Ensey Strikes : Women who wear pants may go bi?

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

Let me turn this discussion a little bit.
I think we can all agree that a some point all churches and basically all society were against women wearing pants.
The general societal observation was that women wore dresses.
When women began wearing pants, it was the more bold, out-going, in your face women who did so.
Thus, these women were perceived as "loose" and churches preached "against" them and pants.
Now, here is what I am really asking, at what point did it become acceptable for women to wear pants and therefore accepted by churches?
Thoughts?

You're right, and in my opinion during that time it was advisable for Christian women not to wear trousers. Because of the stigma. But society is constantly changing. Look at a book about the history of clothing. What they wore in the 1400s was drastically different than what they wore in the 1800s. Change is one thing you can count on!

I guarantee you there was the same outcry, the same pounding of the pulpits, the same adjustment period when MEN started wearing pants!! That is a fairly new habit, you know. For thousands of years they wore robes. Only in recent history have pants been the norm. Very recent.

[aegsm76]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_wearing_pants

http://www.tanbooks.com/doct/dressing.htm

http://www.learnthebible.org/women-wearing-pants.html

Some interesting thoughts here.

[aegsm76]

So, when a culture shifts from one norm to another, what should the churches response be?
When does a cultural norm move from "sin" to not?
Another good example is earrings on men.
And the latest is tattoos.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

So, when a culture shifts from one norm to another, what should the churches response be?
When does a cultural norm move from "sin" to not?
Another good example is earrings on men.
And the latest is tattoos.

SIN never changes. If something is a sin, it doesn't matter what culture does.

Our problem has been proclaiming a change in societal norms as a "sin".

Women wearing pants was never a SIN. It was simply not wise during a certain time period. Because it would hurt their Christian witness. Once the stigma was lifted, there was no longer any reason for Christian women to abstain from wearing them.

[*AQuietPlace*]

You have culture which changes. Frequently. And always will. Things that are accecptable and unacceptable in society will always fluctuate.

And then you have God's Word which never changes. Real sin will always be real sin. Adultery will never be acceptable, no matter what society does. Etc.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

You're right, and in my opinion during that time it was advisable for Christian women not to wear trousers. Because of the stigma. But society is constantly changing. Look at a book about the history of clothing. What they wore in the 1400s was drastically different than what they wore in the 1800s. Change is one thing you can count on!

I guarantee you there was the same outcry, the same pounding of the pulpits, the same adjustment period when MEN started wearing pants!! That is a fairly new habit, you know. For thousands of years they wore robes. Only in recent history have pants been the norm. Very recent.

I agree with most of what you wrote. However, I think the primary American garment for men was pants, from the time the country was "discovered". So, we may have been different from much of the world in our outlook on clothing.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

I agree with most of what you wrote. However, I think the primary American garment for men was pants, from the time the country was "discovered". So, we may have been different from much of the world in our outlook on clothing.

It wasn't just an American thing, but that's really irrelevant. Western culture changed. Change isn't sin, unless it violates God's word - real sin.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

I agree with most of what you wrote. However, I think the primary American garment for men was pants, from the time the country was "discovered". So, we may have been different from much of the world in our outlook on clothing.

Many colonial men wore makeup, powdered long-haired wigs, stockings and flowery ruffled shirts ... along with those tight-fitting capris. We have strayed from old landmarks.

We are about to reach the century mark with the dress fashion of pants on woman in "Western culture" ... how long does this argument stand? Or do they fossilize the 1950's look, like the Amish have done with the colonial look?

I still encourage any man who says that there is no distinction to put on a pair of these, starting with DKB.

[The Lemon]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

SIN never changes. If something is a sin, it doesn't matter what culture does.

Our problem has been proclaiming a change in societal norms as a "sin".

Women wearing pants was never a SIN. It was simply not wise during a certain time period. Because it would hurt their Christian witness. Once the stigma was lifted, there was no longer any reason for Christian women to abstain from wearing them.

You took the words right outta my mouth!!! I think for some folks there is a blurred line between perception and reality. It is possible to percieve something as a sin, when in reality there is no Biblical basis for making that conclusion. We have principles to guide us, such as modesty, and of course staying within the gender concerning dress.

The lines gets blurry when culture comes into the mix and this is the case here in my opinion. I don't know any Christian man that will go to the womens department to buy a pair of slacks. Although they have legs like a mans pair of slacks, there are obvious differences.

For me, I just can't get around the common sense aspect of the conversation. To me, there is just no logic to support a hard "anti pants" stance, either from the world or past culture. I am not interested in formulating my Christian principles around what was accepted 75yrs ago..sorry, unless you have lived under a rock, times are different - and not all changes within society constitute a knee jerk reaction by the church.

I have talked to many elders and bishops who are in their sixties now, and they fully admith that the no facial hair was a knee jerk reaction to the hippie movement in the sixties, and more importantly, they have expressed remorse and admitted that the stance was wrong.

[missourimary]

Prax--flies and hip pockets--yup, definitely men's apparel in some view points. Even in a skirt. I've said it before, but I used to bring gently worn boys' jeans to some of the families in my former church. Most would inspect them closely and ask if they were boys' or girls'. The style wasn't "girly" and their son might have had a similar pair at home, but they were still concerned that their sons not wear "girls' jeans"... while at the same time they preached that there was no such thing as "girl's pants" because pants were a man's style.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

...Women started wearing pants, from what I understand, when they went into the work force, not because they were loose but because their husbands were off to war

There were girls in the depression that wore their brothers' hand-me-downs. There was no debate at that time in churches over whether that was acceptable.

Also, women were in the workforce long before 1900.

Originally Posted by aegsm76

Let me turn this discussion a little bit.
I think we can all agree that a some point all churches and basically all society were against women wearing pants.
The general societal observation was that women wore dresses.
When women began wearing pants, it was the more bold, out-going, in your face women who did so.
Thus, these women were perceived as "loose" and churches preached "against" them and pants.
Now, here is what I am really asking, at what point did it become acceptable for women to wear pants and therefore accepted by churches?
Thoughts?

Bloomers were introduced in the 1850s and were ridiculed by the press, not the church.

http://www.fashion-era.com/rational_dress.htm Please read past the title or the first paragraph--reformists didn't want to "be like men" by wearing bloomers or women's trousers. They wanted less restrictive dress, safety, and less than 7 pounds of underwear!!! Keep in mind that there was one point in the 1800s when a woman going to a dance, even on the frontier, could wear up to 22 pieces of clothing, counting each glove or shoe separately, I'm sure--still, 2-3 petticoats, an underskirt (decorative petticoat), overskirt, shawl, bonnet, bodice, chemise, stockings, shoes, gloves, corset, pockets (a separate item), and either an apron, crinoline, or bustle... upper class women carried smelling salts with them because fainting spells were common, and "fainting couches" (chaises or lounges) were a common piece of furniture for a
reason. THAT's why women's rights activists and reformists pressed for bloomers or trousers, not to blend the sexes.

An interesting side note: it was these same activists who advocated for prohibition, a concept still strongly upheld in the same churches that put them down for introducing pants!