The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1895-12-21
Rational Dress.

Bv LADY COOK, nee TENNESSEE CLAFLIN
The souls of the "unco' guild" are
much exercised just now because of
some recent developments in woman's
dress. Female vanity and fondness
of change of attire have at all times
sorely tried their pious spirits. 1t
would almost seem that Providence
has especially provided these crosses
for their behoof, else where would be
the occupation of that numerous class
"who've naugnt to do but mark and
tell their neebor's faults and folly.
And SO from remote times, changes of
fashions, especially female fashions,
have been the cause of many prayers
and wrestlings, denounced from
pulpits and the butts of secular scott
and ridicule. Some years ago hand
some, accomplished, and well dressed
young lady-an intimate friend of ours
-causally passing the open door of
rural Bethel about mile to two from
Penzoance, ventured to enter. Her
fashionable appearance in such a spot
caused general sensation. The "ocal
preacher" halted in the midst of his
rustic eloquence, and gazed for few
moments at the lovely vision. Then
thrGsting Satan behind him with one
hand, his heart boiling with holy wrath
he extended the other, and pointing to
the delicate veil which flowed over her
luXuriant tresses, shouted in stentorian
tones and with an air of apostolic
fervor, Take off that hell-rag" If a
mere veil could have produced such
rude outburst of dissenting zeal, what
would he have said had she entered in
cycling knickerbockers? Our young
friend left the chapel of this later-day
Boanerges more rapidly than she
entered 1t, and with the visible sympa-
thy of the surprised congregation-fo
the Cornish are remarkable for their
gentle and unobtrusive politeness
Neverthe less, his character as a severe
and fearless denOunCer of pomp and
vanities va. thoroughly established
This reformer must have numerous
relatives in Chicago, for we under
stand that women are arrested by the
police,if they appear in public in
knickerbockers. And we have many
who would welcome a similar course
here. Some newspaper correspond
! ents suggest it by saying that If they
were to go about in their wives clothes
| they would be locked up. This is no
/ doubt true. But then the ladies do not
| wear their husband 3 clothes, but their
own, made especially for themselves.
| There is no pretence whatever to pose
as males, and no one is deceived as to
their sex. Therefore the whole ques-
, ton resolves itself into one of taste and
| convenience. If a lady feels that she
/ can cycle with less danger and more
| ease without 4 skirt than with one,
what moral right has anyone to inter
/ fere so long as she preserves her sex
| distinctly. How would man like to be
) compelled to run and ride in petiCoats?
! Or why should women be denied the
| free play of their limbs, or even the
admiration due to well-turned pair?
AS Robert Burns wrote on The Rights
of Women:
For right the third. our last, our best,
our dearest,
That right to fluttering female hearts
the nearest,
Which even the Rights of Kings in low
prostration
Must humbly own-'tis dear dear
admiratiopn'
1t is urged that it is an indecency for
women to sit astride. We ask VIII, ?
Until Good Queen Annie" introduced
the side-saddle, the women of England
always rode horseback astride like the
men, as The women of many countries
do to the present day. Physiologically
considered, perhaps it would be filter,
If a distinction must be made, for men
to use side-saddles and women the
others. 1t is nonsense to connect i'm
mortality with either mode, as it is
simply matter OF custom, and when
, the novelty Of seeing woman astride