Words for My Enjoyment

Words For Your Enjoyment: Wife Beaters

May 13th, 2005

Alas, greetings to you and yours on this hereth day doth referred to as such. Friday!

Hath sadness but opposite, WFME’s resident fat dude suggests this week’s topic and asks thee a question: “Why are some undershirts are called “wife-beaters.” I mean, do people who wear them really beat their wives? Or are they just trying to show off a fake tan?”

Aah, a question that deserves an answer.

There are three definitions for a “wife beater.” The first, one who harms their spouse with physical force. The second, one who psychologically intimidates or makes scared a person who, in the event of their death, receives half of the current estate. And third — a white, thin t-shirt with no arms, resembling a tank top, which often is easily stained with reheated food items.

We’ll go with the third definition.

First, we must address the origins of said “wife beater” shirts. Whether or not you know it, the history of the “wife beater” goes back to the Middle Ages, where knights who lost their armor in battles often had nothing but the chain-mail undergarment to protect them. Now, those chain mail undershirts, if you will, were damn strong — even a sword couldn’t get through. Often, when a knight lost their armor and continued to fight successfully, they were referred to as a waif beater (waif, referring to an abandoned or lost individual). Due to the fact that knights who had been abandoned and continued to fight with only the “shirt off their back” (albeit chain mail), they were given this noble title — an abandoned fighter, beating their way through battle.

During 1700’s Europe, of course, the phrase “waif beater” no longer had much meaning due to the fact that there weren’t really knights running around fighting battles in chain-mail undershirts. As a result, the phrase was changed to the similarly sounding “wife beater” and used to refer to husbands who treated their significant others in a less than stellar way.

The trend changed in 1947 in Detroit, Michigan — when police arrested a local man (James Hartford, Jr.) for beating his wife to death. Local news stations aired the arrest and elements of the case for months after — constantly showing a picture of Hartford, Jr. when he was arrested — wearing a dirty tank top with baked bean stains on it…and constantly referring to him as “the” wife beater.

From there, everything snowballed. From then on, men wearing dirty tank-topped undershirts were referred to as people who were “wearing wife-beaters” and the lexicon stuck from that point forward.

At least, that’s the history of it all.

As for whether or not people who wear “wife-beaters” actually beat their wives or just wear them to get a great tan (as fat dude asked above), I think we can safely determine that based on what we see on television and what popular culture tells us — YES.

People who wear wife-beaters have a much higher chance of BECOMING wife-beaters.

The lesson, of course is this: if you are standing in Sears looking at a rack of wife-beaters and you wonder to yourself, “If I were to buy this shirt and wear it out on my driveway while spilling goopy quesadilla cheese all over it, would that encourage me to physically attack my wife?” — walk away. Walk away as quickly as your little legs can take you. Because the connecting of the dots is right there in front of you:

You buy the wife-beater.
You wear the wife-beater.
You will most likely spill food on your wife beater.
You’ll wonder why your wife can’t get the stain out of your wife beater.
You’ll wander around frustrated at the stain on your wife beater.
You’ll ask your wife why she couldn’t get said stain out of your wife beater.
She’ll tell you to “grow up and clean your own crap yourself.”
You’ll get mad.
She’ll call you a name.
And the rest, my wife-beater wearing non-tanned friend — is history.

And not the cool, interesting Middle Ages kind.

Posted under WFYE. |