Split... "Womanhood" - Pants

[enoob57]

On the flip side, when you have a woman in pants, she loses her femininity

Note: This is a personal opinion.

and there are a lot of times I don't know if I am looking at a man or a woman when they are walking down the street until I can see their face.

I can only think of two, maybe three times, I saw someone whom I could not tell was a male or female. Very odd that this is a common occurrence for you.

I have to agree; I almost never see a person in pants whose gender is not obvious. In fact I really only remember a couple of times in my whole life.

well I have to tell on myself... well I don't have to but it is truth and humiliating so why not

One of the most beautiful woman I ever saw ... wasn't and I was a Marine oooooooh raaaaaah ...

[Angel1969]

There are women's pants, made for, women. I cannot imagine how a woman, wearing clothing made for women, loses her 'femininity'. This entire thing is exceedingly silly. Do think men went around wearing jeans when the Biblical texts in question were written? Of course not. This is entirely culturally determined.

I totally agree

[Guest]

There are women's pants, made for, women. I cannot imagine how a woman, wearing clothing made for women, loses her 'femininity'. This entire thing is exceedingly silly. Do think men went around wearing jeans when the Biblical texts in question were written? Of course not. This is entirely culturally determined.

I totally agree

Same here. This whole discussion seems to be "straining at a gnat" to me. There are more important issues to be concerned with . . . like sharing the gospel. (Yeah, I know my salvation may be questioned again, but don't care.) It doesn't matter if the woman is wearing pants or not -- her final destination is not a good one if she dies without Jesus. Things tend to change once folks get saved and the Holy Spirit has some time to work on their heart, be it man or woman.

[Qnts2]

This is entirely culturally determined.

I think that it depends on the culture.. as well as the point of time in history of the culture too sometimes [since cultures might sometimes change over time]

One thing which I don't fully understand about topics such as this.... is why.. at least to me.. it often seems like possibly one particular culture [or group of cultures?] is possibly being emphasized.. or held.. above other cultures?

Christians come from different cultures / countries / parts of the world.

Unless there was some non-Christian religious symbols or connotations... why is it wrong for Christian women in South Asia to wear a ladies Shalwar Kameez? Or for Christian women from Vietnam to wear a ladies Ao Dai [with trousers]?

Unless there was some non-Christian religious symbols or connotations... why is it wrong for Christian men in Burma to wear a men's sarong... or Christian men in Fiji to wear a men's sulu?

There are many different cultures and types of clothing in the world. What is or isn't considered men's clothing or women's clothing.. depends on the particular culture [and time in history].

If Christians take just one culture and try to make its particular definitions as the 'gold standard' which all Christians are supposed to follow.... this is something I don't understand?

Please note that I am not refering to this thread in particular.. but simply to this topic in general. Because this is sometimes how this topic might seem like to an 'outsider' like me

Thanks

Good post.

Biblically, we are to dress modestly, both men and women. Years ago, Europeans (and Americans) would go to other cultures and share the gospel. When a person accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior, the missionaries would have the people dress in European style clothing. You can imagine how silly those people looked in that culture. Plus, European norms of that day did not work well in tropical environments.

Today, missionaries do not insist that modesty means clothing which is worn in Europe or the U.S. which is considered modest, but rather modest in the culture of the people.

[GoldenEagle]

This issue always confuses me. From everything I've read or heard, people in Biblical times, male and female, all wore long, flowing type garments. How would they assign gender to clothing?

Excellent quesiton MG.

[GoldenEagle]

This is entirely culturally determined.

I think that it depends on the culture.. as well as the point of time in history of the culture too sometimes [since cultures might sometimes change over time]

One thing which I don't fully understand about topics such as this.... is why.. at least to me.. it often seems like possibly one particular culture [or group of cultures?] is possibly being emphasized.. or held.. above other cultures?

Christians come from different cultures / countries / parts of the world.

Unless there was some non-Christian religious symbols or connotations... why is it wrong for Christian women in South Asia to wear a ladies Shalwar Kameez? Or for Christian women from Vietnam to wear a ladies Ao Dai [with trousers]?

Unless there was some non-Christian religious symbols or connotations... why is it wrong for Christian men in Burma to wear a men's sarong... or Christian men in Fiji to wear a men's sulu?

There are many different cultures and types of clothing in the world. What is or isn't considered men's clothing or women's clothing.. depends on the particular culture [and time in history].

If Christians take just one culture and try to make its particular definitions as the 'gold standard' which all Christians are supposed to follow.... this is something I don't understand?

Please note that I am not refering to this thread in particular.. but simply to this topic in general. Because this is sometimes how this topic might seem like to an 'outsider' like me

Thanks

Good post.

Biblically, we are to dress modestly, both men and women. Years ago, Europeans (and Americans) would go to other cultures and share the gospel. When a person accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior, the missionaries would have the people dress in European style clothing. You can imagine how silly those people looked in that culture. Plus, European norms of that day did not work well in tropical environments.

Today, missionaries do not insist that modesty means clothing which is worn in Europe or the U.S. which is considered modest, but rather modest in the culture of the people.

Both of these are good perspectives. Culture and context comes into play when speaking of clothing/modesty. Also, we shouldn't empose Western style of clothing as "Christian" clothing.

[GoldenEagle]

On the flip side, when you have a woman in pants, she loses her femininity

Note: This is a personal opinion.

and there are a lot of times I don't know if I am looking at a man or a woman when they are walking down the street until I can see their face.

I can only think of two, maybe three times, I saw someone whom I could not tell was a male or female. Very odd that this is a common occurrence for you.

I have to agree; I almost never see a person in pants whose gender is not obvious. In fact I really only remember a couple of times in my whole life.

I agree it almost never happens to me at least where someone wearing pants is not obviously a male or female.

[Guest Butero]

On the flip side, when you have a woman in pants, she loses her femininity

Note: This is a personal opinion.

and there are a lot of times I don't know if I am looking at a man or a woman when they are walking down the street until I can see their face.

I can only think of two, maybe three times, I saw someone whom I could not tell was a male or female. Very odd that this is a common occurrence for you.

And please note, that I can also say it is a personal opinion that men look effeminate in a dress, but most hold it. You made the claim, and I find it absurd, that women look just as feminine in pants as in a dress. If that were the case, then it should stand to reason that a man looks just as masculine in a dress as in pants.

I can think of probably 4 or 5 times where I never could figure it out, but that is not what I was saying. What I am saying is that from behind, I couldn't tell, because the clothes the person was wearing looked like men's clothing. I couldn't determine if it was a man or a woman till they turned around and I saw their face. This happened to me last week. I saw what I thought were two guys messing around near my truck at a rest area, so I went to investigate. It turned out one of them was a woman, and they were walking around smoking a cigarette. They were both dressed like a guy. There was nothing the least bit feminine about the woman's apperance.

[Guest Butero]

Bring out the fiddles folks. This is one post that definately deserves mood music.

Well I do love the sound of a well played fiddle, almost as much as good sarcasm

I do have a few questions though butero, exactly how did you arrive at the conclusion jeans are exclusively for males? Where in scripture does it say women should only wear dresses? My history may be a bit fuzzy on the issue of blue jeans, but I am guessing if such a time existed that they were exclusive to men, it was men who determined it. How exactly would that violate Gods law? If you wanted to compare the whole pantsuit thing, I wouldn't take issue with the comparison to a man in a dress.

The other thing that has me scratching my head is your assessment of career women. Do you think God mandates that all women marry? Would that make Paul's recommendation to remain single male exclusive? If not, how else would a woman survive if she didn't pursue a career?

I don't have any actual violine music, so when I read certain posts, I imagine Jack Benny playing "Love In Bloom."

How did anyone arrive at the conclusion dresses are exclusive to women? This is symbolic. Pants represent the authority in the home. They also give the person that wears them a masculine appearance. Now before anyone makes an Elly Mae Clampett type joke, I am coming from the standpoint of the article of clothing is not feminine. I am not saying that some people aren't built in a way where you could tell it was a woman regardless of what she is wearing.

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. Deuteronomy 22:5

I used to joke about the bathrooms, and how if you go by the universal symbols, you should have the bathroom with the person in pants completely full, and any woman who actually has a dress on would have the other bathroom all to herself. The symbol itself shows which bathroom applies to which sex.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, it mentions how a man is not to be effeminate, and if you look up the definition, it says this refers not only to his actions, but his clothing. A woman looks feminine in a dress, but a man looks effeminate in a dress. On the flip side, when you have a woman in pants, she loses her femininity, and there are a lot of times I don't know if I am looking at a man or a woman when they are walking down the street until I can see their face. In some cases, that is not enough to tell for sure.

The thing I have take the most issue with here is the hypocrisy. Why is it that women can wear anything, including clothing marketed to men, and if anyone dares say it is wrong, they are a legalist, but let a man be seen in a dress or skirt (other than a kilt), and you have women attacking him. You literally cannot have a woman guilty of violating Deuteronomy 22:5 today in the eyes of the majority, but not so for a man. Then the very same people that jump on me for pointing this out will stand against men wearing women's garments.

I would venture a guess that the answer would be men, and of course you don't see men clamoring to wear a dress, they are uncomfortable. I know this because I was once involved in a skit where several of us men had to wear a dress, all in good fun of course, it was a comedy

But seriously, you didn't answer my questions and I'm curious what you think. And for the record I did state that I don't think women should wear suits any more than a man should wear a dress.

I thought I did answer you. How did you come to the conclusion that women shouldn't wear suits? How did Sevenseas come to the conclusion jeans and slacks are ok for women, but not trousers? I am saying that pants pertain to a man. That would include jeans. How did anyone conclude dresses pertain to a woman? Why is it that the universal symbol for a man shows someone in pants, and the universal symbol for women shows someone in a dress? The pants pertain to the man, and the dress pertains to the woman. Why do the ladies at Concerned Women For America feel the need to attack a book that depicts a little boy in a skirt as promoting the practice of dressing in clothing typically worn by members of the opposite sex?

Even people in the world often recognize that women are dressing like men, but they are scared to say it, except in passing. I have heard Rush Limbaugh mention it a couple of times. You will see references to it on "The Beverly Hillbillies," where Jed recognizes that he has been dressing Elly Mae up like a boy from her youth. I read a book sometime ago, where people thought it was a novelty to see women who worked in a factory dressed like men. You see references to it on shows like "Dick Van Dyke," where the husband is bothered by his wife wearing pants when he is feeling less than a man. Why is that? Because it is a sign of authority in the home. It is clear for anyone to see, but women don't want to admit it because they are more comfortable in pants, and men won't say anything because they don't want to anger women. You also have the fact that men can get brownie points by defending women in pants. I often wonder how much mileage some at WB get by telling their wives how they defended them against the caveman named Butero at WB? My position is that pants pertain to a man, and dresses pertain to a woman.

[nebula]

And please note, that I can also say it is a personal opinion that men look effeminate in a dress, but most hold it.

No, men don't look effeminate in a dress - they look dorky.

As for the ones who try to make themselves out to be women (cross-dressers and transvestites), their problem is something deeper than attire, and changing clothes won't fix that.

You made the claim, and I find it absurd, that women look just as feminine in pants as in a dress.

Again, that is your opinion.

I think of a time I saw a Mennonite teenage girl wearing a skirt, t-shirt, and sneakers. To me that looked dorky, and I thought she would have looked better in pants. Do you find frumpy attractive just because a skirt is involved?

If that were the case, then it should stand to reason that a man looks just as masculine in a dress as in pants.

Culturally, the majority of us females wear pants that are made for women - feminine cuts, feminine styles, feminine decoration. Culturally, dresses and skirts are not made to style or fit men. But in other culture, there are such made for men (they just call thems something else - i.e. kilt).

If our culture accepted and created clothing styled and cut for men that had a single wrap around both legs (rather than the split double-wrapping that makes pants) - and if there ar emen tha actually wanted to wear such things - like a kilt, they would not look any less masculine.

But again, a man in a made-for-women dress or skirt just looks dorky (not effeminate).

I can think of probably 4 or 5 times where I never could figure it out, but that is not what I was saying. What I am saying is that from behind, I couldn't tell, because the clothes the person was wearing looked like men's clothing. I couldn't determine if it was a man or a woman till they turned around and I saw their face. This happened to me last week. I saw what I thought were two guys messing around near my truck at a rest area, so I went to investigate. It turned out one of them was a woman, and they were walking around smoking a cigarette. They were both dressed like a guy. There was nothing the least bit feminine about the woman's apperance.

Ok - but so what? Why is it is such a huge deal? Why is it a top priority to you to be able to recognize male or female from a distance? Is it all about you?