HOW SHALL WOMEN DRESS?

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XIII, Issue 21, 18 September 1885, Page 7

HOW SHALL WOMEN DRESS?

(Dr. W. A. Hammond, in the North American Review.)

WITHOUT going into the consideration of the dress of women in various parts of the world, it will be sufficient if I confine what I have to say on the subject to their apparel as worn at the present day. But it is an important fact that in the earlier periods of the history of the human race there were no essential points of difference in the dress of the two sexes, except, perhaps i Q the way of wearing the hair. Roman men and women, for instance, wore pretty nearly the same kind of external garments. A plate at Planches '* History of Costume " represents a group of Anglo-Saxon men and women of the tenth century, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to tell which of the figures represent men and which women. The traditional fig-leaf was the same for both sexes, and from it were evolved skirts that varied but little in shape and general appearance, whether they concealed the nakedness of a man or that of a woman. The differences that now exist have mainly been caused by the revolt of man from the inconvenience of long skirts, and the assumption by him of a separate covering for each leg. What he has gained in the facility with which he can run, leap, climb trees, saddle a horse, row a boat, and do the many other things that his occupations require of him, he has certainly lost in grace and elegance. Trousers are of Onentdl origin, and in the form of breeches were worn by the ancient Gauls and Britons. They went out of fashion, however, soon after the occupation by the Romans and the gown took their place, or rather reacquired its place for both sexes. Bo far as I know, the wearing of trousers by women is a mere matter of convenience and aesthetics that they are perfectly competent to settle for themselves, and that they certainly will decide without interference from the other ccx. It is not a question into which sanitation enters. There are no statistics to show that the partial exposure of the lower extremities to the atmosphere, which more or less attends upon tbe absence of trousers, leads to greater ill-health or mortality than when they are more securely coveted with trousers. Rheumatism, sciatica, hip-joint disease, white-swelling, neuralgia, etc., are more common in men than they aie in women. It it true that women sometimes wear drawers in winter, but they are in general a poor protection in themselves compared with the closefitting woollen drawers of men and the super-imposed trousers of even more compact material. As a matter of tact, huwever, women endure cold weather as well as do men, nit because they are more warmly clad, but because, owing to the flowing character of their garments, and the fact that they are not in close contact with the lower part of the body, a stratum of air exists between them and the skin, and this, being a good non-conductor of heat, prevents the rapid cooling of the surface that would otherwise take place. It acis just as do the two or three inches thickness of air when double windows are put into a house. But as the occupations of women are gradually becoming identical with those ot men, it appears to be desirable, on the score of convenience, that they should wear trousers, even at the sacrifice of warmth and beauty. A woman commanding a steamboat would certainly be more efficient in trousers than in long skirts. A saleswoman in a shop would do her work with more comfort to herself, and more to the satisfaction of her employer, if she were disencumbered of the gown and petticoats that prevent her from climbing step-ladders to get down goodß, or jumping over the counter like her male rival. Even as a physician, or a nurse in a hospital, she would more effectually perform her work if she wore trousers and thus had more freedom in the motion of her lower limbs. A woman surgeon, for instance, called upon to reduce a dislocation of the shoulder-joint, would find skirts very incommodious when sbe came to put her heel into the axilla of the patient in order to obtain the necessary fixed point to counteract the effects of her traction. Besides, the flowing drapery worn by the woman physician and nurse is more apt to absorb contagion than the closely-fitting trouseis of man, and hence renders them carriers of disease from nouse to house, or from person to person. If I had the determination of the question, I should prescribe trousers for all women that do manual labour, except such as is of a purely ornamental character— embroidery, crocheting, etc., and such as is strictly confined to the use of the hands, without the legs being necessarily brought into use — sewing, knitting, writing, painting, etc.

The sewing-machine should never be worked by a woman in skirts. The gown and petticoats I would reserve exclusively for women embraced in the above-named exceptions, and for those whose office in society is to be ornamental and useful in the various social relations of life. Certainly a great deal of the aesthetics of a drawing* room, a ball-room, or a dinner-table would be lost if the women who attend them wore trousers instead of the silk, satin, and velvet gowns that now add so much to their loveliness. I can quite conceive that a man thoroughly imbued with the prejudices received from a biased education, indisposed to accept new ideas, and deeply endowed with a love for the beautiful, might be reluctant to pay his addresses with a view to matrimony to a woman wearing trousers. Still, under the influence of familiarity with the idea of a change in the nether garments of the sex, and especially should they be generally adopted by pretty women, it might reasonably be expected that a change of opinion and emotion would ensue, and that perhaps in time he might even be brought to regard trousers as filling more completely his idea of the beautiful than do skirts at the present day.

There is another point that requires consideration, and that is the practice of wearing the gown cut low in the neck, so as to expose the breast, and without covering for the arms. It is donbtful if this leads to any ill consequences, It has been continued for many generations without apparent injury. It might be supposed, at first thought, that bronchitis, pleurisy, pneumonia, and many kinds of rheumatism and neuralgia, would be the result of the custom ; but such is really not the case, all of these affections being much more frequently met with in men who cover the chest and arms with several thicknesses of woollen material in addition to a shirt of linen or cotton.

It has been strenuously urged by many so-called sanitary reformers, that women should support their skirts by straps passing over the shoulders, and some few have been induced to adopt the method. It is to be hoped that it will cot spread. Woman's hips are proportionally wider than those of a man, and there is no better way of keeping up the many petticoats tbat it is sometimes necessary to wear, than by fastening them with strings or bands around the waist, over the corset. Shoulder-straps injure the movements of the chest, and tend to make those who wear them round-shouldered. Besides, they could not well be worn with a low neck dress. Even if trousers should come into general use for women, it would be better th a they should be kept up by the support of the hips than by suspenders passing over the shoulders. It is true many men wear suspenders, and (his fact may perhaps lead to their adoption by some women ; but, again, no inconsiderable number of the male sex support th^ir trousers from the hips. If comparatively narrowhipped man can do this, wide-hipped woman ought to be able to do it better.