Wednesday, May 17, 2006

What about Women Wearing Pants?

What about Women Wearing Pants?

A few good arguments.

24 comments:

Redeemed said...

Great article, great site. I will have to read it again, but I encourage all ladies to go ahead and read this post!

Thanks, Matthew.

Rose~ said...

Pants? Why would I want to read about ladies' undergarments? (just a little jab for you, my Brtish friend) :~) I will think about reading the article later.

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Sarah, I am glad you liked it. I did not spend much time looking at the rest of the site.

Rose~, very funny. As you please. I would not say it is the best article I have ever read.

God Bless

Matthew

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Actually, we use pants to refer to men's underwear. rather than ladies.

Rose~ said...

OK, so then what are ladies' undergarments called? (Is this conversation going downhill?)

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Generally I am ignorant of the mysteries of womanhood. But I believe the word is knickers.

God Bless

Matthew

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

No doubt some Calvinist blogger is going to post this conversation.

'Free Grace advocate exposed.'

Rose~ said...

Knickers? LOL - you British!

"Free Grace advocate exposed" - who needs comedic television when I have you, Matthew?

LOL

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

I am glad you find plenty of entertainment here.

Rose~ said...

Entertainment, enlightenment, edification, elucidation, explanation, exposition ...

:~)

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Wow. A multi-purpose blog.

The IBEX Scribe said...

Oh, thanks for the idea, Matthew, I shall have to post the conversation to expose the Free Grace advocate on my blog. Or not.

I read the article. I have actually been thinking about this kind of thing over the past few days. I don't think that pants are necessarily men's clothing, even after reading the article. The author doesn't bother to mention that men wore long flowing garments for a long time, too. I don't think that there is anything inherently masculine or feminine about any given article of outer clothing, personally. Consider a pair of denim pants with pink flowers embroidered on the lower leg. Is that clothing for a man or a woman? And what about kilts? Are they masculine or feminine? As much as I hate cultural interpretations, I think his application of "apparel" meaning a dress (and only a dress for all time) is somewhat weak. What were the alternative fashions available for women to wear in Paul's day? And frankly the bathroom signs just struck me as a desperate stretch.

His modesty argument is a little bit better, I think. I would have to say, however, that not all pants are created equal. Really low rise pants do draw attention in a way that looser fitting pants falling closer to the waist wouldn't do. Nothing is said about how the jeans fit or how the "sport shirt" (whatever that means) is cut (how long was it, for example). Nothing is said about how the woman is standing (which certainly makes a difference!). Nothing is said about how the relative size of the poster might impact eye level, either. That said, however, the modesty thing is a factor and I think a reasonable argument, however I may choose to disagree. Modesty is a rather hard word to define, is it not? Do you suppose he would consider a corset immodest? They were worn under dresses to emphasize a woman's waist (and by contrast whatever comes above and below), not her face. It is about more than the lower half of my outfit, I think.

I observed some women today wearing long skirts. They didn't look strikingly feminine to me, honestly; they looked frumpy, and I admit I noticed their lower quarters long before I really saw their faces, mostly because they were wearing long skirts (and I hope this doesn't offend anyone, but they were the ankle length denim variety, which is probably what conjurs the frumpy image in my mind). Had they been wearing jeans I probably would not have taken a second look at them.

After reading the article I am left with the impression that the man was on a tirade. If it had been better written and argued less arrogantly (it did come across to me as more self-righteous than loving) I might be more inclined to agree. I don't necessarily disagree - he might be right, but he didn't convince me. Personally I think such things are received better by women if they are written by women who practice such things and do so without looking bland in the process.

Anyone else out there think a man would look really wrong wearing culottes?

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Angie, thanks a lot for your very reasonable thoughts.

As I said to Rose~, this is not the best article I have ever read.

I really do not like the word 'frumpy.'

I think 'frumpy' is beautiful. I just do not understand this concept of 'frumpiness'.

Is it just me? If I see a woman who is 'frumpy', I see a woman who looks femminine and who is modest. I find that to be highly desirable in a woman and I do not understand those who despise that.

Frumpy is beautiful.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

The IBEX Scribe said...

Frumpy looks like she doesn't take care of herself. It's not just modest. Often it looks slightly dissheveled. One can look very modest and not frumpy, but I don't think these ladies managed that. One can also look frumpy wearing pants.

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

I think people mean different things when they say 'frumpy'.

A lot of the women I hear described as 'frumpy' do not look at all disshevelled or scruffy.

Frumpy seems to be used a lot of the time as a byword for modest.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

wilsford said...

pants on women. hey, i really like looking darn good in pants/jeans/skirts/shorts.

i have reached that stage in life where i am comfortable with who i am, and my sexuality. i am no longer afraid to look good enough to draw a second or third look.

on the other hand, i have grown to the point that people who see me intuitively understand that my clothing is not worn to advertise either my availability or my unavailability.

i've also figured out that yes, some women dress with the intent to increase sexual tension. but most of them are just victims of poor fashion sense — maybe even me ;-) . they are just trying to get along and fit in with their peers.

warning: fightin' words ahead— i'm pretty sure that God didn't have a static, one-style-for-all-time dress code in mind with the word 'modest.'

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Wilsford, thanks for your thoughts.

Libbie said...

Frumpy. I hate that word. I'm wearing a skirt today that I know some would consider frumpy because it's not fashionable (it's a very nice vintage Laura Ashley floral) and a high-necked victoriana style blouse which by the vagaries of fashion is actually trendy and not frumpy at the moment.

I shall be semi-fashionable for a few months and then go back to being a frump. hey ho. I think genuinely pretty dresses and skirts look best if you wear them with a smile.

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Libbie, I just love the Laura Ashley look.

The IBEX Scribe said...

I think genuinely pretty dresses and skirts look best if you wear them with a smile.

And that is the truth!

Rose~ said...

And for that matter, if modest pants, er, I mean, trousers, are worn with a smile they look much better also!

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Well, I do not like them on women, smile or no smile.

Rose~ said...

That is your preference and I like you anyway ... even if some women might call you a frump ... or a stick-in-the-mudd. :~)
Not me. :~)

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Rose~, you are so nice.