WHY WOMEN'S FASHIONS ARE MADE BY MAN.

Dunstan Times, Issue 3135, 18 September 1922, Page 8

WHY WOMEN'S FASHIONS ARE MADE BY MAN.

I (By Jane Ranisay-Kerr.) lie fashions for next year's nier girl are already made. In factories where voiles, creles, cotton foulards, or ras are manufactured the rolls laterial destined to deck Miss J are complete—that is where gambling- romance of business es in. he manufacturer in Carlisle Manchester has had to "back fancy" whether stripes, all- ■ patterns, or plain colors will premier favorite twelve tths hence. Trips to Paris London help him, but to ge the fancy of next year's nier girl is a delicate matter, much money may be made or over the treud of her diauous taste, staff of designers is kept on premises of every cotton tning factory, and their work tugmented by drawings pursed from abroad. Some of the sts are women, but the actual sion as to the designs that fill be used and in what range if colors they will be printed ests with men. This sounds a quaint anomaly. Why should masculine taste seect the patterns for women's kvear throughout the kingdom!' 1 Surely the manufacturer would g-et better results if he employed women of fashion—stage stars or other feminine devotees of dress —to help him settle his plans for next summer's girl? This is the first thought which flashes through the mind of a woman when she hears that it is men who make her dress styles, and I, being feminine and inquisitive, once put the question to a wellknown cotton spinner, and inquired if he did not consult his "Home Office" when in doubt as to patterns and colors. "Well," he replied, "I admit that at times I do like feminine opinion, but chiefly on the texture of a material, not on its color or pattern. I asK my wife's advice about samples—but she, like most women, is too persoual. Members of your sex, as a rule, only admire the colors and designs in which they can imagine themselves. If you are slim and dark, you never give a thought to the needs of your fat, flaxen sister. "Thai is why men are better than women as arbiters of fashions. They give an unbiassed opinion on the beauty of a design and its commercial value, for even if they are in love they do not see everything in the terms of what would suit one woman. They may admire a dark, queenly girl, but they know wLcit little fluffy goldencurls should wear.' This is the reason why women do not control the fashions. Think it over, and you will see that it is the case. It also has a corollary. As a sex we do not see the commercial value of the ugly. Men have their faculty. They can, in a detached manner, imagine the type of woman who hunts for a dress length of stuffy, unpleasing colors and crude design. She will not be happy till she gels it. Woman, the intolerant, cries, "Why cater for the creature with bad taste?". But man, the commercial sees no harm in giving the poor lady what she wants. It is the nstinct for making monev which is responsible for the ugly fashions at which men sometimes rail, as well as for the beautiful ones which they admire.