jhaynes@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu (06/04/91)
Dresses and pants
Help Help Help???? Does anyone know a good book on fashion dress
through the ages. My problem is this: My brother inlaw is going to a
church where they make the women wear dresses and no questions are
asked. Everything that I have heard about the days of Jesus' everyone
wore ropes. [robes? --clh] Sure I know the Old Testament says women
should not dress as a man or visa versa. But the subject came up at
work about where did pants come from. I was told that the women made
pantalooms and man pick up on thenm in Europe I think Italy. If this
is true than this doctrine about women only wearing dresses is not
from the bible.
At least I cann't find it. I would like any info on this topic of
fashion from the past. Please use reply or followup to reply to this
I will post my findings.
Thanks ahead of time.
Joel A. Haynes
JHAYNES%mps.ohio-state.edu@RELAY.CS.NETMNHCC@cunyvm.bitnet (06/06/91)
Any general library should have books on the history of fashion. Ask a librarian if you can't find them by yourself. You are correct that people wore robes in Biblical times, not trousers. I think the basic Biblical teaching is that men should not dress like women and women should not dress like men. The garments that men or women should not wear will vary from one society to another and from one era to another. Marty Helgesen
mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (06/07/91)
In article <Jun.5.23.44.59.1991.1162@athos.rutgers.edu> MNHCC@cunyvm.bitnet writes:
Any general library should have books on the history of fashion.
Ask a librarian if you can't find them by yourself. You are correct
that people wore robes in Biblical times, not trousers. I think the
basic Biblical teaching is that men should not dress like women and women
should not dress like men. The garments that men or women should not
wear will vary from one society to another and from one era to another.
The interesting question is what the standards should be when styles
are changing. A century ago, women never wore pants (with the
exception of George Sand :-)). But the style has changed, and now
women wear pants quite regularly. At what point did the style change,
and it became acceptable for women to wear pants? Someone posted a
couple days ago about a church where the women never wore pants. Have
they not recognized the change in style?
Suppose men were to start wearing skirts (I'm told they can be
comfortable sometimes). At what point does it become fashion, and
thus acceptable? When it's 10%? 20%? And, if it is wrong to dress
outside the fashion's gender roles, when does the fashion ever change?
Just appealing to "fashion" doesn't seem to answer the question very
well. (Of course, the law in question is found in the book of
Leviticus, so I'm not too inclined to take it as authoritative
anyway.)
-mibhenning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl forgot Henning) (06/07/91)
Marty Helgesen writes: >... I think the >basic Biblical teaching is that men should not dress like women and women >should not dress like men. The garments that men or women should not >wear will vary from one society to another and from one era to another. From exactly what texts is this curious dictum distilled? kph -- "The study of crime begins with the knowledge of oneself. All that you despise, all that you loathe, all that you reject, all that you condemn and seek to convert by punishment springs from you." -- Henry Miller
henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl telemeter Henning) (06/10/91)
Michael I Bushnell writes: >Suppose men were to start wearing skirts (I'm told they can be >comfortable sometimes) ... And what is a kilt, but a skirt in all but name? And yes, they are quite comfortable. kph -- "The study of crime begins with the knowledge of oneself. All that you despise, all that you loathe, all that you reject, all that you condemn and seek to convert by punishment springs from you." -- Henry Miller
jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) (06/10/91)
In article <Jun.6.23.16.00.1991.8673@athos.rutgers.edu> henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl forgot Henning) writes: >... I think the >basic Biblical teaching is that men should not dress like women and women >should not dress like men. The garments that men or women should not >wear will vary from one society to another and from one era to another. From exactly what texts is this curious dictum distilled? Deuteronomy 22:5: A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use women's apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God. There are a fair number of Catholics attached to the traditions of the Church who are dead set against women wearing pants. (I am one of them!) Fashions and modesty are to some extent things that change from age to age. But I think we've gone too far in our society. The bikini and cut- off shorts have to go, in particular.
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (06/10/91)
In article <Jun.6.23.12.19.1991.8407@athos.rutgers.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
+
+The interesting question is what the standards should be when styles
+are changing. A century ago, women never wore pants (with the
+exception of George Sand :-)). But the style has changed, and now
And a large number of non-european women in Asia.
The last 'assembly' I went to while a at a 'Christian' collage(my
stay there was very brief, 1 10-week quarter) had as the topic "Dress
codes". The main point of the lecture was that one did not have to
be as radical as had been advocated by a guest lecturer who had spoken at
some point in time before(I must have missed it somehow).
What this person had advocated for women was a very large gown which
had a 'hoop' at the neck. The hoop was extended out to beyond the
solders and the gown draped down to near the floor. I.e, removing
any impression of the 'female' figure. The lecturer felt this would
prevent 'lustful' looks being aimed at women, or women dressing to
induce 'lustful' looks. Fortunately, the school lecturers where
countering these statements with a form of attire which did allow
the female figure to be discerned but did not promote the 'evil'
lustfulness of 'secular' dress. I believe women were required to
wear dresses to church. Since I was in the 'wrong' place, I skipped
the church activities. However I was 'required' to attend
'chapel'. (There were little computer punch cards to be picked up at
each session, at some point if one did not have enough attendences
one got a summons to the dean's office to find out why).
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edujhaynes@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu (06/11/91)
> > Deuteronomy 22:5: > > A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man > use women's apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable > before God. > O.K. I ask a simple question that seem to get a little out of hand I don't care what the religions of today say I want to know where pants originated from. The verse above says a lot but back when it was written pants were a thing of the future. Robes were what both man and women wore. Man from what I read had a belt around the waist to carry sling shots, swords, and what ever else they wanted to carry. On the other hand women didn't wear a belt but the robes were very similar. Men wore shorter robes like mini skirits. Women sometime had a veil with there apparel unlike the men except for the hood to cover the head for reading the scriptures. Could the verse above mean the appearance of the apparel i.e. the belt the veil or whatever else distinguished the man from the woman. Again the question is where did pants come from did women invent them and if so could the make of the jeans or pants tell if they are for a man or a woman. I know I would never wear a pant suit made for a woman. but on the other hand I am not offended when I see women wear man's jeans. In todays society I think and this is my person opinion that I would rather see women in pants not dresses for the fact that rapers prefer women in dresses than pants because they are easier to remove. In His Hands, Joel
gibbons@csn.org (Hugh Gibbons) (06/12/91)
In article <Jun.6.23.12.19.1991.8407@athos.rutgers.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes: > >The interesting question is what the standards should be when styles >are changing. A century ago, women never wore pants (with the >exception of George Sand :-)). But the style has changed, and now >women wear pants quite regularly. At what point did the style change... The passage in question doesn't make any mention of styles. It is a prohibition against cross-dressing (for the purpose of looking like a member of the opposite sex) which was considered a sexual perversion. -- -------------------- :-) Hugh Gibbons (-: --------------------
fasano@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Cathy Fasano) (06/12/91)
In article <Jun.9.15.22.54.1991.25581@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) writes: >Deuteronomy 22:5: > > A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man > use women's apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable > before God. > >There are a fair number of Catholics attached to the traditions of the >Church who are dead set against women wearing pants. (I am one of >them!) Hmmmm... I presume such Catholics are aware that when it came to following the customs of his predecessors, our current pope drew the line at wearing only cassock and skivvies (he wears pants underneath the cassock.) So, what the heck -- if Pope Paul can wear a dress, I figure I can wear pants. (A cassock is not a dress, you say? Well, women's pants are not men's clothing either. You see, women are shaped differently than men (different hormones, you know), and most men would be mighty uncomfortable in clothing which is designed for people who have hips larger than their waists.) Likewise, I think you'd have to stretch pretty far to say that an 8-1/2 month pregnant woman in maternity clothes is "clothed with man's apparel," especially with all that spandex to provide support for her lower back and belly. (Although last weekend at the Point I did see some guys with hairy beer bellies hanging out from under too small t-shirts who looked like they could use the extra support of maternity clothes!) >Fashions and modesty are to some extent things that change from age to >age. But I think we've gone too far in our society. The bikini and cut- >off shorts have to go, in particular. I must say I agree -- but that just might have a teensy little bit to do with being 40lbs overweight 8-). In fact, in the "Cathy's 1991 Calendar of Women's Fantasies" (the comic-strip Cathy, not me -- although sometimes it's hard to tell the difference :-) the June Fantasy is: "Tomorrow's swimwear will feature billowy tops and baggy boxers for women, while men will be wearing the new spandex micro-mini suits." But seriously, we should keep in mind that when Jesus talked about "lusting after a woman" he called this a sin of the luster and not the lustee. Quite frankly, I lack both the time and the imagination to worry about *everything* which *might* turn on some pervert that I *might* meet, so I have simply adopted the working hypothesis that all men are potential rapists, and this is completely independent of what I do, say or wear. -- Cathy Fasano fasano@unix.cis.pitt.edu cathy@gargoyle.uchicago.edu "The Church and the World are jammed to the rafters these days with people willing to get involved, get their hands dirty, take risks, make sacrifices, hurl themselves at spears, lead the advance, inspire, illuminate, encourage, organize and manage great affairs. I find most such folks insufferable, even if they are my brothers and sisters in Christ. Where are the people willing to sit on the sidelines and find fault?" -- Michael O. Garvey
mejicovs@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (06/12/91)
In article <Jun.10.23.31.54.1991.1251@athos.rutgers.edu> jhaynes@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes: >> >> Deuteronomy 22:5: >> >> A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man >> use women's apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable >> before God. >the man from the woman. Again the question is where did pants come from did >women invent them and if so could the make of the jeans or pants tell if they >are for a man or a woman. I know I would never wear a pant suit made for a Maybe I can help :) Today I know reasonably strict women (Othodox Jews) who will wear a tshirt and pants. This is per the halachah above, because they feel that a woman's cut of pants are specifically not men's clothing and that t-shirts are essentially neuter clothing (like the hair-pin I keep my kipa on with :). Other women will not accept this and only wear dresses or other clothing specifically designed for women. The Responsa on the subject says that the clothing has to be distinguishable by sight from a medium distance. The determination is then left up to the specific individual... If I may be so bold: Is the observanc of this in churches based on cultural reasons or biblical reasons? All responses obviously welcome... (heck, I responded) James mejicovs@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (06/14/91)
In article <Jun.11.22.36.30.1991.23759@athos.rutgers.edu> gibbons@csn.org (Hugh Gibbons) writes: >The interesting question is what the standards should be when styles >are changing. A century ago, women never wore pants (with the >exception of George Sand :-)). But the style has changed, and now >women wear pants quite regularly. At what point did the style change... The passage in question doesn't make any mention of styles. It is a prohibition against cross-dressing (for the purpose of looking like a member of the opposite sex) which was considered a sexual perversion. Who is to judge the purpose of cross-dressing? I don't wear dresses, but if I did it would be for humor, not for the purpose of looking like a member of the opposite sex. When women wore pants, and were criticized by people quoting just the passage in question, they weren't doing so in order to look like men, they were doing so in order to wear more comfortable clothes (and other reasons as well). The definition of which clothes make a person look like which sex is precisely a matter of fashion and style. -mib
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (06/14/91)
In article <Jun.11.22.36.30.1991.23759@athos.rutgers.edu> gibbons@csn.org (Hugh Gibbons) writes:
+
+The passage in question doesn't make any mention of styles. It
+is a prohibition against cross-dressing (for the purpose of
+looking like a member of the opposite sex) which was considered
+a sexual perversion.
Depended on the situation as to the 'perversion' content. There are
a number of of references which tell of using 'cross-dressing'
during worship rituals and/or theater plays, 'Theater' being derived
from a form of worship. In these activities there seems to have been
various sexual displays. As for 'cross-dressing' outside of this
context it seems that if it was done it was derided, considered in
bad taste.
I have heard the comment that 'religious' aspect is what Paul was
addressing when he made the prohibition against 'cross-dressing'.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.eduHWT@bnr.ca (H.W.) (06/15/91)
John Clark cites those who advocate forms of dress to conceal the female figure, preventing 'lustfulness'. It's interesting to note that such forms of dress (i.e. in many arabic cultures) are based on a myth of limitless male virility and nonexistent male self control. Basically, the claim is that males of these cultures are so 'potent' that they can't control themselves if they see even a little female flesh. This, of course, says little for the males - IMWO (in my westernized opinion). I'd claim in fact, that in a civilized culture one ought to be able to walk down the street naked without anyone taking any more notice than if you were clothed - or vice versa. -- Henry Troup - HWT@BNR.CA (Canada) - BNR owns but does not share my opinions
kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) (06/15/91)
Hugh Gibbons writes that the prohibition against cross-dressing aims at dressing for the purpose of looking like a member of the opposite sex. Mike Bushnell replies by asking how one knows the purpose; if he wore a dress it would be for humor value, not to imitate a female. I'd like to suggest a case where men put on dresses specifically to fool others into thinking that they are female: police officers on mugging detail. If a police officer dresses to look like a woman for the purpose of catching criminals, I assume that would be okay -- *even if* the goal of the dress was to imitate a member of the opposite sex as best as possible. Mike also writes: > When women wore pants, and were criticized by people quoting just the >passage in question, they weren't doing so in order to look like men, they >were doing so in order to wear more comfortable clothes (and other reasons >as well). And I was wondering whether Joe Buehler actually meant to say that clothing which makes work easier is not appropriate for women. Suppose you are in an upside-down car in a ditch; the paramedic who climbs through your windshield to check your pulse happens to be female. Do you really want to hamper your rescuer by asking her to wear a dress? kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu Darren F. Provine ...njin!gboro!kilroy "Miss Manners go sick of the fight over pants long ago -- it was raging on a level with fights over lengths of hair for men, which is a poor excuse for a good fight. Miss Manners also has a pretty good idea that most people are well aware of how they can dress to shock or to conform; which they wish to do is up to them." -- Judith Martin
jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) (06/22/91)
In article <Jun.15.02.10.14.1991.18718@athos.rutgers.edu> kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
And I was wondering whether Joe Buehler actually meant to say that clothing
which makes work easier is not appropriate for women.
Suppose you are in an upside-down car in a ditch; the paramedic who climbs
through your windshield to check your pulse happens to be female. Do you
really want to hamper your rescuer by asking her to wear a dress?
What can I say? None of my friend's sisters ever wear anything but very
feminine dresses. Should they wear pants just in case they have to
crawl inside a car to rescue someone?
[I think the question kilroy was asking is whether you would object to
pants in situations where they have functional benefits. This sort
of question helps clarify your position. --clh]grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (06/25/91)
In article <Jun.9.14.44.48.1991.25095@athos.rutgers.edu> henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl telemeter Henning) writes: >Michael I Bushnell writes: > > >>Suppose men were to start wearing skirts (I'm told they can be >>comfortable sometimes) ... > >And what is a kilt, but a skirt in all but name? And yes, they >are quite comfortable. Aye! They are comfortable, but don't let a Scotsman here you calling them a skirt. ;-) The kilt served for more than dress. Gene
jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) (06/25/91)
In article <Jun.22.01.21.06.1991.6972@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) writes: In article <Jun.15.02.10.14.1991.18718@athos.rutgers.edu> kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes: And I was wondering whether Joe Buehler actually meant to say that clothing which makes work easier is not appropriate for women. Suppose you are in an upside-down car in a ditch; the paramedic who climbs through your windshield to check your pulse happens to be female. Do you really want to hamper your rescuer by asking her to wear a dress? What can I say? None of my friend's sisters ever wear anything but very feminine dresses. Should they wear pants just in case they have to crawl inside a car to rescue someone? [I think the question kilroy was asking is whether you would object to pants in situations where they have functional benefits. This sort of question helps clarify your position. --clh] I grant, a dress is not always the most modest or practical thing for a woman to wear. The point I was trying to make was that I think it more important to talk about the rule, rahter than the exception, lest the exception become the rule.
gja@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Grenville Armitage) (06/27/91)
In article <Jun.25.03.39.48.1991.7330@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) writes: [...] >I grant, a dress is not always the most modest or practical thing for a >woman to wear. The point I was trying to make was that I think it more >important to talk about the rule, rahter than the exception, lest the >exception become the rule. Much of the discussion so far has been in response to your perceived attitude that "this rule has no exception", hasn't it? If you then accept that there are situations where your "rule" doesn't apply then your "rule" is incorrect. You need to re-word your "rule" to embrace the situation you have apparently conceeded is okay but chose to term an "exception". gja
rona@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Ron Abramson) (07/01/91)
gibbons@csn.org (Hugh Gibbons) writes: [Referring to Deu 22:5] >The passage in question doesn't make any mention of styles. It >is a prohibition against cross-dressing (for the purpose of >looking like a member of the opposite sex) which was considered >a sexual perversion. What makes you say that? I'm not flaming you or anyone else, Hugh, I just don't see any evidence to back up this assertion. As with any OT law, there are two things to consider here: 1. Why does this prohibition appear in the OT? (i.e. What is the context?) 2. Does it apply to Christians today? Question 1 is the more difficult of the two. I have read that this passage was aimed at paganist rituals in which the priests would dress as women. Can anyone else add to this? With regard to the second question, I would have to say that the answer is pretty clearly *NO* for most of us. That is, the scripture simply does not apply *for most of us*. Unless a person intends to obey and insist that others obey every law in the OT, why pull a single verse out of context in this way. Let us consider some of the other prohibitions in this same chapter: Deu22:8 When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence. Deu22:10 Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. Deu22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together. Deu22:12 Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself. Everyone with a battlement on your roof and four fringes on your vest, please raise your hand. I am aware of chruches near my home which insist that women wear dresses, and yet the men are not required to wear four fringes on their vests. Now, if a particular church made an honest attempt to follow the entire OT law, that would be something else. As far as "cross-dressing as a sexual perversion", I must really question this assertion as well. Someone has already pointed out that police officers have been known to cross-dress for the purpose of catching criminals. Also, actors (e.g. Dustin Hoffman) have cross-dressed recently for the purpose of comedy. A few hundred years ago, there was no such thing as an "actress" so men played the parts of women. In neither of these cases was this a "sexual perversion" IMHO. Also, what do you say to the "boys" born with the birth defect of undescended testicles when at puberty the male organs suddenly appeared on a person whom everyone thought was a girl. Dressed and trained to be girls from birth, do we tell them that they are to suddenly start dressing as boys because of their genitals in spite of the feminine socialization which they've received since birth? Is a person who has undergone a sex change operation considered to be wearing the clothes of the opposite sex? And what about a person born with both sets of sexual organs? (yes, this does happen) And how about a woman who wears men's rock climbing boots or men's soccer shoes because the func- tion she needs is not available in the clothing of her gender? For that matter what about the man who wears an apron while washing the dishes? And what if a man wears women's makeup on his face to hide a scar? For years my wife wore my Pendleton wool shirt (clearly a man's shirt) not just because it was warm and comfortable but because she liked the style and color. In every case above, it is not the clothes or the behaviour, but the motive which determines how we view that behaviour. IMHO, the clothes that a person wears is a very poor basis to use in passing judgement on another person. Also, IMHO, it is foolish to assume that you understand another person's motives for doing *anything* unless you know that person. I believe that my God does not care what clothes we wear unless our motive for wearing the clothes is wickedness. -- Ron