As the garb of male and female in the lower animals does not differ
radically, and seldom varies much except in the brighter hues of the
male, so the socialist who seeks to assimilate the human sexes, objects
to radical differences in their costume, and many essays toward the
adoption of the costume of men have been made by advanced women. Morris
and Bax, in _Socialism, Its Growth and Outcome_, deplore differences of
costume, saying: “Another fault may be noted in all bad periods (as in
the present), that an extreme difference is made between the garments
of the sexes.” Since that was written the skirts of women have been
reduced to a point suggestive of a single trouser instead of a pair,
and the divided skirt, the harem skirt and the riding costume for the
cross saddle indicate a movement that Morris and Bax would welcome.
There are history and politics in clothes. Trousers are described
as a product of democracy, because they conceal the material of the
stocking, whether silk or wool. Not so very long ago men wore laces,
and ribbons, and jewels, and delicate tints. With the gradual breaking
down of the caste system, the spread of democracy in politics, and of
the brotherhood of man in philanthropy and religion, men have reduced
their costumes to the present inartistic, but very serviceable
standard. There has been no lasting change in that direction in the
costume of women. If the determination of some women to “make men of
themselves” had coincided with the severe simplicity of the tailor-made
suit there would have been, as there has been in some cases, a certain
measure of harmony between the inner and the outer woman. But the
period of aggressive Feminism coincides with decrees of fashion that
are designed to expose as much of the female figure as the police will
permit. The paucity of garments, and their thinness and scantiness are
suggestive of Vivien, upon whom
A robe
Of samite without price, that more exprest
Than hid her, clung about her lissome limbs.
The pageants and tableaux which afford women an opportunity to appear
in the garb of statues, leave one somewhat in doubt whether Feminism
relies chiefly upon arson and malicious mischief, or upon the arts
Vivien practiced upon Merlin, for the accomplishment of its ends.
Salome is dancing before Herod in the confident expectation that he
will give her the half of his kingdom. But it is idle for women in
the Western world, in the Twentieth Century, to pretend that they are
odalisques, compelled by their helplessness to appeal to the sensuous
side of men. They exhibit themselves for their own pleasure, and they
dance the whole list of modern dances, with their vulgar names, because
they enjoy them.
The extreme of fashion, in this day when Feminism is demanding larger
opportunities to refine, purify and uplift the world, is fast reaching
the point of
One Pan
Ready to twitch the Nymph’s last garment off,
and on the Paris stage this has already been done, with the approbation
of the audience, until the Nymph came forward to the footlights to bow
her acknowledgment of the applause, when the audience intimated plainly
that she was overdoing her part.
In Berlin, in Chicago, and in Washington, very recently opposition to
distinctive titles for married and single women has broken out. It is
asked indignantly why women, and not men, should be tagged with their
conjugal condition. One woman remarks, not without force, that it is
more important to know whether men are married, than to know whether
women are wives or maidens.
But men have so far been the more public, and therefore the better
known of the two. General information about their status is more
probable. Perhaps the conjugal status of men ought to be indicated
in their titles, but they do not change their names in marriage, and
therefore it is less convenient to change their titles. At any rate, it
is better that the conjugal condition of one sex should be indicated
than that that of neither should be. The distinctive titles for married
and single women go back in England, France and Germany, rather less
than 250 years, and they constitute a part of the differentiation of
women from men which the Feminist resents, but which is really one of
the most valuable products of civilization. It is a necessary feature
of a society based upon the family as the unit, but in which women are
free to move about without guards, and without the supervision of their
men.
Intimately connected with the title is the last name the woman is
to bear. The Feminist resents being “branded” upon marriage by her
husband’s name. Certainly under Ellen Key’s system it would be folly
to change the name for each association. One distinguished Feminist in
Boston retained her maiden name after marriage, and her daughter uses
the names of both parents. But this does not solve, it only evades, the
real problem. What is the mother’s name? It is the name of her father.
There is no reason to the Feminist or the socialist why she should
bear the name of her father, any more than that her daughter should
bear her father’s name.
There are no family names now except the names of the men, and in a
Feminist society there can be no family names; which will not matter,
for there will be no family. The Feminist is less frank in admitting
this than the socialist is, but their programs are equally destructive
of it. Each person will select his, or her, own name. To this social
individualism leads. In no other way will the Feminist woman be
satisfied that her identity is not merged in a man, and her ownership
by a man indicated for public information.