I usually wear pants, too, but I disagree that a dress is inefficient, provided that it is not too fancy: It is easier to make, easier to fit, and easier to try on than pants. It also makes dressing quicker because we don’t have to pick out a top to go with it. And if it is pretty, we may be able to skip accessories as well. When I travel, I like to take dresses because they take up less space in my suitcase. I am all for pants, but I think a dress can be efficient, too.

Jeanne G. I’m a guy so I obviously can’t speak from experience. I am a computer professional in a job that requires me to climb around under desks. I know my female coworkers would never wear a dress at work because it would be very difficult to maintain modesty while crawling under a desk with a dress on. SO in this case it is terribly inefficient.

Also, when I am having to work under desks with women around who are wearing dresses, means that I have to call attention to it so they can leave the area, so it doesn’t look like I’m doing something perverted.

I understand the authors point, but I do think that in western culture at least, the “masculine” clothing is not masculine anymore at all. It was in the 60’s when women first began to wear jeans. Men’s cuts were all that were available. However they is nothing masculine about the way that women’s jeans are manufactured today. In fact, they often become so form-fitting/shaping they almost look naked.

Jen, I hope you’re ready for the onslaught! ;)

As a woman who wears mostly skirts and dresses in the spring and summer, and mostly pants in the fall and winter, I think this is a beautiful reflection. I was especially touched by the connection between getting rid of flowers, and femininity. The devil hates beauty most of all, because he used to be the most beautiful angel. Thank you for sharing.

After some significant injuries to my feet and ankles, I have learned that the only kind of shoes I can wear for any length of time without limp-inducing pain are certain kinds of mountain-climbing athletic shoes (used to be called “chukka boots”) with orthotics inserted. I have tried many other types of womens’ dress shoe, including all the brands touted as “ultra-comfortable”, “ultra-supportive,” etc., and I suppose these shoes are these things, but they don’t seem to give my feet the necessary support, and soon after walking in them, I am looking for the bottle of Alleve and am wanting to stay sedentary. This is no good. Must. Stay. Active. So mountain-climbing athletic shoes it must be whenever I am out of bed.

Now mountain-climbing athletic shoes paired with a typical street-length daywear dress would impart to the woman wearing them an impossibly clownish appearance: she would present the appearance of a person living with a distressing mental condition, and her ensemble would attract whispers, stares, and giggles. No good. And she would feel lousy wearing them. No good, either.

Even to this day, I see beautiful dresses in stores and catalogs that I would love to buy and to wear, and start to check prices and availability, when the realization comes to me: no, not for you. Not with those feet. Not with mountain boots. My reaction is always, “oh, blast!”

So it’s always womens’ dress pants for me, with the boots. Not a particularly stylish solution, and work doesn’t much like it, but they accept the medical necessity and don’t complain.

I suppose, 200 years ago, I would have been wearing similar lace-up ankle length boots hidden beneath a floor-length skirt and petticoats. Which actually I would find more appealing in some ways than pants, but, alas, I would definitely be shown the door at work if I came to work dressed like that.

Oh, well, some situations you just have to make the best of.

Marion,
You just have to find the right combination.  I see folks wearing stuff like that all the time.  They’re called “hipsters” and they populate the high fashion world.  Just watch “The Devil Wears Prada”.  things that seem ridiculous are actually the cutting edge of fashion.
I’m kidding, of course.  And I hate all shoes, so I can sympathesize.

Thanks for the article.Love it. I am an ‘only dresses/skirts” to Sunday Mass.I do wear slacks to daily Mass sometimes because I am on my way to work and I must wear pants to work. Love the article.

Please, please, in many parts of the world, or at least my part, pants means knickers, undies, underwear. It is generally conceded that Catholic ladies should wear pants, regardless of whether they then choose skirts or trousers. I can’t read these articles without giggling.

Wonderful reflection. I wear a dress or skirt to Sunday Mass, but during the week I wear slacks to work. I have noticed that some ladies would be much better off in a loose skirt or dress instead of squeezed into pants they stretch to the limits of decency. I recall at one time pants suits were the only things the stores sold when they had become the fad—you cold not find a dress.

I like your reflection, but I am forced to wonder whether our idea of skirts being feminine because they are flowy is a more modern invention. Isn’t the reason women wore long skirts until more recently due to the paucity of enclosed bathrooms?

I discovered first hand in west Africa why long skirts are useful for modesty and taking care of business…

So I kind of bristle at the idea that skirts are necessarily more feminine. Seems like the practicality has changed but their association with femininity is not broken.

All this said, I still like dressing up in skirts and dresses. I just can’t imagine being told that pants were not acceptable or necessarily not feminine. I was glad to see a nice balanced reflection on the subject. :)

Folks, please check out what God has to say in Deuteronomy 22:5 - “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God”.  In our culture, I believe this would generally correspond to the wearing pf skirts versus pants. Now please hear me out - it’s my observation that there is no area of contemporary life more fraught with confusion than the issue of gender.  The whole concept of gender roles, AS ESTABLISHED BY GOD, is under incessant attack in this culture.  In its extreme form, it reveals itself in the adoption of a homosexual lifestyle, and, most recently, in the absurd idea of same-sex ‘marriage’.  God’s view of gender and gender roles is clearly expressed in the Bible in numerous passages, not just the one quoted above. He is very consistent on this.  It seems to me that satan (lower case used intentionally), the great opposer and contradictor of God is active in sowing confusion especially in this area. 
  In my childhood and youth, girls wore skirts and dresses all the time.  Now, very few seem to - and who would doubt that this a far more ungodly era than the 1950’s, when I was growing up?  You know, it’s not just some form of nostalgia on my part; this attack God’s concept of gender is serious, practically all encompassing, and actually nothing new.  As noted by Jennifer Fulwiler noted in her article, it has been a common feature of regimes and institutions in rebellion against God. The widespread adoption by a culture of a form of dress that confuses gender roles is symptomatic of a deeper problem - rebellion against God.  I’m sure many women who wear pants don’t think they are doing it to be rebellious - yet, in essence, I believe that is the true background of the controversy.  God is very specific about gender, and is not the author of confusion - on the other hand, spreading confusion is satan’s great specialty.  I’m interested to know what many of you think about this.  Thanks so much for hearing me out and bearing with a rather long response.

I was a confirmed pants-only mom and then I decided to homeschool.  Many of you know what that means. I was inundated by others who told me (and not always in a charitable manner) that my wearing pants was not acceptable while others merely looked down at my trousers at daily Mass. 

In those early years, I actually bought into that mindset and went to the nearest Goodwill to stock up on denim jumpers/skirts and other hideous skirts that did nothing for me.  My husband tolerated this for too long and finally let me know that if I wanted to skirts, fine as he loved seeing my legs but could I please find ones that flattered my figure rather than hiding it as something offensive.  He claimed his right to be the Fashion/Modesty Police for his family (a task this father w/ seven daughters takes very, very seriously).

Over time, I found a balance btwn pants and skirts and will happily say the denim jumpers were sent back to Goodwill (as were all the jumpers) and both my dh and I were happy.

Then, many years later, my oldest daughter became consecrated.  Her daily garb become skirts - all the time, every activity including sports.  One Lent, I decided to wear only skirts as a way to be more unified with her vocation.  Wow!  It was eye opening as I strived to be as fashionable and functional as she was.  I became more discerning about what I picked up at sales and, yes, Goodwill and now, wear skirts more often year-round but still have a few pair of reliable jeans and slacks.  Balance in all things as they say with commonsense as a chaser.

The other side - in my small town - skirts are the required uniform for many of the Protestant churches around here.  As a result,  you’ll never find me in the to-the-floor denim or floral tent skirts which are the norm for them, as I don’t want to be mistaken as a follower.

Waljoy,
I am curious if you are male or female.
Also, I would just like to note that, as the mother of three children under four, I spend most of my day crawling around on the floor with them.  Wearing a skirt under these circumstances is not necessarily practical for me.
Also in the old Testament, there are passages which forbid women braiding their hair, or calling anyone father or teacher. 
Now, I have very long feminine, hair, and if it isn’t braided, it gets everywhere.
I also call priests father and back in the day called my instructors teacher.
I am not saying that what the Old Testament said is wrong for its time, but Jesus was pretty clear about the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law.  So, He healed on the Sabbath, said it was okay to pull your donkey out of the well on the Sabbath, etc.
That being said, I believe that the spirit of the passage you quoted would be that women should look like women and men should look like men.  I can get behind that sentiment.  My jeans are a feminine cut and my t-shirts certainly don’t give anyone confusion about my gender, in spite of their modesty. 
So, since I’m not confusing anyone about my gender, I believe I am still abiding by the spirit of the law in this instance.  I don’t do it to rebel against God or my husband or an oppressive patriarchal society, I do it because it works in my circumstances.  And I think God understands that.

At Fatima, Jacinta said: “Many fashions will be introduced that
will greatly offend the Lord” and “Woe to women wanting in modesty.”

The Pope said in Fatima on 13 May 2010 that the fulfillment of the prophecies of Fatima is “in the future…”

You know what else is inefficient?  Elaborately decorated churches with stained-glass windows, beautiful sanctuaries behind a Communion rail, and pews with kneelers.

pre baby days: skirts, dresses.
post baby going into menapause days: jeans, dress trousers.
live in Minnesota where cold and snow depths make boots and long johns a fashion staple.
maybe ther is something to the flower-skirt connection: we don’t have very many flowers blooming here in the north from October thru May.

How many more decades are women going to debate this issue amongst themselves?

I suppose beauty is “in the eye of the beholder.” But personally, I can’t understand why a woman would want to wear pants if they want to be attractive.  On a more practical level, how will people know which restroom is for women, if there are hardly any women wearing skirts like the restroom logo?

Jeans or skirts/dresses? How about modesty in dress as well as sobriety in dress as well as behavior. St. Paul and various places in the Old Testament have quite a bit to say about female dress and comportment. I hate to pick on women but most of them, yes Catholic women too, need to get with the modesty program. Why? You women all know men are by nature more susceptible to physical stimuli than women. It is the way we are wired and the fall of Adam only made it worse. Remember that if you dress and comport yourself modestly it is a genuine act of Charity to men. They will have fewer sins to confess!! For myself, the most attractive women I’ve ever seen have been Mennonite or Amish women in their long dresses and bonnets.

I wore skirts and dresses all the time in the 50’s and early sixties. I would like to wear some again if I could find some that weren’t too short, slit at the side and would look well on my,well, matronly figure.

Another thing I need are comfortable shoes for my feet, and haven’t found any that could be called dressy.

I’ve hounded 2nd hand stores also, and either the skirts aren’t my size or are a little too girlish.  I remember not having had a problem finding decent skirts until the sixties erupted.

I personally would rather wear a pair of pants (that aren’t too tight) and a feminine blouse then some of the styles now.  Outside of sewing them for myself, or spending a lot of money on one, I would gladly wear some for Sunday if I could find them.

Amish dress? Bwahahahahaa. No thanks :). Oh ok, maybe when you start wearing New Testament era man-robes.

I think the Communist example is very culturally bound. For instance in the middle east, men’s and women’s dress has always been very similar - flowing garments. Even in the middle ages, men (except when fighting) and women wore similar robe-type outfits; although women’s garments were more fitted. Historically, doesn’t clothing also depend on the materials available - like how much deerskin covers what? Wealthier classes could afford yards and yards of material, hence the ruffles, pleats, ballooning skirts, puffed sleeves of some women’s styles.

I’m just spit-balling here, but…
To the men who are bemoaning lack of modesty among women, I know we’re not looking at pics to compare here, but, aren’t you guys supposed to be guarding your eyes as well?
I mean, when I visited Italy, there were lots of nude statues in public places.  I guess folks there are just inured to it.  But if you’re having trouble with the ladies at Mass in their Sunday best, how do you handle having to look at magazine covers and billboards and television and cheerleaders at sports events and public swimming pools or beaches?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan of modesty and I wish it was more prevalent in pop culture.  But from the tone of some of the comments from, I assume, male posters, unless I’m wearing a Catho-burka, I’m showing too much. 

So, why are women the only ones here being called to task?  Don’t you guys have any responsibility for what comes out in the confessional?

Jason,
As long as men call us evil temptresses for dressing for utility and comfort. :-)

Here is an interesting take on the subject of pants vs skirts from GKC (written in defense of womanhood during the rise of Feminism, 100 years ago):
“...And since we are talking here chiefly in types and symbols, perhaps as good an embodiment as any of the idea may be found in the mere fact of a woman wearing a skirt. It is highly typical of the rabid plagiarism which passes everywhere for emancipation, that a little while ago it was common for an “advanced” woman to claim the right to wear trousers; a right about as grotesque as the right to wear a false nose. Whether female liberty is much advanced by the act of wearing a skirt on each leg I do not know; perhaps Turkish women might offer some information on the point. But if the western woman walks about (as it were) trailing the curtains of a harem with her, it is quite certain that the woven mansion is meant for a perambulating palace, not a perambulating prison. It is quite certain that a skirt means female dignity, not female submission; it can be proved by the simplest of all tests. No ruler would deliberately dress up in the recognized fetters of a slave; no judge would appear covered with broad arrows. But when men wish to be safely impressive, as judges, priests, or kings, they do wear skirts, the long, trailing robes of female dignity. The whole world is under a petticoat government; for even men wear petticoats when they wish to govern.”

My daughter elects to wear skirts during Lent each year….She already dresses modestly, but finds that wearing skirts during Lent helps her to remember her femininity (she’s almost 13). She has leggings she wears under most of them, so she can run, play, bicycle, etc. as if she were in pants. She doesn’t like shorts unless they’re long, anyway. I would wear skirts, too, but I don’t have many in my wardrobe, and I also agree that I can’t afford to run out and get a new wardrobe. I do remember from my pregnancy and nursing days, jumpers and dresses were the easiest things to wear, simply because they allowed for my changing shape. I have six children, and now that the “baby” is past seven years old, my shape seems to have settled down, but pants don’t really fit right, either. I am hoping to slowly “redo” my wardrobe to incorporate more dresses and skirts—but have them be reasonable, sensible articles of clothing that make life easier, yet allow me to feel more feminine. Tough call, but I do like skirts better, myself.

Mark- I love Chesterton, but that sounds like a great double standard he set up. Women need to dress “impressive” all the time, and men only do so if necessary. Men used to wear robes and still do in some parts of the world. Why not berate them for becoming less dignified if skirts/dresses are so much more impressive?

Sorry I just don’t feel particularly dignified trying to care for toddlers in skirts, which is why I only wear them on special occasions. A long tent skirt might be easier to be modest with toddlers, but incredibly impractical in Southern California.

I appreciate the logic and the common sense of the commenters who note that in Biblical times men and women alike wore tunics and cloaks, the men their kind of tunics and cloaks, arranged in a masculine way; the women their kind of tunics and cloaks, arranged in the customary feminine way.

Legs wrapped in cloth belonged to the barbarians.

I agree it is right and seemly to follow the Biblical admonition that men should not wear women’s dress, nor women men’s. Since no one wears tunics and cloaks any longer, unless they are going to a costume party, it follows that modern men should limit their clothing choices to items customarily worn by men, and women should limit their clothing choices to items customarily worn by women.

Let us examine shirts, for example. Generally a shirt worn by either sex is a sleeved, collared garment covering the upper body, seamed on either side, with fastenings in the front. Men’s shirts are generally of a boxier shape, of a certain range of colors and fabrics, and devoid of frills and trims, and decoration of any kind is of the subtlest sort. Whereas women’s shirts are very similar in overall shape, but tend to be more contoured in their cut, of a different range of colors and fabrics, and nearly always include some form of frill, trim, or decoration, all of which set them apart as women’s shirts.

Similarly, with trousers, women’s trousers are of a somewhat more contoured cut than men’s, and of a definite range of colors and fabrics.

It is therefore evident that women who wear shirts of the cuts, styles, colors, and materials customarily worn by women are not dressing as men. And that women who wear trousers of the cuts, styles, colors, and materials customarily worn by women are not dressing as men.

It is also important that men’s and women’s clothing be modest, that is, (1) that they not reveal more of the wearer’s body than is suitable for a Christian to reveal, (for example, clothing which hews excessively to the contours of the wearer, or fails to cover enough of the wearer’s skin, and (2) they ought to be suited for the place and the occasion – so to wear what might be considered modest formal evening attire – a floor-length ball gown – would be immodest if worn on the beach, not because it is too revealing, but because it is wholly unsuitable to the place.

The Church in her wisdom has left the further details of these matters to the wisdom and the common sense of her sons and daughters. Be certain that those who proclaim that women offend God by wearing any sorts of trousers – even women’s trousers – have not a leg stand to stand on, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, that they proclaim their private, personal opinion as God’s, which is, come to think of it, most immodest on their part.  (And why would any Christian women listen to so immodest a person speak to them about modesty?)

In a world grown slack, the bold never skirt the issues.

One more comment, I think one of the biggest problems with the skirts vs. pants issue is that we as a society are overly concerned with what we’re wearing, and with what others are wearing. If we just regard clothing as covering, we probably would have far fewer issues. No, I am not a frumpy mom (my husband wouldn’t think that!), but I don’t need to flaunt my figure or physical attributes (or failings!). I just want neat, comfortable clothing that is reasonably attractive. Most current fashions are neither modest nor comfortable. I also cannot wear heels for medical reasons, so I find good, comfortable shoe and sandals, and I wear longer skirts when I “dress up.” Most days I am in jeans, tees, and hiking shoes (I live in Colorado). My daughter has her own style, dresses in a very attractive fashion, but it’s her OWN fashion, not dictated by fads. I appreciate her artistic sense of color and style, and most people comment on her creativity. We need not be swayed by the current fads to look nice, while still being modest. And modest is NOT frumpy. Don’t let society tell you that!

Perfect explanation Marion.

There are two distinct points: androgyny and modesty

1. There is more to the communist example. Marxist feminists added a new level to the dialectic: Males (the patriarchs) and females (the oppressed) would do battle and the result would be androgyny. That’s why in their attempted utopias, they want to eliminate motherhood and have babies raised in a collective. Putting men and women in similar garb is a mental crutch to help people eliminate the concepts of male and female. I read “Wild Swans,” and yet found an even more stark example in “First They Killed My Father,” (Cambodia) in which everyone had to burn their bourgeois clothing, and the author remembers the flames eating her only party dress in the village bonfire.

2. If one takes stock of all cultural wardrobes, the woman’s crotch is usually covered—even by Indian traditional dress that includes pants. That is the point of the extra fabric—it is a form of veiling which covers a very precious feminine part. We can devolve into stereotypes (or debate it endlessly, pax Jason) until we agree that having that body part highly visible is a problem.

[nota bene: I do wear pants most of the time, though as loose as possible]

As I race toward 50, I reflect on my time as a Navy Officer.  I wore skirts as often as pants, and both were all about business.  Now, with my daughters in the pre-teen to young teen age, I have a whole new appreciation for the other-worldly beauty of innocence, and a flowing silk skirt would only be the better to adorn those heavenly gifts from God.  I also like flowing skirts and blouses that are a little frilly, not because I am vain, but because I am joyful, and I want to share some of this joy with the world.  Being a radiant flower upon the scortched earth is a very important role!  Our neighbors need it, even if they don’t know it yet.  Thanks for the post, Jennifer.

Genevieve- Well, I think male and female we would all do well not to have clothing with crotches that are very tight.  :)

Maybe one difference between China and America is, in China women were forced to give up skirts, whereas in America women voluntarily do it on their own.

Another thing, it depends on where you live and how the weather is.  I live in Utah and particularly in spring we can get some strong winds ahead of a storm.

Wearing a skirt would be very impractical in this kind of weather.

Also, in the west, people don’t tend to dress up for Mass, maybe with the exception of Christmas and Easter and also dining out is casual.

I think as long as you don’t wear pants that look masculine it’s fine.  And by the way, tops that are feminine AND modest are also difficult to find.  Many of them have plunging necklines.  Wish I had saved the clothes I wore in the 50’s and 60’s, but of course couldn’t get into them now!

“Maybe one difference between China and America is, in China women were forced to give up skirts, whereas in America women voluntarily do it on their own.”

Another difference between China and the United States is, in China persons in general are compelled by those without authority from God to relinquish the freedoms God intended them to have, whereas in the United States, persons in general are not under compulsion to relinquish the freedoms God intended them to have.

There are those who would like for the United States to become more like totalitarian China, in which people are compelled to relinquish their legitimate God-given freedoms. But thank God, their day, if it should ever come, is still a long way off.

I’m so glad I live in the land of the free, and suggest that those who don’t like it that others choose to exercise their legitimate God-given freedoms, should consider relocating to Shang-hai or Beijing, where they might be happier.

Oh, and by the way, I hereby set forth my edict, that every adult male who doesn’t wear a full beard is dressing like a woman, and is in violation of the Biblical injunction against appearing as a woman.

Men who shave their beards are, in my interpretation of the Bible, and in my judgement, offending God, and nothing and nobody can change that, my edict that I set forth, and is binding upon all adult males everywhere who walk upon the face of the Earth. 

No matter how they may argue, they are wrong, wrong, wrong. Period. End of story.

I went through a skirts-only phase. We were attending and considering joining a Christian Orthodox Church, and as all potential converts do, I read up on everything I could about the Orthodox and came to the conclusion that I should be dressing more modestly.  I started wearing long (mid calf) denim skirts everywhere, even though in the winter I had to wear leggings underneath and getting down on the floor to change diapers (and getting back up) was tricky. 

I noticed I got a lot more comments from this one elderly gentleman in our neighborhood. It wasn’t just one time, every time he’d see me he’d comment (in a positive way) on my manner of dress.  I was the only woman in the neighborhood wearing skirts on a regular basis.  He’d say things about how nice I looked, and even though it was completely innocent…

The attention made me uncomfortable.  I don’t like drawing attention to myself.  I started thinking about what REAL modesty is. Is it dressing in a way that stands out in any fashion, just because you think it’s what Mary would have worn, or is it wearing what you feel comfortable in (while still covering the important parts)? 

I came to the conclusion that for me, modesty is about wearing jeans—very practical since I’m the mother of all boys and am expected to get down on the floor and fix LEGO castles and such—and modest shirts.  My definition of modest, for me, is it covers my upper arms and my chest.  No low necklines.  If I offend people who think that because I’m a woman I should be wearing skirts, I’m heartily sorry.  But I go through life without drawing undue attention to myself, and that’s what I’m going for.
I don’t look like a man in my jeans—having long hair helps—-and I wear jewelry, and makeup, so I’m pretty sure I’m not risking androgyny or masculinity.

Yeah, cover up those crotches; bring back the codpiece!

“And when I first saw these discussions, I dismissed all pro-skirts arguments without a thought beyond, Sheesh, people, are we in 2011 or 1811?”

I think this is one of the biggest problems today: that people (consciously or unconsciously) think that somehow we are more ‘enlightened’ than people from the past simply because we are more ‘modern’. If I could change one thing about the world today, it would be the sort of chronological snobbery that pervades the modern mindset (not that I’m accusing the author of this).

“Is (modesty) dressing in a way that stands out in any fashion, just because you think it’s what Mary would have worn?”

Yes, samcarter, it is. You MUST wear a home-spun linen ankle-length undertunic with long sleeves and a high, draw-string neck. Its color must be a shade of red. You must also wear an over-tunic on top of that, tied at the waist with a sash. And you must wear a linen cloak draped over your head and shoulders at all times. Its color must be blue. And all adult males must grow full on facial hair as Saint Joseph would have done, as well, or both . . . NOW HEAR THIS . . . will incur my official censure.

And if any woman dares to appear in my presence not wearing a red under-tunic, an over-tunic (of any color the choose, as I am disposed to be generous and magnanimous toward my subjects today), tied with a sash, AND a blue cloak draped over her head and shoulders, then she will incur my censure and my opporbrium.

And all men must wear beards. And sandals. And carry a staff, at all times. Or they are in violation of my . . . (ahem) I mean . . . The Bible!

So let it be written. So let it be done.

I’d wear skirts more if there was some way to shave my legs in five minutes or less. That extra step just takes too much time and effort in the mornings.

Marion: I get it. You’re trying to show that rules on clothing are as arcane as any of the Old Testament minutiae. And yet you miss the point—the question does not concern the letter of the law but the spirit of the law. There was a lesson for the Jews which was secular (in time) and a lesson for Christians which is timeless (modesty). In coming to fulfill the law, Jesus emphasised that the new law is based on charity. The discussion now turns on how to express charity in the modern world, given the realities of our lives and of temptations to our neighbour.

Things weren’t always better in times past, either”“

No CrlnaBnd, you are wrong. Times past were good, and here is in what way they were good: They were good because men wore full beards, and women wore ankle-length tunics tied with a sash and a cloak draped over their heads and shoulders, but not pants. Although men often didn’t wear pants, either. That didn’t come until later. But at least men didn’t go around clean-shaven like women, and women didn’t wear pants.

We can bring those good times back, CdrlnaBnd, and it won’t be hard. We can insist that women stop wearing pants, that they wear instead what women of first century Palestine wore - tunics with cloaks draped over the head. And we can insist that men stop appearing in public as panty-waisted light-in-their-loafers sissy boys who shave their God-given facial hair, and command them to grow full beards and stop giving offense to all decent Christian people.

Then, CdrlnaBnd, times will be better. Much better. You’ll see.

I think one of the biggest issues of modern fashion is we have become too casual in all of the senses. Unless the garbage truck is coming down the street at 7am, there really isn’t any other reason why you should step outside in your bathrobe. I see people all the time wear those novelty pajama pants out in public, i.e. mall/walking the dog. Yes, they’re comfortable. But I think religious or not, we need to reevaluate our wardrobes. Our jeans and casual tees should fit.

We need to physically take the time to try things on, and purchase things that fit our body shape, including purchasing the right undergarments. It’s the trade off from when stopped making our own clothes I guess, standardization vs customization of clothing. I realize that’s work, and the idea of dragging a few small children to a department story is unrealistic. Still I think, if women are going to make a big deal out of modesty whether it be pants or skirts, it has to be more then just covering oneself up. Let’s be good at it!

Genevieve wrote, “You’re trying to show that rules on clothing are as arcane as any of the Old Testament minutiae. And yet you miss the point.”

No, Genevieve. You miss the point.

The point, Genevieve, is that you and all Christians are required to observe and to put into effect MY interpretation of what is modest and suitable dress for modern Christians. Not your interpretation. Not their interpretation. My interpretation.

There’s your way, their way, his way, God’s way, and my way. And the last two are identical and the only right way.

And my interpretation is that women are to wear tunics and cloaks, and men are to wear full facial hair.

And if anyone dare to oppose this my command let him be as an anathema unto all the people, and as one unholy, and as one unclean, to be kept apart from and shunned by all who wish to stand righteous before the holy ones.

Given forth this day by my hand and effective immediately.

I’m not comfortable in a skirt or dress either—but I have to say I was impressed last night when I watched the Notre Dame women’s basketball team in the NCAA finals.  Their coach, Muffet McGraw, usually wears a skirt and heels to the game.  She looks professional and, yes, feminine.  Kudos to her!

I own one dress actually I bought it a couple of months ago for Easter.  I will wear it probably 2 or 3 times and then pass it on to someone else. 
I hated wearing dresses and skirts, from babyhood to high school graduation, then partly into my 20s its basically all I wore. Now I wouldn’t be caught dead in a skirt it makes me look like stump of a tree trunk(short girls rarely look good in skirts unless they are Twiggy size). I have church going clothes, clean slacks, pretty blouses, even special coat only for Sundays and special days. Just wear special Church only clothes and you will be honoring God, He doesn’t ask for ‘skirts or dresses’ just clean and nothing you would wear any other place, that makes it special.

OK, so the long and the short of it is, to be a woman you have to wear a dress? And if you don’t, you are disobeying God? Hmmm, in the days of Moses everyone wore long flowing robes, so what exactly is meant by men and womens’ clothing? And, I am very overweight and do not look good in dresses or skirts at this time in my life. I am working on that, but continue to go to Mass 7 days a week and feel that God accepts me for who I am. Would that all my Catholic brothers and sisters could do the same. Ah, lent—Were you there when they crucified My Lord?

CrlnaBnd:  “Haha, Marion! My husband’s skin tone is much closer to Jesus’s, but I bet they don’t like that mixed ethnicity stuff one bit. Everyone knows Jesus had blonde hair and blue eyes!”

I have not yet made a study of my position on the study of any Biblical figure’s ethnicity. But I will formulate a position, and I will inform all of you of it, and you will all make it your own.

Instantly. I command it.

And “haha”? How dare you? When did I convey to you my permission to guffaw?

Watch yourselves, all of you. And do not take unlicensed occasion to laugh or wear pants. Or I shall be displeased and shall pronounce another anathema upon you.

(Sounds of Darth Vader drawing in a breath. Sound of Darth Vader letting out a breath.)

Marion: I’d point out that you’re being willfully obtuse, but you’re having too much fun. Carry on.

Genevieve- If you look further up the thread Marion actually had a great post on the “spirit of the law” as you mentioned.

Marion,
Are you a mother at home with young kids?  ‘Cause I think I want to be just like you and there’s some things I can’t change to be that way.
<bows before the awesomeness of unbreakable edicts>

JR wrote, “OK, so the long and the short of it is, to be a woman you have to wear a dress? And if you don’t, you are disobeying God?”

No, of course not, JR. The Magesterium of the Universal Church invites women to pay due attention to considerations of Christian modesty in dressing herself. Period. The Magesterium of the Universal Church leaves it up to women to discern the parameters for these choices, subject to guidelines set forth by our own bishops and pastors.

And then, JR, what happens is that certain individual Catholics take it upon themselves to invent and create additional standards to impose on women, and man-made burdens for women to shoulder (which they themselves won’t lift a finger to help with), none of which are of God, but which these malicious individual Catholics like to deceive others into believing come from God. Deceitful, malicious, and arrogant individual Catholics, arrogantly and high-handedly attempting to lord it over Catholic women.

Terrible.

If a husband would like to say to his wife, “Honey, it would so please me if you would choose to wear dresses and skirts rather than trousers, would you?” that is perfectly legitimate.

For an individual Catholic to *invent* requirements of his own, and to deceitfully and maliciously impute these to Holy Mother Church, and arrogantly and wickedly attempt to impose these on their fellow Christians is a deed of foul wickedness. Most foul.

It is. It is, folks.

Hey, if you feel more modest in a dress or a skirt, go for it. If you feel more modest wearing a cloak draped over your head and shoulders, go for that, too. That’s your call, baby.

And it’s each woman’s own call for herself, too, just as much as it is your call for yourself.

Indeed I missed that, Clarie, thanks. This was her gem: “The Church in her wisdom has left the further details of these matters to the wisdom and the common sense of her sons and daughters.”

I couldn’t agree more; that was my point about charity. Finis.

The rightful and Christian exercise of our freedoms, our liberties, are every bit as much the will of the good God, as our obedience to His commandments.

We worship Him in our obedience; we worship Him also in the exercise of our god-given freedoms, directed always to Him.

As we must guard the integrity of our observance of His commandments, we must equally defend and uphold the liberty in which we exercise our loving service to Him.

Let no deceiver take from you the freedom the Father has bestowed on you.

Let no liar impose on you that which God does not impose on you.

Christian women, have valor!

THREAD-WINNAH!
Did I say you were my hero?

The writer missed the point. Efficiency in clothing is of concern, but pales greatly in light to the issue of modest in dress. I suppose it’s of interest to a very small number of people that Communist movements of the 20th century have frowned on pretty dresses and flowers. As Catholics, we ought to be concerned with fashions impact salvation. Blessed Mary and several saints have stated that impurity is the cause of more souls being lost than any other reason. Pope Benedict XV explicitly taught the need for modesty in dress. The Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII gave details on what is modesty in clothing.  Pope Benedict XV wrote, in Sacra Propediem, 1921: “One can not sufficiently deplore the blindness of so many women of every age and station. Made foolish by a desire to please, they do not see to what degree the indecency of their clothing shocks every honest man and offends God. Most of them would formerly have blushed for such apparel as for a grave fault against Christian modesty. Now it does not suffice to exhibit themselves on public thoroughfares; they do not fear to cross the threshold of churches, to assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and even to bear the seducing food of shameful passions to the Eucharistic Table, where one receives the Heavenly Author of Purity.”
“How beautiful then is modesty and what a gem among virtues it is,” St. Bernard, wrote.
The current problem with women’s attire is that it is most often designed to be explicitly immodest. Women in jeans are most often dressed immodestly. Are we to choose convenience or comfort over modesty? I suspect hell causes greatly more discomfort.

I guess alot of women haven’t had the unfortunate experiences that I have had.

Some men are more drawn to a woman’s chest area, some the thighs, some the rear. Growing up with a (good Catholic) father and brother who couldn’t help check out women’s rear ends educated me in the difficulites many men have with women in pants.

After watching Brooke Shields roll around on the floor purring that nothing comes between her and her Calvin Kleins, my mom ran out and got me a pair at age 13. From that point on I received many comments from guys at school about how great my a– is. I was no longer a person– I was a butt.

Whether tight or loose pants still draw the eye to a woman’s private areas both in front and in back. I recently read the book All Creatures Great and Small where the country vet courts a young lady in the 1930s who was one of the first to don the new style, and he remarks while walking behind her that there really are some advantages to this new style a man can appreciate. Sounds kind of cute and innocent enough, until you fast forward to our time when every magazine at the checkout is screaming at you to get that perfect butt!

Recently at the doctor’s office they played videos in the waiting room on current “health” issues. This weeks issue: How to Get a Butt Like J-Lo. The (male) doctor and (male) professional trainer discussed various strategies as they watched video clips which zoomed in on J-Lo’s rear end.

Because I didn’t want my daughters to hear such comments, and I hope their rear ends are the last things on their mind, I came to the conclusion that skirts would provide a better “veiling”.

The sense of a woman’s dignity as a person, and especially the dignity of motherhood is being degraded and causing such a distortion of a woman’s true worth. For instance, my husband had lunch with a devout Catholic friend who’s beautiful blonde barbie-doll wife has had eight children. He said he can’t get her to stop crying about how big her butt is, no matter how much he tells her how beautiful she is.

Another eye-opener was reading how Junipero Serra and the missionaries had to teach the natives to turn their women around and face them when having relations, rather than just approaching them from behind. Hence the “missionary position” which was intended to promote a less animal approach to the marriage act. Lust turns men into animals, and our culture is returning to this native mindset.

Of course, as with any pious practice, if you fast, recite prayers or wear skirts with an attitude of superiority and pride, then you are an hypocrite. This doesn’t mean we need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. It means we have to change our interior dispostion to one of love. Love for ourselves and our feminine dignitiy as persons, love for the men who are caused to stumble in their thought life by women’s body parts being revealed to them, and love for our neighbor who can simply be unaware of these problems either because they haven’t personally experienced them, or it hasn’t been explained to them in a clear and charitable way.

I keep hearing women say that loose fitting pants don’t cause men problems, but then I hear from men, including my brother, husband, father, and priests who say that it does.  Yet, I don’t think all men have the same amount of problem with it. 

Men of the world will describe themselves as a “breast man” or an “a—man”.  They form habits of “adding up the points” when they view a woman, much as they do at the Miss USA pageant while the girls turn around to give view to every angle.  The breasts count for so many points, the rear for so many…added points for nice thighs.  Some men give more points for certain parts.  Men who have a particular preference for a certain body part form the habit of always checking out that part in every woman who walks by, mentally rating the quality and creating a “best of category” file in their mind.  Groups of guys will get together and discuss these “best of” competitions and men’s magazines will write articles about it. 

“Check out that a—” is a common way for guys to bond with each other, and they will check it out whether the pants are tight or loose, although tight is giving a blatant invitation.  This habit is very hard to break.

My own dear husband has made a concerted effort to undo the habit of “checking it out” and will look away.  He says that he wishes the moms of the girls would not put such things in front of him, however, especially the Christian ones.  Christian moms generally are unaware of the way the male mind works because they are usually pure in thought.  The problems with cleavage are more well known, than the problems with lower parts, and many men don’t want to admit to their problems with their thought life. 

My husband tells my daughters that when a girl wears a skirt and modest top, the eye is drawn to her face-which means that he is seeing her as a person, rather than a group of “parts”.  She also looks like a lady which brings out the “protector” instinct in the guy rather than the “predator” instinct.

I like dresses and skirts, though I don’t wear them much (out of laziness and comfort). I do want to comment, though, that there is a big difference between feminine and frumpy. In as much as our clothes are a testament to others (superficial though it may be), I think it is important to retain flattering, stylish clothes. I don’t think one needs a lot of money to do this, but I just now that I see so many women that take to wearing gunnysack skirts and shapeless blouses in the sake of ‘femininity’. I don’t think this helps evangelization at all.

I’m afraid I said this all rather clumsily, but I hope it makes at least a little sense.

Claire—I guess I’m not reading GK that way. I think he was responding to the Feminist surrender to so many male things and not somehow coercing women to wear skirts or dresses all the time. In fact, he cherishes, respects and elevates women by recognizing their supreme role in maintaining any sort of sanity in the world. He’s only explaining why men “copy” the dignified dress of women when matters are truly important. He goes on to say that he agrees that women were under a shameful tyranny by men in the workplace. He was out to destroy the tyranny, while the Feminists sought to destroy womanhood.
Well, in other places he gives lovely descriptions of women and how they dress. Here is one where he appreciates an attractive touch of “shabbiness”— “... for a woman’s clothes never suit her so well as when they seem to suit her by accident.”

Mark,
I’m a huge fan of GKC, but he’s not infallible and his words must be taken in context.  He’s writing in an age when a women wearing trousers was unusual and women wore trousers because it was a sign of rebellion.  However, he concedes that in a culture where that was usual, it was not seen as a sign of rebellion.
In our culture, it is far more common to see women wearing trousers, or jeans as the case may be.  Since it is no longer associated with a movement that, really, no one who takes this blog seriously supports, I think GKC would consider it normal now.  Now a sign of rebellion would be going braless or sporting a buzz cut.  That’s not under discussion.
And women still honor important occasions (like Mass) with the more dignified garment, thus honoring ourselves the way men no longer do, even on special occasions.

“The missionaries (celibate men) had to teach the natives to “turn their women around…”. Guess the women had no say. They’re just objects. Enjoyment of sex is just for men and all men and women must orchestrate the details of their private moments in accordance with what some other person thinks is better. What rot.”

Actually, it’s just the opposite.  To clarify: The women were being raped from behind.  The missionaires were trying to teach the men to treat the women with more respect as persons (not animals), and to face their lovely bride.

A beautiful facet of the Theology of the Body is the encouragement (not mandate!) for married couples to face one another and to strive for simultaneous climax as a symbol of their total self-giving love for one another.  Pope John Paul II even encouraged employing a sex-therapist for help with this if needed.

The point is that the eyes and face are the window to the soul, and our culture’s obsession with the rear end is a distortion of our human dignity.

Skirt Wearer- I think you should leave the anthropology of native cultures alone before you get yourself in big trouble. You do not know the sexual habits of people of other times and cultures. Honestly I think your comment is completely inappropriate and ought to be removed. You basically just accused other cultures of raping their wives which you have no basis to talk upon.

Regarding skirts- I don’t see how your argument regarding pants is valid. Lots of men find skirts enticing because it implies “easy access”. I don’t think they are necessarily less sexual. When it comes down to it, we as women need to dress modestly but that could happen in pants OR skirts. AFter that it is up to men to learn self-control and self-mastery.

My husband certainly finds them very attractive on me. And honestly the most unwanted attention I have ever gotten from other males has been while wearing skirts (always past the knees).

Honestly “Skirt wearer”‘s comments are so explicit and inappropriate they sound trollish/ Mods? Mods? Anywhere?

Well, one more comment. I just looked back 50 years at some pictures of myself, and I can tell you that the dresses and skirts I wore then were much sexier than the pedal pushers and slacks I wear now. If a man can’t keep his eyes above my chest, then he’s not the man for me. Besides, seems I read somewhere that a survey/study was done and the first thing the majority of men look at, the thing that determines whether they will talk to a woman or not is her face/eyes not below the neckline!!!

Oh, settle down.  If that makes you sick to your stomach, then I’m surprised you can leave the house.  Skirt Wearer, while I don’t completely agree with you, I found your comments fascinating.  Don’t mind that there are people here who can’t read—you made it perfectly clear that no one is mandating sexual positions.  And yes we do know the sexual habits of other cultures—just because you don’t, Claire, doesn’t mean that others have no exposure to anthropology.  And there are cultures wear the men habitually rape their wives—sorry if that, too, is too offensive.  Sometimes the truth isn’t nice.

Positioning is not simply of cultural norms, rather there is evolutionary reasoning behind humans engaging in face to face relations. Off topic, so you or anyone can email me for further discussion.

“To state that Junipero Serra had to teach the Northern Californian and Central Coast Californian native peoples to have sex in what is now known as the “missionary position” because, until he showed up, all the native men were raping their wives is a hateful, bigoted comment and should not be tolerated.”

Ok, come on people—I’ve already gotten in trouble for saying people were acting like fascists on another thread, so I won’t say it here.  But really?  the “speech that shall not be tolerated?”  Really?

Is it true, or is it not?  Obviously, there is disagreement and no consensus on the issue.  So look it up, find out, come back with some info.

Wonderful article, Jennifer! I am delighted you have a column here since you always have a fresh and balanced point of view to share. Genevieve and I have discussed this issue in the past and her insights on this topic are very sensible.

Concepts of appropriate apparel for women (and men) have changed over the years. It used to be considered the height of immodesty doe women not to wear a corset. It also used to be immodest to show one’s ankles but perfectly acceptable for ladies of the world, and a matter of etiquette on formal occasions, to wear a low cut dress. Ideas of modesty have indeed changed.

As anyone can see, slacks, as long as they are not skin-tight, are certainly more modest than mini-skirts or certain revealing dresses. I understand how some women feel uncomfortable in skirts and are unable to work in them. The clothes have to fit the duties at hand. That’s how I see it.

It’s interesting, though, how the Communist angle adds another dimension to the discussion. Yes, breaking down the traditional roles of men and women was always a big part of the Communist agenda. Many of the things which happened in China, Cambodia, and other Asian countries also occurred in Soviet Russia, including the androgynous clothing.

A Soviet Russian fashion designer in the 1920’s was described thus: “Her bold, consciously androgynous design is as good an icon as any for the new Soviet woman emancipated by Bolshevism, shedding the trappings of bourgeois femininity and becoming a productive worker equal to men.” (See: http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue15/russian.htm)

In WITNESS, Whittaker Chambers speaks of how the Communist Party in America encouraged a similar shedding of bourgeois trappings among its members by urging couples to live together unmarried and abort their first child. It was all about making a completely egalitarian society and of course, feminine clothes were among the first things to go.

Has the Church spoken on the topic of pants for women? No. Cardinal Siri, however, made some excellent points in 1960 when he composed his “Notification Concerning Men’s Dress Worn by Women.” It is not a dogma and was never even meant for public consumption but worthy of consideration in light of the current discussion. The Cardinal did not think slacks on women were immodest in themselves but feared they were a symptom of the eventual and overall masculinization of women to the detriment of their role in the family and in society. The Cardinal said:

“Let us think seriously on the import of everything said so far, even if women’s appearing in man’s dress does not immediately give rise to all the upset caused by grave immodesty. The changing of feminine psychology does 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 dress are not all to be seen within a short time. But one must think of what is being slowly and insidiously worn down….What matters is to preserve modesty, together with the eternal sense of femininity which, more than anything else, all children will continue to associate with the face of their mother.”

Strong words from a cardinal of the Church, and though not binding upon the faithful perhaps worth pondering. In many ways, his words were prophetic.

As for apparel in Biblical times,yes, people like to say that men and women dressed the same. While to our American twenty-first century eyes certain ancient ways of dressing seem to resemble each other, it does not mean that to persons of the past it was so. Yes, the Jewish people of Jesus’ time wore long flowing robes, but it should not be taken for granted that in their culture there were not strict delineations between genders. The color and make of fabric varied from person to person, according to status, tribe, age, and sex. The length of sleeves and tunics was much shorter for men than for women. The purpose and symbolism of head coverings varied dramatically between men and women. There were certain marks and distinctions of attire that were for men alone. If men and women’s attire was exactly the same for the ancient Hebrews, then there would not have been the injunction in Deuteronomy 22:5 forbidding women from donning masculine clothes. There was a difference between male and female clothing to them, even if it does not look that way to us.

We veil what is sacred, and a skirt is a kind of veil. Jeans and tight pants reveal far more than they conceal.

@CrlnaBnd: No one is claiming the men were raping their women. Facing one another is not a position that is common to animals, and since observation of animals is how many people learned how to have sex in the first place it is only natural they should imitate what they saw. The missionaries were teaching the men and women to face one another to promote the dignity of each and to increase the intimacy between them. It is far more personal to look into the eyes than it is to stare at the back of the head, after all.

@CrlnaBnd: You are right. I was wrong. There were statements made to the effect that the women were being raped from behind. I am often wrong, and I would be even more wrong were I to deny that.

However, for Christians we are called to get involved in the intimate life of others if what they are doing is a danger to their soul. For instance, as a Christian I cannot turn a blind eye to someone who is using condoms or birth control. I am not allowed to be silent when someone intends to seek an abortion. Because I love them all, and because I desire the salvation of all, I am duty bound to correct them with charity and to call them to repentance.

@Marion;  A half-Century ago, I tried to grow a beard for my home state’s sesquicentennial (150 years).  Our second child, a cute few-months old baby screamed bloody murder when I tried blowing bubbles on her tummy.  My beard apparently was scratchy, and she didn’t appreciate it.  So I gave up, and shaved the offending whiskers.
Btw, she and her husband have been teaching couples for the Couple-To-Couple League for a number of years now - they have five of their own, and we are proud of their accomplishments.
My wife and I do try to dress modestly at Church, but then (quoting Yogi Bear) we have a lot to be modest about.
Found your edicts (borrowing from a British sit-com: “She who must be obeyed) clever, while not to be taken too seriously.
Have a good year.
TeaPot562

I bought my first jeans at 30.  Why? First pains of arthritis.  Thirty plus years later, I still prefer skirts, which are as noted easier to make & fit, easier to wear on a slop-around day.  Try to sit in a modest way in pants, but skirts cover everything!  Even my cat prefers the cosy hammock a skirt presents, over slippery jeans.

But it’s true that totalatarian regimes kill beauty, “useless” flowers and pets, all the tiny daily things that remind us of “God’s grandeur.”  All the originality and diversity of the world move us to joyful prayer.  We can’t have THAT!

TeaPot562 wrote, “Found your edicts (borrowing from a British sit-com: ‘She who must be obeyed’) clever, while not to be taken too seriously.”

Oh! How could I have left some allusion to Hilda Rumpole out of the mix? Thank you, TeaPot. I shall endeavour to correct the oversight next time.

I very much hope that other readers would *not* take my earlier raft of edicts seriously, insofar as anyone who would *seriously* issue edicts of any kind could only be dismissed as one of those poor souls who is, as they say, “two fries short of a Happy Meal.”

However, on the other hand, I do hope many other readers *would* take my earlier edicts seriously insofar as they do represent a serious effort to illuminate the unreasonableness and the preposterousness of those instances in which certain individual Catholics attempt to lay upon their fellows -  in all seriousness, more’s the pity - their own private, personal prescriptions about what woman must and must not wear - when Her Majesty Holy Mother Church herself refrains from so prescribing!!!

Insufferable arrogance. And certain credulous persons have actually believed this and attempt to transmit these to others, deceitfully imputing it to the teachings of Holy Mother Church. When it is nothing of the kind.

Indignant. Women should be indignant anytime they are LIED TO!

@CrlnaBnd: Did I attack you? Step on your feelings? Hurt you in some way? If I did, I certainly apologize as it was not my intent. I can’t help but thinking that I must have since you seem so angry and so defensive and your attack was so crude, offensive, and clearly geared at shutting down communication and erecting barriers between us. 

Catholic teaching does not teach us to stay away from topics of human sexuality. Birth control, condoms, and abortion aren’t the only “bedroom” issues we are taught to teach against. We are taught to teach against masturbation, pornography, sodomy, and fellatio. Yes, it does matter what position a couple uses, as our partner is an image of God and a temple of the Holy Spirit whose inherent dignity and worth must always be respected.

“Call me a fascist because I think it’s racist to claim that all native American men raped their wives as a general practice. You’ve already shown everyone what you really are and what you really believe. You’re a racist and you are dead to me. You no longer exist as far as I’m concerned, no matter what name you go by.”

a) I’m not skirt wearer, I use my own name, thanks.  And I don’t wear skirts—I already said that I don’t completely agree with her, because she brings up an interesting viewpoint.

b) I didn’t call anyone fascist.  But I’m tired of the arrogant intolerance the so-called tolerance have for the expression of views they call repugnant.  Get over yourself.  If you have information that differs from what she says, please do share it.

c) I still exist.  But feel free not to respond, by all means; this kind of statement is pathetic:  “Brandy M Miller, you’re gross. Get your own sex life. Who died and made you God?” but you’ll notice I’m not telling you to sit down and shut up.  No one is. 

But then, you’re a classic troll.

Not much good will in the comments folks. Have you read the Old Testament, have you read St. Paul? There is a lot of rash judgement in some of these comments, very little acknowledgement that men and women are wired differently by nature, and too much evidence of slavish acceptance of what the current culture offers or regards as acceptible. Hard to believe we are in the middle of Lent.

P.S. Confidential to TeaPot562:

Not intended for the eyes of anyone who doesn’t know and love _Rumpole of the Bailey_

I can just imagine Hilda (“She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed”) Rumpole’s reaction if she were informed that Christian women who wear women’s trouser, even of a decent and modest fit, are somehow offending God by so doing.

HILDA: Rumpole, you’ll never believe what that dreadful little man Mr. Ipsqeak told us at lunch.

RUMPOLE (puffing on cigar and not looking up from newspaper): I am agog.

HILDA: Stop it. He told us that women who wear offend the Almighty by so doing.

RUMPOLE (turning page): No!

HIDLA: He said that women must wear only skirts, or they are sinning.

RUMPOLE: My, my! Some people seem to love sin so much, they’re not content with the old proscriptions; they must invent new ones.

HILDA: Hmph. I suppose he would like to come into my dressing room and remove by force the pair of trousers your sister Isabel sent me last Christmas.

RUMPOLE: (relighting cigar and settling more comfortably in his armchair) I’d like to see him try that.

HILDA: The very idea! Dictating to ladies what they may and may not wear. Even the Church doesn’t do that.

RUMPOLE: (murmuring to himself) The vicar knows better than to try.

HILDA: What did you say, Rumpole?

RUMPOLE: (speaking more loudly) I said, the vicar hopes you will bring a pie.

HILDA: What? Oh, yes, for the Church bakesale. Well, I hope he’ll be content with berry; I couldn’t find decent peaches anywhere I looked today. As I was saying, the man who attempts to come into my dressing room and censor my clothes will soon be made to regret it. . . . I say, Rumpole!

RUMPOLE: Hilda?

HILDA: Where do you keep your pistol?

RUMPOLE: My pistol?

HILDA: Your pistol. The one you were issued back during the war.

RUMPOLE: Oh, yes. That pistol. It’s in the back of the bookcase by the fireplace just there.

HILDA: And is it loaded?

(TO BE CONTINUED)

I was for many years the pants wearing woman.  It was comfortable and natural to me.  I had to go back to work and worked at this amazing Christian car dealership.  They appreciated my skills and pretty much let me wear whatever I wanted.  Jeans, sweats even.  So long as I looked presentable and did my job I could do whatever, so I didn’t feel the need to move beyond my jeans.  But then for my birthday one year I was at Dollar General (so not where I normally buy my clothes) and saw these skirts and I bought a couple with my birthday present money.  They were immediately the most comfortable clothes I owned.  I love those skirts, adore them.  I also found this amazing vintage website filled with really quality designer dresses at a very low price.  Now people laugh at me cuz I’m now known as “you and your summer dresses”  but I feel completely feminine in a way I neglected.  I feel lovely, flowy, and still completely functional in everything I do.  yeah, sometimes I still revert to my sweats, but I LOVE and feel amazing in my dresses and skirts.  It’s just my natural evolution as a woman, a wife, a mother.  It’s unexpected but I feel awesome, beautiful, sexy, and so much more.

Erin wrote: “yeah, sometimes I still revert to my sweats, but I LOVE and feel amazing in my dresses and skirts”

That’s nice, Erin, and thanks for sharing.

I think about how I like the results after I get my hair and nails done, when I wear earrings and (not too much) makeup, and nice scarves that coordinate with my other clothes. . .  but of course, all these are matters of purely personal taste - I neither offend nor please God by so doing.

And neither do you, whether you wear modest and decently-cut skirts or trousers.

And neither does any other woman.

Individual personal choices made within the realm of liberty that the good God has bestowed on all human persons can be, indeed, most pleasant experiences.

I am delighted at how you delight in wearing dresses.

LOL, I refer to the business that way because it is a small family run car dealership who has been here for now 51 years, all of the family and the majority of employees are Christians.  We pray together before every company bbq or dinner or event.  The stereo on the showroom floor plays exclusively Christian music.  We talk about faith openly on the showroom floor.  It is more like a business that is like a big family.  Even now, after I have left the business to homeschool my youngest daughter, we are all still very close and always helping and supporting each other in business and family matters.  It was an amazing place to work.

When my youngest son was just a few weeks old, I fell down the stairs and broke my tailbone.  That was almost 3 years ago, and the most recent x-ray confirmed that it is still broken.  Pants are incredibly painful for me to wear, because the seam pushes against my tailbone.

Consequently, I’ve been in skirts and dresses since then.  I have grown to love long skirts (I have done a lot of traveling in the Middle East in the last year and have really enjoyed the skirts available in the stores) - the longer the better - and have really increased my collection of them.  Even when (if) this tailbone ever heals, I don’t think I’ll go back to pants.

Here are some men who won’t ever go back to wearing pants, either.

Many of you will be shocked . . . SHOCKED! at what you are about to see.

I don’t recommend watching it if you don’t have a firm grasp on right and wrong.

What you are about to see are men known to their military enemies as (gasp!) “The Ladies from Hell”

Aaiiiieeeeeeee!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eMCjvHnAYU&feature=related

Well, I can see why the bishops and priests never mention modesty in dress and comportment. Today’s woman/girl simply will not listen and will make life a living hell for anyone who says they are wrong,wrong, wrong. They will not even examine the problem without hurling insults and invective.

Linus wrote, “Today’s woman/girl simply will not listen and will make life a living hell for anyone who says they are wrong,wrong, wrong.”

And we mean to go on doing just that.

Linus, I have an idea for you.  Check out that youtube I linked to above.

Now, I will listen to everything you have to say when you do this: you travel to the U.K. to one of the venues where one of Her Majesty’s Scottish military pipes and drums corps is giving a public performance . . . and go get out in front of those 60 or so six-foot-plus hundred-and-eighty pound crew-cutted pumped up dudes wearing S-K-I-R-T-S, and explain to them that they shouldn’t be wearing “womens’ clothing.”

Then, I mean . . . after you’re released from rehab, and can walk and chew your food and all, again, I will be glad to listen to what you have to say.

Until then. . . I don’t want to hear about it.

I think skirts and pants have a different physical emphasis, and hence present the woman differently.  It would be interesting to see an in-depth analysis done on this topic rather than the more superficial analysis that it continually receives.

What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, I say.

The bishops haven’t yet informed Her Majesty’s Pipe and Drum Corps and those who imitate them, that it is immoral and wrong for them to wear womens’ clothing.

I believe each and every man and woman here should go inform those miscreants that they are offending God and man.

Right now! Lose the kilts, fellows, and put on pants as men are supposed to wear.

And don’t bother to lie and say you told them so when you really didn’t. I’ll be able to see for myself whether you confronted those evil skirt-wearing me . . . because your faces will have been rearranged into most interesting and novel configurations!

Linus wrote: “Well, I can see why the bishops and priests never mention modesty in dress and comportment. Today’s woman/girl simply will not listen and will make life a living hell for anyone who says they are wrong,wrong, wrong. They will not even examine the problem without hurling insults and invective.”

Oh, by the way, if the mission to straighten women out on this matter were truly entrusted to you by God, then you would allow no obstacle nor difficulty would stand in your way.

You would roar forth the truth like a lion, like another Apostle Paul, “hear me, O women of the West! Your immodesty and vanity are pernicious snares for the entrapment of souls! Repent! REPENT!. . . “

See? Like that, Linus.

If your message were indeed from God, you wouldn’t be able to contain yourself from speaking out, even if the females hearing you . . .  what was you said they would do to you . . . ? Make life difficult? Make life a living hell.

Tsk, tsk.

Oh, well, as awful as those things sound, having your life made difficult and all, even that wouldn’t stop you.

If your message were, indeed, from the Lord.

But if it were simply your own private personal opinion, then, of course, that would be another matter entirely.

And the annoyed reactions from your female hearers very probably would reduce you to silence.

And that’s another way you can tell about these things: Is the message indeed from God? Or is it man’s private opinion dressed up as “a message from God”?

One can never be silenced. The other can be. Easily.

Well Marion, you illustrate my points perfectly.

“Well Marion, you illustrate my points perfectly.”

Actually, you illustrate my point perfectly, Linus.

That anything you may have to say to or about women is your own private and personal human opinion, and has nothing to do with God’s views of the subject.

Heck. I have private personal opinions, too. My opinion about men wearing sandals with socks . . . ewwww! Gross! Cut that out. Also the wearing of baseball caps indoors, please.

See? I have my private, personal opinions about what men should and shouldn’t do.

But because I have the awareness that my private, personal opinions are my own, and not directly from God, I don’t come to a Catholic site and try to put them over as coming from on high.

*That’s* the difference between you and me, Linus.

@CrlnaBnd: “The Church does not teach that married couples must have sexual intercourse in any one position only. That’s a deliberate untruth.”

It would be an untruth if I had said it. I didn’t.

As for the continued name calling, please keep going. Christ did say it was a blessing to us when they curse us and call us every kind of name for His sake. Please, feel free to keep blessing me.

Marion, you seem bent on not understanding. Did I say I spoke for God or the Church? Please point out where. The point is not really about ” pants or dresses.” The point is what constitutes modesty in female dress and comportment. Isiah has something to say about that and so does St. Paul. Various moral theologians have had things to say, so has the Church. But no one seems to be listening. And the reaction this discussion has created illustrates perfectly why our bishops and priests never bring it up. ” They have ears but hear not…eyes but see not…” Therefor God gave them up to a perverse spirit.

I am told by my elders that in Communist Poland, a not-so-subtle form of rebellion against the false Communist idea of “equality” (rather than the Catholic idea of equality) was for a gentleman to kiss a woman’s hand upon first meeting.  This refusal to “shake hands like a comrade” not only annoyed the authorities, but kept a valuable idea alive in the minds and hearts of an entire nation.

Please buy some new dresses and toss out your old jeans.

Pants and Dresses.. 113..114 coments… really? Ok, I admit it, I’m a guy and have no idea what anyone is talking about.

I am always amused in these discussions when someone brings up the distressing fact that a woman in trousers reveals herself to have - gasp! - a crotch. What is amusing about that is that the same posters never seem capable of following their own reasoning to the conclusion that men’s crotches should also be ‘veiled’. I mean, c’mon, you have to be wearing some pretty uncomfortably tight pants to reveal the contours of a woman’s genitalia, given the wonderfully tucked away design. Men, on the other hand, would have to wear clown pants in order to avoid revealing some contours of theirs. And yet somehow no one is shouting about how immodest men’s trousers are.

Robes for men! Robes for men! It’s masculine (what would Jesus wear?) and much more modest. Once we amend this horrible sin against modesty and virtue, you can come and take away my maternity slacks.

Ryan,

Please toss out your t-shirts, and wear a nice white button-down shirt with a tie every day, will ya?

Because I said so.

Linus wrote: “The point is what constitutes modesty in female dress and comportment. Isiah has something to say about that and so does St. Paul.”

Here we go. Linus, if you want women to dress as we did in the days of the Bible, now you have us back to ankle-length tunics and a cloak draped over our head and shoulders.

Fine.

I can make decrees about what constitutes male modesty, as well.

Men are not to dress as women. Therefore, I hereby decree that men must dress as they did in the days of the Bible. Men must wear full beards, man-tunics, sandals and carry a staff. Or else they are offending God.

So let it be written. So let it be done.

It cracks me up how strongly people feel about controlling other people’s manner of dress.  Personally?  99% of the time I am in an ankle-length skirt or dress, including when gardening, bicycling, and playing with toddlers.  I find it far more comfortable and less confining, but it is NOT A MORAL ISSUE and it would never occur to me to view it as one.

One serious bonus, though—having a skirt/dress on apparently makes me count as “dressed up” no matter how casual, and I really believe that people treat me more respectfully for that.  I expect dressy pants would get the same treatment.

Viva la difference!

For those who are interested in modesty and comportment, and all should be, you can ” google ” The Forgotten Virtue: Modesty in Dress, and Modesty Feminine-A Christian Home ( about twenty links provided, mostly non-Catholic I think but certainly looks helpful). Also read Isaiah ( 3:16-24) and Paul ( Titus 1:8-10 ), and The Council of Vigilance in Acts of the Apostolic See of Pope Pius XI. If you ” google ” Modesty in Dress you will find much that is helpful. Just about all the moral theologians and more than a few Popes have warned men and women, but especially women, not to be slaves to the fashions and behaviors of the day ( whether that Day was a thousand years ago or today matters not). All have agreed that without modesty in dress and comportment purity and chastity become impossible and to dress or behave ( comport oneself )immodesty can be a mortal sin, given the usual conditions of knowledge that an act would be a mortal sin, due deliberation, and full consent. And always, intent can itself be significant in the gravity of a given act.

No matter how much I disagree, your post was lovely.    I own several pairs of flowing type pants with flowers on them.    It’s easy to be pretty and feminine in pants.    Much more feminine and pretty than long denim jumpers or long khaki skirts. 

Whenever I read the pro-skirt comments, I’m always struck by how oppressive a small but very vocal core group of traditionalists are.    They’re really about putting women in their place.    I have a question for the wearing pants is wrong crowd - Do you think it’s ok for a wife and mother to work outside the home, not out of any burning financial necessity, but with the rationale that it makes her personally a better wife and mother?

Linus wrote: “For those who are interested in modesty and comportment, and all should be . . .”

Indeed, I yield to no one in my interest in all of the virtues, modesty included.

The difference is, Linus, I am interested in ALL of the virtues, not just one.

And my interest in the virtue of justice leads me to prescribe that all Christians must be giving no less than 10% of their pre-tax income to the Church. And if you disagree, then you are offending against the virtue of justice, for the Bible states clearly that we are to tithe unto the Lord.

And there are no excuses for not meeting this obligation.

So, Linus, if I find out that at least 10% of your pre-tax income isn’t going to your parish, I will be very shocked and repelled at your flaunting this requirement of justice, and will esteem you as having one foot already upon the slippery slope that leads to loss.

Marion,
Do you have a blog?

Linus,
please see my comment above to Waljoy.  I’m pretty sure I wasn’t trying to make life hell for anyone.  Yet, none of my points were addressed.

@rosemarie kury “And by the way, tops that are feminine AND modest are also difficult to find.  Many of them have plunging necklines”.

I have no problem finding modest clothing.  There are plenty of options at Banana Republic and Ann Taylor.  Even with the plunging necklines you can add silk tanks or camisoles or even scarves underneath that cover perfectly.  I’m in my thirties so I’m very into fashion and I still have no issues being modest.  I love my ¾ quarter length mocknecks.  Good luck!

And Marion how do you know that I don’t tithe? But to answer your rash judgement, I do tithe and more. So does that make me just? But once again you raise a red herring. The discussion is about modesty and comportment. I have given you and the others sources, you don’t have to take my word for it. No one can deny that that is a legitimate moral question and all are morally obliged to make serious efforts to inform themselves. To willfully remain ignorant is to be morally guilty of all evil acts steming from the willful ignorance. If you want the last word, go ahead, I’ve done what I can to inform.

Don’t you think that if this was really as important as some of you make it out to be, that the Holy Father would have made a pronouncement on it by now? As far as I know, no pope within the last century has issued a pronouncement of any kind indicating that all women *must wear skirts or dresses*. Don’t you think he would have if it was actually that important?

The Church seems to always make time to talk about the important things, like abortion, and contraception, and not killing innocent people. ever.

If it were really true that the *only* modest fashion available for women was ankle length skirts or dresses, and *anything else* was an occasion for sin, and the Holy Father knew that, because God shared that with him, then don’t you think he would have taken the time to tell us all about it? The truth is the truth in or out of season, and I’m sure a man such as Benedict XVI is not going to be cowed out of the proclaiming the truth on this *very important* issue by a bunch of American women. Unless of course, he hasn’t issued a statement about it because he’s got more important things to worry about. Like the middle east burning down, and Christians being slaughtered around the world, to name just a few.

By comparison, let’s look at the 322,000 abortions that Planned Parenthood performed this past year. Is it a much better use of time to sit on this message board and argue with blowhards that want to make all of us look like we rolled out of The 19th Wife, or to call our congressional rep. and urge them to de-fund PP, because the murder of innocent children, unlike whether we wear pants or skirts, is something that matters.

Kate: I brought up crotches, so I should explain. Men and women are hard-wired differently, as neurological science has proven. We’ve know since forever that men can be sexually aroused with visual triggers, which is not true for women. I remember when women latched onto the notion of being raunchy like men and then we were introduced to the Chippendale men, who were physically attractive men who were supposed to be the equivalent of Playboy bunnies. It flopped totally, because women aren’t looking for hotties as eye candy. From time immemorial, women have wanted love, and even the raciest of girls from high school on (those who slept around) were just broken little girls seeking affection.

Thus, women aren’t distracted by men’s crotches unless they’re dressed ridiculously or have forgotten to zip their fly.

Love this post. By the way, when someone says that a woman crawling all over could not be so modest made me laugh. You see when I go in public and see the skin tight shirts with the breast hanging out, I do not see modesty. Funny how wearing a skirt can make one immodest if one crawls around but the beach wear is seen as ok…sigh.

Hmmm, Sarah, ever think that our lack of modesty is linked to those 322,000 abortions one eensy weensy bit? The Church does speak constantly and forthrightly about virtue, but the pope has the sense to leave it to the local communities to discuss how to live it. I believe that’s what this discussion is for.

True, CrinaBnd, and yet I’d like to think that you noticed the man on the beach because of aesthetics, since you happened to notice that he was fearfully, wonderfully made. I must even point out that you saw him as a whole, not a set of body parts, which is due to your integrated brain :-)

(I’d also bet that if you knew for certain that he was a chronic liar and vain that it would impact how you saw him.)

@Skirt Wearer, first you say that men look at your body whether it is completely covered in loose clothing or not and than at the end you say that if you wear modest clothing they look at your face.  Which one is it?  Why aren’t men being held accountable for their lustful thoughts?

@Claire, I totally agree with everything you said.  The more covered up and modestly I dress I get the most attention.

To some other commenters: yes, women ( and men ) do have a moral obligation to find out what the Church teaches on the issue of modesty. A grave obligation, even. So much so that the Catechism of the Catholic Church has a few sections devoted to it. So all Catholics should read it. Also, Pope John Paul II wrote a lot on the issue, even when he was a bishop. Also, moral theologians in union with Rome still exist, and they still write on this issue, and work to apply the Church’s teachings to modern times. I have also read several orthodox priests and well-known writers on the issue. Not one of them says women must never wear pants.

Also, what some commenters do not get is that the guidelines named by Pius XII in the 1940s are less strict than those by Pius XI ten years earlier, whose standards would have been scoffed at themselves just 20 yeas earlier than that. The point is that these were nor intended as universal for all time. For the record, Pius XII’s standards would have been absolutely scandalous by the standards of St. Paul, or even St. Thomas Aquinas.

I also resent those stupid and filled with enough venom to think that God has prepared a place in hell for all those geriatric prayer warriors one sees in church every day. Do you really think God is going to send pious grandma to hell for wearing pants, for “not digging deep enough” to find what past theologians not living in their time and culture has to say? It’s impossible to have such an opinion without judging the souls of the vast majority of even devout women.

And one more thing for the people who rail on this issue: before I encountered this crap on Catholic blogs, I hardly noticed anything sexual about women’s clothing unless it was deliberately provocative: tight jeans, low neckline with cleavage, etc. Modesty was an issue of common sense. Now, because I’ve read all this crap in various discussions, I see sex everywhere, and it’s hard to not think something sexual when a woman is wearing even the most normal of clothing. So where before, even as an unchaste young man, I didn’t bat am eye, or saw nothing sexual, now I constantly worry about such things. So thank you, trads, for making this a bigger issue than it is - thank you, because I didn’t have enough to worry about, and because you are all oh so concerned for the “glory of god”, now I have the opportunity to struggle with scrupulosity and to see lust in all places where it was never intended. Thanks.

And that’s the thing - lots of you care more about being right, being a remnant, than you do about the glory of go or the salvation of souls. You “know” you’re one of the “very few” who are saved, and you make it known. Did you ever stop and think that perhaps priests don’t rail on the pants issue because, as trained pastors of souls, they do not think it’s an issue? No, because you’re holier than the church, so the obvious answer is that theyare bad priests or at least afraid to speak the truth, unlike those who like John the Baptist proclaim the Truth on Internet discussion boards and comment boxes.

Btw “culpable ignorance” only refers to the duty people have to know what the Church teacheS. No one has an obligation to know the thoughts and opinions of past churchmen, no matter how venerable. It can be commendable, but as far as moral obligation is concerned, it’s hard to make a rule out of anything not addressed in the catechism, not even current in the Church’s discourse.

And “fashion” refers to passing trends, not things that are a central part of a woman’s or man’s wardrobe, that they would have grown up with (or without). Railing on women for wearing pants is like railing on them for not wearing corsets. Most women simply grew up with pants as part of rhe female wardrobe. It’s not a “fashion” thing (“pants are IN this year!”). And let’s not forget that pants on men were also considered indecent at some point. It was also indecent to remove one’s outer coat, hence all those soldiers marching through the mississippi valley in the summertime with wool coats over their long-sleeved shirts.

Well, it seems that according to some, it’s a sin to be attractive. I once read some guy saying that men should train themselves to be repulsed by the sight of beautiful women.

Need I remind some people that the Church Fathers almost universally thought women shoul veil their faces and heads on public? Tertullian actually praised the burkah. Do you think or one minute culture may play a role in considering what is and is not acceptable? Does anyone think lust is any less of a problem in Arabia?

And I am not suggesting that immodesty is okay. Immodesty is wrong and when deliberate, sinful. I do have a problem with finding immodesty where it does not exist.

The very concept that male and females are categorically different has nearly been abolished. The idea that pants are what men where and dress what women wear seems archaic because here in the ‘new world’ we are used to the schizophrenic mentality that one can be anyone they want to be. I have found out for instance that there are common foods that do me more harm than good due to my blood type. I have seen people come from another country and get emotionally ill do to the sudden diet and cultural change do to moving to a new country. The reality that we are biologically and psychologically determined has been washed away with that same communist idea promulgated by Mao in the article above because either way we are all good ‘drones’. Men and women are not equal to one another if that is to mean the same, they are different and we need that difference. Nothing operates out of a sense of equal, equal is when things stop. In order to get an operation done it requires a dominant and a submissive quality, a strong and a weak quality an aggressive and a passive quality, in the end it requires a masculine and feminine quality. A man constitutes one male and one female. When we live this new secular lifestyle each person tries to be an island of their own and are really only fooling themselves whereas true psychological maturity comes from recognizing ones dependance on others and God to get anything accomplished, that is the hard pill to swallow.  We only have to see the intense gender confusion that is here in the U.S. where young people are injecting themselves with hormones believing that somehow they can live out their lives as the opposite sex, when in fact sex is both biological and psychological and one can’t simple ‘costume up’ as the opposite sex and carry on as if they were that, not in reality. This was a very important post and as always I get my best psychological insights from women.

There are other items of dress that were designed for men: button-down shirts and athletic shoes, just to name a few. But anyone with a brain knows that there are feminine shirts andthere are masculine shirts. There was also a time when men did not wear trousers, as it was seen as vulgar, barbaric, and immodest.

The truth is, there are women’s pants and men’s pants, just as there are men’s shirts and women’s shirts. Only a fool would confuse them, and it takes mental gymnastics to see women’s pants as “masculine” in any way. If that’s the case, I challenge the men who think so to start wearing women’s pants.

And once again, to have a preference is one thing. I personally think shirts are prettier and more feminine, and I wish women still wore them more often. But to impute sin onto women for wearing pants is simply wrong. And implying hellfire for middle-aged and elderly pious women is more than wrong, it is evil. To tell someone thy are sinning or to tell them they are going to hell when the church teaches no such thing is simply evil. And folks who insist on doing so should consider joining a “holiness” Protestant church, where you are allowed to make up your own rules and impose them on your congregation.

I think this very post demonstrates well the difference between the two NCRs. One addresses matters important to the church and society, the other talks about skirts.

I haven’t seen very many comments that address your thesis, since these sorts of essays always derail very quickly into “women ought or ought not wear pants” debates.  Ugh.  But I’m going to give it a shot.

What I took out of this was firstly the question of whether choosing skirts over trousers is a positive celebration and statement of femininity to the world.

I think the answer to this hinges entirely on the question of whether skirts are inherently feminine, or their femininity is an acquired attribute.  (It’s an interesting question, especially in the light of how many languages assign gender to nouns.)  And I don’t have a definitive answer, just my own opinions.

I say that the femininity of skirts was acquired through centuries of association as women’s dress.  I can think of half a dozen Just So stories off the top of my head as to WHY they became associated with women’s dress, but that’s all they’d be.  And, like any proper scientist, I loathe a Just So story passed off as fact.  Anyway.  I find nothing inherently feminine about a vaguely conical tube of fabric that sits at the waist and covers the lower half the the body.  Compared to a noun like ‘motherhood’, I have to conclude that skirts acquired their femininity via association.  And I fail to see why other clothing that is obviously cut and styled for women can’t acquire the same femininity.

Geeklady - that’s about as sensible as it gets. In fact, it explains how pants got to be “masculine” in the first place. What’s funny is that women darted to wear pants for the same reason men did - convenience and practicality. And the women who most often cite this as true are not burly lesbian plumbers, but those engaged on the most inherently feminine profession imaginable - stay-at-home moms who spend all day herding toddlers.

Of course, some on is going to say “is it worth burning in he’ll for the sake of convenience?”, thus revealing the fact that he is indeed fixated on women’s bottoms and likes to transfer his lust problems onto women. He’d probably agree with the Church Fathers that women’s faces should be covers in public. Of course, the Church Fathers had the excuse of going by the standards of their time, do they can’t be accused if seeing immodesty where it didn’t exist. People who have grown up in a culture where their mom, grandma, and every person they know wore pants will tend not to have lust problems when seeing a woman in a normal pair of pants, unless they have been told that they should by the ever-so-charitable holier than the pope types.

The comments by CrlnaBnd are vile and unChristian, particularly the use of the racist term “cracker” is extremely offensive.

I have not read all the comments, but I would highly recommend a book, Dressing with Dignity. Any woman who reads it and still insists that wearing trousers is perfectly OK, needs to re-read it. I admit I wear trousers (pants) to Mass often, but never jeans, and never anything skin-tight. It is a scandal to see extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist distributing the host and the cup, when they are wearing jeans and a low-cut blouse. Seems to almost be the “norm.” I grew up in a time long ago when young ladies were told point-blank, “if you dress in such a way as to arouse a man, you are at fault.” Now we are not at fault for every such sin, because the men have to take responsibility for not giving in to the temptation. I am afraid most younger women (and some older ones who should know better) don’t have a clue. I see a good trend: more and more skirts being sold in dress shops, and even some of the online stores are selling more and more modest blouses and shirts. And if you can’t find any, learn how to sew your own skirts; they can be made without a pattern. Now, if the women TV anchors and others (cooking shows) would stop parading their breasts in front of everyone, that would go a long way toward bringing back a sense of modesty and dignity and the sacredness of the human body. That’s the bottom line. Jeans and pants are great for hiking or camping. We Christian women need to start a trend toward modest attractive clothing!

Linus, if you’re still reading this thread, I wish you to know that my earlier question to you about whether you tithed 10% of your pre-tax income to the Church, was not posed with the intention of receiving an answer to the question, but was posed to illustrate how very out-of-line such a question is when asked by one layperson to another.

I should have expected your (at least immediate) response to have been: “now, there’s unmitigated effrontery! The very idea - a complete stranger demanding information about my private finances. It doesn’t bear thinking of. Either I shan’t answer her at all, or I shall put her in her place by replying, ‘my good woman, I really think that is none of your business, and I’ll thank you not to go nosing about in my personal matters again.”

But . . . no! You replied! And very probably truthfully. Which I wasn’t expecting, at all.

Good boundaries mean that I have my place and I know it; others have their places and they know theirs. I don’t get all up in other peoples’ business, nor do I tolerate them getting in mine, at least, not uninvited. I enjoy having lots of friendly neighbors around me on every side, and we visit back and forth often, but I tend to spend much of my time in my own yard, and I expect my neighbors to respect my space and my yard, as I respect theirs. There are cute, low white picket-fences between me and others - fences that we can see through, talk through, lean on and chat on, exchange cups of sugar or freshly-baked brownies over . . . but they know what they can and cannot do while on their side, and what they can and cannot do without my permission while visiting on my side, unless invited. There are gates, too, and either of us can walk through the gates; but we don’t cross the gates without an invitation.

I weed, plant, trim hedges, fertilize wander, thatch, rake, bag, shovel, always only on my own property, not on my neighbrs’ property, unless we arrange to do so ahead-of-hand. Naturally if my neighbor is ill or away, I pitch in gladly, and without waiting to be asked - we all do - but in general, I don’t interfere with my neighbor’s management of his or her own yard. If I want to borrow their equipment, I don’t go striding over into their tool sheds and help myself. I ask permission. When I’m done with their tools, I carefully wipe them clean, and return them, properly stowed in the spot my neighbor prefers to keep them. And I gladly lend my neighbor anything he or she asks, but I expect those items to be returned in at least as good condition as they were lent as soon as he or she is done with them.

It’s called respect.

And I think many traditionalists don’t have mental boundaries that operate in the way that normal people’s do, and I don’t think that many traditionalists have the faintest conception of the kind of respect that should flow between equals - like neighbors. I think many traddies understand hierarchical respect toward superiors, respect that flows upwards, if you will, but not between equals, that nice, cheerful, easy-going, take ‘em as you find ‘em, Midwestern, just folks, “well, that’s just fine with me, neighbor, if it’s fine with you” type of neighborly give-and-take that normal, well-adjusted, lay individuals ought to be able to exhibit toward one another.

I think many traddies don’t know how to treat people in that way. I think many may be like Dwight Shrute on “The Office”: all persons are either above him or beneath them. They are either Dwight’s inferior or his superior. There are no equals; when Dwight encounters someone who demands he treat them as an equal, this sets up an unbearable tension, because the equal might surpass or sabotage Dwight. He has to stay one up on them at all times, keep them slightly beneath him, so that he doesn’t end up slightly beneath them.

I think many Traddie men are very uncomfortable about the idea of women being their equals in any meaningful way. These men, I think, need to keep themselves one step above the women at all times. Setting forth rules and regulations that women must obey is not for these men, about fidelity to the Church, it is about maintaining their superiority to females.

This is about not good boundaries. This is about people who aren’t very healthy.

P.S. I wasn’t including Linus in my remarks about “many traddies” who, I believe, sometimes exhibit signs of unhealthy boundaries and an inability to relate to women as equals.

The conversation Linus and I were having was just a springboard, a take-off point, from which I went on to write about many traddies.

I don’t know Linus; have never met him, have corresponded with him only a few times just on this thread, and my subsequent remarks were not intended to apply to him personally. Only that our conversation got me thinking about certain traddies I have read or corresponded with more extensively, that is all.

Also, “many traddies” is not the same as “all traddies”. I am sure that there do exist traddie men who can relate easily to others, even women, as equals, and who are able to maintain healthy boundaries in their dealings with others. And Linus is very probably one of them, most of the time.

Thank you.

My husband and I are both traditionalists or “traddies” and my husband has NO issue with considering me an equal.  We are both equal partners.  We are happy and great together.  He has no need to keep himself a step above me.  There are no rules I must obey.  He is in now way superior to me.  He is my equal.  And I am his equal. 

My girls are happy, well adjusted and succesful in their educational and social lives.  And as daughters they also understand themselves to be the equals of men. 

So the idea that traditionalists who believe in women dressing like ladies leads to a mysoginistic way of life is ABSURD. 

I was born in hollywood, grew up in all different parts of LA, and have seen many walks of life.  I transplanted to the country in the midwest.  I married someone who lived a different life from a different culture.  The atypical “hick” and wow I got lucky in marrying a man who not only shared my beliefs in marriage, life, love, but also KNOWS me to be his equal. 

When we were dating he chose me because he knew I was strong and intelligent, that I was completely capable of caring for my family on my own, and he loved the way my skirts looked on me.  But he still thought I was beautiful in jeans, in sweats, whatever. 

The idea that somehow because he has traditional views, or because I do, that he thinks he is superior to me and I must obey him or that I in any way feel subserviant to him because I choose to wear skirts, dress more femininely now, it’s nonsense. 

We are traditionalists, we are equals.  We know what gifts God has given us as men and women, and we know how to work successfully as a team, sharing what we are good at and growing together.  I have NEVER felt subserviant to him and he has never felt that way towards me.  We just chose to live a life that is something that we find equally rewarding.

Okay, Erin, let’s agree that your husband is a traditionalist man who is not one of the traditionalist men that has trouble with boundaries, and with relating to others, especially women, as equals.

I’m happy for you. But not surprised.

Many - but not all - traditionalists seem to me to have trouble with healthy boundaries, and with relating to others, especially women, as equals.

But not all.

Not your husband, for example. And probably not Linus, most of the time, either.

But quite a few traddies do strike me in this way, just the same.

But, not your husband.

Thank you.  I just want it understood that not all traditionalists fall into one typical view.  Not as men, or women, or parents.  And every definition we place on people can create ideas of what it means, but no one always fits any mold. 

As a woman who has worked to support my family but spends most of her time as a housewife and a homeschooler, I could have a million stigmas of what others think on my back. 

I work with my community, mentor children in troubled homes, volunteer helping all kinds of different families and groups in need. 

I am actually considering working on becoming a public speaker. 

I sing, I dance, I sew, and I live every steryotype of a housewife, but I contribute to my family, to my community, to my friends, and I feel very happy and fortunate.

I am an educated woman, and a leader, but I’m really just happy to be me.  Many people think what I do is a shortcoming, but the truth is that I have a life FILLED with work, in so many ways.  And it makes me a better woman, and it makes me happy. 

So I think rather than worry about whether some people are possibly thinking in a negative way based on a mode of thinking related to dress, I’d be better working on sharing my own joy, through intelligence and freedom of thought and God’s plans for us.  I can serve people better by being smart and strong and encouraging them to do the same. 

It’s a lot easier to share the Kingdom of Heaven if we simply share and show our joy in our own growth.  But it’s just how I have seen the world for the past few years.

I would one day really enjoy reading the reflections of a traditionalist who is of a laid-back mellow temperament, and who is modest, humble, and unassuming, that is, who wouldn’t dream of telling others what to do (unless asked to do so).

Because many of my family and friends consider me to have one foot in the 17th century.

(The thing is, my other foot is in the 23rd.)

Are there traddies who are content to sit back and let others discover things for themselves, and who also like things like science fiction?

Both women AND men should wear skirts, makeup, heels, leggings, etc.  But what should happen is that they’re MADE DIFFERENT from each other.  For example, men’s skirts would be shaped to fit the male body rather than the female body, not be frilly, and made of a different material.  Also, men’s makeup should be in colors such as blue, brown, and grey (not red or pink).  In short, BOTH genders should be fashionable.

David wrote: “Both women AND men should wear skirts, makeup, heels, leggings. . . in short, BOTH genders should be fashionable.”

Hey, I asked if there are trads who like science fiction, and we got someone who likes to write science fiction! Outasite! 

.

.

.

Except, somehow, I don’t think David is a traddie.

And I don’t think we’re in Kansas anymore, either.

You know what I’m starting to think?  That some long-oversized-dirndl-skirt wearing women are just so darn angry that some of us wear jeans and pants and pencil skirts and yeah, even above-the-knee skirts. Because it’s never pencil skirts and fashionable dresses they promote; it’s Amish/LDS/Ma Ingalls subservient-wear that they want us to don.  Why? Because they’d look like crap in fashionable clothes.  And they’re jealous. So if they can’t wear them, they’ll tell everyone who’ll listen that the way they dress (are) is the holier way and everyone should do it just like them.  If they’ve gotta look like they’re wearing schmattas from Kiryas Joel, then you do, too!

Guess what?  No.

The Fabulous One wrote, “Why? Because they’d look like crap in fashionable clothes.  And they’re jealous. So if they can’t wear them, they’ll tell everyone who’ll listen that the way they dress (are) is the holier way and everyone should do it just like them.

Well. “Fashionable clothes.” This is a Catholic site, and presumably a discussion about what Catholic women think about wearing clothes. So, Catholic women who prioritize God in their lives wouldn’t be all about prioritizing their clothing choices according to fashion in the way that women who aren’t Catholic and don’t put God first do.

Catholic women who put God first in their lives would not prioritize “fashion,” they would prioritze modesty and also justice.

The justice part first - even if she could well afford a $1,000 sweater and a $850 pair of jeans and a $1,200 pair of shoes, a Catholic woman who loves God would be mindful of the poor and the needy, and would never choose to lavish such large sums of money to clothe herself according to the latest luxurious fashion, when she could clothe herself reasonably well and look reasonably presentable in perfectly nice but not such expensive clothing - and give the remainder of that money to assist the needy. So, a very wealthy Catholic woman who loves God may be criticized as “cheap” and “dowdy” by her affluent neighbors because she never wears ultra-deluxe this season’s designer clothing, but so what? She buys reasonably nice things, wears them, but also sees to it that the poor and the destitute in her community have something nice and warm to put on when it’s cold outside.

Modesty, I think, would mean that a woman might dress fashionably and attractively, not wearing baggy, boxy clothes, but here’s what it means, I think. That if a Don Juan entered a roomful of attractively dressed and stylishly dressed women at a social gathering, that this attractively and stylishly dressed woman would be the *last* one he would approach. Not because she’s not attractive, and stylish. Maybe she’s even hot. But compared to the other women in the room, she is the last one to give off signals by both her dress and demeanor, that the advances of a Don Juan would be welcome. He knows at a glance that he’d be shot down. So, he gives her a pass. She’s not wearing boxy frumpy shapeless garments, but compared to what’s out there among average women, she’s the last one any guy would describe as “enticing” or “provocative.”

She’s not signalling “I’m repulsive;” she’s signalling, “hold your horses, Charlie.” And it’s not just how she’s dressed; it’s how she carries herself, how she uses her eyes, and her voice, as well. That’s modesty.

At Fatima, Jacinta said: “Many fashions will be introduced that
will greatly offend the Lord” and “Woe to women wanting in modesty.”

The Pope said in Fatima on 13 May 2010 that the fulfillment of the prophecies of Fatima is “in the future…”

The Bible says the male is the head of the female.
Aquinas says men and women are not absolutely equal but that the male sex is nobler than the female, this is why the saviour took the male sex.
so it is correct to say women are of lesser dignity than men.

supremeconscience wrote: “At Fatima, Jacinta said: ‘Many fashions will be introduced that will greatly offend the Lord’ and ‘Woe to women wanting in modesty.’”

This means what, specifically? That to the extent that the clothes and appearance of a woman living in 2011 varies from what devout women in 1917 Portugal wore, she risks offending the Lord?

See, that’s outre’, to me. Out there.

And besides, surely if this were the case, then His Holiness Pope John Paul II and His Holiness Pope Benedict (the shepherds whose pontificates ranged over my adult lifetime) would have let women know that they are to wear what women in 1917 Portugal wore.

I think what Our Lady was referring to was that more and more fashions will be introduced that are intended to be worn by women specifically for the enticement of men: Either specifically intending to incite lust or at least content to do so in order that the wearer may gratify her inordinate desire to call attention to her assets.

Those are two different attitudes.

I don’t believe that Our Lord and Our Lady are offended when we wear other than 1917 Portugal baggy shapeless garments. I believe they are offended when we as women dress ourselves so as to call attention to our assets in a manner that appears to entice improperly.

But, everybody has different interpretations. I rely on what the Magesterium to guide me in these matters.

Non-magesterial guidance strikes me as coming from someone with . . .  forgive me for repeating myself . . .  boundary issues.

“Hey, I asked if there are trads who like science fiction, and we got someone who likes to write science fiction! Outasite!” 

Marion, I can’t tell if you are for or against men and women having the same fashion options.

David wrote: “Marion, I can’t tell if you are for or against men and women having the same fashion options.”

Hi, David.

I’m hoping to continue a discussion with serious-minded Christians about how lay men and women may most profitably grow in virtuous service to the Lord, specifically in the area of clothing and general appearance, while successfully embedded in the larger culture, that is, the field in which we are called to labor.

How does that goal of mine fit with your question?

I’m still not that clear.  Are you saying that God does not look at the outside of men and women (appearance), but rather the inside (how they act and think)?  Or, perhaps, that it does not matter what people wear as long as they dress modestly (like skirts that are not too short)?

supremeconscience conscience said “At Fatima, Jacinta said: ‘Many fashions will be introduced that will greatly offend the Lord’ and ‘Woe to women wanting in modesty.’

This is only partially accurate. The quote actually was “Many fashions will be introduced that will greatly offend the Lord. Woe to heavier women wanting in modesty.” Which has been interpreted by church schoalrs to mean that fatties shouldn’t try to wear clothes that accentuate their excessive pounds.

David asks: “Are you saying that God does not look at the outside of men and women (appearance), but rather the inside (how they act and think)?  Or, perhaps, that it does not matter what people wear as long as they dress modestly (like skirts that are not too short)?”

David, I would prove myself to be someone who has not accepted the Magesterial teachings of Holy Mother Church if I were to assert that “God not look at the appearance of men and women” or if I were to assert that “it doesn’t matter what people wear as long as they dress modestly.”

Therefore, let us set that notion aside, and agree that I am an obedient daughter of the Church.

I believe that the Doctors of the Church have spoken of the virtue of modesty in dress in three senses, which, for purposes of this discussion, we might agree to refer to as modesty-sub-one (modesty-1); modesty-sub-two (modesty-2); and modesty-sub-three (modesty-3). That would be, modesty-1 - to dress so as not to inordinately entice the generative passions in the commonality of persons; modesty-2 - to dress so as not to indulge in inordinate luxury, which is also unfitting to Christians; and modesty-3 - to dress suitably and becomingly to the place and occasion at hand, without drawing to oneself inordinate attention of any kind.

In the end, it always comes back to modesty and gender correct clothing.  In the West, maie and female clothing is quite distinct, to the point that no one can get away with wearing the other’s pants, shirts or jackets, even though at first glance these are all similar.  Let a man wear women’s pants and he is forever a transvestite and for the opposite a woman is looked on as frumpy and butchy if she wears men’s pants and tees.  Men’s and Women’s clothing is so distinct in our culture, that the only real issue in these debates is modesty.  Whether dresses or pants, women’s clothing is often not modest; that is the real task for women today, to dress femininely, yet modestly; a task most actively Christian women handle very well and the far majority in pants

P.S. to David, the saints have written of modesty not only in dress, but in language, in demeanor, in comportment, in choice of companions, of pasttimes, and places of resort. For both men and women.

And the saints have advised the greatest possible delicacy and circumspection of language when discussing matters that touch on human generation. So you won’t hear from me remarks that aren’t “safe for the workplace” that include references to specific anatomical features, and so on.

That would be WA-A-A-AY immodest. Right there. So advocates of modesty who exceed the bounds of delicacy and circumspection in their language have already fallen on their own swords, so to speak. Zero cred.

JT,
You are wrong. JT you are trolling. The quotes I give are fully correct.
I have checked with multiple sources.

At Fatima, Jacinta said: “Many fashions will be introduced that
will greatly offend the Lord” and “Woe to women wanting in modesty.”

The Pope said in Fatima on 13 May 2010 that the fulfillment of the prophecies of Fatima is “in the future…”

CrlnaBnd wrote: “Marion—usurping comboxes is a form of immodesty, too. Just so you know.”

Touche’! You’re right, CB.

I am nailed, and tickled at the same time, by your observation.

I excuse myself from on the grounds that this is a serious topic, that I have not often seen discussed among other Christians, and that other readers are perfectly free to ignore my remarks if they do not care for them.

Marion,

I agree with what you say here.

“I think what Our Lady was referring to was that more and more fashions will be introduced that are intended to be worn by women specifically for the enticement of men: Either specifically intending to incite lust or at least content to do so in order that the wearer may gratify her inordinate desire to call attention to her assets. They are twoo different attiutdes.”

P.S. CrlnaBnd, I appreciate your smack-down, not only because I may be offending against the virtue of modesty, but worse, that I run the risk of offending God and neighbor by neglecting my other duties. Which would not be good.

I hope you and others will keep me in your prayers regarding this.

Thank you.

Sorry, supremeconscience. You are right. I was thinking of Our Lady’s messages at Medjugorje. Mary told Mirjana that it looked like she was putting on weight and might want to stay out of the public’s eye until she slimmed down and looked more appropriate.

You should have asked Simcha what happens on “pants” threads.

Marion, when you say “gratify her desire to call inordinate attention to her assets”, I think that is where people run into trouble, and where shapeless denim jumpers enter the scene. This is also where people jump in and condemn ALL swimsuits or athletic wear. The problem is that no matter what a woman wears, her feminine shape is visible - one can “tell she’s a woman” so to speak. This includes even the most modest clothing if tailored. And I believe it would be absurd to tell a woman to HIDE her shape, and certainly the last pope has encouraged athletics for men and women.

I have seen people insist that women wear clothing that hides their waistline, for Pete’s sake. O have also seen peole insist that women not wear colors. In the end, there are Catholics who truly will not be happy unless a woman dresses like women in Afghanistan do. How do we not end up with the idea that a woman’s beauty and natural shape us an evil ray that zaps men with lust (as the trad I read who recommended training oneself to be repulsed at women’s bodies so as to avoid lust seemed to think), or the idea that women must adhere to the same amount of coverage for every activity (once read a father claiming he makes his daughter wear a long-sleeve shirt and an ankle-length skirt to go jogging because “it’s hot outside but hell is a lot hotter”).

I personally think modesty is much a matter of common sense, and that one knows it when they see it, and one knows immodesty the same way. If we insist on seeing immodesty in places where most people don’t, I think it indicates not purity, but a preoccupation with sexuality and lust issues (i never once thought pants were sonethig sexual til i started reading certain men on catholic commnent boxes, and now i see sex in places it was never intended to be). I agree that Our Lady did not mean women must dress as they did in 1917 Portugal - otherwise most styles preferred by modesty advocates would be considered indecent. Lack of modesty in men and women also includes speech - which cannot be stressed enough.

Chase wrote:  “If we insist on seeing immodesty in places where most people don’t, I think it indicates not purity, but a preoccupation with sexuality and lust issues (i never once thought pants were something sexual til I started reading certain men on Catholic comment boxes, and now i see sex in places it was never intended to be).”

Eloquently said, Chase.

I agree that an over-preoccupation with these sorts of matters can indicate not virtue on one’s part, but an unhealthy and unbalanced absorption in something that is not holy at all. To be overly mindful of troubles, travails, sins, especially the sins and faults of others, is not the mindset of the saints, whose lives gave evidence of a glorious and joyful FREEDOM from that sort of thing, and who undertook to labor for God among the most unimaginably distressing and distracting circumstances, but who remained at peace, their eyes fixed on Jesus and on Mary.

Yes, when their duty to God required them to offer correction to the sinners and the faint-of-heart, the saints did not hesitate to do so. But here is the difference: generally speaking, and with some few exceptions, the great saints were not unduly preoccupied with the sins and faults of others, and they did not impose prescriptions on others not already offered by the Magesterium of the Church.

Ah, that joy and that freedom that are for those who seek the Lord in all things! May our hearts ever be restless, Lord, until they rest in Thee.

Mary, extiratrix of heresy and vice, pray for us!

Oh good grief.  One more try to turn the tide of the discussion onto the actual topic, and then I’m out.

I maintain that skirts are only considered feminine due to long association with women and there’s no reason why other bits of clothing can’t achieve the same significance.

Well, it occurs to me that this has already happen.  Consider this:  Women and Shoes.

For a long time, I wore practical shoes.  I’ve got wide feet, and it’s HARD to find anything pretty that fits, much less doesn’t make me want to gnaw them off at the ankles after a day of moderate walking.  But last month I got a pair of sandals that is antithesis of my usual shoe choices.  I bought them specifically because they were such a gorgeous dark red.  (I love dark reds.)  They were a little uncomfortable when I tried them on, and they had a huge heel, but they were so pretty I bought them anyway, and have been wearing them loads since, even in the lab where open toed shoes are really a no-no.  But despite the mild discomfort, and the fact that a 3” heel makes me wobble around like a clown on stilts, I feel much more feminine wearing them than I do wearing my ratty sneakers.

They look great with my favorite blue jeans, too.

There’s a lot of different, competing motivations behind women’s clothing choices, but pretty weighs in for women in a way it just doesn’t for men, and I think this is part of how specific articles of clothing get the ‘feminine’ label.  I just bought a pair of garden clogs this week (also red!) and tried to show my husband, and he looked at me patiently and said “You’re showing me Shoes.”  I took the hint, and let him go back to comparing dSLR models.

GeekLady wrote: “Oh good grief. One more try to turn the tide of the discussion onto the actual topic, and then I’m out.”

I think there are a variety of meta-topics that form the foundation of the topic of the original post. And some people have picked up on these meta-topics, and have been running with them.

Evidently these meta-topics don’t hold much interest for you, GeekLady, but I would argue that the foundations of the author’s original topic are fair game in any lively discussion, as well.

Your mileage may vary.

Thank you, JT, for pointing out how silly this whole discussion really is.

“Thank you, JT, for pointing out how silly this whole discussion really is.”

If that is your assessment, then how account for your own participation?

I come here for a little comedic break.

Crlnabnd, it’s not that modesty is bogus or nonsense - modesty is integral to Christian life. The problem is when certain people define modesty in their own way, or interpret it to mean that any sign if individual taste is sinful, or that women should dress on burlap sacks. And modesty goes far beyond simply what we wear.

“This bogus ‘modesty’ nonsense is about quashing individualism, about control, about pulling our attention away from God and onto things. It’s about manipulating people into being answerable to other people instead of God, about creating walls between individuals and God.”

I agree that unauthorized prescriptions that violate others’ freedom and peace-of-mind is deplorable. “Women in general who wear trousers in general offend against modesty,” is an example of this.

To make unauthorized prescriptions is to unjustly and pridefully encroach upon the relationship a person ought to have with God and with the Magesterium.

On the other hand, I don’t agree that *any* concern with the Christian virtue of modesty in all its aspects, need represent a quashing of individual freedom and a building of walls between people and God. . . . any more than to express concerns about the virtues of justice, or of temperance, or of any other virtue.

Marion, your understanding of modesty seems to be based solidly in the Catholic tradition and on the scholastic way of understanding things. That said, as I asked above, how does one avoid reaching the extremes of “I can tell she is a woman because I can see that she has a feminine shape and female body parts, therefore she is immodest”. This seems to be the way of thinking among some men when they decry all pants as immodest - if it can be seen that a person has a round bottom and has legs, that is immodest for them. The Church Fathers, living when they did, thought that modesty must mean shapeless garments and headcoverings - Clement of Alexandria would have found the styles of 1917 Portugal to be shamelessly immodest! And obviously some people may consider all swimsuits or atheltic gear to be immodest. Then there are folks who condemn any effort by a woman to look beautiful. There are even saints who disfigured themselves so as not be temptations to others. So how does or avoid this way of thinking (outward beauty / femininty equals immodesty) within a solid Catholic framework?

You have asked some wonderful questions, Chase.  I am neither a theologian nor a scholar, only a beginner student of Saint Thomas Aquinas.

I can only point out that, in our own time, Holy Mother Church provides general guidelines only, and affords to the faithful much freedom and discretion in the matter of modesty. This is because the Church in her wisdom and love, does not wish to oppress her children with an unnecessary multiplicity of trying details, nor does She wish for them to be oppressed by others.

That we are fearfully and wonderfully made by the Creator is evident to all, and because we are good in our Creation, and because we are guided by reason, the Church does not teach that it is necessary that our clothing must obliterate from the eye every discernible outline of our forms, every feature of our physical being. Virtue, Saint Thomas has written, is found in the mean between the extremes.  So, while the exercise of the virtue of modesty strives to present an appearance that, while generally conformable to the customary local fashion, it conveys no hint, no air, of any intention of inviting undue attention to itself, particularly not the sort of attention that may accompany an occasion of sin in thought, word, or deed.  Modesty seeks to blend in, which is why freedom of choice is permissible, but it is a blending in that favors the background and the behind-the-scenes, rather than the spotlight.

You mention the saints who have disfigured themselves so as not to present temptations to others.  The Fathers of the Church have warned of the temptation to strive and strain after the perfections of penance and ascetism practiced by the saints, but which are yet out of our reach; such efforts undertaken without the direction of a wise and holy priest are liable only to call us to places far beyond our strength where we “do not yet have head to stand,” and thus we may fall and become discouraged. This is to be avoided.

Any wise and holy priest would, I’m sure, provide a far more useful answer than I have done, Chase, but I hope you decide that something I have written may prove helpful.

Your answers make sense, Marion, but is there anything shameful in seeking to dress in a way that is nice and attractive? As in, when I buy a tie, I’m going to choose the one’s that I think is best-looking, or a woman will choose her clothing based on how good she looks in it. A woman or a man may also dress to please their spouse or to get the attention of someone they see as a potential partner (obviously I’m not talking about putting the body parts on display).

Or is the keyword “undue”? As in, I may wear a nice suit and intend to look good, but wearing say, a red suit would obviously seek to make myself the center of attention. Likewise, a woman may wear pretty jewelry, but she shouldn’t wear ostentatious things that will call all kinds of attention to herself (“wow, did you see the size if that rock?”). On the flipside, wearing an ankle-length skirt to go jogging or wearing a Victorian era swimsuit at the beach would certainly draw undue attention, and it would seem that the statement is “I’m so much more modest than you damned heathens”.

Am I getting it?

Chase asked: “Am I getting it?”

I answer that, “By George, I think you’ve got it!”

I hope you might one day read the articles from the Doctor of the Church Saint Thomas Aquinas _Summa Theologica_ II-II Q. 169 http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3169.htm.

This work is referenced extensively in the _Catechism of the Catholic Church_, indeed the number of references to the _Summa_ in the _Catechism_ is exceeded only by references to Sacred Scripture itself.

They’re not long articles at all, either.

You asked: “is there anything shameful in seeking to dress in a way that is nice and attractive?”

I’ll let Saint Thomas answer: “I answer that, it is not in the outward things themselves which man uses, that there is vice, but on the part of man who uses them immoderately . . . (and) the lack of moderation in the use of these things may arise from the inordinate attachment of the user, the result being that a man sometimes takes too much pleasure in using them . . . ,” and he further describes this inordinate attachment as “when a man seeks glory from excessive attention to dress; in so far as dress and such like things are a kind of ornament . . . , or when a man is too solicitous in his attention to outward apparel.” 

Doesn’t this mean that while we dress ourselves in ways that are attractive and becoming, that our pleasure in doing so ought not to become inordinate, or excessive, or take us beyond the bounds of what is proper in a Christian?

Chase further notes: “A woman or a man may also dress to please their spouse or to get the attention of someone they see as a potential partner.”

Yes, of course, and I won’t tire you with continued extensive quotes from the same article. But it’s all in there.

And “wearing an ankle-length skirt to go jogging or wearing a Victorian era swimsuit at the beach would certainly draw undue attention, and it would seem that the statement is ‘I’m so much more modest than you damned heathens’.” 

Precisely right. Saint Thomas’ discussion about Christians imitating what is customary in the world around them suggests that deliberately to behave in the way you describe: (‘I’m so much more modest than you damned heathens’) would, in fact, be most displeasing to God.

But that’s only my interpretation. Read Saint Thomas, and tell me what is yours?

Great article!

It’s funny, I remember back in high school I used to enjoy pairing especially feminine skirts with combat boots, and was especially tickled to wear these skirts once my father handed down his gigantic pickup truck to me.  I remember being specifically proud of the obvious difference between my skirts and the rest of things I chose to surround myself with.

I’d never thought of it in the context of this article, however.

Marion ... thank you, enjoyed it all :-)

How do you know what evokes lust in a man?  Some men are aroused by toes, necks or long flowing hair.  Is it burkah time? 

I never had issues dressing modestly.  There are so many options for clothing that in one store you could be a nun or a prostitute.  I do not understand these comments about not finding modest clothing.  Here are my few suggestions:

If the blouse is low cut, where a camisole underneath or sew a piece of fabric over the large opening. (Men’s wife beaters work well also)

If the straps are too skinny, where a t-shirt (long or short sleeved) underneath.

If the skirt is to short, don’t buy it or wear leggings underneath.  I haven’t had any issue finding calf length skirts.

If anything is too tight, go up 2 or 3 sizes and wear a belt.  With dresses no belt is required just wear it.  Maxi dresses have been in for the past few years.  Add a T-shirt underneath and your gorgeus.

If all else fails where a burkah, they are comfortable and you don’t have to worry about doing your hair.

I’m very stylish, but modest and no I don’t put fashion before God.  I’m curious to find out the age of some of these posters that are complaining.

I wear skirts all the time, out of habit and because I find them comfortable, and because I find them a beautiful, feminine thing to wear. I agree that one can’t wear the same thing all the time. I’d never wear one of my full-length, delicate Sunday skirts to go out for a run or bike-riding; on the other hand, a somewhat shorter skirt of sturdy denim can certainly do the job and be really comfy! :) I think wearing skirts is a nice way to show our femininity and I have received many comments at college about my style of dress, some curious, mostly complimentary (I’m known for being a “lady” in my department, and I love it. The guys watch their language around me and hold doors for me, and I’m happy to think I could be setting a good example by my dress.) I drive a motor-scooter and the skirts have never been a problem with that either; I just wear woolen ones on cold days and put something else underneath! (Yay layers!)

Capitalcee’s suggestions for dress are very helpful. I’ve done many of these things myself and it’s great when you find something that’s “just perfect, but…..” (it’s too low, too tight, whatever.)

Christina—the comment about flowy skirts and combat boots tickled me. I love the image. My big sister (who’s now a Dominican Sister) loved her hiking boots too!

I dress for comfort.  Half the year, it’s all skirts + Birkenstocks—I have arthritis in my feet and ankles and cannot wear dress shoes at all.  I can’t wear fancy formal or business stuff because it looks ridiculous with Birkenstocks.  I also have to keep my upper chest uncovered because I need to vent the heat during hot flashes.  Tank tops work well—Lands End have ones with wide straps that never expose bra straps.  Lands End Necessary Knits jacket/skirt combos are the staple of my warm weather outfits.

The other half of the year, during the cold weather, I wear pants.  I used to sometimes wear dresses/skirts in the winter, with dress boots, but I can’t get the dress boots on over my arthritic feet any more.  Lands End weather mocs are simple and secure even walking on ice.  Cardis on top, over a tank top.  I can’t even wear the sweater twin seat underneath any more because the hot flashes are so bad.

I am undeniably womanly, so whatever I wear is feminine.  I’m not trying to flaunt anything.  I’m just trying to stay comfortable and dress passably.

Anyone who doesn’t like it can kiss my feminine genius.

I know women who wear skirts only and are very “proud” of the fact that they are more modest than those of us who wear jeans. They are proud of the fact that they are drawing attention to themselves for dressing differently than most of the rest of the female population.
Hummmm…. Isn’t pride a sin too?
I’m not saying that all skirt wearers are this way but they are out there and it gives long denim skirts and tennis shoes a bad name.

I have plenty of atheist and agnostic friends who like to wear skirts and dresses. They’re not declaring anything to society, no one sees them differently, and I think it’s a silly delusion for Catholic women to think they will have some kind of effect by doing something so unremarkable as wearing a dress.

I wear dresses quite a bit of the time, and it has no—I repeat—no effect on other people.

As a male, I don’t get the claim that there is a modesty difference between pants and skirts.  As soon as you have short skirts, pants are far more modest.  And if you have modest length skirts, pants still don’t strike me as more alluring unless they were very tight jeans on a perfect body.  I don’t get the whole thing….yet the topic gets one of the highest comment counts on these internet Catholic threads.  If anything our Catholic high school girls would look more modest in slacks than in the uniform skirts that they often hike up further than the surrounding culture does. But neither form has a modesty advantage inherently.  Were a female to wear pants that are cut for the male body, only then would she being going counter to that OT passage about wearing your own genders’ clothes.

I don’t think it matters much whether women wear pants or skirts as long as they don’t wear them with butch looking plaid shirts and boots all the time.  And I don’t think they are synonymous with femininity everywhere and always, because back in Bible days men long tunics that we would basically call a dress today.  BUT, I strongly wish that Catholic women would be more modest.  I have taken to casually dropping hints to other women, and I am really trying to be gracious, but I’m really pretty disgusted and offended.  My husband is only human and he cannot help but notice your legs in that mini skirt.  It just makes me sad.  If you have no respect for yourself at least have some for me!

I don’t define feminity by a skirt or pants.  We each have our own way of how we feel, but as I explore my own feelings more I find myself in more dresses in skirts because I feel beautiful and distinctly feminine in them.  That’s me. I still wear my sweats on lazy days.  But I also do not try to avert my husbands eyes away from the mini skirts or tight jeans at our parish, because I KNOW he is happy with what he has at home.  I asked him recently, did you think when you married me that? in a few questions and he never dreamed I’d love my skirts, and he never saw me as the happy barefooted housewife spending half of her day in the kitchen preparing food, or whatever it is that I happen to be doing.  He loves me all the more for the changes I have made in myself over the years, cuz I have grown into someone he simply loves more.  Maybe it sounds trite to say it is that simple, but sometimes it is.  The time and money I spend on personal growth, and him doing the same, they have made us stronger and happier.  Whether it be me wearing skirts and spending less time on cosmetics, or him taking courses in a tech school so he can find a job and not wear a suit.  Whatever we do, we grow together and the fact that he finds me even sexier than before only shows what I feel inside reflects on the outside, and skirts/dresses are a part of it for me.

I was very curious to read this article. I have been interested in the pants/skirt debate for quite some time. Personally, I wear both, and like others, I prefer pants in cooler weather and skirts in warmer weather. I dislike shorts in general, both on myself and on 99% of the women I see wearing them (outside of athletic or outdoorsy activities), so skirts and dresses are a nice warm-weather alternative. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that modesty is an interior virtue that will naturally manifest itself in an individual’s choices of [removed]this is not limited to dress, but also includes speech, writings, actions, etc). As such, and given the freedom of a Christian, I see nothing inherently wrong in wearing a skirt or wearing pants when one is female. As previously noted, either style can be immodest, and either style can be very classy. As for the “man’s clothing” argument, I’ve heard this before, and as others have pointed out, this is highly culturally influenced, and I think the biblical prohibition has more to do with sexual perversion than fashion. We are all adults (presumably), and most definitely know the difference. I think much of the skirt/pants debate really boils down to a debate between formal and casual dress. A previous poster mentioned something like this. Personally, I feel that skirts and dresses fall on the more formal end of the spectrum, while pants fall on the more casual end. Of course, there are casual skirts and formal pants, but if I am attending church, going to a wedding, attending a cocktail party, etc, I will choose to wear a dress or a skirt. Not being male, I don’t see what all the fuss is about that pants show that a woman has legs. Of course, many of the pants styles today are way too tight, but many pants are looser fitting, and I don’t see how they are inherently immodest. Conversely, I once had a male acquaintance tell me that he preferred women in skirts for the sole reason that he enjoyed pondering the mystery of “what’s under the skirt”. Clearly, in this case, the length or tailoring of the skirt is immaterial. I think women should strive to always dress attractively, which to me means clean, well tailored clothing that is neither frumpy nor skanky. Indeed, as a follower of fashion, my eye is most often drawn towards women who’s clothes are well put together and not too revealing. I think that, just as women should dress attractively, men should strive to guard theirs eyes and their hearts. I understand that men are more visually focused, but I also think that our cultural has encouraged this in the extreme, and that it is possible for men (and women) to enjoy the beauty of another person without immediately jumping onto the lust-wagon. I think the issue of modesty puts into sharp relief the need to find the mean between the extremes while living the Christian life. If, for some reason, your conscience dictates that you wear only long skirts, by all means, do so. But do not stray into immodesty by judging your fellow human for wearing something else. Whenever I am tempted by false feelings of humility for wearing this or that or doing this or that, I try to remember these words from the Epistle of St. James:
“If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless. Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.”

women need to be feminine - and that means being different than men - and that means looking different, dressing different, acting (mannerisms) different - and that means longer hair, and dresses/skirts, and softness/sweetness—- you get the idea;  the more a women looks like, dresses like, acts like a man - the less feminine she becomes;  pants (especially jeans) are almost always tight (men just picture you as naked with denim color skin) and draw attention to you know where (ask a man); (modest) skirts and dresses cover, don’t draw attention to particular parts, have an affect on women (act more feminine) and men (respond more chivalrously); pants symbolically are spread legs, skirts/dresses are covered/veiled legs (need i say more); ladies get over your lame “i’m more comfortable” and start acting like ladies

Honestly though, whatever the weather, long skirts are comfiest. When hot, it keeps the sun out and you don’t have to stick to your seat all sweaty and when cold, you can wear all kinds of warm stuff underneath and nobody will notice, because the pretty fabric just drapes all over it. You can sit with your legs crossed without anyone getting a peek in. And kids like to hide in them, which is cute. I vote for skirts =)

When I get indication a female refuses to wear anything other than skirts and dresses, it warms my heart. I, a Catholic convert, but the son of a pants-wearing mother, not only do I know that pants on females are wrong, it’s the same as a male wearing feminine garb. It also violates Dt. 22:5.

It is somewhat ironic how a sizable nimber of females that dress in pants and shorts and try to be butch hate us males the most, while they who dress the most feminine love us the most. Also, when a gal reveals she only wears skirts and dresses, that warms my heart. In fact, any woman who wants to be with me cannot, wear pants, shorts, or even leggings(which are pants).

Isn’t there a way to unsubscribe from this thread? It’s been going on for months and it just keeps going in circles.

Thank you for your information,it is really meant to me.

The pants/skirts issue must be the apex confusion issue of them all.  There is no gender difference at all in the two garments.  Differentiating style differences from sex differences is not splitting hairs.  Don’t you people “think” Christ understood what Deuteronomy 22:5 meant?  It cannot be a skirts/pants issue, otherwise Christ would not have said the centurion in Luke 7 had the greatest faith of all.  Those soldiers in fact did wear skirts; and if a skirt on a man is abomination to God, it follows his faith can’t be great at all.  The issue must be balanced, therefore, pants on women are likewise not forbidden.  To be a sex difference the garment in question must be a difference of anatomical interface, and bras were known in ancient (Minoan) civilization according to National Geographic.  Greek soldiers today still wear skirts; not a sex difference.  Deut 22:5 is concerned with impersonation, not style differences.  Pope St. Nicholas I in A.D. 866, wrote to the recently Christianized Bulgarians, the females of whom wore pants, and said, “For whether you or your women wear or do not wear pants (femoralia) neither impedes your salvation nor leads to any increase of your virtue.”  In AD393 Rome exiled men in pants and confiscated their property.  Pants are equestrian in origin; and clearly men do not have to go about on horseback to “be men.”  Absolutely skirts are accounted “female” merely by the thinnest of criteria—-mere use by association!  Factory work in World War II was the only force that sufficed to overcome resistance to women wearing pants!  Now, to rid the prejudice about men wearing skirts (as men, not as women).  “Pants” comes from Pantalone, the top clown of the medieval Italian Comedy of the Arts.  Trousers were spread over vast areas by bloodthirsty Mongol soldiers on horseback, who scaled city walls by climbing atop bodies killed from previous attacks.  The Archangel Michael is always depicted by classical painters as wearing a Roman type skirt—-never a trouser!  While women adopted trousers but men have not done so with skirts, to those who “think” Deut 22:5 is addressing pants/skirts—-there by rights should be a prophecy in Scripture foretelling the damnation of most modern females for wearing trousers, but there is NOT!

I dislike skinny jeans and other tight pants because they make the wearer ( I’m referring to female wearers ) look nearly naked. I am surprised when others and I have discussions about that privately, and they don’t seem to understand. ( I’m still a teenager, lack a lot of tack as is apparent in this comment, and I don’t always word things right. )

I myself stop wearing jeans because I felt more modest in skirts. This was however a personal choice and I do not wish to necessarily ” force ” it on anyone else.

www.thoughtsofamodestyconvert.wordpress.com

Kelly, I can’t tell you how encouraging your comment is. So few people (young or old) even understand the concept of modesty. I’m a 62 year old male who grew up in the “hippy” era. I’m ashamed of some of the things I wore during my youth! I’ve witnessed the slow decline of modesty during the past 50 years. The sense of right and wrong has been eroded.
As a Christian, I don’t think it’s a matter of forcing another to wear what we choose to wear, but there is an objective right and wrong which is God’s law and we are all called to follow it.
Early on in this discussion a woman made the comment that all men are pigs. I’m pretty sure it was left by a woman of some years because rarely do you hear a young person who is that cynical.
The problem with that thinking is that it shows a disdain for the salvation of others, and the first thing Christ calls us to is to love one another.
Kelly, I’m glad I read your comment.

when i was 16 life school i was giveing job i had to wear a skirt a job in a knicker work shop i tuck it for the money

Women should not wear skirts because they are immodest, as they are a way of EXPOSING YOURSELF!  You don’t have to worry about exposure with pants!

“Women should not wear skirts because they are immodest, as they are a way of EXPOSING YOURSELF!  You don’t have to worry about exposure with pants!”

sigh - wear ankle-length skirts;
female pants - aka tight jeans - are nothing more than second skin; pretend you’re naked with have denim-colored skin - that’s what men see