Women should not wear Pants

[Anthony]

[quote name='Deeds' date='Apr 17 2006, 02:24 PM']EENS, you are a cafeteria Catholic.
[right][snapback]951043[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



Wow! Somebody actually came out and said it. I concur totally, but would be too afraid to say anything like that. Actually EENS, your views on many issues do contradict everything you claim to believe. For one, you say you are not in schism, but you still claim that LaFabvre was a good bishop and that you are not associated with SSPX which you clearly are. Also, you start rediculous arguments and continue to provoke silly debates that should not be started. You say you accept the teachings of the Catholic Church, but some of what you believe is not in line with the Church's teachings. If you are not a cafeteria catholic, then you certainly could have fooled me.

[brendan1104]

from Bishop Williamson:

[quote]Summer's end may not seem to be the cleverest moment to choose to write about women's dress. Surely the arrival rather than the departure of the warm weather would be the time to inveigh against immodest clothing. However, several ladies happen to have raised with me this summer the question of women wearing trousers or shorts (pants), and the problem is broader and deeper than just immodesty, grave though immodesty is.

For instance Bishop de Castro Mayer used to say that trousers on a woman are worse than a mini-skirt, because while the mini-skirt is sensual and attacks the senses, the trousers are ideological and attack the mind. For indeed women's trousers, as worn today, short or long, modest or immodest, tight or loose, open or disguised (like the "culottes”), are an assault upon woman's womanhood and so they represent a deep-lying revolt against the order willed by God. This may be least true of the long "culottes", trousers most closely resembling a skirt, and at best mistakable for a skirt, but insofar as "culottes" establish the principle of dividing woman's outward apparel from the waist down, they merely disguise the grave disorder. What disorder? ("Excellency, this time really you have flipped your lid!").

In the beginning, God created man and woman, both human but quite different, firstly man, secondly woman (Genesis I, 27; II, 22); woman to be man's help-mate like unto himself (Gem. II, 18), woman for man, not man for woman (I Cor. XI, 9), for "the man is not of the woman but the woman is of the man" (I Cor. XI, 8). Thus even before original sin happened, God ordered between man and woman distinction, inequality, and the headship of man over woman for purposes of living in society and in the family upon this earth.

Original sin, whereby Eve made Adam sin and not the other way round (I Tim II 14), entailed Eve's being punished, amongst other things, by the turning of her natural and painless subordination to Adam into a punishing domination of his over her, for she had shown by seducing him that she needed to be controlled... "thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee" (Genesis III, 16). Thenceforth with the transmission of original sin to all children of Adam passes to all daughters of Adam (except, of course, the Blessed Virgin Mary) this punitive subordination.

As with all problems of sin, the only true solution is the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ. For instance in a Catholic marriage the painful control of man over woman, evident in all non-Christian cultures and re-emerging in our own anti-Christian culture, becomes by supernatural grace more and more that subordination of woman to man which is in accordance with their nature and which is profitable to both, which Eve had before she and Adam fell.

But away with Eden by grace! The modern world will have none of Jesus Christ's solutions to Adam's and Eve's problems. Making idols of liberty and equality, to refuse any inequality or subordination of woman to man, it will deny any distinction between them, it denies of course any order of God in His creation, any need for Redemption, and it will deny if necessary God's very existence. Today's feminism is intimately connected to witchcraft and satanism.

These considerations have taken us a long way from the question of women's trousers, and of course not every woman putting on a pair of shorts is consciously thinking of defying God or of defying her menfolk. She is, however, conscious of something. She is clearly aware that divided shorts are not like an undivided skirt, and the difference is that abandoning the skirt gives her a vague feeling — surely of unease, or emancipation, or both .... What is that feeling based on?

Clothing divided for the legs obviously liberates the mobile lower half of the body for a number of activities for which clothing undivided like a skirt is relatively cumbersome. Adam then having to earn his family's bread by the sweat of all kinds of activities outside the home, it is entirely normal for the man to wear trousers, and if a girl gets it into her head to join him in these activities, obviously trousers likewise emancipate her to do so. Shorts are the outward and visible sign of her, liberation from the restricted range of homemaking activities.

However, she is uneasy because trousers are not the natural wear of a woman. Howsoever it be with other species, in the human species the female is designed to attract the eye of the male much more than the reverse — compare the number of male and of female beauty magazines on the market. Now original sin wounds human nature with concupiscence (unlawful desire) particularly in the senses of sight, touch and imagination. It follows for questions of clothing that what might rouse concupiscence needs more to be disguised in woman from man’s eye than in man from woman’s eye. Hence as trousers benefit the activity of the man, so skirts disguisingly loose befit the dignity and honour of the woman. Hence while donning his emancipatory trousers, she feels uneasy – at least until her conscience is dulled – as she is moving away from her identity and role and dignity as a woman. In her conscience is resounding the voice of the Lord her God pronouncing in the Mosaic Law: “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" (Deut. XXII, 5). And trousers are normally man's apparel, for reasons given above.

Of course if one denies the original sin which inflamed man's concupiscence (Gen. III, 7) and sharpened woman's subordination (Gen. III, 16), women's trousers are not so unreasonable, but see all around you the absurd consequences of denying original sin ! — sweet Polyanna goes to the office dressed fit to inflame a stone, but woe unto the poor male colleague in the office who fails to react like a stone, because with recent laws (in the U.S.A.) she will attack him in court! Insanity! Places of work will soon have to extract in advance from women sworn declarations whether they do, or do not, want to have advances made to them! But what was to be expected when women were pulled out of their home? It all serves the liberal men right for so misleading their women.

Contrast the reflective good sense of an American grandmother who said to me this summer when she was on retreat here in Winona that, looking back on her Californian youth, she could see she had often been induced to wear trousers, and now she regretted it — she could see now that each time her womanliness had been diminished. As G.K. Chesterton said, there is nothing so unfeminine as feminism. Women's trousers are a vital part, maybe the crucial break-through, of feminism.

As for the true womanliness of woman, its importance cannot be exaggerated. It all turns on women being essentially designed by God for motherhood; for the bringing of children into this world, and for their rearing; for the giving of life, warmth, love, nursing, and nourishment, everything represented by mother's milk. For this, men are not designed, of it they are intrinsically incapable yet upon it they are wholly dependent if they are to become human, as opposed to inhuman, beings. In a valuable book, "The Flight from Woman", a cultivated Jewish psychiatrist, Karl Stern, tells how he could discern in countless ills of the big city patients coming through his Toronto practice after World War II a pattern of womanlessness with which he was familiar from the works of famous modern writers such as Goethe, Descartes, Tolstoy, Ibsen — not a lack of women, but a lack of truly womanly women, because modern men and women alike are trampling upon the womanly qualities and virtues. Shakespeare distilled this spirit in Lady Macbeth, proto-feminist and satanist:­                                               

"Come you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,
And fill me from the crown to the toe top-full
Of direst cruelty.... Come to my woman's breast
And take my milk for gall, you murdering ministers..." (Act I, Sc. V).

Heaven help us! The womanliness of our women is being rooted out and the result is a way of life doomed to self-destruction, doomed to abort.

Girls, be mothers, and in order to be mothers, let not wild horses drag you into shorts or trousers. When activities are proposed to you requiring trousers, if it is something your great-grandmother did, then find a way of doing it, like her, in a skirt. And if your great-grandmother did not do it, then forget it! Her generation created your country, your generation is destroying it. Of course not all women who wear trousers abort the fruit of their womb, but all help to create the abortive society. Old-fashioned is good, modern is suicidal. You wish to stop abortion? Do it by example. Never wear trousers or shorts. Bishop de Castro Mayer was right.[/quote]

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Anthony' date='Apr 17 2006, 06:34 PM']

Wow!  Somebody actually came out and said it.  I concur totally, but would be too afraid to say anything like that.  Actually EENS, your views on many issues do contradict everything you claim to believe.  For one, you say you are not in schism, but you still claim that LaFabvre was a good bishop and that you are not associated with SSPX which you clearly are.  Also, you start rediculous arguments and continue to provoke silly debates that should not be started.  You say you accept the teachings of the Catholic Church, but some of what you believe is not in line with the Church's teachings.  If you are not a cafeteria catholic, then you certainly could have fooled me.
[right][snapback]951299[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Apparently im not allowed to use the word Neo-Catholic.


but......


i reject no Infallibile teaching of the Magesterium, and am not in schism. as much as you wish it, i was no excommunicated in 1988.

[benedictaj]

I'm a girl, and I only wear skirts. I prefer long skirts, and I no longer wear jeans or pants or shorts. Last year, I decided to make an effort to dress up for Mass and Adoration - since I tended go to daily Mass, I got in the habit of wearing a skirt everyday. I wear dresses on Sundays and feast days. but thats just me.

[HisChild]

I just read this thread. . . and since the other thread was locked. . .Sam, I thought you weren't allowed to come on here anymore? Did your parents relent? Or are you breaking the 4th?


I don't wear pants all that often. The only time I really wear pants is when I'm around the house, wearing exercise pants, but when I go out, I wear a skirt or a dress, especially since I often stop in for Adoration at church.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Donna' date='Apr 17 2006, 05:11 PM'](Sam, did something change with your posting situation? Welcome back).

Strong opinion here...

At least Cardinal Siri writes in a detached manner. I agree in part.
I saw a copy of Bishop Williamson's farewell-to-the-US poem. The only thing he had to say to the females was to not wear pants. The men got much counsel; no wonder feminism came into vogue. It will again in Trad circles if some of these people do not get a clue.

Sungenis writes like a 7 part article on why women should cover their heads and the whole analyzing the women's dress is again shoved down our wicked throats. It only took one line from Scripture on head covering to convince me - and so they treat women like stupid nomads in the process as well.

I know Catholics who were around in the 50's and 40's and they assert that the dumpy too-big jumpers seen today on many Trad women, eyes cast down, is NOT Catholic; hiding your feminity (playing down one's curve) for fear of tempting someone out of some skewed notion of modesty is Protestant. And pants on women are NOT a sin.

Now: if people have the means and station (retired professor single woman) to dress always in a dress; if they have mastered the amount and kinds of leg-warming material needed for winter; if they've the funds and enough presence of mind to devote themselvesto this, God bless them.

By and large, people have much bigger fish to fry than this; and I say truly that it can be an un-carryable burden.

I also think that today there are purity policemen who know far too much about what is clinging and all the rest. Cast your eyes down, what in the hell are you looking so closely at every woman for?[right][snapback]951278[/snapback][/right][/quote]i love Donna!


[quote name='missionarybelle' date='Apr 17 2006, 05:18 PM']did you read my post right?[right][snapback]951283[/snapback][/right][/quote]i'm not sure what you mean. and, did you read the bottom part of my post? i can go back and bold it if you missed it.

[Jaime]

there are people here that will attest to the fact that I have no fashion sense. But this one I don't get. Women who wear skirts OVER pants.

I see it often

[homeschoolmom]

My daughter sometimes does that. If she has a favorite dress that's getting too short, she wears pants under it. Sort of tunic style...

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

im breaking the 4th. but my confessor said i could.

i really don't know what to do.

[homeschoolmom]

You're confessor said that it was okay to disobey your parents so that you could hang out on the internet? And you don't know what to do? I'd say find another confessor...

[jasJis]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Apr 17 2006, 05:53 PM']im breaking the 4th. but my confessor said i could.

i really don't know what to do.
[right][snapback]951325[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Imagine that!

[MichaelFilo]

Since this is really a matter of what is appropriate to men and women in dress, there are some passages in the Bible that are of some relevance, but only two come to mind. One is on cross dressing Deuteronomy 22 verse 5 (underlined in my bible for convinience, cause this comes up alot)

"A woman shall not wear an article proper to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's dress; for anyone who oes such things is an abomination to the Lord, your God".

That, for some reason doesn't settle it for some people. "Why can't we be more sexually equally, God and all His rules and such". Luckily, the opposition isn't all that annoyingly whiny, and a fair rebuttal is but 5 verses down, saying that we should not wear clothing of mixed threads, that is wool and linen woven together. In reality, the whole list seems to be made for the benefit of the Israelite people, and none of it is binding on us today. Sort of. Some of the regulations were moral regulations (which, by the very nature of being moral regulations, are based on moral truths, which were true before the Old Law, and are certainly true in the New Law) while others were more restrictions put on the people for their own benefit, but were not of moral binding (such as, not yoking an ox and an ass together, or eating certain meats). However, because of the legalistic nature of the Old Law, they were held to be of the same importance as the moral realities (that is part of the freedom inherent in the death of Christ).

Anywho, I'd share the New Testament quote, but this isn't Xanga, and no one reads long posts. Basically, men are told not to wear their hair long in Corinthians, and I, having grown out my hair past my shoulder length (by alot), put it up in Church. That same passage says women ought to wear head coverings. It ends with the comment that none of these things are customs of the Church, simply of Corinth... who knows. The arguement seems convincing enough. Anyway, women wear pants, this is bad. STart being women again, and yes, that is portrayed in your clothing, or else no one would have a problem with me wearing a one peice bikini, right? right? any takers.. didn't think so.

God bless,
Mikey

Edited April 18, 2006 by MichaelFilo

[homeschoolmom]

Wearing pants made for a woman is not cross dressing.

[dspen2005]

this is ridiculous.

[Tata126]

I prefer to wear skirts and dresses, I do think they look more feminine, and I like the fact that I'm treated with more respect when I'm dressed up, but people who tell me that I subconsciously think I'm a man when I'm wearing pants are full of it. Is it not possible to wear a feminine blouse with jeans? Does a woman wearing a pretty blouse and pants look like a man? Extra Ecclesiam, if you're confused about the gender of women wearing jeans, that's something to talk to a psychiatrist about, not us.

Like I said, I prefer to wear a skirt most of the time, but there are some times when you just can't. Like, I generally wear jeans to ride horses, and wearing a skirt to hang Christmas lights on the roof would be rather dangerous. And when one curls up somewhere with a book, it's useful to be wearing pants so one can decently pull one's knees up to one's chest. I really don't think that I'm less of a woman on the occasions when I choose comfort and a wider range of motion over more girly clothes.

Edited April 18, 2006 by Tata126