Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

> "WOMAN'S DRESS EXTRAVA-
% / . JANCE. <
i Woman is a compound of angol and
' criminal. The angel was uppermost in the:
i; war years,' - The 'criminal is now .running
v loose. It would foe charity to: put her
i under restraint.
't». , Woman is' an' instinetivo spendthrift..
St Not philanthropist, mmd you. She is .as
it- keen as a Jew in all matters save personal
jji , ' - adornment. In that department she finds
Sjj; spending diverting. War, lias left -the
£ world and most o£ the men in- -it im-
;©- poverisbed. But docs that worry any
.jj poor dear ? No fear. In face of poverty
she -goes her way merrily, spending 'ex-
travagantly on what tihe shall wear. Man
' is troubled about crops and flocks, world-
parity and increased production. Woman's
o: extravagance is a more vital factor than
'te them all. Man knows it, and shrinks from
gs saying it. But chivalry need not degeno-
rate into hypocrisy. The plain -truth is.
I; that the world would promptly regain oco-
Ej nomic stability if woman could bo lcg-
«! roped financially. : At this very hour there:
-are women planning a drees orgy for Cup
day. At recent Royal functions there were
J-J women decked with dresses each worth
lis hundreds. No wearer was the fairer for it.
,y; But such extravagance is tho only thing
r3 they Jivo for, the only thing they have
brains for.
What variety woman's dress achieves
'j". even-in half a century 1 You remember
the crinolines and hustles; those queer
ST . .Pteee# f- furniture woman carried about
V; with her, .using them as- clothes. Then
there were wasp waists, 'balloon sleeves,
pavement trains. Of courso she can
<V always put her waist just where she wants
to— now under her armpits, now over her
K haundhes. You never know where to ex-
'. : . l>ect it next. . There have been dress
.? periods— Charles II. and Louis XIV. —
which hare been specially caricatured by
posterity. This period is safe to bo ono of
them, a period when elderly women are
not averse to wearing publicly dress that
would be considered the limit in any re
spectable ballet, and when young women
;;; are going round in a rig which arouses a
suspicion that they have just given -their
r keeper the slip,
cost of the clothes women - are
V cverywhre wearing, not to be comfortable
or becoming, hut to ho in tho fashion, could
bo expressed in figures, the world's war bi.l
y would bo trifling by comparison. Woman's
dress is literally the greatest economic
'-. factor in tho world to-day. Industry is
being applied less to the needs 'of humanity
, than to female dress eccentricity. A few
conscienceless men are making fortunes out
of hosts of shameless women. And good
men are being driven distracted to find tho
v latter the money with which to do it. Wo
era frequently invited -to be sorry for
;- . the women of the Bast. . But they at least
dress consistently and picturesquely. The
y: only difference is that they live in a
zenana, whilo our go about loose and
i- striped like a zebra.
' One cannot withhold a measure of ad
miration from the fashion designers. They
; know their business and the gullibility of;
; their dupes. There is no now thing under
the sun, or in woman's dress. Every stylo:
lias been tried, abandoned and tried again,
hemalo fashions are like the dancing
dervishes. They whirl at a great rate,
but they end pretty much where they
began. These, things are , 110 harrier to
' : the dress designer. Put the buttons a
; little higher or wider, turn the cuff out
instead of in, and a new fashion is cstab-
y belied. Some dresses arc palpably' suited '
.' to certain climateH or liistoric stages. In
Melbourne we got them all blended.
!„' Dresses intended for the poles or tropics
i.; are flaunted in an area, which is neither.
Some women are befurrcd like Polar hears;
h; of others the most that can be said is that
Si tliey arc wearing a sweet expression.'
t - Everyone knows of tho Irish servant wlio
was told to serve the salad undressed. His
subsequent appearance in the diningroom
..... -created consternation. Some -Melbourne
women seem eager to rival the«apochrypluil
Irishman. A favorite subterfuge is to
blamo tome distant, unknown authority
for changing fashions so frequently. But
women cannot so lightly transfer their lia
bility, Not merely sonic, but the total
sum of women are. responsible for the
> ' fluctuations of fashion. Without tlicir
eager concurrence no change is possible.-
It is riot merely a mutter of financial
Imi'dcn,- 'but of moral deterioration.
Woman' dress dc-womanises her. Gentle
ness is her traditional characteristic. But,
wlierq- dress is involved, the vixen comes
out. She has -no joy comparable to the
knowledge that she is better dressed than
the women, by .whom she is surrounded.
In that setting she secretly, gloats; sho
- openly smiles, But no man will ever guess
her contrary emotion when the position is
reversed. - Talk of ' Christian charity.
Look for it in the breast of the' savage,
but not in the breast of the woman con
templating a better-dressed rival. She can
not even bo loyal to lier own sex. During
the coming Show week' she will derive 110
end of pleasure from burlesquing what she
considers the crude dress styles of her up-
country sisters. There is scarce a man who
lias not heard her at it.
Man's dress iB not beyond criticism.
, Over the centuries it has changed,- not so
muck- as woman's, but always with one
thing in its favor. It has changed to
more useful forms; it 1ms evolved to a
greater simplicity. In man's dress there
. . lias been progress, in woman's none. It is
the greatest anomaly in history. Every
thing makes progress; in dress woman
' merely rotates. She never approaches
nearer to sanity; she merely changes from
silliness to silliness. Standardised dress is
often commended. Even if it wero com-
merically feasible, it would he with women
impossible. You cannot provide a standard-
. ised dress for a human chameleon;
Manfe dress is a protection from the
- - , 'weather and a - concession to -modesty;
'woman's 4s designed primarily 'to attract
the. attention of the opposite sex and to
excite ithe envy of her own. Tho futility
' of the former might strike her. Her
beauty, or lack of it, is what matters. Tlia?
is x the constant, her dress is the variant;
and no manipulation of' external adorn
ment can create what ds .niot there, or can
permanently enhance , what is. Grand
mother's dres3 looks odd to-day, but in it
grandmother looked attractive. And it
had this redeeming quality— it was a work
. of art in material and making. There was
usually a largo element of" personal skill.
Few of it'lie women who flaunt their finery
'-to-day contribute an atom of personal skill
to their own dross. - They can have 110
pride in it save tho vain pride of wearing
it, a machine-made, souliess production.
There never has 'been a time in the his
tory of woman's dress when there was stioli
an atrophy .of the- creative faculty. The
garishness of the modern woman's dress
embellishment is merely the external sign
of her niental impoverishment. In these
. days men need Women, sober-minded, self-
sacrificing and possemed with some sense
' of the value of. money. .' And the tragedy is
that we seem to have Struck a seam of
' . women whose chief ambition is to parade
in pubjic. with neacock-lik? gaudiness. But
,v we need riot' libel the peacock.
... Woman's driess extravagance is a serious
indictment of her jntelEgence.'' Either she
likes the changing fashions, with all their
cost, and should frankly confess it. . Or
v she doesn't like trtem, and should , break
loose from them.'. She niust know that
often in Some new fashion "sip) looks ridicu-
.- . lous. . Brit she -.prefers to looli ridiculous in
the fashion than to be ridiculed for being
. out of.it. It is on appalling admission of
- - impotenos in character.
fii;-/ -"- Every attempt to reform woman's dress
'j.vi.l'as, hitherto failed. But never before lias
j she had such a noble imcentive. -To-day"
seated economic solution -is in her hands. The
is pressing heavily on man,
VJ®. »oney earner. Let woman resort to
Plain, tasteful dnpre, cutting out all the
anr senium, and the manufacturers
hn'd "shripkropefs Will be fdwning 'at her
feet on a monltli's thric. .. The Socialists
are constantly demanding that production
shall he for use and not for profit. If only
woman-, would dress for use and not for
fihe profiteer! But the thought is foolish;
the hope is vain. Common sense is not as
catching sib -pretty clothes, and woman- be
lieves' that rirctty, clothes are the most ef
fective mcaqs- of patching husbands.' So
long as- that, belief remains unshaken we
shall find in woman ithe irrational, insup-
prcssible spendthrift she was in the begin-
ning, is now, and ever shall be.
$