Why is the gig line opposite male/female?

[xray328]

After my last conversation 

Just wondering why the gig lines is reversed on male versus female uniforms?

[gebfamcap]

After my last conversation 

Just wondering why the gig lines is reversed on male versus female uniforms?

Because the male clothing buttons left over right for males. And right over left for females. And that's because in the day of swords, the swordsman would reach left-over - right when he was concealing a sword in his shirt.

[xray328]

Sorry I worded that wrong, I knew why as in the buttons, I wasn't sure why it was done that way.  Good info, thanks.

[HGjunkie]

After my last conversation 

Just wondering why the gig lines is reversed on male versus female uniforms?

Because the male clothing buttons left over right for males. And right over left for females. And that's because in the day of swords, the swordsman would reach left-over - right when he was concealing a sword in his shirt.

Thought the button reversal was a holdover from when upper class women were dressed by servants, who needed the buttons reversed to put their clothes on for them?

[Luis R. Ramos]

By Geb

And that's because in the day of swords, the swordsman would reach left-over - right when he was concealing a sword in his shirt.

It seems it needs a little expansion.

The swordsman never reached left-over-right, this implies he would use his left arm to wield a sword.

However swords were worn in a scabbard on the left side. He would reach right-arm-to-left-body-side. The cloak or whatever he wore would open from the left side, to conceal the sword and/or to have it always ready for grabbing.

The swordsman from yore is quite different from what Hollywood portrays. If we believe Hollywood, the swordsman of yore would throw up his sword in the middle of a sword fight, grab it with his left, and turn a somersault several times. Considering the weights of the weapons, I highly doubt so.

The European swordsman of yore grabbed his sword with his right hand.

[TheSkyHornet]

By Geb

And that's because in the day of swords, the swordsman would reach left-over - right when he was concealing a sword in his shirt.

It seems it needs a little expansion.

The swordsman never reached left-over-right, this implies he would use his left arm to wield a sword.

However swords were worn in a scabbard on the left side. He would reach right-arm-to-left-body-side. The cloak or whatever he wore would open from the left side, to conceal the sword and/or to have it always ready for grabbing.

The swordsman from yore is quite different from what Hollywood portrays. If we believe Hollywood, the swordsman of yore would throw up his sword in the middle of a sword fight, grab it with his left, and turn a somersault several times. Considering the weights of the weapons, I highly doubt so.

The European swordsman of yore grabbed his sword with his right hand.

That's actually not true in regard to modern-day clothing.

It's most commonly accepted today that the difference of buttons did have some influence from wealth in Europe, but exactly why isn't all that known to this day.

Both women and men were often dressed by servants, so, really, the idea of making it easier for servants to dress women doesn't make a lot of sense, unless you want to argue that men did not want to appear as if they had dressed themselves. Until the end of the 19th Century, there was no standard in most Western regions. Men and women's clothing looked relatively different back then due to social expectations as to how men would dress and how women would dress. The industrial revolution and mass production of clothing led to standardization for many companies to begin sewing buttons on the same side of clothing for every product. Women's clothing that looked similar to men's was seen as lesser-quality because of societal influences. Women who wore men's clothes were viewed as poor or austere. Making women's clothing appear much different from men's clothing was a way to show one's wealth and higher class in society. It became a norm in manufacturing and just stuck. Circa-1900, women and men's apparel was very much different and needed to remain distinctive of gender.

Men wouldn't switch their buttons over as fashionable shirts and outer coats became more tied in with women. There was once a time when men wore high heels to make themselves appear taller. When women began wearing them, many men decided they didn't want to be associated with wearing women's fashions. Men once wore wigs and styled their hair in a certain way; that ended when women began to expose their hair more and also wear wigs.

It had very little to do with warfare. If it was the case to design clothing based on how you fought in battle, and how elegant you looked when carrying a sword, it would have taken and become standard a 500-800 years before it became standard only a century ago.

[Luis R. Ramos]

It had a lot to do with warfare and to a lesser degree fashion.

The history of where you wear your main weapon goes well before, or exists, well before fashion, and maids. Men, and I mean here the upper class since the lower classes the serfs were not allowed the same weapons that lords and sires used. At the same time these dictated the use of the times.

It was again based on how you used your weapon.

If you still disagree, state your sources.

[THRAWN]

Great Scott. Google the question and you come up with pages of pages about how it was due to the servant factor. Not a word about swords. If that's what you believe, super. If somebody else believes that it was all about servants, great. The bottom line is that nobody knows for sure. Your theories are not facts. do you require a source for that?

[Luis R. Ramos]

Really?

Fun Trivia, http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question14163.html

Weapons.

But Thrawn, really. Why make this to me, and not to the poster that argued against my post if it is "not known for sure?"

[THRAWN]

Really?

Fun Trivia, http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question14163.html

Weapons.

But Thrawn, really. Why make this to me, and not to the poster that argued against my post if it is "not known for sure?"

I'll have to add "Funtrivia" to my list of authoritative sources. I made it to you because you go off on these long tangents that give the impression of "I'm the smartest guy in the room". Nobody knows the answer to the question. Some sources say it was due to the sword, some because of servants. It's all conjecture. Don't present your opinion as fact.

[vorteks]

... If you still disagree, state your sources.

LOL! Guy asserts a history lesson on here without a single citation, then challenges someone else to state sources, then manages to cough up... funtrivia.com!  :clap:

[CAPs1]

"I'll have to add "Funtrivia" to my list of authoritative sources."

LOL Thrawn.

I had to drop it from my list, however, when it couldn't answer "Why don't more cadets attend encampments?"
Funtrivia is overrated.

[winterg]

Apparently, it isn't only uniforms that CapTalk loves to argue about. Rather it woukd seem that any topic about clothing will get people going!    I would guess we have a lot of members that secretly wish they had become tailors or clothiers.

(I actually apprenticed to a Master Tailor which has absolutely no bearing on this thread)

[TheSkyHornet]

Apparently, it isn't only uniforms that CapTalk loves to argue about. Rather it woukd seem that any topic about clothing will get people going!    I would guess we have a lot of members that secretly wish they had become tailors or clothiers.

(I actually apprenticed to a Master Tailor which has absolutely no bearing on this thread)

What's funny is when you hear someone make jokes about a man sewing and you see a bunch of military guys knowing how to sew/stitch fabrics. It's not so much a common practice anymore with our military lately, but it was once very important for a soldier to know how to mend clothing

[AirAux]

Silly Rabbit, it is that way so it is easier for men to UNbutton women's clothing....

[Brit_in_CAP]

What's funny is when you hear someone make jokes about a man sewing and you see a bunch of military guys knowing how to sew/stitch fabrics. It's not so much a common practice anymore with our military lately, but it was once very important for a soldier to know how to mend clothing

Indeed, and not that long ago, either.  Accepting I was in 'someone else's Air Force' and thus my experience isn't the same as others here, when I originally enlisted (1979), the service had only recently stopped issuing the 'housewife kit' for effecting minor repairs.  I had managed to purchase one prior to joining, and I still have the remnants!  It was a most useful item to have handy!  I also had a button stick for polishing the brass buttons on my uniform; again, no longer issued as we had 'Stay Brite' then but still useful and it's still amongst my memorabilia - its dated 1940 something!

[THRAWN]

Apparently, it isn't only uniforms that CapTalk loves to argue about. Rather it woukd seem that any topic about clothing will get people going!    I would guess we have a lot of members that secretly wish they had become tailors or clothiers.

(I actually apprenticed to a Master Tailor which has absolutely no bearing on this thread)

What's funny is when you hear someone make jokes about a man sewing and you see a bunch of military guys knowing how to sew/stitch fabrics. It's not so much a common practice anymore with our military lately, but it was once very important for a soldier to know how to mend clothing

I learned to sew and cook and do "domestic chores" in middle school. It was a little known (these days!) called Home Economics. It's a valuable skill that has become more valuable with an active airborne-ranger-superhero- astronaut-cowboy-ninja 6 year old son. It's not that hard to do, but in this disposable society, it's a dying skill.

[winterg]

Thrawn, you are absolutely right. I could probably quit my day job and support myself quit nicely just on the alterations I do for friends. 

And having sewing skills comes in very handy since I am a member of the 501st Legion!

[TheSkyHornet]

Apparently, it isn't only uniforms that CapTalk loves to argue about. Rather it woukd seem that any topic about clothing will get people going!    I would guess we have a lot of members that secretly wish they had become tailors or clothiers.

(I actually apprenticed to a Master Tailor which has absolutely no bearing on this thread)

What's funny is when you hear someone make jokes about a man sewing and you see a bunch of military guys knowing how to sew/stitch fabrics. It's not so much a common practice anymore with our military lately, but it was once very important for a soldier to know how to mend clothing

I learned to sew and cook and do "domestic chores" in middle school. It was a little known (these days!) called Home Economics. It's a valuable skill that has become more valuable with an active airborne-ranger-superhero- astronaut-cowboy-ninja 6 year old son. It's not that hard to do, but in this disposable society, it's a dying skill.

Sewing in Home Ec is dying out these days. It's becoming more dominant with parenting/child development now. They should add in how to balance a checkbook...really...

Instead of teaching students to follow a recipe now, they should teach them to cook an MRE with a chemical pouch

[winterg]

 And it is thanks to learning those sewing skills early on that I am able to use this kit, since finding a used officer coat is almost impossible.

http://www.uniforms-4u.com/p-usaf-officer-jacket-conversion-kit-18231.aspx