The Remnant Online

Rebellion in the Church => Women's Ordination => Topic started by: Linda K on January 16, 2013, 04:01:10 PM

Title: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
Post by: Linda K on January 16, 2013, 04:01:10 PM
The Theology of Ordination Committee will be considering if God approves of the ordination of women ministers in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, with no differentiation between made between male and female pastors.

As a church, we believe that Ellen White is a messenger of the Lord, providing divine instruction and counsel for God’s people in these last days. Therefore, her writings will no doubt be carefully considered regarding this matter.

The movement to ordain women is closely connected with women’s rights issues, not just in our church, but in society at large. Women’s rights have been a politically-charged issue since the first women’s rights convention in Seneca Falls, NY in 1848. The “equal rights” that the leaders of the movement pushed for included ordination as church leaders and pastors. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a spiritualist who organized the first convention, and also promoted the “so-called reform dress” writes in a publication Elizabeth Cady Stanton as revealed in her letters, diary and reminiscences: “Again, I urged my coadjutors by speeches, letters, and resolutions, as a means of widespread agitation, to make the same demands of the Church that we had already made of the State. They objected, saying, ‘That is too revolutionary; an attack on the Church would injure the suffrage movement.’ But I steadily made the demand, as opportunity offered, that women be ordained to preach the Gospel and to fill the offices as elders, deacons, and trustees. A few years later some of these suggestions were accepted. Some churches did ordain women as pastors over congregations of their own, others elected women deaconesses, and a few churches allowed women, as delegates, to sit in their conferences. Thus this demand was in a measure honored, and another ‘step in progress’ taken.”

Satan’s age-old ploy is to mingle good and evil so the evil is not easily discerned. Only through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit can we sort out which “rights” are God-approved, and which are tactics of the devil to lead us away from God’s plan. That is one reason the Spirit of Prophecy is so valuable to God’s church, because through Ellen White’s writings God does reveal many finer details regarding this important subject.

Although the women’s rights movement was being organized during the same era that our church was being organized, Ellen White, for the most part, ignored the issues being debated. She spoke strongly against racial prejudice, but not about the “gender war” being waged then and now. The most clear-cut statement that we have in the Spirit of Prophecy regarding women’s rights is as follows:
“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.”

This particular statement is quoted two times in Volume 1 of the Testimonies, pages 421 and 457. It is couched in the context of dress reform. Just prior to this quote, she states, “God would not have His people adopt the so-called reform dress. It is immodest apparel, wholly unfitted for the modest, humble followers of Christ.”  {1T 421}  In order to understand the statement condemning women’s rights and the “so-called reform dress,” this particular style of dress must be fully understood. This will require a careful study of the topic of dress reform. To downplay or ignore this portion of the quotation will give a slanted view of the whole topic of women’s rights, and thus of the ordination of women. When the issues of dress reform that were developing at that time are clearly understood, the issue of women’s ordination could be seen in a new light through spiritually-discerning eyes.

I am appealing to all those on the Theology of Ordination Study Committee who have been entrusted with the weighty responsibility of studying this matter in behalf of our church to seriously consider how closely linked dress and women’s rights are. The topic of dress must be carefully studied! As someone who has devoted over 4 years to the study of dress reform and its history, I would like to make my extensive research available to this committee.
Title: Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
Post by: colporteur on January 16, 2013, 05:41:11 PM
 Linda, not only was the first women's meeting held in 1848 that was a forerunner of the feminist movement, but the same year and only about 30 miles away was  the infamous "rapping" and the Fox sisters. This was also the same year in which later in the year EGW had a vision where God made the call to begin the publishing work. Many things were happening that year. Incidently, that year the Niagara Falls stopped flowing for 30 hours do to an ice jam. Its hard to imagine the flooding that must have occurred.
Title: Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
Post by: Richard Myers on January 16, 2013, 10:01:40 PM
Amen, Linda.  It would be a blessing for them all to read your study. For those who have spiritual discernment, it is just as we read "The Scriptures are plain upon the relations and rights of men and women.” Those on the study committee who have discernment will understand. Those who do not, will not. We pray that in the process of their study, some will be drawn to Christ and make the right decision regarding the role of women in the home and in the church.

In European society, there are few who love God and keep His commandments. Therefore, they are deceived on this subject as well as many others. They are mandating "parity" between men and women as if men were women and women were men. They would have our daughters and wives fighting on the front lines of battle. And, they demand that homosexuality be recognized as moral. When Romania was applying for entrance to the E.U., they were told they must bring their laws regarding homosexuality into harmony with the immoral E.U. if they wanted the E.U. to consider their application.

Now, the United States is falling down the same path. Obama might as well be a European. He has made the pope look moral. So, modern dress is indeed indicative of the worldly culture that turns women into men and men into women. The world calls evil good and good is called evil. The world has come into many churches. The diversity of culture is extolled and in this battle for faithfulness to God and His Word we find ourselves once again fighting against those who greatly esteem their culture over God's ways.  It is always the "heathen" culture that is extolled as so much better than Bible morality. It is so very sad that we find this in our church, in God's church.
Title: Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
Post by: Linda K on January 17, 2013, 10:33:46 AM
The connecting links between women's rights (and the push for female spiritual leaders) and spiritualism (the ones who promoted the "so-called reform dress) are so obvious to those willing to take a closer look. I will be posting some articles written by spiritualists that make the clear connection:

Humanity Together (Excerpts from the main article)
By Janet Hosmer

The religion now known as 'Modern Spiritualism' officially and literally burst through to the world in the small village of Hydesville, New York, late in March of 1848. The phenomena that began when young sisters Maggie and Kate Fox reported 'rappings' on the walls of their home, has grown into a religion that currently, according to the International Spiritualist Federation, has both individual and group members in over 35 countries worldwide. The National Spiritualist Association of Churches, (NSAC) describes the religion on their website as follows, "Spiritualism is the Science, Philosophy, and Religion of continuous life, based upon the demonstrated fact of communication, by means of mediumship, with those who live in the Spirit World. Spiritualism is founded upon a Declaration of Principles, nine in number, received from the Spirit World by means of mediumship. …

Now back in 1848, and not twenty five miles away from the initial rappings heard in Hydesville, the feminist movement had their First Women's Rights Convention at the Wesleyan Chapel in Seneca Falls, New York on July 19 and 20 - just a few short months after spirit began communicating with women in that same geographic area. From the handful of women who began to stand up for themselves, grew a cohesive network of individuals who were committed to changing society in the United States by demanding rights that were equal to those of their male counterparts in all areas. A group of strong and outspoken women who this paper will show, were regular attendees at séances given by the many mediums in the area, and were pivotal to the beginnings of a movement that ultimately led to a woman's right to vote in this country.
Is it coincidental that these two major events in the history of the United States occurred at the very same time? Did women finally find their voices and the strength to use them only after counsel with spirit? Did the readings from the Fox sisters, and readings from other women who found that they also had mediumship qualities give the women of that era the strength to finally stand up for equality in that Victorian male dominated world? Although the women's uprising in most circles is attributed to 'Renegade Quakers', a deeper look reveals that it was indeed spirit communication that played a key role in the unprecedented social change events taking place in the mid to late 1800's in Upstate New York, and throughout the world.…

Ann Braude tells us in Radical Spirits - Spiritualism and Women's Rights in Nineteenth-Century America (2001), "What distinguished spirit mediums from other religious women who rose to public roles at certain moments of enthusiasm within their religious communions was their commitment to women's rights." Braude also states, "At a time when no churches ordained women and many forbade them to speak aloud in church, Spiritualist women had equal authority, equal opportunities, and equal numbers in religious leadership. While most religious groups viewed the existing order of gender, race and class relations as ordained by God, ardent Spiritualists appeared not only in the women's rights movement, but throughout the most radical reform movements in the nineteenth century."

In Other Powers-The Age of Suffrage, Spiritualism, and the Scandalous Victoria Woodhull (1998), Barbara Goldsmith writes, "By the 1850s, a group of female trance speakers were among the first women permitted to speak in 'promiscuous assemblies,' which meant gatherings of both sexes. Speaking with the authority of the spirits but without personal responsibility for what they said, these women could not be censored for their statements. Since the spirits were guiding them, they had courage, for they spoke the truths of a greater power. Women, no matter how ill-educated, could now transmit the wisdom of spirits as diverse as Socrates and Benjamin Franklin: Not surprisingly, the rights of women were very much on the minds of these great thinkers." Robert Egby, in an article found on his online Parapsychic Journal entitled, 'The Footsteps of the Foxes', states the following, "The events at the Corinthian Hall promoted the cause of Spiritualism and clairvoyants and mediums who had been quietly working in private came out into the open adding to the growing power of this fledgling religion -- Modern Spiritualism." And as spirit continued to speak, women began to speak as well. They learned to trust their own feelings, and stand up for the equality that they felt was their right.

When talking about the Women's Movement, Todd Jay Leonard in Talking to the Other Side: A History of Modern Spiritualism and Mediumship (2005) says, "From the very beginning of the movement, Spiritualism has served to empower women to be independent and has given them a platform in which to pursue a professional life as clergy, mediums, and businesswomen. The movement has always treated women equally, and many Spiritualism women were instrumental in demonstrating to get the right to vote for women during the Suffrage Movements in the United States." Nancy Rubin Stuart tells us in The Reluctant Spiritualist - The Life of Maggie Fox (2005), "Several Quaker abolitionists had gathered first at the home of Jane and Richard Hunt and than at the M'Clintock's fine brick house in Waterloo. The organizers, who included Mary Ann McClintock, Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Matilda Wright, formalized their ideas for women's suffrage around the mahogany parlor table where the raps would later reportedly be heard." She continues, "The subsequent meeting at the Seneca Falls Universalist Wesleyan Church on July 19-20 would ignite the women's suffrage movement, setting the stage for a seventy-two year battle that resulted in the 1920 passage of the Twenty-First Amendment. Among the hundred men and women who ultimately supported its resolutions, some were already sympathetic to Spiritualism - Amy Post, Sarah Post Hallowell, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mary Ann and Thomas M'Clintock, and Sarah Burtis." The name that is most associated with regards to the women's movement in later years is of course Susan B. Anthony. Although not a Spiritualist herself, she was a close friend of Elizabeth Cady Stanton for years, and was a frequent speaker at women's conventions in LilyDale, New York, a Spiritualist community founded in 1879.

Additional confirmation of how spirituality and spirit communication played a large part in the women's movement is found in Judith Wellman's The Road from Seneca Falls (2004). She writes, "In their search for wholeness, the M'Clintocks and several other Congregational Friends went beyond worldly concerns. In the new spiritualist movement, they explored the permeability of boundaries between life and death. As early as 1841, they had experimented with 'animal magnetism,' a kind of clairvoyance which transported them to other places within this world. Now impressed by the rappings heard by the Fox sisters outside Rochester, New York, they began to hold regular séances in their home. Other women's rights supporters, especially among the Quakers, also joined this movement. Isaac Post, Amy Post's husband, collected testimonials from people who had attended the Fox sisters' séances and concluded that, indeed, the rappings they heard came form the spirit world. By 1851, Isaac Post himself had become a medium."

Interestingly enough, information on the Women's Rights National Park website makes no reference to Spiritualism or spirit communication, although many of the names listed on the site as leaders and visionaries in both the women's movement and the anti-slavery movement in that time were regular attendees at séances, if not mediums themselves.

Unfortunately, the dark shadows that were cast upon Spiritualism at that time, and even in current times, are more than likely the reason. We do know that Kate and Maggie Fox were interrogated and tested over and over again to prove the legitimacy of their supposed communications with spirit. From their first public demonstration in Corinthian Hall in Rochester, the two young girls - led by their older sister Leah, were continually sought after for readings and at the same time harassed and tested relentlessly by those who believed they were frauds. And the public had good reason to worry! The greedy and less than honorable of the people of the time saw an easy way to prey on those who had recently lost a loved one and wanted to believe in proof of the afterlife.

Title: Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
Post by: Linda K on January 17, 2013, 10:34:17 AM
(continued)

In later years, Maggie, after living an adult life plagued with alcoholism and harassment, told the world that the rappings heard in Hydesville when she was just a child were all a charade cooked up by her sisters and herself. She later recanted her admission of fraudulent behavior, but the damage had already been done. It all started out with disagreement among the sisters after alcohol abuse had become a part of their lives some thirty years after the initial spirit communications from Mr. 'Splitfoot'. The atmosphere during those years of turmoil where blame-casting and revenge, and a break in the family finally ensued. Much like any family quarrel, each of the women wanted only peace for herself. Arthur Conan Doyle states when referring to how the women behaved throughout the more difficult times, "Let it then be clearly stated that there is no more connection between physical mediumship and morality than there is between a refined ear for music and morality. Both are purely physical gifts." What Doyle meant I believe was that the women's public embarrassments had nothing to do with their ability to transmit spirit communication.

Regardless, even though Spiritualism claimed to have two million followers by the late 1800's, it was condemned by leaders of organized religions, and there were attempts to get laws passed to prevent mediums from practicing. Todd Jay Leonard in Talking to the Other Side: A History of Modern Spiritualism and Mediumship (2005) writes about the troubles encountered, "Many mediums were ostracized by family and friends, mainly because of the religious ban. Starting in the late 1850's in Great Britain, and in the 1880's in America, investigators began looking into and exposing the many fraudulent mediumship schemes that were operating in both countries, further sullying Spiritualism's image."

It's understandable that historians wanted to keep any connection to spirit communication limited or completely out of our history books and classrooms. Most always the strange happenings occurring during that time in our history were attributed to the craziness and religious frenzy of the era, or just plain fraudulent behaviors and fame seekers. It is truly unfortunate however, that spirit isn't given more credit for having had such an integral role when making these great strides in equality for humanity. Strides not only based on gender, but on race and creed as well.

We'll never really know what went on inside those dark séance rooms in Upstate New York in the mid 1800's. Were the attendees only asking to communicate with loved ones who had passed to the other side, or were they asking for advice from powers that they realized were greater than themselves? Were they made aware of 'who they really are' and given the confidence to move forward? Were those Victorian women led by the spirits of women who had gone before them and wanted to share their own voice as well? We really don't know.

But, we do know that Amy and Isaac Post, strong in the anti-slavery movement with a busy house on the Underground Railroad, and signers of the Declaration of Sentiments in Seneca Falls, were close friends of the Fox family, and brought the girls to their home regularly. We also know that Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a strong voice in the movement, a regular at séances, and a good friend of Susan B. Anthony, one of the most prominent leaders of the women's movement. And we know that the M'Clintocks, also very active in both the women's as well as the anti-slavery movement were many times found around a table in a darkened room waiting for spirit to speak. Putting all of the pieces together certainly suggests that spirit and Spiritualism, although not totally responsible, can be touted as a considerable catalyst in the movement that gave women the right to vote in this country.

And where are Spiritualism and Feminism now? Some religious scholars believe that a Fifth Great Awakening, (the Third and Fourth happening in the 1880's - 1900 and 1960's - 1970 respectively) is imminent in the foreseeable future, as these periods of heightened spiritual activity are typically seen during times of social unrest and confusion. There is a growing list of events occurring simultaneously at this time in our history, all of which unfortunately are too extensive to be covered fully here. However, they include, but certainly are not limited to, the ongoing translations and interpretations of the Dead Sea Scrolls found in the middle of the 1900's; the uncertain role of Mary Magdalene in Christian history - and Christian history itself - based on recently uncovered gospels; the massive changes to our planetary environment through global warming and the depletion of its resources; the discovery by Quantum Physicists that there is indeed an unseen controlling force at the very core of our being; and the predictions of the changes to come in 2012 by the ancient Mayans. Without a doubt, the time is definitely ripe for an Awakening. And, interestingly enough, as we move into 2009 we've already had a female candidate for the office of Commander in Chief of these United States. The women who fought hard and long for their equal rights in 1848 must be so very proud. Who do you think will hear their rappings this time?

Janet Hosmer, Ph.D., has spent over 25 years studying spirituality and the metaphysical sciences. Her vision is to bring about a rise in global consciousness by assisting those who wish to help change their path and live a more meaningful and abundant life. Visit her website athttp://www.theseekersplace.com to find numerous articles and resources designed specifically for those who wish to change their lives and our planet.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Janet_Hosmer

Title: Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
Post by: Linda K on January 17, 2013, 10:34:49 AM
Spiritualism Ushering in Women Emancipation (excerpts)
by Kathleen Meadows, M.A.

Kathleen has a Master's degree in Religion & Culture from Wilfrid Laurier University. Her academic focus was women's spirituality, and the writings of Carl Jung. Kathleen is a full time practicing psychic and Spiritualist in Kitchener Ontario where she lives with her life partner Erich Rock. You can read more about Kathleen's relationship to Spiritualism at www.psychicanada.com.

Introduction
Many spiritualists today don't know that the mid-19th century spiritualist movement was the axis and engine of the feminist movement. In manner of dress, rights to speak in public forums, to own their own money, to be spiritual leaders, and to declare a woman's right to equality, the spiritualists cleared the path.

Spiritualism burst into the western world, spreading throughout western global society faster than any religion in her/his tory. "The only religious sect in the world...that has recognized the equality of women is the Spiritualists." History of Women's Sufferage, edited by Elizabeth Stanton and Susan Anthony. Not all feminists were Spiritualists, but all Spiritualists advocated women's rights, and women were equal to men within Spiritualist practice, polity, and ideology. By providing a form of spiritual inspiration in which truth revealed itself to individuals without recourse to external authority, Spiritualism became a magnet for social and political radicals throughout the nineteenth century.

At its peak, Spiritualism had more than eleven million followers out of a population of twenty-five million in the US alone by the mid 19th century. Almost fifty per cent of the US population were Spiritualists.

The messages from spirit repeatedly exhorted listeners to bring equality between the sexes, to acknowledge the primary directive of SELF salvation, and further described a different afterlife scenario.

God is both Mother and Father in spiritualism. In all nine major religions, which also suited the imperatives of state, God is a father. This means that the male human has been given divine sanction for his privileged access to resources, opportunity and power.

Women rather than men became the message bearers, the voice of spiritual authority and the access to divine inspiration. Equality between the sexes was forwarded from the spiritualists as a spiritual imperative from the spirit world meaning that it was divinely inspired. Spiritualists said, as one advocate put it, that "woman's freedom is the world's redemption." As investigation of the manifestations swept the nation, Spiritualism became a major - if not the major - vehicle for the spread of women's rights ideas in mid-century America. Making it institutionally public enemy number one.

"Spiritualism has inaugurated the era of woman," Mary Davis proclaimed. She recalled the common birth date of the new religion and women's rights in 1848. Spiritualist conventions called for the "Emancipation of women from all legal and social disabilities." Consistently those who assumed the most radical positions on woman's rights became Spiritualists. Spiritualism and woman's rights spread simultaneously through the network of Quaker abolitionists that produced the first supporters of both movements.

Spiritualism's greatest contribution to the crusade for woman's rights lay in the new role of spirit medium. While reformers spoke of woman's autonomy, mediumship cast women in the central public role in the new spiritual message. Far from requiring guidance from men, mediums led both men and women on the path to spiritual truth. In mediumship, women's religious leadership became normative for the first time in the her/history of western civilization.

The seeds of modernism, psychoanalysis, communications, human rights, longevity were all brought from the unseen world to the seen in this most glorious age which had been prophesied for thousands of years.

The her/his tory of religion has taught us that the further we move in time away from the original spiritual message, the more it morphs, disintegrates, and ultimately decays. Spirituality is a dynamic force and has the power to alter the consciousness of humans, the course of our collective destiny and ultimately our ability to thrive. It's temple is the heart, its expression is in the actions we take every day of our lives. As spiritualists today let us honour our legacy by standing up against the winds of conformity. Let us rally around and fiercely support those gifted mediums amongst us and continue to lead the way forward to an equitable and spiritually centred world.
Title: Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
Post by: Linda K on January 17, 2013, 10:57:28 AM
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, spiritualist and women's rights leader was one of the first women to wear the "so-called reform dress" that is called an abomination in the Spirit of Prophecy. She is the ringleader, and her influence lead to the very movement that is now promoting women's ordination. 

Here is more evidence of the connection between Elizabeth Cady Stanton's Feminism/Spiritualism/American Costume influence leading to women's ordination:

"Elizabeth Cady Stanton was one of the most influential public figures in nineteenth-century America. She was one of the nation’s first feminist theorists and certainly one of its most productive activists. ....
Although Stanton’s efforts in The Woman’s Bible did not match the increasingly rigorous standards of her contemporaries in theology who were beginning their own critical examinations of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, neither did it fail as an intellectual exercise. This was simply a groundbreaking work, which called into question a number of widely accepted claims about the nature of God, God’s esteem for and relation to women, and women’s place within faith communities. It also paved the way for future work for and by women in religion in the twentieth century. Second wave feminists in the 1960s and 1970s, who were struggling for the full ordination of women in the Christian and Jewish traditions, relied heavily on this early work of early feminist criticism by Stanton. Academic women in the same era were inspired by her example and produced more modern and academically rigorous works that scrutinized sacred texts and religious traditions from a feminist perspective as well. Despite her own religious skepticism, Stanton would have been heartened to have seen a future in which over half of the students in mainstream Protestant seminaries are women, and the ordination of women is commonplace in liberal Protestant and Jewish traditions."
http://www.iep.utm.edu/stanton/

God said:"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." 1T 421

Is it not clear that God is opposed to the influence that is leading to the promotion of women's ordination and of women wearing clothing that is similar to men's? Why has our church completely ignored the dangers of androgynous fashion? You can't separate these two issues. One paves the way for the other. And they both pave the way for the approval of homosexuality. To only deal with the ordination issue without considering all this history is not wise.
Title: Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
Post by: Richard Myers on January 17, 2013, 03:10:21 PM
The White Estate has perverted and published gender neutral books written by Ellen White, inspired books.  It is impossible to make inspired books gender neutral. In some of what Linda has quoted we find this:  "Far from requiring guidance from men, mediums led both men and women on the path to spiritual truth. In mediumship, women's religious leadership became normative for the first time in the her/history of western civilization."  This is a revelation of how far removed are some, generally women, from reality. Their whole life is centered around their need to prove themselves worthy of life.  We who have accepted Christ as Saviour understand that none are worthy of life. Can you imagine a woman so blindly deceived that she could not bring herself to speak the word "history" because it has "his" in it?  The only reason why she uses her/history is because if she just said herstory no one except a fellow feminist would understand what she meant. I guess she could have written "personstory".

How long before such creatures will produce a substitute for woman?  Woperson?  To undo what God has done is impossible.  They just do not realize how silly they appear to normal people, if there is such a thing any more.
Title: Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
Post by: Mimi on January 17, 2013, 04:37:00 PM
Amen!

Excellent paper, Linda. Thank you!
Title: Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
Post by: jjeanniton on May 06, 2013, 04:02:57 PM
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, spiritualist and women's rights leader was one of the first women to wear the "so-called reform dress" that is called an abomination in the Spirit of Prophecy. She is the ringleader, and her influence lead to the very movement that is now promoting women's ordination. 

Here is more evidence of the connection between Elizabeth Cady Stanton's Feminism/Spiritualism/American Costume influence leading to women's ordination:

"Elizabeth Cady Stanton was one of the most influential public figures in nineteenth-century America. She was one of the nation’s first feminist theorists and certainly one of its most productive activists. ....
Although Stanton’s efforts in The Woman’s Bible did not match the increasingly rigorous standards of her contemporaries in theology who were beginning their own critical examinations of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, neither did it fail as an intellectual exercise. This was simply a groundbreaking work, which called into question a number of widely accepted claims about the nature of God, God’s esteem for and relation to women, and women’s place within faith communities. It also paved the way for future work for and by women in religion in the twentieth century. Second wave feminists in the 1960s and 1970s, who were struggling for the full ordination of women in the Christian and Jewish traditions, relied heavily on this early work of early feminist criticism by Stanton. Academic women in the same era were inspired by her example and produced more modern and academically rigorous works that scrutinized sacred texts and religious traditions from a feminist perspective as well. Despite her own religious skepticism, Stanton would have been heartened to have seen a future in which over half of the students in mainstream Protestant seminaries are women, and the ordination of women is commonplace in liberal Protestant and Jewish traditions."
http://www.iep.utm.edu/stanton/

God said:"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." 1T 421

Is it not clear that God is opposed to the influence that is leading to the promotion of women's ordination and of women wearing clothing that is similar to men's? Why has our church completely ignored the dangers of androgynous fashion? You can't separate these two issues. One paves the way for the other. And they both pave the way for the approval of homosexuality. To only deal with the ordination issue without considering all this history is not wise.


These spiritualists are a menace and a pest wherever one goes. I have read that Sojourner Truth was a member of this modern Spiritualist movement you are talking about! Yet I find other SDA recordings indicating that she was the first documented female African-American to join the Seventh Day Adventists!!! I don't understand! What was Sojourner Truth trying to do? Dissemble?

I invite you to see my new topic: ON THE COMMON LIMITATION OF 1 CORINTHIANS 14:34/35 TO FORMAL WORSHIP SERVICES! See http://remnant-online.com/smf/index.php?topic=14770.0.

But on this topic, i am going to cover more than just the issue of women speaking in church! It will also be a matter of what makes Reformed old-school presbyterian worship distinct from so-called "evangelical" worship, and the preliminary conclusions I make about the relationship between the speaker and the hearers in formal worship service are not going to make a lot of even of the ultra-fundamentalists and conservatives very happy! On the contrary, I prove on the old-school presbyterian Directory of Public Worship's own professed candid testimony, that in formal worship services, if the mere act of speaking out in formal worship services is an element of headship, then it is every bit as anti-Biblical for ANY unordained adult male (without an extraordinarily and miracuously inspired spiritual gift) to speak out in formal worship services, as for any WOMAN to attempt the same (even for the purposes of using her extraordinarily and miracuously inspired spiritual gifts if she has them), nor are the ordained "clergy" at liberty to invite him to speak: unless he is a candidate actively and sincerely seeking to enter into the ordained "clergy". And I endeavor to vindicate this position of the old-school Presbyterians using the Scriptures against all objections and complaints and murmurings and repinings that may arise from time to time.


Title: Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
Post by: jjeanniton on June 04, 2013, 12:08:20 PM
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, spiritualist and women's rights leader was one of the first women to wear the "so-called reform dress" that is called an abomination in the Spirit of Prophecy. She is the ringleader, and her influence lead to the very movement that is now promoting women's ordination.

You have heard much about how the distinctive tenets of Spiritualism constituted the ringleader of the Woman Suffrage Movement. But there is a chapter in the history of Woman Suffrage you NEED to hear about.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm:

Quote
When the American colonies began their resistance to English tyranny, the women—all this inherited tendency to freedom surging in their veins—were as active, earnest, determined, and self-sacrificing as the men, and although, as Mrs. Ellet in her "Women of the Revolution" remarks, "political history says but little, and that vaguely and incidentally, of the women who bore their part in the revolution," yet that little shows woman to have been endowed with as lofty a patriotism as man, and to have as fully understood the principles upon which the struggle was based. Among the women who manifested deep political insight, were Mercy Otis Warren, Abigail Smith Adams, and Hannah Lee Corbin; all closely related to the foremost men of the Revolution. Mrs. Warren was a sister of James Otis, whose fiery words did so much to arouse and intensify the feelings of the colonists against British aggression. This brother and sister were united to the end of their lives in a friendship rendered firm and enduring by the similarity of their intellects and political views. The home of Mrs. Warren was the resort of patriotic spirits and the headquarters of the rebellion. She herself wrote, "By the Plymouth fireside were many political plans organized, discussed, and digested." Her correspondence with eminent men of the Revolution was extensive and belongs to the history of the country. She was the first one who based the struggle upon "inherent rights," a phrase afterward made the corner-stone of political authority. Mrs. Warren asserted that "'inherent rights' belonged to all mankind, and had been conferred on all by the God of nations." She numbered Jefferson among her correspondents, and the Declaration of Independence shows the influence of her mind. Among others who sought her counsel upon political matters were Samuel and John Adams, Dickinson, that pure patriot of Pennsylvania, Jefferson, Gerry, and Knox. She was the first person who counseled separation and pressed those views upon John Adams, when [Pg 32] he sought her advice before the opening of the first Congress. At that time even Washington had no thought of the final independence of the colonies, emphatically denying such intention or desire on their part, and John Adams was shunned in the streets of Philadelphia for having dared to hint such a possibility. Mrs. Warren sustained his sinking courage and urged him to bolder steps. Her advice was not only sought in every emergency, but political parties found their arguments in her conversation. Mrs. Warren looked not to the freedom of man alone, but to that of her own sex also.

England itself had at least one woman who watched the struggle of America with lively interest, and whose writings aided in the dissemination of republican ideas. This was the celebrated Catharine Sawbridge Macaulay, one of the greatest minds England has ever produced—a woman so noted for her republican ideas that after her death a statue was erected to her as the "Patroness of Liberty." During the whole of the Revolutionary period, Washington was in correspondence with Mrs. Macaulay, who did much to sustain him during those days of trial. She and Mrs. Warren were also correspondents at that time. She wrote several works of a republican character, for home influence; among these, in 1775. "An Address to the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland, on the present Important Crisis of Affairs," designed to show the justice of the American cause. The gratitude American's feel toward Edmund Burke for his aid, might well be extended to Mrs. Macaulay.

Abigail Smith Adams, the wife of John Adams, was an American woman whose political insight was worthy of remark. She early protested against the formation of a new government in which woman should be unrecognized, demanding for her a voice and representation. She was the first American woman who threatened rebellion unless the rights of her sex were secured. In March, 1776, she wrote to her husband, then in the Continental Congress, "I long to hear you have declared an independency, and, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention are not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound to obey any laws in which we have no voice or representation." Again and again did Mrs. Adams urge the establishment of an independency and the limitation of man's power over woman, declaring all arbitrary power dangerous and tending to[Pg 33] revolution. Nor was she less mindful of equal advantages of education. "If you complain of education in sons, what shall I say in regard to daughters, who every day experience the want of it?" She expressed a strong wish that the new Constitution might be distinguished for its encouragement of learning and virtue. Nothing more fully shows the dependent condition of a class than the methods used to secure their wishes. Mrs. Adams felt herself obliged to appeal to masculine selfishness in showing the reflex action woman's education would have upon man. "If," said she, "we mean to have heroes, statesmen, and philosophers, we should have learned women." Thus did the Revolutionary Mothers urge the recognition of equal rights when the Government was in the process of formation. Although the first plot of ground in the United States for a public school had been given by a woman (Bridget Graffort), in 1700, her sex were denied admission. Mrs. Adams, as well as her friend Mrs. Warren, had in their own persons felt the deprivations of early educational advantages. The boasted public school system of Massachusetts, created for boys only, opened at last its doors to girls, merely to secure its share of public money. The women of the South, too, early demanded political equality. The counties of Mecklenberg and Rowan, North Carolina, were famous for the patriotism of their women. Mecklenberg claims to have issued the first declaration of independence, and, at the centennial celebration of this event in May, 1875, proudly accepted for itself the derisive name given this region by Tarleton's officers, "The Hornet's Nest of America." This name—first bestowed by British officers upon Mrs. Brevard's mansion, then Tarleton's headquarters, where that lady's fiery patriotism and stinging wit discomfited this General in many a sally—was at last held to include the whole county. In 1778, only two years after the Declaration of Independence was adopted, and while the flames of war were still spreading over the country, Hannah Lee Corbin, of Virginia, the sister of General Richard Henry Lee, wrote him, protesting against the taxation of women unless they were allowed to vote. He replied that "women were already possessed of that right," thus recognizing the fact of woman's enfranchisement as one of the results of the new government, and it is on record that women in Virginia did at an early day exercise the right of voting. New Jersey also specifically secured this right to women on the 2d of July, 1776—a right exercised by them for more than a third of a century. Thus our country started into governmental life freighted with the protests of the Revolutionary Mothers against being ruled without their consent. From that hour to the present, women have been continually [Pg 34] raising their voices against political tyranny, and demanding for themselves equality of opportunity in every department of life.

Thus de facto joining the movement in favor of women's rights - even half a century BEFORE the main Woman's Rights Movement of Seneca Falls occurred! Yea, even half a century BEFORE the birth of the Modern Spiritualist Movement and Bloomerite so-called Dress Reform! Does that therefore make these very same women of the Revolutionary War guilty of practicing Spiritualism or Androgyny?

It is about time one realized this:

A Southern Antebellum Secesh Presbyterian clergyman stated this:

http://www.wlhn.org/topics/abolition/church/1860_smyth.htm:

Quote

The Sin and The Curse [1860]
Rev. Thomas Smyth
Second Presbyterian Church, Charleston, S. C.
My brethren, I am not here to speak to you as a politician, or as a philosopher. I am here in God's name and stead to point out to you the causes of His anger, the sources of all our past and present dangers, the proper ground for humiliation and repentance, and our present and future course as Christian patriots.
Now, to me, pondering long and profoundly upon the course of events, the evil and bitter root of all our evils is to be found in the infidel, atheistic, French Revolution, Red Republican principle, embodied as an axiomatic seminal principle… in the Declaration of Independence. That seminal principle is this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted by God, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," and so on to inevitable consequences.
Thus the woman’s rights movement of 1848 – and the axiomatic seminal principles in favor of the equality of the sexes that the Spiritualists were for that time and age of the world’s history, virtually UNIQUELY (by virtue of the very DISTINCTIVES of Spiritualism) disposed to accept and favor – : are all part and parcel of the natural and probable consequences of the axiomatic seminal principle found in the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal …!
Title: Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
Post by: Mimi on June 04, 2013, 12:17:25 PM
Nice find. Thanks, jj!
Title: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
Post by: Linda K on February 09, 2015, 03:23:50 PM
Shocking Gender News: Compiled by Linda Kirk

Shocking Gender News/February 2015

Do you OPPOSE women’s ordination? Are you a faithful Seventh-day Adventist? If so, you NEED to read this!
We have become gradually conditioned to a situation that should astound us. The development of GENDERLESSNESS is shocking! This breaking news is shouting at us to wake up! Society is at war with God! The world is fast becoming ripe for destruction. Are we paying attention to the signs of the times? Mark this point: FASHION is working hard to change all of our minds regarding gender. If we think women’s ordination is wrong, what’s ahead is most certainly an abomination to God. It is not only about women’s rights but gay rights as well. The world is becoming a vast Sodom. Let’s make sure we are not pulled, inadvertently, into this abomination of “gender equality” as defined by society today.
First, read Deuteronomy 22:5 and then read the following news, which should be tremendously distressing to all of God’s people. Where should we, who oppose identical roles in the church, stand in this matter?

From the web: "In Milan, Hail the Femminiello, January 2015: The gender-bending trend, seen on the Gucci runway in Milan, is about to get huge, reports Angelo Flaccavento. Strangely enough, both the Gucci and Prada shows, albeit dramatically different, had a lot in common. They both pointed clearly, though in opposite manners, toward genderless fashion, resolutely blurring the masculine-feminine divide with neutral clothing. And they both enforced the message by sending men and women together down the catwalk, dressed more or less in the same way."

From the web:
Genderless fashion trend emerges:
Sept. 2014. Stealing from the opposite gender’s closet is a pastime at this point. The fashion industry has been marketing a more loose and relaxed fit called “The Boyfriend” jeans or shirt to the women’s section of clothing stores. . . . But the fashion industry is now breaking down all gender-related titles and creating a new title: Everyone. “Everyone” is a genderless section of clothing. Whatever the consumer considers themselves, they can find something in the everyone section. Collections of genderless clothing include loose silhouettes of shirts, pants, kilts and skirts. . . . With the fashion industry constantly evolving, this seems like the right next step. I’m proud of designers who put things on the runway they think everyone can wear. With “everyone” clothing, there will be no debate on whether this was originally meant for the men’s or women’s section or if it can be adapted into the opposite gender’s wardrobe. Genderless clothing will allow the consumer to decide if it personally works for them and how they would adapt it into their clothing collection.

From the web:
Genderless Fashion - The New Appear for the Future:
In the early 1900s, the concept of gals wearing pants had surprised the community. It was the defining minute that lead to the revolution of apparel. The separation of apparel by gender was on its way out at the very least for the ladies. . . . And lately, we have been noticing a spike in the evolution of the idea of gender and id in style. This is the development of a market of genderless model.

From the web:
Selfridges is introducing a unisex shopping concept:
For six weeks, Selfridges will be introducing a gender neutral shopping experience. The Oxford Street store will be merging its separate women’s and men’s departments over three floors. ‘The project will act as a test bed for experimentation around ideas of gender — both to allow our shoppers to approach the experience without preconceptions and for us as retailers to move the way we shop fashion forward.’

From the web:
In case you haven’t noticed, genderless is the new thing, in fashion and otherwise. It is not about men dressing like women and women like men, though: That is androgyny, or maybe unisex, and it had its heyday in the progressive ’70s, at the peak of counterculture. It is the less-ness that makes genderless a thing of the moment—not caring how gender is represented through clothing and experienced in life.


Linda Kirk again: These fashion news articles portray Satan’s agenda. What is God’s plan regarding our clothing?
"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}

Genderlessness – removing the gender divide, both in roles and in dress—this is the obvious agenda of society today. However, God has designed that there be a plain distinction in both the dress and roles of men and women. How distinct should this distinction be? Where is the line? Where do you stand on this matter? Have you studied the biblical principles of dress for yourself? How can we, as His people, show our loyalty to Him by our opposition to genderless fashion?

Now is the time to be shocked! Now is the time for action!
Title: Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
Post by: Linda K on February 09, 2015, 03:26:33 PM
This article is written for a specific audience: Seventh-day Adventists conservatives, or to be more descriptive, those Seventh-day Adventists who hold in high regard the counsel found in the Spirit of Prophecy, and who have not accepted the “progressive” agenda that tends to be moving away from foundational Adventism.

As a faithful Seventh-day Adventist, you know where you stand on the current issues that are being agitated among us. You are opposed to “celebration” worship styles and music, you understand the subtle dangers of spiritual formation and contemplative spirituality. You hold a firm position on the literal six-day creation, and you are not afraid to agree with the Bible that homosexual practices are sinful. You value the biblical standards that have long been upheld by faithful Seventh-day Adventists. And, you believe that the Bible teaches that women should not be ordained as pastors.

As we very well know, the issue of women’s ordination in the Seventh-day Adventist Church has become huge, and tends to separate us into opposing camps. While we believe in the unity of the body of Christ, we also believe that upholding biblical principles and remaining faithful to God is of higher importance. Therefore, we take the position of the reformers:

“If unity could be secured only by the compromise of truth and righteousness, then let there be difference, and even war.”  {GC88 45.2}
The purpose of this article is not to rehash our reasons for opposing the ordination of women for leadership roles in the church. Much has been written and preached which well establishes our position. Rather, this article aims to take a closer look at the popular idea of “gender equality” as it exists in society today, and discover the historical roots of this philosophy. We will take a closer look at how women’s ordination, historical women’s rights, and evolving fashion over the last 150 years have worked together to create the current culture which promotes “gender equality.”
Huffington Post declares: “Gender equality continues to be one of the largest movements of our generation.”

“Gender equality” is defined by the United Nations this way:
“Gender equality means that women and men have equal conditions for realizing their full human rights and for contributing to, and benefiting from, economic, social, cultural and political development.”

While we, as conservative Seventh-day Adventists affirm many of the positions which are included in the movement for “gender equality” such as the protection of women against violence and sexual abuse, there is one area in which we stand in opposition, and that is in the area that deals with the biblical principle of the headship of man. Again, we will not elaborate on this principle, but refer you to the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, as well as that which has been written and preached by conservative Seventh-day Adventists who oppose the ordination of women in headship roles in the church.

According to society, gender equality embraces the concept of women’s ordination.  We need to come to terms with the reality that our position is at odds with society. We are outside of the acceptable beliefs of current culture. We cannot possibly “fit in” with the mainstream. And this is as it should be. We are not “of the world.” When this is true, we will find that the world hates us for our opposition to their ways, just as Jesus said they would.

We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, to guide us in all our beliefs and practices. We believe that the writings of Ellen G. White, which is the testimony of Jesus—the Spirit of Prophecy—magnifies and clarifies the Word of God, and is a safe and reliable guide as well. Because we have such confidence in inspiration, we are willing to stand apart from society, no matter the cost.

We must thoroughly study this issue of egalitarianism and all that it entails. When we do, we will understand how it departs from biblical truth. While Ellen G. White does not have a lot to say about the women’s rights issue, what she does say is very plain. Notice this statement:
“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.” Testimonies to the Church, vol. 1, page 421

This is actually the only statement in the Spirit of Prophecy that makes it absolutely clear whether God would approve or disapprove of His people joining the women’s rights movement. It is a strong statement, basically declaring that if one chooses to join the women’s rights movement, they might as well part ways with the Seventh-day Adventist message. They are irreconcilably incompatible.

But that’s not all this statement says. It also refers to the “so-called dress reform.” What is this style of dress that she refers to here, which is to be shunned by Seventh-day Adventists? We need to read the quotation in context, and read from other similar statements to make sure that we understand what she is saying. Here is the connecting link between fashion and women’s rights. While conservative Adventists have elaborated upon the women’s rights part of the statement in many sermons and books, there is comparatively very little written on the need for God’s women to avoid the “so-called dress reform.”

The two paragraphs before this statement make it more clear what the “so-called dress reform” is:
“I saw that God's order has been reversed, and His special directions disregarded, by those who adopt the American costume. I was referred to 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." God would not have His people adopt the so-called reform dress. It is immodest apparel, wholly unfitted for the modest, humble followers of Christ.  {1T 421.2} 

“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. "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety." 1 Timothy 2:9.  {1T 421.3} 

Ellen White made it clear that God’s people should shun the American Costume, because it violates the biblical principle found in Deuteronomy 22:5.

Now, I do not know of any Seventh-day Adventist women today who wear the American Costume as it appeared in the 1860’s around the time when this quotation was written. Neither can we join the women’s rights movement as it was in the 1860’s. So, do we just write off this quotation as completely irrelevant and not applicable to us today? Rather, should we not take the approach that God has given us timeless principles in the Spirit of Prophecy that are very pertinent and helpful for us today? Is it not our duty to study out these principles so that we may apply them in a way that will help us conform our lives to His will and remain separate and distinct from the world?
Title: Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
Post by: Linda K on February 09, 2015, 03:29:16 PM
In studying the history of the women’s rights movement to which Ellen White referred, we find much fascinating information. The very woman, more than any other, who was responsible for starting this women’s rights movement, was Elizabeth Cady Stanton. We will clearly see how her spirit was incompatible with Seventh-day Adventism, and how it spread in the women’s rights movements to the full development of “gender equality” we see today. In studying history, we learn that Spiritualism played a significant role in the spread of the women’s rights movement.

In an article, Bible and Woman Suffrage, in the Los Angeles Herald, June 9, 1901, an unnamed author, who agreed with Elizabeth Cady Stanton, wrote:

"The greatest block today in the way of woman's emancipation is the church, the canon law, the Bible and the priesthood." That is the dictum of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the venerable exponent of woman's rights. Mrs. Stanton suggests a plan for partly surmounting the block of which she complains. She thinks the Bible should be expurgated, so as to eliminate objectionable allusions to women. She makes specific objection to the idea that woman is responsible for primeval sin, that she is "the weaker vessel," etc. This attitude of Mrs. Stanton is consistent and logical from her standpoint in the van of the movement for the universal uplifting of woman. It is difficult to find fault with it, even from the general standpoint of twentieth century enlightenment. It is a matter of surprise, in fact, that such expurgation as Mrs. Stanton suggests has so long been omitted in biblical revision. Certain teachings of the Bible cannot be reconciled with the cause of woman suffrage, nor with any movement aimed at equality of the sexes. The greatest difficulty in the way of adopting Mrs. Stanton's suggestion is the fact that it would cut a very wide swath through the Bible. It would practically eliminate the work of the most prolific author in the New Testament. Paul was such an inveterate woman-hater that none of his writings would be likely to escape Mrs. Stanton's expurgating pencil. How can an advocate of woman suffrage tolerate this Injunction; "Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection." And again: "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." No doubt many thoughtful persons will agree with Mrs. Stanton in the idea that expurgation of the Bible would be desirable in the direction indicated. The Bible has at various times been subjected to changes and revisions. All sorts of corrections have been made as a result of presumed mistakes in early translations. Possibly Mrs. Stanton's protest may start a movement In favor of another revision, releasing woman from the culpability for original sin and saving her from the abuse of the scriptural woman-hater.”

Can you see the incompatibility of women’s rights as defined above with the position of biblical authority? In referring to the Bible, Elizabeth Cady Stanton declared, “I know of no other book that so fully teaches the subjection and degradation of women.”-- Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Eighty Years and More (1898), page 395. She basically hated the Bible so much that she revised it to suit her own rebellious beliefs in 1895, calling her commentary “The Women’s Bible.”

Let’s consider some more comments by Elizabeth Cady Stanton:
“We must demand an equal place in the offices of the Church, as pastors, elders, deacons; an equal voice in the creeds, discipline, and all business matters, in synods, conferences and general assemblies.”

Does this sound at all like what we’re hearing today, even within our Seventh-day Adventist Church? Elizabeth Cady Stanton demanded “gender equality” before the term was even coined. No doubt if she were alive today she would be invited to be a special speaker at the gatherings of those promoting women’s ordination.

But what of her spirit? She opposed the Bible, especially the writings of Paul, she demanded that women be allowed to be ordained as pastors, and she violated Deuteronomy 22:5 by wearing the “so-called dress reform” which was so similar to men’s clothing that God pronounced it abomination.

If you are interested in knowing just what the American Costume looked like, and how it differed from the dress reform promoted by Ellen White, please refer to the links at the end of this article.

What else did Mrs. Stanton have to say?
“I fully agree with you that woman is terribly cramped and crippled in her present style of dress. I have not one word to utter in its defense; but to me, it seems that if she would enjoy entire freedom, she should dress just like man.” From The Political Thought of Elizabeth Cady Stanton: Women's Rights and the American Political Traditions, by Sue Davis

Does God want women to dress just like, or even similar to men, or is it an abomination to Him? We really do need to study the history of this women’s rights movement in all its details so that we can understand the position God would have us hold on these matters. The history of women’s dress, women’s rights and women’s ordination are all intertwined. These issues developed simultaneously, and all three originated in the minds of rebellious women.

There were also a few men who supported the woman’s rights movement. One of them was Gerrit Smith, the father of Elizabeth Smith, who first wore the pants under a short skirt. Amelia Bloomer and Elizabeth Cady Stanton saw her and copied the style, which came to be called the American Costume. Gerrit Smith wrote a rather long letter to Elizabeth Cady Stanton in 1855 for the purpose of explaining to her why he didn’t have more “faith” in the woman’s rights movement. The bottom line was, he said that until women changed their dress to be more like what men wore, they would not succeed in convincing society that women should have equal rights. He said the real battle-ground was women’s dress.

We now know that women did change their dress to be more like men over the years, and the women’s right’s movement has been tremendously successful. He was right, the real battlefield was the dress.

Granted, Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s opposition to the unhealthful and impractical fashions, such as the hoop skirts and dragging dresses popular in the mid 1800’s was also echoed by Ellen White. But, in Stanton’s rebellion against the biblical principle of headship, she carried the dress reform so far as to be an abomination to God. While Ellen White spoke of dress reform during the same time period, she upheld the biblical principles of making a plain distinction between the dress, rights and roles of men and women. God gave Ellen White specific counsel, so clear that she referred to God’s special directions, and said, “I saw . . .” showing that this was a direct revelation.

She received a vision showing her three styles of dress, two which were unacceptable to God, and one which met His approval.  {See 3SM 278}  The American Costume, promoted by Elizabeth Cady Stanton was shown in the vision to be abomination to God. Thus it was that Ellen White said that those who joined the women’s rights movement, which promoted women’s ordination, and wore the American costume could not really be true Seventh-day Adventists.

I believe that Ellen White’s position on theses sensitive subjects of dress and women’s rights provides evidence of her divine inspiration. While she did not approve of the women’s rights movement, she spoke out against the evils of unhealthful, impractical and prideful fashion. She clarified the role of women in the church, and went so far as to say this about women’s position: “We may safely say that the dignity and importance of woman's mission and distinctive duties are of a more sacred and holy character than the duties of man.” {3T 565.2} It is obvious that she recognized women’s role as distinctively different from that of men’s, but she did not believe it was an inferior and less important role.

Now let’s consider another lady who promoted the American Costume. This one was an acquaintance of Ellen White’s. Dr. Harriet Austin was a physician at Our Home in Dansville, where Ellen and James White went in the 1860’s, before there was a Seventh-day Adventist Sanitarium. Dr. Austin was a strong proponent of the American Costume. She wrote in the California Farmer and Journal of Useful Sciences, Volume 20, Number 10, 16 October 1863:

“Aside from those ladies who have been directly under my care as patients, or who have come to me for examination, simply, I have given advice by letter to thousands. Of late years, my prescriptions invariably include the direction, "Adopt the American Costume." There are at least a thousand women, in the United Suites, wearing this dress to-day, in compliance with that advice.”

Dr. Austin wrote from a perspective of health, and most of what she said was in harmony with Ellen White. However, what did Ellen White have to say about the style she promoted? In 1864 Ellen White wrote, "We do not think it in accordance with our faith to dress in the American costume . . ."  {1T 458.2}  “We shall never imitate Miss Dr. Austin or Mrs. Dr. York. They dress very much like men.”  {5MR 380.4} 

You can see actual photographs of these ladies, showing what they wore in a historical presentation that will help you to better understand the counsel given in the Spirit of Prophecy. (See the links at the end.)

The American Costume of the 1860’s, which consisted of a knee-length “short skirt” over trousers eventually morphed into the Bicycle bloomer costume of the 1890’s which consisted of puffy bloomers without a skirt.
Title: Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
Post by: Linda K on February 09, 2015, 03:31:53 PM
But the general sentiment against bloomers was strong. Notice this conversation between two women from The San Francisco Call, July 20, 1895:
“The Friend—Do you approve of Bloomers? Mrs. Tupper— decidedly not (this very emphatically). I think it unsexes a woman and reduces her charm to nothing. No woman should attempt to imitate men in attire. Let them use their brain all they choose. But to depart from the flowing robes to adopt a halfhearted masculine costume — oh, horrors! There can be no redemption. Let me live a woman as I am, for I would prefer death in bloomers.”

The San Francisco newspaper published these comments because they represented the sentiments of the majority of society. Most women would not be “caught dead’ in bloomers. Today, San Francisco reveals the advanced manifestations of the theory of “gender equality.” We see how it has progressed from women’s rights to homosexual’s rights. How did culture change so drastically in just a little over 100 years? Could it have possibly started with changes in fashion? Here is an interesting article called A Ladies’ Strike, from The San Francisco Call, July 9, 1894.

“The Woman's Club to Move Against Skirts and Appear in ‘Divideds’ This City Will Not Be Behind the East. ‘EQUALITY’ IS THEIR MOTTO. The Woman's Club of San Francisco has work on hand that may be as far reaching in its effects as the present railroad strike. It is going in fact to make a strike of its own, in a gentle and feminine way however. There are many people In San Francisco who have never heard of the Woman's Club, for it is not an organization that courts notoriety. It is built upon one maxim: ‘Every member must believe in the equality of the sexes.’”

The article goes on to explain that the members of this women’s club planned to devise outfits that included a divided skirt, or trousers, as a way to declare their belief in equality of the sexes. It describes the American Costume this way: “The 'American' dress has knickerbockers and leggins to meet a short skirt.” The common bond was that they all believed in equality of the sexes, and they wanted to show it by what they wore. “Divideds” are chosen because the skirt “forms such a barrier to equality between the sexes.” The plan was to make the skirt smaller by degrees, in other words, shorter and shorter until it fades away entirely. It seems like their plan has succeeded quite well over the course of time.

The women’s rights movement in early years often addressed women’s dress, along with their disdain for the Bible:
“‘ST. PAUL WAS WOMAN'S WORST ENEMY’ says Mrs. E. P. Fremont Addresses Liberal Club on Subject of ‘Equality of the Sexes’
“‘St. Paul was the greatest enemy woman ever had,’ declared Mrs. E. P. Fremont In an address before the Los Angeles Liberal Club last evening.
“‘The annals of history show no man who has done more to keep women In the bondage In which she is now held than that great apostle of the Christian religion,’ continued the speaker, as she addressed the audience on the subject of ‘Equality of the Sexes.’

“‘I detest his very name; not so much on account of what he has written, but because of the Influence It has had with man in keeping my sex in bondage. He declares that a woman should not be seen in public with her head uncovered and says that a woman should go to her husband for all Information which she may desire. She has done this so long, under the advice- of this saintly man, that now she is slow to awake to the fact that she is held in slavery by her so called protector and helpmate.

“‘The greatest obstacle in the way of woman's advancement today is her manner of dress,’ said Mrs. Fremont. In speaking of the progress of her sex. ‘While we have been making rapid strides in other forma of civilization within the last 5OO years our dress has continued the same.
“‘It remained for the theater and not the church to give women the privilege of baring her head in a public assembly, thus giving her an equal footing with man in public places. The church has been and always will be the greatest obstacle in the way of woman obtaining her proper rights and being placed on an equal plane with man. It is the teaching of the Apostle Paul that has caused the church to take this attitude toward womankind.’”

Even though pants under short skirts were introduced in the mid 1800’s, women in general continued to wear long skirts and dresses until 1915 at least. At that time, fashions were introduced from Paris, little by little, that were deliberately designed to blur the distinction between the sexes. One significant fashion designer was Coco Chanel, who played a huge role in popularizing pants on women. She is also credited to promoting “gender equality.” Notice these statements:

“Trousers (or pants in Australia and United States of America) were considered to be inappropriate for women until the late nineteenth century. Partially as a result of women entering the workforce, the popularity of the bicycle and the women's movement, the resistance against women in trousers gradually vanished. . . The French designer, Gabrielle "Coco" Chanel (1883–1971), loved wearing trousers herself, often dressing in her boyfriend's suits, and she began designing pants for women to wear while doing sports and other activities. Chanel designed horseback riding trousers for women, who had previously ridden sidesaddle in heavy skirts.

“During the 1930s pants continued to be stylish, although they were still shocking to many. Audiences were both fascinated and horrified by glamorous actresses of the time, such as Marlene Dietrich (c. 1901–1992) and Katharine Hepburn (1909–2003), who wore trousers regularly. Though some designers created tailored slack suits for women, wearing pants was still not widely accepted. Some conservatives considered women in pants unnatural and masculine. However, by 1939 Vogue, the respected fashion magazine, pictured women in trousers for the first time, and many women wore pants for playing golf or tennis and riding or bicycling.”

This acceptance of masculine styles on women was a gradual process. People become familiar and conditioned to the styles introduced by fashion over time.
“By loosening waistlines, shortening hemlines and embracing pants, Chanel redefined women's style.” 

Coco Chanel is credit with redefining women’s style. Can fashion promote “gender equality?” Apparently it does play a significant role in conditioning the minds of the public to change their views.
“Coco Chanel had an astounding impact on balancing the scales and promoting gender equality. She defied the fashion standards of her time by incorporating masculine articles of clothing.”

While Coco Chanel, Marlene Dietrich and Katharine Hepburn were the pioneers of the pants-on-women fashion, society as a whole had not yet totally embraced the idea. But the women’s rights movement, which morphed into the women’s liberation movement, pushed it over the edge so that it became wholly received by society:

“Other than a brief Capri pants fad during the early Sixties, women rarely wore pants in public. It was dresses and skirts only. Then the Women’s Liberation movement hit its stride in the Seventies, and the ladies started to get in on the pants action. Just as the miniskirt had been a proclamation of the youth culture, pants became a proclamation of gender equality.”


Title: Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
Post by: Linda K on February 09, 2015, 03:33:50 PM
Again, we see masculine-style fashion connected with the women’s rights movement. Pants on women became the uniform of the women’s libbers.
“Designers tapped into the Women’s Liberation Movement, infusing their collections with the all-empowering pant, which had become yet another symbol of equality between the sexes.” Fashion Design Essentials: 100 Principles of Fashion Design, p. 138, by Jay Calderin

Those who wore the “uniform” identified themselves as accepting the philosophy of the movement.
“The pants, a symbol of women's liberation, equality, power and rebellion; iconic garment, it has the characteristic to conquer the hearts of women of all ages around the globe.”


How did the Mormon feminists promote their agenda recently?

“Mormon feminists wore pants to church services on Sunday, rather than their usual dresses or skirts, as a symbol of gender equality and inclusiveness in the traditionalist faith.”

While the following statement is quite crude, it reveals a connection between the current trend of androgyny and cross-dressing.
“Androgyny and cross-dressing go together. Cross-dressing is hardly new. There has been a long tradition of female cross-dressing throughout history - has it been forgotten? Women wearing men's clothes - Hollywood stars such as Garbo, Hepburn and Dietrich did so - have an erotic edge and a sexiness that stems from their being able to play with their gender identity, appearing to be men but not quite men.”

Much has happened in history since the seventies that has further blurred the distinction between both the roles and the fashions of the sexes. The Unisex fashions morphed into androgyny. Feminism and androgynous fashion have worked hand in hand to prepare society for “gender equality” across the board. It is politically correct to accept women in all roles in society. To stand up and say that women should not be ordained as pastors in headship positions in the church is very unpopular. But that is the position of conservative Seventh-day Adventists.

Recent developments push the idea of “gender equality” even further. In January this year, during Paris Fashion Week on “Boulevard Chanel” which is named after the famous Coco Chanel, a “feminist riot” fashion show took place. Coco Chanel is honored as having “tied her fashion to the feminist cause.”
Ellen White wrote about the fashions from Paris, and says that society at large has chosen the laws of fashion that originated from Paris:
“In these last days fashions are shameful and immodest. They are noticed in prophecy. They were first brought in by a class over whom Satan has entire control . . . ”  {1T 188.3} 

Is it not clear how Satan has had a hand in designing the fashions which blurred the distinction between the sexes, which helped to lead society to the unbiblical philosophy of “gender equality?” Fashion is declared to be a tool for the feminist movement.

“As increasing gender-blurring fashion flourishes, there are many different ways of being feminine and no right idea of femininity. Fashion is constantly changing, and it’s not only a tool that women use to define themselves, but also a tool the entire feminist movement can embrace. This tool gives women the power to decree corsets inhibiting and to claim typical male garments as their own.”

We see how feminism has blended the idea of androgyny, both in philosophy and in fashion. See how women’s ordination fits into the mix:
“In the 1960s Christian feminists set themselves on a course parallel to that pursued by feminists in secular society. They—together with their counterparts—began to seek the de-differentiation of male/female roles. The dominant theme was that women needed to be allowed to name themselves. Feminists believed that women should be allowed to do everything that men could do, and in the same manner and with the same recognized status as men. This, they believed, constituted true equality.

“Unfortunately, Christian feminists began to pursue the inclusion of women in leadership hierarchies without a clear analysis of whether or not the hierarchies themselves were structured and functioning according to a biblical pattern. They merely judged the church to be sexist and implemented a course of action in response. Christian feminists, alongside their secular counterparts, began to demand ‘equal rights.’ They decided to seek androgyny in the church by pursuing women’s ordination and the obliteration of structured roles in marriage.”—The Feminist Mystique, by Mary Kassain, p. 32.
The progression of the unisex/androgynous fashion matches the progression of women’s rights/women’s liberation/feminist movement.  When it began in the early 1900’s with the introduction of pants on women, women copied the men. We can clearly see this by observing photos of the fashions over the years. Then came the unisex fashions of the 70’s, where men and women dressed the same in bell bottom jeans. Then came the pantsuit or power suit, and the 501 style boot cut jeans. Baggy jeans turned into boyfriend jeans, then came the skinny jeans. Before long men’s skinny jeans showed up. Now, men are copying women. Skirts and leggings (called meggings) are now being introduced for men. All these unisex/androgynous fashions are deliberately endeavoring to blur the distinction between the sexes. But we see a change coming. While previous gender blurring focused primarily on women dressing similar to men, the reverse is now taking place:

“Fast forward three decades, we are seeing a vastly different approach to androgynous fashion. Unlike their staid peers, some designers have marched beyond putting women in tailored men’s clothing or conventional sportswear borrowed from the men’s. Instead, they are taking bold steps to blur the boundaries of gender binary in dress, either by removing gender marking (Rad Hourani) or creating ambiguity that subverts traditional notions of masculinity and femininity in dress (e.g., Rick Owens, Thamanyah, Craig Green, ReiKawakubo and Haider Ackermann). By doing that, these designers are attempting to address, and even equalise the power imbalance between genders, while at the same time adopting feminine symbols for menswear, hence reversing the direction of flow of borrowed symbols, i.e., from women’s to men’s.

“While there are indeed unisex clothing pieces in the market, such as the T-shirt, unisex aesthetic is almost always inconceivable. Designers such as Rad Hourani challenged this almost impossible task by producing collections seasons after seasons that can be shared between men and women - i.e., all the garments can be worn by both genders. Unlike the conventional offerings of unisex clothing, which is men wearing men’s clothes and women wearing said men’s clothes to appear less feminine, his clothes de-emphasises biological differences between genders.”

This removing of gender marking also helps further the LGBT agenda. What society wears reflects society’s ideology. Notice the connection of fashion to homosexuality:
“Fashion is queer and we know it. So why don’t we talk about it? From Christian Dior to Alexander McQueen, Yves Saint Laurent and Jil Sander many of the world’s greatest designers have identified as LGBTQ. And for centuries, fashion has been an instrument of expression and experimentation for this community. The sex-charged creations of designers like Walter Van Beirendonck, and the androgynous looks flooding fashion week’s runways, prove that sexuality and the way we style ourselves are inextricably entwined.”

This year, the 2015 SYMPOSIUM of Fashion & Gender will take place at the University of Minnesota on May 1 and 2. Here are some comments regarding the symposium:

“Crane (2000, p. 16) noted that ‘fashionable clothes are used to make statements about social class and social identity but their principle messages are about the ways in which men women and men perceive their gender roles or are expected to perceive them.’

“There are also questions addressing the role of fashion in the development of gender roles. Fashion can be used to enable establishment of one’s gender and support or refute genderism. Genderism is the belief that gender is a binary and that there should be only two genders.  This belief can reinforce negative attitudes and discrimination towards people who display gender variance or those whose gender identity is incongruent with their birth sex. There has been long debate concerning fashion and gender and what it means not only to appear and dress in a means that reflects expected gender ideals but what it means to reject typically masculine or feminine ways of appearing. Fashion is a device to break though gender boundaries, it provides a canvas upon which to portray, establish, question, or confirm gender identity.”


Did you notice the last sentence? “Fashion is a device to break though gender boundaries, it provides a canvas upon which to portray, establish, question, or confirm gender identity.”
Title: Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
Post by: Linda K on February 09, 2015, 03:35:53 PM
Here is another comment that says basically the same thing:
“Fashion is a way to reduce barriers between men and women, we already see a lot of women adopting tomboy style without being homosexual, fashion allows expression and freedom. Nowadays feminism is very present to allow women being equal with men but it is important to not forget other fights, it is still rare seeing heterosexual men wearing feminine clothes in the street, this is usually only on catwalks. And do not forget transgender who want to be considered by society as a person when society try to fix them to join male or female side.”

Again and again this theme is repeated:
“Unisex clothing has become more common and popular through the rising idea that men and women now tackle similar tasks and therefore require similar clothing to take on this. . . . This revolution of equality in modern society is iconic and is portrayed in the clothing production and even on the catwalks as both genders now take on the same catwalk rather than in different shows in many cases now.. . . The gender-neutral take on fashion is set to be an iconic step for equality within fashion.”

A homosexual blogger, in an article “Out of the Closet: Fashion's Influence on Gender and Sexuality” puts it this way:
“The way we dress gives an immediate impression of who we are to the world. Throughout history, from fairy tales to historical figures, fashion has undoubtedly played a major role in defining and exemplifying our gender roles in society. . .  Fashion and clothing are an essential part of the gender transformation movement. . . Feminists have long been debating the notion of the fashion and gender conundrum, and what it means in society to dress in not only socially expected gender ideals, but also what it means to reverse or reject typically female or feminine ways of dressing. In this instance, many women have taken on a more masculine way of dressing in order to exhibit to society their personal feelings about gender categories. . . . However, the use of clothing as a means to express these different gender identities remains a constant factor in all regards to transgressing gender. . . Androgyny muddles the societal gender equation, by adding a third variable to the male/female binary. . . . If we can start to understand fashion as a means to influence our own gender understanding and step outside the binary implications of gender, we can better recognize the importance of the power that fashion has on societal gender views, and its control over not only individuality, but culture as well. It is through fashion, clothing choice and personal style, that we can manipulate the gender binary and carve out our own personal stylized gender identity.”

To the fashion bloggers of today, it is no mystery how the current “gender equality” mindset developed:
“Clothing has also proven an effective means of traversing the gender divide. For men and women, gay and straight, who sought to explore new identities as members of the opposite sex (whether temporarily or with a long-term objective in mind), cross-dressing could provide the answer. . . .  Female stars of the 1930s, '40s, and '50s like Marlene Dietrich and Katharine Hepburn incorporated pants and other traditionally "male" clothing into their wardrobes for a mysterious and alluring (if sexually ambiguous) effect.”

The fashion industry and “gender reformers” understand the power of fashion to change society regarding gender roles.
“Only when the greater world has accepted the insignificance of gender roles can we finally hope for acceptance of all people, regardless of their gender identity. But if anyone has the power and influence to get this movement going, it’s the fashion industry.”

These are just a few of the multitude of comments that historians, gender “experts” and fashion bloggers are writing that clearly show the connection between gender roles and fashion. For those who know their history of culture and fashion, it is very clear that feminism and gender blurring fashion are closely linked. Statements such as the following shows a clear connection:

“The good news is that as attitudes about gender have changed, and as women and homosexuals have won political and social freedoms we should’ve had all along, the rigid distinctions between clothing styles for men and women have blurred.”

All of this talk about gender equality is leading to some absurd conclusions, such as this one about clothing equality. This shows how far humanity’s thoughts can be from God’s ideal:

 “Today, the clothing trend is starting to reverse. It is now acceptable for the female to wear all traditional male styled clothing. However, there is still a real bias against the male wearing any traditional female styled clothing (skirts, dresses, blouses, underwear, lacy and frilly items). To have true equality all clothing must be acceptable for all.”


A major store in London is launching the Agender Project where they will strive to erase all gender distinctions, so the men’s and women’s departments will be merged. Some are hoping this will be the trend of the future, so that all clothing will be genderless.

“With all the blurring of gender lines on the men’s fall runways, Selfridges is set to match that mood with a gender neutral shopping experience.”

The progression of women’s rights (which included the American Costume & bloomers), women’s liberation (which included unisex jeans & power suits,) and feminism (which includes androgynous gender blurring fashions) has led society into our current “gender equality” agenda which includes gay rights, and identical roles for men and women. Today feminism has successfully obliterated most gender norms regarding dress and roles for men and women.
“Perhaps Lena Chen, an activist and media commentator for Salon, Glamour and her own blog, put it best. ‘In my lifetime feminism has evolved far beyond the binary identity politics of women vs. men,’ she wrote in an e-mail. ‘To me, feminism is one part of a larger global movement for liberation. Gender norms dictating how you ought to behave, dress, marry, or work are oppressive regardless of what body you inhabit or how you identify yourself.’”
 
Society now scorns the idea of biblical male headship, and fashion flaunts its rebellion against patriarchal values. God has always called His people out of the worldly mindset, warning us not to be followers of fashion. We simply cannot to go along with the customs of the world and be among God’s true remnant. “The spirit which attends the one cannot be in harmony with the other.”

The culture of the world is under the influence of the god of this world, the enemy of all that is holy and righteous. The influence of popular culture or “pop culture” is what God has warned Seventh-day Adventist to shun:

“As the truth is brought into practical life, the standard is to be elevated higher and higher, to meet the requirements of the Bible. This will necessitate opposition to the fashions, customs, practices, and maxims of the world.” {FE 288.2}

Are conservative Seventh-day Adventist women opposing pop culture (the fashions, customs, practices and maxims of the world) in their appearance? If so, we will show by our apparel that we oppose what fashion and feminism is forcing on the world.

A worldly fashion blogger writes how pop culture strives to use gender blurring fashion to promote gender equality:
“Another explanation for the enthusiasm toward menswear in womenswear is pop culture. Pop culture continues to erase the lines between men and women in society. . . . Evidently, closing the disparity between male and female roles in society has been the talk of the town so it makes sense that fashion would reflect such a socially and politically affecting topic on the runway. By eliminating wardrobe barriers between men and women, fashion takes a step toward placing males and females on an equal platform. It reinforces the classic Chanel idea of ‘dress like a man, live like a man.’”

Dear conservative Seventh-day Adventist, are you listening? By putting the pieces together, we should be able to see how the devil has tricked us into ignoring the principle found in the second part of the statement from the Spirit of Prophecy:

“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.” Testimonies to the Church, vol. 1, page 421

Unfortunately, Seventh-day Adventist women have increasingly accepted the gender blurring fashions of society. Most of our female members have accepted the fashions of feminism. With very few exceptions, our sisters wear the American Costume of today, “the so-called dress reform,” which is based on the same ungodly principle which God condemned in the 1860’s. The older women wear the baggy jeans and slacks while most of the younger women wear whatever pant style is currently “in.” Would this counsel be applicable to the women in the church today?
Title: Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
Post by: Linda K on February 09, 2015, 03:37:35 PM
“Some, I saw, had departed from God, and were united with the spirit of the world. As different fashions are introduced, one after another have fallen back from their steadfastness, and have lost their peculiarity. It is crossing to come out from the world and be separate. As soon as individuals cease warring against the spirit of the world they are Satan's easy prey. Our efforts are too feeble to resist an influence which leads us from God, and which brings us in union with the world.”  {RH, November 26, 1861 par. 1} 

With all the evidence shouting at us, how can we deny that the pant/jean/slack styles that have evolved over the last 100 years have been introduced as a feminist inspired fashion designed to remove gender barriers? Can an honest person hold the position that the wearing of pants by women today has nothing to do with the unbiblical influence of the women’s rights movement throughout the last 150 years?

We may be standing strong in opposing the ordination of women as pastors, and opposing homosexual practices, but have totally accepted the gender blurring principle behind the “so-called dress reform.” In other words, by accepting the fashions which declare our connection with the world, we may actually be promoting the world’s unbiblical philosophy of “gender equality” which embraces the ordination of women. What we wear makes a statement—a very visible and loud statement. If we accept fashions that the devil has devised, we are shouting to the world that we have accepted the world’s philosophy.

One worldly writer puts it this way:
“Fashion is about creativity, making a statement and being unique. It offers us a simple way to let the world know what we believe and provides us with an ability to communicate a message in a medium that few other industries can rival. It's clear that fashion is altering the messaging of gender and that that people are increasingly choosing to wear clothes no longer specific to a given gender - as such it's becoming increasingly difficult for society to categorize fashion by gender alone.”

This is something for you to seriously consider. Are you announcing to the world that you agree with society’s viewpoint regarding gender equality through your clothes? The following worldly blogger tells how androgynous fashion has made a serious impact on the perception of gender roles. The gender twisting fashion becomes a statement of belief.

“The counter-culture revolution of the 1960’s and 1970’s changed the way society thought about gender roles. By the time the 1980’s and 1990’s came around androgyny had become mainstream. There was a large amount of evidence that the androgynous lifestyle was finally accepted by society.  . . . Each decade that passes society evolves as a whole. Think about today’s society compared to that of your parents and your grandparents. Brave men and women using their personal fashion choices have made a serious impact on how society perceives gender roles. With evolution comes the promotion of creativity, the acceptance of sexual identity, and the equality of both sexes. In summary, androgyny identifies with both genders and no gender at the same time. So why do I think this topic is important? Because it’s more then a fashion statement. It’s a statement of freedom, self-expression, status, and beliefs.”

Since our beliefs influence how we choose to dress, therefore our dress confirms our beliefs. The bottom line is, what do we really believe about women’s ordination? How can we wear the clothing that promotes gender equality, and then claim to oppose women’s ordination? Those who understand the history of fashion as it relates to the feminist movement see the inconsistency behind such a practice. It’s like declaring that you are loyal to one government, while you are dressed in the military uniform of the opposition. Who is really going to take you seriously?
This adopting of the gender blurring fashions by conservative Seventh-day Adventists has weakened our position regarding God’s plan for the distinction between the sexes. How can we call the world out of Babylon if we wear the styles inspired by the world?

“We are called upon in these perilous times to elevate the standard. It has been left to trail in the dust. The fashions of the world hold God's people in bondage.”  {RH, November 26, 1861 par. 5}

In the 1880’s God warned His people against the danger of wearing worldly fashions. In fact, we are told that it was Satan’s most effective tool in separating church members from God.

“Fashion is deteriorating the intellect and eating out the spirituality of our people. 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} 

Since the devil was so successful in using fashion to extinguish spirituality in those days, do we presume that he is no longer using fashion to destroy God’s church today? To be sure, women today are not being tempted to wear corsets and dragging, heavy dresses or hoop skirts. We are not being tempted to spend many hours and dollars adding extra trimmings and decorations to our dresses, or to wear hats full of feathers and flowers. But we are being tempted to wear the popular fashions of today so we can fit in with the world.

This article has clearly revealed that the trend of fashion has been to increasingly confuse and remove gender distinction, both in appearance and roles. Fashion trends also demoralize society through increasing immodesty. Mark this point: Satan hasn’t laid down his most successful tool to destroy us. When we ignore God’s counsel and follow today’s fashion, we are separating from God and denouncing His divine order for humanity.
While the conservative Seventh-day Adventist woman may abhor and shun the current extreme fashions which remove gender barriers, she needs to remember that, in the 1930s to 1950s, conservative Seventh-day Adventist women, as well as many other women, abhorred and shunned jeans and slacks on women because of their gender blurring effect. But as they gradually became accepted by society, Seventh-day Adventists accepted them as well. Then the unisex clothing of the 1960s to the 1990s became so common that jeans were worn by almost everyone.

“A century and a half later, blue jeans are an international symbol of independence, equality, freedom, and youth.”

Fashion is now moving beyond just jeans. The androgynous fashion of the 2000s has mixed things up so much, it’s hard to know what clothing is specific to which gender.
One fashion designer has made it her goal to study the sexes “to take them away from the roles that history makes them play”.
“But the fashion industry is now breaking down all gender-related titles and creating a new title: Everyone. “Everyone” is a genderless section of clothing. Whatever the consumer considers themselves, they can find something in the everyone section.”

And the gender confusion will continue to increase. In order to oppose this fashion gender-blurring, we must quit following right along with the crowd, and be deliberate about opposing this gender confusion in both roles and dress. We must stop wearing the fashions that defy God’s order.
The proponents of women’s rights and feminism through the last 150 years all recognized and utilized the impact that gender-blurring fashion has on promoting the philosophy of gender equality. The power of appearance is more profound than words. Why have we missed this point in our church?
Perhaps in times past, God winked at our ignorance and our blindness. But as we recognize the seriousness of the times, and see these gender issues fomenting in our midst, and sense a rebellious spirit among us, isn’t it time to make it clear upon which side we are standing?
“Our only safety is to stand as God's peculiar people. We must not yield one inch to the customs and fashions of this degenerate age, but stand in moral independence, making no compromise with its corrupt and idolatrous practices.”  {CG 449.3} 

If we are to please God, we must know what he wants. We must study the biblical requirements of dress. God’s people should be asking:
“Wherein does our dress conform to the Bible requirements? . . .  God has said: ‘Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.’”  {4T 647.1}
 
“It is the duty of every child of God to inquire, Wherein am I separate from the world?” {1T 277.1}

Either we uphold the biblical principles found in Deut. 22:5 and the writings of Paul, or we don’t. If we are upholding the principles of the Spirit of Prophecy, we will not pick and choose which of God’s standards we want to obey, and then ignore the ones that disturb our comfort zone. We will be open to close investigation, and be willing to examine and renounce any long-cherished practices that may not bear up under scrutiny of God’s Spirit.

“Let us 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.”  {1T 277.1}

Sisters, don’t allow your clothing to agree with the unbiblical philosophy of gender equality/women’s ordination while you endeavor to oppose it with your voice. Our clothing shouts louder than our voice. I encourage you to study this matter out, so that, as you stand against the tide of worldliness flooding into our beloved church, you may give a consistent testimony in favor of the truth by the grace of God.

Title: Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
Post by: Linda K on February 09, 2015, 03:40:14 PM
If you would like the complete article, with all the links, sent to your email address, please message me. I will also send you some additional links that make an obvious connection between the current "gender equality" agenda and the wearing of gender-blurring fashions. Things are going crazy in the world of fashion, and these genderless fashions are furthering the feminist agenda. It is time for us to speak out against the fashions of the world!
Title: Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
Post by: Linda K 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…
Title: Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
Post by: Linda K 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.

 
Title: Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
Post by: Linda K 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.
Title: Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
Post by: Richard Myers 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.
Title: Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
Post by: Mimi 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. 
Title: Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
Post by: Sister Marie 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."
Title: Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
Post by: colporteur 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.
Title: Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
Post by: colporteur 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
Title: Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
Post by: Sister Marie on February 16, 2015, 11:26:31 AM
Things are happening so fast. It is sad but also amazing.
Title: Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
Post by: Kaniela 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)
Title: Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
Post by: Linda K 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
Title: Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
Post by: Linda K on February 23, 2015, 05:04:50 PM
Ken Ham, the creationist, sees the issue clearly:

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/02/10/agender-or-a-gender/
Title: Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
Post by: Linda K 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.
Title: Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
Post by: Linda K 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. . .
Title: Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
Post by: Linda K 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.
Title: Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
Post by: Linda K 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.
Title: Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
Post by: Linda K 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
Title: Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
Post by: Linda K 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
Title: Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
Post by: Linda K 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!
Title: Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
Post by: Richard Myers 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.
Title: Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
Post by: Linda K on April 14, 2015, 04:07:32 PM
The Gender Binary Battle

Did you realize that society is in a gender war? It is currently transitioning from a mere debate into a huge battle. As in the Great Controversy between Christ and Satan, there are 2 sides, a right and a wrong side. We need to make sure that we are on God’s side in this gender conflict.
Our enemy, the devil, specializes in mixing good with evil. He uses the knowledge of good and evil to confuse the unwary, and lure them into accepting his mixture of right and wrong. That’s how it is with the gender battle. There are good elements mixed in to deceive those who are not grounded in the truth. For example, the emphasis on stopping the violence and abuse of women and non-binary people is a worthy goal. However, we must not become swayed just because of some worthwhile elements.

We must saturate our minds with the truths of God’s Word in order to intelligently stand on the side of truth. We must believe and practice the principles of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, or else we will be sucked into society’s sinful reasoning. There are eternal consequences at stake.
Here is a brief description of the two sides in this gender battle.

Side 1, the “old-fashioned” biblical side, currently labeled by society as the Binary belief is:

•   God created just 2 sexes, male and female, as opposite sexes.
•   Marriage is only between a man and a women. A romantic relationship between same-sex couples is sinful.
•   There is to be a plain distinction between the sexes—in identity, roles and appearance.
•   God designed the husband to be the head of the home, and the wife to be his helper.
•   God designed the husband to be the priest of the home, the spiritual leader. The home is a “mini-church,” and God designed the church to have male leadership.

Side 2, Modern Culture’s side, labeled the Non-Binary position, declares:

•   Gender is very complicated. Gender is not binary, with only 2 choices, but is a spectrum; therefore there are many choices each individual has regarding their gender identity, expression and orientation. Their gender identity is where they feel they fit on the spectrum, their gender expression is how they choose to dress and present themselves outwardly, and their sexual orientation determines their sexual relationships.
•   One’s biological sex does not determines their gender. Each individual is free to choose and change their gender. The non-binary proponents validate their choice.
•   All the gender identities are completely equal, meaning that they have equal rights to identical roles and freedom of expression. There should be no roles or opportunities that are off limits to any of the gender identities. Equal rights should apply to all.
•   Binary belief is bad. It is unloving and unkind, and marginalizes all non-binary individuals and women. Binary belief opposes Feminist and LGBTQ agendas, thus it should be demolished.
•   The closer society comes to gender neutrality in gender roles and expression, the safer and fairer it will be, with freedom for all. We need to be accepting of all genders.

These viewpoints are not compatible, and are diametrically opposed to each other. One hundred years ago, the majority of society believed in Side # 1. Today, the majority of youth agree with Side # 2. Society is gaining new converts rapidly to its position. Many are still somewhere in the middle, not sure where they stand. As the issue heats up, each individual will eventually decide between the two beliefs.

We need to make one thing clear at the outset. As Christ’s followers, we are to have His love, His compassion, His mercy, His willingness to even lay down our lives for our fellow people, even those who identify themselves as non-binary individuals. Never should we treat anyone unkindly, because the blood of Christ has been shed for each one of us. Each human is a candidate for heaven.

The world has a definition of love that is opposite from God’s definition. It requires that we condone that which God has declared to be sinful. That is why those who believe that God created only two sexes will be considered unloving and unkind. They will become extremely unpopular and even hated by society at large because their binary belief makes a plain distinction between the sexes. This appears to be unloving to all those who want to blend the genders so that all non-binary individuals feel included.

In the future, when the binary believers express their biblical views, they will be accused of hate speech, which will most likely become illegal. Through the power of the majority, Satan will use extreme pressure to convince God’s people to change sides to the more popular and accepted one, where they will then be perceived as “loving” to society.

While we should love as Christ loves, He also wants us to share His definition of sin, and His hatred of sin. He wants us to love His holiness, His purity and His righteousness. He wants us to allow His Holy Spirit to transform us into holy and pure men and women, without a taint of the world’s philosophy. He is willing to heal us of all our sexual confusion and wrong thoughts and feelings.

In considering women’s rights, gay rights, and all of our rights, God has given us the right to make moral choices. We are free moral agents. We have the freedom to transgress His law, the freedom to sin. But that does not make it right to do so. It is not righteous to sin. God defines sin as the transgression of His law.

According to God’s Word, all immorality is sin. It is sin to practice homosexual sex, because the Bible teaches us so in several passages. And it is sin to change your sex identity, to become transgender. How do we know that? There is a particular passage in the Bible that shows us clearly that this is wrong. It is the passage that tells us that is sinful to wear the clothing of the opposite sex.

God foresaw this gender binary battle that we are facing today. He provided us with valuable instruction to forewarn us. The women’s rights movement carried the rebellious seeds that have now sprouted and grown and produced evil fruit. In the 1850’s, these seeds were planted in the minds of spiritualists who were in rebellion against God and became willing agents of Satan’s agenda. They developed a philosophy which usurped God’s order and plan for the opposite sexes, and they introduced a fashion that would further their agenda.

That is why God warned His people so strongly, even using the word abomination, and this warning is especially pertinent to us today. We have been warned NOT to join this movement, which has morphed into the non-binary movement, and NOT to wear their fashions which remove the distinction between the sexes.
Title: Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
Post by: Linda K on April 14, 2015, 04:10:14 PM
"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." {1T 421.3} 

How much we need this counsel today, exceedingly more than we did in 1855. That battle has intensified from a small local flicker to a wildfire that is rapidly spreading across the whole world.

As was mentioned, in the beginning, God created two sexes, and He wants them to be kept distinct in every way. He wants you to identify as opposite of the other sex. He wants you to express yourself in your appearance as opposite of the other sex. He wants you to be sexually attracted only to the opposite sex. There are no grey areas. Opposite is opposite. This is where God draws the line regarding this issue that has confused society.

God’s people are also to be opposite from the world. They are to be opposite in character, in life, in dress, and in conversation.  (See 1T 127-129) Opposite in dress is not similar in dress. It is not imitating the fashions of the world. It is being willing to stand out from the world as opposite in their appearance. We are to dress attractively, neatly, clean and tidy, yet opposite from the world.

What is one way we are to be opposite from the world? Deuteronomy 22:5 prohibits God’s people from wearing the clothing of the opposite sex and reveals God’s will regarding His desire for a plain distinction between the sexes. If this principle was honored by society in general, as it was in the early 1800s, there would not be a binary battle today. To be non-binary such as the androgynous or transgendered involves wearing the clothing of the opposite sex. Also, gay and lesbians either violate Deuteronomy 22:5 themselves, or they are attracted to those who do. In their hearts, the non-binary do not submit to God’s requirements to make a plain distinction between opposite sexes; they approve of same-sex appearance and relationships. The entire LGBTQ community approves of the violation of Deuteronomy 22:5.

God’s protection for any society from gender confusion is found in the keeping of the commandment found in Deuteronomy 22:5. When this commandment is violated by an entire society, confusion cannot help but be the result. This includes confusion in sexual identity (whether you identify yourself as a male, female, both or neither), expression (your dress, mannerisms, appearance) and orientation (whether you are attracted to males, females, both or neither). The roles you choose in the home, church, society, relationships all are affected by your sexual identity, which then affects your gender expression.

Ellen White wrote about the “increasing tendency” for women to dress similar to men in her day. This tendency was manifested in the 1850s by the American Costume, a knee-length dress over pants advocated by leaders of the women’s rights movement. We will be taking a close look at this issue as found in Testimonies to the Church, volume 1, pp 457-462. Please read the entire section in the Testimonies. We will be looking at one phrase or sentence at a time. First, we see that this involves an abomination, which is something extremely displeasing to God:

"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.”

Let’s consider what it is God considers an abomination. What kind of style were these women in the 1850’s promoting? Notice these phrases:

“increasing tendency” When a tendency is increasing, it continues to grow and develop. It wasn’t just something that was a temporary fad; it has been an increasing tendency for over 150 years and it still is increasing.

The style was “As near like the other sex as possible” Near like means similar, or close to. It doesn’t mean identical. So they were not actually wearing men’s clothing, just very similar clothing.

This style was “very much like men” Again, very much like means similar or close to, not identical. They were creating a fashion that was quite close to men’s attire.

“They imitate the opposite sex as nearly as possible.” To imitate means try to be like. Apparently, God was very displeased with their desire to mimic the opposite sex.

"In this style of dress God's order has been reversed” To reverse God’s order means to be heading in the opposite direction than God intended.
“His special directions disregarded. Deuteronomy 22:5” To disregard His special directions found in Deuteronomy 22:5 means to ignore and thus violate this biblical commandment. His calls this abomination.

“God's prohibitions are lightly regarded . . . ” to lightly regard God’s prohibitions would involve doing something that God prohibits.

“ . . . by all who advocate doing away with the distinction of dress between males and females.” This is what the promoters of the American Costume were advocating. Amelia Bloomer was referring to Deuteronomy 22:5 when she declared: “It matters not to us what Moses had to say to the men and women of his time about what they should wear.” Elizabeth Cady Stanton declared, “The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women's emancipation.” Obviously, they lightly regarded God’s prohibitions in the fashion they were advocating. Nonetheless, the fashion they promoted was still a lot more distinct from men’s clothing than the gender-blurring fashions of today!

“God designed that there should be a plain distinction between the dress of men and women” God made it clear that the American Costume which led to doing away with the distinction between the dress of men and women, and was an abomination to Him. From this, we can know that the “plain distinction” that God designed in women’s clothing should be more distinct from men’s clothing than a knee-length dress over pants.

God “has considered the matter of sufficient importance to give explicit directions in regard to it;” He has given us a very definite command in Deuteronomy 22:5. This must be a very important matter to Him! He gave us “explicit directions.”

“for the same dress worn by both sexes would cause confusion and great increase of crime.” This is a prophetic statement, and this prophecy has absolutely been fulfilled, without a doubt!

If Paul could see Christians in the American Costume “he would utter a rebuke.” Why does Ellen White say that? It becomes obvious because she then quotes the verse where Paul instructs women to dress in “modest apparel.” The American Costume, a knee-length dress over pants, did not qualify as being “modest apparel” for women.

Ellen White clarified that the American Costume “is immodest apparel, wholly unfitted for the modest, humble followers of Christ.”
Title: Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
Post by: Linda K on April 14, 2015, 04:12:08 PM
Ellen White explains that she wrote all this as “a reproof to those who are inclined to adopt a style of dress resembling that worn by men.” This reproof still stands today and applies to all women who wear clothing that resembles that worn by men.

She clearly states, “We do not think it in accordance with our faith to dress in the American costume.”

This is her conclusion of all that she wrote about this subject of women wearing clothing that resembles, or is similar to what men wear. Our faith is to embrace everything that God, through inspiration, has set forth to guide us in righteous living. And that includes Deuteronomy 22:5. From this quotation, we can clearly see that God’s admonition to us, which is absolutely applicable in our day, is that we are to make a plain distinction in our clothing from that of the opposite sex.

(Please notice this point: Ellen White is here referring to the clothing, which is be plainly distinct from the clothing of the opposite sex. Even if the woman’s facial features, body shape, hairstyle, etc. are very distinct from men, there is also to be a plain distinction between the clothing of opposite sexes.)

It is only by divine wisdom from God that Ellen White was able to discern this issue clearly in her time. Logical reasoning would have led her to embrace the American Costume in the 1850’s, since she was in harmony with its proponents in battling against the prevailing fashion of hoop skirts. Ellen White and the women’s rights leaders all agreed that hoops were unhealthful, impractical, impeded free movement, and were extravagant. Now was presented a healthful, practical and simple fashion in the American Costume. Yet, through God’s direction, she declared it was an abomination. God showed her that it was in violation of Deuteronomy 22:5.

At this current time in the world’s history, when gender confusion has taken over society, Christians should love and appreciate the direction God has given us in Deuteronomy 22:5. We should embrace it as precious counsel to guard and keep us from becoming entangled in the pollutions of the world. We should be very careful to obey the principle which would lead us to make a plain distinction in what we wear. We should not get anywhere near the gender-blurring fashions of the world, either to approve of them on others or to enjoy participating in them. The more confused and blurred the world gets, the more distinct from the opposite sex women should strive to present themselves.

In 1 Timothy 2:9 God admonishes women to dress in modest apparel with shamefaced and sobriety. If this counsel were followed, women would not be aspiring to achieve the roles God has designated for men. “Modest apparel” means a long, flowing garment in the original language. Shamefacedness and sobriety, which portray a meek, quiet and submissive spirit along with the distinctive feminine attire is descriptive of godly womanliness. And remember, God’s ideal for womanliness is very different from the world’s idea of femininity—which includes worldly appearance and behavior that is seductive, immodest, and prideful.

As the years have rolled on since the 1850s, the gender blurring tendency has definitely increased. Sometimes it progressed slowly, but sometimes it was propelled forward by leaps and bounds. Marlene Dietrich and Katharine Hepburn are two of the names from fashion history that stand out as making the gender blurring fashion of pants on women popular. They also defied God’s counsel in Deuteronomy 22:5. Katharine Hepburn stated: "I'm an atheist, and that's it.” Marlene Dietrich declared: “I have given up belief in God.” This is the rebellious, ungodly mindset that popularized gender-blurring pants on women.

Each year forward has seen further developments in this increasing tendency that is an abomination to God. Just to mention a few of these fashions: The menswear-style slacks of the 1940s, the unisex denim jeans of the 1960s, the pant suits of the 1980s, the gender-blurring androgyny of the 2000s, the boyfriend jeans of the 2010, the skinny jeans for guys and girls of 2013, and the gender neutral fashions of 2015, all are in violation of Deuteronomy 22:5. All tend to blur the distinction between the clothing of men and women.

For many years now, the gender-blurring fashions have largely been women adopting menswear. But we are beginning to see the reverse of that trend also developing, with men adopting women’s clothing. This trend is highly acclaimed by the non-binary individuals, who decry the “double standard” and say that this new trend is “putting on blast decades of lingering gender hypocrisy in fashion.” The double standard and hypocrisy referred to is the acceptance of women dressing like men, while men are not yet fully accepted in women’s clothing. The goal of many is to remove all “gender markers” in fashion.

Satan is crafty in his deceptions. Not only does he mix good with evil, he offers progressive abominations, so that there is always a worse abomination on the horizon which is new and shocking; thus he takes the focus off the current popular abomination. In the matter of gender transgressive fashion, he has had many years to develop styles that blur the distinction between men and women. The twisted gender-blurring fashion introduced on the runway makes the current unisex/androgynous fashion seemed mild in comparison. That’s how he tricks us into thinking that the lesser abomination is acceptable to God. God’s professed people generally stay a few steps behind the latest fashion, but they are still followers of fashion, nonetheless. What is an abomination to God doesn't become acceptable to Him simply because society accepts it. The greater abominations don’t cancel out the lesser abominations.

In summary, there is a war going on, to put it briefly, between the Binary and the Non-binary. No doubt this battle will intensify, so that hostility will be manifested toward those unwilling to “convert” to society’s new perspective.

If this information is new to you, I invite you to study this topic out for yourself. Study the Spirit of Prophecy on godly womanhood and manhood, womanly modesty, and God’s plan for the family. It would also be very helpful to read the presentation that shows actual photos of the American Costume so you can understand God’s counsel more clearly. http://www.theandrogynydeception.com/PDF/The-Androgyny-Deception-part-3.pdf

Then do some Google searches on words like “non binary gender”, “gender equality”, “gender neutral fashion”, “unisex” and “androgyny”. Be prepared to be shocked and appalled at what you see. This is coming in like a flood, and if we aren’t well grounded, we will be swept away. It will take men and women of firm conviction to stand strong in the test ahead. But if we are compromising on the principle of Deuteronomy 22:5, our position will be weak. How could we find the strength to go against the popular tide when we have been enjoying going with the flow of gender-blurring fashion?

So, which side of the battle are you standing on? Are you 100% submitted to God’s plan for there to be distinct opposite sexes, in identity, expression and orientation? Do you agree that the Bible is plain on the rights and relations of men and women? If so, you will not be led to join the women’s rights/feminist/non-binary movement, or wear the “so-called reform dress,” which would include any fashion where women wear that which resembles men’s clothing, or the other way around. You will be led to make a plain distinction between men and women, their rights, roles, relationships and raiment. You will stand for the Binary position, God’s position, for “male and female created He them!”

Now is the time to watch and pray. A storm is brewing, relentless in its fury. May God set our feet on solid ground!
Title: Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
Post by: Linda K on April 14, 2015, 04:15:25 PM
I would value your feedback on this recent article, whether positive or negative. I am wondering if it is plain, if the reasoning is logical, and if it provides a compelling argument for dress reform. I would like to send this out to others, but want to run it by you here first. Please send any corrections or ideas you may have. Thank you!
Title: Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
Post by: Linda K on April 27, 2015, 11:58:27 AM
Dear Seventh-day Adventist Christian: Please read the following article from The Daily Free Press, written from an increasingly popular viewpoint that stresses the need for “gender equality” including in the clothes we wear:

Clothing isn’t gender specific

Written by Mariel Cariker• April 17, 2015 12:45 am

http://dailyfreepress.com/2015/04/17/cariker-clothing-isnt-gender-specific/

This weekend, Jaden Smith was spotted by paparazzi wearing a dress in public. The pictures circulated the Internet, and people exploded. . . .

Smith posted the picture on Instagram with the caption “Went To TopShop To Buy Some Girl Clothes, I Mean ‘Clothes.'” This was a really powerful statement to his 1.8 million followers, even if he didn’t realize he was making it. Societal gender labels on clothing are harshly enforced for basically no other reason than to keep things the way they’ve always been. What’s so bad about a guy in a dress?

Girls can and have been wearing pants with no objections for decades now. The last few years of award shows and red carpets have brought in a new and sweeping trend of women in suits, which people have praised. This trend has spread to “normal” society outside of Hollywood as well. I’ve seen multiple girls wear suits to their high school proms. Meanwhile, if a boy wears a skirt or a dress, it’s seen as out of the ordinary and strange. If a boy wore a dress to prom, it would be a huge deal. Why the double standard? Why can girls wear typically masculine clothes and receive compliments while boys get ridiculed if they wear stereotypically feminine clothes?

This stems from the idea that men are looked down upon for doing anything that would portray them as feminine. By wearing a dress, they’re “destroying” their masculinity. I don’t think, though, that clothing and masculinity necessarily have to match up or have to be mutually exclusive. Someone can still wear a dress and be masculine, and when it comes down to it, a “loss” of masculinity isn’t the worst thing in the world. We are throwing ourselves into these restrictive gender categories for virtually no reason with gender specific colors, clothes and ideas. Gender fluidity exists, but many people like to pretend it doesn’t and silence those who try to express it.

Boys can’t wear makeup because it’s seen as unnatural. Meanwhile, it’s seen as odd if girls don’t wear makeup. Baby boys are surrounded with blue clothing, while girls are wrapped in pink. Young boys who like pink, or more “feminine” colors or clothes, tend to be bullied. There have been stories on the news about boys being kicked out of class for wearing makeup, skirts or high heels. We have these pre-set gender expectations for boys and girls as they grow that society enforces without really stopping to think about why.

This weekend I was hanging out with some friends and for whatever reason some people decided to switch outfits, regardless of their genders and what the items of clothing were. The boys were in spaghetti-strap tank tops and girls were in baggy jeans and sweaters, with no criticism whatsoever. Everything kept going on normally, just with everyone in gender-swapped clothes. My friend Conner ended up in my floor-length floral dress and honestly, he rocked it. He got so many compliments and he looked better in it than I did. I don’t think this attitude should exist just at college parties. Men and women should be able to wear whatever clothing they want, no matter what color or pattern it is. People get so angry about it, but if it’s not negatively affecting them, why should they care?

I’m completely on board with this new wave of fashion. Although it is a small step, I think it’s an important motion in the move for gender equality. Just a few decades ago, women couldn’t wear pants without being looked down upon, and I think the new movement of men wearing “female” clothing without facing harsh criticism is up next. There’s no need to conform to these gender limitations, and using clothing to push gender boundaries shouldn’t be frowned upon. I see this as progress, and the people pushing for it shouldn’t have their voices stifled. End of article.

Dear Seventh-day Adventist member, do you agree with her viewpoint? Is this the kind of progress we can support? If not, why not? What is your viewpoint, and what do you base it on? Can you back it up with scripture? Please reflect on what is being said in this article and ponder these questions:

The author claims that clothing is not gender specific, or at least it should not be gender specific. Do you agree with this statement?
_____YES      _____NO

The author states: “Societal gender labels on clothing are harshly enforced for basically no other reason than to keep things the way they’ve always been.” Do you agree that there is no valid reason to separate clothing in gender categories?
_____YES      _____NO

The author asks, “What’s so bad about a guy in a dress?” and then notes: “Girls can and have been wearing pants with no objections for decades now.” The author admits that “Just a few decades ago, women couldn’t wear pants without being looked down upon.”  But, over the course of time, it has become accepted by society. Do you believe that, if enough guys wore dresses for a while, so it was accepted by society, that it would then make it O.K. for guys to wear dresses or pants, while women also wore dresses or pants?
_____YES      _____NO

Do you agree that it is hypocritical for society to allow girls to wear typically masculine clothes, while men are ridiculed for wearing typically feminine clothes—as stated by the author: “Why the double standard? Why can girls wear typically masculine clothes and receive compliments while boys get ridiculed if they wear stereotypically feminine clothes?”
_____YES      _____NO

Do you agree that “gender fluidity exists” and that “restrictive gender categories” exist for “no reason”?
_____YES      _____NO

Do you agree that we should not oppose those who want to express it? In other words, should we approve of gender fluidity by approving of people who want to cross gender boundaries in their appearance?
_____YES      _____NO

Do you believe that the reason society has upheld “preset gender expectations” throughout history has any moral implications, specifically related to Deuteronomy 22:5?
_____YES      _____NO

Do you realize that now for the first time in modern history, there is a strong effort to remove all gender boundaries, distinctions, or markers in fashion, roles and relationships?
_____YES      _____NO

The author believes: “Men and women should be able to wear whatever clothing they want, no matter what color or pattern it is.” Her article portrays the position that no fashions should be designated as women’s clothing or men’s clothing. Do you agree with this concept?
_____YES      _____NO

Are you on board with this “new wave of fashions” and agree that “There’s no need to conform to these gender limitations, and using clothing to push gender boundaries shouldn’t be frowned upon.”
_____YES      _____NO

The author wonders why some people have such a strong reaction toward switching clothes around. “People get so angry about it, but if it’s not negatively affecting them, why should they care?” While it is true that we should not “get angry” in an ungodly manner, should God’s people be concerned if all of society, including members of the church, interchange clothing so that there is no distinction between what men and women wear?
_____YES      _____NO

If we should be concerned, what is our reason, and how strongly should we be concerned?

Please email your comments or request more information on this topic from a biblical perspective at
truebiblicalwomanhood@gmail.com for
Title: Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
Post by: jjeanniton on August 26, 2017, 04:50:16 PM
This has always been a major contention of mine: the sexes are not just distinct - they are biologically and ontologically DISCONTINUOUS from each other. Likewise, if we can prove that the "races" or "subspecies" of mankind are biologically real, then they must be every bit as precisely defined and biologically discontinuous from each other as are the sexes. A "race" of mankind, in the biological sense of the term is: ‘a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type’ – and which traits all members of that type and only members of that type have by virtue of its very essence. And if God wills it, I can prove the following propositions.

1. No 'race' nor 'subspecies' of mankind is a fuzzy set. (A fuzzy set is a set such that there are some individuals for which it cannot be determined precisely whether the given individual is a member of that set or not.)

2. No 'race' can contain the whole of any other 'race', but on the contrary, all such 'races' are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.

3. It is a fact of Science and also a wise dispensation of Divine Providence that the entire Human Species, and therefore each “race” thereof, is only a finite set.

4. Because finite sets can only have finitely many subsets, it follows that the number of different 'races' or 'subspecies' of mankind is only a finite whole number. (And I can prove from Proposition 3 that the truth of Proposition 4 is independent of the truth of proposition 2.)

5. These 'races' or 'subspecies' are discrete, and in fact, the genetic variations between the “races” which DEFINE their very ESSENCE, and DEFINE them as being different “races” must be biologically discontinuous, and the same is true for subspecies. And we can prove that these Propositions 1 - 5 are also true for "sexes".

6. But because it is a fact of Science that only CONTINUOUS genetic variations between the different peoples around the world have been observed, and lack the necessary biological discontinuity to define a different "race" or subspecies, therefore there is only one race - the Human Race. There are only two human sexes - the male and the female, because this distinction DOES have the required biological discontinuity that the distinction between the so-called "races" of mankind lacks! And also the Bible teaches that there is only ONE race - the Human race! See: https://answersingenesis.org/racism/are-there-really-different-races/. Therefore the Bible teaches that there are only TWO sexes, but only ONE race of mankind. And I will move this reply of mine to a different section if necessary. In the meantime, may God bless you and your work in defending and upholding the true nature, distinctions, and BIOLOGICAL DISCONTINUITY of the sexes! Through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.