A Menace to American Girlhood
By Mary Alice Hare Loper
Fashions That Menace Morals — Will American Mothers Be Aroused? By Mary Alice Hare Loper, M. S. The god of fashion puts forth strenuous efforts to rule over men and women, regardless of age, occupation, or character; and it is to be deplored that his efforts receive such substantial support as they do from all classes of society. Never Such Coarse Criticism
The trend of feminine fashions during recent years has clearly demonstrated that an additional effort is being made to destroy the divine standard of morals. The vulgar styles have caused thinking minds to pause, and consider the legitimate consequences that are sure to follow such marked departures from the divine path of modesty and purity. Never before have the women and girls of America been subjected to such coarse, low criticism as has been heaped upon them by men of all classes; and evidently there is a reason for it. A man who is not given to profanity, said recently, “There is nothing that comes nearer to making a good man swear with disgust, than the travesty on decent clothing seen frequently on our city streets the past few years.” It goes without saying that the better class of men are unanimous in their condemnation of freak fashions, which place the womanhood of America in a very undesirable light, and which afford just cause for ridicule. The Best of Paris Rejects It
American women have aped Paris fashions — fashions which Parisian women themselves who respect good morals and a spotless name, have frowned upon. It matters not how inconvenient a style may be, or how absurd it may appear at first, the shock soon subsides, and the living fashion plates appear in all their hideousness. “The daughters of Zion are haughty, . . . walking and mincing as they go.” Isa. 3: 16. If half a century ago a woman had appeared on our city streets arrayed in a “hobble skirt,” a “slit skirt,” or an “X-ray gown,” it is certain the impression would have been extraordinary; and she probably would have been interviewed officially for the purpose of ascertaining her mental status. We breathe a sigh of relief at the passing of such questionable attire, but it is with a recollection of the saying so often applicable, “The worst is yet to come.” It is surely marvelous with what rapidity the kaleidoscope of fashion revolves, and what unheard-of combinations it reveals, rivaling or surpassing some of those of the mythical goddesses of the ancient world. The story of the woman who entered a millinery establishment to procure a hat of the latest style, and was told to please be seated, as the styles were just changing, is not far from the truth, after all. The hobble skirt and the slit skirt are entirely out of date now, while the woman who does her own ironing is again confronted with starched petticoats and wide dress skirts — no telling how wide they will be when the limit is reached. At one time, hats resemble “round tires like the moon” (Isa. 3: 18), encroaching upon space which justly belongs to others; at another time, they are so contracted as to be neither useful nor ornamental. At one time, the trimming suggests a flagpole, placed perpendicularly in front; at another time, it must assume the same position in the back, or perhaps be placed horizontally, describing the arc of a circle with every movement of the head. Sometimes a side trimming is the only thing strictly up to date; and it is very important (?) that it be perpendicular at one time, horizontal at another, or perhaps at an angle of forty-five degrees either above or below the horizontal plane of attachment. And the variations in color are as marked as is their adjustment, no two consecutive seasons admitting of the same predominating colors or shades. And what is true of hats is more or less true of the entire costume—change, change, change, bringing hardship to those who are unable financially to meet the unjust demands, and calling for an outlay of means that ought to be used for a better purpose. The great Creator clothes nature the best possible from the standpoint of beauty, and of service to man and the lower animals. Nature wears her robe of white in winter, and of green in summer, with artistic touches of color here and there to beautify the landscape. As the cycles come and go, we never tire of the snowy white, the living green, and the exquisite beauty manifested differently in every tree, shrub, and flower, each preserving its own individuality. Nature’s robes change with the changing seasons, but those of one year closely resemble those of another. How would poor Dame Nature look if the god of fashion had the designing of her robes? No doubt he would spring some startling changes, which would come as a distinct shock to our sensibilities. Think of X-ray earth, revealing the outlines of roots and worms beneath the surface! Think of king blue trees, with burnt orange grass and cerise flowers; or seal brown trees, with Roman-striped grass and black and white flowers! Moreover, the trees might assume a variety of shapes at different seasons of the year. For example, the graceful weeping willow might be made occasionally to turn its branches upward, resembling an inverted umbrella on a windy day. The stately poplar might grow its branches horizontally for a change, or perhaps downward close about the trunk. Now, all this sounds supremely ridiculous; but it is on a par with the late X-ray gown, and the monstrous “rats” and “waistfalls,” the “camel’s humps” and “kangaroo shapes,” that died years ago,—but which may yet have an unwelcome resurrection,—and the “wig-to-correspond-with-gown” idea of the present day. The individual who admires a woman’s tresses nowadays, may find, the next time he meets her, that her lovely brown hair has given place to a decided scarlet or purple, a sky-blue or delicate green. Then, too, the waist line is placed by the Creator just where it properly belongs, its location and size varying to suit the symmetrical outline of each individual. But the god of fashion decrees when everybody’s waist line shall be large or small, high or low, or lose its identity entirely. Recently so little clothing was worn below the waist, that the outline of the body beneath it was discernible with every step. At this minute, while there is an increase in clothing below the waist, there is a decided decrease above. Persons familiar with mountain scenery are well acquainted with the term “timber line,” above which no trees are visible. Just now, the apparel of woman seems to have reached a definite clothing line, above which little or no covering is required. A few years ago, fashion demanded so much material for sleeves that the remainder of the waist was of minor importance. Now no sleeve at all is required on reception and9evening gowns, and only a rudimentary waist, visible as far as the armpits, with delicate straps over the shoulders — décolleté plus! All these things and many more demonstrate beyond a doubt that the god of fashion is surely seeking to lower the standard of morality. It suits his purpose just as well to have evil suggestions couched in scant waists as in scant skirts. Immodest apparel paves the way for immodest actions; and many a young girl goes the downward way and is lost in the whirlpool of wickedness, because of imitating the example of—it may be church members, and thus gratifying the desire to be considered fashionable. No one in poor circumstances can keep pace with the ever changing fashions, and at the same time keep the soul spotless. Herein lies the sequel to many a divorce story and many a ruined business enterprise. Nor are moral pollution, ruined homes, and financial failures the only results of vulgar and extravagant fashions. Many a precious life is sacrificed upon the altar of unhealthful dress. Schoolgirls easily fall a prey to the deadly ravages of disease following the practice of wearing low necks, short sleeves, thin underwear, gauze hosiery, slippers, and, even in chilly weather, perhaps no hat or wrap. Again, we see the living—dying—paradox of a heavy winter wrap with nothing over the long V-shaped exposure of the neck, except, perhaps a dainty lavaliere. It does not affect the health of humanity for the goddesses of mythology to be represented in a nude or seminude condition; but for living beings to dress contrary to all the laws of health, is supreme folly. May American mothers come to the rescue of those who are seeking to raise the standard of dress in regard to health and morals. Let them teach their daughters that style is secondary to health; that “modest apparel” (1 Tim. 2: 9) is necessary to the enjoyment of a true character. Let the demand for respectable styles of ready-made wear, which has already been voiced by leading women of our country, be increased until garment makers are convinced that success in their business depends upon the production of garments that harmonize with decency and morality.