RATIONAL DRESS RE

Otago Witness, Issue 2055, 13 July 1893, Page 42

RATIONAL DRESS RE-

FORM OR MALE COSTUME.

■WHICH SHALL Wti HAVE?

A Review of " No tes on Pbess Repohm," by Miss K. Walkeb and J. R. Wilkinson, M A., AND COMMENT 3ON THE Dbess Reform Movement. ll.— (Concluded.)

But just about this stage the writers of these " notes" break loose from their former guides and quoted authorities and strike out for themselves, dragging us headlorg into the mysteries of " higher reform." Now we find ourselves tossed about among thorny and stony problems of sociology, physiology, emancipation of women; &c. We are started to discover that the whole question of woman's life, which she has been trying to solve for so many centuries, and is still in sa much doubt about — that this question" disappears as soon as she takes to knickers. A good deal is here left to the imagination, and our weary imagination fails to fill up the blank. There is a new philosophy of clothes somewhere, but this is not to be taken figuratively, but quite literally. The idea seems to be—" put a woman into man's clothes and there you have a man 'with but trifling difference.'" But in the first placa this is not true ; and in the second place it would be most undesirable.- The writers advance a proposition most degrading to womanhood in assuming that women are the same as men except for their "tendency to passivity" and for " inequalities caused by artificial circumstances."

It is distresejngto find amongst champions of women a lurjriog contempt for the whole sex. They imply that woman, in so far as Bhe i 3 different from man, is inferior— an unwarrantable supposition. They think that emancipation means making women like men. lam afraid that this idea is at the root of this "reform " with such Eaglish advocxtes as Lady Florence Dixie. We even find one agitator (quoted in the Review of Reviews) talking of "the tyranny of msn " in regard to women's clothing. As a matter of fact nearly every real reform in this direction has bsen inaugurated by doctors and artists. Whatever tyranny there is is exercised by women themselves. It is a- pity to find energy and enthusiasm and indignation wasted on this sorb of folly while we go on condoning disgraceful laws and social crimes and miseries. Such ill-directed efforts do not advance, but, on the contrary, retard the cause of women.

New the difference between man and woman is not trifling. It is not artificial, but inherent ; it is not a difference of inferiority pr superiority, but of mental, moral, and physical constitution. It needs no artificial barriers ; it does not depend on circumstances alone. The sufferirgs'and even the wrongs and restrictions of women, thongh they have weakened some powers, yet in Eoraeother respects they have raised them above men. Trie writer who can say that a man's life is'intenser than a woman's has never read the heart of her sisters.

The imitation of masculine habit's and costume is founded on a secret belief in woman's inferiority. It does not really ari-e from any deure for the beautiful, or even the useful. Ir has seriously affected fashion lately by the introduction of such ungraceful articles as ma«culine ties (superseding the pretty soft fall of lace or silk); unhealthy, uncomfortable, rigid, starched collar, sbirt- front, and even ugly coats and '• Eton jackets " ; and now, last, and worst of all, 11 knickers." But I think women will ficd there is some truth in Tennyson after all. No woman should become a man. The dress does not make the soul, but the soul the dress. Their ideal will never be attaiued, and meanwhile all we can say to their efforts is what Mrs Browning wrote of Gicrg&Sand : Beat purer, heart, and higher, Till God upsex thee on the heavenly shore, Where unincarnata spirits purely adore. And whil» failing to attain their end how much they will lose I All the soft draperies and fair tints and pretty ornaments ; all the folds of glimmering silk and' the flowing of fine linen and laces light as gossamer— all these will be for ever banished. Through ourstrests will walk women'undistinguishable from men, with cropped hair (the elder ones probably bald from the wearing of bard , felt hats, which restrain the circulation, and thus cause lack of nourishment to the hair on top of thehead) ; about the house, and at tho board and fireside, will be no woman whoso dainty mysteries ot dress love may worship ;

in our ballrooms we shall see, instead of long, flowing robes, coloured tights and a display of limbs to which the low-cut dress was modesty itself. Batter the crinoline than this craze I Marcus Clarke puts one exquisite touch into his description of the feelings even the brutal Frere had for his wife in the first days of their marriag?. "He marvelled at her feminine devices of dress and adornment. Her dainty garments seemed to him perfumed with the odour of sanctity." Imagine this written of a tweed knicker suit, a necktie, and a starched shirtfront I s The fact is, advanced " reformers " do not trouble much about beauty. It is quite true that the human body is far more beautiful than any garment, and more sacred. But it does not follow that bodice and trousers, because they fit its outlines most closely, therefore approach beauty most nearly. Any artist knows, even in the case of furniture that is not to be displayed, that he would not attain the best effect by putting on olamsy wrappers, but by draping it fretly. There is no artistic alternative between drapery and nudity.

As to the costume of men, it is a reproach to civilisation. It is an utter degeneration from past times — not an evolution ; and we aave good reason to fear lest women's costume should go the same way. It is an arbitrary assumption that they would be sure to beautify any sort of costume they adopted. The name might have been said of men three centuries ago; and yes the modern male costume has completely repudiated all attempt ac art. If it were the fashion to wear barbarously ungraceful garments, women would do jo as well as men. At present men's costume is determined more by fashion than by considerations of health or convenience. It admits to a .far less degree than women's of changes to suit the temperature, and has parts which seem specially contrived as receptacles for dirt, while the starched shirt hinders free respiration. It has been truly said that the dress of a nineteenth century man would disgrace any picture or statue.

It is also a mistake to assume that beauty and grace are meie questions of custom. If this were so, no artist need prefer the modern feminine dress to the*masculine, and the vulgarest objects might appsar to us tie most charming. Artists p-obabJy understand their art better than we do, and their preference for drapery arises from ii f s intrinsic superiority in grace. Bat surely this bardly nee Is discussion. While morality protests against tight?, art protests against male attire. Would there be so great a bodily gain as to compensate for the outward disfigurement ? I think not. How can they point to " Greek loveliness "as their aim ? Did Greek women attain beauty by u-ing these uncouth garmeets, revealing the limbs only as in caricature ? or did* they not rather, wear those loose flowing' robes which are the very antithesis of " knickers " ? Was it Athens or Spa,rta that left us tl c purest models of womanly forms 1 How can anyone say that we shall grow most like the Greeks by leading lives and wearing clothes the very opposite of theirs 1 ' Whether or not the new fashion would have' any moral (or tb.9 reverse) effect we are far from certain yet. It is not only the mind of the wearer but of the onlooker which is to be considered. It is not impossible that with.the loss of beauty would go a decrease Of refinement and a growth of coarseness— sure to arise when either sex forgets the proper reserve dus in speech, as in thought, to tbe other. The quotation from Lowell niay be matched with one. from Shakespeare, and the reformers advised to dare only such things as are becoming. Bat of their individual excellence of intention there can be no donbt. The enthusiastic pioneers of a causp, however "mistaken, are generally free from those faults to which ths badness of the system exposes the average man or woman, Whilst admiring their courage we cannot but wish it employed in a worthier direction. Unfortunately tbe best of mankind have made themselves maityrs in a bad as eagerly as in a good cause. — Edith Seable Grossmann, MA. (President of i he. Literary Branch of the Canterbury Women's Institute).