Clothing Style Affects Our Psyche
In a catholic website (Click Here) I found the following statement from a Cardinal entitled: Men's Dress Worn By Women by Giuseppe Cardinal Siri, Archbishop of Genoa, Italy written in June 12, 1960. I would like for you to read some of what he wrote. He has some good insights. Sadly women have degenerated since 1960 and the state of men and women relationships are worse because his message was not received. He writes, "... there is this year a certain increase in the use of men's dress by girls and women, even family mothers. Up until 1959, in Genoa, such dress usually meant the person was a tourist, but now it seems to be a significant number of girls and women from Genoa itself who are choosing at least on pleasure trips to wear men's dress (men's trousers). "The wearing of men's dress by women affects firstly the woman herself, by changing the feminine psychology proper to women; secondly it affects the woman as wife of her husband, by tending to vitiate relationships between the sexes; thirdly it affects the woman as mother of her children by harming her dignity in her children's eyes. Each of these points is to be carefully considered in turn:--
"A. MALE DRESS CHANGES THE PSYCHOLOGY OF WOMAN.
"In truth, the motive impelling women to wear men's dress is always that of imitating, nay, of competing with, the man who is considered stronger, less tied down, more independent. This motivation shows clearly that male dress is the visible aid to bringing about a mental attitude of being "like a man." Secondly, ever since men have been men, the clothing a person wears, demands, imposes and modifies that person's gestures, attitudes and behavior, such that from merely being worn outside, clothing comes to impose a particular frame of mind inside. "Then let us add that woman wearing man's dress always more or less indicates her reacting to her femininity as though it is inferiority when in fact it is only diversity. The perversion of her psychology is clear to be seen. "These reasons, summing up many more, are enough to warn us how wrongly women are made to think by the wearing of men's dress.
"B. MALE DRESS TENDS TO VITIATE
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN WOMEN AND
MEN.
"In truth when relationships between the two sexes unfold with the coming of age, an instinct of mutual attraction is predominant. The essential basis of this attraction is a diversity between the two sexes which is made possible only by their complementing or completing one another. If then this "diversity" become less obvious because one of its major external signs is eliminated and because the normal psychological structure is weakened, what results is the alteration of a fundamental factor in the relationship. "The problem goes further still. Mutual attraction between the sexes is preceded both naturally, and in order of time, by that sense of shame which holds the rising instincts in check, imposes respect upon them, and tends to lift to a higher level of mutual esteem and healthy fear everything that those instincts would push onwards to uncontrolled acts. To change that clothing which by its diversity reveals and upholds nature's limits and defense-works, is to flatten out the distinctions and to help pull down the vital defense-works of the sense of shame. "It is at least to hinder that sense. And when the sense of shame is hindered from putting on the brakes, then relationships between man and women sink degradingly down to pure sensuality, devoid of all mutual respect or esteem. "Experience is there to tell us that when woman is de-feminised, then defenses are undermined and weakness increases.
"C. MALE DRESS HARMS THE DIGNITY OF THE
MOTHER IN HER CHILDREN'S
EYES.
"All children have the an instinct for the sense of dignity and
decorum of their mother.
Analysis of the first inner crisis of children when they
awaken to life around them even before
they enter upon adolescence, shows how much the sense of
their mother counts. Children are as
sensitive as can be on this point. Adults have usually left
all that behind them and think no more
on it. But we would do well to recall to mind the severe
demands that children instinctively
make of their own mother, and the deep and even terrible
reactions roused in them by observation
of their mother's misbehavior. Many lines of later life are here
traced out -- and not for good -- in
these early inner dramas of infancy and
childhood.
"The child may not know the definition of exposure, frivolity
or infidelity, but he possesses
an instinctive sixth sense to recognize them when they
occur, to suffer from them, and be bitterly
wounded by them in his soul.
"III. Let us think seriously on the import of everything said
so far, even if woman's appearing in
man's dress does not immediately give rise to all the upset
caused by grave immodesty.
"The changing of feminine psychology does fundamental and, in
the long run, irreparable
damage to the family, to conjugal fidelity, to human
affections and to human society. True, the
effects of wearing unsuitable dress are not all to be seen
within a short time. But one must think
of what is being slowly and insidiously worn down, torn
apart, perverted.
"Is any satisfying reciprocity between husband and wife
imaginable, if feminine psychology be
changed? Or is any true education of children imaginable, which is so
delicate in its
procedure, so woven of imponderable factors in which the
mother's intuition and instinct play
the decisive part in those tender years? What will these
women be able to give their children
when they will so long have worn trousers that their
self-esteem goes more by their competing
with the men than by their functioning as
women?
"Why, we ask, ever since men have been men, or rather since
they became civilized -- why have men
in all times and places been irresistibly borne to make a
differentiated division
between the functions of the two sexes? Do we not have here
strict testimony to the recognition by
all mankind of a truth and a law above man?
"To sum up, wherever women wear men's dress, it is to be considered a factor in the long run tearing apart human order.
...
"Men may come and men may go, because God has left plenty of
room for the to and fro of their
free-will; but the substantial lines of nature and the not less
substantial lines of Eternal Law have
never changed, are not changing and never will change. There are
bounds beyond which one may stray as
far as one sees fit, but to do so ends in death; there are limits
which empty philosophical fantasizing
may have one mock or not take seriously, but they put
together an alliance of hard facts and
nature to chastise anybody who steps over them. And history
has sufficiently taught, with
frightening proof from the life and death of nations, that the reply
to all violators of the outline of
"humanity" is always, sooner or later,
catastrophe.
"From the dialectic of Hegel onwards, we have had dinned in our
ears what are nothing but fables, and
by dint of hearing them so often, many people end up by getting used
to them, if only passively. But the
truth of the matter is that Nature and Truth, and the Law bound up in
both, go their imperturbable way, and
they cut to pieces the simpletons who upon no grounds
whatsoever believe in radical and
far-reaching changes in the very structure of
man.
"The consequences of such violations are not a new outline of
man, but disorders, hurtful
instability of all kinds, the frightening dryness of human
souls, the shattering increase in the
number of human castaways, driven long since out of
people's sight and mind to live out their
decline in boredom, sadness and rejection. Aligned on the
wrecking of the eternal norms are to be
found the broken families, lives cut short before their time, hearths
and homes gone cold, old people cast to
one side, youngsters willfully degenerate and -- at the end of the
line -- souls in despair and taking
their own lives. All of which human wreckage gives witness to the
fact that the "line of God" does not
give way, nor does it admit of any adaption to the delirious dreams
of the so-called
philosophers!
"V. We have said that those to whom the present Notification is
addressed are invited to take serious
alarm at the problem in hand. Accordingly they know what they have to
say, starting with little girls on
their mother's knee. "They know that
without exaggerating or turning into fanatics, they will need to
strictly limit how far they tolerate
women dressing like men, as a general rule.
"They know they must never be so weak as to let anyone
believe that they turn a blind eye to a
custom which is slipping downhill and undermining the moral standing
of all institutions.
"They, the priests, know that the line they have to take in the
confessional, while not holding women
dressing like men to be automatically a grave fault, must be sharp
and decisive. "Everybody will kindly
give thought to the need for a united line of action, reinforced
on every side by the cooperation of all
men of good will and all enlightened minds, so as to
create a true dam to hold back the
flood.
"Those of you responsible for souls in whatever capacity
understand how useful it is to have for
allies in this defensive campaign men of the arts, the media and the
crafts. The position taken by fashion
design houses, their brilliant designers and the clothing industry,
is of crucial importance in this whole
question. Artistic sense, refinement and good taste meeting
together can find suitable but
dignified solution as to the dress for women to wear when they must
use a motorcycle or engage in this or
that exercise or work. What matters is to preserve
modesty together with the eternal sense
of femininity, that femininity which more than anything else
all children will continue to associate
with the face of their mother.
"We do not deny that modern life set problems and makes
requirements unknown to our
grandparents. But we state that there are values more
needing to be protected than fleeting
experiences, and that for anybody of intelligence there are
always good sense and good taste enough
to find acceptable and dignified solutions to problems as they come
up. "Out of charity we are fighting
against the flattening out of mankind, against the attack
upon those differences on which rests
the complementarity of man and woman.
"When we see a woman in trousers, we should think not so
much of her as of all mankind, of what
it will be when women will have masculinized themselves for good.
Nobody stands to gain by helping to
bring about a future age of vagueness, ambiguity, imperfection and,
in a word,
monstrosities.
From the web (click Here to read the entire text) I found an article that had some good points. It was entitled: "What About Women Wearing Pants? by Brother Christopher T. Flournoy.
He writes, "What does the Bible say about a saved woman wearing pants? Is it even an issue with God? Or is it merely a matter of preference or opinion to be left up to individuals to do what is right in their own eyes? Since we believe the Bible, more specifically, the King James Bible, to be the FINAL AUTHORITY (not tradition, opinions, or how one "feels" led), let’s start there.
"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.
"After reading this verse, what things pop into your mind? Earrings and necklaces on men, long hair on men, short hair on women, dresses on men, and of course, pants on women. Notice the word "abomination" is used to describe how God feels about cross-dressing. I looked it up in Webster’s Dictionary.
"abom.i.na.tion -’ba:m-*-’na--sh*nn 1: something abominable 2: extreme disgust and hatred :
LOATHING
"That’s pretty strong language, wouldn’t you say? While most church members react in disgust to Sodomites who parade down the street in dresses, they readily accept and even defend women wearing pants. According to God’s Word, it is no more of an abomination for a man to wear a dress than it is for a woman to wear a pair of pants.
"Yeah, but that’s in the Old Testament, so it doesn’t apply to Christians today."
"Ah yes, the battle cry of the liberal and the carnal church member. Let’s deal with this objection by considering some other abominations found in the Old Testament.
...
"People seem to be playing "pick-n-choose" with Old Testament
verses. They want the
twenty-third Psalm, the hundredth Psalm, and all the OT
verses that won’t affect their lifestyle,
but then they try to explain away any OT verse that would
have any effect on how they live.
"II Timothy 3:16 - ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and IS PROFITABLE for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
"Is not Deuteronomy 22:5 scripture? If so, then it is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, and for instruction in righteousness.
Preachers, will you be like so many of the
liberals of today and cut these verses out of your Bible as
Jehoiakim did? Or will you stand like
Paul and be able to say,
"And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house," - Acts 20:20
"Yeah, but I thought all guidelines for how a Christian is supposed to live were in the New Testament"
... "Throughout this passage Paul continually uses the Old Testament to prove something. Focus on verses 6 and 11. Paul tells us that those OT writings are for us today. I suppose Paul would be called a legalist or a Pharisee by the liberals. Just because something is in the OT does not negate it from being applicable for us in the church age. Any commandment or teaching in the OT that is repeated in the NT is for us.
"Yeah, but Deuteronomy 22:5 is not repeated in the New Testament"
"Wrong. In fact, the New Testament is even more specific. I Timothy 2:9 says,
" . . . that women adorn themselves in modest apparel . . ."
"Apparel" today is a very general term that means "any article of clothing." But did you know that in 1611 the word "apparel" meant "loose, long flowing garment?" Look it up in an old Oxford English Dictionary that has the archaic meanings of words. Furthermore, the Greek word is katastole which is an EXACTING WORD, and it is the ONLY place in the Bible where it is used. There are lots of words for clothing, attire, etc., but this word comes from a verb form which means "to lower." It denoted a loose-fitting outer garment, which was LONG. Paul used this word specifically to tell women that they are to wear long DRESSES. Pants, miniskirts, tight dresses, etc. can not fit the definition of this exacting word. Consult your Vine’s Dictionary for verification of this word definition.
"The fact that God wants a CLEAR distinction between the appearance of a man and a woman is also repeated in I Corinthians 11 when Paul deals with the issue of hair length. God is very concerned with the outward appearance of a saved person. To believe otherwise is to profess ignorance of the Word of God.
"Yeah, but what makes you think that pants are a man’s garment?"
"Good question. I have a four part answer to this which demonstrates that pants always pertain to men, even today.
1."Breeches" were an article of clothing designed by God
for the priests who were all men. The
word does not occur very often in scripture, but in every case
it’s men’s apparel (Exodus
28:42, Leviticus 6:10, 16:4). According to my Hebrew lexicon,
"breeches" means "trousers that extend
to the knee, below the knee, or to the ankles." This would
include pants, shorts, or
culottes.
2.Until the advent of Hollywood and the movie screen,
everyone (including lost people) knew
that pants were men’s apparel and dresses were women’s
apparel, and they dressed accordingly.
Our culture’s (and sadly most churches’) acceptance of
cross-dressing has resulted largely
from the influence of television, the placement of women in the
workforce and the pressures of twentieth century
feminism.
3.The universal symbol for designating a men’s bathroom is a stick figure wearing a pair of pants. The universal symbol for designating a woman’s bathroom is a stick figure wearing a dress. Coincidence? Hardly. Even our sinful society recognizes that there is a difference in a man’s and woman’s clothing.
4.Pants are a symbol of authority, as evidenced by the saying " I’m the one who wears the pants in the family." Sadly, most women might as well wear the pants, since they rule their homes anyway!
"Yeah, but pants are not really that immodest"
"The following is from What in the World Should I Wear? by Mrs. Cathy Corle:
"A friend of mine told me that her decision to restrict her wardrobe to dresses and skirts came as a result of a ladies’ class. All the arguments and reasons that could be given were unheeded until the lady who was speaking 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 people’s 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? For my friend, Joetta, this was all the ‘evidence’ that was needed."
"To this I say, "AMEN!" Christian women should always be aware of Matthew 5:28,
"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust
after her hath committed
adultery with her already in his heart. "
"Yeah, but wearing pants may be wrong for some saved women, but I’m not ‘convicted’ about it."
"So you’re not "convicted" about wearing pants? Big deal. Does that give you permission to rebel against the Word of God? You must ask yourself, "What is the FINAL AUTHORITY on deciding what I believe and how I live? The Bible? Or how I ‘feel’ convicted?"
"Jeremiah 17:9 - The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
"Yeah, but wearing pants is not really that big of an issue, and they are much more comfortable and practical to wear"
"It’s kind of funny that for nearly 6000 years, women always wore long dresses, but only since the last 40 years, a dress is suddenly "impractical" to wear. You cannot change history to validate what you want to make acceptable for today. Nowadays, women think that they cannot so much as rake a few leaves without adorning themselves in a pair of pants.
"If you saw a man wearing a dress, what would you call him? Uh-huh, you would have no trouble knowing that it was wrong, and an abomination to God (even if his dress had a fly). But we have been conditioned by the world and erring brethren that a pair of pants is a good and acceptable thing for a woman to wear today. Just because it is common does not make it right. In fact, I believe that it is all part of Satan’s plan to further defile mankind by mixing the genders. Have you noticed how wimpy the boys are getting and how masculine the girls are getting? Women’s sports are becoming the rage. We would rather have our girls learn how to "Kill ‘em on the court" than to learn to be chaste and skilled at homemaking. This is how we have come to put our women in military combat positions. We would have never even considered this 20 years ago, but now we are eliminating the difference in the sexes that God made.
"Oh there will always be a difference in gender, because there HAS to be. But now, the emphasis is not on the beauty of a girl’s femininity (which brings out the masculinity in a man). NOW the emphasis in the difference in BODY PARTS! There is no longer the striking difference between a beautiful woman in feminine attire, long pretty hair, and a masculine man that practices chivalry. (Put a real feminine woman around a man and see how chivalrous he becomes.) Now the difference is emphasized in her physical body difference, which is leads to lust and a degradation of womanhood! (and manhood too). A feminine woman is in her rightful place of an elevated position. But as soon as she steps down off her pedestal to wear pants and be "equal" to a man, it drags everybody down, which is exactly what Satan wants. The devil is still whispering in Eve's ear to destroy mankind.
"If you look at it, you’ll find it was usually the woman that lead in the matters of sin and error. You can begin at the garden, through Israel’s idolatrous apostasy and even into recent history, with cults, Charasmania, and other errors. Now the boys are wearing earrings and have long hair, while the girls are wearing pants and chopping their hair off, even though this is forbidden in scripture (I Corinthians 11). To top it off, most preachers will not preach against short hair and pants because this would affect a majority of the women in his congregation including his wife and daughters! (Say amen right there.)
Another reason for wearing a dress
My wife and I have a son who attends a Waldorf School. We notice that the women all wear long dresses. My wife asked why and was told that pants mean a split in the personality. A dress means wholeness. It is best that there not be a row of buttons going all the way down the dress either, they said.
The above statements have many good points. It is spiritually low for women to wear pants. That is cross dressing. We must not get digested by Hollywood which is the main church of most Americans. We must work to stop Hollywood stars and other secular powers from leading America to hell. We must not do this through force like some Muslim countries do. I pray that WFWP can begin teaching what true femininity is.
Michael Jordan's earring
Michael Jordan is the most famous athlete in the world and he looks like a woman because he wears an earring. Shown here is his autobiography that shows him wearing an earring on the front cover. He is a terrible role model by doing such a thing. Millions of boys and men will become effeminate because of him. At the rate we’re going, men will be wearing make-up, dresses and nylons. Men should not have long hair and wear earrings. Men and women must look different, not the same.
You hardly ever see a woman or girl in a dress anymore. I was at a mall the other day and started counting how many women had dresses and how many wore pants. After I got to 70 women with pants and 5 with dresses I stopped. Women even look like men now. By the way, two out of the five dresses I saw were on teenagers who were wearing extreme mini skirts. Satan is not for modesty or having men and women be different. You can see his success by simply looking at how people dress.
