MAN, THE COWARD

Taranaki Daily News, 28 January 1933, Page 1 (Supplement)

MAN, THE COWARD

FEAR OF DRESS REFORM

(By’“i

"One of ’em.”—No. 1.)

One supposes one would be correct in calling Eve the first dress-reformer and the forerunner of Worth, Paquin and the Rue de la Paix. It is a fair sample of feminine inconsistency that she should decide upon the foliage of a deciduous tree (like the fig) to be “de rigueur” in the Garden of Eden. One wonders and is mildly curious to know what Adam and she did when autumn came? It would prove, if nothing else, that the fashions changed, even in those days, and would give the modem woman some justification for the everlasting quest for something new in wearing apparel. The Almighty made it all so simple; we in our superior wisdom have made it so complicated, and in these days of depression, so expensive. But the poles are no further apart than the present-day Adam and Eve in their ideas of dress. The modem man is still the old Adam at heart. Left to himself his ideas on dress would be fairly simple. But goaded on by Eve, and stung by her too-ready ridicule, he has no heart to rebel, and certainly no courage. He is a coward, and the fact must be faced. Compared with the modern woman his courage is as a grain of sand to the whole Sahara Desert. Woman has won her emancipation from the ages-long tyranny of dress. Gone are all the early Victorian horrors which squeezed and cramped her figure to such an extent that one wonders how the race ever survived the test., She has cast off her shackles, and with superb courage flouted all the canons of decorum and wonted respectability, so-called. She stands to-day a monument to common sense in dre-; in her case the verdict is “proven.” She has dressed for comfort, health and sanity. She has entered all fields of sport with few exceptions, and if the medical faculty is to be relied upon, with incalculable benefit to her physique, and to th nation’s prospective motherhood. From centuries of stultifying stupidity and crippling conventions she has wrested her freedom, and man cannot help but admire the so-called “weaker vessel. But although he envies her (and in his secret heart he does so), has he the courage te go and do likewise? Emphatically is the answer, No. , , Man is a coward; he dreads to be conspicuous, while to the average woman to be conspicuous is as the very breath of life If she cannot dress to attract attention then life loses its savour arid she feels that she has failed miserably. Man is like a f sheep; he dreads to show any individuality, any slight diversion from the accepted, the commonplace. If even inadvertently he vears any article of clothing which causes heads to turn lor a second glance, immediately he is covered with confusion and is ill-at-ease. Whereas, lovely woman, if she cannot cause a preponderating percentage of heads, to turn, feels that her toilet has been a failure. Drying tears of chagrin and pure pique she sets to work to plan something fresh which will reinstate her in the eyes of both sexes. And therein lies 'her courage. ■ From filthy and unhygienic garments trailing the germ-infected ground ■ she reduced her skirts to the “irreducible minimum”! Less and less skirt and more and more silk-clad leg. The tyranny of steel and whalebone came to an abrupt end. Not content with her own domains, she needs must bare-facedly poach in those of . mere man. Piecemeal many of his garments were appropriated;. others certainly she modified before applying them to .her own use. Hence we saw beach pyjamas, flannel slacks; tennis shirts, blazers, vests, ties and hats. She seized our shorts (metaphorically speak-, ing), and these brief garments are no longer a novelty at Wimbledon, on the track or the beaches. In brief, Woman will wear anything (almost nothing!) if Fashion so decrees it shall be worn, arid her scorn for the world’s opinion •is proof of her wonderful courage.

But, having won her own emancipation, is she generous to the so-called “stronger sex”?, Having won her victory does she hold out. a helping hand to her less fortunate,- less courageous, brothers? Not she! The greater her freedom from dress convention the greater seems her determination to keep man shackled and weighed . down by sartorial oppression. And in this determination, her deadliest weapon is ridicule. Meanwhile man, having no real mind of his own, goes on, decade., after decade (certainly with smouldering rebellion in his heart at times, ’ but lacking the courage to. kick over the traces as woman has done) without revising or remodelling his clothing on a basis of comfort, hygiene and sanity. At woman’s demand he still climbs protestingly into that : medieval monstrosity, his dress suit!-Why? Because . its uncomfortable sombreness makes a pleasing, an almost necessary foil for her comfortable and multi-col-oured, evening frocks. In. the street and for business purposes he must wear, whatever the weather, a sweltering sac suit and a number of other garments. Woman started her reform with the “pneumonia blouse.” The doctors dubbed it so. But since that epoch-marking day the fraternity has been honest enough to applaud and admit the wonderful value of this one step forward on the part of the “weaker vessel.” Man still goes muffled up to his chin. Certainly the two-and-a-half-inch collar (with the saw-edge) has gone, but fashion and fair woman still between them decree that man shall go on weakening his throat and chest by being swaddled in unnecessary neck-gear. How often have we poor spineless creatures heard it said that it is “not nice” to see a male throat and chest exposed? Yet not content with that victory fair woman now exposes her back. Meanwhile, mere man sits by and wonders ... At the same time he is sporting and well-mannered enough to make little or no comment. Neither did he do so when skirts went up to, and over, the knee. He saw the efficacy of the short skirt; he admired its sanity and smartness, and was content to approve, even to applaud. In the ballroom, especially, he hailed it with delight, and said good-bye, he thought, to the nightmare of a large masculine foot entangled in yards of gossamer frippery, followed by hot and bothered apologies and explanations. But the “old Eve,” Paris, has tried hard to bring back the dust and germ-collect-ing, floor-sweeping frock, for evening wear at least, though not very successfully, “One of ’em” ventures to say. Each summer sees the resurrection of the cry “dress reform for men.” Men themselves meet and discuss, quite gravely, the momentous question of the effect of the soft-collared, open-necked shirt on commerce, morals and the welfare of the nation and Empire! In England there are courageous men who have formed a “dress-reform club,” and we have seen their photographs, abroad, clad in the approved garb of the club—tennis shirts (open necks), shorts, golf stockings and brogues and sports coat if and when necessary.