Crossdressing...Just how does a woman participate?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I don't care for them, but I'm not going to tell anyone that they can't wear them. And I am really in the conversation to ferret out when women started wearing them, who started the trend, etc. I've read on other threads, in the past, some writing that Chinese women always wore them and I'm finding out that is not true. In ancient China, which I already posted, only soldiers wore trousers. So, move from the standards issue and give me information. I'm interested in reading it. lol

"Ancient China" covers a period of time from about 3000 BC to around 500 AD. A very, very long period of time. Also, "Ancient China" involved a whole series of civilizations and competing kingdoms. The cultures of these civilizations were often diverse. The clothing developed with styles coming in and out of fashion just like today.

Generally, "ladies of the court" - the wealthy, wore those long fabulous gowns that we often see depicted in art. Men of the court or educated men and other court officials often wore similarly lavish gowns and robes. Pretty much, to the Western eye, men and women dressed similarly. Collectively, these robes, (both male and female garments) became known as the Hanfu - "Han Clothing" after the Han Dynasty.

The central Chinese authorities today are almost exclusively "Han." Also, the Han people are the largest ethnic group on the planet - but not all Chinese are "Han." The "Han Expansion" is a very delicate problem today with the other ethnicities in constant uproar and riot - though this seldom makes the news as the Communist Party is very fierce in putting these things down.

The Manchurian culture featured a pair of "pants" called the "ku" which were often worn by the wealthy - men and women. Manchuria was considered "outside" of China throughout the ancient and medieval time periods. When Westerners arrived in China en masse in the 19th Century, all of China had been recently overrun by the Manchurians. For this reason a lot of our Western ideas about China really involve the customs of the Manchu.

The women who worked in the fields (the vast majority of the population) generally wore some sort of tunic over a pair of "short pants" or rolled up "Capri pants" in most regions of the Far East - though they obviously didn't call them "Capri pants." They were called "Fu" which means "work" - as in "Kung Fu" - which means "Hard Work."

Generally speaking, if you see a picture of an "Ancient Chinese woman" (or Medieval or "traditional") in a robe - she is Han. (The man depicted here is a slave or servant).



If the gown is very tight fitting and "revealing" - then it is probably a Mandarin qipao - a style that "swept China" after the 19th Century. Notice here, the young ladies are playing golf - a Western sport.



If you see a woman in "Fu" - she's a worker and not very likely to be a subject of art. One other thing... in the South you will see women wearing a sort of knee length skirt with short pants under them. To work in the paddies, they will tie the skirt up between their legs in a manner similar to the way ancient Greek men would tie up their skirts.

The practice of women wearing gowns or longer tunics than men in China seems to have been a custom that developed over time - the ancient practices were different (see, for an example: http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/arti...-Clothing/2372 )

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Prax posted this information last night in post #206. I'm going to excerpt that. It is saying that until 1911, the women wore loose jackets and trousers. The Qing Dynasty started in 1644, so it could have predated this, but it is not clear. Then in 1925, they switch to a "qipao", which is a long gown. So, out with the pants and in with the long, flowing gown. Deja vu, baby!

And, IMO, it isn't a moot point today as the Orthodox Jewish women still adhere to dresses only.

The "Orthodox Jewish" women represent a cultural strain that has more to do with Medieval Poland than anything properly "Ancient Jewish." Notice - the "Orthodox Jewish" men wear fur hats in Israel. Nobody, nobody, nobody wore a fur hat in Israel in ancient times. Nobody.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

The US population will likely be wearing robes and also post Christian. While Christianity is stagnant or in decline, the Muslim religion is rapidly growing.

Prep yourselves for Burkas ladies!

That is quite true. And, one of the reasons for the decline in the Christian faith is that traditionally Christian cultures are unable to find a way to integrate the demands of Fundamentalism and other extremist "Christian" views. This leads to those cultures simply dying of rot. They are suffering huge population declines and have all but stopped breeding.

Meanwhile, the Muslims they have imported to colonized their empty cities are largely uneducated and frequently radicalized by extremists "clerics" who were run out of their own countries by their totalitarian rulers.

Add to it the "guilt" that the European people manipulate themselves with (particularly the Liberal and Socialist governments) and you can see why the whole place is ripe for whole scale Muslim colonization.

It's just like Syria in the 8th Century. Once a hotbed of Christian evangelism and growth, the Byzantines (Greeks) and the Persians had exhausted themselves with a 1,000 year old war and the population was decimated. So, in come the Arabs and Arab/Muslim colonists.

Then, when plague, warfare and malaise caused a population collapse in Anatolia (modern day Turkey) the Byzantines invited Turks to move in to populate the land. So, in came the Muslim Turkish colonists and out went the Greeks, Armenians and other Christians.

And now today... look at Detroit, Dearborn and other parts of Michigan. A population collapse, malaise and economic decline and large scale Muslim immigration. Philadelphia? The last time I was in Philly a Muslim man in a booth on the street screamed at me that I was going to hell because I was white. My black friend who was with me was "saved," and our Hispanic friend was a "maybe" ... but I was going to hell for sure. Thanks, Philly.

Washington DC? L.A.? Chicago? Miami?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

PO, I meant that it was moot because scripture was written in a time when it would have been impossible to apply in the way it is today. Since at the time it was written men and women wore fairly unisex styles, then when women began wearing pants seems moot. At least, to the end of trying to determine whether a woman is putting on a man's garment when she puts on pants.

If we're trying to figure out what constitutes cross dressing, and Deut. 22:5 is at the root of this conversation since it's the only scripture of which I'm aware that addresses it, then we must consider the context and figure out how Hebrew women in ancient times could have applied this commandment. How would they have avoided cross dressing if everyone wore skirts or robes?

Also:

"Stricter Modern Orthodox practice is for sleeves to reach the elbows and shirts to cover the collarbone, skirts to cover the knees, and to eschew pants in the presence of men...."--http://www.davening.net/tznius.html

The above quote indicates that in the orthodox Jewish community, pants are limited for women because of modesty; not gender distinction. It also implies that pants are allowed for practical purposes unless men are present.

I wasn't trying to figure out cross dressing for the Hebrews. The cross-dressing thread made me wonder that if both wore robes, how did pants evolve and become universally a man's garment, if women wore them too. That's the short of it. Heading out of town today, so I'm being brief.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I went to the site and it says how to act and dress....at Jewish festive occasions, not necessarily all the time

I pulled that website because it was the first one I located. There are other sites that say the same thing for every day life.

And Bratti explained that she meant dresses v. pants is a "moot" point during Biblical era if we are trying to find out about cross-dressing and using Deut 22:5. I clarified that that is not what I was trying to get at. I was more looking at when the transition of robes to pants evolved for men and why they are still universally a male garment if women have always worn them too.

Orthodox Jewish women are not permitted to wear pants. Skirts and dresses are appropriate as long as they fall below the knee. It is considered inappropriate to show knees in the company of men.

Shirts must be high collared and cleavage should not be visible. Sleeves must be at least elbow length. Many Orthodox Jewish women also shy away from bright colors, as it's believed that these colors may attract extra, unnecessary attention. However, dark patterns and jeweled tones are considered appropriate for Orthodox Jewish women, and often, one can find tops and skirts with beautiful and intricate patterns.

However, when Orthodox Jewish women are exercising or when they're not in the company of men, they may choose to wear a pair of pants underneath the skirt for extra comfort and to ensure complete coverage.

Read more at Suite101: Choosing Clothing: Guidelines for Orthodox Jewish Women | Suite101.com http://www.suite101.com/content/choo...#ixzz1WbEL3Inu

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The "Orthodox Jewish" women represent a cultural strain that has more to do with Medieval Poland than anything properly "Ancient Jewish." Notice - the "Orthodox Jewish" men wear fur hats in Israel. Nobody, nobody, nobody wore a fur hat in Israel in ancient times. Nobody.

Right, LOL! Does it get as cold in Israel as it does in Poland or Russia? LOL! Thanks for the info and the lengthy post on China! Here's my deal on the China thing. I ran across an article stating that only male soldiers wore trousers in Ancient China. So, I'll have to look at your link and go from there. Thanks again! And again, I am interested in the transition, as part of history, it has nothing to do with standards.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Right, LOL! Does it get as cold in Israel as it does in Poland or Russia? LOL! Thanks for the info and the lengthy post on China! Here's my deal on the China thing. I ran across an article stating that only male soldiers wore trousers in Ancient China. So, I'll have to look at your link and go from there. Thanks again! And again, I am interested in the transition, as part of history, it has nothing to do with standards.

The further back one goes, the more transitions one will find. Fashion comes and goes. The needs of people changes as they move around. And, the social conventions of the past may seem stifling to some so they cast them off, only to see a later generation pick them up again.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I see roles, the role of the man which was not merely that of a warrior but includes it

exactly and that is what the text shows IN IT's USAGE of the word TWICE not once and is contrasted with that of woman. There is a reason why the scripture has a parallel aspect and also a distinction of reference. Women shall now wear that which pertaineth/keli.... vs nor shall a man put on a womens clothing/garment. Man role is far beyond simply normal clothing but all that he is. Thus why Keli is used for man and also geber which is a strong reference to masculinity not simply a warrior. Anyone limiting it to "warrior" has major issues with how the text uses the word and makes it very illogical if used strictly as a reference to "warrior." does it include instruments of battle etc? Sure but this text is not limiting to that but all that man is. the usage of geber all throughout the OT shows it is nowhere near strict for warrior.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

It has to do with the question you asked me. Clearly I was answering it. It means we have a NEW covenant now with God. It means we are not justified by the Law of Moses. Read the NT

I have and the structure of the NT is based upon truth of the OT which is perfected by the Spirit by the new medium of Christ the law upon the heart. THe LAW is placed upon the heart not just in stone to realize. I never said we are under the administration of the OT we are under the adminstration of Christ which will reflect the divine teachings of His own words revealed to all in the OT. My points outside of this thread have always been that righteousness of God is not limited to covenants but are always expressed consistently in the covenants of God. The same law that is #1 and #2 which all the law hangs is still the same law of the new covenant. God doesn not change. divine order of creation is always true until all things are made new and the paradigm changes of our existance.

I did not say nobody disagrees with cross dressing. I said nobody denies there should be a distinction in clothing

again my point is about the text and geber.

The NT is clear that men and women are distinct. To dress like a man, being a woman, is to attempt to blur that distinction.
Rom 1, 1Cor 11, 1Peter 3:1-6, 1tim 2;9-10

that is nice but I asked for didactic teaching not indirect. Though I would agree with the above.

There is enough information in the NT, corraborating what was also written in the OT, to know men and women are distinct and should remain distinct and not disobey the order of God by denying that distinction

Why wouldn't it? It was based on the foundational principles already given. It is not new but perfected understanding of the schoolmaster teachings.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

So, because it isn't strict in its usage we can assume women shall not wear pants?

? and what does that have to do with the meaning of the text itself and what I said or your point it being that of limited to a warrior per your reference of Blume? The text is not limiting itself to "warrior" and "warrior gear." I have never mentioned pants in this thread. You however have referenced yourself to a statement that Deut 22:5 is about "man" is really "warrior" in the attempt to limit the meaning of the text and what it refers to.