by Katy Chamberlin
(The following article can be purchased in an attractive booklet from Freedom of Health for $1.00 plus S&H)
The 1960s is seen as the era that initiated an attack on the American family, followed by the New Left and feminism. The conditions at that time favored an advance towards humanism, an obsession with self, an appetite for consumption (everything put on credit) and the unisex movement. In other words the femi nism movement represented moral decay. Two of the main destructive features to come out of this movement is the attack on the status of the homemaker and the change in how women were to dress—the new age of women wearing pants had finally arrived! All in the name of "women's rights!"
It is hard to escape the conclusion that feminism is Spiri tualism, Liberalism and Communism by another name. These movements promoted gender conflict. Feminism is the intellec tual organization of gender hatred. The feminist aim is to over throw "patriarchal tyranny." Feminism isn't about equal rights for women, it's about rebellion against God and the authority which God has ordained in our homes, churches, and government.
Feminism originally was an expression used by suffragettes — who were predominately pro-life, however, the liberal movement took over and changed the meaning to represent women who favored abortion and identical roles or quotas for women in society as a whole. Today feminist prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do, seek women in combat in the military just like men, refuse to take her husband's last name when marrying, shirk traditional gender activities and view traditional marriage as unacceptably patriar chal. In this pamphlet though, we are going to concentrate on "the gender of pants."
Pants were once symbolized as "male authority", but was redefined to symbolize equality by feminist groups after World War II. Many women that worked at this time were reluctant to retire wearing pants for it was a stepping stone towards the goal of liberation. Apparel before the war defined sex, conduct and roles. Today roles are now considered a chauvinistic way of de fining the genders.
Throughout history there has always been distinguishing items of clothing to differentiate man from the woman, as well as female items designated to differentiate woman from the man.
But today, if we ask someone what is the male article of clothing and the person isn't thinking, they'll say, "pants" but then they must stop, because women wear pants too. In other words, our culture has eliminated the male garment. There is none! When the man lost his particular type of attire (pants), he lost his role. Both genders now wear pants. Man is no longer left with a distinguishing mark for his attire. Men wear jeans — women wear jeans! Men wears pants — women wear pants! Men wear pant- suits — women wear pant suits! Now tell me, what specific article of clothing is left to set apart the male from the female? NONE!
At first when the world did away with the male garment, Christians loudly protested. When women started wearing pants, Christians opposed it. And when Christian women started wearing pants, it certainly wasn't because they got together to seek God s will on this matter. No! It was a matter of rebellion and the church went right along on this issue without so much as a whim per. It's been so long since most churches have asked women to wear dresses and skirts (and no pants to church), and only the men should wear the pants that now it doesn't even seem like a biblical teaching any more.
In most countries now women are wearing slacks as their main attire. If you walk down any street of any city or town, USA, the proportion of women wearing slacks vs. skirts or dresses is now close to 10:1 ratio and in some areas you won't even find one woman wearing a skirt or dress. This modern-day fashion has now permeated just about every culture in the world. In fact, it could be said of many women that they "live in slacks"—not even owning one skirt or dress. For nearly 6,000 years, women wore long dresses, but only since the last 50 years or so, wearing dresses has suddenly become "impractical," and "old- fashion."
Since the beginning of civilization, until just recently, women have not displayed themselves in trousers that delineated the lower half of the body which gives such visual prominence to their hips and legs.
History shows that Victorian times and on—until mod ern attire came to the forefront—women that wore slacks were considered both immodest and unfeminine. The early feminists who wore slacks were looked down upon for their attempt to look like a man. One common criticism was that slacks gave a woman "an extremely mannish look."
EXACTLY WHAT IS DEFINED AS MEN'S ATTIRE?
All dictionaries up to the early 20th century defined "trousers" as "a garment worn by males." This identification of trousers as a male garment did not change until the 60s after women began to liberate their legs publicly in the 50s.
Pants used to be a symbol of authority.
Slacks, jeans, and trousers worn as an outer garment are not and never have been feminine apparel, and by put ting them on women, even though women's pants have a dif ferent designer label, don't make them any less a man's article of clothing.
Have Christian women forgotten what label has been given to most current-day fashions? Today's designers (most ly homosexuals) call the fashions-of-the-day UNISEX! It is Satan's plan to do away with the distinctness of the sexes. He is using clothes to break down the barrier between the sexes. Women may try to feminize their outfit by putting on a more feminine top with her pants, but there still is only a slight difference between the two sexes wardrobe. The Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy are very clear that there is to be a dis tinct difference in the way men and women dress.
A man is to wear masculine clothing, and a woman is to only wear feminine clothing. The man's attire should express his masculinity by tending to be straight and narrow, while a woman's attire should be round, soft, graceful and flowing. Pants are sharp and narrow—harmonious with mas culinity. Pants are anything but graceful. It would be abhor rent if a man were to wear the clothing of a woman, so why is it not abhorrent if women wear masculine clothing such as pants? At one time the church adhered to this thinking and today the church is fast asleep as to what is masculine and what is feminine!
WHAT ABOUT MODESTY?
Shorts and slacks break both the gender as well as the modesty barriers, which is an ideal recipe for not only immod esty, but "masculinity." Once women begin wearing slacks it then becomes easier to capitulate and start wearing shorts, bathing suits, etc.,—all this is nicely gift-wrapped for today's feminist woman including many Christian women. Generally women that wear pants only lose some of their femininity, but they still have a more masculine walk, many times sit with their legs improperly spread out and even in some cases behave in a more masculine manner especially the younger girls.
When I'm out in public and I wear a skirt or dress I find that I'm treated with more respect, have store doors held open for me and even have folks comment on how nice it is to see a woman with feminine attire on, but when I used to wear pants out in public I rarely received this kindly treatment.
Of course there are obviously varying degrees of modesty depending on the cut of the pants, but that still does not mean they are "modest" slacks—even though they may look modest on the clothes rack; but once on the female body they take on the form of the body and still define the lower front and back part of the woman, which now is put on display for the world to gawk at!
Even if the pant legs are of generous width and not par ticularly clinging, the fitted area is still bound to offset the female form to a greater or lesser extent, and its very visibility is what causes an immodest impression to be fixed in the mind. Any woman who does not agree should take a long, hard look in the mirror and try to see herself as others (especially men) see her!
RATIONALIZING—IT'S SO EASY TO DO!
In the Scriptures the Creator never alludes to sameness or the elimination of gender differences through dress. It is Satan that is the author of the same sex—unisex clothing. He is the author of women's liberation and cross-dressing. God has given us directives in the Scriptures, but they now seem obscure to us be cause we have adjusted to the world's standards and have settled into a mode of thinking and rationalizing that we've become comfortable with. Once Satan convinced Christian women that it's OK to follow the custom of wearing pants, they no longer believed that there is any harm in dressing in the "unisex" clothes. Many Christian women no longer want to be peculiar. It is much more comfortable blending in with society and their excuses for not wearing skirts or dresses are many.
The carnal nature is very interesting. It causes many battles with self, and these battles never ease up. When we enjoy doing something that may be wrong, we'll fight "tooth and nail" to hang on to that sin and allow rationalizing to take over and the battle with the carnal nature vs. wanting to do God's will rages on. But only one of these can have supreme rule over our lives, we cannot have it both ways. Christian women need to overcome sin in themselves, and should not provoke it in others. Either we are dressing for God or we are dressing for the world, we cannot have it both ways.
I've heard Christian women say they wear pants because they are more comfortable in them, and certainly God wants women to be comfortable—right? These women are convinced that wearing pants is not only OK, but modest. They really believe they are more modestly dressed in pants than when wearing skirts or dresses. They are also convinced that pants are more convenient to work in; easier to play active sports in and are warmer in cold weather. But little thought has been put into the ingenuity and resourcefulness that a judicious combination of articles of apparel can be cho sen from among the contents of a woman's wardrobe to enable her to wear skirts and dresses for many of these occasions—bad weather, riding bikes, hiking, etc. Granted there are a few sporting activities which cannot be performed in a skirt—so these activities should be out of bounds for women. Sacrificing convenience and freedom is not easily done, but if a more restricted lifestyle for the sake of modesty and obeying God is the path to becoming victorious then it is also potentially one of the more positive sacrifices that will bring with it rewards.
Of course there's more involved with the dress issue then just following a dress code: Satan wants men and women to dress alike and look alike, and even to perform many of the same jobs and functions (unisex); hence another reason for the big push for women to wear pants. There's also the issues of femininity, principles, being good examples for our families, morals, etc., all of these important points are weaved into how we dress. God created a specific role for women, and God has man's role well defined. God did not intend for both sexes to dress alike, perform the same duties, think alike, etc., but when women and men begin dressing in unisex clothing something terribly amiss happens to each of the defined roles. Hence today there is much confusion as to what a women's role is in life. Today women perform mascu line jobs and some men perform the jobs that were intended for women. Some men and women are even having sex changes due to confusion and unbridled wickedness in their minds.
The feminist movement is so pervasive in our society . "Leave it to Beaver" days have vanished where the mother stayed home, took care of her family and home, wore dresses and knew what her role in life was. Today TV and movies depict "unisex" clothes on just about every man and woman that appears on the screen. Entertainment is probably one of the main factors that has destroyed a dress code for men and women. How unfortunate it is to see men and women both dressing in the same basic attire—PANTS! But even more unfortunate is the feminist mindset has now per meated the minds of Christian women—women who probably disavow the feminist label, but still follow the world's customs. God never gave us permission to wear masculine type cloth ing. In fact His words in the Scripture are very strong con cerning this—such as "shameful," "abomination," "detestable" and "vile."
The following is an excerpt from: "What in the World Should I Wear? by Mrs. Cathy Corie
The lady speaker said: "Let me just demonstrate something to you." She asked the ladies in the audience to close their eyes momentarily. She held up a large picture of a woman in an attractive, modest feminine skirt and blouse. She asked the ladies to open their eyes. Then she inquired, "What is the primary focal point to this picture? Where did your eyes first fall naturally?" the audience agreed that their eyes were first drawn to the face of the woman in the picture.
"She once again asked the ladies to close their eyes. When they opened their eyes they were looking at a large poster of a woman in a sport shirt and blue jeans. She asked, 'Now, be honest with yourselves, and tell me where your eyes first fell naturally when you looked at this picture?' Many of the ladies in the crowd were surprised to find that most of their eyes first focused upon the hips and crotch area that were so vividly emphasized before they ever noticed the woman's face."
"If this happened in a crowd of ladies, how much more would it be true of men?"
MORE RESEARCH ON THE REACTION WHEN WOMEN WEAR PANTS!
To go along with the above statements regarding the reaction people give when seeing women in pants—the advertising agencies prepared marketing research to find out the reaction of men when looking at women wearing pants. Using newly developed technology, they tracked the path that a man's eyes take when looking at a woman in pants. They found that when a man looked at a woman in pants from the back he looked directly at her buttocks. When he looked at a woman in pants from the front, advertisers found that the man's eyes dropped directly to a woman's most private and intimate area. Not her face! Not her chest!
Advertisers know that when a man views a woman wearing slacks or a skirt with slits their eyes will follow the lines right up her legs and will finish the picture in their imagi nation. Women's eyes may do the same thing, but since women don't have the same type of temptations, their imaginations don't complete the picture in the same way as men's do.
This plunge into forbidden dressing by either sex was not by accident and yet this often glossed over topic is a rarely mentioned subject amongst Christians. Most Christians can't even see anymore that it is a "mannish" fashion for a woman to wear suit coats, slacks, etc.
THE CHRISTIAN WOMAN'S RESPONSIBILITIES IN DRESS
When we become an adopted daughter of Heaven's Royal Family, this honor and privilege carries some very important responsibilities with it. Not only are we to serve Christ faithfully, but our eating habits, our deportment, our service, and our dress are all to be a reflection of heaven.
Christian women should be aware that clothes are a language—body language. Wearing any masculine apparel (pants, etc.) sends out the statement to others that we are "just like them." Christian women's clothes should be sending the message to others that they represent Christ—not the world!
If you were to walk into a room filled with all non- Christian women wearing pants, except for one woman who is a Christian and is wearing a dress, and you were asked to pick out the Christian, who would you select as the Christian in that room? Very likely you would choose the lady in the dress as the Christian. Why? When Mormon missionaries come to the front door they are dressed respectfully in suits, which makes it easy to recognize whom they represent. Shouldn't we also want others to recognize us immediately as Christians by our comely appearance and modest dress? But if we approach strangers while attired in pants, at first it is difficult to know who or what we represent because we look just like the rest of the world whether we realize it or not. How unfortunate for Christian women to be lumped in with the world's "god of fashion."
What most Christian women don't realize is that the wearing of pants comes from the feminist/spiritualist/communist move ment and by wearing pants they are indirectly supporting this movement. Remember, feminism is socialism/communism which is an intellectual organization of gender hatred. Let's not support these movements any longer and focus only on supporting God's movement—Christianity.
It is time for Christian women to wake up to the fact that we have a crisis on our hands. We must face up to the dress problem in the church and individually. We need to re- evaluate our spiritual, mental, and physical lives. We should expose the feminist agenda and challenge other Christian women to give their wills to Christ. To become "victorious" we need to take up the challenge of dressing modestly (in skirts and dresses), and stop bowing down to unisex clothing.
So, ask yourself this very crucial question—does a dress pertain to a man or a woman? To whom therefore do pants pertain? To men of course! So, dear Christian women, if you want to become "victorious" in Him take up the dress challenge and start walking down that "path of growth." Dress to please Christ and not the world. It is a most wonderful and rewarding experience when following the feminine "blueprint" God designed for His adopted daughters and not follow the feminist blueprint that Satan designed.
"It must be clearly understood that every time you hear someone rant or rail that it is inherently "unfair" or "legalistic" to have rules pertaining to clothing, that such individuals are directly and unequivocally attacking the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Whether they realize it or not, they are in effect saying: "my dress standard is a neutral zone. Jesus does not speak to this issue." — Jeff Pollard, Christian Modesty and the Public Undressing of America
""Now we are ready to make some observations about the modern social scene which could explain why we see the alarming rise of homosexuality. If God saw that the blurring of sexual iden tity could cause problems, then we must admit to having a great problem. We are seeing three factors at work today which have never operated before in human history at the same time. Taken alone, none of these three things would be too impressive. But when we see the combined effect of their influence, it is frighten ing even to contemplate. The three contemporary conditions are these: (1) The Women's Lib Movement, whose declared purpose is to interchange the roles of men and women in much of our social, economic, and religious life. (2) The pantsuit fashion revolu tion, which has led the majority of women to abandon the traditional feminine dress styles. (3) the growing tendency of men to dress in frills, with feminine hair styles, and accompanying de-masculinzation. —Creeping Compromise, Joe Crews, p. 40.
Confusion on Deuteronomy 22:5 A Brief Outline Study
"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD they God." Deuteronomy 22:5 —this is one of the most commonly quoted and debated verses in the Old Testament.
There are a few folks that use this text for an entirely different thought. The word pertaineth in the King James Ver sion of the Bible, is translated from the Hebrew word keliy, which means "article, vessel, implement, or utensil." And the word man, in both the first and last part of Deut. 22:5, is the Hebrew word geber meaning "man, strong man, or warrior (emphasizing strength or ability to fight). So their interpretation on this verse is that Moses, when writing Deut. 22:5, was quite intentionally not talking about a man in general, but a very specific kind of man—namely, a warrior or soldier. And the bottom line to their debate is "the woman shall not put on (the weapons/armor of a warrior), neither shall a (warrior) put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD they God."
Now let's look at the other side of this debate. First of all, when you really analyze the above translation it makes little sense that God would have this verse stated for a small hand-full of women who wanted to put on military uniforms.
Now let's read Testimonies 1, page 456:3: "I saw that God's order has been reversed, and His special directions disregarded, by those who adopt the American costume. I was referred to Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD they God.' God would not have His people adopt the so- called reform dress, It is immodest apparel, wholly unfitted for the modest, humble followers of Christ.
"There is an increasing tendency to have women in their dress and appearance as near like the other sex as possible, but God pronounces it abomination. 'In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefaced- ness and sobriety.'" 1 Timothy 2:9.
It certainly is clear from the above that this article was not referring to women wearing the military garb of soldiers. It is recommended that the entire chapter be read.
Below is a very short study outline on the word man, woman garment and pertaineth from Deuteronomy 22:5. It is also recommended that one does some Bible study into this subject.
A study on the word "man" (Heb. #1397) Geber
Numbers 24:3, 15 (To be mighty—in this case arrogance)
Joshua 7:14, 17-18 (Men with strong minds with divine
Judges 5:30 (army men (made very clear—who and what)
2 Samuel 23:1 (David—raised to lofty position.)
I Chronicles 23:3 (the Levites were numbered
Job 3:3 ("a man" emphasized as being strong, disting uished from women and children. Geber is here poetically employed.
13 times #1397 are referenced in Job and all refer to a strong man as described in Job 3:3
Psalm — 9 times #1397 are referenced. All imply a strong not weak man
Proverbs — 5 times #1397 are referenced. All imply a strong man
Jeremiah — 5 times #1397 are referenced. All could only imply a strong man
Lamentations — 4 times #1397 are referenced. All could only imply a strong man.
Conclusion: The word "Geber" #1397 appears 49 times. The overall definition from the Strong's Concordance is: "A strong man, a young vigorous man as distinguished from women and children. Out of 49 times only 1 out of 48 times (excluding Deuteronomy 22:5 is designated as a soldier or army (98% in favor of a strong man and not a soldier). In other words God was making a strong case by using a man's man or soldier to make it perfectly clear In Deuteronomy 22 what a man is not to wear and that women were not to put on men's garments. Derivative of #1397 is #1403, which is "Gabriel" meaning strong man of God.
WOMAN — #802 in Strong's Concordance
Hebrew #802 is the most commonly used and so used in Deut. 22:5. Meaning—woman in contrast to men—wife.
GARMENT OR GARMENTS—#8071 Hebrew #8071—dress, mantle, clothes, garment, cloak, rai ment.
Used 5 time in: Gen. 9:23-35:2—clothes Judges 8:25 —clothes Proverbs 30:4 —clothes
Isaiah 9:5—garments in referenced to spoils of war—"spoils rolled in garments"
The Hebrew #3627 appears only once in the Old Testament for the word "pertain" or "pertaineth" It's meaning—article, thing, a general term that can be used or any object including clothing
#3627 does appear 323 times in the Old testament, but al ways stating a different article—never "pertain or pertaineth"
At the conclusion of this study I personally walked away believing all the more that God means what He states and that is Christian women are not to wear men's clothes and men are not to wear women's clothes. The Lord deliberately em phasized "strong men" to get His point across that there is definitely a difference in men's and women's attire.
A FEW DIFFERENT TRANSLATIONS ON DEUTERONOMY 22:5
A woman must never wear anything belonging to a man, nor must a man put on woman's clothes; for whoever does that is abominable to the Eternal your God. —James Moffatt Trans lation.
A woman must not wear men's clothes nor a man put on women's dress; anyone who does this is detestable to Yah- weh your God. —The Jerusalem Bible
No woman shall wear an article of man's clothing, nor shall a man put on woman's dress; for those who do these things are abominable to the Lord your God. —The New English Bible
A woman must not wear men's clothing, and a man must not wear women's clothing. This is abhorrent to the Lord you God. —The Living Bible
A woman shall not wear any garment that pertains to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garments; for whoso ever does these things is an abomination in the sight of the Lord your God. —Ancient eastern Manuscripts.
Other books available for the Christian Woman
Thy Nakedness; Lord What Shall I Wear? By Gwen and Rick Shorter
This book is an excellent study and reference tool on the subject of dress. It gives answers to questions such as: What's wrong with make-up and jewelry? How long should my dress be? Is it wrong to wear pants and shorts? This book goes into the history on dress and fashion and gives Biblical answers for many dress principles that women need to know. It is must reading for Christian women seeking answers on dress reform.
8x5 – 215 pages - $13.00
Jewelry – The Spiritualism Connection by Gwen and Rick Shorter
The main question is: Is there a spiritualism connection with what we wear? The Shorters delve into ornaments/jewelry – body piercing – cross-gender dress – hair styles, - tattooing – what's really in your make up? This book is fascinating reading, ecuational, historical, and easy to read.
8x51/2 – 272 pages - $15.00
The Victorious Woman by Katy Chamberlin
This book is one-of-a-kind – a lovely treasure for any Christian woman. The book is filled with many colorful, fine-art, old fashioned pictures of flowers, butterflies, etc. It is an inspirational, encouragement filled book with uplifting short articles, quotes and Bible verses.
81/2 x 5 - 72 pages Spiral binding - $13.95
Should Christian Women Wear Pants? By Kay Chamberlin
6x9 pamphlet – 16 pages - $1.00
Freedom of Health
P.O. Box 1540
Grants Pass, OR 97528
Call for shipping & handling costs