More on Skirts

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

The Bible covers several cultures over thousands of years. I find it odd that it is treated as if it were one culture.

No one in the NT or in the OT mentions De. 22:5. Not once.

Historians will look upon this fixation as one of the impacts of WW2 on American Christianity.

Yep, because it was women working in factories on the home front that brought pants and work-shirts into women's attire. It also opened the door for the idea of the "working woman" and thereby the need for more professional attire and suits.

Personally, I find it a little petty that preachers were standing behind their pretty pulpits condemning women who were engaged in supporting the war effort over pants... while their husbands were away fighting to prevent the Axis Powers from gaining global hegemony. I guess these cats had nothing better to do seeing that the real men were out on the battlefield.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

But I think we agree that cross dressing is perversion, and that men in dresses are a prominent expression of that perversion. So women in pants are the counterpart of men in dresses. Possibly the reason it was not stressed in the NT is because the culture of the day didn't promote cross dressing.

Dude's cross dress by wearing women's Jordache jeans, not just dresses. And so, if a woman wears lady's jeans... she's not cross dressing.

Now, if I'm wrong, according to your logic, men can wear women's Jordache jeans and not be cross dressing. Would you find it appropriate if your son(s) or husband to wear women's jeans??? Nope. Why? They pertaineth to a woman, that's why.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

We have a serious problem with headship in this nation. For centuries humankind has lived by a patriarchal system where the father was the lead role in the family. Married women did not work outside of the home or at least not out of the authority of their own husband. In other words women's primary role was to their husband. He was the responsible party for the family.

America was changing at the start of the 20th century, especially after WW2. America made a sacrifice in world war 2 that took mothers out of their homes and into the public workplace. After the war it never was the same. Not long after that, the discovery of the "the pill" aka birth control. Women could then take control of the fruit of their own womb. Moms left home and the family mom became the career woman.

There is no surprise we had the sixties culture. The family structure had been destabilized. Pants and skirts are not the main problem, but the whole system is perverse. To some it is progress. Before the 20th century, "people were archaic", some might say. I wonder how many men were turning themselves into women before that.

I don't blame this problem on women. Where is the men of God who stand on the word of God. Where are the fathers who will tell their daughters you will not wear that or the husbands who will say no. Where is Adam at while Eve was receiving more enlightenment?

Good points.

Consider the economy. Most will tell you that for the average middle class home, both must work to make ends meet. Our entire economy has become so money hungry people have to even work weekends in most businesses. That cuts into their church attendance. I say this because many women I know work because they have to, not because they want to.

[madras]

If I walk my beautiful wife from the church to the car and I give her my coat to cover herself because it is cold out, is she cross dressing?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Personally, I find it a little petty that preachers were standing behind their pretty pulpits condemning women who were engaged in supporting the war effort over pants... while their husbands were away fighting to prevent the Axis Powers from gaining global hegemony. I guess these cats had nothing better to do seeing that the real men were out on the battlefield.

Which preachers do you know who were doing this during WWII? Any names come to your mind? You must know at least one, by the post above.

"""I guess these cats had nothing better to do seeing that the real men were out on the battlefield."""

[n david]

Originally Posted by madras

If I walk my beautiful wife from the church to the car and I give her my coat to cover herself because it is cold out, is she cross dressing?

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by madras

If I walk my beautiful wife from the church to the car and I give her my coat to cover herself because it is cold out, is she cross dressing?

did you give her your pants too?

[madras]

Originally Posted by Amanah

did you give her your pants too?

She's wearing a man's garment. My coat. It's a serious question.
If the argument is that women's pants are a man's garment because of
the cut, then does it not apply to the cut of a coat, and shirt/blouse?
It would make sense if women wore dresses all the time for the skirt
would cause a violation of Deuteronomy 22:5 due to the blouse being
cut like a man's shirt.

I'm just thinking out loud here.

[Amanah]

so you are saying, that a skirt/blouse combination would violate cross dressing because the blouse is cut like a mans?

to which I would reply that they are cut differently, the buttons are on the opposite side.

to which you could then reply that women's pants are cut differently then men's?

[Amanah]

http://faithsaves.net/deuteronomy-22-5/

What gender distinction has been designed to replace the skirt on the woman? There is none. Certainly there are various articles that are more typically female, and some colors that are rarely worn by men but most often by women. If the command was only to distinguish men from women, not to have distinct garments, some of this discussion would be rendered insignificant, but that is not what the Deuteronomy 22:5 teaches. The designed difference has been removed and not replaced. Some have contended that men’s and women’s pants are different. However, about the only difference is that women’s pants are usually tighter to draw the attention of men to parts of their body that they should not be thinking about, and they don’t have a zipper. Tight pants on women do not bode well as an argument for women’s pants among those desirous of godly living. The real truth about this “difference between pants” argument is that it is not an argument, but a vindication in hindsight for those who wish to justify a desired behavior.

One cannot tell the difference from the distance beyond the visibility of the store label. Pants, which pertained to men alone, began to be worn by women between 1880 to 1920 in this country.[xxi] At the time, the point was to eliminate the distinction. Churches argued against it for the Scriptural reasons advocated in this chapter. If there were a designed difference between male and female pants, one would be hard pressed to know what it was (color? placement of zipper? (Should we be looking at where the zipper is?) There is no designed difference between pants that men and women wear.