FASHION.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 29 January 1927, Page 17

FASHION.

MAKES SLAVES OF US ALL. Mere man no longer has the presumption to claim aDy superiority over the other sex, affirms the Sydney Morning Herald. He anay excel woman in respect of crude physical strength. But for the sake of peace and quiet, if for no other reason, he is prepared to grant that she can do most things as well as he can, and many a great deal better. Still, there is one point in which he considers he shows to advantage beside his sisters. He is not nearly so subservient to the dictates of fashion in dress. Of course masculine modes change, but much less swiftly and very much less noticeably than those of women. One year the-opening of the waistcoat may be a little higher or a little lower than another, but the difference is hardly porc.eptable. Neckties of a particular shade or pattern may be popular, but no one is bound to affect them. r The male who is not garbed in the latest style does not feel a pariah. When he has acquired a dress-suit or dinnor-jacket he can and does wear .them for years -without appearing in the least odd. In fact, the man who elects to ignore fashion commits no solecism, nor does he fall in tlie esteem of his fellows. But with woman it is otherwise. The most independent of her sex dare not disregard the stern decrees of those who decide what is to be worn. No Tzar of all the Russias, no Emperor of Ancient Rome, had a wider sway or exercised a more absolute despotism than the potentates of Bond Street and the Rue dc la Paix, who, we understand, are masculine. No command ever meets with such universal and instantaneous obedience as those which they issue. The ukase goes forth that stockings are to be pink. The world’s wife and daughter repair to the hosier and purchase stockings of the appropriate hue. It is ordained that skirts shall be a particular length. All and sundry conform. Very few women are iutrepid enough to defy the laws of fashion, which are as those of the Medes and Persians. Moreover, the tyranny is never-ending. Scarcely has one mode been established than another is introduced. Heads newly bobbed had to submit to the process of being shingled. One year’s frocks will not do for the next/ To bo in the fashion is obligatory. If we may emend Shakespeare’s dictum, “The fashion wears out more apparel than the woman.” And man, conscious of Ms comparative indifference to its caprices, reflects, with a touch of pride, that he is above this sort of thing. Here, at any rate, he is superior to woman. But is his complacency justified? Is he entitled to lay the flattering unction to his soul that he is less of a slave to convention than woman? Some light is thrown On the question by a recent experiment in Brisbane. In that city a “no-coat” crusade was instituted. Resolute pioneers pledged themselves to eschew the uncomfortable garment. One would have expected that the revolt would have succeeded. Its idea had much to commend it. We would not for a moment cast any aspersions on the Brisbane climate. But in midsummer it i.° apt to be hot; the mean temperature is several degrees higher than in Sydney, and the heat is of the humid variety As a matter of fact, in practice many work in their shirtsleeves in their relatively cool offices: but when they go out into the burningsun don their coats, which is surely rather an illogical proceeding. There is no inherent virtue in a coat. It is warm

for tlie sake of warmth, not of decency, and to discard it would conduce certainly to comfort, possibly to efficiency and health. The good people of Brisbane would probVbly admit the force of these arguments in theory. Nevertheless, “no-eoat’’ week was an uttei; liasQO. At the eleventh hour the courage of most of the insurgents evaporated. Pew were brave enough to take the plunge. Power still persevered. The coatless ones, we are told, slunk furtively through the •side-streets with the unpleasant sensation of being naked. Passers-by eyed them with aversion and disdain. The following week the rebels acknowledged defeat* coats were recognised to be an indispensable article of attire whatever the reading of the thermometer. The moral is, that while men may pay less attention to the vagaries of fashion in the narrower sense, they are just as docile as women where convention is concerned. They shrink from any departure from strict orthodoxy. Public opinion may be irrational, but it is a force to which the majority of us bow*. Public opinion has declared that our coats may be removed in our homes, our places of business, and if we are engaged in manual labour. But in the streets they are de rigueur. Had the leaders of the crusade been men of real determination and fixity of purpose they would have said stoutly: “Let others swelter in their coats if they choose; for our part w*e go coatless.’’ As it was, their resolution failed, and they submitted tamely. They have offered excuses for their surrender. They have attempted to blame their employers. But had the employers been bold enough to put ease above fashion they, too, would have* taken off their coats. The truth is that man is the most conventional of creatures. Woman’s apparel, while complying with the prevailing code, usually has some little touch which displays her individuality. But man prefers to be oi%e of a flock. He is ready to endure serious inconvenience rather than appear in any wav conspicuous.