THE TWO.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume VI, Issue 899, 20 September 1879, Page 2

THE TWO.

As to the question of the sexes, I think that woman's love of dress is the stamp of her inferiority. It ends the discussion with me. I can't respect my sex as I do the other while we are such creatures of dress. Here a man and his wife are projecting a journey. The man is equipped man hour, and his attention is free for the higher considerations of the occasion, but the woman must have a week for her preparations, and starts off fagged out with shopping, and dressmaking, and packing. Go to Wilhelmj's concert. The gentlemen performers are not distinguished at all by their dress, unless it is by its simplicity. Wilhelmj's black coat is buttoned across his breast up to his collar, and his wristbands are quite inconspicuous. But the lady singer comes m dragging a peacock's tail unspread, and tattooed from head to foot with colours and frills and embroidery. What is a wedding to a woman? It is a bride's Batins and laces and jewels. The sentiment of the circumstances is all smothered m dress. She can neither feel solemn nor gay — she is a spectacle of clothes. You bring me Scripture for her relief : " Can a maid forget her ornament, or a bride her attire ¥' I don't say she can any more than a leopard can change his spots ; I only say it is something which stamps her inferiority. If you quote revelation, I will quote nature. According to nature man should be appareled m brighter colours and with more fanciful decoration than woman, and should think more of his appearance. See the peacock and gobbler and rooster, and the male birds generally. The lion cultivates a flowing name, but the lioness wears her hair as meek as a Methodist. The human female seems to have lost her natural prestige, and is fain to make herself attractive m meretricious ways. Imagine & man compressing his ribs with stays, or trammeling his legs with skirts ; let alone swathing them after the mummy fashion of to-day. Imagine him spending an hour every morning m fixing his hair for a day-long torment. He will have his dress subservient to health and comfort and freedom of breath and motion. You say he is m bondage to the changes of fashion as much as the women are. But he- contrives to keep these conditions intact. His new styles are not allowed to intrench on his comfort and health and the higher interests of life. If he changes the cut of his hair, he still keeps the sweetness and unconsciousness of short locks ; he does not let them grow inconveniently long, or canker his head with a frowsy chignon. If he changes the fashion of his coat, it is almost unnotioeable, and you may be sure it is at no sacrifice of ease. His pantaloons may be cut a little more bagging or a little more statuesque, but never with trails or any impediment to hia natural gait. His hat is always the same serviceable sun-shade, and his cap the same protection from the weather, no matter what the details of style. Well, you say that the women dress to please the men, and if women are foolish men make them so. My answer to that is, that men are as fond of pleasing women as women are of pleasing men, and more so ; . but they have wit enough to accomplish their object without the monstrous sacrifices * women make. Whether any amount of education and opportunity will give women this wit, or diminish the advantage man has gained, remains to be seen. — American Socialist.