The Washington times., 1933-09-15

European metropolis" dos of them Lee, are not good
aGtresseS Most women" he says, are, Of course,
physically as ugly most men,
And he counts the great mistakes of era the
stralghtme frock and the kneehigh skirt. If he
communist he could doubt find the economic explana-
uon OF both without theory, he ought to be
Vnced that the short skirt the farep of the emanc
patton OF women the direct result of the Nineteenth Amend
ment.
All Wrong, Lee;
And for the Simonsonian heresy. eff is to
dress successfully she must first become of her body
and acquire objective of its particular shortcom
Having learned to wear style with assurance by
cuItvatmg their bodies American begin to cut
vate their own personalities For the ability to be in
fashion depends less ability believe in the
rent fashion than in ability to believe in oneself
This is wrongheaded as it can be and is made no
better by the witty remark that 'he soaed weldressed
American woman too often in hafmournng for her
lost Individuality" For only being in fashion, but
being wedressed virtually demand that you stop thinking
about your personality The delight afforded by the great
dressmakers that they entirely annhate the personality
Of the wearer and to large extent annhilate the pys
cal oddities of the wearer-creating objecwithcothes
on, which object is agreeable to the sight.
Mrs. MiIIer's BIoomers
do not know where the foul idea sprang from, that
clothes ought to express the personality of the they
should express only the artistic aims of the designer
don't know who discovered that personality" is
important that It be expressed in clothes suspect
that Mrs. Miller who invented the boomers which Mrs.
Amelia Boomer and made famous) had something to
90 with It, But the whole argument strikes me as being
dangerous extension of the Lucy Stone principle Dangerous
because 1t hardly matters what married called,
but it matters lot what she
For the professional girl, uniform is proposed, and
the whole argument for personality is
crushed when Lee admits that 'he very monotony and
severity of uniform is fattering to the where
individuality cannot be carefully defined it far
successfully out of frank conformity The fascina
tion which soldiers policemen and hospital exert
when in uniform, and rarely exert out OF it, is
proverbial Precisely. Because the uniform pleasing
design in itself and does attempt to express any ind
vduality.
Unimportant Expressions
I am arguing for the right of women to the
latest styles when those styles happen to make them look
hdeous There heads which resist dnky wooen berets
and bodies which disappear under Hopping Gansborough
hats All object is the freedom Of to choose
what they think right for themselves without consulting
the feelings of millions of who may pass them in the
street. It them that decent respect.
We are the ones who suffer when begin to
baggy baks expressing Heaven knows what in the
sonay ine). The suffering would be great if love-
slave f that's the name) expressed her personality by
wearing hobbe skirt The only the hobbe skirt
fad after seeing thousand times you don notice it,
"Most women are physically ugly men, says
our reormer Let him go step further and that the
personalities of women like those of most ought
not to be expressed in public They interesting only in
prvate relations and for the home (or nes
should be as and expressive possible But let
our streets offices and theaters and bathrooms not be
made for the expression of personality What we
want pretty Clothes prey worn, by women as pretty
as they make themselves.