Split: Your Views... Women Wearing Pants

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

Now GE, I want to ask you some questions.  Is Concerned Women For America trying to impose their own standard of morality on everyone else by attacking a little boy wearing a skirt?  If a church won't accept a man wearing a dress as a song leader, is that an attempt to impose their personal convictions on others?  If a woman doesn't feel comfortable going out with a man that is wearing a dress, isn't it hypocritical if she expects him to feel good that she is wearing jeans?  Our pagan society is tolerant of a lot of evil things, so we can't go by what they find acceptable.  Can a woman be guilty of wearing clothes that pertain to a man in any circumstance, as women clearly think a man can wear clothes that pertain to a woman?  It is my contention that women feel like they can choose to look however they wish, dress however they want, and be anything they desire, while men must look like a man in their appearance, dress in a way that is masculine, and basically be men.  There is a clear double standard, and I haven't heard one man or woman give a valid reason why this is so?  Not from you and not from anyone else. 

 

Perhaps in the same way you see a double standard for men/women I pointed to your double standard with women (pants) and men (kilts). But in any case...

I don’t believe it is hypocritical for a woman to wear pants. I would not force any woman I knew to wear skirts (including daughters if God ever blesses me with a daughter).

Let me ask you this. Do you think its sin for a man to shave his beard or have long hair?

 

Honestly, I don’t really understand where you’re coming from. Concerned Women for America has the right speak up for what they believe in. You have the right not to wear pants. But when you tell women in general that wearing pants is a sin you are imposing a standard which isn’t found in Scripture. Your in essence elevating your personal preference and determining that to be Biblical truth where in fact this issue of pants is not black/white in my estimation but rather grey.

 

Of course they have that right at Concerned Women For America, just as I have the right to come against women in pants.  If I am elevating my standard to something not found in scripture, so are they, but where is the outrage? 

 

Let me ask you this GE?  I don't expect you to really do this, but just imagine the consequences?  I would assume your church is pretty liberal when it comes to how women dress, likely one of those churches that has a "Come As You Are" sign up from time to time, or at least claims to believe in that philosophy?  What would happen if one Sunday morning, you put on a dress and prepared to go to church?  You wife asks you why you are wearing a dress, and you say you just felt like doing so this week.  How would she react?  Would she go with you like that?  If you get past that obstacle, and show up at church in a dress, how will they react to you?  They ask you about the dress, and you say you just felt like wearing a dress that Sunday.  Perhaps you tell them you wanted to be a trend setter?  How would they react?  Lets say you decided to go to work in a dress?  How would they react?  Would they welcome you?  How about if you had long hair?  Would that be acceptable to them, or would they send you home or fire you?  If anyone said anything negative about it, would you accuse them of elevating their own personal convictions to unbiblical standards?  If you had a son and he wanted to wear a dress, would you be as accepting of it as you would be with a daughter wearing pants? 

 

Two wrongs don't make a right brother. You aren't responsible for the Concerned Women for America's actions. Only your own. Are you admitting that you are elevating your standard to something not found in Scripture?

You have the right to do so yes. But is it really wise to go around saying that women who wear pants sin?

I honestly wouldn't support an organization that tried to attack a child for wearing a dress. Would I want my child wearing it? Nope. However, I don't know the specifics of the example you gave. Why is the child wanting to wear a dress in the first place? Why are the parents allowing it?

I would never wear a dress. I have no interest in kilts either. Lol.

Yes, at my church women can wear pants, shorts, skirts, dresses, etc. I would say that in the South of the U.S. most people who are transgenders wouldn't want to go to a conservative (doctrinally) church. But if someone did I'm sure we would all feel awkward but still try to love them and point them towards Christ. At least that would be my hope.

You are right I probably wouldn't want my son wearing a dress.

 

God bless,

GE

 

If you wouldn't want your son wearing a dress, and your church wouldn't want men teaching their children wearing a dress, you should be able to understand the double standard taking place.  Why would that be an issue to you, and why is it ok for women to wear pants but troubling for a man to wear a dress, given the fact everyone used to wear robes? 

[GoldenEagle]

 

 

3. Women are indeed free to be stay at home moms if they so desire or if they want to work outside the home that is fine too. Are you saying women shouldn't work outside the home? If so I find that to be a bit of a chovanistic idea. If you do have this view what do you base it on?

 

4. Do you believe that men should be irresponsible, not work, and not support their home? How does this conform with 1 Tim 5:8? (Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.) Honestly, not sure about where you live but many families have found that the husband enjoys (or due to ilness and/or disablity) staying at home with the kids and the wife works outside the home. I see nothing wrong with this.

Of course men should be responsible and provide for their family.  That is their Biblical responsibility, as women are to be helpmeets to their husband, and housewives and mothers.  The very word Chovanistic is unbiblical.  It is a feminist term based on a man who held to the notion that men could do anything better than women.  Of course that is nonsense, but they have expanded the term to mean anyone who holds to traditional roles for men and women.  It is quite easy to justify my position Biblically, by just going back to Genesis.  God placed the responsibility to earn a living by the sweat of his brow to the man, not the woman.  Feminists came along and tricked women into feeling slighted with their traditional roles as housewives and Mothers, and convinced them that to be fulfilled, they must have a career.  In some cases, they almost make out like housewives are prostitutes.  It is disgusting.  The point I am making is that men don't have the same choices, and there are not many househusbands where men are stay at home Dads..  It is not God's order for men to be stay at home Dads.  Again, go back to Genesis. 

 

Chauvinistic:

1. a person who is aggressively and blindly patriotic, especially one devoted to military glory.

2. a person who believes one gender is superior to the other, as a male chauvinist  or a female chauvinist .

 

Actually chauvinistic can refer to either a feminist view  or a patriarchal view. I'm not sure if it has roots in the feminist movement or not.

Further, I think you're confusing the issues. Working the land was a PUNISHMENT towards man (Adam) and not just a responsibility. Just like in the garden his wife (Eve) was right there with him having to work alongside her husband. There is no command for a woman to stay at home to care for the children and be a home maker. If it is possible that a man gets a job that allows her to do so that's great. My wife currently stays home with our child. If our living situation required her to bring in an income or if she wanted to work then I wouldn't be opposed to that. Please bring further Biblical evidence of your position into the discussion.

You asserted... "It is not God's order for men to be stay at home Dads." Please provide further Biblical evidence to support this statement. What you have presented in Genesis I don't see as valid or at best a weak argument.

I do agree that the feminist movement has gone beyond the equal treatment for women to something more - perhaps even saying women are superior to men. In any case the reason that such movements began was because of the notion that a woman was to remain at home. Particularly when women started working jobs men traditionally did prior to World War 2.

God bless,

GE

[Guest Butero]

 

 

1. I see no problem with the items you described as clothes for women. I don't think the term "anything" is really appropriate though for the conversation as it is a bit vague and super-imposes a position that I haven't taken. I can't speak for everyone else lol. Please clarify what you mean by "anything"?

 

By "anything," I mean just that, "anything."  They can wear clothes that are feminine or masculine.  There is no clothing that they could wear that would be considered dressing like a man.  They could wear their husband's clothes, as more than one woman has admitted doing, and be accepted, but let a man wear his wife's dress, and see what happens? 

 

 

I’m not sure that there is NO clothing that women could wear that would be considered dressing like a man. I just don’t see what the hang-up is over guys and dresses?

 

If you know of anything, give an example?  I have seen women wear a suit and neck tie with nothing being said about it.  I have seen them with a man's hair cut, and clothing that was identical to what their husband was wearing.  I have yet to see anything a woman can wear, even if it was from the men's section of the store, that anyone makes an issue of, but let it get out that someone is considering letting a man wear a dress or something women would normally wear, and the protests start, often by women.

 

BTW, I have no problem with CWFA coming against "Jessie's Dream Skirt."  I have an issue with their double standard.  I wrote them and said I would support them if they would show equal outrage to women in pants, and I would have sent them an offering had they agreed to do so. 

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

3. Women are indeed free to be stay at home moms if they so desire or if they want to work outside the home that is fine too. Are you saying women shouldn't work outside the home? If so I find that to be a bit of a chovanistic idea. If you do have this view what do you base it on?

 

4. Do you believe that men should be irresponsible, not work, and not support their home? How does this conform with 1 Tim 5:8? (Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.) Honestly, not sure about where you live but many families have found that the husband enjoys (or due to ilness and/or disablity) staying at home with the kids and the wife works outside the home. I see nothing wrong with this.

Of course men should be responsible and provide for their family.  That is their Biblical responsibility, as women are to be helpmeets to their husband, and housewives and mothers.  The very word Chovanistic is unbiblical.  It is a feminist term based on a man who held to the notion that men could do anything better than women.  Of course that is nonsense, but they have expanded the term to mean anyone who holds to traditional roles for men and women.  It is quite easy to justify my position Biblically, by just going back to Genesis.  God placed the responsibility to earn a living by the sweat of his brow to the man, not the woman.  Feminists came along and tricked women into feeling slighted with their traditional roles as housewives and Mothers, and convinced them that to be fulfilled, they must have a career.  In some cases, they almost make out like housewives are prostitutes.  It is disgusting.  The point I am making is that men don't have the same choices, and there are not many househusbands where men are stay at home Dads..  It is not God's order for men to be stay at home Dads.  Again, go back to Genesis. 

 

Chauvinistic:

1. a person who is aggressively and blindly patriotic, especially one devoted to military glory.

2. a person who believes one gender is superior to the other, as a male chauvinist  or a female chauvinist .

Actually chauvinistic can refer to either a feminist view  or a patriarchal view. I'm not sure if it has roots in the feminist movement or not.

Actually, I think you're confusing the issues. Working the land was a PUNISHMENT towards man (Adam) and not just a responsibility. Just like in the garden his wife (Eve) was right there with him having to work alongside her husband. There is no command for a woman to stay at home to care for the children and be a home maker. If it is possible that a man gets a job that allows her to do so that's great. My wife currently stays home with our child. If our living situation required her to bring in an income or if she wanted to work then I wouldn't be opposed to that. Please bring further Biblical evidence of your position into the discussion. "It is not God's order for men to be stay at home Dads." Please provide further Biblical evidence to support this statement. What you have presented in Genesis I don't see as valid or at best a weak argument.

I do agree that the feminist movement has gone beyond the equal treatment for women to something more - perhaps even saying women are superior to men. In any case the reason that such movements began was because of the notion that a woman was to remain at home. Particularly when women started working jobs men traditionally did prior to World War 2.

God bless,

GE

 

That is all well and good you consider my Genesis argument weak, but I don't agree.  The responsibility for earning a living belongs to the man alone.  I am not saying it is sinful for women to work, but I don't believe that is God's intent.  They were created to be a help meet for their husband, and that is what is plainly taught in scripture.  I have had disputes with men who claimed that their wives should work public jobs if they don't have kids, and if they do have kids, they should still have to work part time because house work wasn't enough.  That is not their responsibility. 

 

The Bible says that a man that doesn't provide for his family is worse than an infidel and has denied the faith.  Mr. Mom isn't obeying that scripture. 

[GoldenEagle]

 

5. I see no problem with women having hairstyles according to their own tastes. I personally like longer hair (probably because I grew up in S. America where this was the norm) but this is just a personal preference. Do you think women with a particular style of hair is sinful?

 

6. Discrimination based on hair length I would imagine is at the minimum unethical and possibly illegal in many places. I have no issue with the length of a man's hair. Do you?

First of all, scripture says it is a shame for a man to have long hair and women to have short hair, so I do have a problem with it, but it is funny how men are attacked for long hair but women can have long hair or short hair?  My company would have a problem with men with long hair.  I haven't seen any lawsuits yet? 

 

Perhaps I am wrong for saying this, but I don't believe you.  I would have to see it to believe it?  I would have to see a man visit your church and how you react?  I would have to see you being fine if you had a son and he wore a dress? 

 

Where does Scripture say this in red? Are you talking about 1 Cor. 11? What is the context of the passage?

Re: no men with long hair. If it is a company policy that doesn't break the law I see no problem with it. They are free to make rules specifically for their business. You are free to specifically chose a different job.

 

You don't believe what? Oh perhaps this is to my sarcastic comment. <sigh>

[GoldenEagle]

 

if you are saying that all pants are for men, I simply would disagree.  Maybe a hundred years ago in some areas of the world, but not today.  I hope you are not saying we should go back to the 1800's for our standards.

In some ways, that wouldn't be a bad idea?  I wouldn't even have to go back to the 1800s.  If I could go back 100 years, I think I would be pretty comfortable, and in the main stream.  At some point, women had to decide they wanted to wear pants, and the only ones around were made for men.  It was only after a market was created that people started manufacturing pants to sell to women.  At what time did it go from men's clothing and sin to women's clothing and acceptable?  How many trend setters had to sin before it was no longer sin? 

 

 

So would it be a good idea to go back to arranged marriages too? Lol.

[Guest Butero]

 

 

if you are saying that all pants are for men, I simply would disagree.  Maybe a hundred years ago in some areas of the world, but not today.  I hope you are not saying we should go back to the 1800's for our standards.

In some ways, that wouldn't be a bad idea?  I wouldn't even have to go back to the 1800s.  If I could go back 100 years, I think I would be pretty comfortable, and in the main stream.  At some point, women had to decide they wanted to wear pants, and the only ones around were made for men.  It was only after a market was created that people started manufacturing pants to sell to women.  At what time did it go from men's clothing and sin to women's clothing and acceptable?  How many trend setters had to sin before it was no longer sin? 

 

 

So would it be a good idea to go back to arranged marriages too? Lol.

 

Considering the divorce rate, maybe?

[Guest Butero]

 

 

5. I see no problem with women having hairstyles according to their own tastes. I personally like longer hair (probably because I grew up in S. America where this was the norm) but this is just a personal preference. Do you think women with a particular style of hair is sinful?

 

6. Discrimination based on hair length I would imagine is at the minimum unethical and possibly illegal in many places. I have no issue with the length of a man's hair. Do you?

First of all, scripture says it is a shame for a man to have long hair and women to have short hair, so I do have a problem with it, but it is funny how men are attacked for long hair but women can have long hair or short hair?  My company would have a problem with men with long hair.  I haven't seen any lawsuits yet? 

 

Perhaps I am wrong for saying this, but I don't believe you.  I would have to see it to believe it?  I would have to see a man visit your church and how you react?  I would have to see you being fine if you had a son and he wore a dress? 

 

Where does Scripture say this in red? Are you talking about 1 Cor. 11? What is the context of the passage?

Re: no men with long hair. If it is a company policy that doesn't break the law I see no problem with it. They are free to make rules specifically for their business. You are free to specifically chose a different job.

 

You don't believe what? Oh perhaps this is to my sarcastic comment. <sigh>

 

Why does it have to say something in red to be valid?  Of course I am speaking of 1 Corinthians 11.  The Bible states that it is a shame for a man to have long hair and it says that long hair was given to the woman as a covering or a veil.  Context?  It speaks of praying and prophesying.  I don't feel right about praying with my head covered (long hair).  If you look at the passage carefully, this acts as a sign of submission to one's head.  If the man has short hair, it is a sign he is under submission to Christ, and when the woman has long hair, it shows she is under submission to her head (husband and Christ).  When a man has long hair and a woman has short hair, it is an open sign of rebellion. 

 

Yes, a company is free to set standards.  My point is the double standard that exists for men and women.

[GoldenEagle]

That is all well and good you consider my Genesis argument weak, but I don't agree.  The responsibility for earning a living belongs to the man alone.  I am not saying it is sinful for women to work, but I don't believe that is God's intent.  They were created to be a help meet for their husband, and that is what is plainly taught in scripture.  I have had disputes with men who claimed that their wives should work public jobs if they don't have kids, and if they do have kids, they should still have to work part time because house work wasn't enough.  That is not their responsibility. 

 

The Bible says that a man that doesn't provide for his family is worse than an infidel and has denied the faith.  Mr. Mom isn't obeying that scripture. 

 

 

I think this might be a subject for another thread. However, I think it's an unbalanced view Biblically o say that all men who stay at home are sinning. I don't think a woman should HAVE to work either. I also think it is unbalanced view Biblically to say that a woman HAS to work at the very least part-time even if the family has kids.

 

You are assuming you know the specifics of every situation in red. My grandfather is a very hard working man. When he was in his mid 30's he contracted a very serious infection that kept him from working for over 2 years. My grandmother was the bread winner during that time.

Are you saying that since he took care of the kids and did housework (as best he could) that he wasn't obeying Scripture?

All I'm saying is I'd be very cautious when judging others on something and claim as Biblical truth when it is a personal conviction.

 

 

Please bring further Biblical evidence of your position into the discussion. "It is not God's order for men to be stay at home Dads." Please provide further Biblical evidence to support this statement. What you have presented in Genesis I don't see as valid or at best a weak argument.

 

Butero, please provide further Biblical backing for your statement in bold.

 

God bless,

GE

[Guest Butero]

 

That is all well and good you consider my Genesis argument weak, but I don't agree.  The responsibility for earning a living belongs to the man alone.  I am not saying it is sinful for women to work, but I don't believe that is God's intent.  They were created to be a help meet for their husband, and that is what is plainly taught in scripture.  I have had disputes with men who claimed that their wives should work public jobs if they don't have kids, and if they do have kids, they should still have to work part time because house work wasn't enough.  That is not their responsibility. 

 

The Bible says that a man that doesn't provide for his family is worse than an infidel and has denied the faith.  Mr. Mom isn't obeying that scripture. 

 

 

I think this might be a subject for another thread. However, I think it's an unbalanced view Biblically o say that all men who stay at home are sinning. I don't think a woman should HAVE to work either. I also think it is unbalanced view Biblically to say that a woman HAS to work at the very least part-time even if the family has kids.

 

You are assuming you know the specifics of every situation in red. My grandfather is a very hard working man. When he was in his mid 30's he contracted a very serious infection that kept him from working for over 2 years. My grandmother was the bread winner during that time.

Are you saying that since he took care of the kids and did housework (as best he could) that he wasn't obeying Scripture?

All I'm saying is I'd be very cautious when judging others on something and claim as Biblical truth when it is a personal conviction.

 

 

Please bring further Biblical evidence of your position into the discussion. "It is not God's order for men to be stay at home Dads." Please provide further Biblical evidence to support this statement. What you have presented in Genesis I don't see as valid or at best a weak argument.

 

Butero, please provide further Biblical backing for your statement in bold.

 

God bless,

GE

 

I am pretty sure that I already addressed the fact that there are things that can happen no fault of someone where a man can't work and a woman steps in, if not in this thread, in another one?  If I didn't, consider it mentioned now.  I am speaking in general.  If the man is capable of working.  I am not speaking of situations like the one you mentioned.  Come to think of it, I remember having this very conversation with a woman at WB, because her husband was sick and she had to work.  I understand extenuating circumstances like that.  The scriptures I gave are sufficient.  Mr. Mom isn't supporting his family.  His wife or somebody else is.