Mark Weiss wrote:
> That makes sense--like buttons in the back. Dressed (and undressed) by others.
>
> Tho working class women dressed themselves, presumably. Was there at one
> point a buttoning class distinction? In which case women's
> clothing emulated upper class practice despite the inconvenience
> (presuming righthandedness).
>
> In the upper classes in the days when women had others dress them men
> didn't dress themselves either. Have men been downwardly mobile in
> buttoning practice?
These are questions I have asked myself too, but sadly my 'knowledge' onthe
subject goes no further. Answers, anyone?
Kari
>
>
> Mark
>
> At 10:48 AM 11/26/2003 +0100, Kari Foster wrote:
> >Mark Weiss wrote:
> >
> > > OK, as long as we're exploring the great mysteries, who decided that men's
> > > and women's garments button on opposite sides, and how did the practice
> > > become standard?
> >
> >I think it's because it was assumed that men dressed themselves but that
> >ladies
> >had
> >a maid to help them dress -- thus the person doing the buttoning (always
> >assumed
> >to
> >be right-handed) was sitting opposite.
> >
> >K
|