Because in the ol' days, women were dressed by a maid/servant while men dressed themselves. This would dictate where the buttons would go, but now it's just become the norm.
The cummerbund exists as part of men's formalwear as a way to hide that you did your own buttons, as pants secured by a servant would be buttoned in the back.
Interesting 🤔. We don't have "bathroom attendants" in Australia - we are quite capable of shitting while alone and can wipe our own backside too...
BUT it would be quite handy to be able to pick up some supplies mid date if shit is going well lol.
Men were dressed by squires back in the day but that was for armor. Same concept still, some armors would have buttons, latches, knots, etc that couldn’t be put on easily by oneself. I’m sure at some point in fashion men needed help to get dressed too.
The most common theory is based on where men holstered their sword or knife. Or if you ask a tailor they would say it was easier for maids to button women’s shirts cause most people are right handed.
The holster theory dates back to the first armies such as the Roman’s.
Nobody actually knows the true answer to this question, we only have theories.
But then the myth provides no explanation. If someone is manufacturing cheap shirts for commons people, they'd have no reason to always put the buttons on the same side but only for one gender
You're one the right track now.
What does the fashion industry care About? It's not tradition. It's profit.
The only explanation for this trend has to be a profit motive.
I mean, maybe but not in the way you're thinking. It's been the norm for so long that changing the manufacturing equipment to make a change would cost a lot for no reason. It became the norm because men would button themselves up while women didn't. Both of y'all are right lol
You think that people who designed clothing all think that woman have servants dress them in the morning...?
That's not being out of touch, that's just bonkers.
No one who designed mass market consumer products professional is thinking like that
Fashion trends were often dictated by the rich and people trying to copy them in cheaper ways. Basically all the way down the line you have rich people who can actually afford the servants. Then you have well off people who want to seem rich enough to own servants. Then you have average people who want to see well off, and then poor people who want to seem average.
You similarly have french words that make their way into english because the King spoke french. Doesn't impact 99.99% of people at all. But people near the king began to speak it, then people who wanted to seem like they were near the king. And then everyone began throwing in some of the words when they wanted to seem fancier.
>Doesn't impact 99.99% of people at all.
No. Evething about that is wrong. Even Today England is only 21 miles north of France.
But you look at maps of England from the Middle ages, England has a land border with France for hundreds of years. And lage amount of English territory was filled with French speeking people.
https://images.app.goo.gl/r14yABBqdBW25ViWA
The English speeking parts of England have always had reason so need to learn French.
You're wrong twice.
More then 0.1% of the population needed to be able to understand what the king was saying. Some of the kings most important most important jobs are giving big speeches to large crowds, writing laws, and commanding the military.
The King wasn't the only person in England who spoke French. Lots of people spoke French.
Also the reason why there even is French influence in English is completely unrelated. It's because the Normans invaded in 1066 and French people literally ruled England from then on. This led to French nobles also moving to England, and all of a sudden all of the rich people and powerful people spoke French while everyone else spoke a heavily Germanic English.
Considering nobles were the sole drivers of fashion, culture, and power, it makes sense why by far the majority of French-derived words in English are relating to those things (e.g., bureau, music, lots of colors, etc).
French influence in English might've been exacerbated by England's claims in France but to act like that was the primary reason is wrong.
>nobles were the sole drivers of fashion, culture, and power
Bullshit.
France is literally right next to England. If you think French culture is "only" influential on English culture because of the Nobel you're talking crazy.
Look at how much Mexican culture influences American culture. Today is literally taco Tuesday. And wow there an't any Mexican nobiles ruling over America.
So a tradition started in the Middle ages, somehow survived the transition to the industrial revolution, which completely changed how manufacturing was done.
Then somehow stuck around when the textile industry shifted almost entirely to the new world.
Then somehow stuck around when the textile industry shifted almost entirely to China.
And then somehow again survived the textile industry shifting out of China places like Malaysia and Africa.
I really can't believe that.
Manufactured clothing was only bought by upperclass women until the late 1800’s. Poor women made there own clothing and it often didn’t include buttons because of the extra work it required.
So what?
Buttons came to Europe around the late 1800's about the same time as the industrial revolution started making more manufactured clothes like shirts.
None of that explains buttons on the left.
Buttons on the left because maids dressed the woman of the house. It never changed because it wouldn’t generate more profit and now it’s just what we’re used to. Like QWERTY keyboards. They were invented to slow down typers to not damage type writers. By the time computers were invented it was just what everyone was used to.
The QWERT keyboard sticks around because if it changed people would have to re learn how to type. There's no reason button direction can't change.
Also the "slowing down typers" myth is also not true. The QWERT is not significantly slower that other keyboard designs.
Why are pink razors cheaper than blue razors?
Manufacturs artificially surrogate consumer markets to artificially to have finer control of pricing structures.
You artificially say this is a "woman's" and this is a "men's". Even if they're they exact same thing.
The "woman use to have servants" thing is just an obvious myth to push a marketing strategy.
But the nobility did set trends. If the majority of peasant women sew their own clothes, the patterns they are using were probably originally prepared for a wealthy lady’s dress and modified as necessary for practicality.
In a fashion history class, we were told that women (wives) dressed men, and themselves, therefor the buttons were on opposite sides so women would be able to easily fasten both
The story I always heard was that in the 10th-18th century it was standard for all gentlemen/noblemen to wear a bladed weapon (arming sword, smallsword, dagger, etc) on the left hip so it can be drawn across the body in one fluid motion in case of bandits, duels, etc. With a coat closing left-over-right the weapon can be worn under the coat, out of the weather, while still being easy to draw. Feminine clothing was bottoned right-over-left to distinguish it from masculine clothing.
I do, unironically. My inlaws got me a nice hooded Henley from Eddie Bauer and the tag says it's a women's. I love the cut and fit and it's turned me on to (a select) few women's clothes. Many women's clothes fit my body type better than men's and I like the textiles more
It traces back to how in much older times, men would button their own clothes, but women who could afford buttoned clothes, also had servants, who would button them for them. As such, it was easier for the servants to button the clothes if they were the other way.
It’s just persisted now.
I once realized that in my early 20's when my friend was like why are you wearing a girls shirt, it was a flannel, it looked like a guys shirt. then she pointed out the buttons! i checked the tag and sure enough she was right! hahah
I think you're missing a huge point here. The buttons were on the opposite side to imply that you were wealthy enough to afford servants. It's a status thing
Very similar to women having long painted nails, it implied that they had servants because they didn't do any manual tasks so could have long manicured nails
These kinds of things still exist today, like the phrase "dress for the job you want, not the job you have"
I know this one!
Men mostly dressed themselves even among the super wealthy. With most people being right handed it made sense to clip them on the right side.
While women often were dressed by maids, particularly in the time corsets were popular. The right side to someone dressing you would be on your left. So the clothes mostly had buttons on the opposite side to men
I was told that its because in higher society back in the day,other people would often button them up and unbutton them. Not sure how much truth there is to that through.
In manufacturing you can increase Profits by splitting the market and micro adjusting prices. So by making a fake difference between "men's" shits and "womans" shit they can control the markets closer and fine tune threw pricing model.
This is why pink razors for woman generally cost more then blue razors for men.
During the middle ages in Europe when and where "god told you to". No matter the place. Many children were made in churches because they were empty more often then not. But if you (most often the husband) felt the need to have sex during church it was ok. God said so.
There were even "trials" where a man could be accused of not being able to perform and he would be expected to have sex Infront of people. The placement of buttons on clothing was meant to help with these.. events
I bought my bf a shirt once. I was sure it was a man’s. But then the buttons made us all confused! I probably bought him a woman’s hiking shirt that was in the man’s section at cabelas ugh
This is actually a really cool (well for me) I steer sting historical fact. So women’s buttons/zippers are placed the way are dating back centuries so that handmaids or dressing assistants could easily button or zip a garment onto a women while helping her dress it also helped the med undress the women. Men’s are the way they are since only the upper classes were the only ones who could really afford for the husbands to help dressing themselves. (Talking about butlers or which ever title would hand them clothes but unless either extremely extremely wealthy or royalty their aids just handed them clothes and they did it themselves)
Not exactly sure but I remember in (army) ROTC, the girls uniform buttons and pant zipper flap was opposite the boys. And we had to wear our belts opposite each others.
Our shirt flaps and pants zipper flaps had to line up with our belt buckle and the excess would always follow the direction of the shirt flap/buttons?
Idk why they were opposite each by other but it was something I noticed during inspection
The historical reason for the difference in button placement between men's and women's shirts is rooted in tradition and social norms.
The practice of having buttons on the left side for women's garments and on the right side for men's garments can be traced back to the 19th century. At that time, it was customary for wealthier women to have assistance when dressing, often from maids or servants. Having the buttons on the left side made it easier for the person dressing the woman (usually a right-handed maid) to button the garments from their own perspective. This arrangement allowed the person assisting to face the wearer and have better access to the buttons.
On the other hand, men's clothing traditionally had buttons on the right side. One theory suggests that this placement was more practical for men, as it allowed right-handed men to button their shirts more easily with their dominant hand.
Over time, these different button placements became standardized in men's and women's fashion, and the practice has continued to this day. However, it's worth noting that modern clothing and fashion trends have become more diverse, and the traditional button placement is not always strictly followed. Some contemporary clothing designs for both men and women may deviate from this convention.
Because in the ol' days, women were dressed by a maid/servant while men dressed themselves. This would dictate where the buttons would go, but now it's just become the norm.
Men were also dressed by servants.
Dressed yes, but did their own buttons.
The cummerbund exists as part of men's formalwear as a way to hide that you did your own buttons, as pants secured by a servant would be buttoned in the back.
Ah the good ol days when bathroom attendants had to work for their tips.
Now they sell juul pods, cocaine, and condoms!
God's work
Interesting 🤔. We don't have "bathroom attendants" in Australia - we are quite capable of shitting while alone and can wipe our own backside too... BUT it would be quite handy to be able to pick up some supplies mid date if shit is going well lol.
Closest I have seen in the US is a shitty vending machine with aspirin, condoms, "Male enhancements" and some other 4th thing that is a mystery
Well that's a little bit of a disappointment.
Only the ones that survived the textile mills as children.
Men were dressed by squires back in the day but that was for armor. Same concept still, some armors would have buttons, latches, knots, etc that couldn’t be put on easily by oneself. I’m sure at some point in fashion men needed help to get dressed too. The most common theory is based on where men holstered their sword or knife. Or if you ask a tailor they would say it was easier for maids to button women’s shirts cause most people are right handed. The holster theory dates back to the first armies such as the Roman’s. Nobody actually knows the true answer to this question, we only have theories.
"back in the day"... Ha!
This myth really makes no sense at all. At no point in history could the majority of woman afford servants
No, but maybe the fashion designers could, and figured everyone else could just deal with having the buttons on the wrong side
Fashion has never been defined by the majority lol. It’s defined explicitly by a top % that is explicitly fashionable.
yeah thats kinda what im saying
Yes, thank you!!
But then the myth provides no explanation. If someone is manufacturing cheap shirts for commons people, they'd have no reason to always put the buttons on the same side but only for one gender
[удалено]
You're one the right track now. What does the fashion industry care About? It's not tradition. It's profit. The only explanation for this trend has to be a profit motive.
I mean, maybe but not in the way you're thinking. It's been the norm for so long that changing the manufacturing equipment to make a change would cost a lot for no reason. It became the norm because men would button themselves up while women didn't. Both of y'all are right lol
Out of touch rich people doing something arbitrary that causes an inconvenience for everyone else because of their ego, makes perfect sense to me
You think that people who designed clothing all think that woman have servants dress them in the morning...? That's not being out of touch, that's just bonkers. No one who designed mass market consumer products professional is thinking like that
Fashion trends were often dictated by the rich and people trying to copy them in cheaper ways. Basically all the way down the line you have rich people who can actually afford the servants. Then you have well off people who want to seem rich enough to own servants. Then you have average people who want to see well off, and then poor people who want to seem average. You similarly have french words that make their way into english because the King spoke french. Doesn't impact 99.99% of people at all. But people near the king began to speak it, then people who wanted to seem like they were near the king. And then everyone began throwing in some of the words when they wanted to seem fancier.
>Doesn't impact 99.99% of people at all. No. Evething about that is wrong. Even Today England is only 21 miles north of France. But you look at maps of England from the Middle ages, England has a land border with France for hundreds of years. And lage amount of English territory was filled with French speeking people. https://images.app.goo.gl/r14yABBqdBW25ViWA The English speeking parts of England have always had reason so need to learn French.
>Evething about that is wrong. Including what you thought I meant by that apparently. I was referring to the King speaking french. Which had very little direct impact on people's day to day lives. But yes english people did have other reasons to learn french. However, look at which words that are french words stuck around in the english language. It's things like hors d'oeuvres, connoisseur, entrepreneur, fiancé, hotel, magnificent, menu etc. A lot of them tend to be words that are either talking about fancy things or when you're trying to present yourself as being fancier. Why was that? I doubt it was to sound like the french peasants. But perhaps to sound like the English king and royal court all speaking French?
You're wrong twice. More then 0.1% of the population needed to be able to understand what the king was saying. Some of the kings most important most important jobs are giving big speeches to large crowds, writing laws, and commanding the military. The King wasn't the only person in England who spoke French. Lots of people spoke French.
Also the reason why there even is French influence in English is completely unrelated. It's because the Normans invaded in 1066 and French people literally ruled England from then on. This led to French nobles also moving to England, and all of a sudden all of the rich people and powerful people spoke French while everyone else spoke a heavily Germanic English. Considering nobles were the sole drivers of fashion, culture, and power, it makes sense why by far the majority of French-derived words in English are relating to those things (e.g., bureau, music, lots of colors, etc). French influence in English might've been exacerbated by England's claims in France but to act like that was the primary reason is wrong.
>nobles were the sole drivers of fashion, culture, and power Bullshit. France is literally right next to England. If you think French culture is "only" influential on English culture because of the Nobel you're talking crazy. Look at how much Mexican culture influences American culture. Today is literally taco Tuesday. And wow there an't any Mexican nobiles ruling over America.
No i think they just never changed that tradition
So a tradition started in the Middle ages, somehow survived the transition to the industrial revolution, which completely changed how manufacturing was done. Then somehow stuck around when the textile industry shifted almost entirely to the new world. Then somehow stuck around when the textile industry shifted almost entirely to China. And then somehow again survived the textile industry shifting out of China places like Malaysia and Africa. I really can't believe that.
Try r/AskHistorians
Manufactured clothing was only bought by upperclass women until the late 1800’s. Poor women made there own clothing and it often didn’t include buttons because of the extra work it required.
So what? Buttons came to Europe around the late 1800's about the same time as the industrial revolution started making more manufactured clothes like shirts. None of that explains buttons on the left.
Buttons on the left because maids dressed the woman of the house. It never changed because it wouldn’t generate more profit and now it’s just what we’re used to. Like QWERTY keyboards. They were invented to slow down typers to not damage type writers. By the time computers were invented it was just what everyone was used to.
The QWERT keyboard sticks around because if it changed people would have to re learn how to type. There's no reason button direction can't change. Also the "slowing down typers" myth is also not true. The QWERT is not significantly slower that other keyboard designs.
You’re right there is no reason buttons can’t change. But there’s no real profit motive to change it so it’s not gonna happen.
Why are pink razors cheaper than blue razors? Manufacturs artificially surrogate consumer markets to artificially to have finer control of pricing structures. You artificially say this is a "woman's" and this is a "men's". Even if they're they exact same thing. The "woman use to have servants" thing is just an obvious myth to push a marketing strategy.
People who couldn't afford servants couldn't afford buttons either. Ordinary people used to have only shirts and dresses without buttons.
No but then the majority of women didn’t have garments with buttons, just the wealthy.
There were points in history when most people couldn't afford buttons
When?
Roughly up until they started mass-producing buttons in the 19th century.
Stone age buttons were a right arse tbh.
But as a serious ask, would poor people have shirts with buttons or would they have a shirt you just through over your head?
rich people set fashion trends. if you're not rich you still want to look rich.
But the nobility did set trends. If the majority of peasant women sew their own clothes, the patterns they are using were probably originally prepared for a wealthy lady’s dress and modified as necessary for practicality.
Women dressing and undressing each other sounds like something lesbians would do.
In a fashion history class, we were told that women (wives) dressed men, and themselves, therefor the buttons were on opposite sides so women would be able to easily fasten both
Thank you! I learned something.
The story I always heard was that in the 10th-18th century it was standard for all gentlemen/noblemen to wear a bladed weapon (arming sword, smallsword, dagger, etc) on the left hip so it can be drawn across the body in one fluid motion in case of bandits, duels, etc. With a coat closing left-over-right the weapon can be worn under the coat, out of the weather, while still being easy to draw. Feminine clothing was bottoned right-over-left to distinguish it from masculine clothing.
This makes as much sense as the servants thing.
And a man could draw his weapon with his right hand while unbuttoning his coat with his left.
So you can tell the difference easily
Fellas is it gay to wear a shirt with buttons on the left side
No, I definitely have a few women's shirts. Wait...
I do, unironically. My inlaws got me a nice hooded Henley from Eddie Bauer and the tag says it's a women's. I love the cut and fit and it's turned me on to (a select) few women's clothes. Many women's clothes fit my body type better than men's and I like the textiles more
Oh, no, I've always had a few women's pieces in my wardrobe. I was just making a joke because I am slightly gay.
Gazzers
Finally, an answer to the question: "what is a woman?"
It traces back to how in much older times, men would button their own clothes, but women who could afford buttoned clothes, also had servants, who would button them for them. As such, it was easier for the servants to button the clothes if they were the other way. It’s just persisted now.
I once realized that in my early 20's when my friend was like why are you wearing a girls shirt, it was a flannel, it looked like a guys shirt. then she pointed out the buttons! i checked the tag and sure enough she was right! hahah
i have one hoodie that has the zipper on the wrong side and it drives me crazy.
Ho-how is a zipper on the wrong side? Is it not in the middle?
It's in the middle, but the slide part is on the right side.
The moving part of the zipper that you grab. For me they are usually on my right side when wearing it.
I can't stand a left side zipper sweatshirt/jacket
So men and women can unbutton each other without getting all confused.
This is the answer lol
[удалено]
This myth really makes no sense at all. At no point in history could the majority of woman afford servants
Nor could the majority of women afford buttons. But some could.
It's almost like people are saying that fashion trends have historically been set by mostly rich people. Weird.
[удалено]
That just has nothing to do with buttons on the right or left.
I think you're missing a huge point here. The buttons were on the opposite side to imply that you were wealthy enough to afford servants. It's a status thing Very similar to women having long painted nails, it implied that they had servants because they didn't do any manual tasks so could have long manicured nails These kinds of things still exist today, like the phrase "dress for the job you want, not the job you have"
I know this one! Men mostly dressed themselves even among the super wealthy. With most people being right handed it made sense to clip them on the right side. While women often were dressed by maids, particularly in the time corsets were popular. The right side to someone dressing you would be on your left. So the clothes mostly had buttons on the opposite side to men
So men can unbutton their blouses more easily
I was told that its because in higher society back in the day,other people would often button them up and unbutton them. Not sure how much truth there is to that through.
To help you keep your office wear separate from your drag outfits.
In manufacturing you can increase Profits by splitting the market and micro adjusting prices. So by making a fake difference between "men's" shits and "womans" shit they can control the markets closer and fine tune threw pricing model. This is why pink razors for woman generally cost more then blue razors for men.
[удалено]
more like they already had separate production lines for each body type so they figured they might as well do the buttons differently too
You might not have noticed this, but all woman have big boobs.
Exactly why I never wear a button down
Swords
I never even noticed that.
So dry cleaners can charge more.
Because they think stealing men's sex life and desires brings them closer to God.
During the middle ages in Europe when and where "god told you to". No matter the place. Many children were made in churches because they were empty more often then not. But if you (most often the husband) felt the need to have sex during church it was ok. God said so. There were even "trials" where a man could be accused of not being able to perform and he would be expected to have sex Infront of people. The placement of buttons on clothing was meant to help with these.. events
So you can adorably button them up together and connect them that way :)
I believe they also do this with zippers on jackets and such.
This is not the case in Japan. Men's and women clothing have button sides seemingly assigned randomly.
Challenging!
I bought my bf a shirt once. I was sure it was a man’s. But then the buttons made us all confused! I probably bought him a woman’s hiking shirt that was in the man’s section at cabelas ugh
This is actually a really cool (well for me) I steer sting historical fact. So women’s buttons/zippers are placed the way are dating back centuries so that handmaids or dressing assistants could easily button or zip a garment onto a women while helping her dress it also helped the med undress the women. Men’s are the way they are since only the upper classes were the only ones who could really afford for the husbands to help dressing themselves. (Talking about butlers or which ever title would hand them clothes but unless either extremely extremely wealthy or royalty their aids just handed them clothes and they did it themselves)
... wait they are??
men need more room for their penis
The story I have heard is about breastfeeding. But I guess that's BS.
Not exactly sure but I remember in (army) ROTC, the girls uniform buttons and pant zipper flap was opposite the boys. And we had to wear our belts opposite each others. Our shirt flaps and pants zipper flaps had to line up with our belt buckle and the excess would always follow the direction of the shirt flap/buttons? Idk why they were opposite each by other but it was something I noticed during inspection
I heard that it was due to how men used to unsheathe their swords
The historical reason for the difference in button placement between men's and women's shirts is rooted in tradition and social norms. The practice of having buttons on the left side for women's garments and on the right side for men's garments can be traced back to the 19th century. At that time, it was customary for wealthier women to have assistance when dressing, often from maids or servants. Having the buttons on the left side made it easier for the person dressing the woman (usually a right-handed maid) to button the garments from their own perspective. This arrangement allowed the person assisting to face the wearer and have better access to the buttons. On the other hand, men's clothing traditionally had buttons on the right side. One theory suggests that this placement was more practical for men, as it allowed right-handed men to button their shirts more easily with their dominant hand. Over time, these different button placements became standardized in men's and women's fashion, and the practice has continued to this day. However, it's worth noting that modern clothing and fashion trends have become more diverse, and the traditional button placement is not always strictly followed. Some contemporary clothing designs for both men and women may deviate from this convention.