Pragmatic Fashion Questioned  

Posted by The Viking in

I believe that all the readers of this blog are of such age that the words below are fitting...if not, then leave now!!!!!!!

While it is profitable to argue the question of feminity when discussing the essentialism of dressing in accordance with one's gender, nothing (in my opinion) is more powerful to drive home the true ridiculousness of pants-wearing-woman than an image.
Doethn't thith man look thsooo nithe in hith dresth? Come on!
What is more important to remember when examining the pants wearing of women is this; women and men are not the same. The physical accidents of a woman are intended as a natural enticement to men. The good God made it this way!
These are best used in accordance with the natural design by being shrouded in mystery. The nature of the design of pants does not allow for the mystery...
As a result, many sins against charity are in danger of being committed when a woman does not veil in mystery that which is intended to be hidden!
I can say this with absolute certainty as I am of the stronger gender! Beware of arguing these topics from an existentialist standpoint...
Nothing is more magnificent in the eyes of a gentleman--id est, an essentially ordered Catholic man, than the mysteriousness of the feminine form properly attired.
Now it must also be said that certain dresses or skirts are also in danger of placing a woman's male neighbor in the danger of committing a sin. Just because it is a dress that does not automatically mean it is modest or hides the physical accidents in the veil of mystery.
In likewise, a woman ought to cover her head while in church. This is because the mane of a woman is an essentially feminine quality that can indeed, when properly displayed simply distract an otherwise prayerful and well intentioned soul from the altar!
So---ladies of all ages, practice charity and keep thyself veiled and permit the testosterone laden gents to remain focused on the virtues taught by Him and His Mother!

This entry was posted on October 13, 2009 at Tuesday, October 13, 2009 and is filed under . You can follow any responses to this entry through the comments feed .


yeth he doth, gosh I had a hat that looked justh like that, it went tho well wif my purthe


I do have to say I still enjoy wearing my skirt, though these mens skirts are so dang expensive.

Got Kilt?

October 13, 2009 at 12:31 PM

sry about last comment dont mean to turn everything into a joke.

October 13, 2009 at 12:34 PM

that photo is creepy

October 13, 2009 at 4:48 PM

Bravo Viking! After your hiatus, you've shown us once again that you always get straight down to business! If I were a guy, I'd take off my hat to you; as a lady, I will show off another advantage of wearing skirts with a sweeping curtsy... :)

October 13, 2009 at 6:01 PM

The point here is that unfortunately, given the prevalence of and the inherent insidiousness of feminism in all cultures of the west, we tend to not view a woman wearing pants in the same manner that we would a man wearing a dress. But I ask you why it is that ‘a normal person’ would tend toward an immediate judgment of a man who wears a dress?
Now trousers are not intrinsically evil—that is not the point. And in fact men of modesty, clerics, still do wear clothing that is intrinsically modest. In former times, all men wore clothing that was in fact much like the modest wear of normal woman. What is normal now has shifted so much, that instead of admitting the danger of immodesty in all its forms, we make existential excuses for the pragmatic use of trousers on women.

October 14, 2009 at 8:59 AM

Im not sure I understand... I'm scared of having feminist idea's without knowing it, which is the reason for my original post. I cant be corrected if I don't put my ideas out there, right? I'm not supporting women in pants....I'm proud to be a woman and I love my skirts I just don't think pants-wearing is an evil in itself.

October 14, 2009 at 2:08 PM

I think we all understand you, stick-figure-girl. And you wouldn't want a holier-than-thou attitude anyway.

Viking, I love the picture and the point it illustrates. Fact is, to the West in this era, a skirt is a woman's garment. Best reason of all to wear it.

Thomas, you could post some pictures of you in your plaid mini-skirt this Saturday as the 3rd article in this series!

October 14, 2009 at 9:41 PM

Wow-John,you're a really good writer!

"Thomas, you could post some pictures of you in your plaid mini-skirt this Saturday as the 3rd article in this series!"

No! Please!! I'll have to clutch out my eyeballs in utter shock and horror! ;)

October 16, 2009 at 6:24 PM

i want to see a kilt!!

October 18, 2009 at 9:43 AM

Nothing says MAN more than a hairy legged dude in a Highland print skirt prepared for battle against 10,000 English! Man up Tommy and let's see the kilt! My son is slowly learning the pipes--still on the chanter...

October 18, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Men in kilts? Oh no...I'm gonna clutch out my eyeballs...

October 19, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Any guy looks manly when he's beating the crap out of an englishman.

October 19, 2009 at 5:14 PM

Stick, I almost fell out of my chair laughing... it was soooooo politically incorrect and awesome... love ya, li'l sis...

October 20, 2009 at 3:44 PM

I just posted some pics, I am not very manly looking, (sniffle, sniffle)

Mr. viking: Ohhhhh that's cool how old is he? I doubt he should have much trouble, I learned the basics in 4 months ( regularly takes 8-10 months though) you'll have to post a video of him playing when he starts the pipes.

October 21, 2009 at 11:21 AM

Post a Comment