Talk:Trousers as women's clothing

Please improve this page
This page is currently full of generalisations, lacks citations and is inconsistent. For example, the word "pants" means different things in different cultures, the word "trousers" might be more suitable but whatever is chosen, it would be good if it was used consistently rather than switching back and forth.

The introduction paragraphs also contradict themselves; the first limits 20th century use to "During WW2 wearing their husbands pants" and then the 1970s. Then in paragraph 4, it mentions Dietrich and Hepburn wearing them and popularising them in the '30s, as well as post WW2 casual wear. Nicole A. Jenkins (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I put this article together from chips of other existing pages, but I have little familiarity myself on the topic other than from my experience in department store sales, so I cannot fix most of these problems. In response to your comments, I placed a cleanup tag on the top for now. Tatterfly (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Was it Chanel who introduced a fashion of women's trousers? Gantuya eng (talk) 02:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Title
I think the subject of pants on women is historically and culturaly relevant to warrant an artilce on wikipedia but I think we need a better title. The present one sounds unencyclopedic. --AirLiner (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence is incorrect: Since the adoption of trousers in Western Europe in Late Antiquity, trousers have been largely worn by men and not by women until the early 20th century.

Secondly all the repeated notions of 'women wearing their husbands clothes in WW2'...? How was that dreamed up? Are you suggesting single women did not work in the war effort? Trousers were quickly fashioned from many sources of remaining material.

Thirdly, the 'English' article is written in a fairly poor standard of English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.85.21.66 (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Inquiry
Where is the men wearing dresses article? NorthernThunder (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a collection of article that have been created because one person had the desire to create that article. Any future changes thereafter occur because one or more people have desired to make those changes. If an article is yet to be created and you feel it is missing, have references on the subject, and you think you can create it, go ahead! Also, just to let you know, there is an article called Men's skirts. Tatterfly (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Gitanas
Gitanas and Roma women in general wear skirts more often than Gadjis. Should this be explained? --Error (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Inquiry II
(forgive me I can't remember my password or my screenname really, I *think* it's RivkaRebecca or RebeccaRivka...one) This article is moreso towards the Western world's history on pants/trousers. What about turkish women in trousers? What about Asian women in general in trousers? What about Muslim women that DO wear trousers as a part of their religious garments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.122.89 (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Untitled
Cleanup. History of clothing would indicate that initially both men and women wore skirt/dress/gown garments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.127.73 (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Medieval history
Pope Nicholas I said that it was acceptable for women to wear pants, if that were the custom of the people, in his letter to the Bulgars in AD 866.
 * 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.

Aside from that, this article seems to be unaware that there was history before 1800, or outside Western Europe and North America. Argyriou (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Pope Nicholas I's letter did, in no way, abrogate the then current and subsequent Christian custom of women wearing dresses and skirts, which persisted for many centuries. Saint Thomas taught this explicitly,

"Reply to Objection 3. As stated in the foregoing Article, outward apparel should be consistent with the estate of the person, according to the general custom. Hence it is in itself sinful for a woman to wear man's clothes, or vice versa; especially since this may be a cause of sensuous pleasure; and it is expressly forbidden in the Law (Deuteronomy 22) because the Gentiles used to practice this change of attire for the purpose of idolatrous superstition. Nevertheless this may be done sometimes without sin on account of some necessity, either in order to hide oneself from enemies, or through lack of other clothes, or for some similar motive." (Summa Theologica, II II, Q. 169, A.2)

Pope Nicholas was simply saying that the Bulgars could continue their existing form of dress, if they wished to. He did not say that Christian women could abandon their form of dress by adopting the Bulgar dress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.243.177 (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

baptists?
I was surprised that baptists weren't included in the section about religion prohibiting women to wear pants. Most baptist churches strongly encourage women to wear skirts and dresses and not pants. There are exceptions to this but the majority does believe this. Just thought that should be in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.42.182 (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Women Pirates
In the 17th and 18th century,women pirates was also weared pants.Why I don't find that in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.223.217.249 (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source for this? If so, you might want to add the info to the article. --Macrakis (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand that there is virtually no evidence that more than a few women pirates cross dressed in pants, so probably isn't highly relevant. Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. Thin Smek) 19:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thin Smek (talk • contribs)

Terrible lead
The lead currently reads: Women wearing trousers were thought by some to be historically less common, apart from Amazonian women, until the early 20th century. Now, the majority of Western women wear pants at times and skirts at other times, both being seen as acceptable and fashionable. This is a terrible terrible lead. "thought by some"? "apart from Amazonian women" (is this referring to the mythical Amazons? or to the women of the Amazon basin of South America? The second sentence is only about "Western woman". What about the first sentence? --Macrakis (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BEBOLD and fix it yourself! After all, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.– Gilliam (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Religion
This section is quite problematic. It begins with:

There are a number of religions that prohibit women from revealing their legs, requiring all women and often young girls to wear only trousers. The reasons behind such beliefs, which vary within each religion and culture, are generally due to modesty laws, which vary in each culture. Religion is the most common reason for a woman not to wear a skirt.

But all the examples are talking about how women should wear skirts, and not men's clothing. Citation needed like crazy, but I think this whole beginning is just flat wrong. What religion requires women to wear trousers? Religion is the most common reason for a woman not to wear a skirt???

Additionally the section "Oneness Pentecostals" says "Pentecostal women choose to wear skirts because of the Biblical commandment that women must not wear men's clothing, however this is mandatory." which is nonsensical - do they choose or is it mandatory? The citation is to a community talk page.

Frankly I do not know what this whole section is doing here - what does it have to do with women wearing trousers in the Western world after 1900? Religious dress codes are not specific to this period. I am no authority on any of this or I'd just edit it myself, but this looks like a mess. 72.227.133.195 (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

And also, while this is an article about women, it should be noted that men had it as rough as women did, including wearing clothes. There is still a stigma regarding men wearing feminine clothing.That also includes in religion.198.85.118.175 (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 6 December 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move the page to Trousers as women's clothing at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 20:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Women and trousers → Trousers as women's wear – Per WP:AND: avoid the use of "and" in ways that appear biased. I would also consider other possible titles. feminist (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: The proposed title is a more natural and understandable description of the topic. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination and per BarrelProof.   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that WP:AND should be avoided, as noted above. However, I don't really understand what 'women's wear' is supposed to mean. Is that some sort of jargon? I would suggest 'Trousers as women's clothing', which seems to me to be the more usual way of expressing the subject of this article in English. The main article is at 'clothing', after all. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support "Clothing" version, as per RGloucester. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. My support vote, above, extends to support for the form Trousers as women's clothing. For the record, this article has undergone a number of title changes: it was created on August 26, 2007 as Religous requirement to wear skirts, five days later the main header was corrected to Religious requirement to wear skirts, nine months later, it was moved to Women wearing pants, four years and nine months later, in March 2013, it was moved to Women wearing trousers, five months later, it was moved to Women wearing trousers in the Western world after 1900, two years and two months later, in October 2015, it was shortened to Women wearing trousers in the Western world and three days later it was moved to the current Women and trousers.   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A mess indeed...to be honest, one of the deficiencies in this article is its lack of discussion of the wearing of trousers outside of the narrow industrial revolution–present western context. I personally think that the move to the broader scoped titles was a good one, as it allows for expansion. One particularly interesting example of this that I'm aware of is that of the Japanese monpe, which one can read about on the Japanese Wikipedia...a shame nothing's written about them here...perhaps a translation job is in order. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My support extends to the "clothing" variation as well. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I support the "clothing" version as well. feminist (talk) 09:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Islam
"Islam, that wish to enforce what they see as a distinction in the sexes, as well as the prohibition of women revealing the contour legs, requiring all women and young girls to wear a long dress or skirt rather than trousers" this is wrong! I live in Central Asia and traditional islamic dress code is required to wear long trousers under a long dress or skirt (Idot (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC))
 * I have removed the reference. There are many styles of trousers available to Muslim women. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

section on sexual violence
Can I ask why the final section about a single random Italian sexist court ruling in a rape case is here, let alone has its own heading? It's given no context in relation to the broader topic, and it's pretty unnecessary to give this random piece of sexism with some extremely cruel quotes such a huge place on the article about one of the most important elements of clothing. It feels out of line for me to delete it, but I wanted to post here in case someone more authorized wanted to. 2603:300A:1714:39A0:712A:EBA6:42B0:8CC4 (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)