HOMOMANIA.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume V, Issue 52, 27 December 1890, Page 6

HOMOMANIA.

It may lie genuine admiration for man which incites our girl to revolt against the disabilities of her sex and, as one expression of these disabilities, against the costume fashion and preindice command her to wear. She may rebel against corsets and thin shoes, the innumerable tyrannies of bonnets and the anguished perplexities of trimmings. She sees that a man walksand runs and breathes better than she can hope to do while hampered by lacings and loopings, and with feminine inconsequence she leaps to the conclusion that to approximate his attire would be to emulate his estate. A ‘ missish man,’ ‘ or a ladylike fellow,’ is her honest abomination. He who minces as he walks, perfumes hishands and his handkerchiefs cold creams his complexion, has a manicure for his nails, and a hairdresser lady for his head and beard, is the target for her sharpest shafts of ridicule. Yet, when her utmost is accomplished in her effort to efface the quality of femininity from her apparel and mien, she is’but a shading off of the type she abhors, and on the wrong side. She is a copy of a copy of true manhood feebly drawn and vilely coloured. In ceasing to be a woman she has not become a man. Addison has satiiired hcmr mania lefoie the days of women’s conventions thus:—

‘ For my part I have one geneial key to the tehaviour of the fair sex. When I see them singular in any pait of their dress I conclude it is not without evil intention, and therefore question not but the design of this strange fashion is to smite more effectually their male leholdeis. Now, to set them right in this particular I would fain have them consider with themselves whether we are not more likely to be struck by a figure entirely female than one which we may see every day in our lives. Our homomaniac does not, as a wide and strong rule, dress like a man that she may do a man’s work. She is not in sympathy, in this respect, with Mme. Dudevant and Rosa Bonheur. On the contrary, the articles she borrows from her big brother are, strange to relate, such as hamper, not release her. In order to make the sleek skirt front lie smooth she tightens her underwaist; in her solicitude lest the jacket may not fit over her fuller hips as jauntily as her brother’s she doubles the side steels and makes strong the hempen cords of her corset. Her chest and throat would swell and sink more freely under laee and muslin than in envelopes of starched linen, and a swan like bend of the neck is impracticable in a collar so high and tight that she tmns her head with difficulty. The Gordon sash has buckram back of the graceful foldings ; the Derby hurts her forehead and protects her head and ears from the biting wind no better than a bonnet. The rage or racket or fad—she would define it by all three words—has not one argument in its favour on the ground of comeliness or utility. Retaining enough of her proper raiment to emphasize into burlesque her assumption of what belongs by custom and tradition to the stronger sex, and, unconsciously or designedly, conforming her behaviour and speech to the new character, she offers to the world an uncomely hybrid which neither sex cares to claim. A man who is worthy of the name he bears can hardly be flattered by the dudish caricature. The woman who honours her sex ami respects herself must resent the slight cast upon both. However we may be disposed to treat the craze as a passing fantasy, one of the thousand freaks of fashion that recur at irregular periods, because even the fickle jade wearies of inventing original follies, it cannot lie questioned that it adds force to slanders upon women at large, and in particular upon progressive women. It makes plausible the charge that the larger liberty granted the sex in the matter of education and employment confuses lioundary lines that, for the good of the race, should be kept distinct.