New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1919-12-21

en- should not wear corsets, because
/ do not believe that many women
who arrive at the age Of forty or
fifty and have had children can pre-
serve the fine lines that nature in
tended them to have unless they
wear well-ftting stays.
"Nor do believe that high heels
should be abandoned entirely, but
they should not be worn too high"
Having said this much about
women, Dr. Jefferis turned her at
tention to the men, who she says,
are not entirely blameless for the
conduct Of women.
"If 1t is true that women sometimes
show bad taste, it is also true that
II more men appreciated the right
kind Of attire and had better IN
derstanding Of what is modish and
smart we'd have better dressed
women" she declared, alphabetically.
DR.. JefYries is not the only one
who believes that men are partly,
If not entirely, to blame for the
kind Of clothes worn by women,
some even going so far as to accuse
them OF deliberate inconsistency in
their attitude on the subject. If 1t
is true that women dress exclu-
sively to please and attract men,
why is it, they ask, that, although
feminine attire has passed through
all the possible phases, from the
simplest to the most extravaxant,
it has never in history found
universal approval in the male
mind? Aren't these constant attacks
merely demonstration Of the cage
long truth" that men want to keep
their women "subdued" and are
continuing their criticisms as a
method Of accomplishing their ends?
Dress Due to Jealousy
Sylvia II. Bliss, a noted writer on
things feminine, significantly calls
attention to the fact that "some in
yostigators" have found that "the
jealousy of husbands" is entirely re-
sponsible Tor the origin of clothes.
and that men and not women are.
therefore, really responsible for
what is worn. Havelock Ellis. the
psychologist, contends that It was
man who first wore clothes. and
others, accepting this theory, argue
that any evils that have resulted
from the practice are, therefore, at
trlbutable to the men and not to the
women.
Yet consider for a moment, cry
these champions Of the extravagant
and the extreme, what men have
said throughout the centuries!
Two thousand years ago, or
thereabouts, the Apostle Paul found
1t necessary to caution women to
'adorn themselves with shame
facedness and sobriety," although In
that period the fashions, compared
with to-day, were severely re-
stricted.
In 1892, when tho styles may be
said to have been the exact oppo-
site of what they are now, tending
toward too much dress instead of
toward too little, DR.. Walter
Vaughan, famous author, launched
2 scathing indictment of the things
being worn. He denounced the ex-
travagance Of the women, comment
ing on the "audacity and folly of
those who are always intent on al
tering their shape and appearance,
as if any deformity which is the
capriciousness Of the age could be
more becoming and delightful than
the works Of our omnipotent
Creator"
Hundreds Of other critics before
and since Dr.. Vaughan have written
and said similar things.
"And now that we have got
beyond the folly Of altering our
shape and appearance and are 60
ing about, as you may say. IN d
more natural state, we are as
severely criticised as BEFORE" COM
planned New York woman who be-
lieves in the fashions. "You may
see from this that there Is no pleas
ing the men, or, at least, in inducing
them to admit it.
eco back through all history and
you will find this true.
when we covered our bodies with
Hreccec which b,pr - - .+~.;~L<