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.
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.