Search results
- Skirts offer more modesty than pants. Some believe skirts offer females more modesty than pants due to completely covering the legs. Though modern skirts and pants vary in style and length, the traditional view considers skirts inherently more modest for concealing the shape of the lower body.
- Tradition and beliefs prefer skirts. In numerous cultures and faiths, skirts constitute preferred female attire representing traditional values pertaining to modesty adherence.
- Personal for skirts. Many women prefer skirts to pants because they are more comfortable, stylish, and aesthetically pleasing. Skirts offer benefits that make them the preferred choice for some based solely on individual tastes.
- Job roles require skirts. Certain jobs historically expected women employees to wear skirts or dresses as part of formal company attire designed to maintain professional appearance and standards.
Nov 30, 2000 · A book I read (sorry I can’t think of the title) claimed that the reason women have worn skirts for so long is because of- believe it or not- yeast infections. The book said that women only started wearing pants (or anything under their skirts) when regular bathing became possible. Gaspode December 1, 2000, 7:49am 12.
(There are many cases of hair being drawn and painted in very similar fashions between men and women in these manuscripts.) In actual battle, the skirt would be all sorts of a hazard and not worn IF the wearer actually MEANT to engage in combat. Sometimes women leaders could have been present at a battle partially in armor to provide ...
People also ask
Do women wear skirts?
What are some examples of painting a woman into armor?
Do women wear 'Girl Armor' in a battle?
Why do women wear skirts vs pants?
- A Bit About Historical Armor
- What About Women on The Battlefield?
- A Note on Mythological and Allegorical Imagery
- Women in Battle – Probably Without Armor
- Women in Battle – Dressed as Men
- Women in Battle – Wearing Armor as Women
- Catherine of Aragon in Maternity Armor?
First, let’s start with a very basic overview of historical armor. I’m not an expert, but I’ve seen some stuff and apparently more stuff than some film productions. Many movie and TV shows focus on plate armor, which was most popularly used in European warfare from around the 14th through 16th centuries. Chain mail was used before this, but also du...
We’ve mentioned anachronistic feminism before and why it bugs us. We watch women in historical movies and TV shows to see something about the reality of women’s lives in times past, and the majorityof those women were not soldiers or leading armies. Now, women have been involved in battles and war forever, that is a historical fact! But because the...
If you’ve googled the topic, maybe you’ve found some genuine medieval and renaissance images of women wearing armor. Cool, huh? Must mean that’s what happened, there were totally women wearing full plate armor in battle in the 14th century ‘n stuff? Yeah, no. What you’re probably seeing is mythological, allegorical, or legendary artwork. Meaning, i...
Plenty of female rulers, without help of men, sent their people into war, but we can’t tell if they wore armor to do so. It’s not always clear if these queens and noblewomen were literally on the battlefield, leading the charge. There’s a dearth of contemporary pictorial or written evidence that they were wielding swords ‘n stuff. Legends grew up a...
The historical record has a lots of examples of women who wore men’s clothing and participated in battles. There were, of course, a wide range of reasons why a woman would do this — from wanting adventure to believing in a religious or political cause to being transgendered and identifying as male and many combinations of reasons that we’ll never k...
This is the category that frock flicks love to portray but seems most elusive in history: self-identified women who participated in battle or led an army while wearing some form of armor. The most obvious example is Queen Elizabeth I. While she didn’t join a battle, she did wear some armor to address her troops before they fought the Spanish Armada...
I guess the folks behind The Spanish Princessdidn’t dig any farther than Wikipedia because they bought into a myth about Catherine riding into battle, pregnant and in full armor. Thus, this monstrosity: MY EYES!!!!!! Not only does she wear this nonsense, it’s supposed to stir up the troops — instead of horrifying them, because why would you want yo...
Mar 15, 2024 · At least that's what you'd assume after watching movies like Braveheart or Highlander. But this is one movie trope that gets history completely wrong. In the 13th and 14th centuries, when Braveheart is set, Scots didn't wear kilts at all. Even into the 16th century, Scottish warriors weren't wearing kilts.
- Armor was worn only by knights.— Wrong. This erroneous but common belief is probably a result of the romantic notion of the “knight in shining armor,” an image that itself harbors a host of further misconceptions.
- Women of earlier times never fought in battle or wore armor.— Wrong. There are several references to women participating in armed conflict from most periods of history.
- Armor was so expensive that only princes and rich nobility could afford it.— Wrong. This idea may stem from the fact that much of the armor on exhibition in institutions like the Metropolitan Museum represents equipment of especially high quality, while much of the plainer arms and armor of the common man and lower nobility has been either relegated to storerooms or lost over the centuries.
- Armor is extremely heavy and renders its wearer immobile.— Wrong. An entire suit of field armor (that is, armor for battle) usually weighs between 45 and 55 lbs.
Jun 20, 2021 · There are a lot of different answers to that, but generally yeah, it's mostly in the movies. Working class women often wore their skirts just above their ankles or high enough to skim just above the ground.
