Pants v. Pantsless

Don't worry folks, I didn't disappear again.

I've just been busy. But not so busy that I forgot about lil ol' bloggie here.

In fact, I have a couple new recipe posts that I just might get to this evening if I finish my to-do list. If.

In the mean time, I'd like to pose a question. But first, some background.

I've been reading/hearing a lot about a new feminist movement within LDS culture. I imagine it's deeper than this, but pretty much the only thing I've heard about it is pants vs. dresses/skirts.

Heard about it? I've seen a bazillion posts/blogs/etc. about whether it's fair/not fair/don't care that women get to/have to/are expected to wear skirts and dresses, while men get to/have to/are expected to wear dress pants. Sounds silly to me. But I'll freely disclose -- I'm not a feminist.

Regardless of which side of the pants vs. pantsless movement you align yourself with, let me ask you this:

My husband always complains about how women get to wear skirts in the summer and men are stuck in collared shirts, ties and suits. He says it's not fair. He believes there would be much less arguing over temperature control in church buildings if women were dressed in similarly-heat-trapping-apparel. So ... can he join the LDS feminist movement too?

Just kidding.

But seriously. There are two sides to the argument. Maybe, just maybe, some men would prefer if they got to/had to/were expected to wear kilts. Or a tupenu. Or skirts.

My opinion: I like dresses. I prefer dresses to skirts, but skirts are cute too. I hate wearing pants unless they're of the "sweat," "pajama" or "yoga" variety. So I prefer to remain ... pantsless ... in church.

If you disagree, don't hate, just state ... your point of view.

And in case this post frustrated or upset you ... just look at this picture until you feel happy again.