The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1895-06-07
YOUNG CHRISTIANS AND BLOOM
ERS.

The Young Mems Christian Associa-
sion the other day filed protest with the
Board of Supervisors Of San Francisco
against the wearing of boomers. It
asked the board to pass an ordinance pro-
hibiting the appearance of women on the
streets in boomers because such wearing
sis menace to good morals" Lord. how
tender are the young lambs of the asso-
citation. The bloomer we do not like;
the Syrian costume, for instance, with
notifications, is far preferable, more
graceful and comfortable But when
body of young men make asses of them
selves, by declaiming against the
bloomer, and ask that it be prohibited by
Law, we stand ready to defend the bloomer,
ungraceful and homely as we think it
is-but immoral, never.
This whole matter Is one of conven-
ton. These same young when they take
their outing in Europe are not morally
paralyzed as they see the peasant women
of Italy, Saxony. Belgium, France and Of
Europe generally, and in many places
the middle classes also, 60 about with
skirts but halfway below the knee, or
even shorter. They feel no moral wrench
when they see the best-dressed women Of
Europe on the streets in walking cos
TUNES that expose the ankles.
Why should the fact that a woman by
her costume proves that she has legs and
short skirts and has ankles and buttons
them neatly in high boots be an offense
to the young Christians of San Fran
cisco? If their moral sensibilities are SO
tender, why do they not petition for an
ordinance prohibiting women lifting their
skirts at crossings and exposing glimpses
of well-turned ankles and tidily-clad
feet?
What have the young men of the Chris
tian Association of San Francisco to do
with women's attire anyhow? So long
as woman is clad decently, and with pro-
priety, what right has any one to grum-
BILE, and wherein is there indecency or
improperly In the bloomer? Is it in the
fact that the last third of the lower limbs
are not enwrapped in cumbersome. I'M
healthful and entangling skirts? Just
what limit would the young Christians of
San Francisco fix where indecency be-
gins and decenoy ends in the length OF
skirts2 Will they insist that woman
must continue to drag her petticoats
through the filth of the walkways; or will
they concede that two inches between
skirt hem and the plane of the walk
would be proper, and hold three inches
of space to be immoral?
Has it never occurred to the Young
Christians of San Francisco that there is
unreasonable virtue in bloomer as
compared with costumery against which
they do not protest, and that is constant
professional upon the streets of the me-
tropolis, that is so close-ftting as to re-
veal every contour line of the female
body and make concealment of female
loneliness immoral by mere pretense OF
clothing it? Have these Young Chris
tians of San Francisco no protest against
the exposed bosoms and the lasciyious
dressing of the bust which is so common
on their streets?
How comes 1t that the bloomer in its
severity and LONELINESS, without the
suggestion of immodesty in it or about it.
80 shocks these young men when the
glove-fitting waists and the channels skin
undergrad permit the women of San
Francisco who choose to make exhibit
tions of themselves. to parade the streets
in practical nudity?
For shame, young Christians! There
is no law forbidding you to make fools
of yourselves, but you are guilty never
theless, and ought to be castigated over
the knee of the bloomers and with the
stoutest walking shoes they can strip
from their feet, and on the public high
way at that. If you have just learned,
dear young men, through the revelations
Of the bloomer that women have ankles