| Author | |
Rebecca
Forum All-Star
Joined: Dec 30 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1898
|
| Posted: Aug 06 2007 at 11:13am | IP Logged
|
 |
|
Essy wrote:
| Now one question I have is how differently did Mary dress from the other women of her day? Did she stand out in any way...as some women wearing dresses to some ocassions might? By this question I'm not implying that we should simply go along with ALL styles of our day, we definitely know that some are plain sinful. But if something is not outright sinful... |
|
|
I think what convinced me to wear skirts was the argument that while some clothing choices are fine and well within modesty standards today, some are clearly better. I believe that Mother Mary purposely wore the best choice in femininity and modesty that was available in her time, within her means. That thought encouraged me to do the same.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lisbet
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2006
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2706
|
| Posted: Aug 06 2007 at 11:42am | IP Logged
|
|
|
VERY well said Rebecca!
I know that oftentimes I stand out in skirts/dresses, I also know that I stand out with 8 little children hanging off those skirts/dresses! 
I don't feel I can let that stop me from wearing them. (skirts, not kids! ) I have a hard time thinking that I would not stand out in spaghetti strapped tank top and shorts but I may in a dress. Weird huh?
__________________
Lisa, wife to Tony,
Mama to:
Nick, 17
Abby, 15
Gabe, 13
Isaac, 11
Mary, 10
Sam, 9
Henry, 7
Molly, 6
Mark, 5
Greta, 3
Cecilia born 10.29.10
Josephine born 6.11.12
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Red Cardigan
Forum Pro
Joined: June 16 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 470
|
| Posted: Aug 06 2007 at 12:26pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Rebecca wrote:
I think what convinced me to wear skirts was the argument that while some clothing choices are fine and well within modesty standards today, some are clearly better. I believe that Mother Mary purposely wore the best choice in femininity and modesty that was available in her time, within her means. That thought encouraged me to do the same. |
|
|
Well, see, here's where things get complicated.
Jewish female clothing of the first century a.d., just like Jewish male clothing of that time period, was subject to very specific laws and regulations. Certain articles of clothing such as prayer shawls had specifically religious use, but even everyday clothing was predictable. And Mother Mary, like nearly all poor Jewish women, would have made most if not all of her own clothing, and Our Lord's and St. Joseph's as well, as this was one of a woman's normal duties. (It could therefore be argued that the woman who makes her own slacks is more like Mary than the woman who buys all her skirts.)
Here's a description I found online:
"The Bible covers a time span of several thousand years, but the type of clothing worn by most Jewish people during that time did not change much....
"Both women and men wore a loincloth, the equivalent of underpants. This was a long thin strip of cloth which was wound around the waist and then between the legs, with the end tucked in at the waist. Women probably wore some sort of binding around their breasts.
"The main garment, worn by both women and men, was the halug, a tunic. This was made of two rectangular pieces of cloth joined in a long seam along the top of the arms, with a hole left for the head to go through. It also had a seam running down both sides, with holes left for the arms.
"The halug could be gathered up in a bunch at the shoulders, either with a clip or a tip-loop, or it could be tucked up at the waist if heavy work was being done. Halugs made of fine linen or wool could be draped to fall gracefully.
"The halug was worn with a belt, either leather or metal, the decoration depending on the wealth of the wearer.
"A cloak could be worn over the halug. The edges and fringes of the cloak were often decorated.
When women went into public places, they wrapped their long hair in a piece of cloth. This cloth held their hair in place and acted as a head covering in the hot climate. It could also be used as a face covering. Rebecca used it to hide her face when she first met Isaac (Genesis 24:65).
"Total veiling, as worn by some Islamic women today, was not practiced. Sarah’s beauty was obviously visible to those around her (Genesis 12). Rebecca was not veiled when she was drawing water from the spring (Genesis 24:16)."
So, from this, we can learn a few things about Mary's clothes:
1. She most likely made her own clothes.
2. The garments worn, the tunic and halug, were worn both by women and men, in other words, their basic clothing was the same.
3. What differentiated the clothing by gender were certain accessories: Men wore more elaborate belts with their clothes (from a different site I read) and often copied the headgear of their neighbors in Mesopotamia or Egypt, especially the wealthy, while women used the veil, simpler belts, and more elaborate jewelry than men wore (even poor women had some jewelry, often handed down in the family).
So we really can't say that Mary purposely chose the most modest and feminine clothes available to her; she wore what every other poor Jewish woman was wearing, and in terms of the cut of her garments, she also wore what most poor Jewish men were wearing. Only the really wealthy Jewish people had begun to experiment with the more daring Roman styles influencing their country, and even then the more "gender specific" Roman clothes, like the shorter tunic men wore, weren't really seen among Jewish men.
Mary's clothes would have been simple, homemade (from the start of the weaving process, no less!) hand-dyed with vegetable dyes, and certainly both modest and humble. But to imply that out of a wide range of clothing choices available to her Our Lady deliberately selected clothing that was "more" modest is to misunderstand the time period, I'm afraid.
I apologize for the length of this post, but I do have strong feelings about this (and as I said at the beginning of this thread, I don't even wear pants!). My strong feelings come from having observed many good, sincere Catholic women scolded and chided by other Catholic women for wearing pants, as if there were something inherently sinful or immodest about it; and I think that many of these women have the same misunderstandings about what Mary would have worn, and why, as I have seen displayed on this thread.
__________________
http://www.redcardigan.blogspot.com
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
saintintraining
Forum Newbie
Joined: July 08 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Aug 06 2007 at 1:52pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I just want to add that I admire women who choose to wear skirts only. I, myself choose not to, and my main reason is our weather. I am in Northern Minnesota and even with thick leggings underneath it is too cold for me.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
doris
Forum All-Star
Joined: April 24 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1103
|
| Posted: Aug 06 2007 at 2:20pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
This may be taking the topic way off the OP, but what I keep coming back to is, shouldn't I address some of the many, many ways in which I fall short as a Christian before I start worrying about what to wear? ( Worse still, I can just imagine it becoming one of those Pharasaical things for me -- 'Oh, I'm so much better than my neighbour because I'm in dresses exclusively.')
Having said that, I do see the arguments for skirts/dresses being less revealing of one's shape and therefore more modest -- and actually, since being pregnant, I've worn dresses more or less every day, partly for comfort, partly for principle, and partly just to try it. I really can't say that I've felt more feminine or more holy.
__________________
Home educating in London, UK with dd (2000) ds (2002), dd (2004), ds (2008) and dd (2011).
Frabjous Days
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Rebecca
Forum All-Star
Joined: Dec 30 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1898
|
| Posted: Aug 06 2007 at 2:23pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Red Cardigan wrote:
| So we really can't say that Mary purposely chose the most modest and feminine clothes available to her; |
|
|
We most certainly can. She was conceived without sin and would not have worn anything less than that. Just because she lived in a time when clothing was naturally modest does not negate that she would have chosen it even if her neigbors were wearing bikinis.
Red Cardigan wrote:
| But to imply that out of a wide range of clothing choices available to her Our Lady deliberately selected clothing that was "more" modest is to misunderstand the time period, I'm afraid. |
|
|
I did not imply that she had a wide range of clothing choices available. I do believe there were probably variations in style, especially due to the Roman influence on the region. Most of the clothing choices were probably modest. But even if there were only one choice of clothing as you mentioned, that does not negate the fact that Mother Mary wore modest clothing and would continue to do so today if she decided to appear in 2007 in the United States. She appeared in modern times (Fatima) wearing clothing that was not culturally recognizable when she could have chosen to wear pants, a v-neck top or an above the knee length skirt which all had made their debut at that time.
Red Cardigan wrote:
| I apologize for the length of this post, but I do have strong feelings about this (and as I said at the beginning of this thread, I don't even wear pants!). My strong feelings come from having observed many good, sincere Catholic women scolded and chided by other Catholic women for wearing pants, as if there were something inherently sinful or immodest about it; and I think that many of these women have the same misunderstandings about what Mary would have worn, and why, as I have seen displayed on this thread. |
|
|
I am sorry to hear that women have been scolded for whether they wear pants or skirts. That is very sad. That is not the tone here on this board. No one is trying to convince any other woman to wear only skirts, just defending their reasons for choosing to do so. From the very first sentence of this thread, there has been a challenging tone towards those who choose to wear skirts. If anyone does not feel compelled to wear skirts, that is their own choice. They should wear what they feel is appropriate. However, those of us who have made the decision to wear skirts should not have to defend our reasons.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lisbet
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2006
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2706
|
| Posted: Aug 06 2007 at 2:37pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Elizabeth, I am certain you already view what you wear in light of your Christian beliefs to a certain degree, especially in regards to modesty. We must remember that modesty is a virtue and we should work to cultivate it as such.
Also, for me personally, I have many many shortcommings as a Christian and in Marylike behavior. My outward expression of my faith, be it in the way of a scapular, crucifix around my neck, or skirts, reflects and reminds me more fully to be conscience of the things that I am workig on. KWIM?
__________________
Lisa, wife to Tony,
Mama to:
Nick, 17
Abby, 15
Gabe, 13
Isaac, 11
Mary, 10
Sam, 9
Henry, 7
Molly, 6
Mark, 5
Greta, 3
Cecilia born 10.29.10
Josephine born 6.11.12
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
doris
Forum All-Star
Joined: April 24 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1103
|
| Posted: Aug 06 2007 at 2:51pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Lisbet wrote:
Elizabeth, I am certain you already view what you wear in light of your Christian beliefs to a certain degree, especially in regards to modesty. We must remember that modesty is a virtue and we should work to cultivate it as such.
Also, for me personally, I have many many shortcommings as a Christian and in Marylike behavior. My outward expression of my faith, be it in the way of a scapular, crucifix around my neck, or skirts, reflects and reminds me more fully to be conscience of the things that I am workig on. KWIM? |
|
|
Yes, I do try to dress in a way that is fitting -- although this has only quite recently occurred to me! (Also, my view of what is modest is very different from dh's -- ie he likes what I would deem immodest.)
I do see what you mean about living up to outward signs. This hasn't struck me so much with my miraculous medal or cross (because they're small) but I've recently hung a rosary on my rearview mirror in the car (to remind me to pray, instead of fume, in traffic jams). I suddenly realised that I'd better make sure I was behaving myself on the road or I would be a very poor witness indeed!
__________________
Home educating in London, UK with dd (2000) ds (2002), dd (2004), ds (2008) and dd (2011).
Frabjous Days
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
mary theresa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Nov 08 2006
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 766
|
| Posted: Aug 06 2007 at 3:01pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Rebecca wrote:
From the very first sentence of this thread, there has been a challenging tone towards those who choose to wear skirts. |
|
|
Oh! I do not AT ALL think so!
I have been reading this thread with great interest and I totally see both sides which are presented in a very friendly and interesting manner.
Thank you Red Cardigan and Lisa for your views so clearly expressed. I think it is a beautiful thing that some women can make the sacrafice -- as it would be for me! -- to only wear skirts. I do feel more feminine when I wear skirts . . . but then again I see what Red is saying about the "what would Mary do" argument. It seems to have its flaws and the openess to interpretation that Red mentioned.
Also, I def. have encountered the people out there -- men as well as women -- who think all women should only wear skirts and do, by their attitude, make those like me, who don't, feel guilty, and somehow less womanly and pure by that viewpoint. No one HERE is doing that, but it does seem a common pitfall.
Well, I haven't added anything useful, I know, but I am reading with great interest.
__________________
Mary Theresa
mother to 3 little girls --March '06, Dec '07 and Jan '10
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Red Cardigan
Forum Pro
Joined: June 16 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 470
|
| Posted: Aug 06 2007 at 3:19pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Rebecca, of course Mary was conceived without sin and everything she did glorified God, from dawn to dusk. However, she didn't chooseher clothing the way a modern woman chooses hers, and no amount of pretending that she did will change that fact.
And if we're going to insist that what Mary has worn in her various apparitions is our standard, then we must conclude that only floor length dresses with veils and cloaks are appropriate for Catholic women, as Mary has never appeared without her head covered, in short sleeves, or even in a skirt.
__________________
http://www.redcardigan.blogspot.com
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aussieannie
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 21 2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7251
|
| Posted: Aug 06 2007 at 3:58pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I have read the few modesty threads at 4Real over the year and they have been great 'vechicles' for discussion and thought. I have never added much to any discussion but I've been thinking....thinking...
I have decided that skirts are a better thing and there are many trousers/pants still in my cupboard that I know I will never wear again. (Cleaning up at present and they are finally ready to go.) I still at present have my dress-like pants but I know in time they will be replaced.
You are right Elizabeth, we don't often feel more feminine in dresses - we can be like that with prayer too, dry periods, when we think, "Why bother?" But heaven knows that is a time of more grace...we just can't see that. I think that whilst we may not feel more feminine, people still generally perceive it as being more feminine.
It is very hard not to see modest dresses as more feminine over trousers, no matter how feminine the trousers may be. If I think of an Asian lady working in the fields in traditional pants (that are not tight fitting) and then think of a Indian lady in her traditional sari - I naturally see the sari no matter how plain and unexpensive, as the more feminine image.
Dress DOES add an air of feminity to us for sure.
My father use to say to me, (as he lived in a household of women only - I have no brothers) if I were very emotional or upset about something. "Anne, women are more emotional (and he meant this in it's positive attibutes) because women carry the 'spark of life.'" In otherwords the hormones that enable us to bear new life also can dictate our more emotional state. That extra sensitivity is actually a gift given to be able to raise children with the right atmosphere of love and affection.
Dresses can have a spiritual emphasis in this beautiful gift of life we have been given. They 'veil' the very source of this ability to co-create, bring forth life through love. I say it is a spritual emphasis, as all through the history of God's people on earth, since the Old Testament to this very day, in liturgy we 'veil' what is holy and the source of our life and love.
Slacks on the other hand as others have point out, are naturally more revealing and the first layer of the mystery has been lifted, so as to speak.
But I totally understand how some feel when they feel 'chided' in the WAY some other ladies may insist in real life to others that this is the only way and so there! But this thread is different, it gives us the chance to share the thoughts and reasons and that is vitally important for viewers will form important opinions from it, as I have in the past.
When it comes to real life, I feel someone's example, viewed over and over again more compelling than a sermon from them. That is Mary-like too. I know Mary's example compelled many and she probably never gave a sermon to anyone, but answered profoundly what questions she may have been put to her, as others observed her life - but her example and prayer would have been her greatest gift to others.
We should never wear dresses to 'feel holier' 'or holier than thou!' But done instead, by the conviction of the good reasonings that speak to us strongly and on the application of those convictions. Having a truly humble attitude of being faithful to those promptings.
__________________
Under Her Starry Mantle
Spiritual Motherhood for Priests
Blessed with 3 boys & 3 girls!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Rebecca
Forum All-Star
Joined: Dec 30 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1898
|
| Posted: Aug 06 2007 at 4:34pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Red Cardigan wrote:
| And if we're going to insist that what Mary has worn in her various apparitions is our standard, then we must conclude that only floor length dresses with veils and cloaks are appropriate for Catholic women, as Mary has never appeared without her head covered, in short sleeves, or even in a skirt. |
|
|
Certainly I did not mean that her *actual clothing* was to be our standard, just that I wanted to choose clothes each day that Mother Mary would feel comfortable wearing during this day and age. I am not about to go out and buy clothing that looks like Jewish women's clothing from the time Christ walked the earth. I am, however, going to cover the parts of my body that Mother Mary covered with her clothing. I do not include my head because I am under the impression that that was a Jewish custom not necessarily one done for modesty only although I am interested, Chicken Lady, in your thoughts on that.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aussieannie
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 21 2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7251
|
| Posted: Aug 06 2007 at 4:49pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
We do traditionally see Mary with veil and dress but when this was being discussed it made me think of a beautiful statue at a Marian Shrine in Australia that is dedicated to Our Lady by the Korean community.
The statue has Our Lady in traditional Korean clothes, interestingly enough, no veil and full length skirt. My husband took this photo because he loved it and thought Our Lady looked beautifully maternal in this particular carving:
__________________
Under Her Starry Mantle
Spiritual Motherhood for Priests
Blessed with 3 boys & 3 girls!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
monalisa
Forum Newbie
Joined: March 23 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Aug 06 2007 at 4:56pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Here's a point to take to prayer:
You CAN get to Heaven in pants, working full-time (even if you don't absolutely need the money), with your kids in school. St. Gianna did it. Reached the heights of holiness on earth. DEFINITELY not fitting this particular mold. I am a SAHM, hsing mom b/c I feel called by God. I don't think it's the only call God gives. And I often bring up St. Gianna to my friends when they get critical of aquaintances of ours who work outside the home.
Why can't we just say that God calls different people to express their devotion to Him in different ways? And we can rejoice in the gifts and expression of each? Modesty is not to be compromised, but not everyone is called to look the same, dress the same, etc. If it's not a sin by Holy Mother Chrurch, do we make ourselves to be gods or popes by trying to imply that one way to live a virtue is better, or the only way?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
folklaur
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2816
|
| Posted: Aug 06 2007 at 5:22pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I wasn't going to go near this thread. I really wasn't.
I am NOT saying I think this way. I am just saying, that I have heard the argument presented like this,
~We are supposed to dress modestly.
~Pants, by their very nature (and not by any misuse by those wearing them) but the pants - in and of themselves - outline certain "parts" of a womans body - and by their very nature are more revealing - and so LESS modest.
~Skirts (of course of a decent length), do NOT do this, and do not draw any extra attention or outlining of those "parts."
~So, skirts are obvioulsy the more modest choice.
~Being the more modest choice, what would Mary wear TODAY, if given the choice?
Again, I am not saying that this is MY thought process, I am just saying I have heard it presented like that.
And, just as an aside, I happened across this article as I was reading the news this morning.
So, it seems that this issue is discussed, in some way, shape, or form, most everywhere, huh?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
teachingmyown
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 20 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5128
|
| Posted: Aug 06 2007 at 5:42pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
A couple of thoughts (I hope they are coherent, long day!):
It is interesting to watch this conversation as it goes on. The OP was from a skirts-only lady. Obviously, she sees the value in wearing skirts. I think she was only asking for clarification of the "imitating Mary" reason. I don't think she was attacking that reason as much as wondering about it.
I am not a skirts-only lady. In fact, I rarely wear skirts outside of Mass. I think it is a lovely idea. I am sure that it is probably more modest. However, I am not completely convicted of the fact that wearing modest (not form-fitting) pants is wrong. I have not read Dressing with Dignity or any of the various other writings on the subject. My dh is actually in favor of me wearing skirts. So, it is just me being willful. I love jeans!
While I think that we are called to imitate Mary, and I don't kid myself to think that she would wear my jeans or capris, I do think this decision is TRULY a personal decision to be prayed about and discussed with our husbands. The worry to me, is two-sided. One is that as someone mentioned (Elizabeth, I think) that we run the risk of feeling "holy than thou" because we have made the skirts-only commitment. The other is that we end up judging those who aren't there.
Sally Clarkson, in her book Season's of a Mother's Heart, warns against setting standards for each other that are not "essential" to our salvation, or even to our vocation as homeschooling mothers. She uses a lot of different examples, from how we dress to what we feed our kids. She says that we already bear a tremendous weight in our vocation and we set ourselves up for a fall when we try to live up to standards set by humans rather than God.
We all need to strive for virtue, we need to discern the things that will aid us in achieving virtue. If that is wearing skirts, God bless you for that. You set an example of femininity in a world that is sorely lacking in it.
Lisa, I do love what you said about standing out for wearing skirts when if you were wearing spaghetti straps, a plunging neckline and a mini-skirt, no-one would think twice.
Bridget has a great post about the reasons for modesty and how they change according to our age. Maybe she will chime in with it.
__________________
In Christ,
Molly
wife to Court & mom to ds '91, dd '96, ds '97, dds '99, '01, '03, '06, and dss '07 and 01/20/11
Remembering Today
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
cathochick
Forum Rookie
Joined: Nov 13 2006
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 78
|
| Posted: Aug 06 2007 at 6:38pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
cactus mouse wrote:
I am NOT saying I think this way. I am just saying, that I have heard the argument presented like this,
~We are supposed to dress modestly.
~Pants, by their very nature (and not by any misuse by those wearing them) but the pants - in and of themselves - outline certain "parts" of a womans body - and by their very nature are more revealing - and so LESS modest.
~Skirts (of course of a decent length), do NOT do this, and do not draw any extra attention or outlining of those "parts."
~So, skirts are obvioulsy the more modest choice.
~Being the more modest choice, what would Mary wear TODAY, if given the choice? |
|
|
The problem with this argument is that pants also outline certain parts of a man's body. If it's immodest for a woman to wear pants based on that argument, it's also immodest for a man to wear pants. The line of a man's pants points to the same region that the line of a woman's pants points to. Therefore, to be truly logical, men and women should all just wear robes. 
__________________
Jessica
Mom to Dom 9, and Joe 5.
The Dominican Bungalow
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
folklaur
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2816
|
| Posted: Aug 06 2007 at 6:51pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
cathochick wrote:
The problem with this argument is that pants also outline certain parts of a man's body. If it's immodest for a woman to wear pants based on that argument, it's also immodest for a man to wear pants. The line of a man's pants points to the same region that the line of a woman's pants points to. Therefore, to be truly logical, men and women should all just wear robes. |
|
|
Yes, I agree (as I said, this is just something as it was related to me - I did not say I ascribed to the thinking) however....in TODAY'S culture, most men don't really have that option or choice, whereas, women do.
This whole thread has been on my mind today. Anyone else? I always get preoccupied when I think people are getting their feelings hurt, or feeling like they are being scolded. <sigh>. 
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aussieannie
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 21 2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7251
|
| Posted: Aug 06 2007 at 7:11pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
teachingmyown wrote:
| One is that as someone mentioned (Elizabeth, I think) that we run the risk of feeling "holy than thou" because we have made the skirts-only commitment. The other is that we end up judging those who aren't there. |
|
|
The day I gave up listening to rock music (5 years ago at my oldest child's First Holy Communion) I never felt 'holier than thou' but I'd be a fool not acknowledge that I noticed a difference in my spiritual life. This is not pride, this is not thinking myself better than anyone else (for those who still listen to that type of music) this is observing the facts in my own life. I felt convicted to do it, I'd be perfectly happy to share my views with others - it is a similar thing with skirts. I feel no one is condemning others for feeling different but I still can't water down my convictions to make some feel like they are not being judged, especially when I know in my heart, than I'm not!!
In a way, it is hard to argue with those who feel they strongly suspect your true motives for trying strive in different ways to keep moving forward in your faith/moral life.
I can only say that if you know that others are tempted to be 'holier than thou', is this because you have on ocassions heard someone who wears skirts only say that they are better than others for the wearing of them or just what you think they are feeling?
__________________
Under Her Starry Mantle
Spiritual Motherhood for Priests
Blessed with 3 boys & 3 girls!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Red Cardigan
Forum Pro
Joined: June 16 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 470
|
| Posted: Aug 06 2007 at 7:42pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
aussieannie wrote:
In a way, it is hard to argue with those who feel they strongly suspect your true motives for trying strive in different ways to keep moving forward in your faith/moral life.
I can only say that if you know that others are tempted to be 'holier than thou', is this because you have on ocassions heard someone who wears skirts only say that they are better than others for the wearing of them or just what you think they are feeling?
|
|
|
I think this is an important question, and I'd like to take a stab at answering it.
You mentioned giving up rock music. I don't want to debate the pros/cons of rock music; I can't actually because I'm a classical music dweeb who makes my husband laugh when some "classic" rock song comes on and I don't have a clue who the band is! But I would NEVER take the "all rock music is evil" position, and I would never judge those who listened to it as being "less holy" than I am. At the same time, I'm happy to be supportive of anyone who has decided to give it up for their own personal spiritual growth, just as I'd be happy to be supportive of someone who says, "I've given up chocolate. I felt like it was too powerful an influence in my life, and that the sacrifice involved in giving it up would be pleasing to God."
But many of the skirt wearers seem to take the position "We know pants/rock music/chocolate are NOT pleasing to God, and therefore in our journey toward holiness we've discerned that these evil things must be cut out of our lives. We don't judge you because you don't realize a) how immodest all pants are; b) that all rock music, including Christian rock, is of the devil, and c) that chocolate cake is called "devil's food" for a reason. Naturally we hope you will grow to understand all of these things and stop offending God with your clothing, music taste, and consumption of sugary caffeinated foods, but in the meantime we don't have to defend our choices to you, because we know we've made the morally superior choices here."
I'm exaggerating for effect, of course. But how many times in this thread has it been said that skirts/dresses are "better," that Mary would wear modern-day skirts or dresses but never pants (how do we know, after all? She has never chosen to appear in modern clothing that I know of), that pants are definitely less modest/less feminine than skirts (really? palazzo pants are less modest than a tight pencil skirt?), and that in the realm of moral choices, skirts/dresses are always preferable to pants, no matter what the circumstances of the woman wearing them.
And every time we say skirts are better, we are implying that choosing not to wear them is to choose something which is not as good, or even bad. How can we make statements like that and not see the judgmentalism?
__________________
http://www.redcardigan.blogspot.com
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Tea and Conversation
Topic: Regarding a skirts-only argument
