Why Do We Wear Pants? Horses. | Hacker News Reader

Why Do We Wear Pants? Horses.

theatlantic.com

123 pointsrosser41 comments

An oversimplified view of human history from a commentator who has too little acquaintance with non-Western cultures. (Well, all right, I've long accepted the point, which I read somewhere else long before the Internet existed, that European dress shifted from robes to trousers in large part to accommodate horse riding.) But with cross-cultural perspective, we would consider the trousers (often in the form of "pajamas") worn by women in China and southeast Asia developed in cultures where peasant women certainly did not have opportunity to ride horses. Rather, in those places agricultural work in paddy fields made clothing that allowed a wide range of movement with modesty very helpful. There isn't one single human story about how trousers developed as a form of dress.

For those of you who like to learn about how study of human cultural behavior goes awry from too little exposure to non-Western cultures, see

Henrich, Heine, Norenzayan (2010). "The weirdest people in the world?" Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33, 61–135

doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

http://humancond.org/_media/papers/weirdest_people.pdf

While I think your point is highly valid, and interesting, it doesn't necessarily invalidate the OP or render the piece "crap".

You yourself acknowledge that male European dress shifted to trousers due to the influence of horses. It's also fairly reasonable to assert that many modern dress conventions are heavily influenced by European culture.

The OP may not have extensively covered the history of trousers, but it does a reasonable (albeit, short) job of describing why trousers are commonplace in modern society.

He did say, why do we wear trousers, not why does anyone wear trousers, and he and most of his readers are in western cultures.

Great example of why I hate this usage "we" though. Whenever I read an article about something "we" do I often wonder who this "we" is, especially when I don't really think I'm personally part of "we".

You have to be careful though.

Consider the question, "Why do we ritualize procreative marriages so universally?" Here we is pretty clearly all of humanity and there are probably some good functional explanations. For example, modern technology, reproduction is pretty heavily tied to sex, and men and women are biologically situated differently relative to parenthood. Everywhere, mothers are mothers because they give birth. Everywhere fathers are fathers because they are recognized as such by society (and this is only loosely tied to biological parenthood even in the most strict cultures like our own).

At the same time, what message does this send to folks who are GLBT? Is it saying "you aren't human?"

I think at some point you just have to come to terms with the fact that "we" will always have some exclusions and not worry too much about it.

I find this interesting. I mean, personally, I agree that the word 'we' quite often makes it sound like the speaker is (to me, offensively) including people they oughtn't in the group they are speaking of. Especially when talking about my company, I feel like I'm weaselling when I say 'we' - like saying "Mistakes were made" (I mean, sometimes I say that, but when I do, I'm saying it, you know, for effect. Making fun of the idea of trying to dodge responsibility for a mistake. I mean, after Reagan said it in all seriousness, I don't think the phrase could be used non-ironically.)

But, I often find that people that are better 'team players' than I am? they prefer the 'we' - one of the people I work with gets irritated when I try to break 'we' down into him or me.

"We're in it together!" is what he says. All our company activities are supported by both of us. And, while that's not completely true, it's mostly true of most things. His 'we' I think, is just as valid as my 'there is only you and me' - it's just a different way of looking at cooperation.

He just has a much more communal way of thinking, while I (I say in part because I have more experience with communal decision making, but I don't know how true that is) prefer to think in a more structured hierarchical way, where a person has responsibility for a task and they delegate off parts of that task.

While this is slightly off topic, using "we" instead of "I" when representing your company is a very important concept that goes beyond being a team player. The use of we vs I is a liability issue, and knowing when to use which is critical to not getting sued (e.g. - "I believe that the design is adequate" vs "We believe that the design is adequate" or "I would never hire a redhead" vs "We would never hire a redhead").

Internally, I agree with you that one should always take full credit for their work, good or bad (at least verbally...). Externally, one should always remember what context your statement may be taken in, especially the context of a courtroom.

eh, in the things I am worried about? getting sued is pretty far down the list. I am /far/ more concerned, for instance, about screwing up my taxes. (probably my biggest fear, as everything else can only take me to zero, in the worst case. Tax debit is forever.) Or, of, say, a serious security incident. That could kill my business and greatly damage my reputation in the process.

Eh, but really? I believe that this "avoid getting sued at all costs" attitude in general leads to suboptimal decisions being made in many different areas; and as a systemic force, it pushes all companies to do things the same way that other companies do them. "Industry best practices" - things like that which are usually code for 'expensive mediocrity' - I don't even think it makes sense for big companies that are worth suing, usually, but big companies are run by managers, not owners, and managers are far more concerned about avoiding blame than they are about anything else.

Really, I think this relative freedom from the fear of lawsuits is a huge advantage I have, and yeah, if I want investors or if I otherwise want to move into management in the corporate world? I'll have to change my tune, but for now? I get to enjoy my freedom.

He said pants, so he was clearly aiming at Americans. Where I live pants are underwear...

>and most of his readers are in western cultures //

So you think the pervading culture of horse-riding dominates over the simple aspect that it's practical wear particularly for labourers?

In fact, it isn't even completely true in Europe. Early Medieval serfs in Northern Europe also wore trousers, but rarely, if ever, rode. The major point, shared by your Chinese workers, is freedom of movement and aversion (in Northern Europe driven as much by climate as modesty) to nudity. Protection, as from brush, is another factor, but more an occasional one, rather than always present.

> But with cross-cultural perspective, would consider the trousers (often in the form of "pajamas") worn by women in China and southeast Asia developed in cultures where peasant women certainly did not have opportunity to ride horses

The article notes that Qin warriors (as in the scary red-faced general Guan Di, terracotta warriors and the unification of China) had an advantage over the other kingdoms as they had trousers. And male fashion is often driven led by the military.

eHow (yeah, worse than wikipedia) says Chinese peasants originally wore one-piece dresses / sacks. Along the River During the Qingming Festival (1085-1145 painting) certainly shows lots of trousers, but that's almost 1000 years after the Qin dynasty.

Pajamas came to the UK via India and the Middle East; but that was well after the time period in which trousers became popular. The Qin dynasty and adoption of cavalry by the Romans is a really long time ago.

Relevant Dinosaur Comics: http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=1908

It seems like this "treating history as a science" movement that started with Jared Diamond has really caught on...and I love it! Evolution is such a hugely important field for the future, and looking to the past is turning out to be a really fruitful way of learning more about it.

Another example I like: how do you determine when humans first started wearing clothing? Trace the timing of the genetic divergence of human hair lice and human body lice (lice require a hairy/furry material, so body lice can't thrive until humans wear clothes). More details: http://news.ufl.edu/2011/01/06/clothing-lice/

Supposedly, high heeled shoes are also related to horses.

Men's boots were heeled to make stirrups more effective. Heels then became a status symbol, as in "I wear heeled shoes because I own a horse, and therefore I am rich". then the fashion jumped over to women's clothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-heeled_footwear#Precursors...

I'm sure looking taller, with longer legs and defined calf muscles has nothing to do with it. ;)

You're right, it had nothing to do with it. It was a side effect that was predominant in male fashion before it came to women's fashion.

How about linking to the original work instead of this ripoff blogspam?

http://socialevolutionforum.com/2012/07/10/cultural-evolutio...

From wikipedia:

"Trousers first enter recorded history in the 6th century BCE, 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. Trousers are believed to have been worn by both sexes among these early users.

Republican Rome viewed the draped clothing of Greek and Minoan (Cretan) culture as an emblem of civilization and disdained trousers as the mark of barbarians."

So, while the Romans did eventually copy the trousers once the barbarians were overrunning and ruling Roman lands in the western half of the Empire, it's disappointing that the author didn't go further back. Back to the barbarians, which likely goes back to the central Asian peoples.

Looking at in perspective, it makes sense. Every cool guy is pretending to be a cowboy.

Now, who is going to be the celebrity to go all Socrates on us and re-introduce the tunic.

Interestingly, Julius Caeser was supposed to be some kind of a rebel for wearing his tunic "loosely belted" with fringes. It was the equivalent of long hair in the 60's and 70's for our culture.

Wouldn't it be wild if things went around again--that far?

The story I got told in school was that as the romans advanced through Gaul and into ancient Britain, they were appalled at the leather britches worn by the barbarian tribes. When they finally took (part of) Britain however, they realised that the extreme cold (compared to rome) meant that the trousers were basically essential.

All those barbarian tribes would have been horsemen, so the article fits with this idea I suppose.

While cultural artifacts get input and evolve from their functional use, such uses can't explain anything, certainly not mass adoption. The main reason for clothes is cultural, and their main use is as a social code (e.g. http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Fashion_System.html?...).

What about Native American cultures? They had not seen horses until the Europeans arrived, but they certainly had pants.

I think that point was made in the article--they wore kilts, not pants, before Europeans.

Another interesting tidbit is that Brazilian clothing and swimwear tend to be more revealing than Euro-American clothing, because the medieval Brazilian man was a sparsely dressed native, whereas the medievel European man was outfitted in heavy armor.

At least, according to this: http://www.coolhunting.com/style/cool-hunting-vi-36.php (nsfw? Girls in bikinis)

Interesting article. I'm perpetually fascinated by the causal chains that have influenced aspects of our lives that we otherwise entirely take for granted.

You'd enjoy watching James Burke's Connections.

http://kottke.org/10/12/james-burkes-connections-online

psykotic & johnbenwoo - thank you for the recommendation and URL. This is definitely something I would enjoy immensely.

The cold tap is generally on the right side of a sink. This is because cold taps were around long before hot taps and as most people are right-handed they were put on that side. At least that's what I was told (OK trivial example)

I'm given to understand [1] that cars, or at least buggies and coaches and other things like them, are the reason cloaks got replaced with coats and jackets, to the eternal detriment of cool. If you've ever tried driving anywhere with a full circle cloak on, this requires no explanation.

[1] Handwave, handwave... feel free to add [citation needed] there if you want to

Lots of reasons for pants. Anyone who's ever lived/worked in a rural area knows what happens 15 seconds after you leave "the path" and that branch, bush, weed, rock, bee, deerfly, barbed vine, rattlesnake, etc. grants you pain. Thus pants - and boots.

Funny some of us are that removed from the human realities that existed for a million years.

To be read while listening to a Tribute to Pants (http://mst3k.wikia.com/wiki/Tribute_to_Pants)!

Why aren't capes still around, then?

(They were made for horseback riding, too)

Capes were (briefly) mentioned up the page a bit.

Capes are impractical if one is driving a car, dangerous if one is working around machinery.

Pants in the UK = underwear. So why do we wear underwear?

Probably as a garment designed to be easy to wash (it's small, and not visible so wear and discoloration from washing is not seen) and be changed more often than pants.

None of this goes to explain Capri pants. Horses be damned...sometimes there just isn't an excuse...

Or maybe it's just the cold climate? Where appropriate.

Why Do We Wear Pants? Bicycles.

Why do we read? Reading.

Why do we fall? Batman.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com