Semi-weekly herald., 1913-08-14

feminism by revealing to greater or
less degree those features which dis
tinguish them from the opposite sex.
In other words, the latter are garb-
ing themselves in the manner which
their experience indicates is most al
luring-the gown that delicately sug-
gests what is conceals, the soft,
swishy, translucent fabrics that are so
effective in assisting the imagination.
I This view is upheld by one of Lon
don's foremost nerve specialists who
declares: While many women fol-
low the fashion of the moment with
out thought, militancy has done
more than its authors suspect to upset
the former delicate relations between
the sexes. The adoption by the mill
tants of masculine or near masculine
attire has caused reaction, and the
-militants have thought it their
duty to proclaim their femininity by
wholesale process of undressing"
Lucille" (Lady Duff Gordon
writing from Paris, refuses to believe
that the situation in London is as bad
as it has been represented. "If there
is suggestion of immodestry," she
says, "it is because fat and ugly wo-
men have been wearing dresses which
do not suit them. None of the best
people tolerate the exaggerated slash
ed skirt, but some daring women like
daring costumes, the gracefulness and
modestry of which depend entirely on
the physique of the wearer."
Anna Pavlova, the famous Russian
dancer (who has sometimes been ac-
cused of too great u fondness for ''un-
dressing"), supports "Lucile." $50
much depends on the wearer," she
says. What suits one woman will not
suit another, and slash four inches
above the ankles might he charming
in one woman and almost indecent in
another"
Lady Alexander, wife of EngIand's
great actor-manager, defends the abo-
lition of the petticoat by saying:
What does it matter what we do or
don't wear under our dresses so long
as we look nice? Wearing fewer
clothes is much more healthy than a
lot of trailing pettioats to pick up dirt
and microbes"
In the furious public discussion of
the subject, an unusual note, for a
minister of the gospel is struck by
Rev. C. H. Grundy (no relation to
the gossipy old lady of the same
name), who sees nothing immoral in
present day dress 81 think it is quite
as much matter of liberty of limbs
as for the sake of display" he said.
at is an athletic instinct, not an i'm
moral one. l look upon clothes as the
badge of our disgrace. The ideal
would be to have no clothes"
Another who holds similar views is
Laurence Housman, author-poet, who
recently startled folks by advising
the militant suffragettes to emulate
Lady Godiva and shame men into Civ
ing them the vote.
"As to the question of present day
Dress" he said, at is rather startling
charge. / think, however, that the
present vogue is in way to the good.
1t has got rid of a certain amount
of superfluous skirts which con only
impede women's legs. No doubt trans
parent stockings are allurements, but
if we are not shocked by evening dress
exposures of neck and bust in the
ballroom, why should we be shocked
by minor exposures of the lower limbs
in the streets? When you get right
down to it, these technicalities of
dress we adhere TO are ridiculous and
absurd. Nobody in England considers
it indecent for holiday-maker to
bunch her skirts and wade at the sea-
side, but she would not be tolerated
in Oxford street. Let us be consist
ent Why should not women display
as much of their figure from the feet
up, as they do from the head down :?
| A bare arm-naked to the shoulder
is not indecent. Why then should a
stockinged leg be indecent? The only
answer is, those idiotic technicalities
of conventional dress"