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?
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
|