DIVIDED SKIRTS.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 4, Issue 1026, 18 March 1882, Page 2 (Supplement)

DIVIDED SKIRTS.

(From the New Yorti, Times,) 1 This generation has long been aware of the existence of alleged women who insist that it is the right.and .duty of the.sex to wear trousers, Tnese provisional dress reformers have, lioWever, made Wry few converts to their cause. Their arguments have not satisfied other women, lor the latter have pre. fetred to be atUabtive in skirts rather than ridiculous in trousers. There has always been a suspicion that the true. reason why dress reformers clamour for trousers |s their know, ledge'that they cannot make themselves attractive in skirts, no matter how pretty their skirts may be, When, i however, they'put on trousers they are sure to be looked at by men; : and holding with Mr. Tennyson'that j " 'Tis belter to have lookeel and laughed | Than never to liaye looked at nil, . they prefer men should .look and laugh, 'at them, rather than that' they should pass ! through the street without drawing a single masculine glance, • i Meanwhile, women generally tmve by deIgreea adopted ; .men's clothing so far as the region, above the belt, is concerned, .They :|wear " derby " hats'pndistinguishable from j j the hats'of jhe other sex, They wear ijmasculiiie cpllars around' their necksj inascu* 'line pistcoats. where waistcoats usually jbel6rig t .'ancl masculine and ulsters,', isligh'tly extended, ?s to skirts,. so as to con-, form to tHe exigencies of the feminine hips, In this gradual adoption,, ogarments, once !the exclusive property, of men,, there has been no pretence of dress reform; The presumably fair creatures who wear men's hats and coats: do so avowedly as a matter of taste, and not of duty.. While the true dress reformer , maintains the > physical welfare of. the human racb, and the success of free government and the Chtisiidh religion, are involved in .the trousers which she insists upon wearing, her mbre frivolous sister has no otlier reason for encasing herself from the waist upwards in Vnasculiue clothes than that "it is the fashion," ' ;

'To ( tH; thdiightful student of tendencies and development it lias long been obvious that the jfe'rhaje belt could npt permanently arrest the te'ndei.cy towards a'complete adoption of all j masculine garments, Sooner or later the ' skiit must give way to the trousers, just as the old-fashioned;" waist" hooked up behind .has given way to the' Waistcoat' and Newmarket' coat. " Wljat the dress reformers could not Rccb'm'plistfas a great rrioral reform is sure to be accomplished irt' accordance with'the'dic tales of fashion. The belt, which fur several years has proved a barrier to the downward development of masculine diess amo'iy women, has, at last, given way, and we are told that, women wearing what is called the " divided skirt" are now frequently, niet on {he most fashionable London promenades. The'^ew" divided skirt" is'simply the old trousers'writ large. ' Itis'evident'to the.philosqphic eye that the typical skirt' is simply a j pairot trousers : with bne ; large'-leg instead' of |

two small ones, and that a pair of trousers is simply two small skirts. This great truth is forced upon our attention by the " divided skirt," which is a skirt of extra width stitched 'together in the middle so as to divide it into two smaller skirts, each of which affords accommodation for> a single leg. When the weaferisperfectly still the'"dividedskirt" cannot be distinguished, except by an expert, from an ordinary skirt, but when she under, takes to walk the fact that she isrclad in a novel,and curious manner becc-mes evident, Nothing is clearer than that 'the undivided skirt cannot last. It is merely a resting-place on the road to trousers. There is not a single .argument urged in its defence, .The that trousers are lighter tbkn.skii'is, b'uUhe divided skirt being;of extra," .width,jmusi be heavier than the pidi. ,naryi'skirL If the ordinary skirt is inconvenient ~in.caso,'tiie wearer wishes to climb fences,pi to rideborses', after the manner.of.tho Maid jOf Orleans,;.'the divided skirt wouldjbe still more inconvenient in like circumstances. , In fact, it is open to all the objections whlchjcan 'be brought'.against undivided skirts, and has absolutely nothing toTecommend .OJVcourie, it has not been adopted without a reason, and that reason's self-evident, .The sudden and unexpected wearing of trousers by Women of hitherto.unimpeached sanity would b.e an intolerable;shock to the public nerveii ''DrtH-makerj'.. who, have determined.,that trousers should.be added to the list of mascu. 'line'clones already worn by women have, • therefore,! 'devised the divided skirt. as an entpfng wedge,'soon to he'followed by.real .'trotters.',, Iheice of prejudice against trousers 'isjtpjbe/brpken.bythe' divided skirt, and as sbonas'rhenhave.become accustomed.to,see-

.ing wqinenclad jn.'ldivided skirts" thescissors '.wuj'ipe laid! to '.the central, seam,, 'double. sliirji;wlll beinatantlytrahaferred into aiqoseand'.Daggypairoftrousers.,, ~ ; .; ( ! .„TJiis is no false.'alarm. ,So long as trousers dress reformers,;and then',upon high jmbral grounds, there'was no 'danger that! ,'sahe ,w,omen. would prefer moral jgrounds to ; . b'e^auty.'..and would yield' to dreis reforming argunjentsl ' Nq>v that there'; js,ari '.evident! purpose on the part of dress-makers to fashionable we.can,have no ''jrasonable'hbpe,|ihat this nefarious'purpose wiir'.'faill" Within two or' three years, at furthest, we'shall see fashionable ladies wear« ing real trousers,, .unless we make a bold stand against the divided skirt, snd crush, so Ito'speak,: the, undeveloped trousers in the bud f .''. ,"',''.'..' '