who invented womens pants?
961397
Probably a female fashion designer.
1139933
Well, I am a saved and ACTIVE Christian and I wear dresses, skirts and pants!  I don't think that if you wear pants you are disobeying the word of God.  The scripture that most people use to justify a woman not wearing pants is the one where God talks about women not dressing as men.  He is not talking about not wearing pants--- in those days, no one wore pants..they hadn't been invented!!\n\nWhat we believe God is talking about is carrying yourself as a woman ie:  keeping yourself up neatly, and wearing clothes that were designed for women-  and certainly there are pants designed for women!  \n\n...so if you like skirts and dresses...wear 'em, if you like pants...wear 'em!!!  \n\nYou can trust that you won't be going to hell for either one!
1151283
The word tailor is from a guild that was established in the early 1200s.  Who that person is unknown.  The act of measuring individuals to fit cloths dates back to the Egyptian Empire.  The guild formed in Europe was to establish knowledge of the craft through membership.  Sorry the name is not remembered through time.
251193
A chemise/shift with a tight bodice (like a corset but on the outside - gives 'support') - an overskirt - bloomers - leather slippers.\n\nGenerally made of flax or wool - cotton was expensive
257852
Who said that dress is for women and pants is for men? I have friend straight man loves to wear woman's clothes. He thinks it is beautiful to wear.\n\n\nPeace!
307337
Get the book "Dress for Success for Women" by John T. Molloy, it is THE book, the most authoritative book on women's wear, it also goes into detail on the question you asked. Everything you want to know is in that book.
172161
Sarah Goode was the first African American women to receive a U.S. patent. Patent #322,177 was issued on July 14, 1885 for a cabinet bed. Sarah Goode was the owner of a Chicago furniture store. Below you can view the patent issued to Sarah Goode. \n\nhttp://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blgoode.htm\n\nand this one to get full info...\n\nhttp://www.csupomona.edu/~plin/inventors/goode.html
33558
Pair, pare, pear. LOL....language is a mystery.\n\nPeople want to know why we don't say "a pair of bras." Also, it's strange that the phrase pair of pants is the only way to refer to one such item, since the word pants is always plural. This explains why the singular pant is sometimes used, especially by the clothing and fashion industry. Though jarring to some people, singular pant has been in use since the late 19th century. \n\nPants is an Americanism first recorded in 1840, and was considered a vulgar term for at least a century afterwards. It is a shortened form of pantaloons, from Pantalone, a stock character in Italian commedia dell'arte, who wore a combination of loose breeches and stockings. The term pantaloons is first recorded in English about 1600, and was applied at different periods to leg garments of different styles. \n\nSo why do we say "pair of pants/shorts/trousers/slacks?" Until the late 17th century, leg garments were made in two parts, one sleeve of fabric for each leg, so calling them a "pair" made perfect sense. The two pieces of woven cloth (or animal hides) were tied to a belt to hold them up. Supposedly the resulting indecent exposure made the "codpiece" a useful invention. From the Columbia Encyclopedia I learned the history of pants: After the Middle Ages, a loose trouser, bound at the ankle, was worn. Then the lower legs became more fitted, and these "breeches" were shortened to the knee and worn with fitted cloths called "hose." Breeches grew shorter and hose became longer; by about 1450 the hose reached the hips and were attached by points (laces) to the doublet. Later the breeches and hose formed one garment, like tights. As the upper part of the hose became more puffed out, a separation occurred: the upper part was called "trunk hose," and the leg coverings were called "stockings." Trousers grew longer and stockings shorter. In the early 17th century, men wore pantaloon breeches, but a tight-fitting trouser was introduced in the late 18th century, eventually superseding knee breeches, or knickers. The so called "trunk hose" evolved into what we now call "pants," and the so called "stockings" are what we now also call "hose."
379086
It does not say pants, but it does say that a woman should not wear anything that pertains to a man...and it also says that a woman should wear MODEST CLOTHING...\n\nDEUTERONOMY 22:5\n The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.\n \nI TIMOTHY 2:9\n In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;\n\n Ask yourself if women's pants make her "mince as she walks...\n\nISAIAH 3:16\n Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:\n\n Does that not describe the modern woman of today...proud look, eyes caked in make-up, shaking their hips, in heels and tight pants, and wearing jewelry on their ankles & feet?\n What makes them "wince" is the way they walk and the way their bodies are formed. A woman is built different than a man (Only sissified, homosexuals copy it).\n Watch a woman wearing pants, then compare to a woman wearing a modest, loose fitting dress or skirt. If you cannot see the difference then you are blind.\n Besides, women of a hundred years ago had a sense of morality that has since been lost...thanks to Hollywood and Women's Lib.\n Back then the only pants they wore was their 'bloomers', which was worn UNDER their dress. Then a petticoat was worn over that, then the dress was worn over that. So back then the pants was the under, under garment.\n If a woman dressed backed then, as they do today, she'd be locked away in a mental institute.\n Women of today have lost their sense of decency, morality, common sense and femininity.\n I do not believe as the Muslims, that a dress code should be forced upon women, because it must come from the heart. The Holy Ghost will tell them what is wrong and what is right.\n Remember also...Jesus said if a man look at a woman to lust after her, he committs adultery in his heart. So what about the woman that dresses in a manner that makes the men look & lust? Is she also not guilty? I say she is.\n The only women that dressed and acted in such a way, in the Bible days, was prostitutes, witches and worldly women...like Jezebel.\n We have their contemporaris today...in women like Jan Crouch and Tammy Faye Baker.\n Could you imagine Mary, the mother of Jesus, dressing like them?\n What a disgrace the church has become!\n\n God bless all that Love Him.\n\nTo know more, click here...\nhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/bibletruths_forbelievers/
656326
Philo T. Farnsworth \nhttp://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventors/farnsworth.htm
329812
Men must have designed the "bra"!\nA woman would know better!!!
319556
The phrase started in the 19th or maybe 18th century and it had to do with women's gloves that went up to the elbows when they went to gala events such as balls and tea at the palace and that those gloves had nine buttons so some occasions meant they had to "dress to the nines."
777640
It's why he invented Birkenstocks.
1183633
The first modern brassiere to receive a patent and gain wide acceptance was a bra invented by a New York socialite named Mary Phelps Jacob in 1910.
319888
Just to add to the first answer above, medieval trousers were actually two separate legs, hence a pair and probably the source of the plural.  NOT your legs.\n\nYou can dig around a little bit on the web and find patterns from recreation societies for the medieval trousers if you're curious to see what they looked like.\n\nThey probably evolved from the "barbarian" practice (according to, of course, the "we do everything better" Romans) of wrapping cloth around the legs.  By the middle ages, however, they were shaped and laced pieces of cloth with a specific purpose.\n\nBy the by, when I lived in England as a child, I wore pants but my brother wore trousers.  "Pants" was the polite term for knickers and trousers were what Americans call pants.    \n\nIt's funny the lingual shifts that happen. I just wonder what effect the Internet and corporate television has had on dialect and language patterns?  Eventually, will the English that I learned as a child sound as archaic as writings from the 1800s sound to most people today?
888537
in years gone by before buttons were invented,people used laces to tie their clothes together,ie,two laces attatched to a garment , pull together and tie in a bow.eventually the eyelet was invented and the lace was threaded through the eyelet etc. etc.the eyelet eventually became the button hole when buttons were invented.button holes first,buttons second.
839987
It was invented by your and mine grand grand grand mothers. they used cloth and then cotton when they had menustration. This gave the idea for manufacturing sanitary napkins in due course to comfort the women. \n\nBut Wikipedia source reads - \n\nMenstrual pads have been mentioned as early as in the (10th century) Suda, where Hypatia was said to have thrown her "feminine rags" at an admirer in an attempt to turn him off.\n\nThrough the ages women have used different forms of menstrual protection. The Museum of menstruation has articles and photos of some early forms of menstrual protection. Including among other things, knitted pads, and menstrual aprons. Women often used strips of folded old cloth (rags) to catch their menstrual blood, which is why the term "rags" was used to refer to menstruation.\n\nDisposable menstrual pads appear to have been first commercially available from around 1895 through Curads and Hartmann's. Disposable pads had their start with nurses using their wood pulp bandages to catch their menstrual flow, creating a pad that was made from easily obtainable materials and inexpensive enough to throw away after use. Products like the Johnson & Johnson Lister's Towel failed because of a lack of publicity. Unlike today, the subject of menstruation was not as widely discussed or advertised. One advertising company addressed this, by allowing women to place money into a box (so that the woman would not have to speak to the clerk) and take a box of Kotex pads from the counter themselves. Kotex would appear to be the first of these early disposable menstrual pads to really take off. Several of the first disposable pad manufacturers were also manufacturers of bandages, which could give an indication of what these products were like.\n\nUntil disposable sanitary pads were created, all women used some form of cloth or reusable pad to collect menstrual blood. Even after they were commercially available, for several years they were too expensive for many women to afford. It took many years for disposable menstrual pads to become commonplace, but since then in most areas of the industrialised world, their use became almost exclusive.\n\nCloth menstrual pads made a comeback around the 1970s, with their popularity increasing in the late eighties and early nineties.