The home journal. (Winchester, Tenn.) 1858-188?, 1867-03-16
Should Women Ride Astride?

1 manner of men, or whether it is not
!, more proper for them to sit with both
c limbs on the same side Of the horse, as
t has been the custom among civilized
0 nations time out of mind. If we had
: as many dollars rs we have seen wo-
: men ride astride, among the Canaan
Q ches, the Caddocs, the Pawnees, and
: other prairie Indians, we should he
much better Off pccuniarily than we are
now and they rode or looked graceful
t enough, and seemed at ease and at home
, with one leg on one side their horses
= and the other on the other. Yet their
, costumes were intended for this style
, of female equestrianism-thcir dresses
! were not in the least in the way-and
Q we would as soon expect to see q wild
squaw sitting at piano as on q side
, saddle. If our ladies are to change
) their habit Of riding they must change
J their habits as well--must discard the
: long skirt, of course. And what cos
tune will they adopt? Not the Men
ken style certainly, nor the Black Crook
Or ballet ,ncxt-to-nothing mode. The
Bloomer costume might do, ifcurtailcd
or raced but when once the ladies
make up their minds to mount mcrfs
saddles after the manner of men, we
have little doubt they will hit upon ap-
propriate and becoming habilimcnts-
something in the way ofcostumc which
will be SNOWY, doshing and elegant,
without being Amazonian or Hippo
dromism--a dress easy and graceful,
and one which will make them feel en-
tirely at their ease. And, slightly to
alter Cowpcr's lacchous account Of
John Gilpin's equestrian trip to Isling-
ton:
When they thus 20 ont torido
May we bc there to see.
We have been led to these remarks
by seeing in Flalse' Bulletin an account
Of the discussion in England, 90 to
whether women should ride astrilo or
not, and by perusng some Of the odi
tors comments which IRE amusinr
enough, on tie subject at issue. He
says:
With the discussion Of the question
we are not particularly Interested, but
we are little amused, at the line the ar
gument is taking. Almost all the So
cial questions relating to women take
some general path OF argument, ard 10
gicians base their conclusions upon the
same general premisos--woman's right
to vote, to wear short petticoats, to
ride astride, to hold Office, to practice
medicine, to plead at the bar to preach
in the pulpit, and to enjoy the broadc9t !
masculine liberty--are all argued upon
the same principles and in the same
way.
Once upon time, as the story books
say, u Spanish courtier, meaning to say
somcthinG very pretty to his queen,
complimented her on the beauty Of her
feet and Of her grace in dancing the
national Bolero, in which, as every
dancer knows, not only the feet, but
the limbs themselves, are rather prom
inently manifested. Her majesty re-
ceived this compliment with withcr-
ing frown, and rctorted, "Thc Queen
of Spain has no feet The modern
lady, like the Queen of Spain, is COM
posed Of dress and Incidence. Herein
lies the difficulty: the devotees Of fash
ion and Incidence refusing to perform
the duties that heaven imposes on them,
fill up the vacuum their idleness creates
with insatiato longings for some pow
er privilege incompatible with their ma
ture. Fashion and custom prescribe
ideness, and old cloyen foot "linds |
some mischief still for idle hands to
do" 1t is perfectly easy to prove, by
abstract argument, that woman has the
right to vote, to hold Office, to ride
astride and to do any other absurd
thing that the modern strong minded
long for. But it would be more diff
cult matter to prove that these things
were compatible with the duties that
Cod has imposed upon her. We have
noticed that those women who dis
charge their proper duties best care the
least about discharging those they have
not. When we hear OF q woman hank
ering after the right to rule the nation,
we always wonder if she can rule her
own household. When Il woman wants
to ride astride, it is because she Jacks
grace and skill enough to ride rs be-
comes her sex and when she wants to
lule with the ballot, it is because she has
neither the fascination of person, nor
Of mind, necessary to rule as God in
tended. We may be amused ct the dis
cussiOn of these questions as we are at
the whiInsicalities of 4 farcc-other-
wise they are without interest. 1t is
very hard to prove on these abstract
principles that woman he's no right to
vote, and it i5 equally easy to prove
that she has the absolute and inherent
right not only to ride astride, but to
run to fires, chop wood, stand up in
railroad cars, smoke cigars, and do and
perform all the other ugly tricks that
masculine humanity is wont to prac-
tice.
-se -Ss>--
Tho Torch and TirDentine Policy.
Brownlow is on the war-path. His
legislature having authorized the organ