Third Hour

Why Women Don’t Wear Pants to Church

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

It's funny how easy it can be to throw these kinds of things in the direction of those with whom we disagree when we're very often two sides of the same coin.

But are we really?  I don't consider those who claim to be on the side of the today's progressive feminists to be on the same side of the coin... but that's just me. :popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Did they? Oh well, I missed that part. 

Do you not remember the part where she recalls her bishop asking her a contextually relevant question? (During an Recommend Interview if her pants were part of a rebellious mindset)

She used that as one of her "proofs" of the problem.  And it has been discussed in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, estradling75 said:

Do you not remember the part where she recalls her bishop asking her a contextually relevant question? (During an Recommend Interview if her pants were part of a rebellious mindset)

She used that as one of her "proofs" of the problem.  And it has been discussed in this thread.

Nope, missed that too.

The reaction to the article was much more interesting to me than the actual article. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Did not the article in question complain about her bishop?

The author of the article did not complain about her bishop. She merely mentioned how she was surprised by his question, thinking that even now, after all these years, someone would think that a woman wearing pants to church is a sign of rebellion. When in actuality wearing pants is a lot more comfortable to a lot of women than wearing a dress. From what I read, that is precisely why the author wears them. 

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Nope, missed that too.

The reaction to the article was much more interesting to me than the actual article. 

Ahh...  Well from what she wrote...  He asked... She answered... He accepted the answer and moved along....  She is offended about being asked... 

In my experience if a Bishop is concerned about a possible rebellious mindset due to the actions of a priesthood holder.... said priesthood holder gets called to repentance... Even if only on the avoid the appearance of evil charge.

But the "Wear Pants to Church" movement is part of the "Women are horribly abused and mistreated at Church" movement.  Therefore the fact that women have greater options and privileged then men do when it comes to wardrobe choices have to be selectively ignored.

If women want to wear pants... let them wear pants.

But if you want to write and article about how it is oppressive and against the churches teaching on agency to tell people what they should or should not be wearing... and then selectively ignore the largest group that gets told what they should be wearing...  Well it is understandable to have your motives for writing to be questioned at that point.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

I agree completely, and in fairness I think the overwhelming majority of women who wear pants to church aren't doing so for political reasons-just practical ones. 

I expect this is true. I can practically guarantee it wasn't true during the 2012 Purple Pants event.

I am not people's Thought Cop. Why people do the stuff they do is rarely my business and only occasionally my concern. But when the Purple Pants people openly advocate for wearing pants and/or purple for the purposes of (1) protesting how the Church or Church culture treats women, (2) encouraging nonconformity as a putative effort to increase "diversity", (3) sticking a metaphorical thumb in the eye of those who don't like to see women at Churh wearing pants (or purple), and/or (4) supporting expressions of all or any of the above, then they have invited my input. In effect, they have made it my business. So they shouldn't pretend to be shocked or offended when I give my input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Ahh...  Well from what she wrote...  He asked... She answered... He accepted the answer and moved along....  She is offended about being asked... 

Quote

 

I furrowed my brow. What? Was this going to stand in the way of the temple?

I said no. “I just think they are cute and comfortable to wear. And church wardrobe standards only require that you wear your best. These pants are as formal as any of my dresses.” He nodded his head and finished with the scripted recommend questions. I wasn’t offended, I wasn’t hurt, but I was surprised.

 

She specifically says she wasn't offended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dprh said:

She specifically says she wasn't offended.

Actions speak louder then words...  It is clearly an issue or she wouldn't have included it.  She can call it whatever she wants... the context she gives for says otherwise.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

Actions speak louder then words...  It is clearly an issue or she wouldn't have included it.  She can call it whatever she wants... the context she gives for says otherwise.

 

This.  It's the same case we see often on this forum.  People say or ask things then feign innocence.  "What?  I was sincerely asking".  Only usually they weren't.  We see it all the time.  I fully believe that's the same case with most women who wear pants.  

I had to go out and buy a ton of white shirts.  It was inconvenient.  But it was the right thing to do.

Edited by Grunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares if they wear pants. If their local leader tells them it's okay then whatever. I don't remember the last time being bothered by a sister wearing pants. I honestly don't even remember seeing someone wearing pants... like ever. Being of Jewish descent I sometimes like to grow out my locks and beard. I think it is interesting how temple workers and missionaries can't wear beards or longer hair (as males). Especially since there are a ton of paintings with the Lord WEARING A BEARD. They asked us not to, so I am going to just comply. If I ever get asked to serve in the Temple I will make sure I am within the standards. I could make a stink out of and ask them to ask the Lord to change His mind BUT I am just not that interested. It's not a big deal to ME.

Edited by Overwatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dprh said:

I feel like I've missed something.  Where does it say that women shouldn't wear pants to church?  I found where sister missionaries are supposed to wear skirts or dresses to Sunday services, but not regular members.

I still feel like I'm missing some commandment, directive, or suggestion.  Is the "No pants" stance simply a reaction to the 2012 movement?  If that hadn't happened would there be an issue?  I am seriously confused by the reactions in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dprh said:

I still feel like I'm missing some commandment, directive, or suggestion.  Is the "No pants" stance simply a reaction to the 2012 movement?  If that hadn't happened would there be an issue?  I am seriously confused by the reactions in this thread.

In this and every other Christian church that has been around for more than a century or so, the tradition was that people come to communal Sunday worship services wearing what they called their "Sunday best". In a historical context, people living, say, 150 years ago typically owned several sets of clothing, including work clothing that got muddy and wet, warm clothing and a coat for cold weather, possibly lighter and more comfortable wear for relaxing at home or outdoors, and usually a set of "nice" clothes to wear to important social events (and to church). If you were wealthy and owned e.g. a ball gown or a smoking jacket, it would be considered ostentatious and in very poor taste to wear such an outfit to church. Similarly, if you could not be bothered to kick the pig manure off your boots before coming to church, that would be considered disrespectful. This was a basic societal convention understood by all: When you go to church, you wear your Sunday best.

In a more modern context, textiles have become so amazingly inexpensive that even poor people usually own many sets of clothing, perhaps a closetful (or more). But along with this bounty has come, strangely enough, a coarsening of standards of dress, such that many (dare I say, most) churches today have few or no expectations for how their congregation dresses, except maybe that they DO dress. (I'm sure there are California congregations where even this is optional, perhaps frowned upon.) T-shirts and demin jeans with holes are de rigeur. You would not attend your sister's wedding reception dressed in rags, but apparently it's fine to attend a communal worship service of the Savior dressed like that.

Women wearing pants is something that has come about largely in my lifetime. I'm sure women did wear pants before I was born—I've seen enough '50s movies to confirm that the idea was not utterly alien to them—but it seems like it was the '70s when the women's pantsuit carved out its niche. So at this point, it's hardly new, but also hardly traditional.

I'm sure there are some people, probably mostly women, who insist that a woman wear a dress to church, and that anything else is unacceptable, even sacrilege. But I don't know any of them, or if I do, I don't know that I know any of them. In general, few people seem to care much what women wear to church; as others have pointed out, men are expected to follow a far stricter dress and grooming code (official or otherwise) than women

So here's the complaint. It's not that a woman DARE to wear PANTS to Church—how awful! No. It's fundamentally that the women involved are doing their best to stick their metaphorical middle finger at Church conventions and those Saints who find them valuable. It's like a four-year-old's tantrums, but carried out by adults who are supposed to be helping carry the load and move the work along. And when, on top of that, they proclaim that this is all about letting women have their choice—they're lying (or incredibly foolish). No one believes them except for children who don't know any better and those who already share their beliefs.

tl;dr—No one cares if women wear pants to Church, but the Purple Pants People are looking to sow discord. That's the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Vort said:

tl;dr—No one cares if women wear pants to Church, but the Purple Pants People are looking to sow discord. That's the problem.

Amazingly @Vort, I actually agree with you 100%.That IS a problem. You shouldn't wear a MAGA hat to church, and you shouldn't wear purple pants either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Grunt said:

...I had to go out and buy a ton of white shirts.  It was inconvenient.  But it was the right thing to do.

You're such a martyr.

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Grunt said:


I had to go out and buy a ton of white shirts.  It was inconvenient.  But it was the right thing to do.

Indeed.... 

Per the argument given in the article the church is denying you your agency and your ability to express yourself.  Funny how when they try to support that point they never talk about the priesthood holders and how they feel about being in exactly that position.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Indeed.... 

Per the argument given in the article the church is denying you your agency and your ability to express yourself.  Funny how when they try to support that point they never talk about the priesthood holders and how they feel about being in exactly that position.

 

This isn't true.  Many of us do talk about it.  And some of us even refuse to conform. 

The day that I'm released from my present calling is the day that I start wearing jeans and a polo to church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Yeah, I don't care if women wear pants to church.
2. My opinion should not be misunderstood as thinking the article in question isn't full of dumb.
3. Full disclosure - I hate ties, but I wear one every Sunday.  I'll wear them on other occasions whenever someone directly tells me I should.  I've also worn one to every job interview I've ever had.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there is no actual rule that says women can't wear pants to church.

Is there a rule that says a man must wear a white shirt to church or he will be disciplined?

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Is there a rule that says a man must wear a white shirt to church or he will be disciplined

Oh no. @LadyGator and I are sealed in the temple and I wore a white shirt to church maybe 10% of the time. Maybe. No one cares. 

3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

 I hate ties

So do I. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MarginOfError said:

This isn't true.  Many of us do talk about it.  And some of us even refuse to conform. 

The day that I'm released from my present calling is the day that I start wearing jeans and a polo to church.

Context matters.  I have been addressing the article in question and showing it clear flaws...

Show me in the linked article where she talks about it...  Show me anywhere in her writing where she acknowledged that the very people she is complaining about have exactly the same demands (other women) or worse (men).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Oh no. @LadyGator and I are sealed in the temple and I wore a white shirt to church maybe 10% of the time. Maybe. No one cares. 

 

Out of curiosity, why would you choose to not where a white shirt when wearing one is very simple, and it's been stated by men chosen by the Lord that they are preferred?

Edited by Grunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now