For those not from Lancashire or the US, I’m referring to a divided outer garment covering the legs. Trousers are just posh pants. Under his pants a gentleman would wear underpants, so the garment is rightly referred to as pants. Those who think they are always called trousers are wrong. Whoever heard of jogging trousers?
The purpose of this post is that I’m finally coming out and saying I don’t think women should wear pants in public (they don’t wear underpants so why should they wear pants).
I have no objection to these.
And I have nothing against a boiler suit for really mucky work, but I’ve spent too long in the company of men at their most unguarded (women in male dominated environments are often ignored as women, you are an other, an ungenedered thing) to think that garments like the one shown below should be worn outside of the home.
I’m not suggesting for one minute all men react in an inappropriate manner towards this garment, it is just a few, many of them university educated. At this point I was going to post some of the inappropriate comments I have heard. However, it may encourage someone somewhere to start looking at women in pants in an inappropriate manner so I have desisted.
Now you may be indignant because of my passivity in all this, why didn’t I stop the men from talking in such a manner? I haven’t really got an excuse. I’d just let men keep talking like this in my presence because I wanted to know what they were thinking, rather than hiding it from me. I found their objectification of women staggering and I’m afraid the wearing of pants by women only makes it worse.
Apparently (though I'm dubious of any story relating to a person's confession- people really shouldn't talk about their confessional experiences) Padre Pio refused absolution to a woman who kept a shop selling womens’ trousers until she stopped selling them. See here.
We women ought to be aware of the thoughts we can induce in some men by the way we dress.
In school, teenage girls are far more vulnerable in trousers that they may feel, they are revealing much more to a clued-up male than they realise. Admittedly it is better than the alternative of the above-the-knee skirt that rides up to above the crotch of the tights (pantyhose) when they sit at the computer. It is not easy for a teenage girl to concentrate on her work and where her clothes are going simultaneously. Heads in schools should have the guts to stick to loose below-the-knee length skirts for girls or how about bringing back ghastly coulottes? At a pinch 1940s land army girls do look modest in pants, but I’m not sure about anything you could buy off the peg today.
Why drag a man’s eyes so far away from the face of a woman that he just starts to respond to her as a series of curvy body parts.
OK, not all men are like this but what is going on inside our heads and the heads of those around us is important. We should care that a generation on boys reared on NUTS magazine are unlikely to treat women any more sensitively than my highly educated contemporaries. As women we should strive to perfect our modesty and femininity, we should not be hidden under a burkah or be selectively displaying bits of our anatomy, both of these alternatives are equally damaging.