Religious tolerance

How could trousers be women's wear or men's wear? They were not invented until round about Shakespeare's time. That has not stopped some religious men making rules about women's clothes.
The whole thing about these rules is to give men power over women. They like women in flowing skirts - makes a lot of things easier for them doesn't it? And because its easier to get at women then the women had better stay at home where they belong.
If they are past the age when they are objects of men's desire then they can be kept busy in the kitchen, not eating this not eating that and not mixing some pots and pans with otther pots and pans not touching pork etc etc. That expands housework time over the whole day.

It seesm to me we have now made some important progess. However some women are unforunately so insecure that they have hang onto the rubbish expounded in the name of religious thinking.
its depressing!....

Trousers first enter recorded history in the 6th century BC, with the appearance of horse-riding Iranian peoples in Greek ethnography. At this time, not only the Persians, but also allied Eastern and Central Asian peoples such as the Bactrians, Armenians, Tigraxauda Scythians and Xiongnu Hunnu, are known to have worn them.[9][10] Trousers are believed to have been worn by both sexes among these early users.[11]

Well, well, I didn't know that!!
They were worn in various forms (doublet and hose, breeches, and others), by adult males from approximately Middle Ages in Western Europe.

I wonder when women moved across to dresses.

As will I jingle

In Biblical times robes would have been fairly unisex, with head coverings for women, but I wonder how much the Church in the Middle Ages contributed to "modest" dress for women? Of course for the poor, it was not as marked, rough woollen tunics and hose/legging type things for men and longer garments I.e. skirts for women, no underwear of course, so relieving themselves was easier. You probably wore whatever you could get to keep you warm!
Longer skirts for the women of the upper classes restricted women's freedom of movement and made them more dependent on men. Sound familiar?

I bet that awful Laura woman really hates the Pope:

www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152570026563553&set=a.10151042317148553.429944.674168552&type=1

I think you'll notice that trousers is a plural. Those ancient trousers were two pieces.
The ones we wear now are one piece- the legs pieces sewn together.

In German trousers = Hose is singular. It took a lot of getting used to when I first arrived here.

Margaret - that reminds me of a tale Mum told of meeting Dad's great aunt just before she and Dad got married. The great aunt was talking about a local lass who had ' got into trouble' i.e. got pregnant out of wedlock. Great aunt said that she understood it in the days of 'split draws' but since bloomers were introduced there was no excuse. Apparent her own bloomers were made of red needle cord and tied below the knee with draw strings.

(And we thought school knickers were bad)

PS I'm not sure if it is split draws or split drawers.

It's drawers! I have it on good authority i.e.: Google!!!!

Only Gransnet could go from religious tolerance to crotchless knickers!

That's what keeps us young at heart!

Actually, it's made me realise how old I am by knowing what 'bloomers' are...

...and having worn them???

Red needle cord and tied below the knees with draw strings? she's having you on! was this around 1850?

No, it was 1936, and Mum would not have invented this. She remembered it clearly just BECAUSE it was so unbelievably awful. This great aunt would have been born around 1850, as Mum said she was very very old.

Oh well, I got the date right at least Joan.

@MargaretX - Funny how 'religious leaders' seem to like dressing up in frocks, as well as their silly magic hats...

@rosesarered - Mrs Miller showed her 'reformed clothing' to Mrs Bloomer in 1951, after which Mrs M publicised it in her temperance magazine, The Lily. I'll bet she was a load of laughs...

1851 - not 1951!

Yes Feetle, I believe that no party at the time was complete unless she was there to grace it, and her drunken handstands upon the dining table were the talk of the town!

Weren't bloomers a very useful garment worn by early lady cyclists? A distinct improvement on voluminous skirts and split drawers. They weren't underwear when they first worn, they were more like fuller versions of the legging that are in fashion at the moment, and worn with a short full skirt, so auntie's red needlecord tied below the knee would have been fully visible and pretty daring.

They were associated with women's rights campaigners and convention breakers, and got women into a lot of trouble (not the kind that split knickers made easier).

Trousers and skirts are only traditionally male/ female in Western Europe. What I don't understand is why more men don't wear skirts. Apart from kilts.

Yes - I have always thought that a loose garment like a skirt might be better for men as the could "let it all hang out" instead of cramping the crown jewels into tight pants and trousers.

I once speculated whether cycling might be rather uncomfortable for men and was told it was not, as they sit on their "barse" - I queried the definition and was told it is "the no-mans-land between your b****ks and your arse" - so now I know.

Back to religion .

I suspect skirts were preferred by women as it made maintaining privacy marginally easier when going to the toilet!

I used to only ever wear trousers..certainly when teaching as they are far more practical in a primary school classroom.

Interesting reference to trousers being plural... my dad an EAL speaker always said 'trouser' rather than trousers or pair of trousers!

Yes I think that was the reason and in a society where women stayed in a group and did housework and child care amd the men were away it was OK.
I just seems to me that in societies where men have the upperhand and control their women it has lot to do with what clothing they wear and somehow women's views or feelings about their own comfort or pleasure are not taken into consideration.
I know that church leaders wear frocks and have to admit I don't know why. Men remain a puzzle, it was ever thus!

however there are places where men & women do not wear much clothing at all but roles are still gender defined!