The Washington herald., 1916-01-21
AS SEEN BY A WASHINGTON WOMAN
COULD WE WEAR WOODEN
SHOESl

II soiucti1lcs sccIus as u II Ncie
easier for people to starve than to
change their standard OF living. As
suredly it is easier for many of them
to change their moral standards than
to modify their mode of living.
For instance take wooden shoes.
Wooden shoes are very much cheaper
than those of leather, and they have
the added advantage of wearing very
much longer. II you have worn them
only once at fancy dress dance or in
some benefit cabaret performance,
where you, perhaps, took part in a
Dutch dance, you may say that they
are uncomfortable. But that is only
because you are not used to them.
The muscles of your foot that you
bring into action in walking with
wooden shoes are somewhat different
from those you use in wearing the
conventional high-heeled leather
shoes. That is all. And a Dutch
peasant would have Just as much diff
ficulty in accustoming herself to your
shoes as you would in becoming used
10 hers. In either case it would be a
matter of but a few days.
If we wore wooden shoes and, in
stead of hats wore kerchiefs over our
heads the cost of living would be ma
tcrially reduced. 1t conceivsbly might
be that to the working girl the money
thus saved would make it possible for
her to make both ends meet on a
scanty wage, and, making both ends
meet, she would be saved from the
evils which, we are told, so frequently
result from an insufficient wage.
But it is preposterous, you say, even
to suggest such a means of economy.
Any individual girl who attempted it
would be subjected to so complete a
ridicule as to make her existence un-
bcarable.
But from Austria comes word that
many women and children are actual
Iy wearing wooden shoes instead Of
leather ones as a means of economy.
And after little practice they find
they can manage to walk and run and
jump in them quite as easily as in
those made OF more flexible material.
And of course the reason for this
change was entirely one of the pres
sure of hard times and actual want
caused by the war.
Assuredly it is a sign of high de-
gree of moral vigor and strength OF
character for these Austrian women
thus to be able to adapt themselves to
circumstances, and to curtail on an
apparently unimportant convention OF
iress rather than on any of the actual
necessities of existence.
OF course we don't bid our country
women to go and do likewise. Still
there is a moral in the story that we
might all take to heart to advantage.
And when wages or salaries or in
comes are inadeuate to exiqstence we
might frequently make curtailments in
matters of unesscntial conventions ot
dress before doing ourselves the in
Jury Of improper food or housing
Had many Of the working girls OF our
cities who arc, apparently, forced into
immoral lives through the inadequacy
OF wage the moral stamina Of these
Austrian women they might better
bide their time until legislation has
made impossible the payment OF these
inadequate wages.
Instead Of the flimsy lacey lingerie
that wears out in a short season, they
might save many dollars by wearing
plain, untrimmed muslin that wear:
four times as long. Instead OF hos
iery Of lacey transparency they might
wear cotton stockings that wear long
cr and cost less. Instead OF unsub,
stantial, fancy footwear, designed fol
women of leisure, they might wear
boots, inexpensive and durable. But
the spirit Of extravaganza is in the
. air and it would no doubt be as hare
TO make the proverbial bricks withou
straw as to separate the present-day
American working girl from her ex
travagsnt love for cheap 'hnery.
Word comes to us from Palm
Beach, where so many society womer
have foregsthered to avoid the chill
ing winds Of winter that quite the lat
est fad in needlework consists of max
ing "baby kits" The babies who re
ceive these kits are the war babies o