The Shasta courier., 1866-01-20
w hy Women Dressv

The true explanation of the nrevo;I;ro o
travagance in costume is that women 5-ess
TOR one another. In other words they dress
Tor eyes which can appreciate the material
ana estimate the cost of every separate arti.
Gle, they have on. 1t is quite true tbat
many men care as much for. and are ~ com-
petent to give an opinion on the apnaarance
OF their wives, sisters or friends. as any
number OF female acquaiutances but the
grounds upon which The two classes of crit.
les will base their several judgements will
always be distinct, and the conclusions,
themselves not untrequently quite opposite.
Ask man and woman to tell YOU who
is the best dressed g.rl at 6 Vail md Won
will hardly ever find them agreeing in their
answer. Go a step further, and compare
the costumes which have been selected. and
you will discover almost to a certainty. that
the woman has singled out the most expen.
sive dress in the room. whereas the man
has asked himself which is the most be.
coming. The one has suffered herself to be
so impressed by the richness of the material,
the elaborateness of the embroidery, the cost
illness of the trimmings, that in the end
she found it simply impossible to leave these
things out of the calculation. The other,
happy in his ignorance, has looked only
at the general effect. and has probably
given the preference to a young lady whose
gown has no other merit than that of being
scrupulously neat, becomingly cut, and per-
fectly well made.
We submit therefore, that if that defer
ence to masculine taste which is so frequent
" professed really existed in any apprecabIe
measure, it would supply an antidote to
many of the grievances under which society
now labors. My daughters gowns must
sweep the pavement as they walk, cries one
broken hearted mother or if they do so far
consult their pockets as to loop them up,
their underskirts must'be founced and en-
brodered until they become as costly as the
gown. There is no necessity in the case, in
terposes a sterner moralist Young women
should have no desire to dress beyond their
means merely for the sake of rivalling their
richer friends. 1t is here that our theory
comes in and harmonizes these opposing
views. No man ever felt anything but rri-
tation at seeing a woman's gown doing the
business of the crossing sweeper, or attached
any value to the amount of open work dis
played beneath looped-up skirt.
If young ladies would but believe it-or
rather if they did but attach any importance
to it when they do believe it-a man will be
perfectly satisfied with their appearance, so
far as these considerations are concerned, if
their petticoats are spotlessly clean and
their stockings guiltless of wrinkle. We
do not say that even these characteristics,
when added to the well fitting gowns for
which we have already stipulated are to be
attained without, some expenditure of
money for cleanliness is not cheap virtue,
and it is not every dressmaker who knows
how to make dress. But at any rate, the
proposed standard is good deal easier of
attainment than the ,purious fine. ladyism,
after which so many women toll in
vain; and we cannot but believe that if
girls did but think more of pleasing the
other sex and less of vieing with their own,
their parents would see reason to bless the
change the next time they came to look over
their millner's bills