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.
Books… I have books.
I can even see about 1/2 of them (well, perhaps 1/3rd. I can go dig out, “Paul Among the People” if people like.
It’s a really good book. A classical scholar, who learned her Greek and Latin from non-religious texts. Let’s just say it gave her a very different understanding of the things Paul was talking about.
As a rule, I don’t agree with religious fundamentalists–including Christian–about too many secular matters, including fashion, but sometimes they hit the nail on the button. Just as it is possible that the Taliban knows something that we don’t, or perhaps have forgotten, regarding too much formal schooling for women, religious Christians understand that women in slacks lack the same modesty, femininity, and allure that women in more traditonally feminine clothing, skirts, especially below the knee, dresses, and where called for (behind closed doors, and with their nearest and dearest ONLY) lingerie and babydoll outfits.
Why should women want to wear pants anyhow? Do pants-wearers have masculinity or dominance issues, as in “who ‘wears the pants’ in the household”? Are they looking for one more way to assert themselves in an unwelcome and unfeminine way, such as “no f%&^#@g MAN will tell ME what I can wear”? Was the eccentric, but occasionally very observant and perceptive Viennese psychologist Sigmund Freud onto something with his “penis envy”, with the girl pants-wearer jealous of not men’s right to wear pants, as much as what his pants covered up?
I may be wandering off into uncharted territory here, but ladies, lose the trousers–and other male apparel, PLEASE!! Become better women, with better, and more feminine, clothing and demeanor wherever possible! You have many centuries of time, and an entire world of cultures and people to choose from, to select and adapt clearly feminine and adorable coverings for yourselves and your daughters!
Even veils may make a comeback, not the thick heavy ones that nobody can see out of, but light, filmy, soft ones that leaves just enough of a lady’s face to the imagination…Regency and Victorian hoopskirts are a bit ‘over the top’, but adding flowers or cute little ribbons to pretty dresses would be compatible with what a modern woman could wear with pride. Lace, fur (allright, faux fur for you PETA gals out there),and other coverings may once again make a woman a creature of great beauty, not merely an ersatz male pants-wearer, with all the faults of men, and none of the virtues of women!
Say, I sort of described your feminists there, didn’t I?
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
but sometimes they hit the nail on the button.
Herp derp.
Your grasp of idiom is about on a level with your grasp of
(1) Russian geography
(2) whether or not the James Bond movies are fiction
Even veils may make a comeback, not the thick heavy ones that nobody can see out of, but light, filmy, soft ones that leaves just enough of a lady’s face to the imagination…Regency and Victorian hoopskirts are a bit ‘over the top’, but adding flowers or cute little ribbons to pretty dresses would be compatible with what a modern woman could wear with pride. Lace, fur…ad other coverings may once again make a woman a creature of great beauty…!
You do, however, have incredibly specific tastes in porn, I’ll give you that
they didn’t wear hoops during the regency tho
herp derp
dkm if we laid all your creepy insecurity complexes about having to compete with women end to end it would stretch all the way from lake baikal to vladivostok
maybe youre obsessed with what other people wear because your a creepy loser. ever considered that.
I may be wandering off into uncharted territory here
Like Vladivostok?
also, for the second time tonight can you stop being so bad at writing. i can tolerate the freshmen philosophizing, the weird anger at women and the juvenile politics but your terrible writing is really the last straw.
Back in the good old days men wore shirts, in some cultures which would be considered to be patriarchy they still do traditionally. We need to go back to that to create a real masculine society. Real men wear skirts.
You do know that Saudi’s do wear skirts today right?
Idiot.
like im a little drunk but im also not joking i am totally getting upset with the awful things you do to the english language. it makes me feel like im walking a sad lonely road… from lake baikal all the way to vladivostok
…is DKM a really dedicated Poe?
A long and lonesome road, you say?
A modest hoop skirt should reach from Lake Baikal to Vladivostok.
That’s the second time DKM has said “hit the nail on the button.”
Is this a glitch in the matrix?
Is he a Poe?
Is The Spearhead a Poe?
Are you all Poes!???!!!?
Gosh, DKM, it almost seems like women these days want to be… human… and not lovely porcelain dolls to set on the shelf to only be taken down and dusted off for special occasions… like cooking, cleaning, diaper-changing, ass-wiping, fucking, etc.
“Why should women want to wear pants anyhow? Do pants-wearers have masculinity or dominance issues, as in “who ‘wears the pants’ in the household”? Are they looking for one more way to assert themselves in an unwelcome and unfeminine way…”
Is it the 1920s? Sweet! Bath tub gin and speakeasies for everyone!
“Even veils may make a comeback, not the thick heavy ones that nobody can see out of, but light, filmy, soft ones that leaves just enough of a lady’s face to the imagination…Regency and Victorian hoopskirts are a bit ‘over the top’, but adding flowers or cute little ribbons to pretty dresses would be compatible with what a modern woman could wear with pride. Lace, fur…ad other coverings may once again make a woman a creature of great beauty…!”
I’m guessing DKM reads a lot of Harlequin romance novels. That would explain some things.
“Just as it is possible that the Taliban knows something that we don’t, or perhaps have forgotten, regarding too much formal schooling for women…”
Enlighten us: which of the Taliban’s practice and policies do you think we should consider as an effective deterrent against girls and women seeking “too much formal schooling…”? Perhaps, throwing acid in the face of girls walking to high school? Maybe we could set an all girls’ school on fire and then prevent the students from leaving the building?
No true scotsman wear a skirt.
KNOW YOUR KILTS!
Do I need to wear pants?
I live in the Bible belt, and there are plenty of Quiverfull type fundies living in the area. The mothers and their daughters dress like Little House on the Prairie. Their churches teach that women that wear pants are degenerates, because we refuse to dress “lady like”. I don’t think DKM is a poe, because his post looks just like any sermon you would hear at a Quiverfull church, except for the part where he disagrees with a lot of conservative Christianity.
I think part of the reason these Christians don’t like pants is because they are more practical to wear. If I’m wearing a dress or skirt, it is difficult to mow the yard on a riding lawnmower, climb a latter and paint, lean under the kitchen sink and unjam the flyweel on the garbage disposal, and a dozen other tasks that might be viewed as masculine. You can still do tasks they deem feminine, though, like sew, cook, and clean.
Even dressing for pragmatic reasons rather than trying to be pretty could be viewed as masculine. It’s all just another way to try to force people to fit the roles deemed proper for their gender, without any regard for what individuals actually want to do.
dkm is a self-styled libertarian who believes its his right and duty to bully people into conforming to his rigid standards of behavior. the irony is priceless.
DKM can’t be a Poe. He’s way too dedicated. No one can keep it up that constantly for that long.
Oops, I meant ladder, not latter.