Women and Trousers: The Final Word

[Jayne]

Maybe it is time to bring up Utilikilts. What do you think?

I think that the Utilikilts discussion is supposed to go after we talk about Pope Nicholas I allowing Bulgar women to wear pants.  https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=16142.0

[Melkor]

For one, I highly doubt this is the final word. Trads will argue about this till the end times. My mom and sisters throw on a pair of sweats when gardening or mowing the grass. (an example, my brothers and I mow the lawn....well, mostly  ) For the record, I've never seen my sisters in pants when company is around, and if a trad girl wears pants when young men are around, I consider her less feminine, somehow? There's a sense of modesty that pants will never be able to convey to men. Pants are actually distasteful to me; it's when the girls wear the skirts that I take notice lol. One young, inexperienced trad male's opinion, for what it's worth.

[TerrorDæmonum]

There's a sense of modesty that pants will never be able to convey to men. Pants are actually distasteful to me; it's when the girls wear the skirts that I take notice lol.

...so you are saying that for a female not to be an occasion of sin to you, she should wear trousers.

"Stop being modest! You are distracting me."

(Joking aside, I would like to emphasize that Modesty is a virtue and there is more to it than clothing. One can be immodest in more than one way.)

[TerrorDæmonum]

For one, I highly doubt this is the final word. Trads will argue about this till the end times.

[Melkor], since you are a fairly new member here, you might not realize this topic tends to be controversial and divisive when it arises. It is a recurring topic and, as you can see, there is a forum joke about the tendency of the subject to keep arising.

[Melkor]

For one, I highly doubt this is the final word. Trads will argue about this till the end times.

[Melkor], since you are a fairly new member here, you might not realize this topic tends to be controversial and divisive when it arises. It is a recurring topic and, as you can see, there is a forum joke about the tendency of the subject to keep arising.

Yeah I know lol. Not just with this forum either; trads all over the place.

[TerrorDæmonum]

Yeah I know lol. Not just with this forum either; trads all over the place.

You should have been here for the heyday. We had actual feminists involved.

This is a very tame subject now apparently, but back then, it could start a real fire, literally, on the hosting server.

[Christina_S]

I went with "No, except for safety's sake." I was raised on a farm and wore pants almost exclusively until I was a teen. There would be the occasional nice dress for fancy events, but not for everyday wearing. My mom kinda hated when I started going more trad and looking for skirts to wear (looking back, it's fun to watch the feminist rage sputter).
At university, I continued with pants mostly due to the 30 minute walk in Canadian weather every day. Yes, there are warm skirts that exist, but I had neither the time nor the money to go out and hunt for them. However, I started ensuring that I wore a skirt or dress to Mass.

At one point in the past 2 years, I did a "pantsless Lent," which really gave me the kick I needed to switch to skirts full-time. Now, it feels pretty unnatural to wear pants out of the house, and I'm not fond of how I look in them. It's one of those exterior disciplines that can really lead to interior reform.

I think part of the issue with getting women back to wearing skirts is figuring out where to shop. All but three of the skirts in my dresser are thrifted. They're good quality pieces, they fit me modestly but attractively, and they match with most of the tops I own. It has literally taken me years to get to this point, though. I dare any man who thinks dressing modestly is easy to go to a women's clothing store and find a modest dress or skirt (i.e., not too short, no clingy/see-through fabric, no crazy cutouts in the back or shoulders, no overly-suggestive lacey sections, modest neckline/sleeves if applicable, and so on). My husband tried this back when we were "just friends" and he was quite bewildered that there were no options for new clothes that were also modest.

[TerrorDæmonum]

I dare any man who thinks dressing modestly is easy to go to a women's clothing store and find a modest dress or skirt (i.e., not too short, no clingy/see-through fabric, no crazy cutouts in the back or shoulders, no overly-suggestive lacey sections, modest neckline/sleeves if applicable, and so on). My husband tried this back when we were "just friends" and he was quite bewildered that there were no options for new clothes that were also modest.

Would you be interested in my thoughts on the fashion issue?

I didn't actually make this thread to discuss fashion choices myself, but as long as we are on the subject and you dared any man...

[Christina_S]

I dare any man who thinks dressing modestly is easy to go to a women's clothing store and find a modest dress or skirt (i.e., not too short, no clingy/see-through fabric, no crazy cutouts in the back or shoulders, no overly-suggestive lacey sections, modest neckline/sleeves if applicable, and so on). My husband tried this back when we were "just friends" and he was quite bewildered that there were no options for new clothes that were also modest.

Would you be interested in my thoughts on the fashion issue?

I didn't actually make this thread to discuss fashion choices myself, but as long as we are on the subject and you dared any man...

Haha, go for it!

[TerrorDæmonum]

Haha, go for it!

Alright, you asked for it. All women are...

Just kidding.

I do have experience seeing the selection of clothes marketed to females. The market is aimed at cheap production and fashionable designs, at the expense of nearly everything else, including, functionality (fake pockets, arm holes too small, fabric ill-suited for tissue paper, etc).

Modesty aside, women's clothing, compared to men, looks "cold", even stuff intended for cold weather.

So, I am aware of how the situation in retail fashion situations are. I have gripes about men's retail fashion as well, but it doesn't compare to what you all have to deal with.

But the issue I see is not that there is a lot of variety, poor options, horrible fashions, and no pockets, but that we think we need all this variety.

As someone with an unmarried vocation, but no vows or orders, I have it a little easier, but only just a little.

My clothing is fit for the poor and for the richest people: I found what worked and stuck with it. This is not the most fashionable thing to do, but it is the most logical and frankly, most practical. I personally only have three shirts, three trousers, and sufficient underthings (they come in packs and these are in need of the most units, so I buy the number of packs I need, resulting in numbers that are 24 for socks, 9 for skivvies, and 3 for undershirts, but that should be 6 and will be next purchase).

All my species of clothing are identical, so I buy them at once and replace them at once. But for people who are more fashionable, the cut can be the same, but the colours or styes can vary as needed.

But that would greatly simplify everybody's clothing: assemble and outfit that is fit for the task, and buy as much as needed to suit your lifestyle and state in life. The variety and ill-advised options don't matter if one can find what one does need and get more than one and get them reliably.

I do have specialty clothing for specific purposes, mostly, very cold weather, but that goes on top of the rest.

With this in mind, assuming there is a female who has the same basic needs, all you need is to assemble a base outfit, find a supplier or source for it, and get as much as you need (and more) and then not think about it anymore.

Fashion is almost universally a moral hazard, and the extreme moral degradation of modern fashion shouldn't move the bar. Fashion was always a moral concern, even when people couldn't buy things in stores.

A lay person who is expected to maintain an appearance (married, public person, professional environment, etc) obviously does not need to forsake their state in life, but they can avoid using it as an excuse to engage in what easily becomes the vice of immodesty.

Most of the works concerning this focus on men's eyes, but the real issue is in women's hearts. It is not that other people can be lustful (for men or women), but that this is a significant thing to consider when examining one's own interior motives for action.

As the Summa Theologica states (you all knew it was coming):

But those women who have no husband nor wish to have one, or who are in a state of life inconsistent with marriage, cannot without sin desire to give lustful pleasure to those men who see them, because this is to incite them to sin. And if indeed they adorn themselves with this intention of provoking others to lust, they sin mortally; whereas if they do so from frivolity, or from vanity for the sake of ostentation, it is not always mortal, but sometimes venial. And the same applies to men in this respect.

Here is an overview of the fashion of his time.

It is good to avoid dressing like a person who wants to incite lust in others or knows how they dress is likely to do so, but it is also important to realize this is not the full picture.

One can dress "modestly" and still sin if one adorns oneself with the intentions that are frivolous or other vanities, not specifically to incite lust.

It is therefore advisable to start with bare necessities (the functionality required and modesty without any attention to appearance otherwise) and plainness and then add adornment as necessary for a good and rational reason.

It is easy to create a baseline appearance in our minds that is not founded on reason, but on culture and fashion, and that usually leads to difficulty in exercising virtue.

Naturally, this doesn't address what women (or men) should actually wear, but how one can go about choosing what to wear and my practical advice on avoiding excessive variety and finding something that is more or less universally suitable and freeing oneself from the burden of having to think excessively about what one wears.

This is how those in the religious life, ascetic life, professional life, and billionaires do things. Simplifying style is not for the poor or rich: it is for everybody.

(This post is not about very special occasions, but day to day life, and the state of life must be kept in consideration. What a monk, guest, groom, and dignitary representing a nation should wear to a wedding are all very different.)

[Jayne]

Yeah I know lol. Not just with this forum either; trads all over the place.

You should have been here for the heyday. We had actual feminists involved.

This is a very tame subject now apparently, but back then, it could start a real fire, literally, on the hosting server.

There were women who were horribly offended that men might have opinions on women's clothing. These women seemed to think that anything a woman decides to wear should automatically be treated as acceptable, including situations in which the clothing predictably provoked lustful thoughts.  Men were entirely to blame for such thoughts.

One can imagine how heated a discussion could become when it included such perspectives.

[TerrorDæmonum]

There were women who were horribly offended that men might have opinions on women's clothing. These women seemed to think that anything a woman decides to wear should automatically be treated as acceptable, including situations in which the clothing predictably provoked lustful thoughts. 

I remember, which is not really a meaningful phrase by itself, women going after other women the most. That might be because I did not get involved directly most of the time and could observe more.

One can imagine how heated a discussion could become when it included such perspectives.

For some reason, I remember married women who were not feminists being attacked by feminists for their perspectives.

Men were entirely to blame for such thoughts.

If the argument is all about men's eyes and thoughts, as it often becomes, then this would make some sense, but obviously there was a lot more to it.

And women who do that are hypocrites, because they will make accusations of sexual harassment or perversion if a man were to dress the same way as they desire for themselves.

What counts as acceptable summer wear in society would be very, very inappropriate for a man to wear and women would stare at, or protest at its inappropriateness.

[Jayne]

For some reason, I remember married women who were not feminists being attacked by feminists for their perspectives.

I remember only one woman who explicitly identified herself as a feminist.  She habitually made nasty personal attacks on both men and women.  This eventually led to her being banned.

[TerrorDæmonum]

This eventually led to her being banned.

That is nice.

[Goldfinch]

This question can't be answered with an absolute yes or no.

It depends on the circumstances: the culture the woman is from, the occasion, the context, etc.