For the love of God, ladies, take off those pants!
It's sinful when dogs wear them, too.
We’re taking a brief trip outside the manosphere today to take a look at a little posting I found on Jesus-is-savior.com – which, as far as I can tell, is not a joke site — on the evils of women wearing pants.
No need to dilly dally around with jokes; let’s just get right into it:
One of the most controversial subjects in America’s churches today is pants on women; but there is NO controversy if you believe the Bible. 1st Timothy 2:9 clearly instructs women to dress MODESTLY, i.e., of good behavior. A woman’s clothing says MUCH about her character. I guarantee you that women who approve of abortion (i.e., murder) also see no problem with women wearing pants.
Except, one presumes, while they are getting these abortions.
At this point the author, one David J. Stewart, quotes disapprovingly from a song by rapper Chingy, also on the subject of pants, specifically jeans. I won’t bother to quote all of the lyrics; you can get the gist of Chingy’s thesis from this brief excerpt:
Damn Girl
How’d you get all that in
Dem Jeans
Dem Jeans
Here’s the video, if you wish to double-check this transcription.
Stewart continues:
Only a rebellious woman, who deliberately disobeys the Word of God, would wear pants. … Pants on women are adulterous in nature, and cause men to lust and sin. Jesus made this clear in Matthew 5:28, “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Women who wear pants deliberately cause men to lust, and commit the sin of adultery. …
The average person today scoffs at the idea that Rock-n-Roll, Satanism, and immoral sex go hand-in-hand, but they certainly do. When Rock-n-Roll came to America, so did pants on women become mainstream. Naturally, feminism, witchcraft, abortion, and homosexuality came as well. Rock-n-Roll is straight from the pits of Hell. ALL rock-n-roll women wear pants.
Ah, but it turns out we haven’t really wandered too far from the manosphere after all – and not just because of the mention of feminism. No, what strikes me about Stewart’s argument – aside from the fact that it is completely batshit – is that it is not really very different than the arguments advanced by the critics of the Slutwalks: that the “immodest” dress of women causes men to “lust and sin.”
One of the most common complaints I’ve seen in the writings of the antifeminist slutwalk critics is that women want to “do what they want to, and dress how they want to, without facing any consequences,” as if women who dress in ways these men find arousing have in fact committed some sort of sin that requires punishment from, if not God himself, then from the rapists of the world.
The slutwalk critics invariably insist they’re simply passing along useful advice to women – don’t dress slutty or you’ll get raped – but the talk of “consequences” (and the choice of that word) shows pretty clearly that the real impetus behind the strangely vehement attacks on the slutwalks is the desire to punish women for dressing, and more importantly, doing “what they want.”
Say what you will about the folks behind Jesus-is-Savior.com, but at least their position on the evils of pants is consistent with their overall fundamentalist ideology. The slutwalk critics don’t really have an excuse.
EDITED TO ADD: And, conveniently enough, here’s some douchebag on Reddit making this exact slut-shaming “argument.” Pro-tip: I don’t think “responsibility” means quite what you think it means, dude.
Ah, Reddit, always reliable.
Thanls, ShitRedditSAys, for pointing me to this. And to MFingPterodactyl for the sensible response.
Posted on August 18, 2011, in antifeminism, creepy, evil women, homophobia, idiocy, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, rape, rapey, sluts. Bookmark the permalink. 396 Comments.
Wow, David J. Stewart! He’s always been a hit on Fundies Say the Darndest Things. I’m going to be honest – I don’t think he’s real. I think he’s kind of a very elaborate Poe. I could be totally wrong (check it out NWO) but FSTDT has been quoting him for years and I don’t buy it.
Seriously, when he starts quoting hip hop, or gets all rhapsodic about the evil harlot attire of young pop stars and movie starlets… I think it’s satire.
I hope it’s satire.
At the time when those Bible verses were written, men living in the Fertile Crescent did not wear pants either. They wore dresses, and, in the case of Egypt, skirts. Pants, given that they are harder to tailor, not easily interchangeable between individuals and less comfortable in the searing Middle Eastern climate didn’t become widespread (or associated with men) until much later, and today, there are Biblical regions where men still favor dresses over pants. So what the authors of the Bible considered “modest” at that time is not a question that’s easily answered. Jesus, in all likelihood, didn’t wear pants either.
As far as I know, the only assessment of the significance of pants in antiquity comes from the Greeks, at a time when pants became fashionable among the Persian aristocracy. The Greeks invariably described pants as effeminate, and mocked men who wore them for being effete.
But why am I surprised? Everyone knows the MRA’s are some of the most ignorant people on the planet.
“evils of pants”
And that, is why I don’t wear pants. It complements my practice of witchcraft and being a Rock-N-Roll woman so much more nicely. Suck it, Fundies, I don’t practice your religion.
Since we have the Alpha Cock Carousel, can we also have Rock-N-Roll Women?
Kathleen Hanna, rock-n-roll woman, wore dresses. Do I get a prize now?
When Rock-n-Roll came to America, so did pants on women become mainstream. Naturally, feminism, witchcraft, abortion, and homosexuality came as well.
Homosexuality? Were us pants-wearing women just so inspiring of lust that some men stopped wanting to fuck us entirely? :D
I assure you, I wear pants no more than absolutely necessary.
…this habit seems to only be getting me into more adultery, though.
wait…a lot of rock and roll women wore dresses! also uh since when were pants immodest….This dude has to be a poe
Debbie,
I refute the tyrany of pants.
If GOD had wanted us to wear pants we’d have been born with them
Maybe he is a Poe. I don’t know. But I’m still struck how his ludicrous “argument” is only one tiny step from the slutwalk critics.
In my experience, it’s much easier to have sex with a woman in a long, loose dress or skirt than one in jeans, especially tight ones. Just sayin’.
Also, the website he quotes from to back up his argument looks pretty real.
Yep, they’re not concerned about such trivial things as poverty, homelessness, etc., they’re concerned about pants on women.
As for Timothy 2:9
I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes
The concern was about classism, of women dressing in a manner which immodestly showed off not only theirs but their husband’s wealth and high standing in society.
All through high school I wore pants instead of the freaking school dress…so that I could sit cross legged without the danger of showing anyone my underwear.
Maybe, so that they’re clear, they can tell us how long and shapeless the skirts should be so that they aren’t ‘immodest’?
But…pants make my ass look awesome! It’s not my fault that some religious nut lusted after me as per his natural animal instinct and felt he was going to hell for it. That’s his problem, not mine.
Debbie: I have evidence! On the night I was raped, I was wearing loose-fitting man-pants that would be baggy as hell even if they weren’t oversized. Since, as we’re all aware, rape is something committed exclusively by men against women when said men are driven so crazy with lust that they just have to violate someone, clearly there’s no other explanation. Perhaps it has something to do with how each leg being individually encased draws attention to the fact that there is space between our legs in which a crotch resides; the fact that our bodies have sexual characteristics is clearly an irresistible aphrodisiac!
[Note: I think I look sexy as all hell in those pants, but somehow I don't think that's what the dude in the OP was talking about.]
Lol. In England, pants means underwear. It’s nice to know that this guy doesn’t want me to wear undies!
Kariface – that makes reading this ‘argument’ much more fun!
“Evils of Pants” would be a great name for a band.
But seriously, these guys need to be made aware of Rule 36. There’s no such thing as dressing in a way that won’t cause someone, somewhere, to lust for you. It’s literally an impossible task.
Then again, that’s probably the point. The real “sin” is being female.
“The concern was about classism, of women dressing in a manner which immodestly showed off not only theirs but their husband’s wealth and high standing in society.”
—Ummmmm, classism has been around for centuries. I have no qualms about them fighting classism, but starting with how women dress is not the place to go. First, getting all classes of people in the world equal education and access to food, water, and housing is the place to start, without making them required to join a particular religion. Getting rid of classism also means that peoples thoughts all have the same value in society too, which means buddah is just as relevant as jesus is just as relevant as any atheist. Oh, and making a bunch of money in a capitalistic society doesn’t tend to get rid of classism; it promotes it.
I don’t think David J. Stewart is a poe. It’s a tough call, but my reasoning is that no poe could be as dedicated as he is. I have also been enjoying his posts at FSTDT for a while, and I think you would have to actually be such a hardcore fundie to spend as much time as he does writing at his website. I really enjoyed his rant about Faith Hill. That was a classic.
I do know plenty of conservative Christians do think it is sinful for women to wear pants. They have this obsession with modesty. I actually think pants are more modest. You can see up a skirt or dress, but pants always cover what’s down south, if you know what I mean.
Oh one of my favourite fundie sermons is The Sin of Bathsheba, read it and weep – or laugh – whatever is your wont.
And on the subject of pants in particular:
The full text of the sermon is here. I recommend you read it in all its glory:
http://www.momof9splace.com/sinof.html
Reasons not to demonise your own sexual desires number 4381. Seriously, how much time has that guy spent trying not to look at women who, SHOCK HORROR, bend over? And at least he spells out that he only wants women who are attractive to him (not too thin and not too fat) to wear hoop skirts.
No, no, pants-wearing women are so inspiring of lust that men become drawn to their brothers in confusion.
Well, that sermon’s got one thing right. I buy guys’ jeans for the fit, but I have a hard time finding ones that will cling to my legs in the way I want; they’re all too baggy! I’d get girls’ jeans but I don’t know how the sizing works – any other genderqueer/trans people have tips for dealing with this? (I really want to show off my legs; they’re probably my best feature because I exercycle the hell out of ‘em.)
I really and truly hate so many of the narratives in that sermon. It makes me glad that I can go “That isn’t the game I’m playing! I don’t have to follow YOUR rules!”, and then take my ball to the other side of the play ground.
There was actually a discrimination suit in the UK recently in which a midwife sued for being required to wear pants in the delivery room, her argument being that it restricted her religious freedom to apply backwards gender-based restrictive clothing norms to herself. She lost the case.
Also, this reminded me of the Egyptian “veil your lollipop” campaign and googling that I found an interesting post discussing actual data about how women’s dress relates to sexual harassment (in Egypt, at least):
http://taylorempireairways.com/2011/02/poisoned-environment/
Christianity and its virulent woman-hate is no doubt a major if not THE major driving force behind most of the western misogynist MRAs who are quoted here. Even when they profess to be enlightened, atheist, liberal, even when they preach their false “science,” they are slaves to the patriarchal brain washing and religious lies that have systematically oppressed woman as a feature, not a bug, of Christianity since its invention.
@Fuck MRAs Indeed. Sure look who started the whole original sin thing?
Kendra, I’ve gone back and forth on David J. Stewart ever since he started showing up on FSTDT. Your points are excellent and valid And hilarious – I’d forgotten all about the Faith Hill thing. It’s when he quotes hip hop that I just think “Get the fuck outta heah!”
Must be a follower:
Funny thing is, femiretards, if someone is hit by a car while driving drunk, they would indeed likely be questioned harshly. Feminist FUCKKING idiocy at its fucking finest.
Granny Weatherwax agrees that pants are immodest:
…”I don’t ‘old with it,” said Granny. “Everyone can see her legs.”
“No they can’t,” said Nanny. “The reason being, the material is in the way.”
“Yes, but they can see where her legs are,” said Granny Weatherwax.
-Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad
Fuck MRAs, I’m an atheist, but I don’t think it’s fair to call all of Christianity virulently woman-hating. As an institution in a patriarchal culture, of course it encouraged sexism and misogyny, but so did science and marriage and employment and every other institution. My pastor, when I was Christian, gave sermons about the Transgender Day of Remembrance and the necessity of having equal female leadership in the church, and it’s silly to lump him in with Hates Pants Dude.
Steph: http://www.yourmarbella.com/forums/thread/25613.aspx Measure your waist and start out trying the jeans it says. If your pants are too small or too large, go up or down a size. To test if they’re too large, put your fingers in your belt loops and pull down. If you can see your pelvic region, they’re too large.
ozy, I could agree that some christians are not virulently woman-hating, but I firmly believe that as an institution, it is. That’s something we will have to agree to disagree on as I see christianity and religion in general as being some of the most evil humans have done on Earth. Christianity’s own book supports the fact that it hates women as a matter of course.
There’s derails and then there’s totally off the rails.
“Funny thing is, femiretards, if someone is hit by a car while driving drunk, they would indeed likely be questioned harshly. Feminist FUCKKING idiocy at its fucking finest.”
MRAL, is that you?
Ok, so I don’t know about the rest of you, but I found this sentence to be slightly hilarious – “I guarantee you that women who approve of abortion (i.e., murder) also see no problem with women wearing pants.” Mostly because it is probably trust that most women who approve of abortion also seen no problem with women wearing pants…but these two facts aren’t connected the way he seems to think they are.
Also, Jackoffasaur (nice name btw…I now have to assume you are somewhere in the age range of 14-21), in your example the “someone” is driving drunk and is involved in a two car accident…right? And that relates to a woman dressing like a “slut” (whatever that means) how? I mean, the person who is driving drunk is commiting a crime and is driving in an impaired state…the woman is not doing either of those things. It seems your analogy is a little flawed.
Is Jackoffasaur saying that wearing pants is like driving drunk, and if so, does that mean I will get off if I’m driven wild by the way Cute Roomie’s ass looks in his cargo pants, or is that only a gentleman’s privilege?*
*Please note: Ozymandias highly disapproves of the raping of Cute Roomies, or indeed of anyone else, regardless of what they are wearing on their legs.
The tkd club I work in, and sometimes teach in, has a number of home-schooled fundy kids from one family. Before they advanced into full doboks, the girls wore long swingy skirts with leggings underneath for modesty. Now that they have moved up, they apparently get special dispensation to wear the regular whites.
Always thought it was a bit weird, but they probably think the same thing about my long hair and earrings. Web, ya no?
But I am not trying to tell them how to dress, and this guy is.
Nobinayamu Very unlikely to be a Poe, sadly. Thousands of people in the U.S have pretty much those exact same beliefs. Check out some of the stories on nolongerquivering.com
Please. I’m merely pointing out the obvious gaping FUCKKING holes in your arguements, your pathetic slimy.
I believe Jack o’Saur is saying that like driving drunk, women wearing pants should be illegal.
Because feminism, that’s why.
Fuck MRAs is probably one of those people who thinks God has a hole. He has a dick, people.
My pathetic slimy WHAT?
you know, I find it quite hot when a cute guy wears pants that suit his butt… I guess they need to start wearing dresses as well so as to stop me from committing adultery with them in my heart…
oh wait, don’t tell me, ‘but it’s different when guys do it!’
Not only does Jackoffasaur have certain familiar FUCK speech patterns, there’s that obsession with masturbation…
In fact, I think God designed the hole as a joke.
If God doesn’t have a hole, then how does he poop?
The whole idea of God as having any kind of human body–I mean, with a pancreas and a spleen and toenails and all?–seems pretty baffling to me.
I actually like to think God is a bro. He probably has access to hot bitches 24/7.
Bathrobe, God has a butthole, duh.
You’re hilarious, MRAL.
Jackoffasaur – are you responding to anyone in particular, or are you just ranting at anyone who will listen (read) what you write? Also, usually if you are trying to point out gaping holes in someone else’s arguments, it is helpful to provide a coherent argument of your own. Just a suggestion.
On second thought, it seems to me that you are just here to stir the pot, get a chuckle, and leave. Which is entertaining I suppose…but you should really take some lessons from some of our resident MRA’s because you are getting terribly boring terribly fast.
Why would God need a dick? He got Mary inseminated apparently without using one.
Bathrobe, God has a butthole, duh.
What, did he show it to you?
Wouldn’t be the first time. Was it Moses He mooned?
Summa Theologica, Part 1, Question 3, Article 1, Is God A Body?, Jackoffasaur Recension
Jackoffasaur Objection 1. It seems that God is a body. For a body is that which has the three dimensions. But Holy Scripture attributes the three dimensions to God, for it is written: “He is higher than Heaven, and what wilt thou do? He is deeper than Hell, and how wilt thou know? The measure of Him is longer than the earth and broader than the sea” (Job 11:8-9). Therefore God is a body.
Jackoffasaur Objection 2. Further, everything that has figure is a body, since figure is a quality of quantity. But God seems to have figure, for it is written: “Let us make man to our image and likeness” (Genesis 1:26). Now a figure is called an image, according to the text: “Who being the brightness of His glory and the figure,” i.e. the image, “of His substance” (Hebrews 1:3). Therefore God is a body.
Jackoffasaur Objection 3. Further, whatever has corporeal parts is a body. Now Scripture attributes corporeal parts to God. “Hast thou an arm like God?” (Job 40:4); and “The eyes of the Lord are upon the just” (Psalm 33:16); and “The right hand of the Lord hath wrought strength” (Psalm 117:16). Therefore God is a body.
Jackoffasaur Objection 4. Further, posture belongs only to bodies. But something which supposes posture is said of God in the Scriptures: “I saw the Lord sitting” (Isaiah 6:1), and “He standeth up to judge” (Isaiah 3:13). Therefore God is a body.
Jackoffasaur Objection 5. Further, only bodies or things corporeal can be a local term “wherefrom” or “whereto.” But in the Scriptures God is spoken of as a local term “whereto,” according to the words, “Come ye to Him and be enlightened” (Psalm 33:6), and as a term “wherefrom”: “All they that depart from Thee shall be written in the earth” (Jeremiah 17:13). Therefore God is a body.
On the contrary, It is written in the Gospel of St. John (John 4:24): “God is a spirit.”
I answer that, It is absolutely true that God is not a body; and this can be shown in three ways.
First, because no body is in motion unless it be put in motion, as is evident from induction. Now it has been already proved (2, 3), that God is the First Mover, and is Himself unmoved. Therefore it is clear that God is not a body.
Secondly, because the first being must of necessity be in act, and in no way in potentiality. For although in any single thing that passes from potentiality to actuality, the potentiality is prior in time to the actuality; nevertheless, absolutely speaking, actuality is prior to potentiality; for whatever is in potentiality can be reduced into actuality only by some being in actuality. Now it has been already proved that God is the First Being. It is therefore impossible that in God there should be any potentiality. But every body is in potentiality because the continuous, as such, is divisible to infinity; it is therefore impossible that God should be a body.
Thirdly, because God is the most noble of beings. Now it is impossible for a body to be the most noble of beings; for a body must be either animate or inanimate; and an animate body is manifestly nobler than any inanimate body. But an animate body is not animate precisely as body; otherwise all bodies would be animate. Therefore its animation depends upon some other thing, as our body depends for its animation on the soul. Hence that by which a body becomes animated must be nobler than the body. Therefore it is impossible that God should be a body.
Reply to Jackoffasaur Objection 1. As we have said above (Question 1, Article 9), Holy Writ puts before us spiritual and divine things under the comparison of corporeal things. Hence, when it attributes to God the three dimensions under the comparison of corporeal quantity, it implies His virtual quantity; thus, by depth, it signifies His power of knowing hidden things; by height, the transcendence of His excelling power; by length, the duration of His existence; by breadth, His act of love for all. Or, as says Dionysius (Div. Nom. ix), by the depth of God is meant the incomprehensibility of His essence; by length, the procession of His all-pervading power; by breadth, His overspreading all things, inasmuch as all things lie under His protection.
Reply to Jackoffasaur Objection 2. Man is said to be after the image of God, not as regards his body, but as regards that whereby he excels other animals. Hence, when it is said, “Let us make man to our image and likeness”, it is added, “And let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea” (Genesis 1:26). Now man excels all animals by his reason and intelligence; hence it is according to his intelligence and reason, which are incorporeal, that man is said to be according to the image of God.
Reply to Jackoffasaur Objection 3. Corporeal parts are attributed to God in Scripture on account of His actions, and this is owing to a certain parallel. For instance the act of the eye is to see; hence the eye attributed to God signifies His power of seeing intellectually, not sensibly; and so on with the other parts.
Reply to Jackoffasaur Objection 4. Whatever pertains to posture, also, is only attributed to God by some sort of parallel. He is spoken of as sitting, on account of His unchangeableness and dominion; and as standing, on account of His power of overcoming whatever withstands Him.
Reply to Jackoffasaur Objection 5. We draw near to God by no corporeal steps, since He is everywhere, but by the affections of our soul, and by the actions of that same soul do we withdraw from Him; thus, to draw near to or to withdraw signifies merely spiritual actions based on the metaphor of local motion.
Hey, the new troll is cool! Can I play with it?
Tell me, Jackoffasaur, does the Holy Spirit have nipples? It’s very important for me to know. I have this thing later tonight…
So God’s an Alpha, MRAL?
KEE-RIST on the Concorde, you can’t even do sockpuppetry right, son.
And VoiP wins the thread.
The morons on the far right are obsessed with telling everyone what to do.
“Man up, shape up, step up” is the usual trumpet call for men to jump off the cliff of self-sacrefice like lemmings.
“Be a darling, be an angel, be a honey” is the sweet music charming women into surendering their humanity and turning into turnips.
But look through their smoke screen, and the entire charade is about POWER. Guess who decides what it means to “man up” and “be a darling”? The same perverts who want to control an army of male slaves while consuming a conveyor belt of female concubines.
I will never understan how feminists rationalize serving up their fellow women, bound and helpless upon that conveyor belt of horror, for the payoff of a slice of blood-stained power.
“I’m merely pointing out the obvious gaping FUCKKING holes in your arguements”
Um. No, you aren’t. You need to spell out your *cough* logic a bit more if you want to point out holes in our arguments. For example, how exactly is a woman wearing pants the same as someone drink driving?
god’s dick, like jackoffasaur’s intellect, is non-existent.
I like how a biblical commandment addressed to men is interpreted as being actually aimed at women, because surely Jesus didn’t really expect men to take responsibility for their own behavior. And obviously He was referring specifically to an article of clothing that didn’t even exist in His time.
Not that I haven’t seen this logic before, but it still cracks me up.
Zarat – could you explain how the hell that relates to a post about how women wearing pants is evil?
Lyn, he can’t, he’s just gearing up for more fuckery.
I will never understan how feminists rationalize serving up their fellow women, bound and helpless upon that conveyor belt of horror, for the payoff of a slice of blood-stained power.
Uuuum OK but how does this answer our important question about if the Uncreated Light Itself, the Devouring Fire at the End of Time, has a ding-dong or a hoo-hah?
That’s some prime grade word salad you’ve got going there, AntZ.
I’ve always liked the idea of the Shekhina. She was Yahweh’s “other half” until some bastard neutered her into the sexless “Holy Spirit”.
Holly and Hellkell, your troll-detection powers are keen. And you are correct.
But MRAOfficer’s theory about God’s butthole has a notable precedent: Carl Jung had a famous vision of God shitting on a cathedral; the vision had a big effect on him and he wrote about it in his autobiography.
http://books.google.com/books?id=7qDcC963BiUC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=jung+god+shitting&source=bl&ots=C9xeeYdA5k&sig=5qvCxlwousMqgPD7Ud_xKH8urFU&hl=en&ei=QblNTvTNDaOnsAKhzsTmBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=jung%20god%20shitting&f=false
Anthony seems to be having some strange visions of his own. I prefer Jung’s.
“I will never understan how feminists rationalize serving up their fellow women, bound and helpless upon that conveyor belt of horror, for the payoff of a slice of blood-stained power.”
Does … anyone … know what this means?