Today, after the Sexual Revolution, the way we can tell a woman is wearing women’s clothes and not men’s, is that there are designs on her ass.
But the most common way [for conservative women] of affecting a difference in dress from their male conservative counterparts was for women to wear jeans with rhinestones pasted on the seat. There were as many sparkly designs on butts as there are women, and more available in booths. It must be said that there can be no reason for sparkles on an ass except to call attention to the ass; which is immodest, exhibitionist, and ungodly.
Yet one of the common sparkly ass designs were rhinestone crosses.
Take a look at dress patterns from any period you like before ours. What you won’t find are patterns on the ass alone.
Said another way: The way we can tell a woman is wearing women’s clothes, and not men’s, is that she asks us to make designs on her ass. That is the cost of failure to keep women from men’s clothes.
The parallel between modesty and cross dressing is interesting. In both cases the fundamental observation is that we don’t have a meaningful boundary for women. In both cases merely pointing this out results in outraged demands to know exactly where would you draw the boundary, and you must tell me right now! We aren’t allowed to discuss the fact that women are naked (figuratively and literally).
In both cases the urgent demands to know exactly what the boundary should be is really masking rebellion against the very idea of a boundary at all. Admitting they oppose any boundary at all would make them feel foolish, so they approach the issue another way.
Don’t worry transmen are there to show attention to their breasts.
Does this get an honorable mention?
Makes me think about some of your posts regarding women in ministry or women teachers. Seems that issue could be summed up in your last sentence as well:
“Admitting they oppose any boundary at all would make them feel foolish, so they approach the issue another way.”
I would like to hear your thoughts on a matter. I have been thinking through this and reading the Bible to see if I can get a bearing; but do you think that women were designed / created to ever be out from under male authority? (Husband, Father, Brother, Son, in particular)
8 in the Gate
@8 in the Gate
Long story short: No.
That’s the conclusion I am coming to as well. Maybe you flesh this out at some future post.
Among the few things women are allowed to do under traditional gender roles is sewing and other home-ec-related stuff. If it got right down to it, women could have always resorted to making their own pairs of pants. How could men have stopped women from wearing them then?
Should men have to stop them? The defining refrain of the Christian manosphere (as best as I can tell) is that the Church doesn’t hold women accountable for their sins, and blames everything on the men. Either we are or we aren’t responsible for women’s sins. How is any of this a failure from men to “keep women from men’s clothes” than it is rebellion from women?
Like I said in a comment on another blog, the only Biblical grounds on which people object to women wearing pants is that men and women are supposed to dressed modestly according the sensitivities of the culture in which they find themselves; such sensitivities, of course, are subjective. But then they bemoan the fact that our present culture tolerates women wearing pants. Since the majority of people today are okay with women wearing pants, people who are opposed to it are wrong by virtue of their own argument. Essentially, a few are expecting many to think like them.
Back when men wore robes, tunics, togas, and other similar articles of clothing, they were actually dressed more similarly to women than if they had been wearing pants; similar, but different. If people in centuries past could tolerate similar but different styles for men’s and women’s clothes, I don’t see why people are getting so incredibly hung up about trying to do the same thing with pants. The people commenting on these blogs stress the importance of having rules about clothes even if they’re subjective, but then they [subjectively] reject subjective rules that can allow men and women to wear their own respective styles of pants.
“When we saw the rhinestones on the pockets, we knew for sure.”
men also cross dress now
Christian men I see now do way more in the home and look after the babies compared to even 10 years ago.
all to demonstrate how servant hearted they are by allowing their wife to work or grow her ministry.
is that not cross dessing, men pretending to be women , acting like women
This is one of those things that, once you see it, you see it everywhere.
How do we know the legs in this photo belong to kick-ass girls on the job site? Because they’re wearing skin-tight pants.
Pingback: Things that We have Heard and Known