Home | FAQ | Overview | Resources | Action | Application | Testimonials | Links| Contact

Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
1 Peter 3:3,4
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
1 Timothy 2:9,10





The Gender of Pants

by Lynford Heron.


Most women declare that pants does not have a gender and can be worn by both sexes.

Much has been written on the significance of dress and the language of clothes. Alison Lurie, fashion historian, writes that "before we are  near enough to talk, our clothes announce our sex, age, social class, and possible information (or misinformation) as to occupation, personality, opinions, sexual desires and mood." Like any other language, we must choose our clothing carefully, remembering that meaning depends on gender, place and circumstance. 

The prince of this world has erected a dark wall of deception between truth and error, preventing the citizens of earth from seeing the unadulterated truth on the issue of dress from the inception of time.  Until the walls of perceptions are cleansed, we will never understand the great significance of dress and gender.  Therefore, dear reader, before moving on, consider this story from the bible.

Mark 8:23-25
23 And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.
24 And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking.
25 After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly.

The Lord wants us to see clearly where this issue of pantswearing by women is concerned.  The objective of this article is to expose the deceptive plans of the devil, which seem to benefit humankind in some form or fashion, by removing all scales from our eyes through the employment of God's words, so that we can see his savvy workings clearly.

God's Position
Does the Lord have a voice on this issue?  And if yes, did he establish any clear distinctions between the apparel of man and women? These and other questions will be answered in this article.  Now, let us read God's position:

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 thy God.
The Lord never leaves His people in darkness, because we are the children of light.  Therefore, if the Lord feels so strongly on this issue that He considers it an abomination if violated, then He must have given instructions as to what a woman and a man should wear.  The Lord did not stop at saying that He made "man," he went on the say that He made them male and female.  The Lord never advocated sameness, the elimination of gender differences.  No, the Devil is the author of the same- sex and unisex clothing agenda.  He is also the author of feminism/women liberation and women in the work force which are a few of the principal factors that fanned and set ablaze this cross-dressing flame.  Before turning to the Word of God in highlighting the established differences in dress, let us look at the factors mentioned above.

World War ll (1941 - 1946)

"World War II could be considered the turning point for women's social and economic liberation. When men went off to war, wives and sisters took over their duties at home and moved into industrial plants around the nation. During this movement, “Rosie the Riveter” became the symbol of women who hung up their aprons and dresses and put on pants and boots to pick up a welding torch.  “Rosie” represented the strength and ability of women to perform a man's task." 

"As a young pre-boomer, I had known that my own father was slogging around France and Germany in a "half-track", a semi-tank, semi-4x4, armored patrol vehicle. Later, I would learn that industry positions left vacant by the volunteer and drafted males sent to the European frontlines, were being filled, of national necessity, by the women, wives and girlfriends who had been left to maintain the homefront.

This was a distinctive event because, prior to this national emergency, most women had been primarily engaged in the traditional roles of homemaker or pre- homemaker. When women did work, usually in their youth, or as spinsters, the majority held supportive positions as secretaries, bank tellers, receptionists and elementary school teachers. Notably, Rosie characterized the uncommon woman in that she wore pants , in an era when only men wore the pants. To this day I can remember an early fifties sermon in which our pastor was railing on about women appearing in public in pants in the nearby suburban shopping area, as well as the fact that some were seen smoking cigarettes.

In a recent edition of the Detroit Free Press, which celebrated the 50th anniversary of the end of WWII, was a retrospective story of the transition faced by the typical " Rosie" on the Homefront. This particular young woman had gone to work for the Murray Body Plant "because it was on the busline near her house, and she got hired on the spot. The work required her to trade her wraparound housedresses for pants. She agonized over the blue overalls, trying them on several times before getting up the nerve to wear them. She grew to love them for their comfort and their freedom and their daring. (She) didn't know the end of the war would mean that she'd be expected to leave her job at the factory. You've done your duty, the government would say, now it's time to do the patriotic thing: Return home so the veterans can have the jobs." ( Gerald L. Rowles, Ph.D)  

The move of women into the workplace, whatever the reason, was not heralded as positive by everyone. As one seventy-six year old woman said, “They [women] became more independent and being separated from their husbands and working with other men resulted in many divorces and broken homes -neglected children.” 

Woman's Liberation Movement
Pants, which once symbolized male authority (and was accepted by all via the use of this famous cliché "we know who wear the pants in this family"), was redefined to symbolize equality by feminist groups after the war. Women after working with men during World War ll were reluctant to retire pants wearing for it was a stepping stone towards the goal of liberation.

Consequently, The National Organization for Women (N.O.W.) was founded by Betty Friedan in 1966 because the Commission on the Status of Women established by President Kennedy in 1961 was not aggressive enough to accomplish their objectives.  N.O.W. advocates equal opportunity.  However, equality is not what feminist groups are after.  What they want is the elimination of any distinction between the genders and the devil has employed this movement for such a purpose.  Apparel before the war defined sex, conduct and roles.  In an attempt to change the language of clothes, N.O.W. campaigns that roles are confining.  Roles put people into a box.  Roles limit choices.  Roles keep women "in their place."  Any talk of roles brings ugly images of oppression, that women want to break away from.  Roles are now considered a chauvinistic way of defining the genders.  So they sought out to redefine any symbol (ex. pants) which identifies the sex and thus role.

Cross-dressing, unisex clothing and homosexuality
One method of advancing the liberation movement was to assume the prerogatives of a man by cross-dressing - wearing his pants.  However, the attire of men and women in the eighteenth century cemented their roles. The apparel made for man complimented his nature and allowed him to perform his duties, whereas the woman, arrayed in her modest apparel, hinders her from filling in for a man, yet totally empowering her to be queen of her domain.  A sphere of influence, behavior and conduct were also natural attributes of both sexes; each were responsible for separate tasks.  Those gender distinctions did not allow any overlapping between genders or cross-dressing.  Quite simply, men wore pants and women wore dresses.

The cross-dressing "devil-ution" was used to "unsex" the participant.  Therefore, N.O.W. embraced the fashion of pantswearing as an act of empowerment on the part of women based on what it symbolizes.  This fashion did not only remove the lines of demarkation between the sexes, the practice of usurping male authority by wearing male attire also led to androgyny - the union of both sexes in one individual.  There is a strong connection between the body and the mind.  (Marsden, 28)  If women disguise themselves as men in an attempt to acquire male social status and characteristics, the gender distinctions become blur as a result.

One writer had this to say, " There is still another style of dress which will be adopted by a class of so-called dress reformers. They will imitate the opposite sex, as nearly as possible. They will wear the cap, pants, vest, coat, and boots, the last of which is the most sensible part of the costume. Those who adopt and advocate this style of dress, are carrying the so-called dress reform to very objectionable lengths. Confusion will be the result.... In this style of dress God's order has been reversed, and his special directions disregarded.  This style of dress, God would not have his people adopt. It is not modest apparel, and is not at all fitting for modest, humble females who profess to be Christ's followers." (Selected Messages BK 2, pg 477)  

Therefore, while feminist groups are advocating sameness, this practice of cross-dressing also complemented the homosexual agenda.  Rudi Gernreich, the inventor of unisex clothing was one of the founders of the Mattachine Society, one of the first gay rights organizations.  He called his UNISEX clothing "an anonymous sort of uniform of an indefinite revolutionary cast."  Bisexual s, Transsexual , and Cross - dresser s are claiming the right to wear skirts and are actively pursuing its fulfillment by creating a new line of men clothing via the top designers of this world.  Men skirts will be the next fashion explosion of the 21st century.  The unisex advocates argue that, "If women can wear pants, them men can wear skirts." Is it really that farfetched?  Will it ever become a reality?  Well, no one ever dreamed that men would plait their hair and even worst, pierce their ears.  Not just one, but both ears are sporting earrings.  How farfetched is the idea of men in skirts, now that you are reminded that men are wearing earrings?  Their plans are picking up momentum as well.  In fact, Ohio University has a unisex restroom because their transgender students wanted a symbol on the restroom door that identified their sexuality.  

Many Christian women are fanning the flame of this "devil-ution" ignorantly, while some are indifferent, because many churches are desensitized towards social slackness and have become conditioned to women wearing pants as a new normality.  Twenty five years ago, a woman would never wear a pants to church or get caught on the road with it on.  It was considered a sign of rebellion and as the Bible says, rebellion is like witchcraft (1 Samuel 15:23). 

  By nature there is a marked difference between the male and female, even in the animal kingdom. It is a shameful thing to destroy the lines of demarcation that God has established. It is not only a shame unto the person, it is an " abomination unto the LORD thy God. "  The Bible does have a voice on this issue, and it speaks to preserve the difference between the gender by assigning distinguishable garments for man and women.

A word from God
The word 'breeches' according to Webster means "pants" and  Dictionary.com says, "it is a garment worn by men, covering the hips and thighs."   In fact, the term:"TO WEAR THE BREECHES" means "To usurp the authority of the husband; -- said of a wife."(Collegiate Dictionary).  An unbiased source such as the dictionary has maintained the assignment of pants to males.  The Lord used breeches to prevent confusion when identifying the sexes.  God gave coats to Adam and eve, but in addition, He also gave breeches to man.

Genesis 3:21
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Exodus 28:42
And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
43 And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons.
There are four references in the Bible pertaining to breeches ( Exodus 28:42, Exodus 39:28, Lev 6:10, Ezek 44:18) and each quote is directed to man. Therefore, when the Lord said, "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man" He was saying that the women were not suppose to wear breeches. In today's language as explained by a universal standard, the dictionary, it is now called pants.

The Lords has spoken.  Choose today, dear friends, to whom are you going to be obedient.  The prince of this world, the devil, or a Loving Savior, God the Father?