ARE PANTS MEN'S CLOTHING?
Should Christian Women Wear Pants?
If you haven't noticed already, there is strong debate about whether or not it is right for a woman to wear pants. This debate can be very heated on both sides of the fence. Believe me, I have read many, many articles, Bible studies, and pamphlets on this subject. The problem I keep seeing however, is that most of what is written is written in defense of a viewpoint that was already firmly rooted. In other words, most authors already have a strong belief one way or the other and use certain scriptures to prove their point. When I did my research years ago, I did so with the full intent on finding out whether or not my Lord – that I love and want to please – said that it was sinful to wear pants. I had no preconceived ideas or strong inclinations to defend. I simply wanted the truth.
There is no debate in my mind now. After I read all that I could on the Hebrew and Greek definitions of the words 'britches', 'apparel', 'clothing', 'breeches' and the like, and after I read the history of pants in the Bible and in the world, it all came down to one thing for me: What did God Himself dress women in? What did He dress Eve in? What was His first intent and design? I believe that Eve's animal skin covering was in the form of a robe of some sort, not pants. This is no mystery, because as you look at what was worn by women in the Bible since that time, it has always been a robe or dress-type garment. Why should I do any different now? For me personally, regardless of whether or not God would give allowance/freedom for men and women to change their general attire, I wanted to follow what His original idea was.
(Now before you get upset and read no further, believing I teach a 'skirts-only' mentality...read through this entire article, because I do not espouse that.)
(Now before you get upset and read no further, believing I teach a 'skirts-only' mentality...read through this entire article, because I do not espouse that.)
Skirts and dresses make me feel feminine. They make me look more distinctly feminine. They make me act more feminine. It makes me blameless from other's gender judging. I feel skirts are usually more modest because they cover my bottom and thighs and don't cling to or draw attention to them. (Unless you wear a miniskirt or really tight skirt/dress.) Pants fit the contour of the bottom and thighs more and if you try to find a loose pair of jeans/pants and they are too loose, you tend to look sloppy or worse yet – like a man. Think rapper:
Thus, I became established in my skirt attire. But I had a dilemna. Even though I was now joyous and fulfilled in wearing skirts/dresses, many of my Christian friends wore pants, and I did not want to misjudge them. Also, if I was cold, could I wear pants under my dress/skirt? So I needed to go back to the question: Would God allow man to alter our attire if we still maintained a gender distinction? Was the biblical gender distinction focus solely on 'pants', or was it open to any distinctions? In other words, if an Israelite woman did not wear the 'pants' under her robe, but wore a turbin or other outer wear like a man, was it still o.k. because at least she did not specifically wear pants? In general, were there any instances in His word where He gives man freedom of choice, as long as those freedoms still fall within certain clear guidelines?
The short answer is, “Yes.” We see over and over in scripture where God gives man freedoms to make decisions as long as those decisions did not go against a direct mandate or cause another to stumble. For example, God originally called/used men to be the leaders, yet Deborah – a woman - led an army into battle. God allowed this and even used her. Consider this: Jesus was accused of being a 'drunkard and glutton and friend of sinners' but He was allowed to hang with these people by the Father – people that normally a 'good' Jew would not hang with – for a purpose. That purpose was to preach the truth to them. Also, Jesus said it was allowable to fetch your animal out of a pit on the Sabbath, even though the Sabbath was a day of rest and you were not supposed to do any kind of 'work'. The purpose of fetching the animal was a good one and was allowable. The Bible says, 'Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?', but if we just looked at that one verse without taking into consideration any other verses that may give allowances under certain circumstances, we could be led astray. We can't take just this one verse out the the entire Bible and say it was wrong for any man to ever have long hair, because the Nazirites had long hair and were not supposed to cut it! (Don't take this too far, though, and make up your own 'reasons' for disobeying a clear command/directive from God's word. Some people will mistake complete disobedience for 'freedoms'. )
Pants and the Israelite Priest:
Pants and the Israelite Priest:
Did God make a specific mandate that pants were the attire of all men? Not exactly. You see, if you do the research yourself, God only gave a specific mandate to wear pants to Israelite priests. Chew on that a minute. Yes, priests were men, but not all men were given an order to wear pants. Still, at one point or another, Israelite men who were not priests began to wear the 'breeches' (pants) under their robes. but this was not the case all the time or else God would have had no need to tell the priests to wear the breeches/pants in the first place, because they would have already been doing so. So to say that pants were mandates by God for all men in general is a half-truth, because yes, priests were men, but no, not all men were told to.
With that in mind, if a man who was not an Israelite priest wore pants, did God say he was in sin because it was only a priest's mandated clothing? Think about it. On that same note, since men today no longer wear the outer 'robe' garments that all men wore in the Bible, are they in sin? Are they actually wearing their 'underwear' on the outside? Who said that men could wear their 'breeches' on the outside with no covering anyway? Why isn't this an issue like the women-wearing-pants issue? To answer: In the Bible, God allowed men who were not priests to wear the breeches even though He did not mandate it for them specifically. We know this because we read later that He says to Job in Job 38 and 40 to gird up his loins “like a man” and Job was not a priest. Notice that He did not say to gird up the loins 'like a priest', so He obviously was not alarmed or angry that men who were not priests were wearing 'breeches'/pants.
Warning: This verse in Job is also used to teach that God Himself believed that pants were male-specific attire because He said, 'like a man'. I can see the anti-pants wearers' point here. After all, women did not 'gird up their loins', and God Himself acknowledges this here. Yet, on the other hand, I have to wonder about Deborah,. Did she, because of circumstances and for a specific purpose, wear pants underneath her robe/dress so that she could 'gird up her loins' when going into that battle? Hmmm. Maybe, maybe not. But we do know that she went into battle and that was definitely a man's place normally. That being said, what if a woman wears 'breeches' under her dress to be more modest when riding a horse or a bike or doing yard work? What if she wore long, loose shorts that covered her thighs for jogging? (The 'breeches'/pants the priests wore only went to the knees and covered the thighs.)
Warning: This verse in Job is also used to teach that God Himself believed that pants were male-specific attire because He said, 'like a man'. I can see the anti-pants wearers' point here. After all, women did not 'gird up their loins', and God Himself acknowledges this here. Yet, on the other hand, I have to wonder about Deborah,. Did she, because of circumstances and for a specific purpose, wear pants underneath her robe/dress so that she could 'gird up her loins' when going into that battle? Hmmm. Maybe, maybe not. But we do know that she went into battle and that was definitely a man's place normally. That being said, what if a woman wears 'breeches' under her dress to be more modest when riding a horse or a bike or doing yard work? What if she wore long, loose shorts that covered her thighs for jogging? (The 'breeches'/pants the priests wore only went to the knees and covered the thighs.)
One of the main verses used to to teach that women mustn't wear pants reads, '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 'no pants' adherers are assuming that pants are part of that which 'pertaineth to a man' because of the priests' attire, and because of what God said about the 'girding' being manly. Yet, this verse does not specifically address what the difference was, it merely states that they must be distinct. Why did the Lord feel the need to give this command? Was there a problem at the time? From what I have read, the Egyptians, Assyrians, and other nations practiced cross-dressing as part of their worship to their gods. Transvestism was practiced by many at that time, so that may be the reason for God's warning. As for the Israelites during this time, the men and women both wore robe-type garments as they had done for centuries, so this similarity in outer wear was not the problem. It must have been more than just.
For Women Who Wear Pants only:
For Women Who Wear Pants only:
Since men and women both wore the same type of outer wear then, with certain tellable distinctions (color, style, ornamentation, head covering), could a woman wear pants today, since men do also, and still maintain a distinction in gender attire? Based on what I shared above, I believe there can be room for this allowance, and that is why I do not judge. The possibilty exists, so I don't drive a fast, hard line against pants. I do believe, however, that the distinction needs to be stronger, and more modest, than what we see today. For example, if a woman wears pants, they must not be tight! They must not be form-fitted!
OUCH!!
One idea that I have seen is to wear a long, flowing, or loose top to cover your behind/bottom. Another nice look that my daughter wears on occasion is a cute, thigh-length feminine dress or sundress over top of a pair of pants/jeans.This dress-on-top-of-jeans style is actually becoming popular:
OUCH!!One idea that I have seen is to wear a long, flowing, or loose top to cover your behind/bottom. Another nice look that my daughter wears on occasion is a cute, thigh-length feminine dress or sundress over top of a pair of pants/jeans.This dress-on-top-of-jeans style is actually becoming popular:
Example photo from website - 'JustLongShirts.com'
Here are some other examples:
Taken from online source - see web logo.
But please, women, if you choose to wear pants, try to make your entire outfit more distinctly feminine. And don't even consider those 'skinny jeans'!! Yikes!! This is a tragedy. Moms, even if you aren't wearing them, are you allowing your daughters to tempt men in this way? You as her parent are partly responsible! And gals, don't think that by pulling your fitted 'layered' shirt over the top of your skinny jeans it really hides anything. It doesn't.
So I don't judge lady pants-wearers in the least bit, but I do encourage you to cover up your behinds better and not wear those form-fitted jeans. You can go to your local thrift store and find some sundresses/minidresses that may be too short to wear alone and wear them over your jeans. Or buy a long, loose shirt that covers over your bottom. I don't think you realize how much I can see the exact shape of your buttocks. Really. If I can see it, and get an exact image of whats underneath, so can everyone else – which means men...other husbands....sons....brothers. Again, at the very least, make sure those pants are not tight. Let's not follow the world's standards and let's not be a stumbling block. Let's go the extra mile in modesty and celebrate our femininity.
As For Me:
Now after all this allowance for pants on women, I still am convinced that the best attire for me personally as a woman is what God Himself ordained from the beginning. A robe-type covering. A modest, feminine, ladylike dress that says, 'I am woman and I love it'! For me personally, instead of going with an allowance, I want to go further. There is something about a women wearing a modest skirt/dress. People treat you differently. With more respect. You don't get the looks or whistles from men like you used to. That's not the way they see you now. And that is not the way I see myself now. Thanks be to God!
If you have any questions at all, please email me.
If you have any questions at all, please email me.
CHECK OUT THESE GOOD, BALANCED ARTICLES ON ATTIRE!:
ADDENDUM (12-4-11):
There are times when a pair of pants or long shorts can be helpful in giving modest coverage, like when pulling weeds or horseback riding or biking. Some wear the pants or long shorts instead of a skirt - some under a skirt at these times. (Squatting or spreading your legs in a skirt is not appropriate.) I also know of a Mennonite woman who dons pants only when milking her cows. If I go jogging at night, I generally put on a long, loose pair of shorts that cover all my thighs. For riding a horse, leggings under a shorter, looser peasant skirt can be helpful and give good coverage, or just a pair of loose fitting jeans/pants.
(Feb./2013) :
I also find that the 'dress over pants' look is feminine. I have been doing that now from time to time because it is chilly here, and I still look distinctly feminine. See my 'photos' page for some examples of the 'dress over pants' look. I do that quite often now - or a tunic over pants. I feel it is still distinctly feminine because there is a loose robe-type (tunic) covering that keeps our private area...well...private.
(Feb./2013) :
I also find that the 'dress over pants' look is feminine. I have been doing that now from time to time because it is chilly here, and I still look distinctly feminine. See my 'photos' page for some examples of the 'dress over pants' look. I do that quite often now - or a tunic over pants. I feel it is still distinctly feminine because there is a loose robe-type (tunic) covering that keeps our private area...well...private.
