I am all for feminine dress. In fact, I prefer, when I have the appropriate pieces in my wardrobe, to wear dresses most of the time. As I learned after taking a challenge issued by the writer of an article at Ladies Against Feminism, I feel different in a skirt or dress. (And not just any skirt or dress. A long, flowy one is just different from shorter or straighter ones. I have nothing against the others, but they don’t evoke the same sense in me when I wear them.)
But preferring feminine dress is not the same thing as mandating a particular dress code, and there are those who would assert that every Christian woman should wear dresses of a particular length, every day, with no exceptions. I find this rather legalistic, as God has not laid down this law. (Principles of modesty should, of course, be applied at all times, but biblical guidelines of modesty are not nearly as restrictive as some would like us to believe.) There are two common assertions that I have to really wonder about. I would challenge anyone who falls into this camp to seriously consider these two areas and whether their own thinking is truly reasonable, in light of Scripture.
Did Men Wear Pants?
First, I hear it stated that, in the Bible, only men are said to have worn pants. This is misleading. As far as I am aware (I am open to correction here), the only people in the Bible who were said to have “worn pants” were actually the priests. The reference given is to the place where the priests were instructed to wear linen breeches under their robes so their nakedness would not be exposed when they climbed the steps to the altar.
Two points to consider here: Number one, while it is true that the priests were men, there is no indication that all men wore these breeches. Or, for that matter, that anyone else in particular (male or female) did not wear breeches. Number two, these were undergarments. So if we were to draw any conclusion from this passage about who should wear what, and who should be forbidden from wearing what, the logical end conclusion ought to be that only priests should wear underwear. I am not saying that this conclusion is correct! But if we follow this line of thinking to its logical end, it is the conclusion we reach.
Did Women Wear Dresses?
Second, I hear that it should be obvious that women should not wear pants, because it is obvious that men should not wear dresses. As much as I hate to employ the “cultural” argument, because it is easily abused, this is an area where I believe that culture does come into play. In this country, when women first began wearing pants they were, indeed, considered men’s clothing, and it was scandalous for women to wear them. In that cultural setting, I believe it was inappropriate for women to wear them (apart from unusual circumstances where safety may have been a deciding factor). At this point in time, however, pants are considered perfectly appropriate, feminine clothing.
For those who question the cultural argument, and believe it is fundamentally obvious that pants are for men and skirts are for women, consider the following: during the biblical culture, what did men wear? Not pants. They wore robes. (I understand that there were distinctions between men’s robes and women’s robes, but they were both dress-like garments.)
What about Scottish kilts? Are we to believe that an entire centuries-old culture is effeminate because their men wear something that bears greater resemblance to our skirts than pants in style? Some of their manliest men wear those garments! The Scottish culture recognizes the kilt as a masculine piece of clothing.
[Tweet “Clothing is, by nature, a cultural concept.”]
Clothing is, by nature, a cultural concept. Modesty does not change, but what is considered feminine or masculine varies greatly by culture. And again, if we were to abide strictly by biblical example, none of us would be wearing pants; we would all – men and women – be wearing robes.
So there you have it. I believe that “women must wear only dresses” is an illogical conclusion to draw from Scripture, and this is why.
“Modesty does not change, but what is considered feminine or masculine varies greatly by culture.” Wonderful post. Thank you!
I just read this post due to the link from your ‘No Pants Day’ post. My girls and I wear dresses/skirts 99% of the time. Our biggest reason is ensuring a distinction between genders. I did not understand the dresses only argument in this light until I looked at a picture of myself and a majority of my husband’s family. All of us were in jeans and, at a glance, it was not possible to discern who was male and who was female. I am finding that my 8 year old is becoming very legalistic about the issue. We have to remind her often about our reasoning…
For a southerner, (FYI-VA is not south when it comes to weather), today was much too cold for a dress of any length. I had to be out to go to a meeting and wore slacks, 2 sweaters, knee high socks and high leather boots. That was not warm enough, for me. Since I stopped working outside the house my dresses have dwindled down to nothing and this year I went out and bought two spring dresses, but it is still too cold to wear them. I was disappointed that I had to cover my Easter dress with a heavy sweater to keep from freezing to death. But, I do like to wear dresses and do feel different when I wear them. I do agree with you that only wearing dresses for women is not biblical, but modesty is. With the current low rider pants it takes an effort to be modest and keep covered, but it can be done. Can we do a Dress Only day in July when it is warmer? 🙂
Teri, I’ve “given up on” my skirts for a while because it’s really hard to find them in my size. But for a while I was wearing them nearly every day, and I had to ask someone about winter. (I have friends who wear pretty much all dresses, and live in Wisconsin!) Leggings are a big help! And when it’s *really* cold, a flannel slip is great. 🙂
Flannel slip; who knew? Certainly not a Floridian. I would need layers of these under garments as I have zero tolerance for cold weather. It is not just a dislike but my muscles actually freeze up /get really tight, and I can barely function.
I often wear black microfiber-style “longjohns” as tights under my skirts. The leg parts are close fitting, as are tights, and only the lower leg shows (and most of that is actually in boots). But they are warmer than tights.
Nice loopholes… Why is it so hard to just do what God says???? There is no way you can make a pair of pants more modest than a skirt or dress .
I’m sorry you feel that way. My family has made a LOT of counter-cultural choices; we don’t balk at just “doing what God says.” But while you see me as looking for loopholes, I simply see an avoidance of legalism. Yes, the Bible teaches modesty. But it doesn’t define modesty as one specific garment or another. (That is, the Bible never says, “You will wear a dress, not pants.”) So saying that I’m not doing what God says is a little presumptuous.
Does the Bible teach that only women are to be modest? Because if it doesn’t, you’ve just made my argument for me: the question of dresses vs. pants is not about modesty. Otherwise, we wouldn’t allow men to wear pants, either. (And plenty of people – myself included – would disagree with you over whether pants can be more modest than a dress.)
Can you answer any of the questions I posed? Or are you only able to challenge my spiritual motives?
You stated—” In this country, when women first began wearing pants they were, indeed, considered men’s clothing, and it was scandalous for women to wear them. In that cultural setting, I believe it was inappropriate for women to wear them.” That is erroneous—you are disallowing change and blocking progress. You’re implying that the test of sin is merely—something the majority dislikes. Huh? The majority of the crowd howled for Jesus to be crucified also. God is not Silly Putty, that He sees something as sin if the majority dislikes it, and then when the majority no longer objects—then God looks down and says, “No, it isn’t sin any more because the majority decided to tolerate it.” This approach does nothing to address the issue that people’s minds are small, like that of a mouse born in an oat bin, and calls from the church for people to practice tolerance and bring their reactions under control—are not heard—precisely due to this advocacy of “if it bothers others, you should refrain from doing it” viewpoint. Women died in fires due to their excessive petticoats catching ablaze, and drown in ship sinkings because their clothes took on so much water weight they could not be lifted! Your philosophy would have told them—“don’t wear pants” (before the crisis started) because “it would offend others.” Arguing for social conformity is a major sin which the church has failed to address, because we were all placed here to be individuals—not cookie cutter replicas of each other. Deut 22:5 is the most misunderstood verse of all. Any third rate lawyer would have spelled it out as so, if there was intent for there to be a skirts/fancy clothes and pants/plain clothes division of the sexes. “Solomon in all his glory” was not about men in suits and ties or blue jeans. Horseback riding caused men to wear pants. Can we be Christian, even though we don’t go about on horseback? Silly? Not at all. In 867AD the Bulgarians sent an emissary to the pope asking if they could be Christians—even though they wore pants! Deut 22:5 I believe is fair to view as banning opposite sex impersonation BUT it was mainly a sanitary law! Water was scarce, and apparel was seldom washed. Disease could be transmitted by exchange of garments, if there was an open sore or cut, women had discharge, anyone could soil a garment. The only way a man can “dress like a man” is to wear some facial hair! If Deut 22:5 banned women in pants, I submit there would be a verse in Revelation to the effect that in the last times, most women would enter into damnation, for wearing pants, “that which pertaineth unto a man.” There IS no such verse. Scales also must balance. There is no prohibition against skirts and fancy clothes worn by men. Hardly anyone in the church community knows anything about the historical social forces, long after the New Testament was written, that have shaped men’s apparel habits today—they piously expound on a subject they have no qualifications to factually address. Are you AWARE what English nobility was wearing when the KJV came out in 1611? A few years after this, “petticoat breeches” would be introduced into England and in 1664, 4,000 French soldiers wore them to fight off a Turkish invasion of Austria.
I’m so sorry, Charlie! WordPress apparently thought your comment was spam, and I just found it.
You are correct. I completely agree that my statement regarding its being inappropriate for women to wear pants in a given cultural setting was oversimplified. There are, obviously, other factors to consider (like, for instance, the safety concerns I alluded to). If there’s a legitimate reason to push for cultural change, I absolutely believe that would be a consideration. However, I still believe there’s a huge difference between wearing slacks or jeans in a cultural setting where that is “men’s clothing” and wearing them in a cultural setting where that is “men’s or women’s clothing.” The message communicated is different. If I’m communicating “I’m pushing the envelope and I don’t care who notices — in fact, I hope everyone notices!” then I want it to be because I intended to push the envelope for a purpose, not to randomly scandalize people.
More importantly, I think you intentionally missed the actual point — which was that the argument that women should only wear dresses because pants are “men’s clothing” a) is culturally-defined (at least in part) and b) doesn’t hold any water in this culture.
Great points, I was wondering about them exactly the same way…
To the second one you can also add those cultural examples http://www.propheticrevelation.net/misc/garments.htm not only euro-american 😉
If I remember correctly there is also word “skirt” used in the Bible in reference to men, so… yeah.