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.
Thanls, ShitRedditSAys, for pointing me to this. And to MFingPterodactyl for the sensible response.
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? 😀
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.