My niece just lost a job opportunity because they required her to wear a uniform. Because she would have to wear pants she turned it down. It is time for us to refute this standard on women. Here is what John R. Rice wrote and hopeful some of us can Biblically refute his arguments. Women Forbidden to Wear "that which pertaineth to a man"; is it Ceremonial Law? BY John R. Rice| Edited and compiled by Robert J. Stewart Passage From John R. Rice's excellent book, "Here Are More Questions", Chapter 27; Question# 293. Throughout the first five books in the Bible, the Mosaic law is given. Some of this is moral law and some of it is ceremonial law. For example, in Exodus 20, the Ten Commandments are given. It is quite obvious that nine of those commandments are moral law and these nine are repeated in one way or another in the New Testament. It is just wrong now to worship idols, to take God's name in vain, to dishonour father and mother, to kill, to commit adultery, to steal, to lie, or to covet, as it ever was. But in Colossians 2:17 and 18 we are plainly told that the Sabbath days, given to the Jews and mentioned in the Ten Commandments, were nailed to the cross, a part of the ceremonial laws, "a shadow of things to come." But even if one disagrees about the Sabbath question in the same twentieth chapter of Exodus other ceremonial commands are given as in verse 24: "An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice therein thy burnt offerings....." So it is wrong to say that any one chapter is all ceremonial and binding for us--at least it is wrong to say that about Deuteronomy 22. For example, it is clearly a moral problem that a man is not to hide his brother's ox or sheep, but must tell where they are, a man must help his neighbor when his ox or sheep is in trouble. Verse 30: "A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt" is clearly a ceremonial law. So chapter 22 does have some moral teachings that are binding upon us today. Of course, no one was ever saved by keeping commandments, but still the moral commandments teach what is right and Christians want to keep the commandments of God that place moral obligations upon us. But there is another reason for believing that Deuteronomy 22:5 is a rule that is meant for women of all times. The New Testament clearly teaches that the Old Testament laws about the relations of men and women are still binding. First Corinthians 14:34 says, " Let your women keep silent in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law." Here the law means, of course, the first five books of the Bible. So the same doctrine of the Pentateuch is the doctrine of the New Testament, when it comes to the relationship of men and women. Women are to be under obedience. Perhaps this refers primarily to Genesis 3:16 where the woman is told, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall have rule over thee." But certainly the implications that follow are intended also. In the case of Adam and Eve, the Lord set a certain relationship between husband and wife; and women are today to maintain the same relationship. So we find that this distinction between the men and women was emphasized in the Old Testament by having men and women to dress differently, as indications of their different positions. I think it is right to believe that the same distinctions are to be maintained today. Again in 1st Corinthians 11:1-6 the Bible clearly states that in the manner of wavering their hair, women and men are to be different. "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, it is shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for covering" (vss. 14-16). And the context plainly says that this difference is based on the fundamental difference in men and women, because "the head of the woman is man" (vs. 3). You see, Deuteronomy 22:5 is really just a part of the New Testament and Old Testament doctrine of the proper relationship of men and women. And a woman should show that she takes a woman's place, should show it by wearing long hair, and by wearing woman's clothes. I hope that you will read my book on "Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives and Women Preachers (paperbound) for further study on this matter. I think you will see, when you go into the matter thoughtfully, that actually the modern fad of women's wearing slacks, and of the unchristian rebelliousness of the age. It goes with unbelief and rebellion and not with the most spiritual Christianity. I think lots of good women who mean well have bobbed hair and wear pants, and perhaps smoke cigarettes, and rebel against their husbands. But they are not as good Christians as they would be if they obeyed the Word of God in this matter, I think; and I think that if they mean well, they will come more and more toward the Bible pattern of obedience to husbands, obedience to the conventions which properly differentiate between the sexes and take the place of modest womanhood, as taught in the Scriptures and upheld traditionally by the best Christian women. Don't you think so?