes in the very structure of man.

The consequences of such violations are not a new ‘structure of man,’ but disorders, a harmful instability of every kind, the frightening dryness of human souls, a devastating increase in the number of human beings abandoned by society, left to live their declining years in boredom, sadness and rejection. In this shipwreck of eternal moral norms one finds destroyed families, cold homes, lives cut short before their time, the old persons cast aside, our youth choosing to be degenerate and – at the end of the line – souls in despair and even taking their own lives. All this human wreckage is testimony to the fact that the ‘line of God’ does not cede way nor admit of any adaptation to the delirious dreams of the so-called philosophers!

V. We have said that those to whom this Notification is addressed are asked to become seriously alarmed at the problem before them.

They know what they should say, starting with the little girls on their mother’s lap. They know that without exaggerating the matter or becoming fanatical, they will need to place strict limits on how far they can tolerate women dressing like men as a general rule.

They know that they must not be so weak as to reach the point of turning a blind eye to a custom that is slipping downhill and undermining morality in all the institutions.

Priests know that they should take a strong and decisive line in the confessional, while not affirming that a woman dressing like a man is automatically a grave fault.

Everyone should be thinking of the need to have a united line of action, reinforced on all sides by the cooperation of all men of good will and all enlightened minds, in order to create a true dam that will hold back the flood.

Those of you who are responsible for souls in any capacity should realize how useful it is to have men of letters and in the media as allies in this campaign. The position taken by the fashion design houses and the clothing industry is crucially important in this matter. Artistic sense, refinement and good taste can unite to find adequate and at the same time dignified solutions to the question of the clothing for women if she must ride a motorcycle or engage in this or that exercise or work. What is important is to preserve modesty while maintaining the perennial sense of femininity, that femininity which, more than anything else, all children will always continue to associate with what their mothers mean to them.

We do not deny that modern life confronts us with problems and demands unknown to our grandparents. But we affirm that there are values with more need of being protected than fleeting experiences, and that every intelligent person will always have enough good sense and good taste to find acceptable and dignified solutions to the problems that rise.

Moved by charity, we are fighting against the degradation of man, against the attack on those differences upon which the complementarities between man and woman rely.

When we see a woman wearing trousers, we should think not so much of her as of all mankind, of how it will be when all women have become masculinized. No one will gain by helping to bring about a future age of indistinctness, ambiguity, imperfection and, if we may say so, monstrosities.

This letter of ours is not addressed to the public, but to those responsible for souls, for educators, for Catholic associations. Let them do their duty, and not be sentinels caught sleeping at their posts while evil entered the gates.

https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/n054rp_WomensDress.htm

St. Thomas Aquinas concerning women wearing masculine clothing:

Summa, II-II
Question 169. Modesty in the outward apparel
Article 2. Whether the adornment of women is devoid of mortal sin?

Reply to Objection 3. As stated in the foregoing Article, outward apparel should be consistent with the estate of the person, according to the general custom. Hence it is in itself sinful for a woman to wear man's clothes, or vice versa; especially since this may be a cause of sensuous pleasure; and it is expressly forbidden in the Law (Deuteronomy 22) because the Gentiles used to practice this change of attire for the purpose of idolatrous superstition. Nevertheless this may be done sometimes without sin on account of some necessity, either in order to hide oneself from enemies, or through lack of other clothes, or for some similar motive.

TomGubbinsKimmage · « **Reply #1 on:** March 18, 2026, 07:53:41 PM »

A woman who wears pants is the exact same as a man who wears women's underwear.

ZERO qualitative difference.

Maria Dolorosa · « **Reply #2 on:** March 18, 2026, 08:21:59 PM »

Quote from: TomGubbinsKimmage on March 18, 2026, 07:53:41 PM

A woman who wears pants is the exact same as a man who wears women's underwear.

ZERO qualitative difference.

Yes. I cannot upvote your posts anymore, so this is my reply to show what you say is good and true.

Tarmac Turkey · « **Reply #3 on:** March 19, 2026, 01:50:02 AM »

Immodesty and Women Wearing Men's Clothing

by Marian Therese Horvat, Ph.D.

Mrs. X was a daily communicant, a pious Catholic living in Quito, Ecuador, in the 1960s. As a lady of certain elegance, she was naturally influenced by the styles of the times. However, as a well bred traditional-minded Catholic, she would never wear men's trousers or a skirt above her knees.

One day as she arrived at the magnificent Jesuit Church of Jesu in downtown Quito, she realized that she had left her jacket at home. She made a quick decision that it would be better to receive Our Lord wearing the sleeveless blouse than to remain in the pew and only make a spiritual Communion. After all, she rationalized, the neckline was modest and her skirt was quite appropriate.

The serene and kindly pastor arrived at Mrs. X at the Communion rail. He leaned over as if to give her the Sacred Host. But instead of giving her Communion, he discreetly and firmly whispered into her ear, "Next time, sleeves."

There was no public humiliation. No one but Mrs. X and the priest knew what had happened. But interiorly humiliated to the very bone, she accepted the correction and, as she affirmed to me when she told the story, she has never appeared inappropriately dressed again in a church. It was a just and charitable correction, in keeping with the old Canon Law which prescribed that women should be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the Holy Table [Canon 1262.2]. 1

It is a simple story that throws light on just how far the revolution in women's clothing has gone in these forty years of post-conciliar ecclesiastical life. The simple "peccadillo" of being sleeveless would hardly seem worthy of notice today. How many good-willed women and girls come to church and approach the Communion rail ---- or "line" ---- wearing immodest clothe that overexpose the figure? The typical daily or Sunday Mass is assisted by women in tops that are low cut and revealing, blouses that an transparent and sleeveless dresses too short and pants too tight-fitting, and even shorts and cut-offs.

Comfort and convenience are the common excuses given ---- if excuses are even bothered with ---- for this lack of consideration of God and the honor due Him. Somehow the inappropriately dressed woman has become convinced that Christ will be so pleased to see her there in His house that standards of Catholic modesty and decorum can be ignored and transgressed. In fact, if a courageous priest would ask these women and girls to dress appropriately, in keeping with the holiness
and dignity of the place, most probably he would be the one considered to be out of line . . .

A Forgotten Culpability

But, the woman in shorts might explain, the styles have changed. Clothing has become more relaxed and informal since the revolution of the '60s. That is to say, what was inappropriate in the past is considered appropriate now.

What has been forgotten is that there is always an unchangeable moral norm to be preserved in modesty of dress. No one is allowed to relax modesty for reasons of summer heat, the current
styles of fashion, or mere convenience. Pope Pius XII clearly stated that the excuse that modesty is dictated by custom or time cannot be allowed. He called it "one of the most insidious of sophisms" used "in order to brand as old fashioned the rebellion of honest people against fashions which are
too bold." 2

Many people have also become oblivious to the grave consequences of adopting the immodest fashion trends. That such styles would appear was predicted by Our Lady at Fatima in 1917, when She told the youngest seer, Jacinta: "Certain fashions will be introduced which will offend My Son very much. More people go to Hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason." Her words seem to indicate a direct correlation between the fashions that would be introduced ---- which we are all familiar with ---- and the souls who go to Hell bbecause of the sins of the flesh.

Another very serious consequence often infuriates the modern women when it is mentioned. Nonetheless, it needs to be said. Immodest dress can lead men into sin, and thus the woman who dresses immodestly will bear some degree of culpability both for her own transgressions and for the sins others commit because of them. Pope Pius XII addressed this topic already in the '50s: "How many girls there are who do not see any wrongdoing in following certain shameless styles like so many sheep. They certainly would blush if they could guess the impression they make and the feelings they evoke in those who see them." 3

Today, unfortunately, there does not seem to be much of that healthful blushing to which the great Pope refers. Instead, one of the curious consequences of a society that denies the existence of Original Sin has been a naive ignorance of so many "good" Catholic young women regarding the effects that can result from their insistence on following immodest fashions.

The battle to keep the passions in check is continual for both men and women, but it must be waged with particular vigilance by men. A woman cannot dress immodestly just to be in style and then say that if a man thinks immoral thoughts because of her, it's his problem, not hers. This attitude is rooted in the great lie of the Women's Liberation movement that men and women are equal. In fact there are great differences between men and women. The man by nature is more aggressive and wants to conquer, and his sensual reactions are stronger than that of the woman. If a woman is immodestly dressed, a man's inclinations more readily develop into desires, thoughts and actions of lust. Therefore, while the man has a moral obligation to "fight the good fight" against sins of the flesh by practicing a careful custody of the eyes and thoughts, a woman has a moral obligation not to dress in an immodest manner which would lead a man to sin.

There is an especial distinction to make here. Woman by nature likes to adorn herself in order to be admired for her beauty, charm and elegance. This is not an evil in itself. A beautiful and charming girl or woman does not have the obligation to make herself ugly or dress in plain and uncomely clothing so that she will never run the risk of causing a sin. This puritanical type of thinking, which unfortunately has been adopted by some traditionalist Catholic women or our day is erroneous. There is nothing necessarily sinful or inappropriate in a women dressing exquisitely and femininely. It is this charm and beauty of femininity that adorns an authentically Catholic society.

One of the most dominant errors that underlies today's revolutionary spirit in clothing is egalitarianism. This egalitarian revolution has stimulated a constant process to do away with almost all differences in sex and in age. The very notion is absurd, because these inequalities exist in nature itself.

One factor that played a large role in the "feminist revolution" was women adopting the dress of men. That women should dress differently from men, as a symbol of their distinct roles in the home and society, is affirmed by Scripture: "A woman shall not be clothed in man's apparel ---- neither shall a man use a woman's apparel . . . such are abominable before God." [Deut. 22: 55] That is to say, clothing is not an indifferent topic or a simple matter of covering the body. I know many tradtionalists who have argued it is a matter of modesty that women should always wear skirts. I believe that this argument is faulty, since it can be claimed that at times modest and loose fitting trousers cover a woman's body more completely than do some fashionable skirts and dresses.

However, there is a much more profound principle at stake here. The promoters of the feminist revolution encouraged women to abandon their traditional dress that emphasized the delicate and feminine aspect of women. In the name of efficiency, comfort, modernity ---- women donned the pants of men. Along with the trousers of men, in their tendencies, they came to take up the ways of being and sitting and walking of men. they entered the workplace, joined the road crews, trained in the army, and even are invading the sanctuaries.

The motive that impelled women to wear men's dress brought about a mental attitude of being "like a man." An ironic side note is that with this frantic attempt to be masculine instead of striving to perfect their femininity, women unconsciously admit a dissatisfaction with their womanhood and, ultimately, God's plan for creation. This unnatural imitation destroys the complementarity of the sexes, whereby the woman and man complete and fulfIll each other; instead it sets up a relationship of competition.

This kind of erroneous and revolutionary way of thinking naturally found expression in clothing. The "pantsuit revolution" progressed to blue jeans, and has ended in the appearance of androgynous youth. Something more serious has occurred than the fact that the youth are dressed in the same clothing: the young woman's whole way of being appears to be almost more masculine than that of the young man.

The primary reason I would encourage good-spirited reasoning women to always wear dresses is to fight this egalitarian urge that would level the sexes and smash any symbolic expression of the marvelous natural differences placed there by God. This is to concretely and heroically counter the egalitarian revolution that ultimately represents a tearing down of the human order established by God.

Two Prophetic Warnings

Already in June of 1960, Cardinal Giuseppe Siri of Genoa sent this discerning warning to his Diocesan priests about the increasing use of men's trousers by women and the foreboding dangers this represented. He begins the circular with these words: "The first sins of late arriving spring indicate that there is this year a certain increase in the use of men's dress by girls and women, even family mothers." He notes with a certain shock that it is no longer just the American women tourists who have begun to wear men's trousers in public, but his good Catholic Genoese women. It is not the issue of immodesty per se that most concerns him, but a graver threefold result: "First, the wearing of men's dress by women affects the woman herself, by changing the feminine psychology proper to women; second, it affects the woman as wife of her husband, by tending to vitiate relationships between the sexes; and third, it affects the woman as mother of her children by harming her dignity in her children's eyes . . . This changing of the feminine psychology does fundamental, and, in the long run, irreparable damage to the family, to conjugal fidelity, to human affections and to human society." 4

Today we are witnesses of that "fundamental and irreparable damage" that the Cardinal warned would happen with the changing of the feminine psychology. In passing, I mention here a subject that could be analyzed in another article: In the trail of the masculinization of women came the feminization of men. As women usurped the headship of the family, relationships in the entire family were disoriented. Children were deprived of their natural role models and confusion followed. Both sexes suffered a loss of identity. At the university where I taught, I was constantly shocked to see how much effort and time was given over to the discussion of "what it means to be a man" and "what it means to be a woman." These would be moot points for these youths' grandparents, who would be amazed to see so much high level academic discussion about such evident first principles.

Cardinal Siri also asked his priests to speak out on the topic of women dressing like men: "They must know they must never be so weak as to let anyone believe that they turn a blind eye to the custom which is slipping downhill and undermining the moral standing of all institutions." Their action to correct this fault should be "sharp and decisive." His words indicate that the fathers of families should also be alert to correcting this revolutionary custom.

Cardinal Siri then invited those in the fashion industry to find suitable but dignified solutions as to clothing for women when they "must use a motorcycle or engage in this or that exercise or work." "What matters most," he quite judiciously observed, "is to preserve modesty along with the eternal sense of femininity. For that, good sense and good taste should always find acceptable and dignified solutions to problems as they come up." That very few dress designers or couturiers have accepted this invitation should not be a motive for discouragement for the present generations, but a challenge to take it up.

A Revolutionary Process

The revolution in women's clothing and the accompanying change of mentality was not some spectacular and isolated incident. It was a process that gradually rooted itself in the customs and then began to dominate the culture. Little by little, women and men became accustomed to increasingly immodest and revolutionary clothing trends.

A very respectable lady whom I know gave me a trenchant example of the process at work: She said that when trousers for women began to be stylish, at first she resisted. They would be fine to wear at home, she decided, but never in public. A little later, she changed her mind: a nice slacks suit [the poly-
ester pantsuit of the 60's] worn in public was not offensive, but women should never wear trousers to Mass. Just a little later, it didn't seem so horrible to wear a pair of modest, tailored slacks to Mass ---- it was certainly better than tthe short skirts that had become the fashion of the moment. The door opened an inch, and it wasn't long before it was wide open . . .

How much responsibility do we bear for the indecent and immodest trends and androgynous fashions of the day? It seems to me that the culpability belongs at least in part to the lethargic compliance of many Catholics to this revolutionary process that has completely transformed sound customs.

When we consider the restoration of Christian Civilization, there is a tendency for serious Catholics today to turn almost strictly to the religious plane and one's personal prayer life to initiate this restoration. To pray another novena or add another devotion to the mandatory daily Rosary are excellent things and should always be encouraged. It is extremely important not to sin against chastity, to follow the Commandments, to read edifying religious books. But there is another true duty of the spiritual life that has been ignored: that is, to fight the bad customs, revolutionary clothing and ways of being -and especially the immodest and egalitarian clothing that make up a significant part of the total corruption of customs that Our Lady forewarned would dominate in our times.

FOOTNOTES:
1. The Sacred Congregation of the Council issued a letter in 1930 by the mandate of Pope Pius XI that included this prescription: "#9. Maidens and women dressed immodestly are to be debarred from Holy Communion . . . Further, if the offense be extreme, they may even be forbidden to enter the church." Donato, Cardinal Sbaretti, Prefect of the Cong. for the Council, Rome, January 12, 1930.
2. Address to the Latin Union of High Fashion, November 8, 1957.
3. Address to the International Congress of the Children of Mary Immaculate, July 17, 1954.
4. Giuseppe Cardinal Siri, Notification concerning Men's Dress Worn by Women, Genoa, June 12, 1960.

[Reprinted from the December 2000 and January 2001 Issues of Catholic Family News.]

Godefroy · « **Reply #4 on:** March 19, 2026, 03:49:21 AM »

Men have stopped wearing hats, ties, jackets and clean shoes as they go about town. That's also a real problem. You want to be treated respectfully by society, muslims and blacks, then dress the part. Jackets and ties can be bought in charity shops for peanuts.

We may not be able to fix the women immediately, but men also need to make a real effort here. Watch any video of men dressed as Peaky Blinders actors walking in the streets and observe the reaction. Dressing snappy works to inspire respect even if you are short.

There are more men without jackets and ties and even in jeans at church than women without veils.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: "Society Becomes Corrupted When Women Wear Masculine Clothes" (Read 377 times)

Maria Dolorosa

"Society Becomes Corrupted When Women Wear Masculine Clothes"

TomGubbinsKimmage

Re: "Society Becomes Corrupted When Women Wear Masculine Clothes"

Maria Dolorosa

Re: "Society Becomes Corrupted When Women Wear Masculine Clothes"

Tarmac Turkey

Re: "Society Becomes Corrupted When Women Wear Masculine Clothes"

Godefroy

Re: "Society Becomes Corrupted When Women Wear Masculine Clothes"