Without a notion of absolute virtue, conservatism is an ideology of relativism. All it seeks to conserve is the latest acceptable standard.

It is the act of drawing a line in the sand. When liberals manage to “wash” that line away, conservatives will “redraw” that line wherever it feels the least painful for them.

Women fought to wear pants, and not because pants make them feel pretty.

We can see this with cross-dressing.

A century ago it was considered “cross-dressing” for a woman to wear pants. No longer.

In one more century, I suspect it will no longer be considered “cross-dressing” for a conservative Christian man to wear a dress. In fact, I doubt the concept of “cross-dressing” will even exist.

Pantsuit nation

Here is why I believe this.

In America, it wasn’t legal for women to wear pants in public until 1923, because it was considered wrong for a woman to wear men’s clothing (and vice versa).

This idea was influenced by the Old Testament verse Deuteronomy 22:5: “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.”

The belief that pants are masculine-coded has persisted into the 21st century.

The first woman to wear pants for a portrait in the White House was Hillary Clinton in 2004. The first woman to wear pants in the Senate was in 1989.

Still, women were not permitted to wear pants on the U.S. Senate floor until two female senators defiantly entered wearing pants in 1993 and forced the rule to be amended later that year.

It is still widely considered inappropriate for a woman to wear pants to church, funerals, weddings, and court, although this is slowly becoming less true. Many airlines didn’t drop their requirements for feminine uniforms until 2012-2016. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints only began allowing its women missionaries to wear pants in 2017.

Skirting the issue

The “fight” to wear pants has mostly been pushed by feminist-type personalities. Nonetheless, many women who consider themselves neither liberals nor feminists avoid wearing dresses if they can at all help it.

These women are usually the ones most offended at the idea that wearing pants is inherently masculine. They might argue that such a notion is antiquated, especially now that pants are cut in feminine styles that complement a woman’s body. (For them, perhaps; I’ve never found a pair of jeans to flatter my hips.)

They may further argue, in a strange sort of “gotcha,” that there’s no such thing as cross-dressing at all. “Dress codes” for men and women shift depending on the time and the place.

There are other (non-Western) cultures in which a woman wears pants. Men used to wear tunics. Not only that, men used to wear lace, high heels, and makeup, and now all those things are feminine.

However, women did not fight for the right to wear lace or high heels.

Trouser envy

Women fought to wear pants, and not because pants make them feel pretty. Women wanted to be like men and to wear what men wore, and liberal women have no issue admitting this. This only offends conservative women who want to judge men for wearing dresses.

Even to this day, if a woman wants to look extra feminine, she reaches for a dress. If she is feeling like a “tomboy,” or she just wants to be “practical,” “simple,” and not show off that she’s a woman, she wears pants.

Inherently, we all know that pants are not queenly or princess-like.

I believe what’s most interesting about the how fashion has changed is how default neutral-gendered clothing has morphed. Femininity was once the default neutral gender, while men wore over-the-top fashion statements. Babies wore gowns (feminine).

Now the default neutral-gender clothing is masculine, and babies wear sleepers (masculine) instead of gowns (feminine). Where the default was “robes” for everyone, it’s now “pants” for everyone. Where there might once have been more things that a woman shouldn’t wear, there are now more things that a man ought not to wear if he doesn’t want society accusing him of “cross-dressing.”

One could argue this is a result of progress. Fashion changes. The expectations for the different sexes have changed. Perhaps this is not a bad thing, but it does become a complicated matter when only a man is at risk of cross-dressing but anything a woman wears is beyond reproach.

The same conservative women who think nothing of wearing jeans become quite angry at the sight of a man in a dress. For now.

I speculate that unless we make a full return to femininity, it will be normal for men to wear whatever they want, just as women already do, and that there will be no such thing as cross-dressing.

Perhaps the first step will be rejecting the greatest lie feminism sold women: that femininity is oppressive or restrictive. We find true strength in embracing our womanhood, not rejecting it.

I, for one, will be putting our sons in pants and our daughters in dresses. The differences between men and women are God-given and timeless; I believe in choosing clothing that reflects this.