Why do women's blouses button on the left and men's on the right?
I found two possible answers here.
1. According to the book 'Evolution of Fashion', both men's and women's buttons were on the same side until 1625. Buttons on jackets, rather than shirts, started to appear on opposite sides about 1635. The reasons for the switch are obscure. One theory is that men wanted their right hand free to have immediate access to a weapon, such as a sword, and preferred to open and close their jackets with their left hand. Women, generally holding children on their left arm, preferred to button and unbutton their clothes with their right hand. It was also easier for maids to dress women in clothes that buttoned in the back. Try reading 'The Little Button Book' by Diana Epstein for facts and trivia about buttons.
2. The generally accepted theory for this is that it is an inheritance from sword-carrying days. The sword was fastened to the left and a man buttoned his coat left over right to ensure the right-hand portion would not flap, or get caught up with the sword hilt, as the weapon was withdrawn from its sheath. A woman buttons her coat (or blouse etc) the reverse way and it has been suggested that this is because women usually carry babies on the left arm.
Showing posts with label clothing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label clothing. Show all posts
Friday, August 31, 2007
Long Johns?
Why are long johns called long johns? Were they invented by a man named John? I found the information below here.
The earliest references to the garments strongly suggest the name came to wide public attention because it was applied to the long underwear issued to American soldiers during World War Two. Until this piece appeared, the first known reference to them was in a publication of 1943, but I’ve succeeded in taking that back a couple of years, to a letter home by a new recruit published in the Sheboygan Press, Wisconsin, on 16 October 1941: “We have had but three days of rain in the nine weeks we have been here. Last Friday it turned a little cool so we were issued our winter clothes. We all hope we don’t get our ‘long Johns’ for a while because it is too warm yet.”
Another local newspaper reference, this time from the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune of 3 June 1944, suggests an origin: “Many a rookie has been ridiculed and laughed at the first time he swallowed his pride and donned his LONG JOHNS. They are the winter underwear issued by the Army, and have the disturbing effect of making a G.I. look like a scarecrow trapeze artist. It might be added that they itch but good! After a soldier finally gets into his LONG JOHNS, he invariably swells his chest, flexes his biceps and struts around the barracks like a John L. Sullivan, after whom these practical if not sightly garments have been named.”
The earliest references to the garments strongly suggest the name came to wide public attention because it was applied to the long underwear issued to American soldiers during World War Two. Until this piece appeared, the first known reference to them was in a publication of 1943, but I’ve succeeded in taking that back a couple of years, to a letter home by a new recruit published in the Sheboygan Press, Wisconsin, on 16 October 1941: “We have had but three days of rain in the nine weeks we have been here. Last Friday it turned a little cool so we were issued our winter clothes. We all hope we don’t get our ‘long Johns’ for a while because it is too warm yet.”
Another local newspaper reference, this time from the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune of 3 June 1944, suggests an origin: “Many a rookie has been ridiculed and laughed at the first time he swallowed his pride and donned his LONG JOHNS. They are the winter underwear issued by the Army, and have the disturbing effect of making a G.I. look like a scarecrow trapeze artist. It might be added that they itch but good! After a soldier finally gets into his LONG JOHNS, he invariably swells his chest, flexes his biceps and struts around the barracks like a John L. Sullivan, after whom these practical if not sightly garments have been named.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
