MAINLY FOR WOMEN

Greymouth Evening Star, 14 March 1936, Page 9

MAINLY FOR WOMEN

ITEMS OF INTEREST

STAINED CARPETS.

WET AND DRY CLEANING.

Carpets and rugs often become accidentally stained and marked in various ways. It is important to treat these stains in the right manner as quickly as possible. Sticky marks, such as are made by raisins or other dried or crystallised fruit should be gently moistened before any attempt is made ,to remove the sticky substance from the pile ol the carpet. A thick cloth, wrung out in hot water should be laid over the mark and left on it for a while. Several fresh applications may be necessary to soften the clogged pile so that it can be wiped clean. A'small brush is better for this purpose than a cloth. Greasy marks should first be covered with clean blotting paper and pressed over with a hot iron. Two or three fresh pieces of paper should be used to absorb as much of the grease as possible. If there is still a maiK left it should be treated with fuller s earth, sprinkled on freely, left overnight and then carefully brushed oil. Grease spots may also be treated with the non-inflammable preparations made specially for dry-cleaning. Ammonia and water or carpet soaps may be used for stains of all kinds, but they should be applied sparingly or noticeably light patches may be left. If the pile of a thick rug has been marked by the pressure of heavy furniture it may bo raised and freshened by steaming. The marked portion should bo held over a kettle spout until the hot steam has penetrated the pile. The rug should be well dried before it is put down again. Soiled places on light-coloured carpets may be successfully cleaned with a,sprinkling of powdered magnesia or of warm dry salt, rubbed well in with a clean cloth and then brushed off.

THE YOUNG WIFE.

LACK OF CULTURE DEPLORED

Does the domestic life of the young wife in a suburban villa, with a husband whose income is £4OO or £5OO a year, entail so much drudgery andi monotony as a lecturer stated recently at a London conference? There seems little reason why this should be so to-day, whatever it may have been at the beginning of the century, says a writer in “The Queen.” The modern small house is, on the whole, very convenient, though it might be much more so if the modern woman would give her mind io its planning. Most of the smaller suburban villas where the ydung wives under discussion are living are two-storeyed, hpye no basement, and the coal shed is close at hand. Gas or electricity is everywhere, and, indeed, coal need no. be used, and this, of course, saves considerable labour. There are all manner of laboursaving devices which prevent ‘‘drudgery,” a word that requires clear definition. It is not drudgery for a worn an who loves husband and children, who has a sufficient though modest income to make home a happy, comfortable place for .family and friends, and to see that good, nourishing food is provided at the meals. Nor is life in a suburb necessarily monotonous, often far less so than that spent for many hours of the day in office, schoolroom, or the many places where men and women arc earning a small income.

If there are young children, there may be the keenest interest in thenupbringing and education; the shopping in the morning or afternoon is not by any means devoid of incident, and pleasant friendly intercourse with neighbours and shop folk, both of whom are often very intelligent, affords a diversion. It is quite a mistake to imagine that Bloomsbury has the monopoly of lively intelligentsia. Some are to be found even in Balham! “SISTERS UNDER THE SKIN.” Th.e. capable young housewife (with •a maid) has generally finished her work after the midday meal, the nature of which depends on the age of the children, if any. Now is her time for culture, the absence of which the lecturer so greatly deplored.

But surely it is a tremendous indictment of modern education if the girl who is being educated at school till eighteen or at college till twenty-one Joses all interest in things of the mind and in questions outside her home. But does she?

Many suburban wives read quite seriously both books and the newspaper. Some still attend lectures — many more are needed in the afternoon rather than in the evening—and a certain number' do useful social and political work. It is true many are to be seen idly looking into the West End shops; a few play bridge, and some go to the cinema. But a wholesale attack on suburban wives has no more justification than a similar criticism of wives of limited means and those with large incomes in towns and cities. The suburban wife, be she cultured or not, narrow in outlook, or of liberal attitude, is own sister “under the skin” ... Lady This and Lady That in Kensington or Mayfair.

I LONDON STYLIST.

SPEAKS HER MIND.

FILM FROCKS.

It is always interesting to hear the impressions that overseas visitors get of our country and of ourselves. The following interview with Miss Lottie Andrews, London stylist and corsetiere, in a northern paper, is particularly interesting because of its candour and straightforwardness, and because the criticism is constructive. ‘T have never anywhere seen such nice, wholesome, capable girls as the New Zealanders,” said Miss Andrews. “I am much taken with them. Their freshness is welcome to one so long accustomed to the jaded artificiality or sophisticates in the big fashion centres.

“But —yes, I must say it, for it has been on my mind quite a bit during the whole of my visit—-although they are pretty and have the most charming personalities, where, oh where, is their dress sense? What on earth do they do to their figures? At least, I think it is a case of what they don’t do —they don’t wear corsets. “The New Zealand girl has a sturdier physique than English and American girls. She is well developed, and so in the fashion scene the absence of corsets is all the more conspicuous. “Ou the whole, the actual clothes worn are fairly good in cut and style. But their accessories are chosen so badly. And that, after all, is half the battle in dress. The accessories make or mar the outfit every time, and in this I’m including corsets, because it is quite obvious to mo that New Zealand women are not yet aware that corsets like all accessories, have to be carefully chosen to go 'with the particular type of frock. “There seelns to be too much of this idea that a girdle is the acme of control. Unless a girl is almost scandalously thin a girdle is, for most frocks, hopelessly out of date. Most of the new fashions need longer line foundations, corselettes. After perfect grooming of women in London, and New York, the sight of any woman wearing an evening dress over an obviously uncorseted—or, as bad, an obviously corseted —figure, to me is just appalling. Tight frocks over uncontrolled curves seem ,to look just plain vulgar. “But the most neglected’ part of New- Zealand’s women’s grooming is the bosom. You’d thinly they had never even heard of uplift—yet I see some gorgeous uplifts in the stores. Perhaps they think the brassiers too small an item to bother having fitted. It may be a small item, but it does a lot of important things to the figure as well as to grooming. It creates an illusion of slimness, for one thing, by making the chestline broader, and by uplifting the bosom it makes the waistline' appear longei and smaller, and this slims the hips no end. “I have seen many corsets here equal to anything you could get in London or New York or Paris —so. it looks as though the stores try to give the lead, but the New Zealand women are slow in following.”

an unhappy career,

There must be tnillions of women who have cast envious eyes upon those film actresses in gossamer and nice gracing, rich scenes (says a writer in an exchange). And those millions of women, perhaps, have worn tiered what became of those gowns. In every batch of studio mail there is a query , like this: “Where can I buy the dress worn by so-and-so m such and such a picture?” There is no way of buying those dresses, and upon this -sad fact hangs a story and an introduction to Arthur Levy, manager of the wardrobe department in a large studio. Mr Levy, whose designers dress i Shirley Temple, Loretta Young, Janet Gaynor, Alice Faye, Gloria Stuart, and 'others, is inclined to believe that his studio could receive £12,500 a year for its used picture clothes. But there is no chance of his- selling them, as these clothes which have draped the glamorous have their future all mapped out —and it is not a happy one, either, unless the star desires to purchase them for her personal, wardrobe. , . “The £250 worth of dresses designed for Alice Faye in ‘King . of Burlesque’ will be reduced to rags in a few months,” said Mr Levy. “As (Soon as Miss Faye abandons them, after the conclusion of her picture. we will remodel them for use in another film by a secondary playei. After this player is through with them they will be altered for third, and fourth -leads’—women who play minor roles. When they are finished with them we shall let the extras wear them. “An extra isn’t over careful about what happens to studio gowns. She trails them through the dust and the tangled paraphernalia of studio floors, and soon they are reduced to rags, and go’on to the old clothes pile.” Thus the gowns which have fluttered so bravely like butterflies fade and die after living very brief lives. Yet hours of thought and large sums of money have been spent on them, so that we might get our ticket’s worth when we go to the pictures. Mr Levy claims that Shirley Temple’s clothes are the cheapest and the hardest to make, “since it is difficult to achieve style in a child’s wardrobe.” Clothes discarded by Shirley are not put back in the wardrobe, as are those for grown-ups. Instead, they are turned over to her, and eventually she gives them to a Los Angeles children’s hospital. Mr Levy also says that the average studio dress for a star costs in the neighbourhood of £9O, and to make these ho commands a studio clothes factory which employs an average of 20 seamstresses.