Split... "Womanhood" - Pants

[Guest]

I wonder what sporting women should wear etc. horse riding ?

Or women who go outdoors on windy days

I have an Aunt that's 73 today -- and she still wears overalls and boots when out on the ranch! The reason has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with working on a ranch with lots of barbed wire, snakes, thorns, and other nasty stuff you can get into. Clothing also offers protection from such hazards -- and yes, she wears jeans when going in town and she'll still drive anything with wheels.

[AmateurPoet03]

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?

This is not something planned and hopefully I am no less of a child of God for it. My hubby has had some health issues that have impacted his day to day life and stress is something that at the time is doctor ordered to be lowered. So for now, I am trying to be the bread winner for the home as well as work on furthering my education so that way I may become a teacher. It has always been my husbands and my wish for me to be the homemaker while he earns the living.

While I am of the belief that women are to be the nurturers and support their spouses, and perhaps 'old fashioned' in my views I find myself being forced into the position of the modern day image of a woman that it seems a number here on the boards may take issue with.

So I pose a question in relation to the topic....are there women in the Bible that we can recall who had to step in for men when the situation called for it?

I am likely in error, but I think that scripture has mentioned certain women who were put in a situation where they had to take up a man's responsibility. One such woman was Deborah...a prophetess.... I think in the Old Testament, possibly in the book of Judges. I am no scholar so there is as I said....always room for error.

With all this talk of women being able or unable to wear pants according to scripture....I am trying to investigate this from a scriptural perspective....

So just consider my words if nothing else...Food For Thought.

[wingnut-]

This is not something planned and hopefully I am no less of a child of God for it. My hubby has had some health issues that have impacted his day to day life and stress is something that at the time is doctor ordered to be lowered. So for now, I am trying to be the bread winner for the home as well as work on furthering my education so that way I may become a teacher. It has always been my husbands and my wish for me to be the homemaker while he earns the living.

While I am of the belief that women are to be the nurturers and support their spouses, and perhaps 'old fashioned' in my views I find myself being forced into the position of the modern day image of a woman that it seems a number here on the boards may take issue with.

So I pose a question in relation to the topic....are there women in the Bible that we can recall who had to step in for men when the situation called for it?

I am likely in error, but I think that scripture has mentioned certain women who were put in a situation where they had to take up a man's responsibility. One such woman was Deborah...a prophetess.... I think in the Old Testament, possibly in the book of Judges. I am no scholar so there is as I said....always room for error.

With all this talk of women being able or unable to wear pants according to scripture....I am trying to investigate this from a scriptural perspective....

So just consider my words if nothing else...Food For Thought.

Not sure if you are asking me or butero, but Ruth comes to mind. I'm sure there are others as well. Of course you're no less a child of God for it, we do what we have to in difficult times, there is nothing wrong with a woman working, or wearing jeans.

[~candice~]

It is the same reason that I am working, my husband cannot. We do what needs to be done. And I do it cheerfully, because I love my husband. And despite me being the bread winner, he is still firmly the boss of the house, no doubts there.

[Guest]

Not suggesting and answer to my questions one way or the other, but I think it is worth asking yourselves, in what ways do your positions glorify God, or hinder or advance His kingdom, or edify the church, or spread love? I might have to ask myself the same questions in topic I post in.

[missmuffet]

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.

"Wearing the pants in the family" is only a symbolism.

[AmateurPoet03]

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.

"Wearing the pants in the family" is only a symbolism.

Is it not possible that this passage could be referring to both authority within the household as well as instruction on appearance?

[enoob57]

It is the same reason that I am working, my husband cannot. We do what needs to be done. And I do it cheerfully, because I love my husband. And despite me being the bread winner, he is still firmly the boss of the house, no doubts there.

That's cause you love God's Word....

[caviezelfan]

Katharine Hepburn, back in the day, is the woman who started the whole thing about women wearing pants. Pants are so much easier to work in, and there is no loss of modesty when pants are worn on the job; a lot of women are climbing ladders and having to bend down to the floor a lot, so it would not make any sense at all for women to be restricted to wearing dresses/skirts in this day and age of employment for women.

[AmateurPoet03]

Katharine Hepburn, back in the day, is the woman who started the whole thing about women wearing pants. Pants are so much easier to work in, and there is no loss of modesty when pants are worn on the job; a lot of women are climbing ladders and having to bend down to the floor a lot, so it would not make any sense at all for women to be restricted to wearing dresses/skirts in this day and age of employment for women.

I agree. Then with the manner in which a number of dresses and skirts and being made today....modesty cannot be practiced in any other way. Some dresses that look good at a first glance when tried on are far too short and show far too much.