Dresses epitomize womanhood in the Western world. Such has been the case since the western man adopted pants to replace the tunic in the sixth century (an aspect of the West's Germanic barbarian heritage). Dresses allow us to differentiate between the silhouettes of men and women on restroom signs. Dresses are the indelible image of womanhood because of the symbolic nature of pants and dresses. If all fashions are symbolic, dresses in particular symbolize womanhood by more fully embodying the ideal of a true lady, the objective understanding of what men find attractive in the fairer sex: passivity, domesticity, childrearing, coital love, piety and fertility. These defining aspects of womanhood are immutable. We all tacitly reaffirm these attributes in our attempts to find a partner. Flirtation and courtship are reaffirmations of what it means to be masculine and feminine because it is only by fulfilling the obligation of our form that we can attract the opposite sex.
You might say these things were once true but times have changed. Not so. The nature of sexual attractiveness in women is objective, immutable and incontrovertible because it is directly related to the constant and unchanging physiology of men and women. What men find attractive in women is fixed because the physiology of humanity has been relatively unchanged. In this way, the ideal form of femininity is also unchangeable and without regard for cultural context or time period. What men find attractive in women - the form of a true lady - is objectively identifiable, just as it was in the time of Nebuchadnezzar. In short, femininity is sexy, and sexy is timeless and universal.
What's not sexy is feminism (not to be confused with femininity), which is directly responsible for the disappearance of our beloved dresses and the adoption of pants by the "new woman." Like all fashions, pants are symbolic of something - in this case masculinity - through their allowance of physical activity. Dresses, the antithesis of pants, symbolize femininity through grace and elegance. Men find elegance in women to be attractive, and dresses are a physical manifestation of femininity. The wearing of pants by women represents the masculinization of the fairer sex, which is not at all attractive.
The androgynous masculinization of the modern woman, through the donning of pants, suits, uncovered shoulders and unveiled hair, has in a sense led to the slow whorification of ladyhood. In discarding feminine dress, women seem to have symbolically discarded femininity and modesty (the virtues of women) in favor of sexual virility, promiscuity and immodesty (the vices of men). The ideal form of a true lady is a constant, immutable aspect of humanity, and this strange new development can only represent a bizarre aberration of a perverse and ignoble culture. Dresses are an essential part of any true lady's attire, and they should be worn.
Tbogg also points readers to the comments thread, and Mr. Haecker shows up. He continues his one-man example of an educated idiot until, pulling a move I have seen before, overwhelmed by the fact that no one seems to take what he has written seriously, or engaged his arguments in a thoughtful manner, he writes:
I'm not planning on replying to any more responses as it's getting a bit rediculous [sic]. Thanks for all the comments/criticism. Some folks really tore my silly argument about a serious issue, apart(GJ). Relax, and have a good Thanksgiving.
In other words, "WAH!"
The nice thing about something like this is that, there is both an abundance of objectively false "facts" presented, and the underlying ideas and suppositions, which include such things as "immutability" and "incontrovertible" and "ideal", are the wishful thinking of a small brain stuffed with just enough information to allow the person to make a fool of himself. There is no reason to "argue" with this, because this isn't an "argument" but baiting, pure and simple. The young man is goading people through provocation. The best way to deal with this kind of thing is to do two things: (1) Laugh at it; (2) Then move on, as if it never was.