Joined: 01 Jun 2005 Posts: 4820 Location: Vatican City
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:42 pm Post subject: Notification Concerning Men's Dress Worn by Women (Siri)
Notification Concerning Men's Dress Worn by Women by Giuseppe Cardinal Siri
Genoa, June 12, 1960.
To the Reverend Clergy, To all Teaching sisters, To the beloved sons of Catholic Action, To Educators intending truly to follow Christine Doctrine. (1)
I. The first signs of our times of our late arriving spring indicate that there is this year a certain increase in the use of men's dress by girls and women, even family mothers. Up until 1959, in Genoa, such dress usually meant the person was a tourist, but now it seems to be a significant number of girls and women from Genoa itself who are choosing at least on pleasure trips to wear men's dress (men's trousers).
The extension of this behavior obliges us to take serious thought, and we ask those to whom this Notification is addressed to kindly lend to the problem all the attention it deserves from anyone aware of being in any way responsible before God.
We seek above all to give a balanced moral judgment upon the wearing of men's dress by women. In fact, Our thoughts can only bear upon the moral question. (2)
Firstly, when it comes to covering of the female body, the wearing of men's trousers by women cannot be said to constitute AS SUCH A GRAVE OFFENSE AGAINST MODESTY, because trousers certainly cover more of a woman's body than do modern women's skirts.
Secondly, however, clothes to be modest need not only to cover the body but also not to cling too closely to the body. (3) Now it is true that much feminine clothing today clings closer than do some trousers, but trousers can be made to cling closer in fact, generally they do, so the tight fit of such clothing gives us no less grounds for concern than does exposure of the body. So the immodesty of men's trousers on women is an aspect of the problem which is not to be left out of an over-all judgment upon them, even if it is not to be artificially exaggerated either.
II. However, it is a different aspect of women's wearing of men's trousers which seems to us the gravest. (4)
The wearing of men's dress by women affects firstly the woman herself, by changing the feminine psychology proper to women; secondly, it affects the woman as wife of her husband, by tending to vitiate relationships between the sexes; thirdly, it affects the woman as mother of her children by harming her dignity in her children's eyes. Each of these points is to be carefully considered in turn:
A.MALE DRESS CHANGES THE PSYCHOLOGY OF WOMAN.
In truth the motive impelling women to wear men's dress is always that of imitating, nay, of competing with, the man who is considered stronger, less tied down, more independent. This motivation shows clearly that male dress is the visible aid to bringing about a mental attitude of being "like a man". (5) Secondly, ever since men have been men, the clothing a person wears, demands, imposes and modifies that persons gestures, attitudes and behavior, such that from merely being worn outside, clothing comes to impose a particular frame of mind inside.
Then let us add that women wearing man's dress always more or less indicates her reacting to her femininity as though it is inferiority when in fact it is only diversity. The perversion of her psychology is clear to be seen. (6)
These reasons, summing up many more, are enough to warn us how wrongly women are made to think by wearing men's dress.
B. MALE DRESS TENDS TO VITIATE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN.
In truth when relationships between the two sexes unfold with the coming of age, an instinct of mutual attraction is predominant. The essential basis of this attraction is a diversity between the two sexes which is made possible only by their complementing or completing one another. If than this "diversity" becomes less obvious because one of its major external signs is eliminated and because the normal psychological structure is weakened, what results is the alteration of a fundamental factor in the relationship.
The problem goes further still. Mutual attraction between the sexes is preceded both naturally, and
in order of time, by that sense of shame which holds the rising instincts in check, imposes respect upon them, and tends to lift to a higher level of mutual esteem and healthy fear everything that those instincts would push onwards to uncontrolled acts. To change that clothing which by its diversity reveals and upholds nature's limits and defense-works, is to flatten out the distinctions and to help pull down the vital defense-works of the sense of shame.
It is at least to hinder that sense. And when the sense of shame is hindered from putting on the brakes, then relationships between man and women sink degradingly down to pure sensuality, devoid of all mutual respect or esteem.
Experience is there to tell us that when woman is de-feminized, then defenses are undermined and weakness increases. (7)
C. MALE DRESS HARMS THE DIGNITY OF THE MOTHER IN HER CHILDREN'S EYES.
All children have an instinct for the sense of dignity and decorum of their mother. Analysis of the first inner crisis of children when they awaken to life around them before they enter upon adolescence, shows how much the sense of their mother counts. Children are as sensitive as they can be on this point. Adults have usually left all that behind them and think no more on it. But we would do well to recall to mind the severe demands that children instinctively make of their own mother, and the deep and even terrible reactions roused in them by observation of their mother's misbehavior. Many lines of later life are here to be traced out-and not for good-in these early dramas of infancy and childhood.
The child may not know the definition of exposure, frivolity, or infidelity, but he possesses an instinctive sixth sense to recognize them when they occur, to suffer from them, and be bitterly wounded by them in his soul.
III. Let us think seriously on the import of everything said so far, even if women's appearing in man's dress does not immediately give rise to all the upset caused by grave immodesty.
The changing of feminine psychology does fundamental and, in the long run, irreparable damage to the family, to conjugal fidelity, to human affections and to human society. (8) True, the effects of wearing unsuitable dress are not all to be seen within a short time. But one must think of what is being slowly and insidiously worn down, torn apart, perverted.
Is any satisfying reciprocity between husband and wife imaginable, if feminine psychology be changed? Or is any true education of children imaginable, which is so delicate in its procedure, so woven of imponderable factors in which the mother's intuition and instinct play the decisive part in those tender years? What will these women be able to give their children when they will so long have worn trousers that their self-esteem goes more by their competing with the men than by their functioning as women?
Why, we ask, ever since men have been men, or rather since they became civilizes -why have men in all times and places been irresistibly borne to make a differentiated division between the functions of the two sexes? Do we not have here strict testimony to the recognition by all mankind of a truth and a law above man?
To sum up, wherever women wear men's dress, it is to be considered a factor in the long run tearing apart human order.
IV. The logical consequence of everything presented so far is that anyone in a position of responsibility should be possessed by a SENSE of ALARM in the true and proper meaning of the word, a severe and decisive ALARM. (9)
We address a grave warning to parish priests. To all priests in general and to confessors in particular, to members of every kind of association, to all religious, to all nuns, especially to teaching Sisters.
We invite them to become clearly conscious of the problem so that action will follow. This consciousness is what matters. It will suggest the appropriate action in due time. But let it not counsel us to give way in the face of inevitable change, as though we are confronted by a natural evolution of mankind, and so on!
Men may come and men may go, because God has left plenty of room for the to and fro of their free-will; but the substantial lines of nature and the not less substantial lines of Eternal Law have never changed, are not changing and never will change. There are bounds beyond which one may stray as far as one sees fit, but to do so ends in death; (10) there are limits which empty philosophical fantasizing may have one mock or not to take seriously, but they put together an alliance of hard facts and nature to chastise anybody who steps over them. And history has sufficiently taught, with frightening proof from the life and death of nations, that the reply to all violators of the outline of "humanity" is always, sooner or later, catastrophe.
From the dialectic of Hegel onwards, we have had dinned in our ears what are nothing but fables, and by dint of hearing them so often, many people end up by getting used to them, if only passively. But the truth of the matter is that Nature and Truth, and the Law bound up in both, go their imperturbable way, and they cut to pieces the simpletons who upon no grounds whatsoever believe in radical and far-reaching changes in the very structure of man. (11)
The consequences of such violations are not a new outline of man, but disorders, hurtful instability of all kinds, the frightening dryness of human souls, the shattering increase in the number of human castaways, driven long since out of people's sight and mind to live out their decline in boredom, sadness, and rejection. Aligned on the wrecking of the eternal norms are to be found the broken families, lives cut short before their time, hearths and homes gone cold, old people cast to one side, youngsters wilfully degenerate and, at the end of the line, souls in despair and taking their own lives. All of which human wreckage gives witness to the fact that the "line of God" does not give way, nor does it admit of any adaptation to the delirious dreams of the so-called philosophers! (12)
V. We have said that those in whom the present Notification is addressed are invited to take serious alarm at the problem at hand. Accordingly they know what they have to say, starting with little girls on their mother's knee.
They know that without exaggerating or turning into fanatics, they will need to strictly limit how far they tolerate women dressing like men, as a general rule.
They know they must never be so weak as to let anyone believe that they turn a blind eye to a custom which is slipping downhill and undermining the moral standing of all institutions.
They, the priests, know the line that they have to take in the confessional, while not holding women to be dressing like men to be automatically a grave fault, must be sharp and decisive. (13)
Everybody will kindly give thought to the need for a united line of action, reinforced on every side by the co-operation of all men of good will and all enlightened minds, so as to create a true dam to hold back the flood.
Those of you responsible for souls in whatever capacity understand useful it is to have for allies in this defensive campaign men of the arts, the media and the crafts. The position taken by fashion design houses, their brilliant designers and the clothing industry, is of crucial importance in this whole question. Artistic sense, refinement and good taste meeting together can find suitable but dignified solutions as to the dress for women to wear when they must use a motorcycle or engage in this or that exercise or work. What matters is to preserve modesty, together with the eternal sense of femininity, that femininity which more than anything else all children will continue to associate with the face of mother. (14)
We do not deny that modern life sets problems and makes requirements unknown to our grandparents. But we state that there are values more needing to be protected than fleeting experiences, and that for anybody of intelligence there are always good sense and good taste enough to find acceptable and dignified solutions to problems as they come up. (13)
Out of charity we are fighting against the flattening out of mankind, against the attack upon those differences on which rests the complementarity of man and woman.
When we see a woman in trousers, we should think not so much of her as of all mankind, of what it will be when women will have masculinized themselves for good. Nobody stands to gain by helping to bring about a future age of vagueness, ambiguity, imperfection and, in a word, monstrosities. (15)
This letter of Ours is not addressed to the public, but to those responsible for souls, for education, for Catholic associations. Let them do their duty, and let them not be sentries caught asleep at their post while evil crept in.
Giuseppe Cardinal Siri,
Archbishop of Genoa
Translator's Notes
1. At the end of the Cardinal's Notification, he explains that it is not addressed directly to the public at large, but only indirectly, through the Catholic leaders here listed. However, that was in 1960, when the Church still had a framework of leaders. In 1977, those capable by their Faith of responding to the Cardinal's instruction are scattered amongst the public at large, to whom therefore his instruction is fittingly diffused.
2. The Cardinal heads off many objections at the outset when he reminds us by what right he tackles such a subject at all: as a teacher of Faith and morals. Who can reasonably deny that clothing (especially, but not only women's) involves morals and so the salvation of souls?
3. Jeans are now virtually universal. How many women's jeans are not tight-fitting?
4. Trousers on women are worse than mini-skirts, said Bishop de Castro Mayer, because while mini-skirts attack the senses, women's trousers attack man's highest spiritual faculty, the mind. Cardinal Siri explains why, in depth.
5. When the women wish to be like men (somebody said, the feminists are more scornful of womanhood than anybody), it is up to the men to make women proud of being women.
6. The enormous increase increase since 1960 in the practice and public flaunting of the vice against nature is surely to be attributed in part to this perversion of psychology.
7. When woman is feminine, she has the strength God gives to her. When she is defeminized, she has only the strength she gives herself.
8. For an example of this damage, see the relationship between the sexes as portrayed in Rock music, for instance, as per letter enclosed, The Wall, Songs 6,9,10,11.
9. In 1997, can we say the Cardinal was exaggerating?
10. All great art and literature testifies to this moral structure of the universe which one violates at one's peril, and which is as much part of the natural order as is its physical structure. The plays of Shakespeare are a famous example. The Cardinal is here at the heart of the question.
11. It has been said, God is ready to forgive always, man sometimes, nature never.
12. The Cardinal is not just indulging in rhetoric. For an example of "human wreckage", see the summary version of Pink Floyd's misery in the letter enclosed. (It is not here enclosed- Webmaster)
13. How much wisdom and balance in all these apparently severe conclusions of the Cardinal!
14. In other words, the feminity of the mother, not of Eve.
15. In 1997, we see all around us the age of monstrosities which in 1960 Cardinal was doing his best to prevent. In the Cardinal's own country, Italy, the birth-rate has been the lowest in all of Europe! Italian youth is devastated. The Cardinal was not listened to then. Will he be listened to now? Pink Floyd has the problem. Cardinal Siri has the answer.
Joined: 23 Aug 2005 Posts: 2324 Location: Mid-West
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:41 pm Post subject:
Cute, Thor.
Seriously, though: the translation for that document is copyrighted by Bishop Williamson. You should cite the source as the St. Thomas Aquinas web site. If you have the document from another source hopefully it provides the necessary copyright. _________________ Is. 12:3 ... I Cor. 15:25
Joined: 01 Jun 2005 Posts: 4820 Location: Vatican City
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:26 pm Post subject:
Haurietis Aquas wrote:
Cute, Thor.
Seriously, though: the translation for that document is copyrighted by Bishop Williamson. You should cite the source as the St. Thomas Aquinas web site. If you have the document from another source hopefully it provides the necessary copyright.
I went through a few websites that has a copy of the Siri article posted and not one of them has a copyright notice and they never cited Bishop Williamson for credit. One website happens to be an SSPX website: SSPX-District of Asia.
However, I just found a copy of the article at Our Lady of the Rosary Library and OLRL cites Bishop Williamson as the translator!
I'll contact one of the moderator's and notify them about your concern. Stay tuned.
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:30 am Post subject: womens dress
which is more provocative? a woman in modest slacks (not trousers) or in a short skirt? We should then have had to condemn Joan of Arc for wearing men's clothing
Joined: 01 Jun 2005 Posts: 4820 Location: Vatican City
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:10 pm Post subject:
Quote:
A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God. (Deuteronomy 22:5)
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:20 pm Post subject: Re: womens dress
xcordeeclesiae wrote:
which is more provocative? a woman in modest slacks (not trousers) or in a short skirt? We should then have had to condemn Joan of Arc for wearing men's clothing
I don't think this is a good example since she was actually in disguise, wasn't she? Anyway, she was the sole exception to the rule in those days, and the Bishop is talking about a popular trend.
but we have been over this territory many times haven't we?
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:25 pm Post subject: women's wear
I like to be a little counter culteral and so I dress like a GIRL almost all the time. I wear dresses and jumpers. I dress as I think Our Lady would dress in this day and age. And it is demanded of me as one consecrated to Jesus through Mary and also by my Franciscan profession. So I do not cut my hair off and wear pants. I am usually the only woman wearing a dress on many occasions. And I wear my miraculous medal all the time with the exception of Lent when I wear a Crucifix. I look at it as being a little radical!
Those of you responsible for souls in whatever capacity understand useful it is to have for allies in this defensive campaign men of the arts, the media and the crafts. The position taken by fashion design houses, their brilliant designers and the clothing industry, is of crucial importance in this whole question. Artistic sense, refinement and good taste meeting together can find suitable but dignified solutions as to the dress for women to wear when they must use a motorcycle or engage in this or that exercise or work. What matters is to preserve modesty, together with the eternal sense of femininity, that femininity which more than anything else all children will continue to associate with the face of mother. (14)
A lot of clothing for women is not, I think unfeminine, but certainly immodest. This can be said even for mainstream designs which are directed toward the young.
Joined: 01 Jun 2005 Posts: 4820 Location: Vatican City
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:12 pm Post subject:
Zabojad wrote:
agnusdei wrote:
Quote:
A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel,
Slacks no longer qualify as "man's apparel" in 2006.
That's only because society has programmed people into accepting current "social norms" which have changed during the past several decades. But that's the goal of social psychology, to change "prejudices" and convince people to accept the social changes of this world. Our Church teaches us otherwise, that we must convert the world and "Instaurare omnia in Christo", that is, to "restablish [restore] all things in Christ", that are in Heaven and on earth, in Him. (Ephesians 1:10) I once majored in psychology and when I had to study social psychology one issue that was frequently discussed was the fact that each culture has its own "social norms" and social conformity plays a major role in how these social norms are applied and accepted or rejected. It seems that in Western society, the feminists have done such an effective job at converting femininity into masulinity that their depraved agenda has become one of the most accepted social norms of our horrid culture. What was once abnormal is now considered "normal." For traditionalists, it's disgusting, so much so that, these days, it'll even turn the stomache of a vulture! This feminazi agenda is rooted in that anti-Catholic pseudo-philosophy that "everyone is doing it so it must be okay"! But it should bother Catholics. It bothers me especially when I occasionally walk into a chancery or visit a Catholic retreat center to be a thick thorn in the sides of modernists and see right before me some feminist nun/wannabe priestess in a suit and tie! YUCK!!! Remember, Our Lady of Fatima warned: "Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much." (May 13, 1917).
Yeah, and I guess earrings are no longer considered women's jewelry.
I guess you guess well. It all depends of the context. In the context of 2006, you can be a woman and wear slacks. For clothes have their evolution, too. That's the reason they won't let you enter some traditional Catholic chapels I know if you dress the way Jesus did (long hair and a long dress). Now, think it over - what would Jesus wear in 2006? Traditional Catholicism is about Mass and Credo and Gospel. It is not about dressing like your g'ma did 60 years ago. As long your dresses are modest and they indicate that you pay some respect, I think it's ok.
Slacks no longer qualify as 'man's apparel' in 2006.
This sounds like a statement of a people who follow the 'fashions of the current modern times'. And how should catholics feel about make-up and dying one's hair? Seems to all fit together in this way of thinking.
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 4:53 pm Post subject: where does it say that
where does it say that:
women - or men - can't color their hair
women can't wear make-up
women can't wear jewelry (not even a diamond engagment ring or if so, how much is too much to pay???)
maybe then
women shouldn't wear high heel shoes, fur coats, expensive purses, gloves or hats. How about those expensive European lace mantillas? Why not forbid them from waxing their upper lip, plucking chin hairs, shaving their legs or underarms, wearing panty hose, girdles or better yet no BRASSIERES!!!
Denim jumper, bulky turtle necks, bobby socks and those keds kind of sneakers should be the uniform for all Catholic women!!!
Joined: 23 Aug 2005 Posts: 2324 Location: Mid-West
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:09 pm Post subject: Re: where does it say that
Tom wrote:
jersey girl wrote:
Denim jumper, bulky turtle necks, bobby socks and those keds kind of sneakers should be the uniform for all Catholic women!!!
Beautiful, modest AND feminine WITHOUT the frump!.
Dominican Teaching Sisters wrote:
It is indeed necessary that we be aware of the woman’s specific vocation of being wife and mother, and of all that is involved with this mission; from the virtues which must be developed, to proper feminine dress, which is not at all without importance. On the contrary, feminine dress works toward the sanctification of women, no matter what our modern world thinks. Our modern world tries fiercely to make a woman fall into sin, to make of her a vulgar object of lust, to steal her maternal instinct, to make her lose the idea of her sacred and noble work of being a mother, bearer of life . . .
God saith, "Which of you can make a white hair black, or out of black a white?" And so they refute the Lord! "Behold!" say they, "instead of white or black, we make it yellow,- more winning in grace." And yet such a repent of having lived to old age do attempt to change it even from white to black! O temerity! The age which is the object of our wishes and prayers blushes {for itself!} a theft is effected! Youth, wherein we have sinned, is sighed after! The opportunity of sobriety is spoiled! Far from Wisdom's daughter be folly so great! The more old age tries to conceal itself, the more it will be detected. Here is a veritable eternity, in the {perennial} youth of your head! Here we have an "incorruptability" to "put on," with a view to the New house of the Lord which the Divine Monarchy promises! Well do you speed toward the Lord; well do you hasten to be quite of this most iniquitous world, to whom it is unsightly to approach {your own} end!
"And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons... And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife, garments of skins, and clothed them." - (Genesis 3:7, 21)
Evidently, the "aprons" that Adam and Eve made for themselves didn't provide enough coverage in God's eyes, so He made them garments of skins and dressed them properly. Have you ever wondered what those skin garments looked like? You can bet they weren't those skimpy "Tarzan-and-Jane" outfits seen in the movies.
In the verses from Genesis cited above, the Latin Vulgate uses the word tunicas. Even for someone not well versed in Latin, I think it's obvious that that word means "tunic." The Hebrew word used is ktnvt, the root of which means "cover."
Tunics of pre-Christian biblical and ancient Roman times were flowing garments that extended past the knees and covered the arms and shoulders. I feel pretty confident that, after that whole embarrassing issue in the Garden with the Serpent, Adam and Eve made sure their children and grandchildren all dressed modestly.
Adam and Eve lived long enough to see many generations of their children grow up and have children of their own. Scripture tells us that Adam died shortly before Noah was born. Imagine Adam and Eve's grief at having to watch their children grow up, knowing that, because of their sin, their children would never experience anything like Adam and Eve had in the Garden of Eden. Right down to today, children often have to suffer because of the sins and mistakes of their parents.
I think that another outcome from that incident in Paradise is that women have an inordinate interest in clothing. Yes, we can't deny it! I can just imagine women in Moses' day gossiping about what the other women were wearing. Not only that: simply consider how much and how often women's fashions change compared to men's. But that doesn't mean that men don't have their own frivolous pastimes. Look at how many men have gotten overly involved in competition and sports, sometimes to the exclusion of everything else. ESPN. Need I say more?
I think it's because of women's interest in clothing that we even have a record to trace. There are historians who have kept track of this stuff! Let's take a look.
From the time of Adam and Eve, men and women have dressed with dignity. Straight through the era of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and King David, women all wore long, flowing, graceful "tunics" that covered their shoulders and usually their arms and extended to the ground, and they would wear some sort of veil to cover their heads.
Early pagan Greek women wore long flowing robes and gowns, with their heads covered wiht some sort of veil or hair ornament. The garment was called a chiton (begins with a "k" sound and rhymes with "tighten"). The basic male garment was also the chiton, but it was usually only knee-length. The chiton was made of a rectangle of fabric which was fastened at the shoulders and belted at the waist. The garment could be either sleeved or sleeveless. Both styles were very graceful.
In Rome, the women wore a floor-length sleeveless tunic (men wore a knee-length tunic), over which they wore a floor-length stola, which was a tunic-type garment with sleeves. It was belted at the waist, and in public they would finish off their outfit with an elegant veil.
Basic styles in the Christian West didn't change much for centuries. From the historically accepted "Fall of Rome" in 476 A.D. until the time of the Crusades, the wealthier women wore elegant gowns that reached the floor, complete with long sleeves and often a veil, especially for married women. Marriage often meant a change in hair style too: from loose and flowing to pinned up in some type of a bun. Women would sometimes wear two tunic-type garments, one over the other.
The veil was worn over a wimple, a piece of white fabric which covered the head and neck and sometimes even the chin. Cloistered nuns still wear a wimple (as in photos of St. Therese of Lisieux.) The Collettine Poor Clares simplified their wimple in the early 20th century so that it no longer covers their chin.
A "girdle," which was a belt or sash worn over the tunic, was gracefully wrapped around the waist or over the hips.
It wasn't until the late 1500's that fashions became more ornate, although the basic clothing remained the same: long gowns, long sleeves, with some sort of head-covering. Think of "Elizabethan England," with the ruffle around the neck and large "leg-of-mutton" sleeves, and you'll get a good idea of what they were wearing during that time period. Lots of attractive embroidery and beautiful decoration were also included on the clothing. Instead of wimples, women wore fancy head-dresses of various styles, sometimes with a veil attached to the back.
Around this time, the corset was introduced. This was a stiff undergarment that shaped the bodice and narrowed the waist. The corset would become one of the classic elements of women's clothing. In some fashion eras, it was used in order to achieve a very tiny waist size.
A "fashion revolution" took place around the time of the French Revolution (1789-1804) and Napoleon Bonaparte (1804-1815), with Napoleon's wife Josephine setting a trend of high-waisted dresses with straight, boyish silhouettes and flattened bust lines. This is also the "Jane Austen" look, as seen in movies like Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility: high waist, low-cut bodice, long straight skirt, long narrow sleeves or short puffy sleeves or a combination of both. Also notable in women's clothing at this time period were more masculine trimmings and accessories, such as top hats instead of bonnets, and military braid on their garments. This "fashion revolution" didn't last long, as women's fashions soon returned to their traditional styles.
In the young United States of America at this time, waistlines were usually at the natural waistline and styles were fancy. Men were wearing ruffled shirts, tight knee-breeches and powdered wigs, as seen in portraits of George Washington.
In the mid-1800's, skirts became very full, with hoops and crinoline petticoats underneath. Photos of ladies during the Civil War show this style. Men were wearing top hats. Then came the bustle at the back of the dress. A few years later before and after the year 1900, the styles featured wide shoulders with large (sometimes enormous) sleeves, and tiny waists. (There's the corset again!)
Incidentally, in all of this discussion about fashions, we're talking about what is worn by good women, which has historically meant women who are chaste, whether married or unmarried. On the other hand, women who are making a living by living an openly unchaste life have historically worn clothing that is intentionally immodest and sexually provocative.
At the beginning of the 1900's, the styles start to look a little more familiar to us, a little more "modern." Hemlines move up a few inches above the ankle, and fashions are overall simpler than before.
You'll notice that one theme has remained constant in women's fashions during the six thousand years of human history: Women wore loose, flowing, feminine gowns that reached the floor, usually with long sleeves and some sort of head covering or hair ornament. But fashions were about to change radically, and not just in the amount of fullness or the length of the skirt. So what happened?
Women's clothing trends followed roughly the same pattern as the trends in society (and helped to shape those trends.) Social scientists point to the Industrial Revolution (starting roughly around 1800) - which enabled women to work outside the home. Then in the year 1920, the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was passed, giving women the right to vote. The Roaring Twenties were the period when we start to see a dramatic departure from the classic style of dressing!
Short hair and the boyish silhouette of the flapper look, with skirts raised to the knees and sleeveless bodices, emerged for women. But where did those unprecedented styles and ideas come from? Certainly not from the past few thousand years of human history. Yes, the times were changing - but one particular woman pushed them to change faster.
Gabrielle Bonheur Chanel, who would become famous under the name of Coco Chanel, played a very important role in the change of women's fashions. It has been said that she revolutionized women's fashions. By the way, the perfume "Chanel No. 5" was named after Coco Chanel.
Coco Chanel's personal life was tragic, beginning with the death of her mother and abandonment by her father by the time she was 12. At 17, she moved to an orphanage run by nuns. Later, she picked up her nickname when she went through a short career as a dancer, actress and cabaret singer. Her affair with a wealthy man financed her first hat business, located in Paris.
Another boyfriend, Arthur ("Boy") Capel, financed her expansion from hats to clothing. Her early fashions were women's clothing made out of wool jersey (stretchy knit fabric, not woven) - which had been used only for men's underwear - and she used it to make clingy dresses. Those sexy, clingy styles brought her the beginning of her success. Coco would also make outfits for herself out of men's sport coats and ties.
During World War I (1914-1918), the German occupation of Northern France meant the fashion business in Paris was cut off for some years. But shortly after the Great War, Chanel was back in business. By the 1920's, Chanel's fashion house had expanded considerably, and her short, straight dress set a fashion trend with its "little boy" look.
One evening, Coco accidentally scorched her hair with a curling iron before going to the Paris Opera. She cut her hair very short and went to the opera anyway. Her short hair style, known as "bobbed" hair, became a trend.
About that same time, designers Yves Saint-Laurent and Courreges introduced dressy pantsuits for women. However, nearly all women rejected the idea of wearing pants, and designers didn't try that again until much later.
As mentioned, Coco Chanel was very influential on the fashion scene. In addition to the bobbed hairstyle and the unisex style of dressing, she introduced the "little black dress," the use of clingy knits, slacks (in her own wardrobe) and women's bathing suits. Wait...bathing suits? That's right.
The ancient Greeks and Romans practiced "bathing" (swimming) in bath houses. These places became recreational centers where men would also meet, discuss current events, etc. Bathing for men and women was separate, and mixed bathing was even condemned by Emperors Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius, and in the Eastern Roman Empire by Justinian I. Some may say that it was different in Ancient Rome since people swam in the nude - but have you been to the beach lately? What I've seen some women wearing isn't that far from nudity!
Separate bath houses for men and women continued in one form or another through the centuries. By the 1400's, mixed swimming occurred in some establishments, and these places were known for their promiscuity. Mixed bath houses were considered hotbeds of vice, as only women with loose morals would swim in mixed company. Actually, the word "stew" originally meant bath house but came to be another name for a brothel.
Over the centuries, respectable bath houses continued to be separate. Before the mid-18th century, mixed swimming was condemned by Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims as an occasion for vice. From the latter half of the 1800's, women who went bathing - usually outdoors - wore an elaborate bathing outfit which included sleeves, a skirt, and loose pantaloons to below the knee. The fabric used was basically the same heavy fabric used in other clothing - so today we would hardly even consider such an outfit a "real" bathing suit.
But Coco Chanel introduced a bathing suit made out of lightweight, clingy jersey; it still had long sleeves, extended past the knees, and was covered by a long skirt. This sounds like plenty of coverage to us now, but back then the suit caused quite a stir...and a fair share of scandal.
In 1931, movie mogul Ssamuel Goldwin hired Chanel as fashion manager for the stars. However, the divas of the day apparently did not like Chanel's unglamorous clothing. Also, filmgoers wanted to escape the Depression by watching movies that featured stars wearing beautiful clothing. Due to her affair with a German officer, Chanel fell out of favor. She spent 15 years in Switzerland in exile.
During World War II (1939-1945), women in the U.S. worked in factories, where they would wear trousers and coveralls. But outside of the workplace, women kept their feminine style of dressing.
In 1946, a bomb was dropped in the fashion world. It was called the bikini. I always wondered where the name "bikini" came from, and amazingly enough, I found out through an article written in 1997 by Steve Rushin in Sports Illustrated.
Rushin relates that Louis Reard, a French automotive engineer who was running his mother's lingerie business, named his new two-piece, "atom-sized" swimsuit after the testing site of the atomic bomb in the Pacific Ocean: Bikini Atoll. Since the bikini was so tiny, none of the models in Paris would wear it on the fashion runways. So, according to Rushin, Reard hired Micheline Bernardini, whose regular job was as a nude dancer at the Casino de Paris. She "had no qualms" about strolling down the runway in this bathing suit.
Rushin continues:
The world took notice. In Catholic countries - Spain, Portugal, and Italy - The bikini was banned. Decency leagues pressured Hollywood to keep it out of the movies. One writer said it's a "two piece bathing suit which reveals everything about a girl except for her mother's maiden name."
At first, the bikini was rejected in the U.S. by the "prudish Americans," and a 1954 issue of Vogue magazine featured a swimsuit with matching jacket as "still another way of looking dressed, not undressed." As recently as 1957, Modern Girl magazine sniffed, "It is hardly necesary to waste words over the so-called bikini, since it is inconceivable that any girl with tact and decency would ever wear such a thing."
Other bikini "landmarks" in the U.S. would be the song "Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini," which came out in 1960, and the movie Beach Party, starring Annette Funicello and Frankie Avalon (1963). This movie, which was followed by several sequels, featured young women dancing in bikinis on screen. Interestingly, Annette Funicello herself refused to wear a bikini in any of her movies, though she occasionally wore a two-piece suit. Her fellow actress, Donna Loren, also refused, saying, "I don't believe in going up there, sticking a bikini on and shaking around."
(... Several paragraphs ommitted ...)
Advertising agencies quickly prepared marketing research to find out the reaction of men to a woman wearing pants. Do you know what they found? Using newly developed technology, they tracked the path that a man's eyes take when looking at a woman in pants. They found that when a man looked at a woman in pants from the back, he looked directly at her bottom. When he looked at a woman wearing pants from the front, advertisers found that his eyes dropped directly to a woman's most private and intimate area. Not her face! Not her chest!
Advertisers figured out a long time ago how to apply Gestalt psychology and the Law of Closure and the Law of Good Continuation when divising advertising that is aimed at men. Gracious, what does all of that mean? It means that the eye will follow a line, and a viewer will complete the picture with his or her imagination. Think of the little AOL logo man. A stick figure, right? But we all know what he's doing.
Advertisers know that the same holds true when a man views a woman wearing slacks or a skirt with slits. Men's eyes will follow the lines right up her legs and finish the picture in their imagination. Women's eyes may do the same thing, but since women don't have the same type of temptations, their imaginations don't complete the picture in the same way as men's do.
I have received letters and emails from men who had read the first edition of the book and wanted me to tell women that they didn't need that marketing study to tell them what they already knew: When a woman is wearing pants, a man's eyes will (much to his embarrassment) fall to a woman's crotch. These men also pointed out that it is something that happens without their wanting to do it, or without their realizing it. It's the nature of men "to look" ... and they do! By the way, you'll notice that, in ads, models in trousers will sit with their legs far apart. This isn't being done by accident.
For the rest of the chapter which discusses fashion trends from 1960 - present, plus 6 MORE fascinating chapters, visit TanBooks.com
NOTE: To know how Jesus appeared to Saint John on Patmos and how He will appear during the Second Coming [No! He won't appear wearing an Armani double-breasted pinstriped suit!], read The Apocalypse Of Saint John. To cite just one example, read 19:13. The latter passage tells us that Our Blessed Savior will appear that way to remind us of our sins. Also, John 19:23 tells us that Jesus wore a "seamless garment" to represent the unity of the Church.
Recalls the seamless garment of Christ, traditionally believed to have been woven by Mary [when He was a child? Traditionally, a Jewish mother would give her son such a gift!!!]. On Calvary, the soldiers, not wishing to divide it into parts, cast dice for it.
Meaning for us.
Symbolizes the all-enveloping yoke of Christ's service made sweet by His all-embracing love; and of His commandments made it possible by the same ever-present love.
Incidentally, in all of this discussion about fashions, we're talking about what is worn by good women, which has historically meant women who are chaste, whether married or unmarried. On the other hand, women who are making a living by living an openly unchaste life have historically worn clothing that is intentionally immodest and sexually provocative.
So what does that tell us about today's modern woman, who wears lots of "intentionally immodest and sexually provocative" clothing? "Making a living by living an openly unchaste life?" Uh huh. For taking the Pill and restricting oneself to the "acceptable" one or two (since it assures hefty child support payments) is living an openly unchaste life and making ones living by so doing. I admit I have little sympathy when these women later claim they are the mere "objects of male lust". They deserve it, and have deliberately made themselves so.
Summer's end may not seem to be the cleverest moment to choose to write about women's dress. Surely the arrival rather than the departure of the warm weather would be the time to inveigh against immodest clothing. However, several ladies happen to have raised with me this summer the question of women wearing trousers or shorts (pants), and the problem is broader and deeper than just immodesty, grave though immodesty is.
For instance Bishop de Castro Mayer used to say that trousers on a woman are worse than a mini-skirt, because while the mini-skirt is sensual and attacks the senses, the trousers are ideological and attack the mind. For indeed women's trousers, as worn today, short or long, modest or immodest, tight or loose, open or disguised (like the "culottesâ€), are an assault upon woman's womanhood and so they represent a deep-lying revolt against the order willed by God. This may be least true of the long "culottes", trousers most closely resembling a skirt, and at best mistakable for a skirt, but insofar as "culottes" establish the principle of dividing woman's outward apparel from the waist down, they merely disguise the grave disorder. What disorder? ("Excellency, this time really you have flipped your lid!").
In the beginning, God created man and woman, both human but quite different, firstly man, secondly woman (Genesis I, 27; II, 22); woman to be man's help-mate like unto himself (Gem. II, 18), woman for man, not man for woman (I Cor. XI, 9), for "the man is not of the woman but the woman is of the man" (I Cor. XI, 8). Thus even before original sin happened, God ordered between man and woman distinction, inequality, and the headship of man over woman for purposes of living in society and in the family upon this earth.
Original sin, whereby Eve made Adam sin and not the other way round (I Tim II 14), entailed Eve's being punished, amongst other things, by the turning of her natural and painless subordination to Adam into a punishing domination of his over her, for she had shown by seducing him that she needed to be controlled... "thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee" (Genesis III, 16). Thenceforth with the transmission of original sin to all children of Adam passes to all daughters of Adam (except, of course, the Blessed Virgin Mary) this punitive subordination.
As with all problems of sin, the only true solution is the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ. For instance in a Catholic marriage the painful control of man over woman, evident in all non-Christian cultures and re-emerging in our own anti-Christian culture, becomes by supernatural grace more and more that subordination of woman to man which is in accordance with their nature and which is profitable to both, which Eve had before she and Adam fell.
But away with Eden by grace! The modern world will have none of Jesus Christ's solutions to Adam's and Eve's problems. Making idols of liberty and equality, to refuse any inequality or subordination of woman to man, it will deny any distinction between them, it denies of course any order of God in His creation, any need for Redemption, and it will deny if necessary God's very existence. Today's feminism is intimately connected to witchcraft and satanism.
These considerations have taken us a long way from the question of women's trousers, and of course not every woman putting on a pair of shorts is consciously thinking of defying God or of defying her menfolk. She is, however, conscious of something. She is clearly aware that divided shorts are not like an undivided skirt, and the difference is that abandoning the skirt gives her a vague feeling — surely of unease, or emancipation, or both .... What is that feeling based on?
Clothing divided for the legs obviously liberates the mobile lower half of the body for a number of activities for which clothing undivided like a skirt is relatively cumbersome. Adam then having to earn his family's bread by the sweat of all kinds of activities outside the home, it is entirely normal for the man to wear trousers, and if a girl gets it into her head to join him in these activities, obviously trousers likewise emancipate her to do so. Shorts are the outward and visible sign of her, liberation from the restricted range of homemaking activities.
However, she is uneasy because trousers are not the natural wear of a woman. Howsoever it be with other species, in the human species the female is designed to attract the eye of the male much more than the reverse — compare the number of male and of female beauty magazines on the market. Now original sin wounds human nature with concupiscence (unlawful desire) particularly in the senses of sight, touch and imagination. It follows for questions of clothing that what might rouse concupiscence needs more to be disguised in woman from man’s eye than in man from woman’s eye. Hence as trousers benefit the activity of the man, so skirts disguisingly loose befit the dignity and honour of the woman. Hence while donning his emancipatory trousers, she feels uneasy – at least until her conscience is dulled – as she is moving away from her identity and role and dignity as a woman. In her conscience is resounding the voice of the Lord her God pronouncing in the Mosaic Law: “A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God" (Deut. XXII, 5). And trousers are normally man's apparel, for reasons given above.
Of course if one denies the original sin which inflamed man's concupiscence (Gen. III, 7) and sharpened woman's subordination (Gen. III, 16), women's trousers are not so unreasonable, but see all around you the absurd consequences of denying original sin ! — sweet Polyanna goes to the office dressed fit to inflame a stone, but woe unto the poor male colleague in the office who fails to react like a stone, because with recent laws (in the U.S.A.) she will attack him in court! Insanity! Places of work will soon have to extract in advance from women sworn declarations whether they do, or do not, want to have advances made to them! But what was to be expected when women were pulled out of their home? It all serves the liberal men right for so misleading their women.
Contrast the reflective good sense of an American grandmother who said to me this summer when she was on retreat here in Winona that, looking back on her Californian youth, she could see she had often been induced to wear trousers, and now she regretted it — she could see now that each time her womanliness had been diminished. As G.K. Chesterton said, there is nothing so unfeminine as feminism. Women's trousers are a vital part, maybe the crucial break-through, of feminism.
As for the true womanliness of woman, its importance cannot be exaggerated. It all turns on women being essentially designed by God for motherhood; for the bringing of children into this world, and for their rearing; for the giving of life, warmth, love, nursing, and nourishment, everything represented by mother's milk. For this, men are not designed, of it they are intrinsically incapable yet upon it they are wholly dependent if they are to become human, as opposed to inhuman, beings. In a valuable book, "The Flight from Woman", a cultivated Jewish psychiatrist, Karl Stern, tells how he could discern in countless ills of the big city patients coming through his Toronto practice after World War II a pattern of womanlessness with which he was familiar from the works of famous modern writers such as Goethe, Descartes, Tolstoy, Ibsen — not a lack of women, but a lack of truly womanly women, because modern men and women alike are trampling upon the womanly qualities and virtues. Shakespeare distilled this spirit in Lady Macbeth, proto-feminist and satanist:Â
"Come you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,
And fill me from the crown to the toe top-full
Of direst cruelty.... Come to my woman's breast
And take my milk for gall, you murdering ministers..." (Act I, Sc. V).
Heaven help us! The womanliness of our women is being rooted out and the result is a way of life doomed to self-destruction, doomed to abort.
Girls, be mothers, and in order to be mothers, let not wild horses drag you into shorts or trousers. When activities are proposed to you requiring trousers, if it is something your great-grandmother did, then find a way of doing it, like her, in a skirt. And if your great-grandmother did not do it, then forget it! Her generation created your country, your generation is destroying it. Of course not all women who wear trousers abort the fruit of their womb, but all help to create the abortive society. Old-fashioned is good, modern is suicidal. You wish to stop abortion? Do it by example. Never wear trousers or shorts. Bishop de Castro Mayer was right....
I am not fond of the white t-shirt and smock seen at so many Masses.
sounds like your referring to the 'traditional' Latin Masses? Because I don't recall hardly ever seeing women dress in jumpers at the NO masses. They were more 'in fashion,' if you know what I mean.
Agnus dei, many thanks for posting from the SSPX website this timely article reminding us that modesty is always in fashion with Our Lord Jesus Christ and our Blessed Mother.
One point, I think the key is " modesty" and dressing according to our station in life.
For example, when St. Joan was called for a time to lead the French Army, she wore battle dress , that was indeed also modest. The Toga and Celtic kilts were also " like a dress" per say, but they were not " feminine attire worn by men.
A quote that I have taken to heart since my first Holy Communion many, many years ago, when I had asked dear Sister Agnes ( our 1st Communion teacher) why were had to wear a newly starched white shirt and bow tie ( hard thing for a 7 your old to out on, LOL) for 1st Communion, she said" do we not want to put on our best both inward and outward as we approach Jesus Himself at the Communion rail " ?
And that from then on made the issue crystal clear to me
Joined: 23 Aug 2005 Posts: 2324 Location: Mid-West
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:07 pm Post subject:
jersey girl wrote:
to me this is
Quote:
Beautiful, modest AND feminine WITHOUT the frump!.
With the exception of the low-cut, high-hem, royal blue number, I agree that all those outfits are wonderful. If you can afford to buy them, do wear them. Fix your hair, too. Do anything you want, except sin (by leading a man to sin). All I was trying to say was that the photo of the lady in the jumper was not so hideous. For the home-schooling, baby toting, floor scrubbing Traditional women that I know, the jumper is far more practical than hose and heals. You do not have to like it; you do not have to choose it. _________________ Is. 12:3 ... I Cor. 15:25
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:54 pm Post subject: Modest clothing
Denim jumper.
Frilly dresses don't appeal to men. Women wear them for some reason of their own that is unknown to men. The denim jumper is feminine, modest, and has a sense of purity about it.
Purity appeals to men more than anything else, even considering simply the angle of sexual appeal. Consider the genre of movies like "Dangerous Liasons" (which I haven't actually seen) whose plot revolves around the man's obsession with conquering the one woman he can't have. The ingenue look is the most exciting to men.
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 5:22 pm Post subject: Interesting....
Quote:
Remember, Our Lady of Fatima warned: "Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much." (May 13, 1917).
Really? Why, to hear certain Catholics talk, one would think the only thing that offends Jesus is someone unwilling to pray with a Muslim! To listen to them speak, you would think that Trad Catholics are the most offensive thing in Jesus eyes!
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 5:23 pm Post subject: Interesting....
Quote:
Remember, Our Lady of Fatima warned: "Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much." (May 13, 1917).
Really? Why, to hear certain Catholics talk, one would think the only thing that offends Jesus is someone unwilling to pray with a Muslim! To listen to them speak, you would think that Trad Catholics are the most offensive thing in Jesus eyes!
I admit I have little sympathy when these women later claim they are the mere "objects of male lust". They deserve it, and have deliberately made themselves so.
Thomist, why are you so bitter towards women in general? Did you personally undergo a bad divorce and custody battle? Or were you treated poorly by a woman?
Keep in mind that even women who dress modestly can be sexually assaulted. I would hope you'd at least have sympathy for them.
Wow! If Braveheart is wearing women's dress you must live in a tough neighbourhood!
LOL! Thanks for the laugh.
Keep in mind too that in various periods of history (like antiquity), men wore loose flowing garments as well. And there have been historical periods when it was the "norm" for men to wear makeup and earrings too.
I admit I have little sympathy when these women later claim they are the mere "objects of male lust". They deserve it, and have deliberately made themselves so.
Thomist, why are you so bitter towards women in general? Did you personally undergo a bad divorce and custody battle? Or were you treated poorly by a woman?
Please read my post. I said these women (meaning those who dress immodestly) not women in general.
Look, a woman who deliberately dresses to arouse male lust can not complain when she succeeds in so doing. The very complaint is hypocritical. And she is sinning out of malice, while the men she leads into sin sin out of weakness. The greater guilt is hers. I refuse to see her as a "victim". That is a lie.
Now, do you care to respond to the substance of my post instead of accusing me of "bitterness"?
Quote:
Keep in mind that even women who dress modestly can be sexually assaulted. I would hope you'd at least have sympathy for them.
Of course, but sexual assault is completely off-topic.
Joined: 01 Jun 2005 Posts: 4820 Location: Vatican City
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:20 pm Post subject:
Above: Helen Reddy sings "I Am Woman" at
the National Feminist Expo '96 Opening Session.
(I think she and a few others are wearing pants)
I partly blame Helen Reddy for the masculinization of women. Yes. You heard right. Helen Reddy. Just before Roe vs. Wade in 1973, a horrific song came out in 1972 called, gulp, "I Am Woman" by "Ms." Reddy and it hit the top of the Billboard charts. Contrast the lyrics of this song to Our Blessed Lady's Magnificat. Count how many times Reddy uses words such as "I" and "me". No credit is attributed by her to God for her new found "freedom" and "strength" (this song makes me sick!):
Quote:
Helen Reddy lyrics
"Helen Reddy I Am Woman lyrics"
I Am Woman
-Artist: Helen Reddy from "Helen Reddy's Greatest Hits": EMI ST 11467
-peak Billboard position # 1 for 1 week in 1972
-Words and Music by Helen Reddy and Ray Burton
I am woman, hear me roar
In numbers too big to ignore
And I know too much to go back an' pretend
'cause I've heard it all before
And I've been down there on the floor
No one's ever gonna keep me down again
CHORUS
Oh yes I am wise
But it's wisdom born of pain
Yes, I've paid the price
But look how much I gained
If I have to, I can do anything
I am strong (strong)
I am invincible (invincible)
I am woman
You can bend but never break me
'cause it only serves to make me
More determined to achieve my final goal
And I come back even stronger
Not a novice any longer
'cause you've deepened the conviction in my soul
CHORUS
I am woman watch me grow
See me standing toe to toe
As I spread my lovin' arms across the land
But I'm still an embryo
With a long long way to go
Until I make my brother understand
Oh yes I am wise
But it's wisdom born of pain
Yes, I've paid the price
But look how much I gained
If I have to I can face anything
I am strong (strong)
I am invincible (invincible)
I am woman
Oh, I am woman
I am invincible
I am strong
FADE
I am woman
I am invincible
I am strong
I am woman
Quote:
The Magnificat
My soul doth magnify the Lord:
And my spirit hath rejoiced
in God my Savior.
Because He hath regarded the lowliness
of His Handmaid:
for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He that is mighty hath done great things to me: and holy is His Name.
And His mercy is from generation
unto generations,
to them that fear Him.
He hath showed might with His arm:
He hath scattered the proud
in the conceit of their heart.
He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the lowly.
He hath filled the hungry with good things: and the rich He hath
sent empty away.
He hath received Israel His servant,
being mindful of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed forever.
Look, a woman who deliberately dresses to arouse male lust can not complain when she succeeds in so doing. The very complaint is hypocritical. And she is sinning out of malice, while the men she leads into sin sin out of weakness. The greater guilt is hers. I refuse to see her as a "victim". That is a lie.
I've had this sort of debate with men before. Even if a woman dresses to be provocative, does that mean she dresses to be sexually assaulted or raped? I would say no, esp. if that assault contains an element of violence (which I believe it usually does), and is not driven by pure lust.
If I'm stupid enough to walk around waving a $100 bill in a bad part of town, and I get mugged, the mugging is still a crime. Yeah, I was an idiot to take the risk I did, but I still didn't deserve to get mugged and the person who mugged me is still at fault (even though I tempted him w/ the money). At most, the mugging is only partially my fault. That's *my* perception of it, anyway.
But, again, let me make this clear: I'm in no way endorsing women dressing in provocative fashions.
Another interesting thing to think about -- wasn't there a period of time when it was considered provocative for a woman to show off her ankle? Some Muslim clerics consider a woman's face and hair provocative, so women have to walk around veiled all the time. In some other parts of the world, women walk around bare-chested as an everyday part of life.
Is there (or can there be) an objective standard for what constitutes "provocative dress" by women? I'd be curious to hear from the men about this.
Quote:
Now, do you care to respond to the substance of my post instead of accusing me of "bitterness"?
It's not about one post. It's about a pattern -- everytime someone says something the least bit positive about women, you seem to take umbrage, for example.
Look, a woman who deliberately dresses to arouse male lust can not complain when she succeeds in so doing. The very complaint is hypocritical. And she is sinning out of malice, while the men she leads into sin sin out of weakness. The greater guilt is hers. I refuse to see her as a "victim". That is a lie.
I've had this sort of debate with men before. Even if a woman dresses to be provocative, does that mean she dresses to be sexually assaulted or raped? I would say no, esp. if that assault contains an element of violence (which I believe it usually does), and is not driven by pure lust.
You seem to have misunderstood what I was getting at. I wasn't referring to sexual assault. I was referring more in fact to sins of thought committed by men. But many of these women then turn around and complain about how "men only want one thing", etc. That is hypocritical. They led the men into the sin.
Now, of course rape/sexual assault is still a crime. However, in a truly just justice system, a women dressing provocatively would be taken as a mitigating factor, as she is partly to blame for stirring up the passions which led to the crime. Analogous to how an heated argument which gets out of control, gets into a physical altercation, and leads to someone's death, while still a crime, is less than murder one.
Quote:
Is there (or can there be) an objective standard for what constitutes "provocative dress" by women? I'd be curious to hear from the men about this.
More or less, yes. Such as that detailed in Fr. Jone's "Moral Theology". Objectively speaking, many, many women are committing mortal sin the moment they walk out the door.
Quote:
It's not about one post. It's about a pattern -- everytime someone says something the least bit positive about women, you seem to take umbrage, for example.
A question: what makes "women" in general (not any particular woman) worthy of praise? Or more worthy of praise than "men"? If women expect to be esteemed higher than men (and I've seen plenty of evidence indicating this to be the case) then there is a real problem.
If we understand the female's greater need to enhance her dignity and to safeguard her feminine identity, we can understand why pants were never considered acceptable garb for women throughout the entire history of the Church. Pope Pius XI's 1928 standard for women's attire mentions only a dress. No standard was given for pants because they certainly were not considered femine garb at that time. Now, however, at the dawn of the third millenium, it is clear that secular society in general has approved of pants for women. But is that enough? Not according to Pope Pius XII. In his address to the Latin Union of High Fashion in 1957 he stated that a "garment must not be evaluated according to the estimation of a decadent or already corrupt society, but according to the aspirations of a society which prizes the dignity and seriousness of its public attire.
It is plain to see from mass abortion alone {not to mention many other commonly accepted immoral practices} that today's society is "decadent" and "already corrupt." It is also plain to see that today's society does not "prize the dignity" nor the "seriousness of its public attire." One has only to go to a typical public school and observe what our society permits children and teenagers to wear to be convinced {i.e. lowrider pants, miniskirts, halter tops, pierced noses, lips, eyebrows, etc.}. Therefore, society's approval of women wearing pants {contrary to Christian tradition} can be no guarantee that they are in fact a garment worthy of femine dignity, or much less that they are pleasing to God.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Next
Page 1 of 8
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
I bring home the bacon, 
fry it up in a pan...
