Bible Modesty - Part 1

Some replies:

To James:
Thanks for answering the questions I asked and for the historical information. Your information dates the view of "Pants for men and dresses for women" to about the 16th century. You see, this is a cultural standard that has been challenged and changed over time. It is a human idea, but it does not come from scripture. One question that I asked and for which I saw no answer was "who made the rule that pants are for men only?" This is a man-made rule. You asked me "who made the rule that dresses are for women?" The answer is the same. Men did. These rules do not have divine authority. They are open to challenge and they can be changed.

To Blammo:
Thanks for posting the picture of Laura Ingalls Wilder and her sisters (I presume). I see that they are not wearing pants. They are not wearing smiles either. And it is correct that women in that time who had to wear long dresses while cooking next to open fire places were very often victims of death by fire.

As for Brother Tony:
I have been working a 12-hour shift today in the automobile showroom with not one customer. This thread has been mighty entertaining for me. If you'd like to come in tonight and buy a Subaru I'll happily cease my activity on this thread!

 

So far....

Two people took my joke seriously. :laugh:

 

Well, to be more specific, the 16th century was when pants became the standard leg covering for men. They wore pants before then and knee-breeches as well. But it was not commonly accepted for women to wear such until the 20th century. If it was ok for women then to take on the dress of the men, why is it not ok for men today to don the dress of a woman?

 

Hairy legs.

 

Will you (or the others that share this view) please provide some sourced data for the fire hazard defense and a view on whether or not this would be a relevant issue if women today began wearing that which pertaineth to women?

 

Perhaps Helen can help you with written sources for this info. My knowledge of it is from a tour of colonial homes around Boston, MA that were significant in the Revolutionary War. In several houses the tour guides pointed out the women often suffered death and injury when their dresses caught fire as they tended the various cooking devices in or near the open fire places.

 

The problem is, pants designed for women, pertaineth to women...That is what we are really debating...

I know, I would look funny (pun intended) if I put on my wife's jeans!!!
If we were the same size.

 

The church is over 2,000 years old, yet pants on men are much more recent. So pants on men is not a biblical standard it is a cultural one. You guys are slaves to human tradition (pants on men, dresses on women) that you cannot preserve or defend and you are scared to death of a possible change in culture (men wearing dresses) that will never come to pass.

And with that, my work day is coming to an end and so is my participation here. Thanks guys! It was a hoot!

 

Here's a little history:

--------------

Watson’s Mill: In 1859 an entrepreneur named Courier opened Watson’s Mill. It was the fruition of a dream and before long became the lifeblood of the community. Soon after he met and married the love of his life. But tragedy ended it all, when just two months after their marriage, when the newly weds were touring the mill with friends her long dress got entangled in the machinery. Before she could get help the machine spun her around and she struck her head against a post, killing her.
http://www.creepy.tv/season1_e1.html

To keep a hearth fire going required constant attention and lots of work. The cook knelt by open flames where cinders flew from unscreened fires, lifting and moving heavy pots, and reaching into the heat to stir or turn cooking food. Burns were common injuries, and women's long dresses sometimes caught fire.
http://www.edheritage.org/1910/1910foodway.htm

Accidents. Many different types of accidents happened on the trails. There are many entries in diaries that record accidents that happened during routine activities--accidents while cleaning guns or hunting, skirts catching fire while cooking, children falling off wagons, and travelers tripping and falling.
http://www.jocohistory.net/teachers/4-5/trails/trailsall.asp

A danger to women was working around open fires in long skirts. Shifting winds often caused skirts to blow into the fires, so women pinned or tied back their skirts to avoid this danger.
http://www.jocohistory.net/teachers/4-5/trails/activities/5.asp

It could be dangerous bending over the boiling pots while wearing long skirts, which might catch on fire.
http://www.nps.gov/foda/forteachers/upload/womenofftdavis.pdf

Colonists did most of their cooking over an open fireplace. Women had to be especially careful to keep their long skirts out of the fire while they were cooking.
http://ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/ohe/archaeology/edenhouse/print/fulltext.html

To the left of the fireplace, is the "beehive oven" where much of the baking was done. It would originally have been located inside a larger walk-in fireplace and far more dangerous for women in their long skirts to use.
http://www.chelmhist.org/keepingroom.htm


---------------------

As for the danger to me personally today, I have already stated that. I work with animals. We do rescue work with horses. Fluttering things can spook them.

In addition, tripping over long skirts is as much a hazard today as it ever was. Getting them caught on bushes, in doors, or even on low objects is no different now than it always was.

In addition, when it is winter in the colder areas, pants are a great comfort. It's nice to have warm legs...

 

Don't you know that if you were in the kitchen where women belong, you would not have fallen off a horse... which begs another question...

You were riding side saddle weren't you? It is a sin not too....
(roll eyes)

 

If pants designed for women are acceptable for women are dresses designed for men acceptable for men?

 

Sure, that is essentially what they wore in the bible.
Also, what about kilts? Isn't that similar to a skirt?
Do you think that Scotsmen who where kilts are sinful?

 

The bible simply doesn't specify types of garmets. As cultures and technology has changed so have the styles.

 

At least now I can understand why boys are showing up to school in skirts and dresses. You people are holding a double-standard with no scriptural basis. And when the boys call you on it, you have nothing to reply.

 

I sure hope if this thread is only part 1 of Bible Modesty, that part 2 never comes around....