{"id":83588,"date":"2026-06-16T07:45:56","date_gmt":"2026-06-16T14:45:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/outdoortrainingspecialist.com\/?p=83588"},"modified":"2026-06-16T07:46:23","modified_gmt":"2026-06-16T14:46:23","slug":"heres-why-buttons-and-zippers-are-on-different-sides-of-clothing-for-men-and-women","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/outdoortrainingspecialist.com\/?p=83588","title":{"rendered":"Here\u2019s Why Buttons and Zippers Are on Different Sides of Clothing for Men and Women"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

https:\/\/www.rd.com\/article\/buttons-different-sides-men-and-women\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Here\u2019s
READER’S DIGEST, GETTY IMAGES (2)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

BY Charlotte Hilton Andersen<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

PUBLISHED ON Jun. 12, 2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The answer involves aristocrats, Napoleon, weapons and so much drama\u2014and it explains why women have been mildly inconvenienced every morning for centuries<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Why<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"Photo<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"Woman<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

I have buttoned thousands of shirts in my life. Maybe tens of thousands. (I am a mom of five.) I am a grown adult with multiple degrees and a functioning brain, and yet the first time I grabbed my husband\u2019s flannel to throw on before walking the dog, I stood there for a full 30 seconds, brow furrowed, hands fumbling like I\u2019d never encountered a button before. Why did it feel so strange? Was I having a stroke?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No. I was just experiencing one of the most common and most casually accepted little fashion quirks<\/a>: the fact that buttons and zippers are on opposite sides depending on whether the clothing is designed for men or women. I don\u2019t know how, in all my years of dressing myself, I\u2019d never noticed it before. Men\u2019s buttons and zippers go on the right side; women\u2019s go on the left. It\u2019s so standard that we rarely think to ask why or even notice it, and yet once you start pulling on that thread, you end up in a surprisingly interesting tangle of history, class politics, military strategy and fragile emperor egos.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Buckle up, and let\u2019s dive into the details. (The buckle, for what it\u2019s worth, can go on either side, regardless of your gender.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Get <\/strong>Reader\u2019s Digest<\/em><\/strong>\u2019s <\/strong>Read Up newsletter<\/strong><\/a> for more fun facts, humor, cleaning, travel and tech all week long. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Have buttons and zippers always been like this?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Not exactly\u2014this isn\u2019t ancient history. Buttons themselves date back to around 2800 BCE, but the gendered side placement is much more recent. According to fashion historian and author Robert Ossant, \u201cmost button clothing design became standardized in the late 19th century, when we shifted from all clothing being bespoke to the modern system of production.\u201d Before that, clothing was made to measure for individuals, and any rules about placement were more informal traditions set by the tailoring houses of London and Paris. John Smith, a fellow fashion historian and the vice president of fashion design at Posh\u00e9le, traces the convention to the 17th and 18th centuries, when tailors began systematically applying it to their clientele.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As for zippers, they weren\u2019t invented until the beginning of the 20th century. Elias Howe patented an early \u201cAutomatic, Continuous Clothing Closure\u201d in 1851, but the modern zipper wasn\u2019t perfected until Gideon Sundback did it in the early 1900s. They weren\u2019t common in clothing, however, until the 1930s. By then, Ossant says, the gendered button convention was already so established that zippers simply inherited it: \u201cThe convention of right over left for the concealing flap reflected the button style for womenswear, and the opposite for zips used in menswear.\u201dFOTOTECA GILARDI\/GETTY IMAGES<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why are buttons and zippers on different sides for men and women?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The short answer: class, convenience and a few centuries of deeply entrenched habit. The longer answer involves a remarkable number of things that have nothing to do with buttons or zippers<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Men needed quick access\u2014to weapons<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

For men, the logic was entirely practical. Right-handed men (and about 90% of the population is right-handed) could more easily grip and manipulate a button or zipper when it was positioned on the right. This was especially important for soldiers and armed men who needed to quickly reach inside their coats for weapons. (Which apparently happened a lot back in the day?) Having the dominant hand control the buttons\u2014holding the button between the thumb and forefinger and pushing it through\u2014was simply more efficient. And the same logic applied to the button or zipper placement on pants, but for, ahem, a different type of quick release.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wealthy women had someone to dress them<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s where it gets classist and <\/em>sexist. Wealthy women<\/a> of the 17th and 18th centuries didn\u2019t dress themselves; they had ladies\u2019 maids and servants to do it for them. A servant facing her mistress would be using her own right hand to manipulate the buttons, which meant the buttons needed to be on the left side of the garment. \u201cIt was largely a class and practicality distinction rather than a purely aesthetic one,\u201d says Smith. In other words, the entire reason women\u2019s clothing is designed the way it is was to make it easier for someone else<\/em> to do the buttoning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ossant describes women\u2019s clothing of the time as \u201cmore complicated, with lace-up undergarments, corsets, petticoats, added in ever more restrictive layers, so having someone help was essential.\u201d The seamstresses who made these garments followed instructions to the letter. \u201c[They] would never interfere with a design and change the placement,\u201d Ossant says. \u201cThis would ruin the entire design.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s also a breastfeeding theory floating around: that left-side buttons allowed nursing mothers to more easily open their tops while holding an infant in their dominant right arm. While it\u2019s plausible, as a mom who nursed babies for nearly a decade, I\u2019m side-eyeing this one. You need to breastfeed on both sides or you will become painfully engorged (and lopsided), and most women alternate which side they start with, so button placement is a moot point. Also, I preferred to hold my baby in my left hand so my right (dominant) hand was free.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Horseback riding may have played a role<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

\u201cOne of my favorite alternative theories is that the buttons were placed on the left due to how the wind passed over a woman\u2019s body while riding sidesaddle,\u201d Ossant says, explaining that women typically placed both their legs over the left side of the horse, so as they rode forward, the wind would pull open a blouse that opened to the right. \u201cSo some believe the placket (the fabric with the buttonholes) and buttons were swapped to ensure a woman riding sidesaddle on a horse didn\u2019t have to worry about the wind blowing open her clothing,\u201d he says. I feel like romance writers could really do a lot with this idea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And then there\u2019s Napoleon<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

If you prefer your history<\/a> with a side of drama, Ossant offers another one of his favorite (if admittedly far-fetched) alternative theories: \u201cNapoleon was alleged to have been enraged by women mocking his \u2018right arm tucked in shirt\u2019 look and ordered that women\u2019s clothing was reversed so they could no longer mock him.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is this true? Probably not. Is it delightful? Absolutely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mass manufacturing locked it all in<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

BETTMANN\/GETTY IMAGES<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whatever the origins, the Industrial Revolution cemented these conventions permanently. When clothing shifted from bespoke to mass-produced in the late 19th century, factories needed clear, repeatable rules and patterns. \u201cThis came on the back of European-wide uniform standardization to make armies more efficient,\u201d Ossant explains. \u201cThe fashion industry simply copied.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once those rules were built into the machines, the die was cast\u2014literally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

OK, fine, but why is clothing still like that?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The honest answer is habit \u2026 and also the remarkable human capacity to not notice something until it\u2019s pointed out. (Guilty!) \u201cWe have kept the gendered closure system mostly because people are used to it,\u201d Ossant says. \u201cIt\u2019s something most people don\u2019t notice until it\u2019s flipped, and then they\u2019re confused.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Smith adds a practical component as well. \u201cRetooling production lines costs money,\u201d he explains, \u201cand as long as the majority of consumers aren\u2019t actively complaining, brands have little financial incentive to change.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s also a brand-identity element<\/a>, particularly in outerwear. \u201cThe placement of a zipper or a set of buttons is part of the garment\u2019s signature,\u201d Smith explains. \u201cThink of iconic motorcycle jackets: The asymmetric off-center zip is as recognizable as any logo. Changing it would feel like altering the product\u2019s DNA.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Design schools further reinforce the tradition. Both experts confirm that button and zipper placement is taught as a technical standard in garment construction curricula. \u201cDesign schools teach the established gendered method for inserting zip closures or button-up fronts because this is now an established norm and what people expect,\u201d says Ossant, who adds a personal anecdote. He owns a man\u2019s shirt that accidentally had its button closure made the \u201cwrong\u201d way. \u201cEvery time I put it on, it proves a little difficult because we are so used to the standard way assigned to our genders,\u201d he says. So if even a fashion professional with full knowledge of the convention trips up, the rest of us never had a chance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is one side easier than the other to button and zip?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

ANTONIO GUILLEM\/GETTY IMAGES<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, and this is the part where women discover they\u2019ve been getting a raw deal their entire lives. Right-handed people will find men\u2019s button placement more intuitive: The dominant right hand holds and guides the button, while the left hand holds the placket. For women\u2019s clothing, that dynamic is reversed, meaning right-handed women are working slightly against their natural dexterity every single time they get dressed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe advantage of the historical system was ergonomics,\u201d Smith says. \u201cEach garment was optimized for who was fastening it and how.\u201d And, essentially, women\u2019s clothing was optimized for a right-handed servant, not the right-handed woman wearing it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Left-handed people<\/a> get their own version of this frustration, and they tend to find women\u2019s garments slightly more intuitive by the same logic. And with zippers, Smith notes, the direction of the zip track matters enormously for comfort and ease. \u201cA stiff or awkwardly placed zip on a structured leather garment is genuinely frustrating to use, especially when the leather is new and hasn\u2019t yet broken in.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Meanwhile, right-handed women have simply adapted. \u201cIt\u2019s just another annoying inconvenience women face in everyday life,\u201d Ossant says, in what may be the most understated sentence ever written about fashion history. This particular quirk may not rise to the level of the famous pocket disparity in women\u2019s clothing, but it\u2019s very much in the same family.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Will this fashion quirk ever change?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Slowly, yes. Ossant predicts that \u201cmore clothing [will be] designed as unisex and serve the 90% dominant right-handed population.\u201d Smith is similarly optimistic: \u201cWe\u2019re already seeing it in the market. High-end designers and outerwear brands are increasingly offering styles with centered zips, reversible closures or explicitly gender-neutral hardware placement.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Major fashion houses, including Gucci and Stella McCartney, have launched gender-neutral or unisex lines, and the category has been growing steadily across the industry. \u201cAs consumers become more vocal about wanting clothing that fits how they actually live rather than how tradition dictates, the industry will follow,\u201d Smith says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That said, don\u2019t expect to go shopping this weekend and find everything magically flipped. The machines that make the garments are already built. The patterns are already standardized. Vintage clothing<\/a> already enforces this standard. And a significant portion of the population has spent decades internalizing which way to reach. As Ossant candidly says: \u201cMen have never and would never have been inconvenienced. Whereas right-handed women have had to put up with a lifetime of it being slightly inconvenient, followed by an era of having to get used to flipping.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So my confusion when I grabbed my husband\u2019s shirt is not some kind of adulting failure. It is the result of several centuries of servants, soldiers, industrial machinery and possibly one very petty Napoleon. But progress is coming. In the meantime, take comfort in the fact that you now have a genuinely interesting thing to say at parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

RELATED:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n