Ashtabula telegraph. (Ashtabula, Ohio) 1874-1880, 1878-02-08

| eSh % A~NSNA " bhS SutCd&O ATeOc4ec
asserting that much as the ordinary
dress of women deserves the hostili-
ty of all noble minds, the ordinary
dress of men is equally ugly, un-
whole .ome, aud immoral.
! Mrs. Swishelm begins her letter
by asserting her full competency
to discuss the question of mascn-
line dress. She asserts that her
knowledge of the subject is deriv-
ed from sewing on 6ut;ons-prs.
sumably the buttons of the late
Mr.. Swlshelm. From data thus
gathered she unhesitatingly pro-
nounces trousers a grossly unphys-
biological garment, and asserts that
'tens of th' usands of men srffer
from wearing it, agonies quite as
acute As any that women infict
upon tmselyes." This is a bold
aud sweeping remark, and it is
difficult 10 see how a mere famili
srlty with buttons can have put
Mrs Swishelm in possession of her
| S5CA AshStN.
In The estimation of this deter
mined and fearless woman. irons.
ers prevent the wearers from
STOPPING down. "Who," she asks.
'ever saw a man lift anv
thing from the ground without tax
ing both hands to draw up his pan.
falcons, so as to make room for the
bend of his knees?" Now, Mrs.
Swishelm ought to know that the
osJect of this drawing up of the
knees of trousers is not to enable
The wearer to Stoop down, but to
prevent the trousers from undergo
ing strain which tends to render
them "baggy" at the knees. II is a
habit in vogue among men to whom
nature has given unusually sharp
knees, aud when Mrs. Swishelm as
serts that it is universal at the
West, she makes a grave charge
against Western legs, which she
may yet be called upon to prove or
retract in court of Justice.
Undoubtedly, Mrs. Swishelm
firmly y believes that 10 man in trou-
Sers can stoop down without diff
Guilty, and it is easy to see how she
may have been led into this error.
When she first tried on her late
husbands trousers, she may have
made the mistake of putting them
on so that they could be buttoned at
the back. Of course, when thus ar
rayed she must have been entirely
incapable of STOPPING to lift any
thing from the ground, no matter
how vigorously she may have tried
to pull them at the knees. Doubt
less, when standing upright she
found that the trousers fitted her
nicely-fOr she admits that a man
can wear trousers very comfortably
SO long as he remains in an upright
pOsition; but she may rest assured
that if she had put them on as
they were designed to be put on, she
could have bent herself into any
posture without discomfort. The
mistake which she made ought to be
a lesson to her. She should learn
from it that it is not safe for any
woman to put on trousers solely by
the light of nature, and that she has
no right to draw hasty conclusions
from mis- AIKEN premises.
Besides being uncomfortable,
Mrs. Swishelm insists that trousers
are ugly and mendacious. She says
that they make the male leg appear
as if it were of "cylindrical FORM"
and Gas thick at the ankle as above
the knee" !" and that they thus per.
vert the truth of anatomy. Here
the too reckless generalizer assumes
that all legs are precisely like the
legs of Mr.. Swishelm. Of what
other masculine legs can she pre-
tend to have any knowledge? How
does she, as respectable matron,
know that the average male leg is
not strictly cylindrical in form and
of uniform thickness throughout it's
entire length? Were a male writer
to make such statements as to the
pattern of the average female leg,
Mrs. Swishslm would be one of the
first to deny his right to speak upon
subject of which he could necessa-
rlly know nothing. Would she not
resent the assertion-were anyone
bold enough to make it-that her
personal legs are or are not cylindri-
cal in form? :? And yet, with a con-
fidence that is simply appalling she
undertakes to describe the character
of the typical male leg. How does
she know that the legs of the late
Mr.. Swishslm were not a sporadic
and unique pair, from which no con-
cluSions as to other mems legs can
be drawnP But, suppose that we
concede, for the sake of argument,
that she is right in saying that trous-
ers misrePresents the leg, does she
really mean to assert that the precise
shape of the male leg ought to be
publicly displayed by means of
close-ftting and transparent gar
LAeIlGS Ii So Sne, as an earnest ad-
VOcate for the equality of the sexes.
ought to insist that the same princi-
pal should apply to female dress. It
is all very well for her to express in
as strong terms as she can select. her
personal hatred of trousers, but she
has no right to lay down principle
which, if faithfully applied, would
compel her own sex to wear tight
fitting -, in fact would lead to re-
suits too terrific to be contemplated.
1t is impossible. to read this violent
and INSCRIPTIONS attack on, trousers
without perceiving that the writer IS
filled with rage. Doubtless, it is the
old story of love turned into hate.
Since that fatal afternoon when. in
the absence of the late Mr.. Swisbelm.
she possessed herself of his Sunday
trousers, and led away by a false
analogy based upon the fact that her
own dress was hooked up behind,
made the mistake in putting them
on which has already been mention
ed, she has hated the innocent gar
ment with bitterness that words
cannot express. This is, perhaps,
natural, but it is unworthy of a wo,
man who aspires to be leading re-