

Why Do We Wear Pants? Horses. - rosser
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/q-why-do-we-wear-pants-a-horses/259696/

======
tokenadult
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>

~~~
doktrin
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.

~~~
andrewflnr
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.

~~~
jvm
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".

~~~
lsc
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.

~~~
abduhl
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.

~~~
lsc
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.

------
jballanc
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/>

------
arohner
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...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-
heeled_footwear#Precursors_to_the_high-heeled_shoe)

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

~~~
TheGateKeeper
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.

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

[http://socialevolutionforum.com/2012/07/10/cultural-
evolutio...](http://socialevolutionforum.com/2012/07/10/cultural-evolution-of-
pants-ii/)

------
afterburner
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.

------
jasonkolb
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?

------
JonnieCache
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.

------
nsns
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?...](http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Fashion_System.html?id=jvpwygq9i3UC&redir_esc=y)).

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

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

------
keiferski
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)

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

~~~
psykotic
You'd enjoy watching James Burke's Connections.

~~~
johnbenwoo
<http://kottke.org/10/12/james-burkes-connections-online>

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

------
etfb
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

------
teeja
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.

------
hobb0001
Why aren't capes still around, then?

(They were made for horseback riding, too)

~~~
bdunbar
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.

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

------
10dpd
Pants in the UK = underwear. So why do we wear underwear?

~~~
ars
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.

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

------
guard-of-terra
Or maybe it's just the cold climate? Where appropriate.

------
msutherl
Why Do We Wear Pants? Bicycles.

~~~
mrslx
Why do we read? Reading.

~~~
DrJ
Why do we fall? Batman.

