Author Topic: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform  (Read 15447 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
« Reply #20 on: February 09, 2015, 04:03:11 PM »
The following article may be shocking to you, but I encourage you to consider the ramifications of this type of thinking. Does he not have a valid point? If the women’s rights movement leads to freedom for women to dress like men, should not men have equal rights that give them freedom to dress like women? Think about it. Is this where society is heading? What do you think God thinks about this whole matter?—Linda Kirk

Equal Choice

 in the Black Corduroy Pants, et al." by Mel Feit, published in
The University of Dayton Review, Volume 18, Number 2.

She wore black corduroy pants and had short, straight dark brown hair. She had on no makeup and, except for a pair of small hooped earrings, wore no decorative jewelry.

This was our second date. At the end of our first meeting, for coffee, she raised her lips the six inches or so to mine, and we kissed softly, sweetly, then more passionately. Her eyes sparkled. She smiled and said she wanted to see me again.

This night, over dinner, she reiterated that she was a strong, capable, intelligent, independent woman. She was attracted to me, she said, because she sensed I respected her power. So many men were intimidated by it, resented her for it and rejected her.

I understood. Our hands touched and there was a moment of silence and caring.
After awhile we talked about our work. She worked for a law firm where they didn't mind if she came to work in pants every day. She had demanded of her employer the right not to have to wear skirts or dresses to work, and he consented. She had worn a dress once, a few years ago, and hated it.

"Well," I said, exuberant over having finally found a woman who could appreciate me, "I know what you mean! I am also uncomfortable with sexist dress codes. I dislike having to wear pants all the time, they're too confining. I like to wear skirts sometimes. I like the flow of fabric around my body. I enjoy the cool comfort in summer. I feel more graceful, more completely masculine in a skirt. And besides, pants are boring. Skirts allow me to experiment, to change, to dress more creatively."

"Um… well… oh… wow… geez," she faltered for a moment, and then recovered her composure. She could never be sexually aroused by a man in a skirt, she said. And what was the real reason why I wanted to wear skirts, anyway? Was there something wrong with me? Was I gay?
How dare she. How dare she insist on such a one-sided, self-centered liberation. How dare she be so unwilling to share her new freedoms with me. We moved apart. Our conversation grew stilted. This time, after dinner, there was no kissing. When the check came - brace yourself – this independent woman expected me to pick it up. How dare she.

So that's the story of the woman in the black corduroy pants. Oh, I could have told you about the woman in the blue suit and blue striped necktie, who thought women looked adorable in men's clothing, and who did a lot of her own clothes shopping in the men's department at Macy's, and who abruptly ended our date when I told her I liked to wear skirts. "That's sick," she said.

"You're not going to borrow any of my skirts," she quipped as she left. "You're not going to borrow any of my ties," I shouted back.

And then – this one is my favorite – there was the woman in the green polyester pants with the fly-front. She was an assertive, businesslike, professional woman who did the maintenance work on her car, most of the repair work in her home, and who went to the gym a few times every week to pump iron. She could beat men at arm wrestling and she was proud of it. I was proud of her, too, until she told me she didn't want me to wear skirts, because, she said, if she had to share her femininity with a man it would make her feel like less of a woman. Really, that's what she said. I'm not kidding about this or making it up. "OK, well, what qualities of traditional masculinity are reserved for me, off-limits for you," I asked her in a state of shock, but she had no answer.

I suppose I could also tell you about the woman in the brown woolen slacks or the woman in the faded jeans, but it's not necessary. Same stories only different pants. Women demanding liberation for themselves, expecting men to abide by sexist restrictions, and thinking there was something fair or equal about that. "Men resigned themselves to a lack of individuality in clothes a long time ago," writes feminist author Susan Brownmiller, excusing this lack of male freedom. How dare she.

Let's understand one thing clearly: this clothing issue isn't superficial or silly. In every corner of the world, in primitive and sophisticated cultures, and throughout history, self-expression through fashion has been a natural, vital part of what it means to be a human being. What we're talking about here is the right of men to express the full range of their humanity, to have the same freedom to publicly express their creativity that women have to express their strength. That's not trivial. Too many men are being choked to death emotionally, feeling guilt and shame for wanting the very same choices that women take for granted.

So why do so many women in so many different kinds of pants object so strongly to my wearing skirts? Well, perhaps they have been conditioned to think only in terms of women's rights. Maybe they have been educated to expect change only when it's good for them. After all, the contemporary women's movement began at a time when conscripted men were dying in Vietnam. As tens of thousands of draftees returned home horribly disfigured, emotionally scarred, permanently paralyzed or in body bags, women started a movement to free women. It was a movement born of arrogance and sexism, I feel, because it was designed to completely liberate one gender while ignoring the oppression of the other. It represented a vision of equality in which only men were forced to wear combat fatigues and only women were permitted to wear dresses. Or anything else they wanted.

It is absolutely no accident, then, that a woman has a greater freedom when she gets dressed in the morning. She can wear what she wants to wear because she can be what she wants to be. She can wear traditionally male clothing because she can do traditionally male things, work in traditionally male jobs, assume traditionally male roles and personality traits. She can cross over into a man's world, share men's experiences, then return to a world where no men are allowed. You might say she can choose to wear the pants in the family. She has free choice in fashion because she has free choice in life.

But a man had better act and look like a man. He had better be steady, secure, a good provider and dressed in bifurcated clothing below the waist. A man in a skirt is a direct assault on society's views about masculinity and male responsibility. The image of him in that skirt seems so ridiculous to so many people because it penetrates deeply to the core of sexist prejudice against men. It bears witness to double standards and female privilege, exposes feminist hypocrisy and demands equal rights for men in every area of life. More than any other statement a man can make, his skirt challenges people who profess to believe in gender equality to either put up or shut up.

That is why I believe the struggle for men's equal rights will eventually be fought and won over this issue of dress reform. It packs a huge, highly symbolic, very visible wallop…

Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
« Reply #21 on: February 09, 2015, 04:06:39 PM »
Please consider the thoughts presented below. The author writes from a secular mindset, in agreement with current society. While I don’t agree with all the author’s conclusions, or the perspective of those listed in her bibliography, her relation of history is fairly accurate, although somewhat incomplete. What is worthy of our attention is the obvious connection, based on historical facts, between the “equality of the sexes” and the fashion of pants on women. Please read at least the underlined, bolded sections. And then consider how the current feminist thinking of “gender equality” fits into the equation. Can we really claim that the increasing gender-blurring fashions have nothing to do with the unbiblical principle that has evolved called “gender equality”? (This equality is not according to God’s definition, but according to the perverse, rebellious thought of current society.) Can we afford to promote the ungodly idea that would do away with gender altogether? As she states in the last sentence, do we not realize that women in pants display their belief in the equality of men and women? Do we agree with the world, or are we separate from the world?—Linda Kirk

https://weeklysilence.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/research-paper-pants-phenomenon-the-switch-from-skirts-to-trousers/

Research Paper- Pants Phenomenon: The Switch from Skirts to Trousers
Posted December 9, 2011 by mvanalten3 in Uncategorized. Leave a Comment

             Trousers can be defined as, “a loose-fitting outer garment for the lower part of the body, having individual leg portions that reach typically to the ankle but sometimes to any of various other points from the upper leg down.” 1 This simple piece of clothing has caused much controversy for women over the years. The social and technological changes of the 20th century propelled the movement of it being acceptable for women to wear pants. The act of wearing pants itself is a form of technology because wearing trousers makes almost any task easier than doing the same task in a skirt or dress. The revolution of women wearing pants is important because it traces the history of equality between men and women. This nonverbal communication of clothing changed dramatically when women regularly began wearing pants in the middle to late 1900s. Before the twentieth century, women were technically not allowed to wear pants because it was a masculine item, and they were looked down upon if they decided to wear them. It wasn’t until the Second World War that women began wearing trousers out in public, but it still wasn’t widely accepted. Finally in the 1960s, society decided that it was about time for it to be socially acceptable for women to wear pants.

            Prior to the middle of the 20th century, women had a very limited wardrobe of dresses and skirts. Women had a certain image that they were expected to obtain. Pants weren’t even an option for them during this time period because trousers were for men. Women were expected to wear corsets, which reduced their waist size so much that many were unable to breathe and often fainted. This was considered feminine, and females wore these to distinguish themselves from men. This was the culture of the 1800s. The way that women dressed during this time made them appear to be like dolls, and came across as fragile. Women were perceived as helpless females in frilly dresses, while men were strong and wore masculine pants. Women spent hours getting ready and would put on multiple layers of skirts.  Floor length skirts which picked up debris and constantly got dirty were what females were forced to deal with on a daily basis. Women would have to wear girdles, and hoop skirts, and clothes that weren’t too revealing. Petticoats, frilly slips worn under skirts, were yet another hassle in the daily dress for women. Fashion at this time was by no means about comfort, which is partially a reason why women yearned to wear pants.  They were much more convenient, comfortable, and easier to wear than multiple layers of skirts.  At this time, corsets and skirts were feminine and distinctly separated women from men. Women couldn’t wear trousers because that would portray females to be almost as equal as males.

            There was quite an uproar in society when women first began to wear pants. Elizabeth Smith Miller was the first American woman to wear trousers in public in 1851. She was gardening one day and was simply fed up with her long skirt getting dirty. She wore an early version of trousers, and was a brave soul for doing this because it was extremely uncommon to go out in public wearing pants as a woman during this time because trousers belonged to men, not women. Miller wore these pants when she visited her cousin Elizabeth Cady Stanton and both of them wore trousers to the Seneca Falls Convention for women’s rights. Wearing pants to a women’s rights conference was a bold move because they were expressing that they believed that they were just as equal as men. The culture of the 19th century clearly did not agree with that. The women who dared to wear pants “were denounced by preachers.”2 People of the church strongly believed that women should not wear trousers.  Deuteronomy 22:5 from the Old Testament of the Bible states, “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.”3 Many took this passage literally, and since men wore trousers, they believed that women shouldn’t wear them. Women were heckled and “tormented by small boys, who threw pebbles at them when they ventured out in public”4 wearing trousers. Society as a whole did not agree with women wearing anything but dresses during this time, which is clear if children were taught to attack women wearing pants.

 

Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
« Reply #22 on: February 09, 2015, 04:06:54 PM »
          Even though society didn’t agree with women wearing pants, sometimes pants were a more practical option. Exercise was very difficult for women since they could only wear skirts or dresses. Even everyday tasks were difficult when wearing flowing clothes.  Amelia Bloomer invented bloomers, hence the name, which were a type of loose pants worn under a short skirt.  This outfit was sometimes referred to as the reform dress since it was new and different for the women at the time. In the 1890’s, women began wearing these bloomers to exercise. They were mainly worn for biking or by women in sanitariums.  The society at this time was not ready for such a change in culture. They were not ready for women to communicate by wearing something so similar to men’s clothing. This was unmistakably visible since the “reaction to the Bloomer costume was immediate and fairly hostile; the mainstream press in particular and men in general, objected.”5 There was an uproar about women wearing pants, but these bloomers were “one step toward trousers becoming accepted as standard items of female attire in the twentieth century.”6 There was objection from the men because pants were a big part of what made men masculine. Since women wanted to wear trousers, it was perceived that they wanted to be like men and have the same rights. Even though women were expressing their belief of equality through pants, the society at this time was not accepting and not allowing equality of men and women.

            In the 20th century there was an ease of the restrictions on women which foreshadowed the pants revolution in women’s style. It wasn’t until the 1900s that skirts were worn above the ankle. Finally it was becoming acceptable to wear something that didn’t get in the way of everyday tasks. Women still wore skirts and dresses during this time; they just weren’t floor length and tended to be much simpler.  Up until the 20th century, women had always worn loose, flowing dresses. This all changed along with the culture in the 1920’s. Hemlines on dresses became extremely high, and women began wearing tight dresses to show off their bodies. The women who followed this trend “were called flappers” 7 and they extended this culture shock by rolling “down their stockings to show off their knees.” 8 During this time women began to obtain more rights. The 19th amendment was passed which gave women the right to vote. These slight achievements in women’s right explain the dramatic change from full length skirts, to short revealing dresses, to eventually pants. The way women dressed communicated to society that they knew they had gained more rights and could therefore dress the way they wanted with some restrictions. They were still nowhere near being equal to men, but their actions were making the wearing of trousers a possibility for the future.

             Although there was a huge evolution of women’s rights, women were still by no means equal to men. Men were known to wear pants, and women couldn’t take that away from them. Women continued to wear dresses, shorter than before, but they were still stuck with dresses and skirts. Trousers were considered masculine, and women couldn’t be like a man in any way. In many cultures, “trousers had become fixed as a gender-specific garment for men.”9  Women were identified by skirts, and since skirts and dresses are feminine, they shouldn’t even want to wear something masculine such as pants. In the 1930s some of women’s fashions began to incorporate aspects of men’s fashion. “The buttoned shirtdress and versatile separates—sweaters and loose lounge pants with matching tops—showed the further appropriation of menswear elements into women’s fashion.” 10 Although some characteristics of men’s clothing were incorporated into women’s fashion, pants were still not accepted by society. In this culture, women were not equal to men, and therefore they couldn’t wear trousers.
 
            Women were finally able to wear trousers, but it only lasted for a little while, and there were still restrictions. It wasn’t until the 1940s, during World War II when women truly began to wear pants. While the men were in Europe fighting the war, the women were in America producing the goods needed for the war. The women took it upon themselves to work in the factories to provide guns, bullets, food, and other goods needed for the war and to keep America running. Dresses and skirts were not practical attire to wear when working in the factories. Because of the technology and new machinery in these factories, women began wearing pants while they worked. It made moving around and getting jobs done much easier. They were also much safer since their skirts could easily get caught on the machinery. Figure 1 shows factory women wearing pants. Unfortunately when the war ended, “most women left those jobs and went back to wearing skirts.” 11 Pants were only accepted in the workplace, but once the men were back to work, the women went back to the house and their hard work in the factories went unnoticed. The rights that they gained during the war were taken away once the men came back. They went right back to being looked at as just housewives.

            Even though women gained rights and were able to wear pants during the war, they seemed to take a step backwards directly after the war. Although females could wear trousers while they worked, it was still not socially acceptable to wear them in public. They were expected to continue to dress feminine like in social settings outside of work. This has to do with women’s sexuality because since they are women, they should dress in feminine clothes, and not want to look like men by wearing pants. In the 1940’s it became socially acceptable for girls and women to wear pant suits, but only at home.  They couldn’t wear them in public yet, and “were expected—if not required—to wear only dresses for school, church, parties, and even shopping.”12 It was still considered “improper to indicate the shape of the leg with trousers.”13 It caused quite a stir when women “desired to wear trousers in public rather than reserving them for the seclusion of a gymnasium, their homes, or sanitariums.” 14 During World War II, “four female pilots who had been ferrying new military fighter planes to an airport in Georgia were arrested as they walked to their hotel for violating a rule against women wearing slacks on the street at night.” 15 These women fought in the war, and did jobs that men did, but weren’t able to wear trousers because they were women. Once the men came back from the war, everything went back to how it was before the war. Women’s jobs were to be at home in the kitchen and raise the kids. It was back to dresses and skirts for these women. “Most women did not choose to wear men’s clothing and they did not elect to reveal their legs, for both would have been improper.”16 The few women that did wear trousers were mistaken as actresses or prostitutes. Even though the technology provided a gateway for women to be able to wear pants, the culture once again changed at the end of the war, and the women were no longer needed in the workplace. Since America had just gotten out of the war, the society wanted to go back to the way it was before instead of trying to reform, which explains the halt in equality between men and women.

            The mid to late part of the 20th century was when reforms were made, and women could wear pants without being ridiculed. In the 1960s women finally started to wear pants on a regular basis, but the gender role still played a big part in their daily life. Women were still depicted in advertisements as wearing dresses, “whether they were lab workers at the General Foods Kitchens, an older housewife bent over with arthritis, or a younger one pulling sheets out of the washer.”17 This was because women were still housewives, and some still saw themselves as inferior to men. It was a dramatic change for women, even though they had been fighting for decades to be able to wear pants, skirts were the safe way to go. Pants were new while skirts were safe and familiar. In 1961 Audrey Hepburn’s role in Breakfast at Tiffany’s influenced women to wear pants. Her character in the movie wore black capris and because of that, more and more women began to regularly wear trousers. It finally became fashionable for women to wear pants. In the 1960s and 1970s, there were feminist movements. These caused the equal rights amendment to be passed, and since everyone was supposedly equal, it was finally socially acceptable for women to wear trousers out in public. The fact that women can now wear pants shows that women are equal to men in some aspects of life.

            Women communicate today by the clothes that they wear. The fact that women wear a variety of slacks indicates that women are as equal as men and are able to wear the same things. Clothing is a type of nonverbal communication because it shows a person’s personality. Pants are a form of technology because they have made tasks easier, and have helped bridge the gap of equality between men and women. Now that women are able to wear pants, they are able to express their personality as well as men have been able to for centuries. Women wear pants today because it’s normal and socially acceptable, but what most don’t realize is that they are displaying the equality of women by wearing the trousers.

Richard Myers

  • Servant
  • Posts: 39667
  • A glorious sunset teaches of trust and faith.....
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
« Reply #23 on: February 10, 2015, 08:34:34 AM »
Thank you for sharing, Linda. Some have not seen the underlying principles nor motives that move many in the women's rights movement. And, yes, it is intertwined with women wanting to become leaders of men in the church.

While many women have been horribly mistreated by men in many respects, the answer is not women wearing pants in the home or in the church. Women are by nature and decree the submissive ones. It is so very injurious when that submission is betrayed. To respond by refusing to submit to anyone or anything is often the result, and is so very sad.

There is a direct correlation with a refusal to submit to God. Women who become masculine have a harder time in surrendering their wills to Christ. They must be in control. They have no peace, no joy, and are not happy women. Often they retain a deep bitterness that goes back to their having been hurt by man. 

Men are not freed from learning submission. While they are the stronger of the sexes, they must learn to give up their selfish ambitions and yield to a ever loving and ever giving God.

To see a battle for women to be "equal" with men in leadership roles in the church is so very sad. Those who are fighting for this "freedom" for women do not see how they have been deceived and what this freedom will do to the women who partake of such selfish ambition. Not all involved in this battle want to become "equal" with men, but many do. The argument being put forward by most is for "equality" and therefore, those who are not seeking to be equal, but want to be ordained pastors are partaking of the wrongs being perpetrated in the church. And, their influence is leading many girls and young women in the same direction. Submission is going to be much more difficult for many of these women and girls. Oh, how clever is the evil one.
Jesus receives His reward when we reflect His character, the fruits of the Spirit......We deny Jesus His reward when we do not.

Mimi

  • Regular Member
  • Posts: 27796
  • www.remnant-online.org
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
« Reply #24 on: February 12, 2015, 03:42:57 AM »
A quick note ... Gucci's 2015 fashion show http://www.gucciconnect.com/embed/

I live just outside of a very secular, open and "enlightened" city. What is shown in the video is commonplace among the postmodern youngsters who have bought into the liberal party line. What is interesting to note is that the Hispanics are not participating, at least not openly. The strong patriarchal, familial influence appears to be keeping it at bay and probably will continue until the old ones are laid in their graves. That is my observation, as sad as it is. 
  For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Psalm 119:89 

Sister Marie

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 7586
  • May God's Light Shine On Us All
Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
« Reply #25 on: February 14, 2015, 10:13:06 AM »
This seems to be a modeling show showing off women's style's for men. It is my feeling that they are doing what they can to bring the sexes together....same cloths, same bathrooms (in some states) etc... thus opening the door wider for W.O. and all kinds of others sad situations. Truly are the words of Scripture when it says, "As it was in the times of Noah, so shall the end be."
With Christian Love,
Marie

colporteur

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 6424
Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
« Reply #26 on: February 14, 2015, 02:13:51 PM »
It is amazing how fashion affects our people. We have three  nice church mothers in their 50s and 60s. One wears heals and a skirt above her knees and is bow legged the other two wear longer skirts with slits up the side. When they take a step up onto the platform you see under garments. It is repulsive and one of the ladies is pretty heavy. If it is difficult to purchase garments without slits why can the slit not be sewed shut at least down a ways ? While I would still not agree either way, these are not 16 year old girls. They are grandmothers. It seems like some our our ladies never get over trying to look sexy and fashionable.
It's easier to slow a fast horse down than to get a dead one going.

colporteur

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 6424
Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
« Reply #27 on: February 16, 2015, 08:42:09 AM »

We have an increasing number of SDA pastors that listen to and even promote non SDA pastor Rob Bell. I have had experiences with two such SDA pastors in my area. The method of which Mr. Bell formulates his beliefs is significant because this is the very same way that WO proponents come to their conclusions. I believe they will eventually use the same method to promote Sunday worship in fact we are seeing this already happening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF9uo_P0nNI
It's easier to slow a fast horse down than to get a dead one going.

Sister Marie

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 7586
  • May God's Light Shine On Us All
Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
« Reply #28 on: February 16, 2015, 11:26:31 AM »
Things are happening so fast. It is sad but also amazing.
With Christian Love,
Marie

Kaniela

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 29
Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
« Reply #29 on: February 16, 2015, 11:56:31 AM »
Our church organist who has been playing in my church since I've been in for the past 30 years has in the last few months started to wear jewelry ( specifically ear rings and necklaces ) I'm not sure if she was influenced by her mother and sister ( who is in the church ) to do these things or the other way around. But our pastor I'm sure will not say anything about it because as he said in one of his sermons, " we'll be sinning till Jesus comes and then he will make us sinless when we put on the incorruptible ". This is what EGW was prophesying about when she said that the doctrines of hell will be preached from our pulpits. Praise God she also said that God will see His church through when it seemingly is about to fall. 8)

Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
« Reply #30 on: February 23, 2015, 04:25:07 PM »
Back to the original topic . . . How can WO proponents say that culture and fashion have nothing to do with their agenda? Don't they see how their push to remove gender roles is coming from perverse culture? Don't we understand how fashion has played a large role in this?

The Great Gender Blur
There’s been plenty of talk this week about the great gender blur, that deliberate erosion on the runways of a once rigid demarcation between conventionally feminine and masculine clothes.

That crossover was especially apparent in men’s collections quietly venturing onto women’s turf, that move an opportune nod to those progressive young urban women who have long been among the most avid consumers of luxury men’s wear with a funky street-wear provenance.

The tendency was underscored in unorthodox, though commercially sound, collections like those of Public School; the more showily perverse Hood by Air; and Telfar, an under-the-radar label that judiciously threaded a handful of women’s looks into the line.

To hear it from fashion insiders, it’s high time. “The whole perception of sexual orientation is being challenged by the millenials,” said Lucie Greene, the worldwide director of JWT Intelligence, the trend-forecasting arm of J. Walter Thompson. “Among the cohort of 12-to-19-year-olds defining Generation Z,” Ms. Greene said, “the lines between male and female have become increasingly blurred, and we’re seeing that reflected in the collections this week.”

The notion of gender neutrality is being gradually accepted at retail. “Stores are discussing all the time how they can figure out a gender common denominator for their fashion assortments,” said Ed Burstell, the managing director of Liberty of London.

Those stores are reacting, if languidly, to a well-established trend. “On the street these days,” Mr. Burstell said, “you can’t always tell who’s a guy and who’s a girl.” http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/inside-fashion-week/fall-2015/gender

Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
« Reply #31 on: February 23, 2015, 05:04:50 PM »

Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
« Reply #32 on: February 23, 2015, 06:56:58 PM »
Consider how fast society is changing in removing the gender roles, through fashion and feminism. This following paragraph was written in 2007. The current push for men to adopt feminine fashion has made the last few sentences out-of-date.


The Quest for Meaning: A Guide to Semiotic Theory and Practice, by Marcel Danesi, 2007

"However, in some cultures – such as the American one – clothing trends are in constant flux, reflecting social trends and political movements. In such cultures, fashion is an important feature of daily life. Take the case of women wearing pants in Western (and other) cultures. Young women started wearing pants in the 1930s and 1940s, but did so sporadically. Denotatively (literally) and connotatively, (symbolically) the one who ‘wore the pants’ in a family was a male. With the change in social role structures during the 1950s and 1960s, women began to wear pants regularly and sending out the new social messages that this entailed. Feminism was symbolized largely by women wearing pants. In the 1960s, gender equality was symbolized by unisex fashion, emblemized by the wearing of jeans by both males and females. This dress code gave material substance to feminism and to the social ideology that was constructing. The reverse situation, incidentally, has not as yet transpired. Except in special ritualistic circumstances – for example, the wearing of a Scottish kilt – Western men have never worn skirts. When they do, it is typically labelled an act of ‘transvestitism.’ "Page 146.

Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
« Reply #33 on: March 31, 2015, 07:58:21 PM »
What has been going on in the fashion world lately has compelled me to continue writing! I am feeling a sense of urgency because of the women's ordination issue. I believe that until we deal with the abomination of gender-blurring fashion in our church, we really continue to weaken our opposition to women's ordination. The genderless fashion of today is becoming so incredibly blatent, yet we still are not speaking out against it as a church. Thus, I keep on writing. . .

Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
« Reply #34 on: March 31, 2015, 08:00:40 PM »
Are You Sighing and Crying?

Dear Seventh-day Adventist, are you seriously planning on going to heaven? In our congregations, we sing, “When We All Get to Heaven,” but will we all really get to heaven?

There are some who seem to be always seeking for the heavenly pearl. But they do not make an entire surrender of their wrong habits. They do not die to self that Christ may live in them. Therefore they do not find the precious pearl. They have not overcome unholy ambition and their love for worldly attractions. They do not take up the cross and follow Christ in the path of self-denial and sacrifice. Almost Christians, yet not fully Christians, they seem near the kingdom of heaven, but they cannot enter there. Almost but not wholly saved, means to be not almost but wholly lost.  {COL 118.1} 

That is a tragic condition . . . almost saved, yet totally lost. They want to be saved, they seem to be on the road to heaven, but they miss out entirely. Do we want to be wholly saved or do we merely have a hope and desire to go to heaven? Here is a startling thought:

Many will be lost while hoping and desiring to be Christians. {SC 47.2} 

How can we make sure that that is not our destiny? In these last days, those who are seriously planning on going to heaven recognize that they must be preparing to receive the seal of God, or their hopes and desires for heaven will never be realized. How are we to prepare? What are we to be doing?

There is a chapter entitled The Seal of God in volume five of the Testimonies to the Church, which is based on Ezekiel 9, which every Seventh-day Adventist should read and heed. In this chapter we are told,

At the time when the danger and depression of the church are greatest, the little company who are standing in the light will be sighing and crying for the abominations that are done in the land. But more especially will their prayers arise in behalf of the church because its members are doing after the manner of the world.  {5T 209.3}

This little group, which is not the majority of the church members, but a small remnant, will be engaged in “sighing and crying” because of the abominations in the world and in the church. This means that they will be extremely sorrowful because there are those in the church who are practicing these abominations. We are told that “they are filled with grief and alarm.” They observe the members practicing the same abominations that the world is practicing. These are the only ones who will truly “get to heaven” because they will be the only ones who receive the seal of God.

The seal of God will be placed upon the foreheads of those only who sigh and cry for the abominations done in the land. {5T 212.3} 

This is written for those at the very end of time, meaning us! This is “present truth!” If then, we are seriously planning on going to heaven, and we are preparing to receive the seal of God, it only follows that we need to recognize those abominations which are being practiced in the church today for which we must be sighing and crying. If however we are following these abominations, we won’t feel any sorrow that others are following them, will we?

This sighing and crying attitude that the remnant have comes as they make an entire surrender to Jesus, and are willing to give up all for Him. They are walking so closely with Jesus that they share His hatred for sin, and His love for righteousness. They are sensitive to anything that is contrary to His will. They are heart to heart with Jesus, partaking of His thoughts and feelings. That is why they sigh and cry, because they recognize that these abominations are so painful to Jesus.

When you have a sense of your accountability to God you will feel the need of faithfulness in prayer and faithfulness in watching against the temptations of Satan. You will, if you are indeed Christians, feel more like mourning over the moral darkness in the world than indulging in levity and pride of dress. You will be among those who are sighing and crying for the abominations that are done in the land. {CCh 188.3}

Do we mourn over the moral darkness in our world today? To be deeply grieved about sin requires that we must recognize it and turn from it with all our hearts. We can’t be enjoying and participating in abominations and then truly sigh and cry over them. When we mingle with the world, and follow the fashions of the world, we are following the abominations of the world.

The Israel of God in these last days are in constant danger of mingling with the world, and losing all signs of their being the chosen people of God. Read again Titus 2:13-15. We are brought down to the last days, when God is purifying unto himself a peculiar people. Shall we provoke God as did ancient Israel? Shall we bring his wrath upon us by departing from him and mingling with the world, and following the abominations of the nations around us?  {4bSG 74.1}

What are these abominations for which we must sigh and cry? How are many who profess to believe the Seventh-day Adventist message following the abominations of the world? In the chapter The Seal of God, the abominations for which the little group were sighing and crying were observable abominations. This is not to say that they are worse than the hidden abominations. But because they are readily observable, we should take notice and earnestly intercede in behalf of those who are participating in them.

What observable abominations are in the church today? Do we know what God considers to be an abomination? If you do a word search on “abomination” or “abominations” in the Spirit of Prophecy, you will find many rather vague references to idolatrous, immoral practices in which the Israelites became involved in as they copied the heathen. There are also many references to dishonest, prideful, hypocritical, and self-righteous attitudes that church members may have. But there are not many specifics mentioned that can be pinpointed as observable deeds for which the remnant should be sighing and crying.

However, there are at least two specifics that are very clear, and both are in the context of following the fashions of the world. These specifics have to do with our appearance, specifically with what we wear.

What did God call an abomination? One of these specifics that God called an abomination were hoop skirts. During a certain period of history, (1850-1870) the majority of women in western society wore hoop skirts, and many of the church members wanted to be just like the world, and wear them too. God clearly told them that hoops were an abomination. They were expensive, prideful, unhealthful, and immodest (because they had to be raised or tilted when women were in tight places, and the ankles and calves could become visible.) Even though faithful Seventh-day Adventist women were called plain, old-fashioned, and peculiar for not following the hoop fashions of the day, the message from God was clear that God’s women were not to wear hoop skirts, not even small ones.

Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
« Reply #35 on: March 31, 2015, 08:03:08 PM »
This was quite a trial for some of our sisters of yesteryear. Many of them succumbed and went ahead and followed the fashions of the world. Yet, the testimony was clear. Inspired counsel declared:

From what has been shown me, hoops are an abomination. They are indecent, and God's people err if they follow, in the least degree, or give countenance to, this fashion.  {4bSG 66.1}

Our faith, if carried out, will lead us to be so plain in dress, and zealous of good works, that we shall be marked as peculiar.  {4bSG 65.3} 

But, you say, “What does that have to do with us today? I haven’t observed any church members wearing hoop skirts lately.” No, but there are timeless principles that can be drawn from the counsels regarding hoop skirts. One important principle is that we as women are not to just go along with the fashions because it is the popular thing to do. We must make sure that we are not violating any of God’s principles in any of the fashions that we wear, such as the principles of womanly modesty, and healthfulness.

Has the Seventh-day Adventist church in general been following the fashions of the world in the last 100 years? It is true that Adventist women don’t wear hoop skirts, but every prideful and immodest fashion that has been introduced down through the years has been largely followed by the members of our church. Today it is very common in our churches to observe worldly fashions on our members—at church, and during the week. Tight, low-cut dresses, and tops, clinging skirts and pants, miniskirts and shorts, tank tops, swimwear, high heels, flashy and glittery clothing, make-up, unnatural hair-color and nail colors and so on. Without doubt, these are the fashions of the world. These are some of the observable abominations of the world which we should refrain from following, and for which we should be sighing and crying.

Let us notice what the prophetess says:

When I study the Scriptures, I am alarmed for the Israel of God in these last days. They are exhorted to flee from idolatry. I fear that they are asleep, and so conformed to the world that it would be difficult to discern between him that serveth God and him that serveth Him not. The distance is widening between Christ and His people, and lessening between them and the world. The marks of distinction between Christ's professed people and the world have almost disappeared. Like ancient Israel, they follow after the abominations of the nations around them.--Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 277.  {ChS 38.2}

There is a parallel passage to the one quoted above that clearly shows that following the fashions of the world in dress is one of the abominations for which we are to sigh and cry.

As we bear testimony against pride and following the fashions of the world, we are met with excuses and self-justification. . . . It is the inventions and fashions of the world that have led God's people, and they are unwilling to move out independent of the fashions and customs of the world. {4bSG 66.1}

What does it really mean to follow the fashions of the world? A worldly fashion would include any fashion that promotes thoughts and feelings that are not in harmony with a Christlike character. Pride, extravagance, lust, selfishness, covetousness and vanity are all encouraged by worldly fashion. And, as we will see, even our philosophy can be changed by fashion. We need to examine our motives and criticize ourselves closely to see why we would even want to follow a worldly fashion.

Conflict after conflict must be urged against hereditary tendencies. We shall have to criticize ourselves closely, and allow not one unfavorable trait to remain uncorrected, unreformed.  {RH, December 29, 1896 par. 2} 

If we fit in with the world so there is no distinction, so that people don’t notice a difference, isn’t it time for us to ask ourselves some hard questions?

It is the duty of every child of God to inquire, Wherein am I separate from the world? Let them suffer a little inconvenience and be on the safe side. What crosses do God's people bear? They mingle with the world, partake of their spirit, dress, talk, and act, like them.  {4bSG 68.1} 

In 1856 Ellen White had a vision called The Two Ways. As she was describing the people on the narrow path in contrast to the world, she said, that they were “opposite in character, in life, in dress, and in conversation . . . They do not dress like the company in the broad road, nor talk like them, nor act like them.” (See Testimonies to the Church, volume 1, page 128)

If we are “opposite in dress” from the world, then obviously we cannot be similar in dress. There is a definite distinction. She goes on to say that in her vision she saw a group who professed to believe, and they thought that they were in the narrow way, but they were actually traveling on the broad way. The worldly people around them would say, "There is no distinction between us. We are alike; we dress, and talk, and act alike." {CET 157.1}

Even the worldly people can observe if we dress, talk, and act like them. These would be observable abominations that can be seen in professed Seventh-day Adventists. We cannot read the heart, we are not to judge the motives, but we can see when church members are following the fashions of the world. These are the abominations for which the small company will be sighing and crying. We can be sure that:

God is purifying unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good works. This people are peculiar. They do not dress or act like the world.  {RH, July 25, 1854 par. 3} 

It was mentioned above that there were two specific fashions that God labeled as an abomination. One was the hoop skirt. The other fashion that God called an abomination was when women dressed similar to men. Notice this:

“There is an increasing tendency to have women in their dress and appearance as near like the other sex as possible, and to fashion their dress very much like that of men, but God pronounces it abomination.” {1T 457.2} 

Here is a clear-cut observable fashion that God called an abomination. If you will study the history of the bloomer costume, later called the American Costume, you will see that this fashion was actually quite far from men’s attire. The women wore a skirt that was around knee length, with pants underneath. In contrast to the popular floor length dresses, these outfits appeared to be close to men’s attire. This closeness to men’s attire was what constituted the abomination in God’s eyes.

If you have but little knowledge of the history of fashion during the last 150 years, you may have a difficult time grasping the importance of this matter. Just as our sisters in the mid-1800s had a hard time understanding that hoop skirts were an abomination, because “everybody was wearing them,” today we may have difficulty in understanding why God would declare knee length dresses over pants as an abomination. Ask yourself, has this tendency to blur the distinction between men’s and women’s clothing increased since her day, and is it something we can observe upon members of the church?

Please remember the line of reasoning that has been developed in this paper thus far: Those of us who believe we are living in the last days recognize that we need to be preparing to receive the seal of God. Only those who are sighing and crying for the abominations around us, including in the church will be sealed, and thus saved. Therefore, we must know what those abominations are. We know that these abominations include following the fashions of the world. And we know two specific fashions that God called abominations: hoop skirts and clothing on women similar to men’s clothing. Both were abominations to God and not compatible with our faith:

We do not think it in accordance with our faith to dress in the American costume, to wear hoops, or to go to an extreme in wearing long dresses which sweep the sidewalks and streets. If women would wear their dresses so as to clear the filth of the streets an inch or two, their dresses would be modest, and they could be kept clean much more easily and would wear longer. Such a dress would be in accordance with our faith.--Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 424 (1864).

Since hoop skirts are not a popular fashion of today, we are left with one specific fashion that is currently practiced which we know is an abomination to God. That fashion involves women dressing similar to men. Yet, have you ever heard a conference-employed pastor admonish women to avoid wearing clothing that is similar to men’s clothing? Unfortunately, you probably haven’t. This is an abomination to which the church at large has become blinded, because we have fully embraced this worldly fashion.

Today, society is all caught up in the notion of gender equality. That is the “politically correct” viewpoint. But it is not God’s viewpoint; it is not biblically correct. In fact, the women’s rights philosophy is an abomination to the Lord.

Did you realize that the concept of encouraging women dress similar to men has been the agenda of the women’s rights movement from the very beginning? This scheme was developing right during the time, in the mid-1800s, when God was speaking to His people through His prophetess, warning them that this tendency was an abomination to Him.

 In fact, in the only statement where Ellen White speaks strongly of the women’s rights movement in a way that we can see how God feels about it, we can see these two abominations are closely linked:

Those who feel called out to join the movement in favor of woman's rights and the so-called dress reform might as well sever all connection with the third angel's message. The spirit which attends the one cannot be in harmony with the other. The Scriptures are plain upon the relations and rights of men and women.”  {1T 421.4} 

Study the history of this movement, and you will see that Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Amelia Bloomer, along with others who started the women’s right’s movements promoted the very style to which Ellen White was referring, the “so-call dress reform”. They were spiritualists as well. So there are actually three abominations in one package—women’s rights, women’s fashions similar to men’s, and spiritualism. They go together, because they are prompted by the same evil spirit.

Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
« Reply #36 on: March 31, 2015, 08:05:59 PM »
Elizabeth Cady Stanton also promoted women’s ordination. That should grab your attention. These women defied God and the Bible. They wanted gender equality, although that term wasn’t coined yet. Worldly society, led by the prince of this world, has had 150 years to refine and enlarge their agenda.

Fashion has been in lock step with the acceptance of gender equality in society as we know it today. This is a documentable reality. By getting women to dress more and more similar to men over the years, the distinction between the sexes has been blurred and all but removed entirely, so that it seems the norm. By following the gender blurring fashions of the world, the church has cooperated with the enemy in paving the way for this idea of gender equality in gender roles. Unisex fashion lends support to the idea of women’s ordination “without regard to gender.” Both concepts diminish God-ordained distinction between the sexes.
Listen to what some worldly voices are declaring today:

Fashion is a concept and an industry, yes, but at its heart is a simple act: getting dressed. Our clothing sends a message to the world, and as such, the clothing we choose is actually a powerful tool for self-expression. It allows us to express ourselves on an individual level and on a much larger scale, such as the prevailing dress codes of a nation or religion. Throughout history and throughout the world, fashion is closely tied to political movements, cultural identities, and increased visibility for marginalized groups. Clothing has the power to stoke the fires of revolution. . . . Women have fought for access to the same rights, opportunities — and, yes, clothing — as men since the beginning of the feminist movement. Today we fight against the notion that women should be judged simply on their outward appearance. If you own a pair of pants, for example, you can thank a feminist. http://www.thefrisky.com/2012-01-23/on-fashion-feminism-and-the-power-of-self-expression/

It’s 2015 and people, slowly but surely, are grasping that gender is no longer binary. Fashion may not be an industry that’s particularly celebrated for its inclusivity, but it has played a role in helping to break down conventional gender roles—championing androgynous styles and transgender models, in particular—whether that end result was planned or simply happenstance.
 http://magazine.good.is/articles/selfridges-gender-defying-campaign-agender
   
There are literally hundreds of articles and blogs that could be quoted that would show clearly that the agenda of feminism [women’s rights/women’s lib] has been providing the driving force behind the fashion of putting pants instead of skirts on women. This was a deliberate agenda, which was also urged along by the homosexual movement, which the Bible tells us is an abomination. Women’s ordination is just a spoke in the same wheel, moving society into the realm of gender neutrality.

This abominable, diabolical bandwagon society currently calls gender equality or gender neutrality has been rolling steadily along over the last 150 years, sometimes slowly, and then speeding up for a time. Gender equality may have some worthy components, but at the core, it is unbiblical and necessarily includes the homosexual agenda. The early developments of gender-blurring fashion received strong pushback from the Christian community, but the resistance waned as the shock has worn off.

The gender-blurring bandwagon carried many heroes: from Coco Channel, Marlene Dietrich and Katharine Hepburn of the 1930s, to the women’s libbers and the unisex movement of the 1970s. But finally, by 1980 all of society climbed on the wagon, and virtually no more pushback was heard. This gender blending wagon was going through to the end, crushing any who dared stand in its way. And so on it went, moving into the androgyny of the 2000s. But in 2015, it has reached a new plateau: gender neutrality. This encompasses both fashion and roles. And what a victory this is for the homosexual community!

Listen to the voice of the world as they talk about this bandwagon:

In a personal piece in The Guardian today, writer Sophie Wilkinson claims that all of us jumping on the gender-neutral bandwagon have “ruined” her wardrobe.
 http://www.xojane.com/fashion/is-gender-nuetral--fashion-butch-appropriation
   
She goes on to explain that now with “straight” people wearing gender neutral fashions, the gays can no longer show their sexual preference by what they wear.

Keep in mind what God designed, and note the contrast to what the world is saying.

God designed that there should be a plain distinction between the dress of men and women, and has considered the matter of sufficient importance to give explicit directions in regard to it; for the same dress worn by both sexes would cause confusion and great increase of crime. {1T 460.1}

God designed a plain distinction between the sexes; Satan promotes blurring and confusion. Where is society today? Listen to their own description:

We are living in a time of gender revolution. Traditional masculine and feminine roles are being challenged through advances in science and technology, and by cultural shifts stemming from the evolution of sexual politics and media depictions of gender. Identity is no longer clearly defined as female or male, but by increasingly visible manifestations of sexuality or lack thereof. . . With the confusion of gender roles today, outward appearances are often confusing. Boys look like girls, girls look like boys, and androgyny has become commonplace. People are typically assigned a gender and history, but they can decide what gender to identify with beyond this.
http://www.metropolismag.com/March-2015/His-or-Hers-Designing-for-a-Post-Gender-Society/
   
As we tune in to what the youth of today are thinking, it should open our eyes to the extent of this issue which is labeled a “post-gender bandwagon.” The majority of the young people have embraced this agenda. Along with it goes acceptance for gay marriage.

An Intelligence Group survey from 2013 found that more than two-thirds of Millennials believe gender no longer defines a person as it once did. NPR hopped on the Millennials are post-gender bandwagon with a recent piece citing men wearing nail polish and women wearing suits as further support for the idea that young people refuse to conform to traditionally defined masculinity and femininity. . . They support same sex marriage.
 http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmaureenhenderson/2014/12/23/will-millennials-be-trapped-by-traditional-gender-roles/

More than just about the way you dress, unisex is about gender equality. We are closing the gap between masculine and feminine and gender is not a strong classification anymore. 79 percent of Millennials believe that gender roles have blurred (Protein Gender Report). . . . Unisex is a cultural mirror of what is happening in our society right now. In the future, hopefully this will contribute to a more gender-equal society.
http://www.psfk.com/2015/03/artsy-algorithm-auction-artsy-code-is-art.html

If you Google the words “gender” and “neutral” and “fashion” you will see new articles about this topic appearing daily. This is the topic of the day. Tomorrow, one will find even more blatant abominations under the name of gender neutral fashion. Here are a few recent excerpts:

Fashion is currently surpassing androgyny and boyfriend jeans and tending toward clothing that is genderless or gender-neutral. http://www.xojane.com/fashion/is-gender-nuetral--fashion-butch-appropriation

Fashion’s Bold New Future Has No Gender . . . much of what passes for men’s and women’s clothing these days is separated by a line that’s barely perceptible." The great gender blur," Ruth La Ferla called it in the New York Times, writing about the fall collections coming out of the most recent New York Fashion Week. "That deliberate erosion on the runways of a once rigid demarcation between conventionally feminine and masculine clothes." . . . In fact, fashion has a fairly rich history of experimenting with, and even embracing, androgyny, from the suiting favored by Katherine Hepburn all the way up through decidedly non-girly grunge (both the original and rehabilitated versions). Over the last several years, the broader cultural shift in how we view gender has also picked up speed in the fashion industry, where they like to think they’re on the forefront of these things. http://www.racked.com/2015/3/17/8218321/gender-neutral-clothes-unisex

The gender bandwagon is definitely speeding up in the fashion industry. While the past has been more focused on women dressing like men, now men are beginning to dress like women:

As the latest menswear collections indicate, we’re moving ever closer and closer to a society in which gender simply doesn’t matter — from gender neutral bathrooms to Facebook’s embrace of the gender spectrum and iconic Selfridges doing away with binary clothing departments all together. Fashion can either re-enforce or radically alter traditional gender roles — but it also interprets cultural shifts. And the transformation we are seeing in the Millennials’ understanding of gender is starting to be reflected everywhere, from Hollywood to high school and the workplace. For the past 50 years or so, women’s fashion has had a notable flirtation with le masculine, but increasingly men’s fashion, too, has straddled the gender divide. http://www.queerty.com/photos-fashions-incredible-catwalk-towards-a-gender-fluid-society-20150312

The gender equality movement is inclusive of the transgender equality movement, which is picking up speed and power. This is all part of Satan’s plan to destroy the God-ordained family.

The growing presence of transgender people in society and business is also driving the gender-neutral fashion shift. “Fashion is a reflection of what’s going on in society,” Costa says. “Times are different, and therefore, fashion needs to be as well.”
 http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/03/19/gender-neutral-clothing-future-fashion

Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
« Reply #37 on: March 31, 2015, 08:07:45 PM »
The Rise of Gender-Neutral Fashion. With the continuous rise of gender equality in society and androgynous collections in the fashion industry, it is safe to say that gender neutrality is becoming a popular topic of discussion in modern-day culture. The traditional long skirt and blouse has been ditched for tailored and box-shaped suits for women, and a palette of increasingly feminine colours and shorter cuts have been introduced for men. Awareness has been raised by many LGBT communities who voice their opinions on fashion and style by using their way of dress to communicate who they are and how they want to be perceived. This has been a massive influence in today’s society and on designers’ collections. . . .  With designers and models both challenging the norm it’s safe to assume that unisex fashion and style continues to grow and increase its acceptance in the modern-day world. It’s no longer an outlawed subject, and is used as a means to diminish typical gender roles and provide a platform for innovative designs for the future of gender neutrality. http://backtoblackmagazine.com/rise-gender-neutral-fashion/

Can you see how these feminist/fashion abominations which push for gender equality in roles and fashion are closely intertwined? Consider the wisdom and foresight of God in warning us 150 years ago that the spirit of women’s rights and gender-blurring fashions is entirely incompatible with Seventh-day Adventist beliefs! We should have been on high alert for this development all through these years, and shunning it like the plague!

Major retailers, also pushing for gender equality are jumping on this abominable bandwagon:
Selfridges is ready to dress a post-gender society. http://www.out.com/2015/3/23/selfridges-vogues-new-era-genderless-fashion-campaign

Selfridges has launched a 'gender-neutral' fashion campaign . . . . And . . . is jumping on the bandwagon by blurring the lines between men's and womenswear. Selfridges has launched a 'gender-neutral' fashion campaign encouraging consumers to buy clothes without being restricted to men's or women's fashions.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3002605/As-celebrities-lead-trend-genderless-fashion-Selfridges-axes-separate-women-menswear-departments-favour-three-floors-unisex-fashion.html

This week it was announced that Selfridges, London have future plans to only stock gender-neutral clothes. This can be seen as a revolutionary step in the push for gender equality and reduced prejudice towards alternative fashions, where male and females alike steer away from gender defining styles. http://www.lippymag.co.uk/fashion-selfridges-fight-for-gender-rights-with-plans-to-stock-only-gender-neutral-clothing

Today Selfridges, one of the most famous high end department stores in the world, launched it's new multi-floor concept space Agender, which seeks to alter our understanding of gender in fashion. They hope to achieve this by working with up-market designers to create pieces that can be worn, regardless of your identity. http://www.youngrubbish.com/2015/03/the-store-that-redefined-gender-in.html

Gender equality was one of the main beliefs of spiritualism as it existed in the 1850s.

“The hunger for communion with the dead gave Spiritualism its content, transforming what may have been a teenage prank into a new religion,” writes Ann Braude, author of Radical Spirits: Spiritualism and Women’s Rights in Nineteenth Century America.
Many of these people discovered that they, too, could communicate with the dead. Virtually all these mediums were women, and even young girls. Spiritualism was not a particularly organized religion, but it did pick up a guiding philosophy from the Quakers, abolitionists and feminists who swelled its ranks.
One of the most important tenets of Spiritualism was gender equality. “Not all feminists were Spiritualists, but all Spiritualists advocated women’s rights,” Braude writes.
http://birthstory.net/tag/gender-equality/

Spiritualism has morphed and moved into the churches through the feminist movement. The connections between feminism and new age are quite strong. Norman L. Geisler writes in the book Neopaganism, Feminism, and the New Polytheism:
Another source of neopolytheism is the neopagan revival of the religion of Wicca. This movement, popularly known as witchcraft, has a significant overlap with the feminist movement. . . . There is also a close connection between neopaganism and feminism. Of course, not all neopagans are feminists, and not all feminists are neopagans. Nonetheless, neopaganism has a magnetic pull on many feminists.

Now consider the following quotation which reveals a spiritualistic component of today’s gender equality movement. The women’s rights movement was started by spiritualists in 1850 and the voice of the dragon can still be heard among its proponents.

Gender Neutral themes and trends as well as new ways of looking at (and embracing) sexuality have been permeating fashion and popular culture for some time now . . .So what of the energetic underpinnings of this Gender Neutral movement? The current trend in leading fashion seems to have picked up from the ‘ethers’ the ‘gender-neutral’ idea, where clothing is not gender-specific.  It harks back to the idea of androgyny, which is about being neither obviously male nor obviously female. This is indeed the future, but not the near-future.  As we know, we are transitioning from the Piscean Age into the Aquarian Age.  When living fully in the Aquarian Age energy we will naturally move towards gender-neutral ideas and concepts not just expressed through fashion, but through children’s toys, careers, etc. . . .But this is some way off. . . .We are aiming for gender-role transcendence. . . . At the moment, and into the future, the emphasis will be to heal and express the feminine, and the Divine Feminine.  It’s the return of the Goddess!  http://violetine.com.au/blogs/violetine-blog/19069103-gender-neutral-vs-the-rise-of-individuality

If this is not an abomination, I can’t imagine what could possibly be! The effort to remove plain gender distinctions, which violates Deuteronomy 22:5, also destroys God’s design for the church and family. This agenda is not a quiet, in the corner issue. It’s in-your-face headline news. It is society’s gospel, and they are intent on pushing it to the limits. One of the spokes of the wheel of the gender blurring bandwagon, the issue of women’s ordination, is wreaking havoc on our Seventh-day Adventist church. The homosexuals are banging on our doors. The entire package is an abomination, as God warned us in the 1850s. Even the world recognized the “uniform of rebellion” when women put on the American Costume.

Starting in 1851, she [Amelia Bloomer] began to appear in public in baggy pants and short tunic. And as more women joined the campaign for the right to vote, Mrs. Bloomer turned the trousers into a uniform of rebellion. Extraordinary Origins of Everyday Things, by Charles Panati

Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
« Reply #38 on: March 31, 2015, 08:11:22 PM »
We have fooled ourselves as a church in believing that we can safely adopt the gender blurring fashions of the women’s rights/women’s liberation/feminist/gender equality movement, and then remain unaffected by their philosophy. This is a delusion. We have not kept ourselves “unspotted from the world.” We have had “fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness.” We have accepted “the friendship of the world.” By putting on the “uniform of rebellion” we embrace the philosophy that prompted it, which was basically rebellion against God’s plan regarding the relations and rights of men and women.

The Scriptures are plain upon the relations and rights of men and women.  {1T 421.4} 

This was the issue which made the women’s rights movement incompatible with Seventh-day Adventism. It goes against the Scriptures. That is what it is an abomination to God, because it pulls our hearts away from loyalty to Him. It will keep us from being settled into the truth, being fit to receive the seal of God.

As a church, we are now reaping the harvest of embracing gender blurring fashion in the zealous promotion of women’s ordination by many influential leaders among us. Perhaps unwittingly, they have embraced Satan’ plan of gender equality. We need to pray fervently for our church leaders at this time.

Women of God, sisters in the faith, if you indeed planning on heaven, if you are preparing to receiving the seal of God, it’s high time for you to get off of this gender-blurring bandwagon! God’s people need to wake up and start sighing and crying for all the abominations done in the land and in the church, which includes the abominable philosophy of “gender equality.” This includes renouncing all the fashions which have, over the last 100 years, gradually blurred the distinction between men’s and women’s clothing that have paved the way for this demoralizing confusion all around us.

If this following quotation was true in Ellen White’s day, how much more is it true today?

Obedience to fashion is pervading our Seventh-day Adventist churches and is doing more than any other power to separate our people from God. {4T 647.2} 

Are we obeying the gender equality fashions? Are we wearing the fashions designed by the agents of the enemy which are progressively destroying the distinctions between men and women? Do we cherish our beloved jeans and pants so dearly that we are willing to ride blissfully along on the gender bending bandwagon? Does it make us angry when someone encourages us to get off? We need to ponder these things deeply, and search our own hearts.

Just as we ask our Sunday keeping friends to consider the origin of Sunday worship, pointing them back to history, I am asking you to consider the origin of pants (without a skirt) on women. Study history; who made this fashion popular? You will read about Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Amelia Bloomer, of Marlene Dietrich and Katharine Hepburn. You will see the rebellion and defiance of God in their attitudes. You will discern the true spirit behind this fashion as you trace the abominable bandwagon rolling through the years. Knowing all this, how can a woman of God wear pants and jeans in good conscience?

Does this sound radical, does it sound fanatical? Does it sound opposite from worldly society? Remember what God showed Ellen White, that those who are on the narrow way are “opposite in character, in life, in dress, and in conversation” from the world. And we should not worry that others may label us a fanatics, because

God's servants must arm themselves with the mind of Christ. They must not expect to escape insult and misjudgment. They will be called enthusiasts and fanatics. {OFC 267.4}

If God has been speaking to your heart, don’t push Him aside. Consider this warning:

Take heed lest these warnings be lightly regarded, and you go far into the paths of worldliness in dress, worldliness of practices, and at last find that the door is shut, and you are outside, a foolish virgin.  {MR926 28.4} 

Consider the sacrifice that Jesus made for us. Our little sacrifices cannot even begin to compare!
Do you talk about self-denial? What did Christ give for us? When you think it hard that Christ requires all, go to Calvary, and weep there over such a thought. Behold the hands and feet of your Deliverer torn by the cruel nails that you may be washed from sin by His own blood! Those who feel the constraining love of God do not ask how little may be given in order to obtain the heavenly reward; they ask not for the lowest standard, but aim at a perfect conformity to the will of their Redeemer. {1T 160} 
Let us give our all to Jesus, and not complain or whine about our puny sacrifices. Lastly, let us consider the wonderful counsel in these words:

We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and his teaching in our past history. {GCDB, January 29, 1893 par. 5}

How has God led us, and how has He taught us regarding the women’s rights issue and His extreme displeasure (abomination) when men and women wear similar clothing? It’s all there in the Testimonies.

I am instructed to say to our churches, Study the Testimonies. They are written for our admonition and encouragement, upon whom the ends of the world are come. If God's people will not study these messages that are sent to them from time to time, they are guilty of rejecting light. Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little, God is sending instruction to His people. Heed the instruction; follow the light. The Lord has a controversy with His people because in the past they have not heeded His instruction and followed His guidance.  {3SM 358.2} 

 Study the Testimonies. Don’t neglect God’s counsel. This is what will prepare you to receive the seal of God, and be safe from the last day delusions:

Men may get up scheme after scheme, and the enemy will seek to seduce souls from the truth, but all who believe that the Lord has spoken through Sister White, and has given her a message, will be safe from the many delusions that will come in in these last days.  {8MR 320.2} 

If you would like to see presentations including photos of the development of gender equality in fashion for the last 150 years, please visit these websites: Theandrogynydeception.com; Sistersinskirts.com; Remnantraiment.com; Movingtowardmodesty.com. God bless you!

Richard Myers

  • Servant
  • Posts: 39667
  • A glorious sunset teaches of trust and faith.....
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
« Reply #39 on: March 31, 2015, 08:38:31 PM »
It certainly is true that the world has reached the point spoken of in the Bible as it was in the days of Noah. 

One thing that women have not been able to do is to grow a beard, but sadly, many men no longer have beards.  I think that the time has come when men need to quit shaving. God gave men facial hair and it was a requirement for the priests to have beards.  It might be good to require all conference presidents to have beards.

Men can play a part either for or against the move to have a genderless society.
Jesus receives His reward when we reflect His character, the fruits of the Spirit......We deny Jesus His reward when we do not.