Yearning for the days of patriotism, Christianity, decency, and Emily Post!

True Motherhood vs Feminist Theme! Being a mother, a vessel, yes, this is the only true function of a woman. It seems that International Women’s Day is quite the thorn in catholic sides; other flavours of christianity too. The brief article extolling the virtues of motherhood is what you’d expect, but I was rather amused by how the comments got quickly derailed into a major moan about how women simply will not wear dresses. Came as a surprise to me, because I always see lots of women wearing dresses. I’ve been known to wear them myself now and then. Here’s a small sample:

I do not understand what the loud-mouthed, vulgar, disgusting, unkempt, disreputable, profane women of today are trying to achieve or prove. When I was in college, the ladies were appetizing, and the gentlemen were appealing. Today, they are slobs. When I attended a medical meeting a few months ago, about 100 people were in attendance. I sat up near the front of the audience. When the speaker finished, I turned to look back at the gathering. I was disappointed and distressed to observe that I was the only lady there who was wearing a dress. The other women wore slacks. How the mighty have fallen. When Billy Graham died, a young woman said foul, shocking things about him, because he didn’t believe in abortion or homosexuality. She was a pretty girl, but to hear such off-color utterances from her was appalling. One day, as I was entering a grocery store, a gentleman approached, at the same time, with a dowdy-looking, plump woman, who was wearing blue jeans. He said something, and seemed to be addressing me, so I inquired a la Robert DeNiro, “Are you talking to me?” He replied, in a wistful, awe-stricken tone, “You’re wearing a dress.” Gee whiz! I hadn’t realized that one of my pet peeves had irked anyone else but me. I was both amused and regretful at his attitude of having found an oasis in the desert. I wondered if his female companion had heard what he said, and if she had, what did she think. However, I did not linger to hear anything more, but proceeded into the grocery store with a polite smile. With all the trash in the movies and on TV today, I am not surprised at the terrible breakdown in morals and standards, resulting in all the shootings. The shooters probably never frequented Carnegie Library or any other library, or had any discussions about morals and standards with their parents. Reading what you have written, I fear sadly and regretfully that we probably are too far out into the swamp to turn back the clock to the days of Mister Rogers. We can yearn for the days of patriotism, Christianity, decency, and Emily Post, but lots of luck! We can only hope and pray!

Mmmph. I grew up during those days. Thankfully, evolving into a happy hippie saved me from the pretentious corsetry of Emily Post. I was raised to be a “lady.” It sucked, and I wanted no part of it, and I much happier for having rejected being an always quiet picture of gentility, keeping my place in the bed and kitchen.

Regarding the lady named Grace, I absolutely agree with her. Women today now do cross-dressing. I often say to my husband when we are out “nobody is wearing a dress or skirt. When we are told that babies in the womb are not human babies, I ask what are they then? Rabbits, cats, dogs. No abortionist will agree we are human because they wouldn’thave A job to go to. In other words it is about “Money”.

I’ve been wearing jeans for one hell of a long time now. It’s not cross dressing. What about kilts? They’ve been around for just about forever, are those awful cross dressing too?

We have to imitate our BLESSED MOTHER MARY, would she be wearing slacks/trousers? I know of someone who had two pant outfits and the legs of both were slightly wide so that she had them made into skirts!
Especially when attending the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it’s respect for JESUS, HIS MOTHER, THE PRIESTS and all those around her! Besides, it sets a good example for the younger generation!

Showing leg is respect? Hmmm.

Great idea but unfortunately the dresses one sees in the stores look more like tops instead of dresses. While I’m not one to wear a dress that reaches the ground, it would be nice to see the styles of years gone by.

Depends on where you shop, m’dear. Have you tried thrift stores?

Via Return To Order.


  1. brucegee1962 says

    But wait, aren’t the priests wearing dresses? And I don’t think I’ve ever seen a picture of Joseph where he’s wearing pants. I’m so confused.

  2. says

    Then there’s Jesus, who would likely have been dressed in a stylish kimono-like affair with a poncho over the top, decorated with nice masculine tassels.

    These parochial nitwits always, for me, bring to mind George Bernard Shaw:

    Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.

  3. says


    Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.


  4. says

    That line about women being appetizing. Does that creep out anybody else?

    This reminds me of a passage in 1 Corinthians about proper hair length for men and women. According to Paul, nature itself tells us that long hair is shameful on a man. Some translations render it “the nature of things,” and people have suggested that Paul is referring to culture rather than nature itself. Either way, attaching shame to hair length just doesn’t make any sense to me.

  5. says


    That line about women being appetizing. Does that creep out anybody else?


    Oh hair, still a cultural mess. A woman’s crowning glory; a man’s shame. If that christian god had any brains, then why do men have the capacity to grow their hair long if it’s such a bad and sinful thing? Wasn’t always bad though, most of the characters in the old testament were going about with long hair -- losing the stuff cost Samson, too.

  6. says

    Great idea but unfortunately the dresses one sees in the stores look more like tops instead of dresses.

    Wait… If women today aren’t wearing dresses, why are stores carrying them? It doesn’t seem profitable to stock an item nobody is buying.

    No abortionist will agree we are human because they wouldn’thave A job to go to. In other words it is about “Money”

    Sure, you can be a sucker and go into heart surgery or plastic surgery, but if you want to go where the real money is, you become an abortion doctor! I can barely drag mine off his yacht so I can use the procedure as birth control!

  7. rq says

    I like to think that Mary, given the choice, would have preferred a nice pair of pants herself. Perhaps some capris, and at least one pair of short-shorts for high summer.

    Women, appetizing? Heh. I can put on that dress, but it won’t do anything to unspice my character.

  8. busterggi says

    “so I inquired a la Robert DeNiro, “Are you talking to me?”

    So Travis Bickle is the default persona for good Christians? Wassamatta, Jeffie Dahmer no good enough?

  9. says

    The weirdest thing about the line about women being appetizing is that apparently it was a woman who wrote that, and one we can safely assume is against non-marital sex. Shouldn’t she want women to not be “appetizing” so as not to inflame the passions of men? (Or other women, as we can also safely assume she is rabidly homophobic.)

  10. nowamfound says

    dresses and skirts? i grew up in the 50’s and i thought then and i think now , that skirts of any sort are just easy access for people like the orange ferret wearing treason weasel : easy access for pussy grabbers. and given how the catHoLIc church and the christians, so called, protect child abusers and rapists and advocate for the submission and domination of women, well it don’t seem like such a paradise

  11. nowamfound says

    i think zombie jeebus fashionable outfit would have been more like a sarong given, no zippers buttons. just a nice drape

  12. jazzlet says

    I do wear a dress or a skirt quite often, I’m wearing a floor length skirt right now. Over leggings and sheepskin boots, because that combo is warmer than jeans or cords. On the other hand I’m not wearing a bra, but I am wearing three thin wool layers and a thick hemp/cotton top too so I certainly do not look ‘appetiizing’. The combo saves us a lot of money on heating, also keeping the house cooler apart from the money and environmental benefits is more pleasant for our long-haired dogs.

  13. says

    Yeah, I have lots of long dresses, wear them all the time. They are very comfortable, and you can easily add heat or shed it with layers or none at all.

  14. whirlwitch says

    My preferred length of skirt is long, and my legs are short, so I end up sweeping the ground with my magnificent skirtage not infrequently. I have an urge to get one of my long ruffly numbers and go wear it at this woman while being foulmouthed and brash.

    Also she can leave Fred Rogers alone. He liked me just the way I am, and was pretty damned inclusive of everybody. Wearing house shoes and zip cardigans does not a bigot make.

  15. says

    We yearn for the day when anyone can wear trousers or dresses or whatever and no-one thinks it’s out of the ordinary.

  16. says

    I must second whirlwitch’s comment about Fred Rogers. His gentle warmth is nothing like the reactionary snobbery on display in those comments. It sets my teeth to grinding to see him invoked for their agenda of intolerant theocracy.

  17. smrnda says

    When I was in college, the ladies were appetizing, and the gentlemen were appealing. Today, they are slobs.

    Maybe it’s because college is a bit more demanding than it was back then? It’s like like women go to college for the MRS degree anymore, nor is college just a sort of ‘finishing school’ for members of the upper middle class.

    And what kind of obnoxious is this writer to bash a ‘dowdy, plump’ woman wearing jeans? Seems a bit shallow there.

  18. emergence says

    As a man, I don’t exactly feel respect for “ladies” who are obsessed with superficial femininity and think the greatest calling they have in life is to pump out babies. That especially goes for “ladies” who attack other women who don’t confirm to the same shallow cultural expectations.

    That quote from Shaw really sums up the core problem with traditionalist conservatives. Hell, it’s the whole reason evolutionary psychology exists.

    Also, no, it’s not a rabbit, a cat, or a dog. Depending on when we’re talking about, it’s either a fetus, an embryo, or a zygote. Does this dumbshit even understand that humans have different stages in our life cycle? If not, that explains why Catholics think that blastocysts are morally equivalent to newborn babies.

  19. emergence says

    Really though, a major problem with the religious right is that they mask their toxic, hateful ideology behind superficial wholesomeness.

  20. mountainbob says

    Emily Post as an antidote to murder? The antidote is more likely to rise from Emily’s List (supporting quality/qualified female candidates for public office). The question that keeps rising for me is “Why do we Americans take recourse in violence so readily?” That’s road rage, domestic violence, date rape, fights, knifings, and everyday shootings. I’ve been slighted, even insulted or provoked, so I take knife or gun in hand and shoot the offender? Often the person shot is a family member with a long history of “affectional” relations with the actor. In the alternative, it’s a stranger who the shooter will never see again; but whom the actor just feels compelled to kill. Why?

    Mass shootings reflect another set of issues entirely.

Leave a Reply