The Washington times., 1913-07-20
nILITANTS BLAMED
FOR VICIOUS DRESSES
Non-Sympathizers Use Every
Means in Power to Empha-
size Their Femininity.

LONDON, July 2O-Now it is the
woman's suffrage movement that is
blamed for what is termed the ''un-
dress craze" in modern feminine fash
ions. A vehement indictment of the
present tendency in styles is made
in the Times by a woman correspon-
dent. who says that her sex is guilty
OF an orgy OF undressing, the end of
which is not in sight. She asks, in
fact:
cult to see. But obviously, when you
have gone on undressing 1t is certain
that in time you come TO the end of
only thing to do is to put on your
clothes again. But nobody can fore
see when that happy hour OF sanity
will be with U.S.
Dressmakers generally confirm the
statement about women wearing less
than ever. One says that two schools
Of clients have to be Considered-the
dignified and the daring The former
is the larger. The daring costumes,
says the authority. are much loved by
Americans, but do not appeal to the
great majority of English women.
Ingenious Tracing.
The theory upon which the prevailing
fashions in dress is traced to the mill
tants' campaign is ingenious.
Most women, of course says
nerve specialist of repute, follow the
fashion of the moment without
thought but underlying the present
craze for undressing is the desire to
emphasize feminism. Militancy has
done more than its authors possibly
suspect to upset the former delicate re-
ladons of the sexes. The militants as
sert that they have the rights ana
privileges of men. Many OF them make
their costumes approximate the attire
of men-a severely plain tweed skirt,
a blouse and tie; solid, serviceable
boots, and even an imitation OF the
unadorned felt hat, so that many or
them look almost like men.
The consequence is that the women
who have no sympathy with their ideals
and methods have been led to lay stress
on points which distinguish them from
the other sex. They seek to attire
themselves in the manner which their
experience indicates as most .allurlng-
a gown which deliCately suggests what
it conceals and soft, clinging fabrics
which outline the curves Of the body"
No More Chivalry.
Another medical authority says:
Women have now to rely upon their
personal attractions more than ever.
They are ruled out of consideration on
the question Of chivalry, which at one
time was as big an asset to them as
were their charms. Man is no longer
called upon now for chivalry. because
woman has disputed every inch Of his
domain.
The present dress movement in this
country is one of exaggerations in the
expression of freedom asserted by all
women, but the essence of the move
ment is evolutionary. not revolution
ary."
Stin another solution is offered by a
correspondent, who asks:
rOfi women nowadays, fOr the
most part and no doubt unconsciously,
engaged in an extensive advertising
, calnpaign with the object Of reYiYing
the fading interest of the male?'
DRESS which involves such incursions
into the realms of modesty and re-
straint must have some deeper cause
than the mere desire for noveity ana
artistic effect
In regard to the diaphanous gowns,
the Times sSSs:
'"what is patent to the least observ-
ant nowadays is that women wear al
most nothing under their gowns. even
in the daytime. Pettcoats went some
time back, and were replaced by tights
or were not replaced. Stockings are OF
such diaphanous silk as to embarrass
the beholder, who sees even in the
street so much of them-and they are
not covered by any but court shoes.
$50 much for the foundation. Over
this is worn a filmy sheath Of half
transparent material, cut almost as low
in the day as at night, and with such
slashings and fittings in TIE skirt as
fully to display the leg half way up tC
:he knee.
"The story is going the round of Paris
in which 1t is told that an English
woman was offered a dress with the fol-
lowing inducement to tempt her
Madame will be satisfied with this
dress, for in putting rose colored ribbon