Colleen Hammond

[Catholic Heart]

This past Saturday I atteneded a women's conference featuring Colleen Hammond, author of "Dressing with Dignity"....I have just finished reading the book.

I do not want to rahash old arguments...We've been around this particular block before...But, I do have some questions....

I am wondering if any of you other women have heard of Colleen Hammond, have heard her speak, or have read her book. What do you think of her ideas?

I am not sure I agree with all Mrs. Hammond says, but I do think she makes some valid and valuable points.

I think one has to use common sense when dressing....You need to dress for the activity you are taking part in, be modest in that dress, and try to retain a femininity about yourself in your dress, actions and the way you speak....A tall order for me! I tend to love my comfy jeans, and wear them just about everywhere.

I am beginning to change that, however....One garmet at a time! It's hard, but I want to conduct my own experiment....See if dressing in skirts and dresses more actually has any affect on my life as a woman.

I think it is CH's premise that women...by the way they dress and conduct themselves...are responsible for the souls of men.....That men, because of their biology, simply cannot help becoming aroused when they see a woman in pants or other procative clothing.....Their eyes "follow the line" ( lines going up or down in pants and tops).....So...It is our job to...in charity....see that there are no "lines" to follow!

Women can and should (according to CH) allow men to be the stronger sex, and...by being very feminine in dress and deportment....help men avoid "occasions of sin".....

My question to men.....What is your reaction to women in pants and jeans? Do you care? Do you even notice, since that is how most women tend to dress these days?

Do you respond differently to a women who is dressed in a femine manner and one who has pants or jeans on? CH says men are her biggest fans....Interesting.....

I do feel more feminine in a soft, flowing skirt, and love to wear them. However, I am not sure I need to dress in a skirt or dress ALL THE TIME....There are times when jeans or attractive slacks are more appropriate. I think women who exercise in skirts, or do certain other activities in skirts look silly, and call attention to themselves....Something that is NOT modest....It's like saying "Hey, look how holy and modest I am"......

Got to get grandkids to school.......Thanks for any responses...

[JKirkLVNV]

Originally Posted by Catholic Heart

This past Saturday I atteneded a women's conference featuring Colleen Hammond, author of "Dressing with Dignity"....I have just finished reading the book.

I do not want to rahash old arguments...We've been around this particular block before...But, I do have some questions....

I am wondering if any of you other women have heard of Colleen Hammond, have heard her speak, or have read her book. What do you think of her ideas?

I am not sure I agree with all Mrs. Hammond says, but I do think she makes some valid and valuable points.

I think one has to use common sense when dressing....You need to dress for the activity you are taking part in, be modest in that dress, and try to retain a femininity about yourself in your dress, actions and the way you speak....A tall order for me! I tend to love my comfy jeans, and wear them just about everywhere.

I am beginning to change that, however....One garmet at a time! It's hard, but I want to conduct my own experiment....See if dressing in skirts and dresses more actually has any affect on my life as a woman.

I think it is CH's premise that women...by the way they dress and conduct themselves...are responsible for the souls of men.....That men, because of their biology, simply cannot help becoming aroused when they see a woman in pants or other procative clothing.....Their eyes "follow the line" ( lines going up or down in pants and tops).....So...It is our job to...in charity....see that there are no "lines" to follow!

Women can and should (according to CH) allow men to be the stronger sex, and...by being very feminine in dress and deportment....help men avoid "occasions of sin".....

My question to men.....What is your reaction to women in pants and jeans? Do you care? Do you even notice, since that is how most women tend to dress these days?

Do you respond differently to a women who is dressed in a femine manner and one who has pants or jeans on? CH says men are her biggest fans....Interesting.....

I do feel more feminine in a soft, flowing skirt, and love to wear them. However, I am not sure I need to dress in a skirt or dress ALL THE TIME....There are times when jeans or attractive slacks are more appropriate. I think women who exercise in skirts, or do certain other activities in skirts look silly, and call attention to themselves....Something that is NOT modest....It's like saying "Hey, look how holy and modest I am"......

Got to get grandkids to school.......Thanks for any responses...

I should think pants would actually be preferable to a dress, when we'd be able to actually see a woman's legs! There are provocative dresses and modest ones, provocative pants and modest ones. I kind of disagree with that part of the premise, anyway.

[Catholic Heart]

Originally Posted by JKirkLVNV

I should think pants would actually be preferable to a dress, when we'd be able to actually see a woman's legs! There are provocative dresses and modest ones, provocative pants and modest ones. I kind of disagree with that part of the premise, anyway.

Although I think that, in general, women are more feminine in dresses and skirts....modest ones, of course....I do agree with you that both pants and dresses/skirts can be provocative.

CH''s premise is that ALL pants/jeans are provocative, because they cause men to "follow the lines", and therefore they become involuntarily aroused.

I think that jeans in particular are so common today that men just don't pay attenetion, unless the jeans are unusually tight or low waisted......OTOH, men probably notice women who are dressed in attractive dresses/skirts...Being a woman, I really don't know.

I looked at some ot the suggested websites for modest clothing included in "Dressing with Dignity", and it is my opinion that most women wouldn't wear any of that stuff. Much of what is out there is dowdy and so different looking that to wear it would definitely be calling attention to oneself.

I think it is certainily possible to dress attractively and modestly without looking frumpy or dowdy.....It's too bad that "modest"...in the minds of many....often means dowdy. That certainly is NOT the case.

BTW.....Yesterday I went to several stores, intending to lay away a couple of skirts and jumpers for the winter. WELL... There were almost no skirts, dresses or jumpers to be found. It was ALL pants/jeasns and skimpy tops. What's with that? I'm still looking......It was so frustrating. The only skirts I found in Target looked like slips....The Dress Barn had a couple that were OK, but I really didn't like them....I'm gong to try Kohl's next. I do hear that Penny's might be a place to find decent clothes, but seldom get to that store.

Wal-Mar used to carry lots of pretty long skirts. Now that we have a SuperCenter, the clothes there are awful. No skirts, either...just pants and jeans.

Got to go.....

[vluvski]

I can't really say for sure if what Colleen says about pants is true because I am a woman, but I would tend to disagree.

I think a slinky long skirt would be more provocative than a pair of comfortable jeans that aren't too snug in the hips or too low cut. I think it's possible to wear jeans or slacks that don't draw attention to the waist and hips, then round out the outfit with a nice, feminine top.

I'm definitely a fan of dressing modestly and with feminine flair, but I think some of the styles people suggest would be counterproductive, as you say, Catholic Heart, for several reasons:
1. Drawing undue attention to oneself.
2. Lack of respect from peers.
3. Low self-esteem or self-consciousness.

[Elphaba]

Modesty is about NOT drawing attention to oneself. Dressing to an extreme, even a modest one, without good cause (for example, being a nun is a good cause) is called false modesty.

If we use CH's argument about legs being lines to one's private area; therefore, pants are immodest, then we would have to conclude that arms are pointers to one's bosoms; therefore sleeves are immodest. Should women drape the upper half of their body in arm camoflaguing wear? What would the result be? Burqas! Well, we could go the American route and always were poncho tops over our skirts.

Now take another of her arguments about "completing the picture." If your legs are lines to your private area and your mind will "complete the picture," then it doesn't matter if you have on a skirt - your mind is going to converge in the same place if your legs show at all, even in a skirt, because there is no person in the world whose two legs to not originate in the same place. Do we conclude then that women can only wear floor length dresses - the burqa reaction again?

I am sorry to say, but that is not Catholic modesty.

CH did not cite the sources of her studies and she does not mention that it was the Protestant modesty crusader, Dannah Gresh, who first mentioned the Gestalt Theory in reference to clothing and modesty several years ago. Mrs. Gresh, however, does not condemn pants with that argument; only CH does. Mrs. Gresh's modesty material - even though it is not Catholic - is more in keeping with the virtue and not an agenda to condemn pants.

Speaking for the Church, we have a Pope Saint who said pants are not evil:
"For whether you or your women wear or do not wear pants (femoralia) neither impedes your salvation nor leads to any increase of your virtue." --Pope Saint Nicholas I

The leader of the modesty crusade in the US, Rev. Bernard Kunkel, never condemned pants:
"[W]e regard manly garments as unfeminine, but we cannot condemn slacks as long as they are otherwise decent."

Obviously, the point is to be modest. Culture dictates what is appropriate dress for men and women. Virtue dictates where modesty falls.

Over the skirt vs pants controversy here is a site with more information.
http://www.seekwisdom.org/modesty.htm

[Elphaba]

I forgot to mention that when the Pope made his remark about femoralia (pants), Christian women AND men wore robes. Pants were regarded as barbarian dress, not male dress.

[carol marie]

For me it's a matter of being practical and warm. Our winters are long and cold.. pants keep me warm. I think a nice pair of jeans (age appropriate - not too low or tight) with a sweater is modest & feminine and suitable for just about anywhere. For church I prefer slacks.. LL Bean sells knit slacks that wash wonderfully and look nice. With little kids, I just don't have a lifestyle that would work wearing dresses - espeically since I think that wearing tights is the equivilant to being tortured.

[Catholic Heart]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Modesty is about NOT drawing attention to oneself. Dressing to an extreme, even a modest one, without good cause (for example, being a nun is a good cause) is called false modesty.

If we use CH's argument about legs being lines to one's private area; therefore, pants are immodest, then we would have to conclude that arms are pointers to one's bosoms; therefore sleeves are immodest. Should women drape the upper half of their body in arm camoflaguing wear? What would the result be? Burqas! Well, we could go the American route and always were poncho tops over our skirts.

Now take another of her arguments about "completing the picture." If your legs are lines to your private area and your mind will "complete the picture," then it doesn't matter if you have on a skirt - your mind is going to converge in the same place if your legs show at all, even in a skirt, because there is no person in the world whose two legs to not originate in the same place. Do we conclude then that women can only wear floor length dresses - the burqa reaction again?

I am sorry to say, but that is not Catholic modesty.

CH did not cite the sources of her studies and she does not mention that it was the Protestant modesty crusader, Dannah Gresh, who first mentioned the Gestalt Theory in reference to clothing and modesty several years ago. Mrs. Gresh, however, does not condemn pants with that argument; only CH does. Mrs. Gresh's modesty material - even though it is not Catholic - is more in keeping with the virtue and not an agenda to condemn pants.

Speaking for the Church, we have a Pope Saint who said pants are not evil:
"For whether you or your women wear or do not wear pants (femoralia) neither impedes your salvation nor leads to any increase of your virtue." --Pope Saint Nicholas I

The leader of the modesty crusade in the US, Rev. Bernard Kunkel, never condemned pants:
"[W]e regard manly garments as unfeminine, but we cannot condemn slacks as long as they are otherwise decent."

Obviously, the point is to be modest. Culture dictates what is appropriate dress for men and women. Virtue dictates where modesty falls.

Over the skirt vs pants controversy here is a site with more information.
http://www.seekwisdom.org/modesty.htm

Please....The arguments you cite to me are not mine, but Colleen Hammond's. I'm a big fan of comfy jeans, and wear them a lot. I also believe that a slinky dress or skirt can be infinitely more sexy than jeans or pants that fit properly.

Colleen Hammone advocates dresses/skirts ONLY. I do not.....I did say that I feel more feminine while dressed in a skirt of dress, but I don't have a problem with jeans or pants in the right circumstances.....Jeans have become a sort of uniform these days, and while they may not be the most attractive attire for many women, they are not, as a rule, immodest.

Having said all that, I do have to admit that when I am with Tradtional Catholics (I have some good friends who are attend a Traditionnal parish), I do not wear pants or jeans out of respect for them. And, I always never wear pants or jeans to Mass (well, almost never....depends on the day, time and other circumstances, but always wear a dress or skirt on Sunday. I have worn more casual clothes to Saturday morning Masses or daily Masses.

I do hate it when women dress down, thinking that they are being modest...When what they are really doing is calling attention to themselves, which is definitely not a modest thing to do. A woman can be modest and still wear pants.....I think that to say that women in pants and jeans are a constant temptation to men is doing a disservice to men.....Surely that can't be true. Well, since I am a woman, I really can't say, can I?

[Catholic Heart]

Originally Posted by carol marie

For me it's a matter of being practical and warm. Our winters are long and cold.. pants keep me warm. I think a nice pair of jeans (age appropriate - not too low or tight) with a sweater is modest & feminine and suitable for just about anywhere. For church I prefer slacks.. LL Bean sells knit slacks that wash wonderfully and look nice. With little kids, I just don't have a lifestyle that would work wearing dresses - espeically since I think that wearing tights is the equivilant to being tortured.

Amen.....Tights are torture!

[Elphaba]

The "CH" in my post and my comments are in reference to Colleen Hammond and her book not you, Catholic Heart. Sorry for the confusion.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by Catholic Heart

I do have to admit that when I am with Tradtional Catholics (I have some good friends who are attend a Traditionnal parish), I do not wear pants or jeans out of respect for them.

Why is it that no one expects the traditional Catholic to wear pants out of respect for those who do not wear dresses. Is it really respect or just fear of creating a controversial situation? If you are dressed modestly around your traditional friends, there should be no problem if you wear pants. If it does create a problem around your friends, then something else wrong because wearing modest, decent pants - as shown from the comments made by the Church - is not immoral.

[Catholic Heart]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

The "CH" in my post and my comments are in reference to Colleen Hammond and her book not you, Catholic Heart. Sorry for the confusion.

That's Ok.....I just didn't want you to think I agreed that a woman should NEVER wear pants or jeans for any reason. I LIKE my jeans, but love wearing my flowy skirts, too. There's a place and time for both.

CH...Colleen Hammond...would never concede that. She believes very strongly that women should NEVER wear anyting but a dress or skirt....and, if you do wear jeans/pants, you need to wear a top that comes down below the crotch line.

Bathing suits are out, too. Her family owns a pool. The kids swim in shifts....Girls swim while the boys do another activity, and vice-versa.....The girls wear pantaloons under their dresses when at play, etc.....Everyone wears a collar.....Women go out of their way to make men feel "big" and "protective".

I think she has some very good points about the importantce of modesty and the importance of embracing one's femininity.....And the importance of dressing in a feminine way. But, I just can't say dresses and skirts ONLY. Not yet, anyway.....I'm sixty-two, and pretty much set in my ways....so....it may take me a while to give up my jeans....my nice old, comfy jeans....<g>

[Catholic Heart]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Why is it that no one expects the traditional Catholic to wear pants out of respect for those who do not wear dresses. Is it really respect or just fear of creating a controversial situation? If you are dressed modestly around your traditional friends, there should be no problem if you wear pants. If it does create a problem around your friends, then something else wrong because wearing modest, decent pants - as shown from the comments made by the Church - is not immoral.

Good point....Actually, I am only around Traditional Catholic women when I attend a TLM, and attend the "coffee" afterward. My special Traditional friend also wears jeans and pants when it is appropriate.....But, she always wears a skirt of dress when with other Traditioanl Catholic women because she knows they are probably teaching their daughters to wear skirts, and does not want to be a bad example for those girls....

I always (on Sundays at least) wear a dress to Mass, so it is natural for me to do so when attending a TLM....Although I know it is expected, and would not do otherwise out of respect. I'm not afraid of a confrontation, but genuninely do respect their "rules"....When at my own parish for Mass, I know I have the option to wear pants, but usually do not.

[carol marie]

Originally Posted by Catholic Heart

That's Ok.....I just didn't want you to think I agreed that a woman should NEVER wear pants or jeans for any reason. I LIKE my jeans, but love wearing my flowy skirts, too. There's a place and time for both.

CH...Colleen Hammond...would never concede that. She believes very strongly that women should NEVER wear anyting but a dress or skirt....and, if you do wear jeans/pants, you need to wear a top that comes down below the crotch line.

Bathing suits are out, too. Her family owns a pool. The kids swim in shifts....Girls swim while the boys do another activity, and vice-versa.....The girls wear pantaloons under their dresses when at play, etc.....Everyone wears a collar.....Women go out of their way to make men feel "big" and "protective".

I think she has some very good points about the importantce of modesty and the importance of embracing one's femininity.....And the importance of dressing in a feminine way. But, I just can't say dresses and skirts ONLY. Not yet, anyway.....I'm sixty-two, and pretty much set in my ways....so....it may take me a while to give up my jeans....my nice old, comfy jeans....<g>

Is Colleen Hammon Catholic? She almost sounds Mennonite (sp?)... the no co-ed swimming.. even between sibblings? Doesn't that seem like a bit much? To each his / her own... and I'm all for young girls & women NOT dressing like prostestutes.. also older women (I include myself at 38) who dress like teenagers.. ick.. but still, CH sounds a bit over the top, no?

[the phoenix]

Originally Posted by Catholic Heart

I think it is CH's premise that ... men, because of their biology, simply cannot help becoming aroused when they see a woman in pants or other provocative clothing.....Their eyes "follow the line" ( lines going up or down in pants and tops).....So...It is our job to...in charity....see that there are no "lines" to follow!

Okay, have now recovered from my initial reaction.

Question: Since Colleen Hammond is a woman, how would she know about this "follow the line" business? Some on this thread have specifically asked men to comment and provide insight on this that only a male can provide. Which leads to the obvious question: Was the source of Colleen Hammond's idea really a man in the first place? Or does she simply have a wild imagination?


~~ the phoenix

P.S. This leads to a further question. One wonders whether Colleen Hammond would consider clothing such as dresses, skirts, or tops with vertical stripes evil?