MALE ATTIRE.

Hutt News, Volume 3, Issue 8, 17 July 1930, Page 2

MALE ATTIRE.

. (To the Editor). Sir,—lt appears inevitable that every once in a while some lady is prompted to write to the press in crrtiaal aiecd anent the abundance, ugliness, jitd superfluity of male attire. Your contributor of last week, undeT the rame of Joan Kennedy certainly soeius to have some ultra-peculiar ideas of what wouild constitute rational dress for mere man. iShe uses iher feminine prerogative and sublimely- ignores the prae tical side of the question, stating with fine disregard of the commonsense she deplores as lacking in man's attire that "•women can work in them—why not a man?" How delightful it would be to see the clerks in offices clad in silk knee-breeches, lace ruffles at the throat. and wrists, flowered waistcoats, and skirted coats of brocade; what aesthetic joys there would be in the manager and secretary rivalling their stenographers in multi-coloured confections. Or to see the Council labourers in a ditch along t&e Toadside making a vivid splash, of artistic colour against the landscape, with the foreman parading a la Mannequin in silken hose, feathered hat, and sweeping cloak. Or yet again, the engineers, daintily picking their way among the lathes, benches, easting furnaces, and cotton waste—

their legs encased in silk and satin instead of the ridiculous- drain-pipe effect of the working overall. And on the wh^rf, the waterside worker simper gracefully along the quays carrying cases, pushing .trucks, and driving cranes, their garments a blaze of colour, fcheir manly calves wrapped in artificial silk, fine kid gloves upon their hands, and their craniums protected from the sun and -storm by chapeux bedecked with feathers, and jewelled buckles. It would most assuredly Jend colour to the every,day iife and relieve the monotony of the drab greys, rusty blues and blacks, and dark browns so

common noiw'-a-days,

Your contributor, sir, remarks that "it can't be t-liat men have no calves that they wear trousers." No, no; not at all. But, and this is just a suggestion, would it not be more pleasing to the eye, if some oi! the ladies who display so much ihose were to take.'a good look at their own calves and consider the advisability of relieving the woTld of the sig-b/t of something which could i not in the wildest realms of fancy ,be_ called "sightly." Being a mere man, and thus being sufficiently "animal" in my instincts, I can always admire a well rounded, 'highly perfected leg, if not perhaps in the impartial manner of viewing a noble work of nature, at least with the frank admiration of a connoisseur. But thero are some legs on view whic-li would-be far far better * kept hidden, and the blatant display of this heterogenous assortment of pedal extremities is something purely feminine,, and as purely illogical." If'motherswere to bring up their sons with a cultivated taste for colour and finery in their attire, it: would be encouraging the reincarnation of the genus 'prig,' tie "Eric—or Little By "Little" type of worm, so dearly beloved of the Early Victorian, the sweet "Little Lord Fauntleroy", preening himself in velvets and silks.

How truly did youT contributor write when she indited the;words that when a woman was looked at, she preened herself. The rest of the remark was purely feminine vanity, inasmuch as J the average woman is convinced that when a man looks at her lie is perforce admiring her. I may be different f rom other mcny though I do not think so, but as frequently as)l look with admiration at a woman, so do I look with amazement to think that she can imagine for one moment that she appears 'beautiful or attractive. Granted that the women have the" better of men in the choice of colours, materials, and flim'siness, it must be remembered that men have the 'greater amount of physical discomfort to combat in their daily work, and they dross accordingly. As for being mollycoddles, well, as Euclid would say in answer to tlhe ridiculously* obvious,"that is absurd." Your contributor becomes scathing in her drastic denouncements of the masculine evening dress. She exhausts the resources of vituperation .in her declarations against the absurdity of wearing a starched and collar, and would, if she felt inclined, defy contentions by wearing a "made" tie. How brave! ] Would s!he, I wonder, defy convention ] herself by wearing thick stockings with j full -evening dress, " if she felt like it " Maybe she would!

There have been all sorts .of "Rational Dress" movements for men in the last twenty years, brut they always seem to realise tiat the male attire as at present worn is quite adequate, and quite comfortable, and quite healtihy enough for all 3Kho are not arrant "cranks." Th e stiff "choker" collaT has given way to the soft, unstarched neglige collar, save in the matter of evening dress, T and personally, being as accustomed to evening dness as to a lounge suit, I have never felt uncomfortable in either. Nor «have I felt to ibe too heavily clad, and the simple expedient of following out American cousins in the matter of straight topped trousers with a belt, and no braces, ensures a man of being neat and not "undressed looking" should he discard his coat. A light one-piece suit of underwear is quite sufficient J:or the coldest day, and I have proved tiis definitely by wearing what is called the B.V.D (singlet and trunks combined, and only knee length and sleeveless) in the coldest of weather, where'it was fifty degrees below zero. But perhaps I am a mollycoddle and should haye1 discarded the "underwear completely: Maybe!

However, it is most gratifying to known that t&ere is one lady at least

who is sufficiently interested in men to eritieis-e thoir dress and suggest something fresh. Or perhaps lam mistaken, land she is merely endeavouring to assert the problematical superiority of women, •'by deriding the opposite sex in the only way a woman could choose.

It is a patent fact that women spend more thought on dress than anything else, and so tlhe criticism is easily explained. However it has one flaw, and that is, since women do devote more 'than half theii* time to the eont&mpla.-, tion of dress, and since the whole of that contemplation is about their own ! clothes, they are hardly in a position it-o offer, reaspnaible ideas and suggest. *ii<ras for the sartorial equipment of man. "But of course, Woman is unreasonable at all times, and I suppose that is why we men lovie her. At any rate, there are very few men who ever fall in. love with, the woman who wears Eational Dress, shirt-blouses masculine ties, flat sihoes, and apes tie man. On the other hand, a woman likes a man to ibe Manly, and the tailoT's dummy,; or the l' Cissio-.boy" is usually an object of scorn both to the ladies he seeks to impress, and- the men with whom •he comes in contact. What would happen if we were all to wear ruffles, laces, yelets, brocades, feathers, buckles, and all the rest of that paraphenalia, Heaven only knows, but it would surely be the beginning of the extreme degeneration of man.

So we just read these periodical outbursts of-1- feminize illogicality with, a kindly smile, and say, '' Well, well, they're at it "again." And then we forget it, and on out next visit to our tailor we do not ask for knee breeehtes, brocade coats, and silk stockings, but we carefully examine the materials to see wltieh will give us the longest wear, look the best when''made up' and which, will Tetain its decent, neat crease doiwn the abominable drain pipes which the sartorial expert calls ''trousers." In coneluson I would advise Joan Kennedy to read the book by Mr. Carlisle, wlhose title I shall borrow as a pseudenym, namely—SARTOR RESARTUS.