The Briefing Room
General Category => Science, Technology and Knowledge => History => Topic started by: rangerrebew on January 11, 2018, 06:38:46 pm
-
Why Did We Start Wearing Pants?
BY Jake Rossen
January 10, 2018
It’s a question that has plagued Donald Duck for decades: Who decided pants were necessary? Did the motivation stem purely from modesty, or was there another reason we started climbing into trousers?
Over at Discover, author Sarah Scoles has offered a plausible explanation by describing a 2014 archaeological find in China’s Tarim Basin. Researchers with the German Archaeological Institute excavated what is believed to be the oldest example of pants ever unearthed, made from wool and dating back 3000 years.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/524605/why-did-we-start-wearing-pants (http://mentalfloss.com/article/524605/why-did-we-start-wearing-pants)
-
Because some people don't have the legs for skirts.*
*See Hitlary.
-
I was afraid to click on this thread...Whew!
-
I was afraid to click on this thread...Whew!
You want me to fix that? I have answers to the question about what's under a Scotsman's kilt.
-
You want me to fix that? I have answers to the question about what's under a Scotsman's kilt.
No Human Tripod Jokes Frank. It offends the gentler sexes sensibilities
-
(https://cf.ppt-online.org/files/slide/a/a2ewPEjCgNALJ3iVSkI5mMhnflWp6Rc8THXsGx/slide-2.jpg)
-
Tuesday, March 18th, 965 a.d.
-
@To-Whose-Benefit? - Did Vikings always wear pants, or did they ever wear robes of some sort?
It seems that in colder climes with horses and riding being involved, pants are a necessity.
I'll bet Viking women wore them too.
That silly side-saddle stuff because women needed to wear dresses is one of the most ridiculous ways to keep women in "their place."
-
@To-Whose-Benefit? - Did Vikings always wear pants, or did they ever wear robes of some sort?
It seems that in colder climes with horses and riding being involved, pants are a necessity.
I'll bet Viking women wore them too.
That silly side-saddle stuff because women needed to wear dresses is one of the most ridiculous ways to keep women in "their place."
Yeah. Men love butch women. Just look at Bill Clintoon.
-
Tuesday, March 18th, 965 a.d.
7am or was it 8?
Now that that is settled...... when did the 1st pants come with a fly?
-
7am or was it 8?
Now that that is settled...... when did the 1st pants come with a fly?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codpiece
-
Tuesday, March 18th, 965 a.d.
March 18th, 965 was a Saturday.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codpiece
You know. It's not often. But, I'm sorry I asked.
-
Yeah. Men love butch women. Just look at Bill Clintoon.
Sometimes your attempts to be clever just fail, Frank.
Try riding a horse with both legs on the same side of the horse and a very long skirt on, and see how you it makes you feel.....
It's not "butch" to ride the right way. It's just not stupid.
-
Because a skirt is a very inconvenient, immodest and cold piece of clothing.
-
You know. It's not often. But, I'm sorry I asked.
:silly:
-
You want me to fix that? I have answers to the question about what's under a Scotsman's kilt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMKOvdnBvTE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMKOvdnBvTE)
-
March 18th, 965 was a Saturday.
There's one in every crowd...... :rolling:
-
Because a skirt is a very inconvenient, immodest and cold piece of clothing.
Exactly, @ConstitutionRose
As an athletic female, I always preferred pants to skirts. Back in the late 60's and early 70's when Christian colleges made women wear dresses, the skirts kept getting shorter and shorter until finally administrations must have realized that allowing women students to wear pants allowed them to be far more modest, and they removed the silly dress code.
Sometimes rule makers get hoisted by their own petards and have to change the arbitrary rules in order to keep the actual goal in mind.
-
7am or was it 8?
Now that that is settled...... when did the 1st pants come with a fly?
After the farmer in the fields didn't wash them for a while, he had plenty of flies.
Seriously, I figure maybe Levi's button fly?
I don't know.
-
Because a skirt is a very inconvenient, immodest and cold piece of clothing.
Pants are to skirts and kilts the way the fork is to chopsticks; yes, we used to do it this way, but then we thought of something better.
-
Because we needed something to soil when were were frightened.
-
Pants are to skirts and kilts the way the fork is to chopsticks; yes, we used to do it this way, but then we thought of something better.
@BassWrangler
A fork is not better then a chopstick. Different tool, different use
When used in the right way with the right foods the chopstick is far superior than a fork.
-
@BassWrangler
A fork is not better then a chopstick. Different tool, different use
When used in the right way with the right foods the chopstick is far superior than a fork.
Like when you go to stab a cherry tomato in your salad with your fork and the tomato goes shooting across the table. That doesn't happen when you use chop sticks to pick it up.
-
You want me to fix that? I have answers to the question about what's under a Scotsman's kilt.
Really? I didn't imagine you to be that type, but whatev, it's very in vogue now.
-
Like when you go to stab a cherry tomato in your salad with your fork and the tomato goes shooting across the table. That doesn't happen when you use chop sticks to pick it up.
Or you could pick it up with a spoon and eat it whole.
But once I did that, and squirted our baby daughter in the face across the table.
It took a while before she forgave me. ^-^
-
Or you could pick it up with a spoon and eat it whole.
But once I did that, and squirted our baby daughter in the face across the table.
It took a while before she forgave me. ^-^
See? Shoulda used chopsticks and then cut it with a knife.
-
Like when you go to stab a cherry tomato in your salad with your fork and the tomato goes shooting across the table. That doesn't happen when you use chop sticks to pick it up.
exactly
-
@BassWrangler
A fork is not better then a chopstick. Different tool, different use
When used in the right way with the right foods the chopstick is far superior than a fork.
The hell you say.
I don't butter my butt and call it a biscuit. Well I do, but that is a whole different thread.
-
BURMA!
-
The hell you say.
I don't butter my butt and call it a biscuit. Well I do, but that is a whole different thread.
I hope this isn't going to devolve into another conversation about **** ****s again.
-
I hope this isn't going to devolve into another conversation about **** ****s again.
I learned how tobuse chop sticks eating peanuts while drinking. It may
-
I learned how tobuse chop sticks eating peanuts while drinking. It may
I see you're still practicing.
:tongue2:
-
RoosGirl wrote:
"Like when you go to stab a cherry tomato in your salad with your fork and the tomato goes shooting across the table. That doesn't happen when you use chop sticks to pick it up."
Do it right to begin with.
Use your fingers.
-
I see you're still practicing.
:tongue2:
Scotch but no peanuts
Actually my phone is possessed. It changes stuff
-
Exactly, @ConstitutionRose
As an athletic female, I always preferred pants to skirts. Back in the late 60's and early 70's when Christian colleges made women wear dresses, the skirts kept getting shorter and shorter until finally administrations must have realized that allowing women students to wear pants allowed them to be far more modest, and they removed the silly dress code.
Sometimes rule makers get hoisted by their own petards and have to change the arbitrary rules in order to keep the actual goal in mind.
When the small private religious college I was attending changed the rule, my Dad showed up and took me shopping for pants sets and pants suits. 😊
-
Did somebody say kilts?
-
Why Did We Start Wearing Pants?
Women.
For some reason, they all think men should put pants on.
-
@BassWrangler
A fork is not better then a chopstick. Different tool, different use
When used in the right way with the right foods the chopstick is far superior than a fork.
A knife works just fine for everything you can't drink...
Women again.
They all seem to demand you use a fork, and wear pants...
-
When the small private religious college I was attending changed the rule, my Dad showed up and took me shopping for pants sets and pants suits. 😊
Smart Dad! ^-^
Protecting his daughter by providing her decent and modest apparel.
-
Did somebody say kilts?
Now, those are some nice kilts.
-
Now, those are some nice kilts.
Indeed. :laugh:
-
Women.
For some reason, they all think men should put pants on.
Women always find a way to ruin a man's life. Just think before that... After a hard day of hunting and foraging those guys came back to the village and were perfectly content sitting on a log around a fire manspreading and scratching their sack while sucking on a rib bone.
-
Women always find a way to ruin a man's life. Just think before that... After a hard day of hunting and foraging those guys came back to the village and were perfectly content sitting on a log around a fire manspreading and scratching their sack while sucking on a rib bone.
IT IS EVER SO.
Hunting camp,
Nuff said.
-
You want me to fix that? I have answers to the question about what's under a Scotsman's kilt.
Ah Frank, everyone knows that, there's even a song
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-X4PoQHn8A#)
-
Wow, we really have some he-man woman haters. Interesting.
-
@To-Whose-Benefit? - Did Vikings always wear pants, or did they ever wear robes of some sort?
It seems that in colder climes with horses and riding being involved, pants are a necessity.
I'll bet Viking women wore them too.
That silly side-saddle stuff because women needed to wear dresses is one of the most ridiculous ways to keep women in "their place."
@musiclady
Kinda hard to say.
Depending on how far back you go the actual records get pretty hard to track down but by what's generally recognized as The Viking Age from the 796 raid on Lindisfarne Abby to the death of King Harald Harfagr at Stamford Bridge in 1066, Yes. Pants it was.
As to the Ladies, the Viking Law codes of the day criminalized cross dressing. One Saga has 2 characters conspiring against one's husband by urging she "Make him a shirt with a neck cut so low that he will be outlawed for it."
But I'm betting that if the farm was short enough of men for whatever reason, they did whatever they had to do to get the work done rather than starve come winter. Women farmers generally took care of the dairy, cows, the house, wove fabrics and made clothes, and a whole host of the day to day back breaking labor of subsistence farmers, . . . in dresses.
They were forbidden by law to wear men's clothing - as in pants. It was also a criminal offence for a woman to cut her hair short or wear weapons. No swords. But most of them wore work knives that would get you arrested on the street today, and most kept a spear and ax within easy reach, and knew how to use them.
Really knowing how to use a spear - without throwing it, but thrust and retreat (it's all about the correct fighting distance: keep your opponent in reach while staying beyond theirs') - can make almost any lady a very formidable opponent. It's quite a skill. Takes practice. It's not an 'on the job training' thing.
Interesting aside on women's hair:
Once a woman was married, IE: no longer a virgin, she then tied her hair back.
[And with that act, the husband was expected to provide a substantial 'morning after' gift to his bride for her favors. Something of real value to increase her dowry, which, if the marriage hit the rocks and they parted, departed with the bride.]
Women and girls who were virgins advertised it by wearing their hair loose and untied.
-
Did somebody say kilts?
It's not the kilts, it's the fact there's nothing on under them. Doesn't that make certain things drafty?
-
@musiclady
Kinda hard to say.
Depending on how far back you go the actual records get pretty hard to track down but by what's generally recognized as The Viking Age from the 796 raid on Lindisfarne Abby to the death of King Harald Harfagr at Stamford Bridge in 1066, Yes. Pants it was.
As to the Ladies, the Viking Law codes of the day criminalized cross dressing. One Saga has 2 characters conspiring against one's husband by urging she "Make him a shirt with a neck cut so low that he will be outlawed for it."
But I'm betting that if the farm was short enough of men for whatever reason, they did whatever they had to do to get the work done rather than starve come winter. Women farmers generally took care of the dairy, cows, the house, wove fabrics and made clothes, and a whole host of the day to day back breaking labor of subsistence farmers, . . . in dresses.
They were forbidden by law to wear men's clothing - as in pants. It was also a criminal offence for a woman to cut her hair short or wear weapons. No swords. But most of them wore work knives that would get you arrested on the street today, and most kept a spear and ax within easy reach, and knew how to use them.
Really knowing how to use a spear - without throwing it, but thrust and retreat (it's all about the correct fighting distance: keep your opponent in reach while staying beyond theirs') - can make almost any lady a very formidable opponent. It's quite a skill. Takes practice. It's not an 'on the job training' thing.
Interesting aside on women's hair:
Once a woman was married, IE: no longer a virgin, she then tied her hair back.
[And with that act, the husband was expected to provide a substantial 'morning after' gift to his bride for her favors. Something of real value to increase her dowry, which, if the marriage hit the rocks and they parted, departed with the bride.]
Women and girls who were virgins advertised it by wearing their hair loose and untied.
THANK you, @To-Whose-Benefit? !
I knew you would have answers to those questions, and interesting ones at that.
I was thinking that the cold weather in Scandinavia would require women to wear at least some form of leggings to keep warm enough to survive.
It also makes sense that, as in American pioneer days, if work needed to be done on the farm/ranch and the men were out, the women would just do it.
And that probably included defending the family from invaders.
Fascinating stuff! Thanks again!
-
@musiclady
This is a bit of a The Saga of Gisli, who is married to Aud. Gisli has been outlawed. A band of men led by Eyjolf are out looking to kill him. Eyjolf has just searched a possible hiding place and come up empty handed.
Eyjolf said, "We have had nothing but bad luck in this case and we may as well turn back."
And so they do, but Eyjolf says he will visit Aud first. They come to the steading (house) and walk in, and Eyjolf settled down again to have a talk with Aud. He had this to say.
"I will make a bargain with you Aud," he says, "that you tell me where Gisli is and I will give you the sixty ounces of silver which I have taken as the price on his head. You shall not be there when we take his life. It will also follow that I will arrange a marriage for you that will be better in every way than this one has been. You can see for yourself," he says, "how miserable it becomes for you, living in this deserted fiord, and having this happen to you because of Gisli's bad luck, and never seeing your kinsfolk or their families."
She answers, "I think the last thing," she says, "that we are likely to agree about is that you could arrange any marriage for me that I would think as good as this one. Even so, it is true, as they say, that cash is the widow's best comfort, and let me see whether this silver is as much or as fine as you say it is."
He pours the silver into her lap then, and she puts her hand into it while he counts it and turns it over before her. Gudrid, her foster-daughter, begins to cry.
She goes out and finds Gisli and she says to him:
"My foster-mother has gone out of her wits, and she is going to betray you."
Gisli spoke, "Put your mind at rest, for it will not be treachery from Aud that will be the cause of my death."
And he spoke a verse:
Loud they tongue my lady
Lords of masted fiord elks, (ships)
Hoards she, they say, hard thoughts
Heart deep for her partner.
I have seen that single
Sorrow keeps she, mourning:
True drops, never traitor
Tears fall from my dear one
Then the girl goes home again and says nothing of where she has been. Eyjolf has then counted the silver, and Aud spoke:
"In no way is the silver less or poorer than you have said, and you will think now that I have the right to do with it as I please."
Eyjolf agrees with this gladly and tells her certainly to do what she likes with it. Aud takes the silver and puts it in a big purse; she stands up and swings the purse with the silver in it at Eyjolf's nose, so that the blood spurts out all over him. Then she spoke:
"Take that for your easy faith, and every harm with it. There was never any likelihood that I would give my husband over to you, scoundrel. Take your money, and shame and disgrace with it! You will remember, as long as you live, you miserable man, that a woman has struck you; and yet you will not get what you want for all that!"
Then Eyjolf said, "Seize the bitch and kill her, woman or not!"
Havard has something to say: "This errand has been poor enough, without this coward's work. Stand up men, and do not let him get his way in this."
Eyjolf said: "The old saying is true. A man's worst following comes from home."
Havard was a well-liked man and many of them were ready to back him up, besides wanting to turn Eyjolf from a bad act; and Eyjolf has to be satisfied to leave it at this and go. Before Havard went out Aud spoke to him:
"It would be wrong not to pay you the debt that Gisli owes you, and here is a gold finger-ring that I want you to have."
"I would not have claimed it." Says Havard.
"I want to pay it, though," says Aud.
She was really giving him the ring for the help he had given her.
Havard got himself a horse, and rides south to Strond, to Gest, son of Oddleif, and he refuses to stay with Eyjolf any longer. Eyjolf goes home to Otradal, discontented with what had been done; and indeed it was everywhere thought to have been most contemptible.
My kind of Woman!
-
It also makes sense that, as in American pioneer days, if work needed to be done on the farm/ranch and the men were out, the women would just do it.
Well, yes, but no...
-
I started wearing pants when I could no longer afford bail.
-
I started wearing pants when I could no longer afford bail.
888high58888
-
Well, yes, but no...
Well yes, but yes......
-
(https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/meninskirtstrend.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=1328&h=882&crop=1)
Are skirts the next men’s fashion trend?
https://nypost.com/2018/01/12/are-skirts-the-next-mens-fashion-trend/
-
Because we don't want to live in a shithole.
-
Because we don't want to live in a shithole.
Thus MAGA!
-
Well yes, but yes......
No. It is still much the same here...
A woman who lost her man can make do, but the big stuff, like firewood, and keeping it plowed out, general fixing and such is done for her by her neighbors... And she will reciprocate in the ways she can.
Hilljillies are as self-contained, talented, and independent as a woman gets.But I have yet to see one raise a barn, clear a pasture, build fences, and so on. Very few break horses or oxen, or work on mechanical things.
Doesn't happen. What they will do is offer assistance they CAN do, and barter her way trading labor to get it done.
Old men do the same thing.
Feminist dreams die in the foothills.
.
-
No. It is still much the same here...
A woman who lost her man can make do, but the big stuff, like firewood, and keeping it plowed out, general fixing and such is done for her by her neighbors... And she will reciprocate in the ways she can.
Hilljillies are as self-contained, talented, and independent as a woman gets.But I have yet to see one raise a barn, clear a pasture, build fences, and so on. Very few break horses or oxen, or work on mechanical things.
Doesn't happen. What they will do is offer assistance they CAN do, and barter her way trading labor to get it done.
Old men do the same thing.
Feminist dreams die in the foothills.
.
Not Josie Bassett Morris, who lived alone for 50 years in Utah, built a cabin, grew crops, tended livestock and did just fine.
There are other examples but you won't accept them because you view historical fact as "feminism."
It's not.
It's a reality you prefer to deny.
-
Women.
For some reason, they all think men should put pants on.
At least you don't have to wait until August for things to warm up enough to scratch....
-
Not Josie Bassett Morris, who lived alone for 50 years in Utah, built a cabin, grew crops, tended livestock and did just fine.
There are other examples but you won't accept them because you view historical fact as "feminism."
It's not.
It's a reality you prefer to deny.
Nah. The evidences you could point to are anecdotes, and certainly *not* indicative of the norm.
I can point to any number of places right here where the old man died, and the woman makes do in desperate straights.
Every one of those places are run down,and need fences fixed, and roofs fixed, pastures going back to nature, fallen trees not cleared, and so on and so on. That's the norm. That is the predictable end. And that's women with far more salt in em than any urbanite could ever muster.
That is the reality.
-
No. It is still much the same here...
A woman who lost her man can make do, but the big stuff, like firewood, and keeping it plowed out, general fixing and such is done for her by her neighbors... And she will reciprocate in the ways she can.
Hilljillies are as self-contained, talented, and independent as a woman gets.But I have yet to see one raise a barn, clear a pasture, build fences, and so on. Very few break horses or oxen, or work on mechanical things.
Doesn't happen. What they will do is offer assistance they CAN do, and barter her way trading labor to get it done.
Old men do the same thing.
Feminist dreams die in the foothills.
.
Ah, you haven't met Mom.
-
Nah. The evidences you could point to are anecdotes, and certainly *not* indicative of the norm.
I can point to any number of places right here where the old man died, and the woman makes do in desperate straights.
Every one of those places are run down,and need fences fixed, and roofs fixed, pastures going back to nature, fallen trees not cleared, and so on and so on. That's the norm. That is the predictable end. And that's women with far more salt in em than any urbanite could ever muster.
That is the reality.
You are basing your entire premise on your personal experience. I am basing mine on historical reality based on facts about people who have survived and how they have lived. In other words, I travel, and I READ. Diaries, documents, historic sites...... information that can be gathered beyond one's personal experiences.
In one of the Native American villages we visited this past summer, the historic evidence is that the women built all the homes themselves (and they weren't tepees) and took care of them by themselves (structurally, that is) while the men hunted buffalo and made war with other tribes.
Women can build. Women can hunt. Women can defend against attack. Women can farm. Women can ride horses.
These are facts. And they don't threaten anyone's masculinity a bit.
As for the barn building stuff..... I am much better with a hammer and nails than I am with knitting needles or at a quilting bee. The first and one of the only C's I got in school was in sewing (you know, what the girls had to take while the boys got to make things in shop?).
Everyone (both male and female) cannot be put into your tiny box and made the same. You allow males to be whatever they're good at (some are rugged, some are bankers and accountants, and that's OK), but you want to put all women into a cultural mold of human creation........ some societal "system" you want to exist.
Let me wear pants and give me a hammer and nails and a circular saw, and get me the heck away from sewing machines and crochet needles! Allow us to be different without being accused of being wrong. :2gunz:
Edited to add:
btw, just thought about your 'anecdote' remark and need to rebuff it. Josie was a real person, whose cabin can be visited near Vernal, Utah. I obviously never claimed she was the 'norm.' That's not at all the point.
She was real, as were many other women who did remarkable things either because they were forced to by circumstance, or chose to (like Calamity Jane). Your denial that these women exists doesn't make them disappear from the record, @roamer_1 .
-
Ah, you haven't met Mom.
He hasn't met a LOT of people!
-
Women can build. Women can hunt. Women can defend against attack. Women can farm. Women can ride horses.
.
Knock yourself out...
-
Knock yourself out...
Way to address the issues I brought up. *****rollingeyes*****
I guess that means you acknowledge the validity of the multiple, factual points I made. Right?
btw, this is twice now that you've completely dismissed historic evidence I've provided in order to protect your personal worldview.
I find that curious.
Or maybe not.
-
(https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/meninskirtstrend.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=1328&h=882&crop=1)
Are skirts the next men’s fashion trend?
https://nypost.com/2018/01/12/are-skirts-the-next-mens-fashion-trend/
Nope.
Well, maybe for the metrosexuals and bleep.....
Not "normal" men.