Once more the question must be asked, “Why do women wear such hideous
things as crinolines, bustles, and corsets, so universally abhorred by
men?” Is it because they are inferior to men in æsthetic taste? Is
Schopenhauer right when he says that “women are and remain, on the
whole, the most absolute and incurable Philistines?” They are deficient
in objectivity, he adds: “hence they have no real intelligence or
appreciation for music or poetry, or the plastic arts; and if they make
any pretences of this sort, it is only apish affectation to gratify
their vanity. Hence it would be more correct to call them the
_unæsthetic_ than the beautiful sex.”
The pessimistic woman-hater no doubt exaggerates. Yet—without alluding
to the paucity of women who have distinguished themselves in the fine
arts—is it credible that the average woman would so readily submit to a
repulsive fashion like the bustle, or a hat “adorned” with the corpse of
a murdered bird, if she had even a trace of æsthetic feeling? If women
had the refined æsthetic taste with which they are commonly credited, is
it conceivable that they would voluntarily adopt the African bustle,
because fashionable, in preference to a more becoming style? Have you
ever heard that a person of acknowledged musical taste, for example,
gave up his violin or piano to learn the African banjo, because that
happened to be the fashionable instrument?
Yet there are, no doubt, many women whose eyes even custom cannot blind
to the hideousness of most Parisian fashions. But they have not the
courage to show their superior taste in their dresses, being overawed
and paralysed in presence of a monstrous idol, the Fashion Fetish.
Never has a stone image, consecrated by cunning priests, exercised a
more magic influence on a superstitious heathen’s mind than the
invisible Fashion Fetish on the modern feminine intellect. It is both
amusing and pathetic to hear a woman exclaim: “Our women are most blind
and thoughtless followers of fashions still imposed upon them, _Heaven
knows wherefore and by whom_” (Mrs. Haweis).
So great is the awe in which this Fetish is held that no one has yet
dared to lay violent hands on it. Yet if we now knock it on the head, we
shall find it hollow inside; and the fragments, subjected to chemical
analysis, show that they consist of the following five elements:—
(1) _Vulgar Display of Wealth._—A certain number of rich people, being
unable to distinguish themselves from poorer mortals in any other way,
make a parade of their money by constantly introducing changes in the
fashion of their apparel which those who have less income are unable to
adopt at once. This, and not the love of novelty, is the real cause of
the minute variations in styles constantly introduced. Of course it is
generally understood that to boast of your wealth is as vulgar as to
boast of your wit or wisdom; but this makes no difference, for Fashion
in its very essence is vulgar.
(2) _Milliners’ Cunning._—Milliners grow fat on fashionable
extravagance. Hence it is the one object of their life to encourage this
extravagance. So they constantly invent new styles, to prevent women
from wearing the same dress more than one season. And every customer is
slyly flattered into the belief that nothing was ever so becoming to her
as the latest style, though it probably makes her look like a fright. As
a little flattery goes a great way with most women, the milliner’s
hypocrisy escapes detection. “The persons who devise fashions are not
artists in the best sense of the word, nor are they persons of culture
or taste,” as Mr. E. L. Godkin remarks: “their business is not to
provide beautiful costumes but new ones.”
It is to such scheming and unscrupulous artisans that women entrust the
care of their personal appearance. And they will continue doing so until
they are more generally taught the elements of the fine arts and a love
of beauty in Nature.
To make sure of a rich harvest, milliners, when a new fashion has
appeared, manufacture all their goods in that style, so that it is
almost impossible to buy any others, all of which are declared “bad
form.” And their poor victims meekly submit to this tyranny!
(3) _Tyranny of the Ugly Majority._—This is another form of tyranny from
which ladies suffer. Most women are ugly and ungraceful, and resent the
contrast which beautiful women, naturally and becomingly attired, would
present to their own persons: hence they favour the crinolette, the
bustle, the corset, the long, trailing dresses, the sleeve-puffs at the
shoulders, etc., because such fashionable devices make all women look
equally ugly and ungraceful.
Mrs. Armytage throws light on the origin of some absurd fashions when
she refers to the cases of “the patches first applied to hide an ugly
wen: of cushions carried to equalise strangely-deformed hips; of long
skirts to cover ugly feet; and long shoes to hide an excrescence on the
toe.”
Surely it is sufficient to expose the origin of such fashions to make
sensible women turn away from them in disgust. There are indeed
indications that the handsome women have at last begun to find out the
trick which the ugly majority have been playing on them; and many are
now dressing in such a way as to show their personal beauty to
advantage, undaunted by the fact that ugly women pretend to be shocked
at short dresses which allow a pretty ankle to be seen, and jerseys
which reveal the outlines of a beautiful bust and waist.
(4) _Cowardice._—Many women adopt a fashion which they dislike simply
because they do not dare to face the remark of a rival that they are not
in fashion. As one of them frankly confesses: “We women dress not to be
simple, genuine, and harmonious, or even to please you men, but _to
brave each other’s criticism_.” A noble motive, truly!
One is often tempted to doubt the old saying that the first desire of
women is to be considered beautiful, on observing how ready they are to
sacrifice fifty per cent or more of their beauty for the sake of being
in fashion. Last summer, for instance, the edict seems to have gone
forth that the hair was no longer to be allowed to form a graceful
fringe over the forehead, but was to be combed back tightly. So back it
was combed, and beautiful faces became rarer than ever. Leigh Hunt had
written in vain that the hair should be brought over large bare
foreheads “as vines are trailed over a wall.” Théophile Gautier, “the
most perfect poet in respect of poetical form that France has ever
produced” (Saintsbury), agreed with Schopenhauer regarding woman’s
æsthetic sense: “Women,” he says, “have only the sense of fashion and
not that of beauty. A woman will always find beautiful the most
abominable fashion if it is the _genre suprême_ to wear that style.” He
commends the women of Granada for their good taste in preferring their
lovely mantillas to the hideous French hats, and hopes Spain may never
be invaded by French fashions and milliners.
(5) _Sheepishness._—It may seem ungallant to apply this term to the
conduct of a woman who imitates the habits of a sheep; but, after all,
which is the more gallant action: to applaud a woman’s self-chosen
ugliness, or, at least, to ignore it for fear of offending her; or, on
the other hand, to restore her beauty by boldly holding up the mirror
and allowing her to see herself as others see her? It is the nature of a
flock of sheep to jump into the sea without a moment’s hesitation if
their leader does so. It is the nature of fashionable women to commit
æsthetic suicide if their leader sets the example. Where is the
difference?
It is surprising that Darwin did not refer to Fashion as furnishing a
most convincing proof of his theory that men are descended from
apelike ancestors. One of the ape’s most conspicuous traits is
imitativeness—blind, silly, slavish imitation: hence the verb “to
ape.” Blind, silly, slavish imitation is also the essence of Fashion.
Imitativeness implies a low order of mind, a lack of originality. The
more a man is intellectually removed from the ape, the less is he
inclined to imitate blindly. Men of genius are a law unto themselves,
while inferior minds can only re-echo or plagiarise. Just so the
prevalent anxiety to be in fashion is a tacit confession of mental
inferiority, of insufficient independence of taste and originality to
choose a style suited to one’s individual requirements.