CBS New York: Drew Barrymore stops by CBS2 to share "Drew's News" with Cindy Hsu

[moonshadow]

Anyway, it's nice to have positive press, but I believe we would gain more if they focused on facts.

To me, some of these "researchers" wouldn't know a "Fact" if it bit them in the behind.
The level of education has been 'dumbed-down' for so long, it is producing ignorant people.
Ignorant in respect to what I grew up with and what is now called ''Education".

Uncle Al

Well, to be fair, and taking into consideration of Carl's informative post, I may have been slightly mistaken, however still yet, the context of the video implies that "men wore skirts" in the same manner that men may wear a skirt today.

If nothing else, the subject on CBS should be been explored in a little more depth I suppose. When we consider the tunics over tights that were a common sight during the middle ages and compare them to what type of skirts men might consider trying today, I think it's fair to say we're still comparing apples to oranges.

The context of the CBS video leads one to believe seeing a [peasant] man sporting a chic little A line or maxi skirt was the norm. I know they didn't actually say that, but it seems that was the message implied. AND... a tunic is not a skirt. It's a tunic. In fact, if we define a skirt as a one-holed garment that begins at the waist line and covers the legs, then it's still fair to say that very few if any men actually wore skirts, save for the Scots. Tunics, robes, caftans, etc? Yes. But none of those are actually skirts.

[ScotL]

Did trousers exist in antiquity? Yes, we have ample evidence that horsemen wore them -- "Barbarians" as they were known to the Romans.

Contemplate the difficulty in producing a pair of trousers in the ancient world. Unless they were a valuable tool, the complexity and work involved to produce them would not have been worth it. A pair of trousers to one who spends much time atop a horse, they're a boon; to someone on foot, not so much, and therefore not likely to be made.

This agrees with a history of garments I read some time back: garment making is a technology that also needed technological advancements. The sewing machine was only invented 1809. Before that, making something like trousers that that sturdy enough for daily wear was a challenge and quite expensive. They also require more material than a plain tunic. So you sometimes didn't get a trouser-like garment until you stopped growing because it's was too expensive to make new ones every year.

There's some interesting info on the history of breeching, the age at which boys where first given breeches to wear.

Hence why little boys wore dresses until older. All makes sense now. Thinking back to the earliest days, would be easier to just wrap something around you like a toga then cut and sew legs.

[Grok]

Anyway, it's nice to have positive press, but I believe we would gain more if they focused on facts.

To me, some of these "researchers" wouldn't know a "Fact" if it bit them in the behind.
The level of education has been 'dumbed-down' for so long, it is producing ignorant people.
Ignorant in respect to what I grew up with and what is now called ''Education".

Uncle Al

The context of the CBS video leads one to believe seeing a [peasant] man sporting a chic little A line or maxi skirt was the norm. I know they didn't actually say that, but it seems that was the message implied. AND... a tunic is not a skirt. It's a tunic. In fact, if we define a skirt as a one-holed garment that begins at the waist line and covers the legs, then it's still fair to say that very few if any men actually wore skirts, save for the Scots. Tunics, robes, caftans, etc? Yes. But none of those are actually skirts.

Yes, I would be be careful to distinguish between garments that hang from the waist, and garments that hang from the shoulders.

[crfriend]

Yes, I would be be careful to distinguish between garments that hang from the waist, and garments that hang from the shoulders.

Yes, that's critical, but even more vital is that we not presume that our forefathers had our technology, tooling, and capability.

In the case of medieval times, the garment would likely have been a smock of some sort or possibly a tunic, both of which are suspended from the shoulders and would not have been carefully tailored to the body unless someone had a genius of a craftsman constructing the garment. Trousers would have been worn under if the situation demanded it (e.g. riding a horse, but recall that horses represented a substantial expenditure of time and effort for upkeep and feeding)

[Coder]

Yes, I would be be careful to distinguish between garments that hang from the waist, and garments that hang from the shoulders.

Yes, that's critical, but even more vital is that we not presume that our forefathers had our technology, tooling, and capability.

In the case of medieval times, the garment would likely have been a smock of some sort or possibly a tunic, both of which are suspended from the shoulders and would not have been carefully tailored to the body unless someone had a genius of a craftsman constructing the garment. Trousers would have been worn under if the situation demanded it (e.g. riding a horse, but recall that horses represented a substantial expenditure of time and effort for upkeep and feeding)

How long have wrap-style skirts been with us? Were they only popular in "primitive" cultures?

[crfriend]

How long have wrap-style skirts been with us? Were they only popular in "primitive" cultures?

Well, given that one of the simplest acts possible for a human is to wrap themselves in something we can perform a thought experiment to see when such a thing was first contemplated, and probably executed. Likely the first time this happened was from the skin of a dead animal, did not require any technology really to speak of, so we can safely assume this happened in pre-historic times. And it persists to this day. I do not know a single man who is incapable of wrapping himself securely in a towel when he gets out of the shower.

Also, wrap looks are perfectly common in modern settings.

And, finally, it depends on how one defines a "primitive" culture.

[STEVIE]

A clothing legality as it was applied in Scotland.

In a similar manner, the Dress Act of 1746, part of the Act of Proscription issued under King George II of Great Britain following the Jacobite risings, made wearing Scottish Highland dress including tartans and kilts illegal in Scotland for anyone not in the British military. The Act was repealed in 1782, having been largely successful, and a few decades later, "romantic" Highland dress was enthusiastically adopted by George IV on a Walter Scott-inspired visit to Scotland in 1822.[54]

That act was the effective death knell for the Great Kilt which was the common garment for Scots Highland men and the wearing of tartan on a daily basis.
The "romantic Highland dress" referred to is the kilt we know today and all the dross that is associated with it.
The romance was really a euphemism for one of the most effective confidence-tricks played on a nation and the echoes are still with us today on a scale that the originators could not have imagined in their wildest dreams.
Just look at some of the chatter on the subject around here.
Side note, the penalty was 6 months imprisonment for a first offence and 6 years for a second. I did not see anything about a 3rd strike and not surprised.
Steve.

[crfriend]

The "romantic Highland dress" referred to is the kilt we know today and all the dross that is associated with it.
The romance was really a euphemism for one of the most effective confidence-tricks played on a nation and the echoes are still with us today on a scale that the originators could not have imagined in their wildest dreams.

Note that "Romanticism" has a bit of a dark side that can actually be rather enjoyable if one does not take it to extremes. It's also produced a heck of a lot of very good music.

[Coder]

How long have wrap-style skirts been with us? Were they only popular in "primitive" cultures?

Well, given that one of the simplest acts possible for a human is to wrap themselves in something we can perform a thought experiment to see when such a thing was first contemplated, and probably executed. Likely the first time this happened was from the skin of a dead animal, did not require any technology really to speak of, so we can safely assume this happened in pre-historic times. And it persists to this day. I do not know a single man who is incapable of wrapping himself securely in a towel when he gets out of the shower.

Also, wrap looks are perfectly common in modern settings.

And, finally, it depends on how one defines a "primitive" culture.

Yes - I put "primitive" in quotes because I am not trying to trivialize their existence or knowledge - I think in general I'm referring to pre-industrialized societies - and low technology-level.

My question was mostly rhetorical - if a wrap garment was worn by a man - though I wouldn't include loincloths in this - then that's a skirt.

[ScotL]

I think comparing the garments from medieval days to any of the clothing worn today are comparing apples to oranges. In reality, the fact that men didn’t wear the same skirts that women wear today is irrelevant. Women don’t wear the skirts of medieval ages neither.

It seems men used to wear unbifurcated stuff and had more flamboyance.

I’m hopeful people are opening up to the idea that people should be able to wear what they want. And if a celebrity talk show host makes a silly reference that’s not entirely accurate and suggests men might start wearing skirts, great. I’m guessing the majority of the populace won’t do the research. But the remarkable few who happens
to do the research and finds out she wasn’t really correct about history, are likely members of this cafe and they’re gonna wear skirts despite her inaccuracy.

[moonshadow]

It seems men used to wear unbifurcated stuff and had more flamboyance.

What I find interesting was that in those days, it wasn't really about male/female so much as it was about class. While I'm sure crossdressing was frowned upon even among the peasant class, peasants had better not be caught wearing the same colors as royalty or nobility!

It's interesting how things have turned around. These days you may find people of less fortunate means dressing very nicely when going out for a night one the town, yet people like Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerburg frequently sport casual wear, hoodies, etc as their "professional attire".

[crfriend]

What I find interesting was that in those days, it wasn't really about male/female so much as it was about class. While I'm sure crossdressing was frowned upon even among the peasant class, peasants had better not be caught wearing the same colors as royalty or nobility!

This was likely down to the sheer cost of the materials and the dyes in the elder periods. Fine materials were harder to procure, and finer fabrics even moreso as those required importing. Natural dyes are not particularly vibrant, and there are certain colours that are almost impossible to make from natural dyes, and even if it's possible, most natural dyes are water-soluble and fade quickly thus requiring frequent re-dying.

It's interesting how things have turned around. These days you may find people of less fortunate means dressing very nicely when going out for a night one the town, yet people like Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerburg frequently sport casual wear, hoodies, etc as their "professional attire".

It's still about class/rank, and make no bones about it. The rich & famous can get away with one Hell of a lot more than your average plebe. To the other point, just because one has much (paper) wealth does not change the personality. Zuckerberg and Bezos are rich little brats with no class, dignity, or flair. Take Bezos and his his entirely phallic-looking rocket to take millionaires for sub-space joyrides and Zuckerberg for coming up with the biggest data-mining scam of the past century. Is any societal good going to come from either of those?

[STEVIE]

While I'm sure crossdressing was frowned upon even among the peasant class, peasants had better not be caught wearing the same colors as royalty or nobility!

From the top down, this example is taken from 16th century England. Purple could get you executed for treason but cross-dressing only made a laughingstock. Indeed, on some high days and holidays it was positively encouraged as long as one did not get any ideas of upward mobility at the same time.
Kinda puts our worries over being stared at into context anyway.
The list,

"The Royal Household – purple, cloth-of-gold, purple silk

Dukes – cloth-of-gold, also for equine dressings

Earls – sable or black genette [fur]

Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Barons – cloths-of-gold-and-silver

Knights of the Garter[14] – crimson or blue velvet, imported woolen cloth

Royalguardsmen, Royal Servants, Squires, Justices, Exchequer Members, Councilmen, Mayor of London – velvet or furs of marten [a vulpine animal]

Gentlemen[15] – satin, damask, and silk camlet; imported furs; silk points with gold, silver, or gilt aglets, buttons, and brooches

Knights, Sergeants, and Graduates – more than four broad yards in a long gown or three broad yards in a riding gown or coat; velvet gowns; guarded or pinched shirts or pinched partlets of linen or plain shirts embroidered with silk; collar or chain of gold or gilt worn about his neck or bracelets

Servant – more than three broad yards in a garment; no camlet and imported furs

Husbandmen, Shepherd, Laborer, or Craftsman – broadcloth costing no more than 2 shillings a yard; hose made from cloth costing more than 12 pence a yard
Exceptions were made for clergy, foreign merchants, mayoral staff, ambassadors, henchmen, heralds, and minstrels.[16]

BTW these are all obviously male. Women would have rules too, all devised and above all, enforced by men.
Steve

[moonshadow]

Steve your post made me so thankful for the freedom of expression we have today.

[STEVIE]

Steve your post made me so thankful for the freedom of expression we have today.

Moon, the main thing is that we make the most of that freedom.
Not just for men wearing skirts, but in every aspect of our lives.
"Freedom" can be a very fleeting thing, disappear like a wind.
Just a side note, these laws, "sumptuary", as they were called, ruled spending too.
I guess that mean that if a peasant ever had a few spare pennies, he still could not dress above his allotted station.
No "Yuppies" in those days anyway.
Steve.