South Australia - Women

Dress and Appearance

For comments on male dress see under South Australia - Miscellany - Male Miscellany.

Female Dress in Colonial Days

(Taken from Geoffrey H. Manning's A Colonial Experience)

Advertiser

Introduction

Archival and statistical records yield dates and facts of governors and governments, old drawings and prints show the growth of Adelaide from a village to a city, but nowhere, except in a few odd biographical sketches, can one learn of the life and evolution of Australian women, from the obedient, but probably very frightened wife, who packed her crinolines and mantles and prepared to fare forth with her husband and children across an unknown ocean to an equally unknown land, to the modern woman.

The story of these women is not kept in any file, but chapters of it are scattered in old photograph albums, for it is in clothes that women most clearly express their personalities and the interests of their day. And though the cut of a sleeve may not denote and particular social upheaval, yet, to a great extent, fashions follow minds and 'by clothes shall we know them.'

If we follow women's dress, we follow women's progress, from the vastly voluminous gown of the damsel, who could look so demure but who knew, in a fraction, the value of a graceful swoon in an awkward situation; on through the bustle and chignon and the frilly cap, and the days when all married women were matrons, to the more sporting era of the gem hat and cycling skirt.

Those early pioneer women left a land that was, at that time, in the throes of intense domesticity and respectability. And one feels that, perhaps, beneath the shawl and pelisses, there stirred a feeling of escape and adventure that helped to mitigate the fears of ocean and the sorrows of leaving home.

Cabin space, in the ships of those days, was small and skirts, with five to six ample petticoats, were large, so that two or three dresses were, as a rule, considered enough for a three or four months' voyage, while in the hold were stored all those fur-lined mantles, petticoats of woven hair and feather-trimmed bonnets that were to prove a stay and a solace in the loneliness of the new, strange land.

None of the clothes fashionable in England when South Australia became a part of the British Empire were, in any sense, suitable to the Australian climate, or to the condition of pioneering life; but they were 'the fashion', and as such they did their share in the founding of the colony as surely as did the axes and ploughs of the men:

Husbands may remonstrate on the ground of expense, physicians on the ground of health, people of taste for aesthetic reasons; nay, even newspapers and old fogies on the grounds of decency; and all without apparently shaking the confidence of the most respectable and prudent in a style which is prevalent and favoured.

Many a quaking heart must have gained fresh courage when the boxes were uncorded and, in the shelter of a rough hut, there was revealed again all the glory of the puce velvet mantle 'for morning visiting', the Paisley shawl with the elegant fringe and the 'best bonnet' with its inner row of pink rosebuds and its broad pink ribbon ties.

Petticoats, too, were in plenty and although one cannot feel that the comfort of a summer day could have been enhanced by the wearing of a petticoat of red flannel, one perhaps, of padded silk, two of strong grey cotton, heavily braided and trimmed, and one that was white and very much be-frilled and starched. Yet, if all this lumber induced the yards of skirt to billow out in the approved manner, what mattered a little discomfort?

In those first boxes were crinolines; some of horsehair and some of banded steel, but the latter were regretfully laid aside. Always difficult to manage with decorum and grace, they refused to accommodate themselves to the exigencies of their new milieu.

They would not pass through narrow doors, they behaved disgracefully on slippery roads; rough, home-made chairs caused them to jerk suddenly up in front, bringing blushes and confusion, and the negotiation of fences was fraught with peril. For balls at Government House, or sometimes for shopping, the 'wire cage' was adjusted, but its disadvantages were too manifold to allow it ever to come into daily use where conditions were primitive and social exchanges few.

In those days, although letter writing was an art, opportunities for sending words to England were rare, and newspapers, although they devoted considerable space to settlement problems of the colonies, gave no thought to the pioneering problems of women. So, for a long time, these women continued blindly to outfit themselves and their children with garments suitable to life in a country with little sunshine, and to find the adjustment difficult in the hot Australian bush.

Another difficulty of the Australian woman of those early days was that, though their friends or relations might, thoughtfully, send them journals of fashions and modes, it was found, invariably, that the designing had been done without consideration of bush tracks, bullock waggons, or even spring carts. Surely, it must have been discouraging, when looking at a simple frock in which to visit Glenelg, to find it must have 'a corsage en Amazone of pink poult de sole, trimmed with buttons and a plain tight sleeve with lace cuffs to match the fichu.'

Not least among the proofs of courage of these women founders of our land was the fact that, come what might, they gathered up their skirts, extended the telescopic handles of their ridiculous parasols and, though the sun beat down ever so fiercely, bravely stuck to their fashions.

They slavishly adopted the modes and fashions that, although possibly distinguished and elegant overseas, were uncomfortable and unhygienic in a warm climate with dusty roads. Even after the crinoline had gone, the skirts remained long and most uncomfortably padded at the back and hips.

The tiny waist was still admired by men and inquisitorial structures of whalebone and strong cotton material were obtained to obtain the desired lack of inches. The stays of the last century would blanch the cheek of the modern maiden inured as she may be to the pincers of the eyebrow plucker:

If a woman chooses to lace herself so tightly that breathing becomes both difficult and painful, or to wear boots with heels so high and tapering that with every step she is in danger of falling and breaking her neck, or even to stagger under the terrible weight of a fashionable dress improver with its many encumbrances it is her lookout, and no man has a right to object. If he has any sense he will know that vanity is the ruling passion of the fair sex...

Shaped like an hour glass, strong busks hooked them up at the front, while laces at the back, with the help of a bed post, if human aid were not forthcoming, could be drawn in so tightly that none but a woman, in fashion's thrall, could have endured the resultant agony. Nor did they even conceal the iron gauntlet in the velvet glove of attractive appearance, for their prevailing tone was a dull slate grey, edged with a very wiry slate grey lace.

White coverings could be bought but, except for the very young, they were looked at a little askance as unbecomingly frivolous; while black with red herring-bone at the top, or even worse, red with black, were altogether too daring for any 'nice' girl or respectable matron.

While the 'stays' performed their part nobly in pinching in the waist, the dresses lent themselves to an appearance of extreme fragility. Great bunches of material were heaped at the back and the sides and, whereas the crinoline had distributed the fullness from the waist to the ground, the bustle kept it all immediately below the waist.

This fashion tended little more than its predecessor to foster outdoor activities in women and if the truth were told, they must have been extremely glad to stay at home and loosen some of the laces and hooks. In England it was still considered 'interesting' to look delicate, but Australian women, finding that a little difficult, compromised by fainting occasionally when constricted organs rebelled against their whalebone. Reticules, with their reviving vinaigrettes, were still carried, but to a certain extent the smelling salts were replaced by a fan, which was probably needed and which was attached to the wrist by a loop of ribbon.

Only an era devoted definitely to domesticity would have tolerated the inconvenience and discomfort of the fashions that prevailed in the last century and, in looking back, one realises the tremendous changes that have taken place in woman's outlook and her standing in public life.

All that was expected of, or indeed allowed, was to remain at home and look after her numerous family; but vague seeds of unrest were apparently stirring in the female bosom and, as early as 1849, Mrs Bloomer electrified America, and later England, with her exposition of a rational dress. It was not particularly attractive, consisting of long, full trousers gathered into a frilled band at the ankles, and a waisted tunic to the knees. But in spite of its cumbersome, unbecoming lines the innovation had much to recommend it. It was almost excessively modest and obscuring; it was lighter and healthier than the clothes of the period, and it allowed freedom for exercise.

But England would have none of it and Australia only heard of it as a vague and distant murmur. However, many years later it made one more bid for recognition in the 'harem skirt', but even that failed to establish itself and Mrs Bloomer has gone down to posterity simply as the name of a neat and serviceable undergarment.

Mrs Grundy in South Australia

By the close of the 1870s, people in the old country thought that our life here was singularly free from the restraint of conventionalism - that if we did not have all the comforts and refinements which they enjoyed, as compensation we had the freedom to do pretty much as we liked in social matters, and that any long resident of South Australia, should he or she return to England, would soon tire of the formalities and stiffness of existence there, and would be inclined to say:

But this would have been a mistake. Mrs Grundy is an old colonist and her influence is shown in a great many ways in regulating our manners and customs. Our dress here, whether that of men or women, was often not a costume suited to our climate as much as it should have been.

Several servile disciples of the old lady had for many years worn black broadcloth garments and black 'belltopper' hats all the year round; and every man, when invited to a dinner party or a ball, even in the hottest weather, felt bound to put on a hot black dress-coat, with continuations to match. Why this discomfort and violation of all dictates of common sense?

It was because we were afraid of what Mrs Grundy would have said if we wore a more agreeable and suitable attire. Thus, too, clergymen were expected to dress like their brethren in England no matter what might have been the condition of the atmosphere, and when ministers of sense thought proper to wear clothes of a texture and colour suited to a hot country Mrs Grundy had a sneer at what she called 'unclerical deportment.'

It was a pity that the ladies of Adelaide felt constrained to follow the often absurd fashions of London and Paris. Men often complained of the ridiculous and bizarre clothing of their wives, sisters and daughters; but it may not be known generally that the male sex has a great deal to answer for in reference to this matter.

In Shakespeare's time dressmakers were extant and one of them was employed to make the fantastic dress commended by the shrewish Katherine, and the inventors of the fabrics for ladies' clothing and the authors of their shape in the present day are men.

Worth, of Paris, who was at the head of this business, was a Yorkshire man, and the ridiculously tight dresses of the period were the products of masculine invention. Mrs Grundy, in the form of a male creature, dominates over what we believe is the better taste of the gentler sex. And this is no new thing.

I have read that an Austrian gentleman invented the crinoline, while it was a French medical student who contrived the 'bustle' for the decoration of women and for the amusement of the world. I urge our sisters to resist the tyranny which tends to diminish their charms and sometimes to weaken the respect in which they should be held.

Would that they had independence to dress as South Australians, with a due regard to the requirements of the country in which they live, rather than appear as they sometimes do in dresses that have been out of fashion months before in the old country.

On a macabre note, Mrs Grundy is the enemy of funeral reform and yet who that knows anything about the matter can be ignorant of the horrors of the old mourning coaches - their stuffiness and closeness in hot weather; their liability to retain seeds of infectious diseases; the slow pace at which they are driven - for many miles sometimes.

Besides this, to poor people the use of them, as well as the purchase of black clothing, is often an expense which they can ill afford. The waning influence of Mrs Grundy is shown, happily, in the fact that men now wear a lot of crepe on the arm with their usual style of dress as a token of their having lost a friend.

But at present, so far as I am aware, no ladies have yet set the example of discarding the heavy and unsuitable clothing which Mrs Grundy regards as de rigeur for 'deep' mourning. I think a great improvement might be made in funerals in Adelaide and the neighbourhood by the erection of one or two little chapels, consecrated and unconsecrated, in the cemetery where the chief part of the funeral service could be conducted by the ministers of various denominations, and at the side of the grave there should only be the solemn committal of 'dust to dust, and ashes to ashes' and the expressions of religious hopes To such a service there need be no long show and dreary procession of friends in funeral coaches. But then what would Mrs Grundy say?

Women, Birds and Fashion

Advertiser

Today, in 1902, the trailing skirt, irrationally transferred from the drawing room to the dusty street, will have, probably, a brief vogue; it lends itself so obviously to uncleanliness as a gatherer of the pestilent microbe is so easily demonstrated to be a danger to the people's health.

But the feathered hat, the dead bird's plumage as an ornamental accessory to feminine attire, though it illustrates much more repulsively the altogether mistaken notion that beauty divorced from natural conditions and violently torn from its due place preserves its charm unimpaired, seems to be defiant of time and change.

Surely, an age has passed since Browning, rebuking the lady 'clothed with the murder of God's best of harmless things' who, unconscious of her own offence, was shocked by the artistic portrayal of the nude, turned against herself the argument of delicate feeling and refinement when asked, 'What clings, half savage-like around your hat?'

The interval has been occupied by a long, ineffectual, now almost despairing crusade for the extirpation of an unlovely fashion that not merely lacks aesthetic justification, but is maintained by the butchery of millions of beautiful and innocent beings; 'the little children of nature'. Michelet called them 'the nurslings of Providence, aspiring towards the light, in order to act and think, embryo souls, candidates for the more general and more widely harmonic life to which the human soul has attained.'

Callow broods left motherless to perish have pathetically appealed to the tenderest emotions of a woman's nature; but all has been in vain. That Moloch of fashion which demands from the bird world its annual tribute of beautiful and useful beings - for the life ravished from the forest and the seashore not only delights the ear and the eye of all true lovers of nature, but by assisting to preserve a due balance in animated creation subserves our material interests - is as insensible to pity as to reason.

When a feeling of hopelessness has well nigh overtaken the friends of the birds, contending with such poor results against the cruelty and foolishness of an established usage, it will come to them like a ray of cheering sunlight to read that in this year of the Coronation, on the eve of a season of matchless luxury and display, King Edward and Queen Alexandra have cast the great weight of their royal influence in opposition to the fashion of the feathered hat for they deprecate the slaughter of birds for the purpose of feminine adornment.

Every appeal on the ground of the cruelty involved or the essential vulgarity of such array has hitherto been widely disregarded. Women will not spare the birds while it continues the mode to decorate themselves with feathers; nor, justice requires me to add, will men cease to minister to a heartless vanity, while there is profit in the business.

But what is not conceded to good taste or proper feeling may be enforced by a simple change of fashion. The one power unquestionably obeyed in feminine circles is that which mysteriously directs, from time to time, the fashion of their garb. Disobedience to this despot appears to be ranked among the heaviest of social sins. Opposed in the modiste's law that for so many years has decreed 'murderous millinery', for women, the law founded on mere morality and taste has proved to be inoperative; but once the higher authorities agree to brand it as 'bad reform' the feathered hat is surely doomed.5 The wanton destruction of birds in the colony was commented upon as early as 1864:

At present there is not [a magpie or laughing jackass] within miles of the town, even tame birds being shot at if they are permitted any liberty. Quails are getting scarce, fly-catchers are all gone and even larks are being killed by hundreds.

In South Australia a Society for the Protection of Birds was formed in 1895 and in the following year its Honorary Secretary, Emily Playford, of Mitcham, entered the lists against the useless slaughter of birds: '... I saw in Rundle Street last week... a full-grown... "grassy" parrot. It was stuffed and placed in such a position as surely no living parrot ever assumed unless in extreme agony...

'This astonishing specimen was not, as might be supposed, in a museum of curiosities, but in a draper's window and on a lady's hat. If parrots are to be slaughtered wholesale for a hideous fashion, what is to prevent the magpies and laughing jackasses from following, until (judging from facts and figures respecting herons) that most lovely liquid note of the magpie and the pleasant "ha ha" of the kooyeana become almost unknown. Can nothing be done before it is too late to protect our native songsters from indiscriminate slaughter?...

'It is quite painful to wade through letters in the papers about the "dresses" after a reception or a race meeting. We read, "Mrs So-and-So had on an exquisite jet bonnet with a lovely mauve aigrette:" Miss So-and-So a charming hat with a very large osprey:" "Mrs So-and-So's bonnet was a poem of white aigrettes with a most perfect humming bird nestling on the front."

'Do women not know, or do they care, that for every aigrette they see waving gently in the breeze one poor little mother bird (they are a nuptial ornament) has been ruthlessly tortured, her plumes cut out from her back and her wings hacked off while still alive, and her young ones left to cry and cry until they can cry no longer; that the men who do these terrible things grow so callous as to call it "sport" and boast that the birds, when their wings are being wrenched from them, "scream like a child"; that humming, and other small birds, are skinned alive to ensure the brilliance of their plumage - and all this, not that the birds are wanted for food, not that they are mischievous and require keeping down, but just for vanity.

'Oh, the pity and the shame of it! May I appeal once more through your columns to the women of South Australia to try and stop this ghastly fashion by refusing to buy anything of the kind; to men to use their influence in the home and in business; to all preachers to denounce the hideous custom from their pulpits; and school teachers to teach the young how best "to save and comfort all gentle life and guard and perfect all natural beauty upon the earth."

'The Society for the Protection of Birds is, I am glad to say, gaining ground... While we are publishing these details the horrible traffic is going on, and if action is not taken quickly we shall be too late to save some of the most exquisite specimens of God's handiwork from utter destruction...'

In response to this plea the Reverend John Blacket, theologian and historian, wrote from his Wesleyan parsonage at Koolunga: 'The letter... gave rise to mingled reflections. Every lover of nature must deplore the wanton destruction of birds, either for sport or to gratify feminine vanity, and must feel pleased that a band of ladies are interesting themselves on behalf of our feathered friends, of whom a greater than Solomon said -"Not one of them is forgotten before God."

'The mental as well as the physical wants of man have been provided for in the world of nature, and how much poorer we would be if deprived of our brooks, trees, birds and flowers. The birds, especially, minister to our joy. There are two ways in which they appeal to the soul; through the medium of the eye and the ear. The man who has not felt the gladness that comes into the soul at the sight of birds and the sound of their merry songs has not begun, in the higher sense, to live.

'There is a utilitarian as well as an aesthetic side to this question, It is to the birds that we are largely indebted for keeping down our insect pests. Why then allow them to be ruthlessly destroyed or taken out of the country? Will the Society for the Protection of Birds take steps to prevent their exportation?

'[I] believe that large number of birds are shipped to the old countries. Why is this allowed? In more ways than one the colony is made the poorer by this traffic. We, and generations to come, are robbed of their songs and of the services they render... Apparently dealers are allowed to take away large number of our native birds without either asking permission or paying a fee. Why?

'They have no more natural right to do so than to take away our minerals or fuel. Every native bird taken away from us makes us the poorer for the time. It is not merely the services of the birds actually shipped that we are deprived of, but the services of their progeny for ages to come...'

As I write, in 1903, the wanton destruction of birds continues and murderous millinery is still displayed in our shop windows, to the chagrin of animal lovers but, apparently, our legislators, many of whom bow to pressure from vested interests, do not see the need for the intervention of parliament. Indeed, I am inclined to the views expressed by a correspondent to the local press under the heading 'The People Pay':

Some men are continually exploiting the public; and, so far as the average man or woman are concerned, there is generally little difference in the result which follows the successful efforts of honest but misguided reformers. The people are expected to pay always, and they always do pay, and the pity is that so few of them realise the fact... If more electors would think out for themselves the economic problems of the day, fewer designing and intriguing men would be able to fatten upon the good-natured indifferent public, who are an easy prey for the artful exploiter.

General Notes

An editorial on "Chignons" is in the Observer, 18 May 1867, page 6h:

Fashion is reducable to no laws. It pursues its own fitful, wayward, eccentric course, unimpressed by reason and impervious to ridicule. Why should bonnets be as large and ugly as ill-shaped coal-scuttles one year, and so small and dainty as hardly to cover a fifth part of the head, another... The last thing in fashion is the "chignon" which is a mass of false hair worn by ladies... Do they know that the false hair of which chignons are made, come from the unclean heads of Mongol... peasants, who have a silly prejudice against soap and water...

"Women's Clothing Fashions" is in the Advertiser, 19 August 1876, page 5a:

Advertiser

"Mrs Grundy in South Australia" is in the Register,
14 May 1877, page 4f.

"Female Dress" is in The Lantern,
19 October 1878, page 11.

A poem entitled "Fashion's Lay" is in The Lantern,
14 August 1880, page 7.

"The Woman of the Period" is in The Lantern,
11 December 1880, page 11.

"Fashion and Its Victims" is in the Observer, 6 August 1881, page 24e:

Observer

"Clothes" is in the Observer,
11 February 1882, page 24e,
"The Dress of the Period" on
29 April 1882, page 42e,
"Fashions" on 6 May 1882, page 42e.

A comment on feminine dress is made in the Advertiser, 4 November 1884, page 7d:

Advertiser

"Dr Jefferis on Ladies Attire" is in the Register,
22 September 1885, page 5d.

"Fashion and Frivolity" is in the Register,
3 March 1886, page 7h,
"Rational Dress for Women" on 22 June 1886, page 3e,
"The Season's Fashions" on 3 April 1888, page 7e,
"A Word on Dress-Improvers" on 18 May 1888, page 3g.

A poem titled "The Milliner" is in The Lantern,
24 March 1888, page 17.

"Men's Opinion on Women's Dress" is in the Observer,
28 July 1888, page 8a.

"Lecture on Dress" is in the Register,
8 October 1888, page 7f.

"Dress" is in the Chronicle,
4 January 1890, page 19a,
"Australian Dress and Diet" in the Observer,
23 August 1890, page 34b,
"An Anti-Tight-Lacing Society" on
23 April 1892, page 8d,
"Modes of the Day" on
29 April 1893, page 8d.

"Women, Dress, Cycling, Costume and Custom" is in the Register,
18 August 1894, page 4f.

"Rational Dress" is in the Advertiser,
28 February 1895, page 4e,
"Dresses at the Races" in the Chronicle,
29 May 1897, page 36d.

Sketches are in The Critic,
7 May 1898, page 18,
6 April 1901, pages 14 and 15,
14 September 1901, pages 8 and 9,
7 September 1904, page 25,
12 April 1905, page 2, 3 and 23.

"Birds and Their Plumes" is in the Register,
17 March 1899, page 5c,
Observer,
1 April 1899, page 34a.

"No Room for Bloomers!" is in the Register,
8 April 1899, page 4f.

"The Hat Nuisance" is in the Register,
7 October 1899, page 4g.

"Woman's Vanity Allied to Cruelty" is in the Register,
13 November 1902, page 6e.

"Clothes and Other Things" is in the Register,
18 April 1903, page 4c.

"Murderous Millinery" is in the Register,
26 November 1903, page 4f.

The question "Do Women Dress to Please Men?" is posed in the Register,
4 June 1904, page 8h,
27 June 1904, page 7d.
Dress habits of women are discussed on
18 February 1905, page 4c under the heading "If the World Were Different"; also see
2 September 1905, page 6i.

"Suggestive Dressing - How Far Should Women Go?" is in the Express,
28 October 1905, page 4d.

Beautiful Feathers" is in the Register,
3 May 1907, page 4h.

Photographs of "Pageant of Fashions" are in the Chronicle,
13 August 1910, pages 30-31.

"Hobble Skirts" is in the Register,
12 and 13 January 1911, pages 4d-f and 8a.
"Hobbled Skirts and Tram Cars" is in the Register,
7 June 1911, page 6f.

"Turkey in Adelaide - The Harem Skirt" is in the Register,
22, 23 and 27 March 1911, pages 10a, 4h and 6g.

"Dress and the Woman" is in the Register,
25 May 1912, page 14e,
"Clothes and Comfort" on
27 November 1911, page 6d,
"Sense in Dress - The Hygiene of Fashion" on
2 May 1914, page 11a.

"Those Hatpins" is in the Observer,
27 April 1912, page 35c,
"Hat Pins as Weapons" is in the Register,
13 April 1912, page 12g,
"Unprotected Hatpins" on
7 December 1912, page 19e and
14 January 1913, page 6f,
"The Hatpin Nuisance - Further Prosecutions" in the Advertiser,
7 and 11 December 1912, pages 20i and 18a,
"Dangerous Hatpins" on
7 June 1917, page 4f,
"The Hatpin Peril" on
24 April 1918, page 6g,
8 May 1918, page 6f.

Photographs and information on female dress are in The Critic,
11 September 1912, pages 22-26,
9 April 1913, pages 15-21,
8 April 1914,
27 March 1918, pages 10-12,
16 April 1919, pages 26-28,
10 September 1919, pages 16-20 ,
14 January 1920, page 5,
31 March 1920, pages 14 to 17,
27 April 1921, pages15 to 18.

"The Ideal Figure - Modern Changes" is in the Register,
18 December 1912, page 3f.

"What Women Wear - Some Male Opinions" is in the Advertiser, 5 July 1913, page 19b:

Long experience with the power of feminine persistency has convinced me of the utter impossibility of trying to prevent a woman from dressing as she pleases... She watches the movements of the fashions in dress as we do the movements of the share market... You must let them have their way, or there will be endless trouble in the household - tears, reproaches and general unpleasantness.

"Woman's Dress - What is the Limit of Decency" is in the Chronicle,
30 August 1913, page 44c.

"Slashed Skirt Peril - A Rundle Street Demonstration" is in the Register,
8 and 11 November 1913, pages 15a and 5d.

"Feathers and Fashions" is in the Register,
29 December 1913, page 4g.

"Should Women Wear Trousers" is in the Express,
14 February 1914, page 1f.

"Innovations in Feminine Attire" is in the Advertiser, 17 March 1914, page 8d:

Advertiser

"Women's Dress" is in the Register, 16 January 1915, page 6b.

Register

"Dress and Morals" is in the Advertiser,
18 November 1919, page 6e,
"Women's Dress Criticised" in the Register,
28 November 1919, page 6d,
1 and 2 December 1919, pages 9e and 8f.

A poem entitled "Advancing Dress Reform" is in the Register,
20 January 1920, page 5g; the first stanza reads:

My sister; O my sisters, Since the fashion's coming in To veil no more our persons E'en neath texture much too thin - Since the meaning of good morals, Of morality, of sin No more dwells in some fair one's minds Than 'neath a darker skin.

"Overalls for Girls" is in the Chronicle,
4 February 1922, page 41c.
Photographs of "How Fashion Changes" are in the Chronicle,
18 February 1922, page 28.

"Immodest Dressing" is in the Advertiser,
18, 23 and 24 January 1922, pages 6f, 10b and 8c,
2 February 1922, page 11d:

The fact is that if it were not for the "wowsers" no one would complain at all, for the simple reason that there is nothing to complain about, and the evil exists only in the minds of prudish Pecksniffians. These humbugs are a menace to society... Clean thinking is absolutely absent from their make-up.
(Advertiser, 2 February 1922, page 11e.)

"Women's Rights and Dress" is in the Register,
26 May 1922, page 6c.

"Short Dresses" is in the Advertiser, 18 December 1922, page 6c:

Our lady's street attire doth show no wit;
It doth so ill become her.
For no one person hath she dressing fit
For Winter, Spring or Summer.
Her beauty, too's amiss,
In face and form alike.
Ye wise, pray tell me this,
What's happened to your sight?

Photographs of "Fashions at the Races" are in the Chronicle,
17 November 1923, page 36.

"The Shorter Skirt - Women's Newest Whims" is in the Observer,
14 February 1925, page 18e.

"Comment and Criticism on Women's Dress" is in the Register,
24 February 1925, page 4c.

"Bushy Whiskers and Short Skirts" is in the Advertiser, 4 April 1925, page 12i:

Women... have an additional motive for stimulating the sex in men by an increasing suggestiveness in their attire... Rudyard Kipling makes a decidedly undignified lady... observe that kissing a man who has no hair on his lip is like eating an egg without salt.

"Short Skirts" is in the Advertiser, 19 and 21 May 1926, pages 19h and 18d:

[His] knowledge of the human body is limited, so he had better pay more attention to selling his wares, and when seated near a young lady, read a book that will enlighten him, or have a sleep, for the sensible underwear of today will prevent him from seeing what he is evidently looking for.
(Advertiser, 29 May 1926, page 17g.)

"Women's Dress and the Reformer" is in the Register,
2 January 1926, page 8d,
"Trousers for Women" in The News,
19 January 1927, page 6c; also see
6 October 1927, page 8e.

"Crinoline Days", the reminiscences of Mrs E.W. Nicholls, is in the Observer,
30 January 1926, page 54.

"Skirts and Trousers" is in the Advertiser, 20 January 1927, page 8e:

Those who try to determine the evolution of feminine attire are now considering the deposition of the skirt in favour of trousers. At a time when the East is throwing away the veil so that the beautiful face of woman shall be no longer hidden, the West is proposing to adopt the Oriental bifurcation of nether garments - presumably loose in order that the contour of the leg shall not be so fully proclaimed.

"Women's Dress" is in the Advertiser, 13 February 1928, page 6h:

What is there indecent about woman's figure and why should it not be seen? I think there is nothing lovelier and consider it a crime to wrap it up in bales of rags and haberdashery... Time, however, will remedy the bigotry.
(Advertiser, 21 August 1928, page 15i.)

Half an inch, half an inch, half an inch shorter,
The skirts are the same of mother and daughter,
When the wind blows each of them shows
Half an inch, half an inch more than they oughter.

Adam and Eve came back to earth
To view the creations of Mr Worth;
Said Adam to Eve, "My dearest dear,
Nothing has changed since we were here."
(Advertiser, 23 August 1928, page 19b.)

"Immodest Dress" is in the Register,
12, 13, 14, 20 and 24 April 1928, pages 8h, 8h, 6h, 8c-h and 8h.

"Women's Attire - How it Evoked Censure" is in the Advertiser,
24 November 1928, page 13e,
"About Unsuccessful Permanent Waves" on
12 March 1929, page 9g,
"Short Skirts" on
16 September 1929, page 16f,
"Skirts - A Mystery" in The News,
8 January 1930, page 7d.

"Fashion and Morals" is in the Advertiser, 27 November 1930, page 8e:

Into the psychology of feminine attire, mere man would not venture to drive... The "old modesty" has gone the way of long robes, and the crinoline they displaced, but the "new modesty" shocks nobody. The time when the peace of mind was gravely disturbed by a glimpse of a woman's neck or ankle, now seems so long ago as to be forgotten, and quite elderly dames have no fear of displaying their stockings.

Photographs of a dress competition are in the Observer,
12 February 1931, page 33.

"Victorian Modes in Modern Dress" is in The News,
23 July 1931, page 13b.

"Ladies Hose From Our Seaweed" is in The Mail,
9 January 1932, page 2b.

"Little Feathers Make the Hats These Days" is in The News,
7 April 1932, page 13c.

"Women in Trousers" is in the Advertiser, 23 November 1933, page 14e:

Whatever may be said for the wearing of shorts on the tennis court... it would be difficult, to say the least, to justify on aesthetic grounds the wearing of trousers by women...

"Our Gowns From 1836 to 1936" is in The News,
9 and 16 January 1936, pages 12 and 16c.

"Hats Take Wimgs" is in the Advertiser,
26 February 1937, page 18b.

Women - Choose again

South Australia - Women

See Also:

Dress and Appearance

Female Dress in Colonial Days

Introduction

Mrs Grundy in South Australia

Women, Birds and Fashion

General Notes