DiscussMormonism.com

Ran across this on one of the LDS blogs from BD Beals:

All groups have their idiosyncrasies. Mormons are no different, although there are days when I suspect we have more than our fair share of quirks.

Today’s little bundle of weirdness: A cultural ban on women wearing pants to church. You have to love a church in which the sight of a woman wearing a pantsuit in 2011 is controversial.

I haven’t settled on an explanation for this, although my list of possibilities is short:

a) a mindless slavishness to past dress standards (think the 1950’s),

b) an inability to either recognize the socially-defined nature of dress standards or to accept that social norms—including dress standards—evolve over time,

c) a desire to keep uppity women from being able to sit in any other position but with their legs demurely crossed, or

d) a desire to simply ignore everything around us and keep doing what everyone else in our tiny church bubble is doing (and avoid rocking the proverbial boat).

So where are you at on this issue? If it would help, imagine there are KEP inscriptions on the pants label.



http://www.dovesandserpents.org/wp/2011/01/why-all-mormon-women-should-wear-pants-to-church/

Is it OK if they cut their hair short, wear a white shirt and carry a Quad?

Joseph wrote:Is it OK if they cut their hair short, wear a white shirt and carry a Quad?

Yes, yes it is ;) Maybe they could even look like the girls from the singing group Tatu :)

I think it depends on if she can still look socially-acceptable feminine.



Mormon-Lord Approved!



Scowls of Dissapproval!

So with the pant-suit, it probably is just a matter of taking away the feminine quality of their Mormon women.

d) a desire to simply ignore everything around us and keep doing what everyone else in our tiny church bubble is doing (and avoid rocking the proverbial boat).

Hey Mok, you get top points for your attention getting Head Line. . . Surprised it passed the scrutineers???

Could it have anything to do with weather? Pants in the north where it's cold, dresses in the south where cold breezes don't do the wind-chill thing on sparsly covered flesh?

Probably not. That's too rational a reason for culturally crippled LDSers who whorship idols of false modesty, ancient tradition, and blind obedience. . .

Although, not as bad as an Evangelic Group that forbid women's undies to be hung on clothes lines. . .

moksha wrote:Ran across this on one of the LDS blogs from BD Beals:

All groups have their idiosyncrasies. Mormons are no different, although there are days when I suspect we have more than our fair share of quirks.

Today’s little bundle of weirdness: A cultural ban on women wearing pants to church. You have to love a church in which the sight of a woman wearing a pantsuit in 2011 is controversial.

I haven’t settled on an explanation for this, although my list of possibilities is short:

a) a mindless slavishness to past dress standards (think the 1950’s),

b) an inability to either recognize the socially-defined nature of dress standards or to accept that social norms—including dress standards—evolve over time,

c) a desire to keep uppity women from being able to sit in any other position but with their legs demurely crossed, or

d) a desire to simply ignore everything around us and keep doing what everyone else in our tiny church bubble is doing (and avoid rocking the proverbial boat).

So where are you at on this issue? If it would help, imagine there are KEP inscriptions on the pants label.



http://www.dovesandserpents.org/wp/2011/01/why-all-mormon-women-should-wear-pants-to-church/

How about just a desire by the authorities to see women's legs ?

Funny thing, the garments are pants, aren´t they? Celestial robes are dresses aren´t they. So should men wear dresses and women wear pants? It is all a matter of culture and lets face it in the 2011 cultural context pants are okay for everyone. For that matter a blue shirt is preferencial to a white one. I hate wearing ties and suit coats and in Brazil they are the sign of corruption yet some "leaders" still wear them in 90 degree weather. If the clothes cover the morally acceptable parts of the body, what difference does it make? Are we trying to look like Wallstreet or mainstreet? I believe Jesus would have prefered mainstreet. Food for thought.

kjwallace wrote:Funny thing, the garments are pants, aren´t they? Celestial robes are dresses aren´t they. So should men wear dresses and women wear pants? It is all a matter of culture and lets face it in the 2011 cultural context pants are okay for everyone. For that matter a blue shirt is preferencial to a white one. I hate wearing ties and suit coats and in Brazil they are the sign of corruption yet some "leaders" still wear them in 90 degree weather. If the clothes cover the morally acceptable parts of the body, what difference does it make? Are we trying to look like Wallstreet or mainstreet? I believe Jesus would have prefered mainstreet. Food for thought.

Are you located in Brazil?

A native?

A "lamanite"?

Jwallace writesFunny thing, the garments are pants, aren´t they? Celestial robes are dresses aren´t they. So should men wear dresses and women wear pants? "
***************************************

No, the men don't wear 'dresses'. They are robes. Or, better yet, Togas. Can't you see John Belushi and company getting into the Temple overnight like in Animal House(the movie) and having a Toga party? Swimming in the pool over the twelve oxen and swinging from the chandelier after shooting arrows into the animals painted on the walls in the earth room?

If women want to wear pantsuits, let them. Just like the boys wearing colored shirts. No harm at all except to some uptight jerks prejudiced views on life.

The friends we are visiting this week say a number of the women wear pants to church as it is colder than a mother in laws heart in the Dakotas and Northern Minnesota. Was 27 below when we woke up and went out to help him feed his cows. Women wearing dresses in these temps is silly.