|
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." Bisexuals,
Transsexual,
and Cross-dressers
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?
|
