Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-07-27
WOMAN'S DRESS.

| A Plain Talk On q Much mtsundor.
stood Subject-DressiDg ON S75 a
Year.
There is q vast deal of good sense in the
annexed contribution by a lady to the New
York Graphic On the much vexed subject of
economy in the feminine toilette. An Eng
lish woman, says the contributor.
has written a book on
how to dress on Els (S75) per year,
and the English papers are apparently as
much exercised over it as if the problem
were q new ore, and had never before been
solved. OF course, the American equiva-
lent, SIS, does not fully represent the Eng
lish woman's total. Fifteen pounds in
London will buy twice as much as SIS in
New York; but this is q fact of
minor importance. The point wish to
make is this, that dressing on fifteen
pounds, or seVenty-fve dollars per annum,
is not so new that it need be considered
marvellous; that either gum strictly set
apart for their own uses would
be considered a fortune by thou
sands of women who are obliged to
solve the problem of dressing neatly on
much less; and that, while it is undoubted-
| IL true that some few women spend large
sums on their dress, the majority come
nearer to solving the problem of how to
dress on nothing per year than how to dress
on seventy five dollars for the same length
of time.
1t is truth which
MEN KNOW AS WELL AS WOMEN,
| That there is nothing SO variable or so IN
| certain as the amount which most women
feel at liberty to spend on dress. 1 am not now
writing Of the Fortunate few who possess an
income from property earned or held in their
| own right, which their husbands or other
ale guardians generally allow them to Use
as they please-these cases, as every one
will allow, are exceptional; but of the ma
jority of women who are dependent upon
man for support, while they act IS the care
takers, nurses and house-keepers of their
| homes.
Not one in ten Of these women has any
income OF all allowed her exclusively fer
| dress purposes 1t is understood, Ofcourse,
that she is to dress herself In some way or
other, and the better, as general rule, the
better the husband likes it, providing the
| bills do not press on HMM fact, he does
not want To see them at all. This the
wife quickly understands, and so she
| learns to-wbat she cslls-"man-
age" If she has housekeeping
money, she saves something out of
that; she abstracts on occasions from trous-
ers-pockets; she coaxes OF bluntly asks for
occasional five dollar bills; she receives
presents of yearly dress, or cloak, or set
of furs for herself or the Children from rela-
| tives; Grand this most frequently in
| cities, where women must dress more than
is required in the countryside rents out
| her spare room. This is
THE MOST COMMON METHOD
By which city wives obtain an income; but
do not imag ne that it is all spent on their
| dress. Little or much, it Is made to
stretch long way, and cover not only
the expense of clothing for children Is
well as themselves, but household wear and
tear.
1t is unfortunate that men seem to have
an objection or aversion to setting aside
fixed part Of the income for the dress of
their wives. Not that they are often stingy
or Intentionally mean, for they will spend
as mach rs would be required for a years
| allowance upon some ornament or gew-gaW
to which they take fancy; but they are
more generous than just, and like to "giVe"
rather than render what is actually due.
1t is easy to live on any sum when the
| amount is fixed and certain, but it involves
what correspondent of an English paper,
in writing upon the subject, calls "living in
prospective" to such an extent that 1t may
very reasonably be asked, does l. payP
If time is worth nothing then it may be
to a certain extent usefully spent in figuring
ont the way to make ones dress cost the
least and wear the longest; in turning and
remodelling black silk with new trimming;
in selecting styles and colors which will not
look remarkable when they ere no longer
in fashion; unrippiDg and dyeing and Clean
ing and restoring to make the old wardrobe
look presentable, aud in
CHOOSING THE NEW FABRIC
Or garment which is 10 make it modern
and ssasonable.
But setting aside the question of the
amount of valuable time employed, is the
thought, the ability, the Judgment, the taste
expended of no account in the estimate?
Would it not be better TO put them to some
better, use-earn enough to he able to spend
twice the amount on dress and have some
thing besides patches to show for the ex-
penditure of time, talent and industry?
1t is very well to dress on seventy-five
dollars per year, buo it is much better to
dress on ten times that amount and
earn it.
There are people possessed with NOR
bid love of economies. Their great forte
is in showing how little human life can be
preserved upon. But is existence desirable
under such circumstances?
remember the New York Tribune once
harped for whole year upon baked pork
and beans, their virtues, and the pecuniary
advantage which would result to the entire
nation from families Of eight making their
three meals per day from one pound Of that,
to some persons, Objectionable flesh, and
single quart of the, TO others, no less obi c.
tionable vegetable.
Bat what would life be worth sustained
in this way? and equally, what is life worth
| 10 women of intelligence and capacity who
are obliged to expend themselves in dream
| ing upon SIS per year?
| WHAT WOMEN WANT TO LEARN
| is, how 10 make and now to spend, not how
to cave; they have been taught this last
very efIectfIaly.
Even the wives of rich men have rarely
fixed income or allowance for dress pur-
poses; if they had, they would spend less
and dress much better than thew do, TIE
ordinary method is to allow them to run
bills sc store. This makes them thought
less, reckless; it affords them no opportuni.
tY, aud deprives them of all motive for the
display of judgment and economy. 1t