« Your cultural appropriation thread | Main | 2014 Midterms Thread »

November 03, 2014

Comments

The main 'problem' with this passage (from the reactionary POV) is that it in essence contradicts THE favorite Paulian command: Women be silent in church!
Theological commentaries available to me interprete it as Paul giving recommendations for the proper attire of women when conducting official church business later declared to be Man's domain exclusively like preaching.
---
How times change. In Germanic dominated Europe long hair was the sign of the free Man, thralls had to wear their hair short. And even much later (Baroque era and later) big wigs and (short) pigtails were part of the male fashion, although artificial hair there replaced the natural. And isn't Jesus traditionally depicted with long hair like a hippie?

thanks for this Doc Science. lots here to explore and digest.

probably not of great interest to everyone, but very interesting to me, anyway.

"If those are breeches, they are by far the tightest I've seen for the period, and no seam is visible. "

They can paint it anyway that they like. There are medieval paintings showing chain mail leggings looking like spandex, showing off every muscle in the leg.

Barry:

LOL yes, that's true. In this case, I'm sure he was actually wearing some very high-fashion breeches.

What I don't know is how this looked to viewers at the time. For the early 21st century, this is "very gay and flirty", but I don't know how it came across to his contemporaries.

'"A woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the otters." Just as clear.'

Otters just won't do:

http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/11810/Sea-otters-rape-and-drown-baby-seals

Very interesting topic and links. Among the early Church fathers, I must say that Origen took his misogyny a painful step over the line.

And all of this talk about the water content of women --- what the heck?

Otherwise, these opinions about the nefarious ways of women live on. All you have to do is overhear guys (recently divorced ones, or those whose girlfriends have recently bolted) in bars shooting the breeze.

The difference of course from the early Church fathers (I presume, though Origen certainly closed that deal) is that many men who hold these opinions don't mind getting laid as well.

Now, Count Fernand Nunez VII's sartorial choices remind me of what we might get a peek of if Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia decided to take a stroll along the reflecting pond on a breezy day in his robes, not that there would be anything wrong with that.

Maybe the Count, not to be confused with THE Count, harbored enthusiasms similar to the ones discussed by the folks on this forum:

http://www.zity.biz/index.php?mx=forum;ox=display;topic=72646;start=30

No Church Fathers sighted, but one guy wrote that his Unitarian Church accepted his cross-dressing, which is good.

Insert Garrison Keillor observation regarding Unitarians.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad