TROUSERS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20292, 28 December 1927, Page 7

TROUSERS.

“ Trousers,” wrote a correspondent whose letter we published recently, should have been ‘‘ abolished with the long skirts of the ladies ” (says The Times in a leading article). The time is past for comment on the feminine abbreviation, though there are some who will object to a reformer’s use of it, as if its merit admitted of no contradiction, in pleading (or his own reform. Ladies, however, at least, have had the courage of their opinion, and have now for several years resisted all attempts to persuade them substantially to change it. Indeed, there has been no more remarkable or unexpected result of what used to be called feminine emancipation than the independence of extreme fashion W’hich women have lately exhibited. There are changes still, changes of detail and decoration, but the tempo of change itself is less drastic. Possibly, if the dictators of the past had been dictators still dresses would, during the last few seasons, have expanded or contracted, circumferentially and longitudinally in feet instead of inches. There was an attempt by the dictators to reintroduce the crinoline, which was a complete failure. There was another attempt to win acceptance of a form of feminine trousers, but very little has been seen of it. Only on the stage, at races, and in places where they professionally dance are women to bo seen in those “ latest fashions,” and other women can afford to ignore them. Men, on the other hand, are accused of being slaves to conservatism. Those who would like to see a change will hear no argument against the wearing of knee breeches. Until early in the nineteentli century, they will point" out, on one of importance except a few adventurous wearers of pre-revolutionary pantaloons, over dreamed of wearing anything else. Breeches, therefore, are a manly garment hallowed by tradition. They are as comfortable as trousers; they would be as cheap, and should be cheaper; they are easier to pack and far easier to maintain than the absurd pipes that have continually to be recreased. Nor is there anything at all startling or contrary to the practice and spirit of our times in the wearing of them. They are already worn, in different forms, at court, on golf courses, and in playing fields. The persistence of men in wearing trousers and not breeches when they go to work and when they go to evening entertainments is a surprising example of masculine lack of enterprise. ‘‘ What could be worse,” said our correspondent, ‘‘ than a pair of mud-bespattered trousers flapping about the ankles on a wet day? ” What could be less convenient to a man who must spend long hours at his work table than the dragging of loose cloth at his knee? What could be less decorative or a duller denial of the human ’form than the pair of baggy tubes which men elect to wear, even as their gala dress? Even so, the matter is not quite beyond argument. If trousers get wet and muddy, so will the stockings worn with breeches ; and shoes, which are the_ traditional concomitant of breeches, will not keep the ankles as dry as boots. Walkers in breeches must therefore be prepared to put on gaiters in bad weather. The truth seems to be that breeches would be capital things in certain circumstances, and for legs whose shapeliness is entitled to wear them. Some day a change may come, but a universal change will only come for some compelling reason of convenience. Men dress for their work, and women have lately taken to doing the same.