Fashion is the work of the devil. When he made up his mind to enslave
mankind he found in fashion his most effective weapon. Fashion
enthralls man, it deprives him of his freedom; it is the most
autocratic dictator, its mandate being obeyed by all classes, high and
low, without exception. Every season it issues new decrees, and no
matter how ludicrous they are, everyone submits forthwith. The
fashions of this season are changed in the next. Look, for example, at
women's hats; some years ago the "merry widow" which was about two or
three feet in diameter, was all the rage, and the larger it became the
more fashionable it was. Sometimes the wearer could hardly go through
a doorway. Then came the hat crowned with birds' feathers, some ladies
even placing the complete bird on their hats--a most ridiculous
exhibition of bad taste. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals should take up the question of the destruction of birds for
their plumage, and agitate until the law makes it illegal to wear a
bird on a hat. Some may say that if people kill animals and birds for
food they might just as well wear a dead bird on their hats, if they
wish to be so silly, although the large majority of America's
population, I am sorry to find, sincerely believe meat to be a
necessary article of diet; yet who will claim that a dead bird on a hat
is an indispensable article of wearing apparel? Why do we dress at
all? First, I suppose, for protection against cold and heat; secondly,
for comfort; thirdly, for decency; and, fourthly, for ornament. Now
does the dress of Americans meet these requirements?
First, as regards the weather, does woman's dress protect her from the
cold? The fact that a large number of persons daily suffer from colds
arouses the suspicion that their dress is at fault. The body is
neither equally nor evenly covered, the upper portion being as a rule
nearly bare, or very thinly clad, so that the slightest exposure to a
draught, or a sudden change of temperature, subjects the wearer to the
unpleasant experience of catching cold, unless she is so physically
robust and healthy that she can resist all the dangers to which her
clothing, or rather her lack of clothing, subjects her. Indeed ladies'
dress, instead of affording protection sometimes endangers their lives.
The following extract from the "London Times"--and the facts cannot be
doubted--is a warning to the fair sex. "The strong gale which swept
over Bradford resulted in an extraordinary accident by which a girl
lost her life. Mary Bailey, aged 16, the daughter of an electrician,
who is a pupil at the Hanson Secondary School, was in the school yard
when she was suddenly lifted up into the air by a violent gust of wind
which got under her clothes converting them into a sort of parachute.
After being carried to a height estimated by spectators at 20 feet, she
turned over in the air and fell to the ground striking the concreted
floor of the yard with great force. She was terribly injured and died
half an hour later." Had the poor girl been wearing Chinese clothing
this terrible occurrence could not have happened; her life would not
have been sacrificed to fashion.
As to the second point, comfort, I do not believe that the wearer of a
fashionable costume is either comfortable or contented. I will say
nothing of the unnecessary garments which the average woman affects,
but let us see what can be said for the tight corset binding the waist.
So far from being comfortable it must be most inconvenient, a sort of
perpetual penance and it is certainly injurious to the health. I feel
confident that physicians will support me in my belief that the
death-rate among American women would be less if corset and other tight
lacing were abolished. I have known of instances where tight lacing
for the ballroom has caused the death of enceinte women.
As to the third object, decency, I am not convinced that the American
dress fulfils this object. When I say American dress, I include also
the clothing worn by Europeans for both are practically the same. It
may be a matter of education, but from the Oriental point of view we
would prefer that ladies' dresses should be worn more loosely, so that
the figure should be less prominent. I am aware that this is a view
which my American friends do not share. It is very curious that what
is considered as indecent in one country is thought to be quite proper
in another. During the hot summers in the Province of Kiangsu the
working women avoid the inconveniences and chills of perspiration by
going about their work with nothing on the upper part of their bodies,
except a chest protector to cover the breasts; in Western countries
women would never think of doing this, even during a season of extreme
heat; yet they do not object, even in the depth of winter, to
uncovering their shoulders as low as possible when attending a
dinner-party, a ball, or the theater. I remember the case of a Chinese
rice-pounder in Hongkong who was arrested and taken to the Police Court
on a charge of indecency. To enable him to do his work better he had
dispensed with all his clothing excepting a loin cloth; for this he was
sentenced to pay a fine of $2, or, in default of payment to be
imprisoned for a week. The English Magistrate, in imposing the fine,
lectured him severely, remarking that in a civilized community such
primitive manners could not be tolerated, as they were both barbarous
and indecent. When he said this did he think of the way the women of
his country dress when they go to a ball?
It must be remembered that modesty is wholly a matter of
conventionality and custom. Competent observers have testified that
savages who have been accustomed to nudity all their lives are covered
with shame when made to put on clothing for the first time. They
exhibit as much confusion as a civilized person would if compelled to
strip naked in public. In the words of a competent authority on this
subject: "The facts appear to prove that the feeling of shame, far
from being the cause of man's covering his body is, on the contrary, a
result of this custom; and that the covering, if not used as a
protection from the climate, owes its origin, at least in many cases,
to the desire of men and women to make themselves attractive." Strange
as it may seem, it is nevertheless true, that a figure partially clad
appears more indecent than one that is perfectly nude.
The fourth object of clothes is ornament, but ornaments should be
harmless, not only to the wearer, but also to other people; yet from
the following paragraph, copied from one of the daily newspapers, it
does not appear that they are.
"London, May 7. The death of a girl from blood-poisoning caused by a
hatpin penetrating her nose was inquired into at Stockport, Cheshire,
yesterday. The deceased was Mary Elizabeth Thornton, aged twenty-four,
daughter of a Stockport tradesman. The father said that on Saturday
evening, April 20, his daughter was speaking to a friend, Mrs.
Pickford, outside the shop. On the following Monday she complained of
her nose being sore. Next day she again complained and said, "It must
be the hatpin." While talking to Mrs. Pickford, she explained, Mrs.
Pickford's baby stumbled on the footpath. They both stooped to pick
it up, and a hatpin in Mrs. Pickford's hat caught her in the nostril.
His daughter gradually got worse and died on Saturday last. Mrs.
Pickford, wife of a paper merchant, said that some minutes after the
deceased had picked up the child she said, "Do you know, I scratched
my nose on your hatpin?" Mrs. Pickford was wearing the hatpin in
court. It projected two inches from the hat and was about twelve inches
in length. Dr. Howie Smith said that septic inflammation was set up
as a result of the wound, and travelling to the brain caused
meningitis. The coroner said that not many cases came before coroners
in which death was directly traceable to the hatpin but there must be
a very large number of cases in which the hatpin caused injury,
in some cases loss of sight. It was no uncommon sight to see
these deadly weapons protruding three or four inches from the hat.
In Hamburg women were compelled by statute to put shields or
protectors on the points of hatpins. In England nothing had been
done, but this case showed that it was high time something was done.
If women insisted on wearing hatpins they should take precaution
of wearing also a shield or protector which would prevent them
inflicting injury on other people. The jury returned a verdict
of accidental death, and expressed their opinion that long hatpins
ought to be done away with or their points protected."
To wear jewels, necklaces of brilliants, precious stones and pearls, or
ribbons with brilliants round the hair is a pleasing custom and a
pretty sight. But to see a lady wearing a long gown trailing on the
ground does not impress me as being elegant, though I understand the
ladies in Europe and America think otherwise. It would almost seem as
if their conceptions of beauty depended on the length of their skirts.
In a ballroom one sometimes finds it very difficult not to tread on the
ladies' skirts, and on ceremonial occasions each lady has two page boys
to hold up the train of her dress. It is impossible to teach an
Oriental to appreciate this sort of thing. Certainly skirts which are
not made either for utility or comfort, and which fashion changes, add
nothing to the wearer's beauty; especially does this remark apply to
the "hobble skirt", with its impediment to free movement of the legs.
The ungainly "hobble skirt" compels the wearer to walk carefully and
with short steps, and when she dances she has to lift up her dress.
Now the latest fashion seems to be the "slashed skirt" which, however,
has the advantage of keeping the lower hem of the skirt clean.
Doubtless this, in turn, will give place to other novelties. A Chinese
lady, Doctor Ya Mei-kin, who has been educated in America, adopted
while there the American attire, but as soon as she returned to China
she resumed her own native dress. Let us hear what she has to say on
this subject. Speaking of Western civilization she said: "If we keep
our own mode of life it is not for the sake of blind conservatism. We
are more logical in our ways than the average European imagines. I
wear for instance this 'ao' dress as you see, cut in one piece and
allowing the limbs free play--because it is manifestly a more rational
and comfortable attire than your fashionable skirt from Paris. On the
other hand we are ready to assimilate such notions from the West as
will really prove beneficial to us." Beauty is a matter of education:
when you have become accustomed to anything, however quaint or queer,
you will not think it so after a while. When I first went abroad and
saw young girls going about in the streets with their hair falling
loose over their shoulders, I was a little shocked. I thought how
careless their parents must be to allow their girls to go out in that
untidy state. Later, finding that it was the fashion, I changed my
mind, until by degrees I came to think that it looked quite nice; thus
do conventionality and custom change one's opinions. But it should be
remembered that no custom or conventionality which sanctions the
distorting of nature, or which interferes with the free exercise of any
member of the body, can ever be called beautiful. It has always been a
great wonder to me that American and European ladies who are by no
means slow to help forward any movement for reform, have taken no
active steps to improve the uncouth and injurious style of their own
clothes. How can they expect to be granted the privileges of men until
they show their superiority by freeing themselves from the enthrallment
of the conventionalities of fashion?
Men's dress is by no means superior to the women's. It is so tight
that it causes the wearer to suffer from the heat much more than is
necessary, and I am certain that many cases of sunstroke have been
chiefly due to tight clothing. I must admire the courage of Dr. Mary
Walker, an American lady, who has adopted man's costume, but I wonder
that, with her singular independence and ingenuity she has not
introduced a better form of dress, instead of slavishly adopting the
garb of the men. I speak from experience. When I was a law student in
England, in deference to the opinion of my English friends, I discarded
Chinese clothes in favor of the European dress, but I soon found it
very uncomfortable. In the winter it was not warm enough, but in
summer it was too warm because it was so tight. Then I had trouble
with the shoes. They gave me the most distressing corns. When, on
returning to China, I resumed my own national costume my corns
disappeared, and I had no more colds. I do not contend that the
Chinese dress is perfect, but I have no hesitation in affirming that it
is more comfortable and, according to my views, very much prettier than
the American fashions. It is superior to any other kind of dress that
I have known. To appreciate the benefits to be derived from
comfortable clothing, you have to wear it for a while. Dress should
not restrain the free movement of every part of the body, neither
should it be so tight as to hinder in any way the free circulation of
the blood, or to interfere with the process of evaporation through the
skin. I cannot understand why Americans, who are correct and cautious
about most things, are so very careless of their own personal comfort
in the matter of clothing. Is anything more important than that which
concerns their health and comfort? Why should they continue wearing
clothes which retard their movements, and which are so inconvenient
that they expose the wearers to constant risk and danger? How can they
consistently call themselves independent while they servilely follow
the mandates of the dressmakers who periodically make money by
inventing new fashions necessitating new clothes? Brave Americans,
wake up! Assert your freedom!
It would be very bold, and indeed impertinent, on my part to suggest to
my American friends that they should adopt the Chinese costume. It has
much to recommend it, but I must candidly confess that it might be
improved. Why not convene an international congress to decide as to
the best form of dress for men and women? Male and female delegates
from all over the world might be invited, and samples of all kinds of
costumes exhibited. Out of them all let those which are considered the
best for men and most suitable for women be recommended, with such
improvements as the congress may deem necessary. The advantages of a
universal uniformity of costumes would be far-reaching. There would be
no further occasion for any one to look askance at another, as has
frequently happened when some stranger has been seen wearing what was
considered an uncomely or unsuitable garb; universal uniformity of
costume would also tend to draw people closer together, and to make
them more friendly. Uniforms and badges promote brotherhood. I have
enough faith in the American people to believe that my humble
suggestion will receive their favorable consideration and that in due
time it will be carried into effect.