THE HAREM SCAR-IM SKIRT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXIX, Issue 10760, 6 May 1911, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE HAREM SCAR-IM SKIRT.

(By Countess Russell.)

The attacks made on the harem skirt show only too plainly what women have to contend with when an_effort is made to break away from a convention which has proved a source of misery for ages. For such' have proved the' long voluminous; draperies, which hamper their lilovements and are a deterrent to muscular development, as well as being a source of disseminating disease; for the danger of trailing skirts lias been pointed out again and again. When _ one thinks" of the discomfort arising from the weight of three or four garments, all fastened at the waist and dragging the unfortunate victim down witli yards of unnecessary material, put in folds aiid plaits which are neither useful nor beautiful, it is not a sign of sanity on the part' of women to seek to adopt a garment which will take the place of at least two of these old coverings, and give to its wearers at last an opportunity of moving freely and gracefully? • : : But the divided skirt is an innovation that undoubtedly frightens our menfolk. In spite of the fact that they must have suffered greatly in the past trying to keep "pace with tho short mincing steps which their'draperies have forced upon women, they do not take kindly to the 'idea of their "womenfolk sharing with them a privilege they have long enjoyed. The last time I was at the theatre, a liarem skirt was presented on the stage, and was greeted by howls of derision, and shrieks of laughter by the masculine element around me, which showed how subject' men are to surface thought. I They do not realise to what extend | the dress of women has proved a factor in cramping their development both physically and mentally, or they would gladly welcome any change which would iree them from the burden of doctors' bills, and the annoyance caused by sick headaches, occurrences which have not at any time added to the happiness of home life. Any improvement in this direction is surely to be welcomed; and it is because -I consider the harem skirt, when properly made, an ideal garment for my sex, that I wish to see it given a fair chance. The latest attack on the harem skirt is so silly and stupid that I felt itshould be answered at once. At the Nottingham Chamber of Commerce a. few nights ago a resolution was passed which was to be forwarded to the Associated Chambers in London containing the following extraordinary statements: "That the fancy and other textile trades of this country are gravely injured by the extravagant and grotesque designs of Paris fashions, and it would conduce to stability and diminished losses in these trades if legitimate leaders of English society were to set the fashions for England ladies' dresses instead of adopting those set by irresponsible persons in Paris."

I would like to ask in wlint way are the fancy and other textile trades of this country injured by the harem skirt? I confess to the crime of possessing one, and so far I may claim to be an authority on the subject. It is made of British cloth, it is trimmed with British buttons, and has been made by a British firm of dressmakers. I defy the man in the street to detect that it is a divided skirt, as the legs are wide and loose, and two panels which are buttoned halfway down hide the division. I can walk comfortably without being weighed down with quite unnecessary material, and there is no dragging of cloth to liamper my movements.

Of course anyone, even the most simple, can see one loss to the trade. Less material is used for this really graceful and healthy garment; but, I should judge, not much less than thatused for the skirt which was worn threeyears ago, and a great deal more than the amount used for the hobble skirt of last year, which I acknowledge was both ugly and hampering to free movement. But. it had the advantage of being inches-off the ground. Now I should like to know why women should bo obliged to go on wearing yards of unnecessary clotii in order to help tire "trade," when they would prefer to be garbed in a graceful hygienic garment which is a pleasure to themselves and the onlooker. The women who go to extremes and wear a gathered.up bag round tho ankles, like the picture we have of Morleena Fenwig's extremities, will be mobbed, and the ugliness of the garment calls for punishment. But it:: very hideousness will destroy this type," and. the pancl-liiding dividing skirt will bo the one most universally adopted and worn. None of the designs for evening wear that I have seen are either beautiful or necessary. One does not want to. stride about a house, and the huge clumsy ruffles of satin, which the designs show gathered round the ankle, only serve to -make large feet look bigger, and disfiguro small ones. I am sure it would be quite easy to have a drapery flowing and graceful to cover the divided, skirt, possessing tho necessary number of yards to satisfy tlie demaifds of tho "trade," and so relieve their minds from the burden of the dread of disaster from which they are now suffering. But man-liko they rush into extremes through fright, and perhaps this common-sense statement may help to assure them that this new change in women's dress is not "extravagant," hut of a sensible nature, and what the "trade" loses in yards will be made up to tho nation in the improved health of its womankind, which will mean a happier state of things all round. Of one thing I- am assured—that the liarem skirt lias come to stay, and that it will prove one of the factors in the emancipation' of women, Vhich is tlie secret of interest for me.