Is It A Sin?

[Dave]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 3 2004, 11:04 PM'] I apologize that I cannot reply regarding the actual debate tonight (it is almost 11:00 here and I need to get up early tomorrow for Mass; it is about a 45 minute drive). I just wanted to reply to the second post:

Jeff, I do not consider you to be a neo-conservative. That did not apply to you at all. I was speaking of those people who actually are neo-conservatives (most of Phatmass and most practicing Catholics). I consider you to be absolutely obedient to the Church and the Pope. God bless.

Dave, I did not mention anything that I consider the Pope to teach with laxity; this was simply one of the conditions by which I would disregard one of his (or any other Pope's) teaching. There must be a good reason to disagree with a Pope, especially when he is speaking in the area of morals. There is no good reason to downplay or disregard (even minorly) the Pope's decrees concerning the virtue of modesty and its application, especially when he lists specific areas and types of clothing which are immodest. It is hard to think that modesty from the beginning of the Church to 1940 did not change (or changed very minorly) and then sometime between 1940 to 1970 changed so much that sleeveless shirts or cap-sleeved shirts (or something even less modest) have become "modest." God bless.

Edit: I posted shortly after you did and did not see your most recent post. You have me beat by half an hour as far as when you wake up I will be glad to speak to your tomorrow (but I do not know if I will be able to get on because I have several things I must do to enroll at my school and to completely register for my classes at the college I am attending; I am doing a joint-enrollment program, so I have to register at both a high school and a college; I hope to talk to you tomorrow). God bless. [/quote]
Although I know you were talking to Jeff here, regardless of whether or not you think he's a neo-conservative, I think that's a quite derogatory term. Most of the Phatmass members are ORTHODOX Catholics -- not liberal-minded cafeteria Catholics and not dissident traditionalists -- if the Church teaches it, they believe it.

And what you call Pope Pius XII's "decrees" on modesty were really not decrees.

Ya know, there was a time when even just showing your ankles was considered immodest -- both in secular society and surely in the Church. But Pope Pius XII doesn't say that women mustn't even show their ankles. Times had changed. My point is that there are some things that will always be considered immodest no matter what, and there are some things that were considered immodest a long time ago but are not now. So we have to exercise prudence.

[picchick]

I would like to agree with Dave. I am not a neo-conservative Catholic. Neither is my brother. To say that most of phatmass is is quite a generalization.
What makes most of phatmassers neo-conservatives?

[amarkich]

Picchick, this is not the thread in which to discuss that. I do not really intend to discuss it, but if you create a thread, I will do so. Thank you. God bless.

[God Conquers]

Wouldn't option two or three simply mean the person obtained salvation by #1 without knowing so, or through an unusual act of the mercy of God?

[Aloysius]

lol i think u posted in the wrong thread God Conquers...

[amarkich]

Now, back to the actual topic at hand.

[quote]I would answer by saying that we derive what is proper regarding men's and women's clothing based on Catholic traditions and Catholic prudence exercised with regards to secular society.[/quote]

It seems that we have reached an agreement on the definition. What is considered men's clothing and women's clothing is based on [i]Catholic traditions and Catholic prudence while also taking into account secular society's practices[/i]. I completely agree with what you said about modesty in your statements answering the question "Who determines consent?" from my post. I assert that some 'female' pants are not immodest and thus do not contradict the Church's teachings on modesty. While some of the pants may be modest, this does not necessarily indicate that they are women's clothing simply because of this fact. In any event, it seems to me that the crux of the argument has become the origin of pants on women and whether or not this cause is compatible with Catholic prudence and, in light of this, whether or not pants can be considered women's clothing.


We both agree that the source of intent is relevant, but our disagreement is on the source of the intent. For the purposes of my argument, I will designate the following terms to describe separate movements and periods in history: Progressive Movement will define the time period of the late 1800s to the early 1900s (about 1890-1930) in which women began to take the first roles in the political system in the history of the Western world, eventually taking the freedom to vote in 1919 (really it should be called the Second Progressive Movement because the First Progressive Movement occurred in the antebellum period of the American Civil War, but since it is the only one I am considering, I will simply call it the Progressive Movement); it should be noted that during this time, for the first time in Western history, there is a great disdain for the cultural norms in dress and behavior, thus the ‘flappers’ became (while a small minority) a part of society (these are the women who first wore pants and who also bobbed their hair; by the way, I would like to present the idea that bobbing one’s hair qualifies as cross dressing; I will continue with this later in my argument; please comment on whether or not you disagree). Feminist Movement will define the time period of the 1960s in which women petitioned for an even more radical “equality” in political and social life, passing such “reforms” as the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and other liberal legislation (this term will be used to define what most orthodox Catholics would consider to be the downfall of the Western family, the downfall of woman’s role in society properly speaking, and the formation of a gender neutral, gender blind society, at least in name). Sexual Revolution will define the time period of the 1960s and 1970s in which morality was abandoned by most of the young people in the generation, characterized by the rebellious ‘hippie’ attitude against the government and authority in general as well as establishing the maxim “I’m a lover, not a fighter” among other things (although this phrase is not pertinent to the debate, I simply wanted to show my disdain for it); it should also be noted that while many of the “flower girls” happily wore skirts and dresses that this time period was the first to witness the widespread practice of women wearing pants.


Using the defined terms, it seems that we both agree that pants were first worn by women during the Progressive Movement. With this being said, it does not alleviate the problem that women’s practice of wearing pants originated in a time period of the ‘flappers’ and during the first time of social upheaval of and rebellion against social norms concerning dress and behavior. We see the first sense of any type of movement of immorality coupled with a disdain for social norms in dress. The two aspects, clothing and morality, go hand-in-hand during this time period. Doing simple research on the time period will illustrate this. In any event, if you continue to assert that the first period of women wearing pants was during the Progressive Movement, you are agreeing at least to the fact that it was never socially acceptable for a woman to wear pants until a liberal (counter-cultural, counter-traditional, and essentially anti-Catholic) movement began (the Progressive Movement). I agree that women wore pants in factories for the purpose of not being caught in machinery, but this does not mean that the original purpose was for this reason. The intent originated from the flappers of the Progressive Movement who did not believe in the social standards for morals and dress. In their rebellion against the prescribed social norms, they went to such lengths as to even bob their hair (this practice was eventually accepted by society in the 1930s and even in the end of the 1920s).


This is brings me to my next point, namely that bobbing one’s hair (a woman wearing her hair short) is immoral, contrary to Catholic tradition, and contrary to Sacred Scripture. The most important thing to recognize is that the bobbing of women’s hair was being initiated at the same time as women began to wear pants, i.e., the intentions for the two things were paralleled; the same intention drove both standards. My contention that a woman wearing short hair is immoral comes from my belief that a woman bobbing her hair is the equivalent to a woman having her head shorn (the same as cross dressing by wearing her hair the same as a man’s hair, or close enough as to designate it being contrary to feminine qualities; N.B., this argument is contingent upon my third argument, that it is contrary to Sacred Scripture). My contention that a woman wearing bobbed hair is contrary to Catholic tradition is seen through history and even secular society’s disdain for the practice (until it became widespread).


My contention that a woman wearing bobber hair is contrary to Scripture is based on Saint Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians: “But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.” c.f., I Corinthians xi.15. This passage has constantly been understood to mean exactly what it says—that a woman’s hair is her glory and that it is a shame unto her to have it cut short (read the beginning of the chapter about women covering their heads in worship to understand the disgrace of a woman having her hair shorn). Likewise, Saint Paul says that it is a shame for a man to nourish his hair (verse 14). In this verse Saint Paul asserts that nature (not custom or culture) teaches us that it is a shame for a man to have his head covered. He then says that it is a glory unto a woman to nourish her hair. This passage has not only been believed and practiced in the Christian world but also in most cultures and societies (excluding those that are or were so corrupted by pagan influences and false religions as to dictate other societal norms). We see that Saint Paul tells us that nature demands that a woman’s hair is her glory. With this being said, it is impossible for anyone who believes in the Bible (let alone a Catholic!) to claim that a woman bobbing her hair is not immoral and is somehow acceptable, and if this is true, then the same must be said regarding pants, for they both have their origins in the rebel flappers of the Progressive Movement.


The final argument which is most besetting to the pro-pants argument (if I may call it that) is that pants had been around for essentially hundreds of years and were worn only by men during this time period until the Progressive Movement when women began to also wear pants. Had pants been worn by both men and women from the very beginning, it would seem that my argument would not be as strong but because the article itself was worn only by one sex (men) and then later worn by the other sex (women) is something unprecedented in societal and cultural norms and constitutes as yet another proof for the fact that this practice is no ‘normal’ development which is completely acceptable. Never in the past had a development been made in which the advent of a new style was adopted by only one of the sexes and then later applied to both. This is one of the most troublesome aspects of the argument that pants can be justly worn by Christian women. I would like to present an article to you written in 1960 by Giuseppe Cardinal Siri about the reasons that women should not wear pants (during this time period it was still generally accepted that pants were men’s clothing). I do not intend this to be a part of the argument at this point, but I think you might be interested in hearing it simply from the psychological argument (which he makes) rather than the philosophical. Because the link will be blocked by the moderators and because I do not want to make this an object of the debate (at least right now), I will have to email you the article, but I do not know your email because I have been blocked from using that feature on this website, so please email me so that I can know your email address and can send you the article. God bless.

[God Conquers]

CURSES!

Foiled again!

[Guest JeffCR07]

Adam, good post, and it seems to me that, as we come to a more precise agreement of definitions the fundamental issues that are truly in disagreement are coming to light.

With regards to pants, I agree with your "timeline" - that is, the progression of events in modern culture and the sociological titles denoting specific periods. However, upon looking at this timeline, it has occured to me that the best that you and I can do, in terms of the progression of women wearing pants, it seems is establish that there were [i]two[/i] origins of the societal change. One of these origins, it appears, has its roots in conservative ideology, while the other has as its basis liberal feminism.

Allow me to illustrate why such reasoning makes sense: We have, in my mind, two origins of the practice of women wearing pants that both take place during the same period: The Progressive Period (1890-1930). It is during this period that we witness the First World War and the first real, nationwide need to move women into the workforce. As I illustrated in my previous post, this need for women in the workforce - motivated by a sense of patriotism and it being a woman's duty to her husband to provide support at home for him while he is away at war - lead to a much more prolific wearing of pants by women. I could argue that the same thing happened during the Civil War, but I think this would be a stretch and not really beneficial for the debate at hand.

Now, despite the fact that I greatly desire to argue the legitimacy of claiming the flappers as the true source of the societal change (based on the fact that they were widely criticised and condemned by both men and women), I will, for the sake of argument, allow that such a proposition is true.

However, my allowing this, I am logically forced to conclude that there are [i]two alternate sources[/i] of the societal change, based on the fact that the ideology motivating women to wear pants in the workforce during WWI was a sense of patriotism and duty to husband than a sense of enflamed feminism. Thus, I would argue that there were two alternate paths that led to the same societal change. The first began, ostensibly, with the flappers, and then progressed with the feminists and later on with the adherents to the sexual revolution. The other path followed the conservative motivations that established the precedent via WWI and then drastically accelerated it during WWII.

To claim that the societal change was entirely due to one or the other would be false, on either of our parts, and so we are left at an intriguing dilemma.

The shift in the social trend was, it appears, caused in part by a good source and in part by a bad one. Thus, when asked the "roots" of her decision to wear pants, a woman could claim that passionate feminism made it a social norm, or she could claim that marital devotion made it a social norm. Arguably, both could be right.

So where does this leave us?

In order to answer this question, I think we should go back to the fulcrum of the argument, our mutually accepted definition: "women's clothing" can be defined as that clothing which is intended for women - whether by physical cut or by societal assumptions, taking into account that "intent" is decided by Catholic traditions and Catholic prudence exercised with regards to secular society.

So what have we come to understand as of yet?

1.) a woman could argue that the ideological source of the historical beginning of "women's pants" is that of marital devotion, as well as patriotism

2.) a woman could also argue that the ideological source of the historical beginning of "women's pants" is that of feministic disgust for gender roles.

3.) women's pants are cut differently than men's pants

4.)* Women's pants, when properly worn, can be modest.

* I acknowledge that this is not fundamental to the argument, but I feel that, since the issue is one of catholic morality, modesty should not be entirely excluded.

Now, one could argue inconclusively back and forth as to propositions 1 and 2, but we would, ultimately, get no where. I would like also to call to mind that we are using the virtues of Prudence and Wisdom. Prudence and Wisdom, it seems to me, would say that when one reaches an impassable mountain, one should look for another way around. So, from this impassable mountain that is the "debateable ideological backdrop to a historical beginning of modern fashion" I look around to see if we can find another way around, and my eyes land on proposition 3.)

Thus, I would argue that we can prudently and justly say that women's pant's are truly articles of women's clothing, on the basis that they are cut in such a manner that they are naturally intended for women by virtue of their form.

This conclusion does not disregard the ideological beginning of the social trend, but rather, prudently acknowledges that such a line of thinking leads to a dead-end, and turns to a line of reasoning that is more certain.

********************************************************************


Adam, I appologize for not replying to the topic of women "bobbing" their hair, but I did so for a couple reasons. First, this post is quite long as it is (for which I appologize). Second, I do not really know what bobbing connotates: a "short" haircut, but how short are we talking? Third, I think I would need some time to read the Holy Scriptures, reflect, and pray before I can respond in a manner that would do the discussion - and you - justice. If it is something you are interested in, I will be more than happy to do just that.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[amarkich]

Jeff, first of all, you never need to apologize for a long post (I am the king)!

Now, after reading your post I completely agree with your assessment of the historical development and even make an allowance that you are more informed as to the influence of the flappers of the Progressive Era (I have all of my information from an AP United States History high school class and an Honors American Literature high school class and a nominal amount of personally researched information; N.B., these classes were taken at a 'Catholic' high school in Georgia, the former being taught by a progressive herself who somehow considers herself a "conservative Catholic" on moral issues while stating that hunger and starvation is a greater problem in America than abortion--while at the same time asserting that abortion is murder!--and the latter being taught by a true conservative who went to an all-girls college before Vatican II). I also recognize that further historical debate is futile. I agree with your entire post down to the numbering of the four propositions. My only addition would be the following:


Taking into account that intent is decided by (or "measured according to", either is fine) Catholic traditions and Catholic prudence exercised with regard to secular society:
5. (It would be better placed as number 3, moving the other two down) A woman must recognize that pants are the first type of clothing to be designed and worn specifically by one gender and accepted solely as fitting for that gender (males) and then, after hundreds of years (I am not sure how old pants are; I am sure they have at least been around in some form since the Renaissance) became accepted on the other gender (females), thus making the style of clothing available and acceptable to both men and women in the eyes of secular society.


If this proposition is accepted, I argue that, regardless of the veracity and good intentions of proposition 1, that in light of proposition 5 (or, if re-numbering were to occur, 3), pants could not be considered to be in line with the chief measure of intent--Catholic traditions and Catholic prudence--for such an event would be unparalleled and unmatched throughout the history of fashions the genders and due to the fact that [i]the practice was not accepted by Catholics at its onset both in this country and in others[/i]. Furthermore, because the practice was not accepted by most Catholics at the time of its onset and even into its popularity (1960s), the proposition that the practice of women wearing pants does not meet the demands of the definition for the measurement of proper intention as to what constitutes women's clothing (only sufficing to meet the secondary requirement--the approval of secular society--and failing to meet the chief requirement--the approval of Catholic prudence--it should thus be abandoned as a practice by faithful, informed Catholics). Likewise, recognizing that in the realm of Catholic prudence that there are situations in which differing fashions, while changing slightly or even dramatically, would not be offensive to those who assess them provided that both fashions are seen in light of Catholic prudence, i.e., a Catholic from the first century would not find a female's outfit from the future repulsive or contrary to the laws of modesty, or, in this case, of what is considered "women's clothing" such that a Catholic from the first century would not find a Victorian woman's clothing to be repulsive or contrary to feminine attributes in clothing; likewise, neither would a Victorian woman find the styles of a first century Catholic woman to be repulsive or contrary to feminine attributes in clothing.


It is, however, my contention that both a first century Catholic and a Victorian Catholic would equally find a modern outfit consisting of women's pants both repulsive and contrary to proper feminine attributes. To support this contention, I offer the reluctance of some, if not most, Catholics to accept the change in secular society even up to its moderate popularity (before Feminism) and the condemnation of the practice by some in the hierarchy even in its popularity (post-Feminism, or during the Feminist Revolution). Evidence will be provided to support this assertion in the form of an article published by a Cardinal in 1960 stating the negative effects of women wearing pants (which he openly considers men's clothing) as well as the general consensus and sentiment of Catholics while this practiced developed. Coupled with the fact that pants on women developed hundreds of years after the invention of pants, the fact that Catholic prudence in the form of common sentiment and the reluctance of Catholics during the onset of the practice of women wearing pants further illustrates that this practice is not in accord with the primary clause of the accepted definition of what can be considered proper intention concerning women’s clothing.


By the way, I would love to debate more about hair styles as a form of cross dressing [or, if you do not like this terminology, I would like to discuss possible "unacceptable hair styles on women (and men)"]. I am unsure if I used proper punctuation in the preceding sentence, but I suppose that does not really matter.


I have been able to make a lot of free time today and have done my best to reply expeditiously to any arguments in the debate, but I am unsure of whether or not I will be able to comment again today. I will do my best to check at least once more before I go to bed, but I look forward to your reply at any time which is convenient to you. God bless.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Adam, I think this will be my last post for a few days, my cousin is getting married in St. Louis and so I need to leave to catch a plane in about an hour. I have no way to know if I will have access to a computer, so if further debate on the topic is necessary, then I will gladly reply when I get home (should be late on Sunday).


You have proposed that we add another point to my list:

[quote]5. (It would be better placed as number 3, moving the other two down) A woman must recognize that pants are the first type of clothing to be designed and worn specifically by one gender and accepted solely as fitting for that gender (males) and then, after hundreds of years (I am not sure how old pants are; I am sure they have at least been around in some form since the Renaissance) became accepted on the other gender (females), thus making the style of clothing available and acceptable to both men and women in the eyes of secular society[/quote]

I must say, I do not think that this is true. Hats were initially worn by men to shield themselves from, while the fashion for women was to use an umbrella so as to not cover their hair. However, this changed over time and it became not only acceptable, but a sign of modesty for women to wear hats by the time of the Civil War (and I am almost certain earlier). This change from men exclusively wearing hats to both genders doing so predates the change in pants.

However, even if I were to grant you this point, which I do not, it seems to me that proposition 5 is not strong enough to outweigh proposition 3 (or, if you like, proposition 3 is not strong enough to outweigh proposition 4, as the ordering does not matter). I think this is true in light of two factors. First, the existence of proposition 1 is not negated by the existence of proposition (3) and so proposition (4) would still remain the only point upon which there is no contention.

More importantly, however, I would like to point out that Catholic Prudence is a thing that can be exercised properly by all people, regardless of their mastery of the historical development of fashion. It seems to me that proposition (3) would be weaker than proposition (4) by virtue of the fact that the vast majority of women are not well informed enough to be able to assert proposition (3). All women, however, can clearly and easily assert proposition (4).

Moreover, even if all of these things were to be completely thrown out the window, it seems to me that proposition (3) does [i]not[/i] lead to the conclusion that you draw.

You state that:

[quote]pants could not be considered to be in line with the chief measure of intent--Catholic traditions and Catholic prudence--for such an event would be unparalleled and unmatched throughout the history of fashions the genders and due to the fact that the practice was not accepted by Catholics at its onset both in this country and in others. [/quote]

1.) Just because an event has never happened before does not immediately mean it is not in line with Catholic prudence. However, I do grant that a thing which has never happened before should be suspect, and carefully considered by that prudence.

2.) The fact that the majority of catholics did not immediately start wearing pants merely shows that catholic prudence was operating as it should - carefully considering a new phenomenon and taking its time to make a decision about it. This is as it should be. In fact, I would claim it imprudence if anything different had happened.

Thus, even by granting proposition (3), the only thing is being asserted is that the informed catholic woman recongises a unique change in what is secularly accepted. The woman can then go further, and state that this unique instance of change in secular acceptance conforms with Catholic Prudence, and is acceptable.

Now, you have used a hypothetical situation which considers the reaction of a first century and Victorian catholic woman to the sight of a woman wearing pants. I am assuming that you are using this not as a proof, but rather, as a method of bolstering your position.

While I admit that it is an intriguing thing to wonder about, I also admit that there is no concrete way of knowing what such people would think. However, I would like to offer the picture a few posts back of a Saint who wore pants as a more concrete thing to consider. While I do not claim that the Saints were sinless or did not make mistakes, I do claim that they serve as models of Catholic Prudence, as well as the other virtues.


But I digress. In summary, I first would like to point out that I disagree with the basic assumption made in proposition (3), but in the interest of not getting into a historical debate, I have worked to show that even the acceptance of proposition (3) does not necessitate the conclusion that women's pants are a form of crossdressing.

If you disagree with any of the points made, or would like to add some insight or point out things that I have missed or gotten wrong, please feel free. Thanks!

********************************************************************

Also, did you see my response to the question you posed about my person feelings and opinions? If you have any comments, or want to elaborate on your personal outlooks, feel free!

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[picchick]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 4 2004, 12:42 PM'] Picchick, this is not the thread in which to discuss that. I do not really intend to discuss it, but if you create a thread, I will do so. Thank you. God bless. [/quote]
Apologies, Amarkich. I got off track there. I would like to discuss the topic though so I am posting a new thread. Sorry again.

Edited August 5, 2004 by picchick

[amarkich]

My brother was suspended until August 25... for some reason the IP address is completely blocked. I cannot access the forum except by another computer (right now I'm in an office at my church). I won't be able to post any responses to any threads (including this one, unfortunately) until that time (Aug. 25).

[amarkich]

Jeff, thank you for the well-written response. DUst has graciously granted my IP address the ability to post, so I have access to Phatmass again. I apologize that I cannot post a reply now (we went mountain repelling today for the first time, and I am exhausted!), but I would like to leave a clarification on my previous comments regarding the eventual adoption of pants on women. I do not claim that a generic type of clothing (like hats, or shoes, or socks, etc) constitute as cross dressing if they are gradually accepted, especially when they serve a functional purpose as with hats. The fact that men began to wear shoes when working and hunting and that women did not adopt the practice until later does not mean that women are cross dressing by wearing shoes. There is a difference between a specific article of clothing and a generic type of clothing. The proper analogy would be as follows:
pants: men:: dresses: women. If I were to wear a modern dress but had it cut to fit a man and had a masculine symbol on it (my example is always a football), would I be cross dressing? If I am cross dressing, why is a woman not cross dressing who wears pants. Could men likewise popularly adopt the wearing of women's dresses, simply changing the way it is cut and the design on it to a plainer, more masculine format and call it men's clothing? This is the difference between a functional type of clothing gradually being adopted and a specific article gradually being adopted. I will reply to your entire post at my next opportunity (which will most likely be some time Monday afternoon). God bless.

Edited August 8, 2004 by amarkich

[Guest JeffCR07]

Adam, it seems we are coming closer to our fundamental disagreement.

[quote]pants: men:: dresses: women[/quote]

I believe the logical flaw here is that "pants" are not, in fact, a specific article of clothing, as you describe, but rather an umbrella categorization. To assert the above would be, in my eyes, like asserting the following:

underwear: men:: panties: women

This is obviously flawed because underwear is not a specific article of clothing designated to men and women, but rather, [i]some[/i] underwear is strictly for men, and [i]some[/i] underwear is strictly for women. In the same way, [i]some[/i] pants are strictly for men, and [i]some[/i] pants are strictly for women.

Thus, your analogy makes a logical error, for it [i]begs the question[/i], and you are assuming your conclusion in the statement of the point.


Logical errors aside, I do not agree with your distiction between "functional" and "specific" articles of clothing. If hats were initially worn exclusively by men, then they would have been, at the time, recognised as articles of men's clothing. In the same way, pants may at one time have been understood to be articles of men's clothing. If you wish to use the terms "functionality" and "specific articles" I would say this: Initially, the hat was a specific article of clothing known as to be worn by men, but as time progressed, the universal functionality resulted in the broadening of its use in order for it to be worn by both genders. The same is true for pants.

that was just a quick response, as I know you are still planning on responding in full to my previous post.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Madonna]

Pants are very functional for women. There are some things I cannot do in a dress while retaining my modesty.

I myself wear skirts often. However, I cannot go to the gym in a dress. I cannot play basketball or football in a dress (which may be arguable an "unfeminine" thing to do, considering you used a football as the male symbol. But it is fun and wonderful exercise.) It is hard to babysit small children and be on their level (on the ground) in a dress.

I think women should wear skirts and dresses more often than they do today. However, for functional reasons, it is not practical to wear them all of the time.