The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1910-02-14
THE USES OF LINGERIE.

The observing editor Of The Chicago
Inter Ocean became rather facetaous
in his comemnts on the recent address
of Miss A. L. Marlett at a Wisconsin
agricultural college on the subject of
Dress. The editor wrote:
Miss A. l.. Marlett of the home econ
omics department Of the University
OF Wisconsin declared against highly
artistic lingerie in a recent lecture.
She said that 1t was useless because
nobody saw it and wrong because IL
was the means Of enslaving the wo-
men who had to wash it.
Now, if we might be bold, we would
suggest that both of these are broad
statements. 1t seems TO us--that is to
say-in other words-weIl, to put 1t
briefly, these allegations remain to be
proved; the first just as much as the
last.
OF course it might not be lingerie
at all-what one occasionally notices
at the theatre when Mile. Clemence or
some other dancer comes out and
whirling to the enlivening strains of
the orchestra, takes the audience more
and more into her Eartorial confidence.
We don't say 1t Is, understand. But
many fair judges have been under the
impression for a long time that 1t is.
| And then--the rainy days. Miss
Marlett OF the home economies depart
ment no doubt knows as much about
rainy days, wet overhead and slushy
under foot, as anybody. Possibly she
has made a special study OF them. We
rather infer she has. Certainly one
would be very rash to maintain that
artistic lingerie was born to blush I'M
seen and waste its beauty on the sight
less air without having carefully con-
sidered rainy days.
Yet in spite of her authority, we
really must say--it is no more than
| right to say, in fact-that many per-
! sons making different crossings in
slushy weather and keeping their eyes
carefully cast down to avoid slipping
have reached a conclusion directly con-
tradicting the official opinion of the
department Of home economics at Wis
consin university.
We know, of course, that the evil
dence of the senses is often deceitfui,
that the human mind is prone to illus
ions, that we often see the things that
are not and overlook the things that
are. But when all allowances are made,
it is difficult-we say this with ad-
mitted respect--it 10 difficult to ignore
the evidence of so many persons on
this point.
We might also consider windy days
but the evidence would be merely cum
uIative. without this, we trust we
have said enough to suggest that II
the charge OF the uselessness of decor
alive lingerie rests on nothing but the
assumption OF it's invisibility, gener-
ally speaking, II cannot, in the present
state of scientific knowledge, be wholly
sustained
However even IL we admit there 1!
nothing in the considerations we have
shrinkingly suggested, the fact remaint
that the woman sees the decorative
lingerie herself. That would seem N
be enough to justify it. For was 4
not written by Herr Diogenes Teufels
droesckh in his memorable work Oh
Clothes that woman dresses outward
ly to please men, to adorn society, Il
render women jealous, but innerly I,
please herself? And is she not entitled
to this pleasure?
! AS to the second charge that decorat
! ed lingerie enslaves the women VIII,
wash it, is 1t not enough to say tina
the bin presented by a first class wash
3 erwoman for washing a very fragil
8 and lacelilxe undergarment suggest
> anything rather than slavery; unless
indeed, slavery be consistent with TIL
collection and possession OF large sum
9 OF money?