Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: QUESTION FASHION Message-ID: Date: 25 Jun 91 07:39:49 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 23 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) writes: In article kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes: And I was wondering whether Joe Buehler actually meant to say that clothing which makes work easier is not appropriate for women. Suppose you are in an upside-down car in a ditch; the paramedic who climbs through your windshield to check your pulse happens to be female. Do you really want to hamper your rescuer by asking her to wear a dress? What can I say? None of my friend's sisters ever wear anything but very feminine dresses. Should they wear pants just in case they have to crawl inside a car to rescue someone? [I think the question kilroy was asking is whether you would object to pants in situations where they have functional benefits. This sort of question helps clarify your position. --clh] I grant, a dress is not always the most modest or practical thing for a woman to wear. The point I was trying to make was that I think it more important to talk about the rule, rahter than the exception, lest the exception become the rule.