Why did the 1800's gals wear dresses from neck to foot? - Page 2 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

General Discussion Anything non-survival related - news and information, current events, general chit-chat stuff.

Advertise Here
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-02-2020, 08:44 AM
ActionJackson's Avatar
ActionJackson ActionJackson is offline
Deplorable On Steroids
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mormonville
Posts: 31,931
Thanks: 51,854
Thanked 60,816 Times in 20,642 Posts
Awards Showcase
Top Poster Top Poster 
Total Awards: 2
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by slackercruster View Post
Can not imagine all those clothes in hot, humid weather.

Back then ... modesty was a virtue. Not so much in modern times.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ActionJackson For This Useful Post:
Old 04-02-2020, 09:05 AM
PurpleKitty PurpleKitty is offline
Possum Lover
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Houston
Posts: 13,960
Thanks: 8,551
Thanked 26,802 Times in 9,536 Posts
Default

It's like sex, some things are better shared only with your spouse. My husband appreciates that about me, that I'm not shoving my breasts in every man's face like some of the women at work.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PurpleKitty For This Useful Post:
Old 04-02-2020, 09:48 AM
Pinhead's Avatar
Pinhead Pinhead is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,738
Thanks: 16,773
Thanked 2,860 Times in 1,042 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by InOmaha View Post
Mosquitos. Notice men didn't wear shorts or short sleeve shirts either.

I wear long pants, sleeves, hat, and bandana or netting depending on the time of day when mosquitos are out in force.

Growing up on the farm, I wore jeans and boots year round. Long sleeves in winter, short sleeves in summer. I was never bothered much by heat or cold until I moved to town and got stuck inside 70 F buildings year round. Working in the barn putting up hay in August or some cold blowing January days yeah, but generally, I could go most of the year without the weather bothering me.
QFT.

It's the same reason everyone wore boots: protection from the environment (snakes and thorns most often).

There's a lot more practicality built into their attire than most people realize.

Why would men wear long-sleeves and a vest in the summer time when it's 100°F out? Have you ever had to chase a cow through the brush, thickets, and trees? You'll appreciate those long sleeves and vest a LOT more once you brush past that first thorny locust!
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Pinhead For This Useful Post:
Old 04-02-2020, 10:37 AM
JBryan314's Avatar
JBryan314 JBryan314 is offline
Ultranationalist
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Florida Panhandle
Age: 34
Posts: 12,730
Thanks: 17,503
Thanked 49,379 Times in 10,351 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaskajohn View Post
I wonder how much the folks 200 years from now will look back at us and laugh their asses off at. I'd venture humanity has never looked more stupid than today.

"daddy, why did people in the 21st century wear their pants below their waste?"

etc, etc, etc...
You have the media to thank for that. Only a small portion of people wear their pants like that.
__________________
Read my content at www.FreeAmericanNational.blogspot.com and www.AmericanPartisan.org.
Quick reply to this message
Old 04-02-2020, 10:45 AM
KoolAde2's Avatar
KoolAde2 KoolAde2 is offline
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Long Island
Posts: 1,859
Thanks: 11,389
Thanked 4,153 Times in 1,313 Posts
Default

I burn very easily and wear a Long Sleeve Shirt Year around. On occasion, I will wear a short-sleeve shirt. Especially if I am riding and in fact, I wear two shirts 99% of the time.
__________________
"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not" Thomas Jefferson
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to KoolAde2 For This Useful Post:
Old 04-02-2020, 11:05 AM
jetgraphics's Avatar
jetgraphics jetgraphics is online now
Gumpherhooberpelt
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: near Atlanta, GA
Age: 65
Posts: 4,212
Thanks: 343
Thanked 8,477 Times in 2,855 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TXplowgirl View Post
They weren't allowed to own property until the early 1900's.
Not true. Most folks don't understand that private property is that which is absolutely owned by an INDIVIDUAL. When a woman married, her private property was transferred to her husband's ownership to maintain its legal status as private property (and constitutionally protected).
COVERTURE - The condition or state of a married woman. Sometimes used elliptically to describe the legal disability which formerly existed at common law from a state of coverture whereby the wife COULD NOT OWN PROPERTY FREE FROM THE HUSBAND'S CLAIM OR CONTROL.
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth ed., p. 366
Of course, women weren't obligated to support their husbands nor their children, under pre-socialist law.
“The right of a father to the fruits of his child’s labor has its foundation in his obligation to protect, nurture, and educate the child.”
- - - The Etna, Fed. Cas. No. 4,542 [1 Ware (462) 474] (1838)

“The common law rule exists in this state that the father has a paramount right to superintend and nurture of his children.”
- - - People v. Olmstead, 27 Barb. 9 (NY 1857)

“A mother, during the lifetime of the father, is not bound to support her minor children.”
- - - Gladding v. Follett, 2 Dem. Sur. 58 (NY 1883)

“A mother, after the death of the father, is not entitled to the earnings of a minor child.”
- - - Pray v. Gorham, 31 Me. 240 (Me.1850)
The common law pronounced the equitable rights to the earnings of a child are found, not in the mother, but in the father’s obligation to support the child.

Not readily apparent, is that under the pre-socialist contracts for marriage, women were obligated to obey in exchange for lifelong support by the men. There was no legal obligation upon the woman to support her husband or children. Furthermore, if a wife or mother was working “outside the home,” that was grounds to inquire into the failure of the man to do his duty, and might be grounds for criminal prosecution. Hence the presumed ban on “women working outside the home.” There was no law prohibiting women from working, but there were negative implications on the man responsible for her support.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TXplowgirl View Post
Women weren't allowed to vote until 1920.
And they shouldn't have been, since they ducked the responsibilities associated with citizenship that was applied to the males : mandatory militia duty (18-45).
Women never wanted equality. They wanted their superior status -AND- anything else that the men had.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jetgraphics For This Useful Post:
Old 04-02-2020, 01:16 PM
Outpost75 Outpost75 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Outside the Moderate Damage Radius, over the mountain and far away.
Posts: 2,680
Thanks: 2,309
Thanked 5,610 Times in 1,899 Posts
Default

Around here the young ladies who work at Tractor Supply are helpful, polite, attractive and dress conservatively, mostly in bib overalls with flannel work shirts shirts or in gingham dresses with aprons and straw hats if outdoors. Hoop Skirt Sundays are a particular treat for the eyes, accompanied by a bluegrass band and square dance area in the parking lot. A family affair indeed! Unfortunately discontinued for now to maintain social distancing, but we are looking forward to fall and better times worthy of celebration.
Quick reply to this message
Old 04-02-2020, 04:03 PM
puttster's Avatar
puttster puttster is offline
Golfer
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,828
Thanks: 1,813
Thanked 3,055 Times in 1,669 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazarine33 View Post
Also, women's drawers were crotchless during most of the 1800s.
I'm going to need a source for that.
Quick reply to this message
Old 04-03-2020, 11:26 AM
ncbill ncbill is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Triad, NC
Posts: 1,522
Thanks: 1,068
Thanked 1,263 Times in 685 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by puttster View Post
I'm going to need a source for that.
https://faschionism.wordpress.com/20...hless-panties/

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/...r-their-skirts

https://www.theliftedbrow.com/lifted...s-about-womens

https://www.bustle.com/p/the-underwe...iences-2350928
Quick reply to this message
Old 04-03-2020, 11:56 AM
Mazarine33's Avatar
Mazarine33 Mazarine33 is offline
You were the Executioner.
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 1,070
Thanks: 2,249
Thanked 3,157 Times in 896 Posts
Default

I think they called crotchless drawers 'ever readys'. Blech.
Quick reply to this message
Old 04-03-2020, 12:02 PM
InfScout's Avatar
InfScout InfScout is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Northeast
Posts: 10,402
Thanks: 18,675
Thanked 33,295 Times in 8,053 Posts
Default

I'd guess it was largely based on more Puritan mindsets back then but it did help them avoid some natural pests at the time. Women largely didn't wear pants as that was unsightly.

But as some posted, most of them did wear aprons to help come their clothes cleaner. That made a lot of sense. Back then many of the poorer rural folks didn't have showers or running water so even heating water for the tub was a major task. Laundry was hard to do also.
Quick reply to this message
Old 04-03-2020, 01:19 PM
puttster's Avatar
puttster puttster is offline
Golfer
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,828
Thanks: 1,813
Thanked 3,055 Times in 1,669 Posts
Default

Interesting links ncbill. I'd heard underwear benefit was it was easier to wash a ****stain out of them than it was having to wash the whole dress.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to puttster For This Useful Post:
Old 04-03-2020, 01:39 PM
Mazarine33's Avatar
Mazarine33 Mazarine33 is offline
You were the Executioner.
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 1,070
Thanks: 2,249
Thanked 3,157 Times in 896 Posts
Default

Trying to pull up and hold up the yards of material that would have made up a dress and any petticoats underneath in order to use an outhouse or chamber pot would be hard enough, then you would still have to wipe your backside.

That would have been hard enough without also having to untie and let down your drawers at the same time. You wouldn't have enough hands to do it all.
Quick reply to this message
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net