Re: Women wearing pants

Akiva Miller (kgmiller@datacorinc.com)
Wed, 27 Nov 1996 08:49:36 -0500

Nechama Cox writes, in TF 2:97: <<< Many frum women wear long skirts and
tights underneath in order to cover their legs as well as to hide the
split between their legs above their knees. It is considered improper
for a woman to show that split, which is something that no pair of pants
is going to hide. >>>

I'd like to suggest an exception to this comment that "no pair of pants
is going to hide" that split. There is a certain kind of garment (I do
not know what it is called) which looks like a skirt in normal use, but
is in fact a pair of shorts with extremely wide pants legs.

This garment, it seems to me, is even more tzniusdik (modest) than a
conventional skirt. It has the best of each world: It cannot possibly be
considered a man's garment. It looks like a skirt (until examined
closely). It has pants' ability to totally cover the skin. Because it is
so loose, it does not "show that split", but gives the appearance of a
loose skirt draped over the whole area.

And very importantly, in my opinion, it does *not* have have a certain
very serious problem found in almost all skirts. Namely, depending on
how the woman is sitting, a skirt can allow other people to see quite a
bit of her legs, even well above the knee. The looser the skirt is, the
less of a problem this becomes, but the garment I have described makes
it virtually impossible, because the fabric is guaranteed to go between
her legs, no matter how she sits.

I have heard (I don't remember where) that some people consider this
garment unacceptable, as it is a form of pants. Is this really so? Is
there anyone who really prefers (on the basis of modesty) a skirt over
what I have described? If so, please explain why. Thank you.

Akiva Miller
(now at both Keeves@aol.com and at KGMiller@DatacorInc.com)