The article gives two explanations: women had servants to help them get dressed and men didn’t, and men had to be able to draw a sword from their right hip without it getting stuck in clothes.
I find neither explanation very convincing.
It wasn’t universally true that women had servants and men didn’t. That may have been true for a specific time and social class, but poor women definitely didn’t have servants; they were the servants. And kings and high nobles did have servants to help them get dressed. Sometimes it was an entire formal ritual.
Does being right handed matter? I’m left-handed, and I have no problem buttoning my shirt. It’s really more a matter of what you’re used to than which hand is dominant.
I find sword drawing slightly more convincing, at least if you look at the military uniforms of 200 years ago. Sables were still common, at least among officers and cavalry. And those uniforms definitely had buttons.
Another explanation for women’s buttons is that they used to ride horses sideways. Sidesaddle is done with the right side facing the riding direction.
The would expose the button opening to the wind if they were placed on the right side like men’s. With left side buttons, the fabric goes over the opening from right to left, thereby covering for the wind.
I don’t find it too unconvincing. I mean after all, fashion follows the rich, so it wouldn’t be out of the question to make clothes first for rich families with maids. We still wear our suit buttons “properly” to appease some fat old king.
very much agree the idea that this was driven solely by people who had help to dress them falls flat.
in the example of swords - if you were so dominant left handed, wouldn’t the user reverse their scabbard / belt setup? instead of getting hung up on which side things were buttoned? so yeah, it’s pretty specious imho
The article gives two explanations: women had servants to help them get dressed and men didn’t, and men had to be able to draw a sword from their right hip without it getting stuck in clothes.
I find neither explanation very convincing.
It wasn’t universally true that women had servants and men didn’t. That may have been true for a specific time and social class, but poor women definitely didn’t have servants; they were the servants. And kings and high nobles did have servants to help them get dressed. Sometimes it was an entire formal ritual.
Does being right handed matter? I’m left-handed, and I have no problem buttoning my shirt. It’s really more a matter of what you’re used to than which hand is dominant.
I find sword drawing slightly more convincing, at least if you look at the military uniforms of 200 years ago. Sables were still common, at least among officers and cavalry. And those uniforms definitely had buttons.
But then why would women have the opposite?
Another explanation for women’s buttons is that they used to ride horses sideways. Sidesaddle is done with the right side facing the riding direction.
The would expose the button opening to the wind if they were placed on the right side like men’s. With left side buttons, the fabric goes over the opening from right to left, thereby covering for the wind.
I don’t find it too unconvincing. I mean after all, fashion follows the rich, so it wouldn’t be out of the question to make clothes first for rich families with maids. We still wear our suit buttons “properly” to appease some fat old king.
very much agree the idea that this was driven solely by people who had help to dress them falls flat.
in the example of swords - if you were so dominant left handed, wouldn’t the user reverse their scabbard / belt setup? instead of getting hung up on which side things were buttoned? so yeah, it’s pretty specious imho
To manufacture a disadvantage for them if they ever found themselves in a swordfight, of course