If I Had My Own Blue Box:

From Moore’s Rural New-Yorker in Rochester, NY

March 26^th, 1864

The Hoop Skirt

Fashion kills more women than toll and sorrow. [Scalpel.]

It is a wonder that men and women endowed with the noble faculty of reason, have so little gratitude for the good gift, that they can carry it a willing sacrifice to their worse than heathen goddess. Better might they hide it in the ground, than give it to support the wanton destroyer of their race.

I feel “moved” to speak a contradictory opinion to that of the editor of the Scalpel, expressed in an article recently published in the Rural, on the benign blessings of the modern hooped skirt. But I do not intend to apply to him all I have written above, in retaliation of saying “No sensible person can fail to appreciate its benefit to the young girl or woman.”

If I am entitled to the doubtful compliment, I will bear the honor meekly, but it shall not restrain me from confessing that I do fail to see what he has so happily discovered. ‘Perhaps it is all in consequence of not seeing the matter in a “professional” light; but mine is the “light of experience” which is quite sufficient to enable me to judge of its health-giving properties to my own satisfaction. Of its artistic ones, it is hard telling who is able to judge. The word artistic applied to woman’s dress, has such and India-rubber signification, that it may be one thing, or its opposite, according as it is looked upon by persons who consider the consistency of adaptation to natural requirements, or by those who merely take a fancy to the article, or the lady who wears it. Fashion so changes out aesthetic taste into prejudicial notions, that it is nearly impossible for us to tell whether we judge from the true or an artificial standard. However it may be with myself, evidently it is not fashion that has formed my notions in regard to the hoop skirt, one of which is, that God designed for woman a “skeleton,” and I cannot rid myself of the idea that He must have considered it quite sufficient for her needs; and we might reasonably expect it to be an “admirably artistic and health-giving device,” but Fashion and her devotees have denied it the former property, and after sacrificing the latter through persevering ages, to make some appearances of it possession, til, discouraged of ever arriving at any permanently satisfactory result, they have at last compromised the difficulty with the Devine Artistic, by doing the best they can with shaping a portion of His production so as not to shock too severely the refined sensibilities of humanity, and have disguised the remainder of it by hiding it within a new device, modeled after the most artistic designs of a cooper’s shop.

After such a nice adjustment of things, gentlemen who are intensely susceptible to the influences of the beautiful in nature and art, may be well distressed at any indications of the abandonment of their perfected ideal, which is doubtless appreciated not only because it embodies the most symmetrical proportions in its passive state, but is capable of changing into ever-varying artistic figures: such as those assumed in ascending high places and descending to lower ones, in entering carriages, sitting down in arm chairs, and especially in arising therefrom, in walking in the dew, dust, mud, rain and snow – in short, in being comformable to the demands of any emergency.

Women, without her second skeleton, has no more dignity than a wilted cabbage leaf. It gives her an air of majestic stiffness, so fascinating in a moving object; enabling her to rival the gracefulness of the mud-turtle; besides, it increases her capacity to carry fantastic adornments, which is such a commendable way of disposing of wealth in a country over-burdened with prosperity and comfort.

In regards to health, the editor merits the thanks of woman for his candid and instructive reasoning, but he makes compromises with her follies and weaknesses, instead of advising her to forsake them altogether, that she may secure the fullest measure of the blessings of health. He first inscribes himself within a circle whose circumference he dare not, or will not, over-step, and then does the best lie can within his limits. If he had taken for his theorem, The hoop skirt is injurious, and ought to be abandoned, he would have had some excellent arguments for a demonstration.

I was not aware that “its end is to insure the unrestricted use of the limbs in walking” (why not add in skating also.) If it has such pretensions it is a decided humbug, for everybody has learned that that liberty is not attainable while there is one within sight; and most especially is it true of the person whose every step is measured by a boundary which suggest, “thus far shalt thou go and no farther.” If it is meant to insure that use of them to itself, it is a very pertinent remark, and included both hands, of course. Its “benefit to the young girl” in climbing trees and fences, and doing all other necessary romping, has, probably, some signification not at first apparent.

It is thought to be more healthful than the old style of wearing heavy skirts, but I have heard eminent physicians pronounce it even more injurious; confining a body of cold air about the lower portions of the body, causing unequal circulation, and consequent congestions of the organs in the upper portion. But it is not so very light a load for delicate woman to carry thirty metal hoops, and as many yards of cloth, for a genteel covering, which must be so long as not to expose the feet, or it is offensive to good taste, suggesting a lack in the accomplishment of an intended deception. It is more pleasing to fashionable taste to drag it a few inches or more.

Really, I don’t see how a physician, or any other “sensible person,” can fail to see that crinoline, with its train of evils, is injurious to health, to temper, to the free development of mind as well as body, and a monstrous distortion of the beauty of the human form.

There is a demand for earnest discussion in regard to the momentous question, wherewithal shall we be clothed? and we are always obliged to gentlemen for taking an interest in our welfare; but it will be better, if they will please remember in their advice, that what would be poison to them is not likely to be healthful food for us; and they need not fear to speak contrary to the mandates of Fashion, for potent as she is with our vain sex, their admiration is ten times more so. Faith Wayne. Barre, Orleans Co., N.Y., 1864.

From Moore’s Rural New-Yorker in Rochester, NY

March 19^th, 1864

The Unprotected Female

Editors Rural New-Yorker: – Here are a few thoughts, suggested by reading a part of a letter in the fourth number of the Rural, signed M.J.C. She says: – “The unprotected female, sitting among her boxes and bundles in some bustling depot, is, or ought to always to be, the subject of interest. Made up as she is, of nerves, inefficiencies, headaches, cold feet, anxiety and skepticism, she has a title clear, my dear sir, to you candid opinion, as to whether the cars are moving east or due west, or even to express her conviction that they are stationary and surrounding objects are marching on.”

“The unprotected female!” Will M.J.C. please tell us why a female, unprotected, should demand any more interest or sympathy than an unprotected male? Has not her Creator endowed her with the same instinct for self-protection, and given her reason to guide it? Has He not bestowed upon her the same number of limbs for purposes of locomotion, and given her two hands with which to provide for her wants, and protect herself, the same as he has the male?

“Sitting among her boxes and bundles.” What business has a woman to load herself, or any one else, with such rubbish? It is that she may keep two or three men standing, while she has the satisfaction of seeing said boxes and bundles occupying the seats which, by right, if not by custom, belongs to them? I agree that a woman thus situated ought always to be the subject of kindly interest, – so had a man who carries with him such an unmistakable evidences of an unsound mind. Who can look at woman through the clear glasses of reason, instead of the colored ones of fashion, and not see that she is deficient in either education or independence. Her appearance clearly denotes hat she is an object slave, who is either ignorant of the fact, or considers it an honor that she is such, and is unwilling to appear, at least before strangers, unless surrounded by unmistakable evidences of her servitude. If she goes from home for a visit of a few days, she needs a baggage wagon to carry what she deems necessary for the display of her master’s power.

If she is compelled to carry anything in her hands she is really to be pitied, for women, clothed as this class are, have not even one hand that they can properly claim for any use except to guard their badges from injury. They are arrayed in a manner that makes it actually unsafe for them to enter or leave a car or carriage, unless they have both hands free to prevent their skirts from being caught by one of the projections that seem made expressly to torment poor women – or being entangled by the feet of their fellow travelers. Why, unless they are proud of their servitude, will they consent to be thus shackled, while men go about unencumbered? Their hands are free, never being required to keep their clothes from dragging on the dirt, or being trodden upon by the feet of their companions. Their “boxes and bundles,” even for a long journey, are all stowed in one satchel or valise which they can easily carry in one hand, thus leaving the other free to grab the hand of a friend, or assist some unprotected female who has ventured from home to spend a few days, but is already wishing she was back again; for how is she to change all this baggage from the depot to the cars without breaking her neck or tearing her dress?

“Made up as she is, of nerves, headaches, cold feet, anxiety and skepticism.” Poor things! How much suffering is combined in this sentence. Yet who of the sufferers will allow even their best friends to tell them why they are thus made? I will write [sic] although I will admit that I have not a friend who suffers from these afflictions that I should dare to speak my mind freely to, lest they should consider me an enemy to right, because they consider these an affliction of Providence which it would be sacrilegious to see to escape.

Women have no more “nerves” than men, and they would be no more nervous, where their bodies as healthy, and their nerves a little less taxed by petty cares and little accidents. As to “inefficiencies,” supposed you try the experiment of dressing a strong man in trailing skirts, well extended by hoops! Pin his waist so tight as to prevent his stooping with ease, and only allowing him the use of the upper portion of his lungs. Then oblige him to look after the many boxed and bundles that we unprotected females are required, by fashion, to be encumbered with, and see who is the most inefficient! I would pronounce him a model of patience if he did not swear at the many hindrances and annoyances that he would be subjected to on account of his change of clothing, and consequent baggage.

“Headaches and cold feet” are two severe afflictions; the former generally caused by the latter by imporoper dress in the majority of cases. I have never seen a woman yet, who had not broken out of fashion’s train entirely, that did not dress her feet and lower limbs too thin, her hips too warm, her waist too tight, and carry suspended from her waist, weights, varying according to the season and the caprices of the wearer, from two to fifteen pounds. All these things aid in destroying the circulation of the blood, and the action of all the organs of the body.

That the present suffering of women is a punishment for their sin, I fully believe; but it appears to me that nothing but genuine stubbornness can prompt a continuation of the sins which we know have brought upon us such just suffering. Men, being clothed in substantial goods, made in a manner that allows them the free use of their bodies, and protects them from the cold, do not suffer these many severe afflictions, that are the bane of our lives; except such as they inherit. It would seem that after any class of beings, endowed with reason, had become so enfeebled as the women of the present have, that they would strive in every way possible, to regain their natural powers of body and mind. To do this, the first step should be to adopt a dress that would give perfect freedom to mind and body, instead of one that cripples and deforms the latter, while it exhausts the former to keep it in a condition that will be considered by the rulers as acceptable.

“Anxiety and skepticism” are but attendant evils that will vanish when their causes are removed, which will be when women are not ashamed to be clothed in a manner that will insure them warmth and freedom. I do not believe that there is a woman living in the United States who has reached her sixteenth year, and dressed for the last three years with the least regard to the dictates of fashion, that, when dressed, even loosely, can draw a natural breath at the first trial.

Will women ever learn to consider their bodies as only the dwelling place of their souls, where they are to be fitted for the world to come? If they ever do, we shall cease to hear so much prating about the inferiority of women, and her need of protection. She will then be safe travel anywhere among Christian people unprotected, and will not need “your candid opinion, my dear sir, as to whether the cars are moving east or due west,” and as to “expressing her conviction that they are stationary and surrounding objects marching on,” she will be no more apt to make such expressions then than men will. I have heard many, who call themselves ladies, make remarks that were quite as sensible as that would be; but I consider that their greatest ignorance consisted in no knowing that it is a disgrace for even a lady to be ignorant. Amanda Roberts Keyser. Pekin, February, 1864