Quote:
Originally Posted by LUKE2447
only in the sense it is formly shaped and tight to the crotch and thighs on women and not loose like it should be. Thus her figure is making the distinction not the clothes.
I will agree some pants do look different but to me this is more of a issue of rebellion of the feministic mind set of the culture. We see this all throughout our society now. Alot of clothes I see worn today would have always been considered wrong to wear throughout church history.
|
No, the pants were designed and cut to fit the female figure. YOU try to wear them!
What do you mean "rebellion of the feministic mind set..." ??? You think "
rebellious" women wear women's pants ??? Pants were not invented for men, neither were men the first to wear pants. Pants were invented by the Medes & Persians in the 4th cen. B.C. and were worn by BOTH sexes, like both sexes of the Hebrews wore SKIRTS. Were Hebrew men dressed in
feminine clothing?
Masculine and
feminine in clothing styles is defined in CULTURE which varies with nationality and historical era.
Our country's first
feminists were NOT "rebellious" ! The women's movement was an extension of the abolitionist movement. Our country could not abolish slavery without doing something for women. The very reason why a man could buy and own Negro slaves was because he owned his wife as CHATTEL --
tangible property. Wives and slaves were both like cattle. The tangible property of MEN.
Women in this country could not own property. If a woman's husband died, she could be evicted from the house even if it had been paid for by HER wages or family's wealth; neither did she have legal guardianship of her own children. When she worked she was not entitled to her OWN wages. Women couldn't get into college regardless of what they scored on an entrance exam. It wasn't until 1887 that Congress passesd the Married Woman's Property Act giving a woman to right to own property. Do you think this came from the Bible ???
"Rebellious" ? I think not. IN OUR CULTURE -- not in the Bible -- bifurcation and lack of ornamentation symbolyzed male dominance in the public sphere and male SUPERIORITY in general. Our country's women's rights leaders were intellectuals and knew perfectly well how to introduce women's pants into our culture. They were aware that in OTHER COUNTRIES and OTHER CULTURES pants were not associated with men and male superiority. It was only in European/American cultures. They did not copy men's wear but simply "borrowed" from another CULTURE -- the "harems" of TURKEY -- and began wearing TURKISH "harem" pants. The Turks copied pants from the Persians.
In 1903 Alice Morse Earle, a dress reformer and advocate of women's rights, wrote:
"With the constant...newspaper jesting which we daily hear and read, that women are striving to capture that article of dress, now held to be so distinctly masculine, it is somewhat amusing to be told by careful students that trousers were first assumed for general wear, not by men, but by women. ...In fact, trousers had been worn by both men and women of ancient Media around the 4th century B.C."
Henry T. Finck wrote in
The Independent, in 1907:
"Today the Eskimo women are by no means the only ones who wear the bifurcated garment. Feminine trousers survive in many conservative Oriental countries -- in Persia, Arabia, Turkey, China, India, Algiers, Tunis..."
It was not until 1340 that pants became associated with men, only in Europe, and it was through the influence of the Catholic Church. God had NOTHING to do with separating clothing styles in the manner of men in pants and women in dresses !!!!
Our country's first
feminists changed our country's CULTURE, and pants are no longer a strictly male garment.
Did you know that T-shirts actually do have a history of being associated with men? But, you never hear women's T-shirts preached against.
www.studyholiness.com
Linear Mode
