May Christian women wear pants?

Status
Not open for further replies.
(No disrespect intended towards any ladies who have posted here).

It would be difficult to deny that 100 years ago (actually less) one would never see women in trousers. Obviously something has changed since that time. It is useful to ask what the primary catalysts for this change were.
Agreed.

What is the origin of trouser-wearing women and what bearing does that have on modern women's fashion? If it is proven, for instance, that women's trousers began a century ago as a radical feminist statement or perhaps even as cross-dressing, then does it follow that all women's trousers today are a mark of moral failure?
 
This is why it is proper etiquette for men to go first when going up the stairs (and second when going down the stairs) . . . And generally to do work requiring going up ladders themselves . . .
And what of escalators and tall public staircases?
 
I have to chuckle a bit at this whole conversation. In ancient times nobody wore trousers. When the Romans encountered the northern barbarians with two separately legged garments... Well! That was just uncivilized! Little skirts above the knee were thought much more proper.
 
An acquaintance of mine was working on a thesis on the subject of rational dress in the 19th century in which the issue of women wearing trousers was raised. I think the thrust of the argument was that it was unreasonable to expect women to perform daily tasks while wearing the type of dresses that were worn in the 19th century and thus the need to introduce some form of female trousers. I have not read the thesis in question, but that is what she mentioned to me a few years ago.
 
So let me ask a more direct question:

Why or why not does Deuteronomy 22:5 apply to the relatively modern circumstance in Western society of women adopting legged garments as part of their normal attire? As much specificity as possible in the answers would be appreciated.

It's one thing to laugh at and mock a cult that believes it is directly applicable, but as noted in the OP there is a fellow Reformed church that makes the very same claim. They go so far as to say that, based on that particular scripture, it is a violation of the Fifth and Seventh Commandments for a woman to wear pants. That's pretty serious stuff and in my opinion deserves a studious reply one way or the other.
I sincerely apologize. My intention was to use humor to quickly convey. Now for the long answer:

Your text appears in the context of law peculiar to Israel. Its purpose was to tell the people to remain distinct from surrounding nations by customs such as putting tassels on the corners of your cloak. The point is illustrated by commands to not admix elements such as fiber in cloth or crops in a field. These would have been constant reminders to God's people to not mix with the surrounding nations.

The prophets would become clearer and clearer on these points as God's holy people mixed with surrounding nations and even sought safety from those people God forbid them to approach (the Assyrians/Babylonians and Egyptians). In one of the stranger ironies of history, God allowed his people to be made captives and dispersed among a foreign people.

By focusing on one proof text (which doesn't even mention pants, by the way) people may escape the broader still-applicable question. Are we as the people of God holy and distinct from the surrounding enemies of the church? It's far easier for me to put on a skirt and declare I'm keeping the law than to examine the holiness of my heart, motives and actions.

Are there any more general principles from Deuteronomy 22? Sure protect your neighbors' property and safety and avoid confusing the general appearance of femininity and masculinity. Pants, by the way, would be an odd example because they were first adopted by cultures that fought on horseback or in areas where people needed to work outside and stay warm. None of these would have been true for the nation of Israel. Indeed, preparing for battle required securing the long tunics so the warriors could move without encumbrance. It's strange to try to make a command from a practice foreign to the people to whom this passage was originally written.
 
Times have changed. Growing up you often heard the question, "Who wears the pants in your family?" If you asked that today you would be skewered and labeled for all to know you were a racist bigot, anti LGBTQ, or a hater of women. Those are the go to attacks from people whether they apply or not.
 
As I understand Dt.22:5 (and here, we must pause and emphasize that only the general equity of this command has any binding power on the NT Christian):

The prohibition is in two parts. In the first, the prohibition toward the woman (ishah, female) is that she shall not wear that which pertains to a geber, a term (noun) for a man derived from the Heb. verb: "to be strong." A related adjective, gibbor, is frequently used substantively (i.e. as a noun) to denote mighty man, or warrior. Note, the word for man is not the simpler "male" (ish; the latter portion states that he, geber, is prohibited from wearing a female's, ishah's, garb).

The text itself (it seems to me) is pointing to a measure that is (for lack of a better way to put it) "culturally plain or obvious." It has already been pointed out that some everyday dress of ancient people was not that different, men or women (as still is the case in the Middle East; the djellaba is worn by either sex). At one time, it may fairly be said that women in trousers was scandalous. Perhaps some folk may wish it was still that way, but it isn't that way. Though, perhaps in an insular group such as the Amish or the cult that was spoken of in the OP, they retain that peculiarity of dress.

It is no longer the case that pants are men's, and not women's. Women's pants are, generally speaking, not suitable for men, and vice versa. They don't fit, as a rule. But this points to what the v really teaches us in the form of general equity. This is a text that taught Israel that cross-dressing was unlawful; i.e. actually attempting to pass oneself off as a man (if a woman) or a woman (if a man). Women's pants today either say little to nothing about her sex (pants having become unisex), or else leave little doubt as to her sex.

A woman in slacks today is not typically attempting to show "manliness." I've seen Dt.22:5 used, improperly, as a kind of "prooftext" against women in the military. Maybe women don't belong in the military, but this text won't establish that by an appeal to the language. It isn't about whether a woman should have stood on the walls, wearing a helmet, buckler, and leather or mail (if she could don them; remember young David?) in a desperate attempt to keep the enemy out of the homes and businesses of an Israelite town. It's about transvestism.

Transvestism is contrary to nature. It is part and parcel of a refusal to accept one's nature (man or woman) as a given, as something God-determined. It evidences a want of submission to a reality bigger than the individual or collective human will. The same spirit of confusion has many manifestations all around us today. In a place and time where women wearing pants is most definitely a species of rebellion, a way to express hatred for norms and a perverse pleasure in offending (for the sake of offending), it should be opposed by all sensible people--believing or unbelieving--as grotesque. As evidence of rot which may spread to do more harm. But at this place and time it isn't.

The prohibition for the man is still something that has a strong and plain general equity component here in our western culture. A man in a dress (not a kilt, for special occasions) and/or lipstick, toting a purse, angrily insisting he should be called a woman is both ridiculous and nauseating [insert that Aussie video here]. Even unbelievers find it so. Nature resists tampering. Organic changes are more gradual, finding a stable course.

Dress is capable of evolving. The shifting of "style" is proof of it. We cannot take one particular norm, and force it on another society or another time. Christians should be sensible and sensitive, not simply conforming or non-conforming.
 
Thank you Rev. Buchanan for your insightful and substantive reply. I had been hoping you might weigh in...

Jean, I think you brought an excellent perspective as well - thank you
 
And what of escalators and tall public staircases?

I don’t think these generally result in the same proximity (at the same angle) as a private staircase. Anyway, the dress length is naturally a factor as well. My broader point was that traditionally good manners and discretion have been the answers to most “difficulties”.

I appreciate the question was meant to make a point (and answering questions of detail always opens one up to ridicule), but surely the point is not one of women “needing” to wear trousers. Many women wear only dresses and do so without mishap, so that is not really the issue.
 
What is the origin of trouser-wearing women and what bearing does that have on modern women's fashion? If it is proven, for instance, that women's trousers began a century ago as a radical feminist statement or perhaps even as cross-dressing, then does it follow that all women's trousers today are a mark of moral failure?

Just such a claim does appear to be an important basis for the FPCoS's position. While Rev. Buchanan's post dealt with that aspect of the question at least in the abstract, I wouldn't mind seeing this rationale hashed-out a bit more in this specific connection. I think various principles related to such a line of reasoning can also have implications in a number of other matters of Christian prudence.

PS: I really, REALLY don't want to turn this thread into a direct critique of the FPCoS itself...
 
I have to chuckle a bit at this whole conversation. In ancient times nobody wore trousers. When the Romans encountered the northern barbarians with two separately legged garments... Well! That was just uncivilized! Little skirts above the knee were thought much more proper.

One thing I think this argument and some of the other arguments on here miss is that the cultural significance of dresses vs trousers in Western culture is not at all a dead historical topic. For example, the phrase “who wears the trousers in the family” has been mentioned - this phrase is still used (or at least people know what it means). People still recognise that dresses are distinctively feminine and for formal occasions it would be bad manners for a woman not to wear a dress. The Queen, for example, is never seen in trousers. Some of the women in this thread have said they wear dresses whenever they go to church. There is an implicit recognition of seemliness.

Traditionally (and still for the most part today) girls’ school uniforms entail skirts while boys’ uniforms entail shorts/trousers. The current increasing movement in the UK to change to unisex uniforms of trousers for all is very much (and explicitly) rooted in ideas of gender equivalence and accommodation of transgenderism.

So I think that to treat the choice of dresses vs. trousers as something as archaic as Roman togas is rather misguided.

There is certainly no question in my mind that the topic has relevance to the broader culture wars that are sadly very current.

That is not to condemn anyone or imply that people are intentionally supporting the ends of these culture wars. But it should be recognised that dress is indeed relevant to them.

I will say, anecdotally, that in my experience conservative reformed Christians in the UK generally hold to more traditional practices on this topic. It is not at all a cult position.
 
Just such a claim does appear to be an important basis for the FPCoS's position. While Rev. Buchanan's post dealt with that aspect of the question at least in the abstract, I wouldn't mind seeing this rationale hashed-out a bit more in this specific connection. I think various principles related to such a line of reasoning can also have implications in a number of other matters of Christian prudence.

PS: I really, REALLY don't want to turn this thread into a direct critique of the FPCoS itself...
In brief, yes, historical context is relevant to meaning.
 
historical context is relevant to meaning.

Agreed. But more specifically:

- Does the position that the historical impetus behind women adopting pants in Western cultures was extreme women's liberation - with a specific event in 1933 cited as evidence - constitute a valid reason for saying that present-day Christians should not follow suite? Why or why not?

- Does the fact that we are now several generations removed from such a possible genesis adequately alleviate any connection to that purpose, and so now make it alright? Why or why not?

- What of the intervening generations of Christian women closer to the origins of the practice who may have begun wearing pants - were they necessarily partakers of that act of rebellion? - or as Grant has credibly suggested, is a principle matter here that of personal motive regardless of how society at large may perceive it?​
 
Agreed. But more specifically:

- Does the position that the historical impetus behind women adopting pants in Western cultures was extreme women's liberation - with a specific event in 1933 cited as evidence - constitute a valid reason for saying that present-day Christians should not follow suite? Why or why not?

- Does the fact that we are now several generations removed from such a possible genesis adequately alleviate any connection to that purpose, and so now make it alright? Why or why not?

- What of the intervening generations of Christian women closer to the origins of the practice who may have begun wearing pants - were they necessarily partakers of that act of rebellion? - or as Grant has credibly suggested, is a principle matter here that of personal motive regardless of how society at large may perceive it?​
I do understand the point you are trying to make. You are positing (I believe) that there is nothing inherently masculine about trousers, that this is purely cultural; and so whether or not women should wear them is governed by whether the current culture regards them as distinctively masculine. I.e. the living out of the requirement for women not to wear that which appertains to men will be determined by what the culture at large deems to appertain distinctively to men. And, granting for the sake of argument that the original motives for donning trousers were based on feministic principles, you essentially pose the question of how much time must pass before that becomes irrelevant and the only real question is how the current culture regards the wearing of trousers. Is that a fair restatement of the line of thought?

Without commenting on all of these premises, I would say there is one thing which cuts through all of this in any event, and that is that current Western culture is not really as removed from the implications of trousers being a distinctive as is supposed.

As just one significant example, there are, today, serious movements to ban girls from wearing skirts/dresses at some schools precisely because they DO create a distinction between the sexes - which is regarded as verboten. (And, no, there is no significant difference between the uniform trousers for boys and those being proposed for girls). I do not know how this can be squared with the proposition that trousers have no cultural significance.

If trousers are not regarded by the proponents of this as “masculine”, they are certainly regarded as unisex. So in either event, the distinction between the sexes is being obscured, if not lost.

What is being missed in this debate is the positive case for maintaining the traditional demarcation of the sexes in our culture in the first place. Inherent in the command for men and women not to dress like each other is the idea that there is a difference in dress to begin with; the clearer the difference, the better. If trousers lose the connotation of masculinity in our culture, that is already a cultural loss, from the Biblical perspective, as it is one more step in blurring the lines. That is a matter that merits special concern and caution given all of the ungodly movements currently afoot in the culture.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think these generally result in the same proximity (at the same angle) as a private staircase.
Try an escalator in a Korean department store, or the stairs at Seoul Station.
Anyway, the dress length is naturally a factor as well.
Very true. I'm quite conservative in my view of appropriate skirt length.
My broader point was that traditionally good manners and discretion have been the answers to most “difficulties”.

I appreciate the question was meant to make a point (and answering questions of detail always opens one up to ridicule), but surely the point is not one of women “needing” to wear trousers. Many women wear only dresses and do so without mishap, so that is not really the issue.
I just think it's unhelpful discuss who should go first or second on the stairs. Maybe it'd work in a private context, but not in many public ones. I think you solved the problem easily enough, though, when you addressed skirt length.
 
One thing I think this argument and some of the other arguments on here miss is that the cultural significance of dresses vs trousers in Western culture is not at all a dead historical topic. For example, the phrase “who wears the trousers in the family” has been mentioned - this phrase is still used (or at least people know what it means). People still recognise that dresses are distinctively feminine and for formal occasions it would be bad manners for a woman not to wear a dress. The Queen, for example, is never seen in trousers. Some of the women in this thread have said they wear dresses whenever they go to church. There is an implicit recognition of seemliness.
These are important observations on the culture. Yes, still dresses are regarded as feminine. But that is not yet an argument against trousers.
Traditionally (and still for the most part today) girls’ school uniforms entail skirts while boys’ uniforms entail shorts/trousers. The current increasing movement in the UK to change to unisex uniforms of trousers for all is very much (and explicitly) rooted in ideas of gender equivalence and accommodation of transgenderism.
This is obviously very disturbing. But the way trousers are used by some leftist radicals does not make trousers themselves improper for women. I could use a spoon to kill a man. It does not follow that a spoon is necessarily a weapon.
So I think that to treat the choice of dresses vs. trousers as something as archaic as Roman togas is rather misguided.
I had in mind rather the dress of plebeian men, or of Roman soldiers, since the long toga was reserved for the upper classes.

The point was that diffeeent cultures bave different standards of what constitutes appropriate dress for male and females. It had not been shown here (as far as I have seen) that trousers for women is necessarily a violation of such standards.
There is certainly no question in my mind that the topic has relevance to the broader culture wars that are sadly very current.
Yes. It is arguable that women's trousers started out as a sort of cultural rebellion, and that they're by some being used in a similar way again. But, again, I don't see that all feminine trousers are inappropriate.
That is not to condemn anyone or imply that people are intentionally supporting the ends of these culture wars. But it should be recognised that dress is indeed relevant to them.
Relevant to the current culture wars, yes, but is dress essentially bound up in them?
I will say, anecdotally, that in my experience conservative reformed Christians in the UK generally hold to more traditional practices on this topic. It is not at all a cult position
This is good to hear. One thing that bothers me around here is how loosely Korean Christian women dress, even coming to church in short skirts and shorts, bare legs exposed to everyone. I remember it was bad in Canada, too, but I wasn't paying as much attention then.

There are a lot of well-dressed cult members propagating their heresies on the street here. They're usually very nicely dressed. I often say to my wife that one thing I appreciate about the JWs is that the women are dressed modestly. The same cannot be said of professing Christians.

I will add that I have always found dresses and skirts more attractive on women, but since becoming Reformed I've taken more of a liking to them. I encourage my wife to buy dresses and wear them.
 
Some dear friends of my wife and I hold the view that pants are not fitting attire for women (no pun intended). They are a large family with nine children; five of whom are girls and all the women in the family wear skirts and dresses in public and when hosting guests at their home. I've never inquired as to the reasoning for this, but I know the wife came out of a fundamentalist baptist background in the deep south where I believe this was the norm for her growing up.

Personally, I respect the decision my friends have made. In a culture that ditched the word "modesty" from its vocabulary long ago and in a time when we've tossed our young boys and girls into a giant gender blender I can appreciate attempts to differentiate between male and female dress.

May Christian women wear pants? ABSOLUTELY. However, I'd love to see dresses and long skirts make a comeback!
 
If there were something essentially masculine about pants, then it would follow that Scotsmen were more effeminate than their trousers-sporting English neighbors.

Anyone care to argue that?
 
Last edited:
If there were something essentially masculine about pants, then it would follow that Scotsmen were more effeminate than their trousers-sporting English neighbors.

Anyone care to argue that?

and yet Scotsmen seem more masculine in movies...
 
Bah. If you let a woman wear pants, next thing you know she'll want to go fishing.

bigbass1044661511.jpg


I remember my demur and modest grandmother putting on insulated coveralls to feed calves in -40F Montana winters. Sometimes circumstances trump convention.

They were men's coveralls, by the way. Nobody made insulated coveralls for women in the 30s when my puritanical and practical grandfather bought them for her.
 
This is one of those things that gets my OCD going.... I'm looking forward to being forced to wear scrubs when I start working so that I don't have to work about things like this
 
I will only reiterate that, in order for what I will call the “traditional” view to hold weight, it is not necessary to prove that trousers are intrinsically masculine.

All that is necessary is to show that:

- the Bible contemplates a distinction of the sexes in the matter of dress;

- dresses vs trousers are a traditional marker of distinction of the sexes in Western culture; and

- in making trousers “unisex”, a clear and bright line distinction between the sexes is lost.

If there were a society where everyone dressed in identical brown sackcloths, it would obviously be impossible to “cross-dress” per se, as the sackcloth would be neither distinctively masculine nor feminine. But Scriptural order would still not be observed, because of the lack of distinction between the sexes.

I shall probably let my argument rest there, as I do not wish to labour the point. I do commend the article that was linked in the opening post, as it establishes the case better and more methodically than I have done.
 
(No disrespect intended towards any ladies who have posted here).

It would be difficult to deny that 100 years ago (actually less) one would never see women in trousers. Obviously something has changed since that time. It is useful to ask what the primary catalysts for this change were.
For those interested, here is an informative booklet that was actually written for men rather than women. It gives insight into the fashion industry. I think it's good to at least consider these things whether or not someone fully agrees with it.

For the record, modesty is much more than how one dresses and men can be just as immodest with their tight shirts and skinny jeans.

The booklet can be downloaded as a PDF.

http://www.chapellibrary.org/book/cmod/christian-modesty-pollardjeff
 
I will only reiterate that, in order for what I will call the “traditional” view to hold weight, it is not necessary to prove that trousers are intrinsically masculine.

All that is necessary is to show that:

- the Bible contemplates a distinction of the sexes in the matter of dress;

- dresses vs trousers are a traditional marker of distinction of the sexes in Western culture; and

- in making trousers “unisex”, a clear and bright line distinction between the sexes is lost.

If there were a society where everyone dressed in identical brown sackcloths, it would obviously be impossible to “cross-dress” per se, as the sackcloth would be neither distinctively masculine nor feminine. But Scriptural order would still not be observed, because of the lack of distinction between the sexes.

I shall probably let my argument rest there, as I do not wish to labour the point. I do commend the article that was linked in the opening post, as it establishes the case better and more methodically than I have done.
I appreciate the points you’ve made and the way you’ve made them. Christians should think seriously about modest, appropriate dress and what changes we may need to make. At work or in some school situations unisex clothing may be required, but women should give some thought as to how to dress distinctively as a woman at other times (again, when not milking cows in -40 degree weather or fishing). :) Even if it doesn’t involve switching entirely to dresses and skirts. I’m certainly reviewing my own habits of dress again, as I think there are age-related issues of modest dress as well.
 
Last edited:
Jie-Huli, I've really appreciated much of what you've had to say here, as well as your winsome demeanor. Allow me to state a few of my own thoughts:

- I think there are simply too many subjective factors involved to say that Scripture categorically forbids women wearing pants. As such it can't be inherently sinful, and to strictly insist otherwise becomes legalistic. I've definitely experienced just such an environment.​

- With respect to societal perceptions, I think the association of pants with men and authority has largely faded into more of a metaphorical abstract (..."who wears the pants"... bathroom/wc signage...) rather than there being a literal or even conscious connection in current Western cultures. I don't think it's necessary or realistic that every lingering perception a given society may have ever associated with something must be completely gone (which would be impossible to determine anyway) before Christians can "accept" or participate in them. An admittedly limited comparison might be something like using the normal names of days and months despite their utterly pagan origins.

- Your point about maintaining a clear distinction between the sexes is absolutely valid and well-taken. Yet I believe that with care this can be accomplished apart from a strict demarcation based on wearing pants. Having said that, I think Christians should be more conscientious about this clear biblical precept than they often seem to be when choosing their attire.

- I do think personal motives and comprehension are considerable factors in debatable matters such as dress (cf. John 9:41; John 15:22; James 4:17)

- I think taking a conservative, deferential approach vs. simply claiming Christian liberty in this area is highly commendable and even virtuous (cf. Rom. 14:13, 19, 21; 1 Cor. 6:12; 1 Cor. 10:23).

- It is my personal opinion that the issue of modest dress is largely neglected in too many evangelical and even Reformed churches. Not that I think a pastor should get up and say "don't wear a, b or c ", or "you must wear x, y and z". But, especially in today's debased culture, I think it would be very good and useful if being conscious, considerate and careful about maintaining modesty and sexual differentiation in our dress - with regard to both men and women - were made an ongoing topic in pastoral exhortations of the saints.


EDIT: In retrospect it was inappropriate for me to put Jie-Huli in the spotlight the way I did in the original version of this post, so I have removed a question I posed. My motive was out of respect for his perceptive interaction here, but to single him out with such a direct question was not prudent. Without further comment, and though they were intended to be complimentary, I have also edited out some remarks I made concerning his church affiliation. I apologize for these things, brother.​
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top