Should women wear only dresses?

Should women in the United States wear only dresses whether it be in church or at the office or gardening or hiking through the woods?

If Ellen White is to be believed, women should wear dresses and not skirts. She says the weight of our clothing should rest on the shoulders and not the waist.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

To express their femininity and give glory to God in the beauty of His creation just as a flower with its beauty is how in my opinion they should do. Sometimes flowers have their beauty hidden or covered by snow or weather, but its always there.

Never even crossed my mind as didn't pick up the difference in her writings, but yes my wife does wear full length dresses when she goes to church. I have even picked some out for her which others say are very nice, as I enjoy having her wear nice dresses rather than the 'power suits' many women are picking up from the business world and bring to church.

Are skirts heavier than pants?

Hahahahahahahaha....

I never would have thought of that question!

Wow Green. I hadn't heard this before.

HR, April 1, 1872

Daryl,

Pants/trousers were to be held up with suspenders--thus suspending their weight from the shoulders. I would have to say that your question seems irrelevant. Either a skirt (such as the one attached to a dress and thus hung from the shoulders) or pants (suspended via suspenders) were to have their weight hung from the shoulders. I'm not telling you what I do. I'm telling you what Mrs. White says we should do. If suspenders were more readily available, perhaps I would adopt them. Maybe I should anyhow, as I do seem to have some stomach/intestinal issues, and belts can cause such, per Mrs. White.

Perhaps the quote Alchemy found should be seen by all. It continues, but here is the first paragraph of it, and I would encourage folks to look it up in its context and read the rest as well.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I can tell you this is spot on as if my belts are too tight it cuts off my circulation and gives me a headache and I have to loosen them up and risk having my pants drop. So I have solved it by using suspenders, looks a bit old fashioned but it works.

Ok, I didn't catch if you meant only/usually to church or not. If a woman is covered up with pants in the snow, how is their beauty there? If underneath, then cannot one recognize a woman whether pants or dress? Is the advice only for church?

I think it is a highly relevant question. While having come across the skirt and shoulders issue before, I have not come across suspenders. Do you have a quote for such?

Personally, I've never had a problem wearing pants and circulation issues or any other issues.

So it becomes, that either women are made differently regarding the waist or men should have their clothes suspended from their shoulders, too. Could women use suspenders for a skirt? Should men wear dresses and enjoy the health benefits?

Whoa...lots of questions there.

1) Mrs. White may not mention "suspenders," but she says very clearly that clothing should be "suspended" from the shoulders. Here's a quote that applies to all children, so we would presume this applies to boys as well.



It is needful to understand that in Ellen White's day, men wore suspenders. Women had other styles of dress subject to the fashion of the day. A quote in which she addresses women, but then seems to apply the principle broadly to "the person" follows.



I, personally, would not feel justified in saying that principle applied only to women. Certainly, Mrs. White does not say so. She does not specify men as being in a different class and therefore not needing to follow this same principle. But it seems that the men of her day did not generally fall into the same error as the women did.

2) Yes, women could use suspenders for a skirt. Many do. In my part of the world, some school uniforms have such. Google can show you pictures, if you dare (don't scroll down too far, as I found out, even with the "safe search" turned on).

3) Trousers with suspenders, or a "coveralls" style of clothing, or "bib overalls," or even a "jumpsuit" are all forms of clothing that could remain loose in the abdominal area for men. There's no reason to suggest that men put on women's clothing. God declares such to be abominable.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Excellent post, Green.

I suspect closer reading would reveal an address to the girls. Girls with tight waste binders.

Nothing compressing my organs nor restricts my freedom of movement. And the last suggests all should support their clothing from the shoulders, not from suspenders.

About the best argument. Is it true?

Or say not. Speculation.

See your 3.

What about middle Eastern wear? Or even Eastern? Are they wrong? Robes? And priest's robes? Do you have a definition of men and women's clothing?

You don't appear to be as egalitarian as some on this forum when it comes to gender issues. I can respect your position, and I see how you might arrive at it. I just don't happen to see it the same way.



On this point, with whom are you arguing? I'm not here to argue. Your issue appears to be with the Bible. Take it there. This is what the Bible says...



If you believe God has given imprecise directions, argue with Him about it. I, on the other hand, choose to believe God is clear. It is obvious enough to most of us which clothes are masculine and which are feminine. I do find, however, that children tend to be more honest about it than adults.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Does women wearing pants constitute women wearing men's clothing, which would also be an abomination?

I ask as we can hardly tell the difference between men and women when it comes to the clothing that the women are wearing these days.

kland wrote;

"What about middle Eastern wear? Or even Eastern? Are they wrong? Robes? And priest's robes? Do you have a definition of men and women's clothing?" (bold emphasis mine)

The Bible does distinguish between men and women clothing, so there should be a distinction. Daryl's point about the lack of distinction is a problem.

Green, are you saying that you think women should wear dresses all the time whether it be in church or at the office or gardening or hiking through the woods?

I think this is an example of how you interpret scripture. It's so clear you don't need to explain it to others. Translated: It's however you feel like it should be interpreted and others better agree with you.

So, I don't suppose it would do to question you about your underwear not being suspended from your shoulders as you'll say that's different because it's clear.

To me it's quite clear women's pants are different than men's pants.

kland,

Do you see it as my business to be the arbiter of what a woman should and should not wear? Why would you be asking me what they should wear? This, to me, is the problem. My views should not even matter to you. You should not be influenced by them. You should take your views directly from what God has said. And what has He said on the matter? That should be your first quest. Find out.

Rather than suggest what I would opine, which would actually be easier to do, let me provide some solid directions from scripture.





(Apparently "ankle" in the above includes the calf area, or else Mrs. White is referring to ladies who have worn short stockings. "Half a yard" is, of course, 18 inches, which, on the average woman, comes up to about the knee. Regardless of the exact dimensions, one principle emerges from this: that fashion and/or culture do not properly define modesty, and cannot be relied upon to determine what is or is not modest.)



(Clothing the limbs is necessary for health, not merely modesty.)

Enough said for now.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Oh I don't know. Could it be that YOU were saying men needed to wear suspenders?

Sure couldn't. Glad we can clear that one up. It wasn't me.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Well looks like I better look for mine...

Me too.

I don't have anything against suspenders, its just I've always worn belts and never knew there could be a problem.

So what if a woman wanted to do some gardening or hike through the woods with her companions? Is the dress convenient? Of course it is! If it is inconvenient for her then she should not do any of those things at all. God told Moses, "Nor shall you go up by steps to My altar, that your nakedness may not be exposed on it." Exod. 20:26. The principle is that unwanted exposure or danger should temper desire for adventure. Are you afraid of heights? Don't volunteer to cross the Niagara Falls on a rope.

However, having said that, God provided mitigating guidance for inadvertent exposure. He said, "And you shall make for them linen trousers to cover their nakedness; they shall reach from the waist to the thighs." Exod. 28:42 The "trousers" or undergarment was meant to hold fast firmly around the body much as they do today and commonsense dictates. There were no suspenders.

So then, as a general rule, cover your nakedness and do not place yourself in positions of potential exposure. And see that a man wears manly stuff and a woman, what is womanly; for it is written, "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God." Deut. 22:5 What do you think of a dog humping a fire hydrant?

///

Good point! Those who wear suspenders are in direct violation of the Bible, an abomination!

Yes.

So what is manly stuff and what is womanly stuff? Is it what the current culture decides by popular choice?

Otherwise, is a robe manly or womanly? Such as the Israelites' clothing?

Isn't it obvious? Anyone designing for (or choosing clothes in) any generation ought to design (or choose) for modesty and gender distinction. Do I even have to tell you this too?

///

Kland, I go with the cultural angle. Topless is modest in certain tribes around the world and forbidden elsewhere.

Could you distinguish the difference between a female robe and male rob for me?

Is topless manly or feminine?

Which if you are making an argument for the cultural angle, what about women wearing pants today? Culturally, women wear pants, it is accepted.

And what about Scottish men coming to America, should they abandon their kilts? Or if enough gender confused people are out there, no problem?

Whatever is culturally acceptable within the community of believers.

Would you go with culture even if it goes against what the Bible says?

This is a complicated question involving many assumptions. It also strongly implies a judgement/condemnation of people for "going against the Bible."

In the first place, I don't care who you are or how you interpret the Bible, myself included, I can point out cases where you do what culture dictates or accepts rather than what the Bible says. Period. So we are all guilty of that.

Second, WHAT culture, WHERE, in what TIME PERIOD? And what DOES the Bible say, and WHO says THAT is what it means?

Third, the only reason ANY OF US are Christian is because we were born into Christian cultures or families. If you were born in a Muslim country, or Muslim family, you would be Muslim. If you were born in a Buddhist country or family, you would be Buddhist. You are what your environment was when you were a child. Prov. 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it."

So all this trash-talk about "I just follow Scripture..." No you don't. You use Scripture to justify your life style and choices, and pick-and-choose what parts of Scripture you want to follow and what parts you want to discard.

Nadi, it's too bad there are so few people who live in harmony with the Bible. Even the Apostle Paul used the Bible to disregard OT requirements such as Circumcission and Blood Sacrifices. My point is - changing times and circumstances allow options and changes in how we worship and obey God. Many details named in the Law of Moses (603 in total according to some) were written while believers were living under a Theocracy and took into account the lifestyle choices of surrounding unbelieving nations. All of those additional laws and details served to support and fulfill the 10 Commandments. Everything boils down to this - "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." Eccl 12:13-14. Of all the multitudinous cultural lifestyle choices and practices from one end of the Earth to the other there is plenty of room within the 10C to accommodate most of them as they pertain to dress and diet and doctrine. There are many ways to live holy, righteous, scrupulous lives in the sight of our Almighty and Loving God and Savior.

Daryl, no, I would not knowingly, willingly live in violation of God's revealed will.

Neither would I.

It sounds like you are saying Paul did not live in harmony with the Bible and cast aside those requirements to support and fulfill the 10 Commandments.

What do you really mean?

There are 600+ additional laws God gave Moses to regulate daily lifestyle choices and practices to ensure His people are living in harmony with the 10C. As time moves on, so do God's requirements. Circumcision, for example, is no longer applicable. Paul explains why in the NT. Not circumcising is no longer a sin. So too, not sacrificing animals is no longer a sin. Plus, God's people are no longer under a Jewish Theocracy and, therefore, many of the OT laws no longer apply. So, should women wear pants or not? It depends on the time and place. In the USA back in Ellen White's time? No! It was culturally unacceptable. But nowadays it is no longer viewed as culturally immoral (again, depending on the style). If women wear pants in a way Christians consider morally tasteful - it is in keeping with the 10C.

When did women not wearing only dresses first begin?

Does the start time frame affect whether it's right or not?

Probably not, however, it would still be interesting to know when it first began.

History of trousers (pants) would be an interesting study.
Here's just some points I picked up -- this is by no means a comprehensive review

Trousers were not always "mens" clothes, as many cultures dressed their men in garments that were not bi-legged garments.
Much of the early types of clothing were wrap skirts, robe like garments, or simply skillful wrapping of cloth for both genders.
Some history reports link the rise of trousers very strongly to horse riding. .

For example'
"The first recorded reports of trousers were made by sixth century BC Greek geographers. They noted the appearance of Persian, Eastern and Central Asian horse riders. The extended periods on horseback made trousers a practical choice. Images of male and female horse riders wearing trousers can be found on ancient ceramics."

This except is interesting:
"Scythian warriors, both male, and female, from Central Eurasia, are depicted wearing tight fitting trousers in Greek art dating from the 6th centuries BCE. Similar styles, consisting of a tunic and trousers have been found surviving in tombs. The Greeks wore a wrapped garment, the chiton, and viewed the wearing of trousers as something done by foreigners and females"

"In the Roman world, the toga was the typical wrap garment for men on formal occasions. Casual wear consisted of a tunic. Earlier members of the military didn?t wear trousers, seeing them as the clothing for barbarians, or effeminate like their Greek predecessor. However, the combination of being defeated by the trouser wearing Teutons, and their own increased usage of cavalry, also increased their need to adopt trousers."

It seems that especially warriors on horseback wore pants, while the toga, or wrapped garment style was considered the clothing for the elite.

As the Roman military accepted trousers and as time progressed into the middle ages, pants for men became more common -- though they went through some pretty interesting designs. Like big puffy pants from the waist to the knees, with tight stockings on the lower legs. Yet even in the middle ages the basic clothing for men was a tunic and stockings.
Women (especially in colder climates) wore some form of trousers or leggings under their dresses. But the distinction between women's dress and men's garments became more and more different

So gradually trousers became a masculine dress -- equipping him for WORK and war.
Women were relegated to the home and clothed in volumes of cloth called dresses,

In the United States, for many years, it was LAW that women must wear dresses, they could be fined or even imprisoned, for wearing pants in public. Women wearing pants in public is a rather recent thing -- starting after WWII, but not really accepted till about the 1970's. Even up to 1993 there were laws prohibiting women from wearing slacks in certain official government positions.

Interestingly -- during wartimes (first and second World War) women put on trousers and did men's work (they had to for their husbands were gone to war, and they were expected, not only to keep up the home front, but also to work to support the war effort) after the war they were put back into dresses.
Though some women put on trousers for work and riding all through those years, they were not allowed to wear trousers in public places and gatherings. Even as late as the 1960's all females wore dresses in public -- to school and church and in business type jobs.

The thing is -- slacks or trousers are a liberating garment. They free a person to move, work, ride, play. Even though those things can be done wearing a dress -- it is not nearly as free.
That's why men switched from their wrap skirts, robes, togas, chitons and kilts and put on trousers way back in ancient times.

Interesting history.

Thanks dedication.


Which is what I was saying that men and women both wore robes in the past. Especially during the Jewish times.

Pants are women's clothing!

"put back into dresses". I like that. Sort of men designing high heels for women. To sort of confine or disable them. Ever see a woman in high heels try to walk up and climb the steps to the platform? She sort of looks incompetent.

Just to put it to the extreme :
We could say, women should wear dresses to show their submissiveness of being limited.

The distinction between clothing was obvious enough for God to have forbidden men wearing women's garments and vice versa. Calling it all robes does not mean anything. Both men and women wear shoes but there are men's and then there are women's. For modesty and for distinction, that is the principle. Design all you want, but for Christian modesty and gender distinction.

///

That my be assuming too much, but the Greeks seemed to think so, and it carried over to Romans.
The Greek's ancient histories tell stories (often called "myths) of a race of women who managed to form a society of women in which men were not allowed any power. They were quite skilled at war and horse riding.
The stories were quite numerous, and have been discovered in quite a few different places and by multiple authors. The Greeks both feared and despised this race of women, yet declared them to be beautiful and strong. You may have heard of the "Amazon" women.

The stories show that women fought for liberation from being subjected by men way back in ancient times. They were written by men who apparently sought to show the triumph of men. For though they talk of the women as mighty warriors, they never write of any battles that the women actually won, but rather of men overcoming them.

Did such a race exist? There are various opinions.
Some say they were actually beardless Mongolian men, mistaken to be women. Some say they were just myths to show that men will always end up as rulers as the Amazon women were eventually defeated and wiped out. The women received "bad press".

But there is evidence that suggests they actually existed.
1. Ancient historians wrote about them, like Homer, Heredotus, Plutarch and Eusebius

2. in the Altai Mountains of Siberia, an excavations began in the mid 1990s. The archaeologists unearthed the burial grounds of an ancient race of people known as Pazyryk. The Kurgans, as the log-barrows they were interred in were known, have revealed several mummified remains of mostly women. One such Kurgan contained the well preserved remains of a woman who had been interred with her resplendent feathered headgear, intricate body art and sacrosanct artifacts. She has since been called the "Siberian Ice Maiden".

3, Several other kurgans were excavated and revealed mummified women displaying scars and wounds perhaps inflicted in battles. Most remains are bow-legged, an indication of years of riding on horseback. Bizarre but true are the remains of horses found at these Kurgans, some sacrificed and propped up on stakes, others interred with the dead.


Whatever the truth is about them --
The Greeks seemed to believe they existed, and yes, the Greeks credited these women with inventing trousers.

What do you think are the distinctions between men and women's robes?
So would you say there could be a distinction between men and women's pants?

I perceive that you're a fashion designer and this matter is of great interest to you. So definitely, yes. A distinction ought to be made in women's and men's US pants. For example, you may design men's pants to be of darker hues with pockets on the outside, and women's to be lighter and decorative with pockets on the inside. But really, let me not trample on your imagination and talent; just remember in your work to implement the design principle commanded by God as found in the Bible: for Christian modesty and gender distinction.

///

I believe the question involves of an average citizen rather than "a fashion designer".

And that is what I'm asking you, can you distinguish a distinction between men and women's pants?

Fashion the world over varies considerably. You would need to post pictures of the men's and women's US pants you see being worn, for me to make a determination whether they can be adequately distinguished from each other or not. It might be helpful thereafter to put out an advisory for the Christian community concerning them: whether good upstanding folk should buy loads or not be seen in them at all.

///

Do women in Canada not wear pants?

Yes, but you were asking my advice and I didn't want to presume that what you were witnessing was what obtained in Honolulu, for instance, or Turkey. Many a conversation becomes heated and boils over the top of the pot because someone or other makes the mistake of presumption. Show me the pants, and I'll separate one from the other, if it be possible or not. Remember, I'm guided solely by the Biblical principle: for Christian modesty and gender distinction.

///