Immodesty of Modern Women

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 602, 2 March 1929, Page 23

Immodesty of Modern Women

Every Age Has Its Fashionable Foibles —

Much the Same To -Day as Yesterday

Amid all the vicissitudes and changes of this mortal life, it is comforting to reflect that there are certain things that recur with almost monotonous regularity—as, for instance, Bank Holidays and plum pudding at Christmas. Into this category must also be placed the attacks that are launched from time to time by eminent dignitaries of the Church against the alleged immodesty of modern women. One of the latest offensives of this kind is embodied in a proclamation by the Vatican of the virtues of the

and thirteenth centuries) their shoulders, neck, and head were covered by those most modest of all fashions, the wimple. Yet from all accounts their morals often left a great deal to be desired, while their manners were quite astoundingly free and easy. Wasp-waisted To take another example, the tightwaisted, low-bodiced, very feminine modes of the eighteenth century might be supposed to express the character of the pleasure-loving and licentious age. If that is the case, why then did our prim Early Victorian grandmamas also pinch in their waists, and deck themselves in seductive frills and laces, and wear a decolletage in the evenings that their present-day descendants would hardly dare to imitate? What, in fact, constitutes modesty or immodesty in dress? Were the wasp-waisted unhygienic, figure-revealing fashions of the nineties particularly modest, and if so, for what reason. Why was the word “indecent” ever applied to our simple, comfortable, rather unexciting garments of to-day? Personally I should have thought that the typical frock, or jumper and skirt of the moment, was essentially

modest, lending as it does an air of almost childish immaturity to fully grown young women. Probably the gallants of the Restoration or of the Eighteenth century, -were they able to express an opinion, would also consider them decidedly unalluring. Puzzled True, modern fashions have revealed the feminine leg for the first time in sartorial history, but surely the impropriety of legs as such lies entirely in the imagination of the beholder! Peasant women, for convenience’s sake, have worn short skirts for centuries without anyone suggesting that they were “doing everything to destroy in themselves purity, modesty, and chastity.” No, I admit that the more I think about it the more puzzled I become. I am sure that we are all bored to the point of nausea of having such trivial accompaniments of contemporary life as cigarettes, cockstails, night clubs, freedom of speech, and so on, brandished in our faces as conclusive evidence of the depravity of modern women. Cigarettes may be bad for the complexion or the finger nails, but they are not necessarily incompatible with

Venerable Paola Frassinetti, foundress of the Sisters of St. Dorothea (says Miss Magdalen Iving-Hall in the “Daily Mirror”), and reads as follows: "Woman appears to be doing everything to destroy in herself those characteristics that make her beautiful

above everything else —namely, mod- I esty, chastity, and purity.” Modes and Morals

At first sight this seems to be rather a sweeping statement, to put it mildly! Is it to be taken as meaning that the

standard of morality among women is lower at the present day than it has ever been before? Surely not! Every period of history has had its

Venerable Paola Frassinettis, and also, sad to say, its ladies of another } calibre.

! One can only conclude, then .that j this particular criticism is directed not so much against the morals of | modern women as against their matt- ! ners and modes—particularly their i modes, short skirts, sleeveless dresses, | short hair, and all the rest of it. There is a prevalent belief that the character of a period can be judged by its costume. Perhaps this is true to a certain extent, but, like all theories, it is liable to break down at moments.

! In the Middle Ages, for instance. | women never, even in the evening, exi posed their bare arms, their dresses 1 were anlcle-length. and (in the twelfth

modest behaviour, while one may dance the Charlston and yet retain one’s virtue.

A NEW SOCIETY i INFALLIBLE TESTS FOR \ ENGAGED COUPLES ( la these days when men marry at \ leisure and repent at work a new so- ff ciety, which, I hear, has been formed \ by a number of young gii'ls, strikes me ft as quite a good idea. '* “Maids Who Wish to be Happy in | Marriage” is the name of the society, 'j and when a man becomes engaged to n a member the rest proceed to test him j , by trying to tempt him into flirtations. ([ He is only recognised as “good for , marriage” if he resists. (| But why stop at flirtations? After all, i the ability to refrain from flirting is (f not the only test of a good husband. j Surely a shopping test should be in- ! eluded? The engaged girl, accompanied by / at least two other members of the so- i’ ciety, should take her fiance shop- ) ping .. . and she should have nothing If sent! More than two grumbles or 4

The young man should be left waiting in the hall, where he can be secretly observed by a member of the

the dropping of three parcels would prove the man unfit as a husband.

Then a “Won’t be a minute” test should be made.

Every age, in fact, has its fashioni able foibles, which are indulged in by ■ the’ more daring spirits, and in this respect we are not better and no I worse than our ancestresses. Anne I Boleyn, so I read somewhere, drank ' a tankard of ale every morning for breakfast. The modern lady of fashion prefers a cocktail before din- ! ter. French Ladies i The ladies of the French court sat ] j on a balcony of Amboise Castle and watched the Huguenoas being mas- j sacred below. We would rather j watch slow horses racing. From all of which one may con- j elude that everything is very much the same as it used to be. AN ENGAGEMENT The engagement is announced of Edna Vivienne, only daughter of Mr. J. A. Graham, Mt. Albert Road, Mt. Albert, to Cyril John, elder son of | Mr. and Mrs. Alfred Baker, Kohima- j rama.

society, while his fiancee goes upstairs to prepare herself for going out. If he shows signs of impatience after a quarter of an hour he is “doubtful,” and downright impatience at the end of twenty minutes, puts him right out of the running.

Of course there are lots of other tests that could be applied, but no man can be expected to be absolutely perfect, and if he can pass those already mentioned he should not be at all a bad matrimonial investment. But suppose the men retaliate? After all there is no real reason why they should not want to protect themselves. The flirtation test would, of course, apply both ways, and there might be added a “No making up in public” test. Then there is tlje all important question of neckwear, and mere man would do well to carry out a “tie” test before he answers the parson in the affirmative. The man should take his fiancee for a walk in a district where there are plenty of gentlemen's outfitters. If the girl goes into raptures over a weaver’s error in salmon pink with puce spots, or shows a marked liking for knitted atrocities in pale chrome with burnt umber zig-zags when he had better give the matter very careful consideration. But if the girl passes his test satisfactorily he might try how she reacts when passing a millinery establishment ... if indeed she passes it at all. Still why continue? Only let the girls remember one thing—-they started