Hey, I resemble that remark.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Should women wear pants?
- Thread starter Jordan Kurecki
- Start date
- Status
Hey, I resemble that remark.
Did you know that for a long time (until the late 1930's) many considered it immoral for a man to go swimming topless?
I still consider it, if not immoral, at least ill-considered for ME to swim topless. Nobody needs to see that.
Bluefalcon
Member
LOL, hilarious!
Seriously - This was a very well written blog post by a young man who I have learned to highly respect. I think he hits the nail on the head when it comes to our lusts and desires.
http://www.moorematt.org/youll-never-quit-sinning-if-all-you-think-about-is-quitting-sinning-2/
http://www.moorematt.org/youll-never-quit-sinning-if-all-you-think-about-is-quitting-sinning-2/
That's kilt. The hard corps believe, "Men wear kilts, women wear [kilt-like] skirts." And after wearing one, I gained new respect for ladies who eschew pants.
Jordan, whoever was teaching/preaching that nonsense has done you and everybody who heard it a great disservice.
The word translated "abomination" is used of homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Here in Deuteronomy 22:5 God is specifically outlawing transvestism. The created order distinctions between men and women were to be maintained.
A women who wears a nice pair of slacks or a pantsuit is not a transvestite. Those slacks and pantsuit were designed for women and are garments that pertain to a woman.
A man who wears a kilt is not wearing a women's garment. He is wearing a garment that is masculine and pertains to a man.
(In fact I dare you to walk up to a Highlander wearing a kilt and tell him he is a sissy for wearing it. You better be a very fast runner!)
I see from the video you are wearing a Fairhavens shirt. That explains a lot.
The word translated "abomination" is used of homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Here in Deuteronomy 22:5 God is specifically outlawing transvestism. The created order distinctions between men and women were to be maintained.
A women who wears a nice pair of slacks or a pantsuit is not a transvestite. Those slacks and pantsuit were designed for women and are garments that pertain to a woman.
A man who wears a kilt is not wearing a women's garment. He is wearing a garment that is masculine and pertains to a man.
(In fact I dare you to walk up to a Highlander wearing a kilt and tell him he is a sissy for wearing it. You better be a very fast runner!)
I see from the video you are wearing a Fairhavens shirt. That explains a lot.
I also want to mention that I've met some transvestites and many of them will wear pants. They wear pants that are clearly women's pants and will accessorize them with women's jewelry and blouses. We have a man in our town that is very sweet but a poor upbringing by a mentally ill mother and I'm guessing he has mental illness as well has left him wanting to dress like a woman. Yesterday he wore a pair of capris, a tank top, a white baseball cap and pink flip flops. He also wears his hair long. The tank top and baseball cap could have been a man's but he wore the pink flip flops and the capris as well. So here is someone dressing as a woman wearing pants. It definitely happens.
What about ball caps? If they are "unisex" then are they wrong? If they were designed to look like MLB caps, then they are "all male"...can a woman wear an Atlanta Braves ball cap?
What about t-shirts? Or shoes. Should women be allowed to wear shoes that look like men's shoes? Cowboy boots...are "cowgirl" boots an abomination?
What colors are men allowed to wear? What colors are women allowed to wear? What about pink...surely it is a sin for a man to wear pink. But what color is it sinful for a woman to wear? Hunter's orange?
Obviously a woman can't be in the military without that being a sin (they can't wear ACU's or the PT uniform), but can a woman wear a camouflage skirt if she is a hunter? Or is a woman allowed to be a hunter?
What about t-shirts? Or shoes. Should women be allowed to wear shoes that look like men's shoes? Cowboy boots...are "cowgirl" boots an abomination?
What colors are men allowed to wear? What colors are women allowed to wear? What about pink...surely it is a sin for a man to wear pink. But what color is it sinful for a woman to wear? Hunter's orange?
Obviously a woman can't be in the military without that being a sin (they can't wear ACU's or the PT uniform), but can a woman wear a camouflage skirt if she is a hunter? Or is a woman allowed to be a hunter?
I agree that a woman wearing a lady's pantsuit isn't cross-dressing, and that it is really cross-dressing that crosses the line. But, I believe a woman of reverence would prefer to wear a long skirt to church. And, if her church makes her feel uncomfortable in a skirt, she needs to find another church.
Pants on women arose from a social revolution in the twentieth century wherein women were fighting for their “rights” and struggling to be equal to men. Their pants are a feminist and a unisex statement.
The saying, “Who wears the pants in the family” illustrates the fact that pants were traditionally male attire and the woman who wore them assumed a masculine role. The universal symbols distinguishing the male from the female (a stick man in pants and a stick woman in a dress), and still used on the doors of public toilets to this day, arose from the fact that pants were traditionally male attire.
The article “Pants for Women” on the secular web site BookRags.com observes that “pants for women emerged” from “the feminist movement.
William Nicholson, in the book Clothing the Universal Language, observed that in the 1920s “wearing slacks to the office or to a park was still out of the question, and any female who appeared on a formal occasion in a trouser‟s suit was assumed to be a Bohemian eccentric and probably a lesbian.”
It was in the late 1930s prior to World War II that pants on women began to be a fashion statement, and it began in Hollywood, which has always pushed the moral boundaries. Katherine Hepburn and Marlene Dietrich were at the forefront of this.
“When diva film star Marlene Dietrich appeared in slacks with flared bottoms in her United States debut film Morocco in 1930, she signaled the emergence of women‟s pants from sportswear to high fashion. Wearing them both in films and private life, she popularized the pants look” (“Pants for Women,” www.bookrags.com).
Pants still were not commonly accepted among women in society at large, though. That did not happen until after World War II. Women‟s slacks and capris grew slightly in popularity in the 1950s, but it was not until the 1960s that pants on women came into their own through the rock & roll revolution. “[T]he jeans and pants of the 1960‟s and the 1970‟s were serious gestures toward total sexual equality” (Nicholson).
“[Unisex fashions appeared in the 1960s.] Both men and women wore blue jeans, „hipsters‟ and close fitting pants with zip fly fronts. The spirit of this latest association of pants with social and sexual liberation can be seen in Alice Walker‟s novel The Color Purple (1982), in which the social victory of the heroine culminates in her opening of a unisex jeans shop” (“Pants for Women”).
The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Costume and Fashion makes the same observation on the history of pants on women:
“The real pants revolution came in the 1960s, with unisex fashions, though even at this time women wearing pants were often refused entry to restaurants and the whole subject was one of heated debate. By the 1970s rules and social attitudeshad relaxed and pants of many lengths and styles had become an acceptable part of female dress for both casual and formal attire.”
This secular book admits that the growth in the popularity of pants on females in Western culture was part and parcel with the sexual revolution and the unisex phenomenon, both of which are an affront to the God of the Bible. Social attitudes had to be changed, and that occurred through the onslaught of the rebellious rock & role culture.
The modern unisex society knows that there is a major difference between the male and female, of course, but it emphasizes only the physical difference and the result is lust and immorality.
One woman wisely observed:
“Oh there will always be a difference in gender, because there HAS to be. But now the emphasis is not on the beauty of a girl‟s femininity (which brings out the masculinity in a man). NOW the emphasis in the difference in BODY PARTS! There is no longer the striking difference between a beautiful woman in feminine attire, long pretty hair, and a masculine man that practices chivalry. (Put a real feminine woman around a man and see how chivalrous he becomes.) Now the difference is emphasized in her physical body difference, which leads to lust and a degradation of womanhood (and manhood too). A feminine woman is in her rightful place of an elevated position. But as soon as she steps down off her pedestal to wear pants and be „equal‟ to a man, it drags everybody down, which is exactly what Satan wants. The devil is still whispering in Eve's ear to destroy mankind” (http://www.momof9splace.com/ modesty.html).
Why would the godly woman want to be identified with a fashion that is so intimately associated with a movement and philosophy that is in rebellion against God‟s created order?
-From Dressing for the Lord by David Cloud
The saying, “Who wears the pants in the family” illustrates the fact that pants were traditionally male attire and the woman who wore them assumed a masculine role. The universal symbols distinguishing the male from the female (a stick man in pants and a stick woman in a dress), and still used on the doors of public toilets to this day, arose from the fact that pants were traditionally male attire.
The article “Pants for Women” on the secular web site BookRags.com observes that “pants for women emerged” from “the feminist movement.
William Nicholson, in the book Clothing the Universal Language, observed that in the 1920s “wearing slacks to the office or to a park was still out of the question, and any female who appeared on a formal occasion in a trouser‟s suit was assumed to be a Bohemian eccentric and probably a lesbian.”
It was in the late 1930s prior to World War II that pants on women began to be a fashion statement, and it began in Hollywood, which has always pushed the moral boundaries. Katherine Hepburn and Marlene Dietrich were at the forefront of this.
“When diva film star Marlene Dietrich appeared in slacks with flared bottoms in her United States debut film Morocco in 1930, she signaled the emergence of women‟s pants from sportswear to high fashion. Wearing them both in films and private life, she popularized the pants look” (“Pants for Women,” www.bookrags.com).
Pants still were not commonly accepted among women in society at large, though. That did not happen until after World War II. Women‟s slacks and capris grew slightly in popularity in the 1950s, but it was not until the 1960s that pants on women came into their own through the rock & roll revolution. “[T]he jeans and pants of the 1960‟s and the 1970‟s were serious gestures toward total sexual equality” (Nicholson).
“[Unisex fashions appeared in the 1960s.] Both men and women wore blue jeans, „hipsters‟ and close fitting pants with zip fly fronts. The spirit of this latest association of pants with social and sexual liberation can be seen in Alice Walker‟s novel The Color Purple (1982), in which the social victory of the heroine culminates in her opening of a unisex jeans shop” (“Pants for Women”).
The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Costume and Fashion makes the same observation on the history of pants on women:
“The real pants revolution came in the 1960s, with unisex fashions, though even at this time women wearing pants were often refused entry to restaurants and the whole subject was one of heated debate. By the 1970s rules and social attitudeshad relaxed and pants of many lengths and styles had become an acceptable part of female dress for both casual and formal attire.”
This secular book admits that the growth in the popularity of pants on females in Western culture was part and parcel with the sexual revolution and the unisex phenomenon, both of which are an affront to the God of the Bible. Social attitudes had to be changed, and that occurred through the onslaught of the rebellious rock & role culture.
The modern unisex society knows that there is a major difference between the male and female, of course, but it emphasizes only the physical difference and the result is lust and immorality.
One woman wisely observed:
“Oh there will always be a difference in gender, because there HAS to be. But now the emphasis is not on the beauty of a girl‟s femininity (which brings out the masculinity in a man). NOW the emphasis in the difference in BODY PARTS! There is no longer the striking difference between a beautiful woman in feminine attire, long pretty hair, and a masculine man that practices chivalry. (Put a real feminine woman around a man and see how chivalrous he becomes.) Now the difference is emphasized in her physical body difference, which leads to lust and a degradation of womanhood (and manhood too). A feminine woman is in her rightful place of an elevated position. But as soon as she steps down off her pedestal to wear pants and be „equal‟ to a man, it drags everybody down, which is exactly what Satan wants. The devil is still whispering in Eve's ear to destroy mankind” (http://www.momof9splace.com/ modesty.html).
Why would the godly woman want to be identified with a fashion that is so intimately associated with a movement and philosophy that is in rebellion against God‟s created order?
-From Dressing for the Lord by David Cloud
Consider some quotes from this secular article on the history of women wearing pants:
"Mormon women chose to wear pants to church in a gesture of solidarity to protest women’s unequal status in the Mormon Church. Nothing says equality more than a nice pair of pants. In the language of clothes, pants equal power. Pants on a woman disrupt the status quo. They certainly aren’t “lady-like.”
"By law and custom, for centuries women have been forbidden from wearing men’s clothes. But women did it anyway, taking the risk of discovery to escape a life of confinement and drudgery."
http://the-toast.net/2014/08/07/wearing-pants-brief-history/
"Mormon women chose to wear pants to church in a gesture of solidarity to protest women’s unequal status in the Mormon Church. Nothing says equality more than a nice pair of pants. In the language of clothes, pants equal power. Pants on a woman disrupt the status quo. They certainly aren’t “lady-like.”
"By law and custom, for centuries women have been forbidden from wearing men’s clothes. But women did it anyway, taking the risk of discovery to escape a life of confinement and drudgery."
http://the-toast.net/2014/08/07/wearing-pants-brief-history/
I also believe that the normative attire for a Christian lady in church is a dress or skirt, just as I think the normative attire for a Christian man is a suit or sport coat and slacks. But I will not judge my brothers and sisters on that basis.
That is only partially true and then only for the US, a country only a little over 200 years old.
In Asia what you would call "pants" were normal feminine attire as far back as 1000 BC.
I have little sympathy for a man who is doctrinaire on this topic who has not worn a kilt (an actual Scottish or a utilikilt] in less than ideal weather conditions.
http://www.utilikilts.com/
And you don't need leggings with a kilt. You just wear good wool knee socks.
http://www.utilikilts.com/
And you don't need leggings with a kilt. You just wear good wool knee socks.
Yeah, not sure what happened there, but if you keep on reading you will see I mention them again.
And, I am Scotch-Irish...and you ain't getting me in one of those things.
God bless.
Sometimes, yes, because sometimes the culture has imposed rules and regulations that don't make sense, and sometimes seek to regulate what is ethical based on faulty reasoning.
For example, in view in this thread is whether it is immoral for a woman to wear pants. For me, it isn't the woman wearing pants that is drawing attention to her form, but women that wear short, and tight fitting dresses. I would, if I were a betting type, wager a hefty sum that I could go into any given fellowship and there would be at least one woman there who, when she sits down in the pew, is trying to pull her skirt down because it has ridden up so high. My wife has a few dresses that I have told her she is not to wear because they are simply too form fitting.
But the point is, immodest apparel isn't a dress/pants issue, because both can be worn in such a fashion that it draws the attention of men, and that is not how women should dress, in my personal opinion.
God bless.
I would question that statistic. Muslims make up a good part of the population, for example, and their women dress very modest. Secondly, many of the older women in our own population, particularly those who go to church, dress modestly.
I will agree modesty doesn't seem to be taught any more, but with the advancement of the Liberal Agenda, many among the youth are being taught by Hollywood, rather than their parents. That is not necessarily a new trend, but, with the strengthening of values (if they can be called that) that see pre-marital relations as the norm, we shouldn't be surprised to see the youth fishing, nor should we be surprised at the bait they use.
God bless.
I agree in large part, but, that does not excuse those who add to the temptations we face, particularly when it comes to going to worship services.
I just don't think we can take "not causing our brother to stumble" too far, lol. It should be a priority. And if that means teaching our daughters to dress appropriately, not sure that is something that should seem unreasonable.
God bless.
If I were to wear a kilt in the winter, for some reason I don't think that my knees would be my utmost concern.
I agree also in large part. I don't think that keeping another from stumbling is the only factor by any means (modesty extends beyond keeping another from stumbling).
I know some men who would lust after a woman even if she wore a burlap sack. There is a point where people (regardless of gender) can sin by dressing inappropriately. I don't think that a man sins when he wears a normal, appropriate, pair of pants. I don't think a woman sins when she does the same. But the larger issue is sin and people giving into temptation. The problem of the OP is not, IMHO, women who wear pants but men who continue to give into their lusts.
- Status