This post will be related to my previous posts “is it okay to be ugly” and “is it okay for women to wear pants”; but, we’re getting a bit more specific here. Really narrowing the focus. Now, the Question That Keeps Me Up At Night is: is it okay for me, as a woman, to dress “frumpily”?

.

The Post That Inspired This Post:

You all already know I’m a big fan of the work of the contemporary Traditionalist Catholic writer Dr. Peter Kwasniewski. He’s a hero; he’s the coolest. I follow him on social media and read his website regularly, and pretty much every sentence he writes makes me want to stand up and throw my hat in the air and applaud, because he’s so brilliant and so eloquent and makes his points so beautifully. Never before had something he posted made me pause, frown, raise an eyebrow, and go “hmmm, now wait just a moment there, Dr. K” – never, until yesterday.

The post in question is promoting a new book – not his, but someone else’s: a book written by a female author about how clothing/fashion has changed in recent decades, how it’s gotten uglier and poorer in quality and design, how we can return to dressing nicely, and why this should matter to us, especially as Catholics. Specifically talking about women’s fashion.

One of the main points of the book/post seems to be that, these days, women who dress modestly tend to sacrifice beauty — dressing like pioneers or in unflattering trash bag-like outfits. Frumpily. And it’s saying that, actually, women should try to dress both beautifully and modestly.

Almost everyone in the comments seemed to agree with the message. One commenter even said something like: “yes! Women should look like beautiful flowers and men should look like tall trees.”

Meanwhile, here’s me in my shapeless maxi skirt and loose, soft tee and long baggy cardigan, reading this and going: “Excuse me? Now you’re saying I have a moral obligation to try and look like a beautiful flower?? WHAT??”

Now, you don’t have to rehash the argument to me. I get it. It’s very true that fashion used to be beautiful and classy and now it’s not. I’m aware of that.

Recently, my husband and I watched “11/22/63” on Netflix, and one of my favorite parts of that show was seeing the beauty of everyday life in the early ‘60s: the clothes, the interior design, the cars, everything; beauty was important, back then. It’s not like that anymore. (There’s actually an IG account I really like that explores this cultural shift from a Catholic POV — you should check it out.) Historically, up until like the late ‘60s, women did dress like beautiful flowers and men like tall trees. It is sad that we as a society have stopped doing that. I agree. As a mom, I especially wish kids’ clothes still looked the way it did in the ‘50s. I’d love it if cute little lacy dresses and crisp little outfits with buttons were as easy to find as the cheap stretchy synthetic technicolor stuff kids wear these days.

However, I take issue with this post. I take issue with being told that I should dress prettier, that I have a moral obligation to wear fitted, frilly, fussy, fancy, “flowery” things.

.

Is my objection a logical one, though? Do I have a legitimate argument, or am I just reacting emotionally because I’m offended and don’t like being told what to do? I’m not sure. Let’s unpack it!

Mith’s Backstory:

Quite possibly, it’s just an emotionally touchy topic for me. Clothes and I have a complicated relationship. I hate the way my body looks. Dressing the meat tank is a chore, neither fun nor satisfying. I especially hate anything form-fitting, and anything snug around my waist. I feel my best, the most comfy and confident, and the most “me,” when I’m wearing some baggy old jeans and an oversized hoodie that’s long enough to cover the butt, and combat boots. That’s my favorite look; that’s Mith in her truest form.

However, being Catholic, I knew I had to stop dressing like that. I knew I had to make an effort to look somewhat more feminine – to look like I cared a little bit. So I threw out all my jeans, and now only wear skirts or dresses. The skirts must be long enough to cover my ankles. Not because of modesty – I’m well aware that a skirt can be modest and still show some lower leg – but because I hate my ankles most of all.

Combine this with my inability to tolerate snug-fitting tops, and the result is: loose and baggy all over. My favorite article of clothing is a hippie-ish shapeless, flowy tiered maxi dress that I own in five or six different colors and patterns. It makes me feel like I’m “wearing a dress” and thus doing my duty to be feminine and traddy, while also essentially wearing a trash bag.

Do I feel great in this look? No, but at least it’s comfortable and easy to wear and serves its purpose of concealing the meat tank in a modest, age-appropriate way.

Suits me fine. I don’t want to show off my shape. I don’t want the meat tank to be perceived.

.

Islamic Fashion Mini-Rant:

To be honest, I kind of dig Islamic women’s fashion. I kind of wish Catholic modesty standards were more like theirs – that Western Christian lay women dressed in loose-fitting, floor-length garb and covered their hair. That, to me, seems more truly modest.

Before you come at me, I know full well that modesty is not about pandering to weak men. Modesty standards do not exist to make women bend over backwards to accommodate men who don’t know how to practice self-control. That’s not what a proper Catholic understanding of modesty is about. It’s about dressing ourselves with dignity, honoring the beauty of our God-given bodies without cheapening it.

But don’t the abaya and hijab serve that same purpose? They’re not trash bags; some of them are really pretty and feminine.

Not to mention more comfortable, and more accommodating for those of us who have sensory or other issues with fussy, snug-fitting clothes.

I honestly wish Catholics subscribed to this view of modesty. I’d seriously wear a niqab if it were socially acceptable for a white Christian woman in America. I think it’s a really cool idea, and sounds so freeing to wear.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not converting to Islam. And you don’t have to explain it to me, I understand the philosophy behind Catholic modesty standards: the human body is good, God created it good, and rather than just conceal it under a ton of fabric, we ought to celebrate it and honor it. Dressing in aesthetically-pleasing, form-flattering clothes is a gesture of respect for ourselves, our work, and our neighbors. I know. I hear you.

But like I said, Islamic women’s attire doesn’t communicate a negative message about femininity. On the contrary, dressing that way seems to say that the female body is so good and so sacred that, like the tabernacle, it should be concealed, only seen by those who have a God-given right to it. How is that not beautiful?

Modesty means different things in different cultures, and I guess both understandings are valid. Whether you choose to showcase the body with flattering clothes that cover it well, or conceal it beneath forgiving drapes of loose fabric — both can be considered modest. But, selfishly, I kinda wish Western culture erred more on the side of concealing.

.

Mith Has a Temper Tantrum

I don’t want to be the arrogant little twat that I was back in 2012; I’m not going to come onto WordPress and post my weak arguments and lame excuses for being a bad Catholic. Maybe I should just tap out of this one. Maybe Dr. K is right. Maybe I really don’t have an excuse for dressing in trash bags. As a wife and mom, maybe I ought to dress in a way that shows respect and celebrates the body that God gave me, for which I ought to be grateful.

… All of which makes me just want to throw in the towel and say “fuck it” and just go back to my jeans and hoodies.

Because I gave them up to be a good little tradcath, even though I didn’t want to – but now, now you tell me that’s still not good enough?, that I have to switch to tight little prissy button-up numbers that will constrict me physically and mentally?

I’m honestly so tired of trying to larp as someone I’m not.

Yes, Catholicism is the truth. I believe and profess everything that the Holy Catholic Church teaches. But nowhere does she dictate a certain aesthetic or lifestyle. Nowhere does she say that, if you’re a woman, you must be a girly-girl fashion plate.

I’m not the archetypical sweet little feminine tradcath stay-at-home mom with her apron and sourdough starter. I never will be. That just ain’t me, and I’m so tired of forcing myself into what basically amounts to a poorly-executed cosplay.

“If you respected yourself, you’d dress like it” – well, you know what? I don’t! I don’t respect my body! It sucks! I accept it, but I don’t like it, and I don’t want to show it off. I don’t want to look like a beautiful flower, because I don’t want to be seen as something to “pick” or “pollinate.” Tbh I don’t want to be seen at all.

Shit like this, this whole “should, should, should”, lifestyle extremist traddy attitude (traditude?), makes me want to give up and cut my hair short again. Honestly, I love the way it feels to have super short hair — but have been gritting my teeth and forcing myself to keep some length because “fEmiNiNiTy” and “bEaUtY stAnDaRds.” But, if even my efforts thus far aren’t good enough, and I’m not allowed to dress like a Muslim (because that would be highly unusual for a Christian in our society, and call undue attention to myself, so it could be seen as immodest or even prideful), then literally, F it. I’m done.

I’m tempted to go full Revenge Ugly again.

But, I must admit: Revenge Ugly is not a healthy attitude to have. The part of me that wants to be Revenge Ugly doesn’t come from God, I’m pretty sure.

Because if I really respected my body and liked it and were comfortable in my God-given skin — if I were free from disorder, basically — then yes, of course I’d dress like a beautiful flower! Wouldn’t we all?

Or would we?

Self-hatred analogy

I read something once on a Catholic social media page that compared a woman who dresses “badly” – chopping her hair short, dying it blue, wearing ripped jeans and tattoos and piercings and all – to the way Catholic architecture changed after Vatican II. Catholic churches lost their grandeur and beauty and meaning, and became uninspiring and drab.

The OP claimed that both of these – the modern woman and the modern Church – are acting from a place of self-hatred. Modern Catholicism hates Catholic Tradition, which is the actual essence of real Catholicism, and that’s why modern churches look like the way they do. Similarly, the woman who chops her hair and wears ripped jeans and gets tattoos, is a woman who hates herself, hates what she is at her core, even if she doesn’t realize it (according to OP). She hates her body and her God-given femininity. She lacks a healthy self-respect and respect for the One Who made her, and that’s what her style communicates.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I know it’s true for me. I dress like trash, and I do struggle with self-hatred. So I’m afraid I can’t prove OP wrong.

“But Mith, maybe if you tried dressing better you’d stop hating yourself! Sometimes you have to fake it till you make it! You have to pretend to be asleep before you can fall asleep, ya know?, and that’s how life works.” — Bold of you to assume I haven’t already tried this zillions of times in my thirty-six years! Bold of you to assume that I don’t always naturally, gradually revert back to baggy hoodies, having wasted a bunch of money on clothes that I never wear! And even bolder of you to assume that my self-hatred is so ephemeral as to be cured with something like a change of clothes!

.

Now I finally get to the argument

“Women should look like beautiful flowers and men like tall trees” – really? I dunno about that.

“Can”, sure. But, “should”? Not so fast.

I’m still not convinced that we as women have to look like that. Yes, it’s nice when a woman dresses beautifully. And a beautiful, well-composed outfit does communicate something about God’s design for woman and her purpose. Which is beautiful, maybe even the most beautiful thing in the world.

God designed woman to nurture, to care for, to welcome, to receive, to host, to self-sacrifice, to be soft and gentle and lovely like a flower. And God designed man to provide, to be strong, to protect, to shelter, like a tall tree.

But, does that really mean that all men and all women have to dress like flowers and trees, respectively?

Because it’s also cool, isn’t it, when women are buff tomboys. And when men are pretty and good at makeup. It may be unconventional, but, there’s nothing sinful about that. Some people have real gifts that don’t align with traditional gender roles.

People are all so different. People have different personalities, different strengths and weaknesses, and it’d be dumb to pretend we don’t – to try to force every woman to be ultra-feminine and every man to be hyper-masculine.

For whatever reason, some women are not very feminine, and some men are not very masculine. So what? Are those men and women failing morally? Are their style choices proof that they hate themselves?

That may be true of Mith, but I don’t think it’s necessarily true of everyone.

As I said in my other post: buff tomboy women and effeminate pretty men may not look the part of the “ideal candidates for marriage” in the traditional sense – but that doesn’t make them less valuable as humans. A human’s value is not dependent upon their marriageability.

And, as I said in my other post: yes, of course we as women should all strive to imitate the Blessed Mother. But, it seems to me that imitating her virtues — humility, obedience, charity, patience, mercy, generosity — ought to be more important than dressing like a girly-girl. A buff tomboy could obviously still excel in all of those virtues.

Do I wish nicer clothes were widely available and affordable, like back in the ‘50s, for those who care to dress that way? Absolutely. That would be a major improvement for society.

But do I also like that there are other options for those of us who have preferences or issues that make that sort of dress highly uncomfortable? Absolutely.

Why can’t we do both? Isn’t there room for all of us, here on God’s green earth?

.

An Adjacent Complaint

But wait, I’m not done yet!

Another issue that I have with these traddy lifestyle extremists is this: they tend to be very well-off financially, and they are quick to assume that everyone else is too.

“Only shop at these special shops I’m recommending that sell nice, quality, beautiful clothes” – okay, but what if I’m on a Goodwill/Walmart budget? Not all of us can afford to have an ~aesthetic~.

“You can shop secondhand and still dress beautifully” – yeah, maybe if you make a whole time-consuming hobby out of it, spending hours and hours of your life scouring the racks at stinky Goodwill for a rare “nice” find (which I acknowledge some people out there love to do, it’s a legit hobby and they call it “thrifting” and I respect it). But not everyone has the time or the energy to do all that!

And even if we did, not all of us have an eye for fashion! Even if I spent hours finding a decent piece at Goodwill that also happened to fit me (odds of both at once are slim to none) – I wouldn’t know how to style it.

“Just make your own clothes, then, like they did in olden times” – um, no. Zero interest, sorry. I’m an ILI, not an SEI. I’m not going to spend precious free time at a sewing machine doing some mindless task when I could be reading or writing or doing something else that’s mentally enriching for me.

“Well, Mith, if this were the olden days, you’d just have to suck it up and sew your own clothes and wear beautiful dresses, even if you were uncomfortable – you wouldn’t have the luxury of choice!” Yeah, true, but, guess what! It’s 2026! Technological advancements exist, and not all of them are bad. Our ancestors wanted an easier life for us, which is why we have options now that they didn’t. We don’t have to pretend it’s the 19th century to be good Catholics.

Do we?

Is it so bad to take advantage of modern conveniences, as long as we do so without sinning? Is it so bad to acknowledge that people have different personalities, different dispositions, and to allow them to act and dress accordingly, as long as they do so without sinning?

.

In Conclusion

Now that I’ve had my little tantrum and calmed down, I think what Dr. K was trying to say was: beautiful clothing needs to become the norm again. But, actually, he never said that it’s wrong to not be normal.

So you know what? I agree with him. Beautiful clothes should be the norm. We should bring them back.

But even if we do, I’m still gonna dress in trash bags. I will look around me at all the beautifully-dressed people and go “hurray! Nature is healing!” and keep right on dressing in a trash bag, because evidently I am not done healing yet, and (ugh, gag me, but) maybe that’s okay. Not ideal, but permissible.

So, imo, it is okay to look frumpy. Not ideal, but okay.

Because it’s okay to not be entirely well, and it’s okay to not be normal.

Feel free to try and convince me otherwise in the comments, though.

In the meantime, I think I’m gonna go try to dig up my old jeans and a hoodie.