A reel popped up on my IG feed today that gave me a moment’s pause. I don’t like to link to social media here, plus I didn’t follow or save or anything; so, let me describe it for you. This twentysomething Catholic girl influencer, who’s trying to promote her content I guess, goes: “I was always a tomboy. This is how I always dressed,” and she shows us photo after photo of a girl in jeans and t-shirts. “Then,” she says, “I became Catholic. I saw in Mary how beautiful femininity is.” She tells us how she started trying to present as more feminine: first with just one dress, then gradually, “through the grace of God,” came to a point where she now wears dresses exclusively, all the time. She showed photos of herself gardening, driving a tractor, and doing yard work in pretty dresses.
Now, I have mixed feelings about the message that this is sending.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m very pro-modesty and pro-dress. Myself, I wear dresses and long skirts exclusively (except when I’m in my PJs, because I have been wearing the same pair of Eeyore PJ pants from Walmart since 2017 and it’s just my thing now, no other PJs are comfortable anymore, I will probably be wearing them on my deathbed). Modest attire like this is what is comfortable for me – although, tbh, that has more to do with my issues with my body appearance than with me being super “devout” or “feminine.” If I were skinny and toned, I might be more tempted to dress immodestly.
But all that is just to say, I myself am a believer that dresses are superior for women and girls. I wish it were the norm, instead of the weird and gross things that females are expected to wear these days. I am generally anti-pants (although in 2025 America, some allowances have to be made, because many women are required to wear pants at their jobs, which is too bad), and definitely anti-leggings as pants, anti-crop tops and booty shorts and all that. I do believe women ought to be charitable towards men and cover up decently. True, it’s a man’s fault if he looks at a woman with lust; but there’s truly no reason why women need to make it more difficult for him by going around showing it all off. (Even as a straight female, I find it super distracting when women go around in practically their underwear.) I know a lot of more feminist-leaning readers will disagree with me here – “it’s not my problem if men can’t control their urges!” – correct, but, as a Catholic I believe we have a duty to be charitable to our neighbor, and that certain parts of the body should only be seen by your spouse. To me, this includes legs, so I personally would not wear something that shows off the legs.
Thus, I am by no means mad at this influencer for preferring to present as feminine. She pointed out that “God has set women apart as something sacred and special,” so we ought to dress like it, not like a man. I think that’s generally true.
But I take issue with the suggestion that being a tomboy is bad and something to be overcome.
We need to stop saying shit like this. Assertions like this are what lead people to question their gender identity, these days. It’s okay to be a tomboy! You are still a female! Just because you don’t love doing stereotypically girly things, does not mean you are “actually a man!” If your biology is female, you are a woman.
A friend of mine who is an expert on systems of personality typology has recently gotten me interested in that topic. And I’ve found it very liberating to study, as someone who has always been insecure about my own personality.
God created us all with different personalities. In His creative genius, that’s how He made us: varied and diverse. Some personality types are more inclined to feminine traits (emotional, warm, caring, good housekeepers, good dressers); others, to traditionally masculine traits (logical, cold, reserved, uninterested in hosting parties or decorating or shopping). Are we going to tell all women with these latter types of traits that they are a failure? That they need to overcome or change the way God made them?
I can totally see how a traditionally feminine woman would be preferred by men as potential wife material. But that doesn’t mean that tomboys are broken or bad or need to fix themselves. And someone’s value as a human is not determined by their desirability as a spouse.
I’m what most would probably call a “rad trad” Catholic extremist, because of my beliefs and where I attend Mass. But one thing about Tradland that I’m not so sure about, that I sometimes take some issue with, is this obsession with femininity and masculinity.
Sure, masculine men are great, and I can see why a woman would prefer one as a husband. But that doesn’t mean that a man who is thin or small, who doesn’t care to lift weights or chop wood or fix cars, who perhaps prefers baking or painting or fashion design, is any less of a man. If he has male biology, he is still a man. His value as a person should not be determined by how traditionally masculine he is.
“But Mith, femininity is the essence of womanhood, and masculinity the essence of manhood! When a woman is feminine, she’s being the best version of what God made her to be!”
But not every woman is, or should be, the Platonic form of a woman. That’d be a pretty boring world, wouldn’t it! People are varied, and imperfect, and diverse. God designed us, as I said, with all different temperaments and natures. A person in perfect shape exemplifies the image of good health, and that is a good thing, and we should all strive to be healthy… but we should also honor the way that God made us. Some people have naturally bigger bone structure. Some people have physical handicaps. Should a person born with only one arm live their life in constant distress because they aren’t the image of an ideal human? I don’t think God wants that for them.
“But a handicap like that is not a choice. Behaving like a feminine woman is a choice!”
Is it? I mean, sure, I guess a woman with no interest in baking or hostessing or sewing could force herself to learn these skills, if they’re necessary for her or would make her life easier. She could try to change her personality, to act more sweet and sensitive, if she feels called to or if it would benefit her existing relationships. But should she force this just for the sake of being feminine? Couldn’t she better spend that time doing what she’s actually naturally inclined to do, like read, write, exercise, analyze data, ride horses, whatever it may be? What if her gifts go to waste because she’s so busy trying to be someone she’s not? Maybe she’s called to be a researcher, or to be the perfect partner for a more emotional and sensitive husband. God might be calling her to something great, who knows. What if St. Joan of Arc had dismissed God’s call to go to war because, well, that wasn’t a very feminine thing to do, so surely it couldn’t be God’s will?
“If a woman is inclined to be tomboyish, she should work to overcome that. Our natures are bad, and we must not submit to them, but conquer them!”
Our nature is bad insofar as it leads us to sin. If, by nature, someone prefers chocolate ice cream to vanilla – that is a natural preference, not a sin. Similarly, tomboyishness is not a sin, nor is it a sin for a man to have feminine traits; and it’s absurd to think that it is.
Honestly, some members of the online trad community have an obsession with masculinity/femininity that feels kinda fetishy and gross to me at times. Like, you just know these people who post this stuff are sitting there at their computers, salivating and squirming in their seat while they type out some rant describing in detail their fantasy sexual partner – creating and sharing those idiotic AI images of huge, burly bearded men chopping wood while their delicate, doe-eyed, pregnant wife looks on in adoration, five or six small children at her feet. It’s cringe AF. Sure, that type of femininity/masculinity is an attractive ideal, and we can probably all benefit from borrowing some things from that ideal; but, most people in the world do not fit that stereotype perfectly and never will. So please, let’s stop shaming people for not being TradCath Barbie & Ken.
Plus, I mean, you can be a tomboy in modest dresses. Dresses come in all different styles and colors. You don’t have to be pink and frilly and made-up.
“By the grace of God I exclusively wear dresses now.” That feels slightly weird to me, and smacks of ego-driven perfectionism, puritanism, and privilege, doesn’t it? Not everyone can afford those “workout skirts” or swim dresses, which are only to be found at cute little specialty modest boutiques online, while sweatpants are like $9 a pair at Walmart. I can’t imagine that God is disappointed in a woman for wearing a pair of loose-fitting sweatpants to the gym or in the garden if that’s all she has or if she can’t afford to buy a special “workout skirt” right now, right? What do you think?
(In all conversations about modesty, societal norms must be taken into consideration. Modesty is, to an extent, conditional on the society we live in. Certain native cultures wear less clothing because of their lifestyle and traditions and the climate they live in. For a woman in one of these cultures, it’s obviously not a sin to show her belly or legs. In fact, it would be weird, and call undue attention to herself, to dress in a long skirt like an Amish lady. Similarly, in certain Middle Eastern countries, it’s expected to cover all the way up, and attire that would be considered modest in the West could be scandalous there. We have to consider these things. Given that we live in the West, I really don’t see how it would possibly be a sin for a woman to wear a pair of sweatpants in the garden or to the gym. Maybe an imperfection at the worst, but, I’d have to get a priest’s opinion here.)
“I want my daughters to have a good woman to look up to.” This was another thing this influencer said that kinda irritated me. So you’re only a good woman if you wear a dress 24/7? Are we sure about that? One of my most beloved friends IRL is a good Christian lady who’s a tomboy, almost never made-up, usually in casual attire like t-shirts and modest shorts, because she’s outdoorsy and practical. And she is a wonderful woman, with many feminine gifts, who would be an amazing mom if she had kids. Does this mean I think t-shirts and shorts are good? No, but nor do I think I’m a “better woman” than her because I only wear dresses!
I want my daughters to not feel forced into some mold that’s not them. I want them to have parents who are authentically answering God’s call in their lives – who don’t think living the faith can be boiled down to these external habits like sewing or chopping wood. It’s much deeper than that. I want them to know that there is a place for them in God’s kingdom, no matter what their personality or taste or foibles; they don’t have to change the morally-neutral things about their nature in order to have value.
But do femininity and masculinity carry moral weight? That, I think, is the core of the question.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think they do? Because I’ve never seen an Examination of Conscience anywhere that asks, “have I been sufficiently masculine/feminine?”
Maybe those are a good thing to strive for, just as good health and fitness are good things to strive for… but are they? Are they an objective good, like health? Let’s think about it. Health is something that’s always good for everyone. But, being very stereotypically feminine might not be good for every woman. As I said, she might have different gifts, a different calling. And she shouldn’t try to be something she’s not called to be. A nun shouldn’t spend her time stressing about not having a vocation to marriage, just as a wife shouldn’t worry that she’s inferior for not being called to the religious life.
For exhibit B, there’s this other content creator I follow who comes to mind. She’s a health and fitness influencer, and a very masculine lesbian (at a glance you could mistake her for a man), and also very conservative and outspoken against the transgender movement. Occasionally she posts pics of herself as she was in her “before” era; she used to present as feminine, with long hair and a softer body. Now she’s really buff. And you can just see in the before and afters that she’s so much more confident and happy and thriving now. And, I kind of can’t help but love that for her?! Because there’s nothing sinful about simply looking more masculine, is there? Sure, she dresses in pants and menswear, which is not something I think women should do, but in theory, there’s nothing wrong with just having masculine traits, with being a tomboy.
In her videos, this influencer often makes the very point that I’ve been trying to make: being a tomboy does not make you a man. Your biology is what makes you male or female. Let’s stop telling girls they can’t be girls if they don’t like girly stuff! As a Catholic I do of course believe in chastity, sacramental marriage and all that, but at the same time, I honestly love non-traditional gender expressions. God made us all so different! We don’t have to be ultra-feminine to be great and awesome women!
And I guess the same applies to men — to an extent. I don’t think it could ever be considered modest for a man to wear a dress or noticeable make-up, because it violates societal norms in a way that would call undue attention to himself. But, if he wants to do certain traditionally feminine things like wear long hair, buff his nails, have a skincare regimen, get his brows waxed, or talk in a ladylike voice, then those are all morally neutral, aren’t they? Maybe weird and quirky, and probably not going to make him the most eligible bachelor at church, but not a sin, right? He’s still a man, and as long as he’s modest and living chastely and not claiming that he’s actually a woman, then I assume it’s not a sin.
The exclusively dress-wearing Catholic influencer says that she wants to imitate our Blessed Mother. As we should! We should all strive to imitate Our Lady’s humility, charity, love of God, modesty, and purity. But I don’t believe that we women are all required to embody the epitome of femininity. Femininity is good, but it’s not the only way for a woman to be good.
“But Mith,” you may be arguing, “you said in your other post that we have a moral obligation to look good! Now you’re saying t-shirts and pants are okay?”
No, I’m not saying t-shirts and pants are okay. I do think women should cover their legs. As I said, you can be a tomboy in modest and simple dresses or skirts/skorts. She doesn’t have to wear make-up or style her hair or try to look very “pretty,” but she does need to be well-kempt and modest.
In short: I kind of feel like some of these “mad trads” out here need to stop shaming tomboys and effeminate men. I think this tendency is perhaps a defensive reaction against the rise of “Pride” and transgenderism and gender confusion and all that, which is totally fair. But, let’s not let the pendulum swing so hard to the other side that we become as narrow-minded and shallow as the liberals accuse us of being.