The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1918-03-15

and in the ''feminne' garments which she declares
men prefer all women to wear.
This distinguished and delightful lady OF our
Newspaper Enterprise association has started a
discussion which certainly is full OF fierce POSI-
bilities. Thousands of manly men will surely ar
que over the above caption and such things as the
following, from Mrs. Gbsons article on her wear
ing of this Red Cross uniform:
"I could, with fashions full consent and
the approval of the world, take oft or put
on anything in the way Of clothes, II by so
doing plainly showed that was asking
the admiration of men purely because was
woman"
1T is only when come home that find
how my countrymen-the boosted, chiva-
r0us American men-lOok upon a woman
who is supposedly dressing for something
beside alluring their tickle fancy"
81 have found, however, that when
woman puts on dress that is perfectly
suitable for her work there will be men
who will resent it because it silently tells
them that the women who wear it are on
business and not on them INTENT
It's warm indictment of men based upon the
folly and weakness of some men, and we have to
resent the impeachment of the chvalry of Amerl-
can men, at least.
Moreover, it is not men but women who intro
duce and fix feminine fashions Of attire. Mrs.
Gibson knows, as does every other woman, that
should she establish the Red Cross or any other
uniform, as 'the thing there aren't men enough
between New York and Frisco, Duluth and Key
West to stop it, by any means short of bloodshed.
Is it wholly fact, too, that women dress for
men, that they put on or take off anything, If
by so doing they plainly show that they are ask
ing the admiration of men? We certainly have
met thousands of women who dressed simply with
regard to what other women wore, and several
hundreds solely in order to go the other women
one better. Wereca no instance whatever where
the women were talking about dressing to the
taste of men.
And look at the pictures Of the lady, above
given! The one is of the lady in her supposedly
most captivating ATTIRE the other is of her in her
Red Cross uniform, alleged to be provocative Of
the non-chivalry Of American men. Really, Solo,
mon himself could not decide which is the more
captivating to men of the general rum but when
it comes to men Of intelligence and discernment,
there's no room for questionable uniformed lady
at once puts the other in shadow, not to say OBJ
livon. All over the picture Of the lady in social
function attire is written "Captivation," which,
throughout the female world, means lure pre-
tense camouflage, an offering Of charms and quail
tiles which are not for purpose at which the
male of the species has got to guess. The laces,
the fair neck, the smooth powdered 60 cheeks,
the inviting eyes all say "Im after you," and men
VINO think before choosing turn to the lady in uni
form, the woman all wool and yard wide, the
worker happy in her work, the whole soued good
fellow whose picture procaims, "I'm genuine. I'm
doing noble work. I'm dressing to help it along
and don't care cuss what the men open to cap
ture by laces short Skirts low necks, James and
such Think"