Life — June 3, 1897 — page 13: what you’re looking at

Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.

MR. BOK SOLVES A PROBLEM. T has been held passing strange that wo- man, gentle and compassionate in other respects, should so often turn a deaf ear to those who plead against the use of birds and parts of birds as adornments, But now Mr. Bok, in the diffident and unassuming style peculiar to his editorial effusions, ex- plains this, and reproves those who have labored hitherto, for their mistaken efforts. It seems that he has frequently been solicited to assist in this reform with the great moral enginery at his command, but the arguments adduced being sentimental, not practical, did not convince him, and hence, naturally, could not convince the women of our country. He explains, further, that women generally are not affected by the efforts put forth on this behalf on account of deficiency of reasoning ability. He admits that the average woman knows that the bird she buys was once alive and is now dead, but that it was killed that she might wear it does not occur to her; “*she simply does not think of it.” It might be supposed that, with all that has been said and done and written in this matter, so neces- sary a causation would be evident, even to young women who have to consult Mr. Bok’s *LIFE: periodical in regard to the osculatory proprieties; but he avers the contrary, and, while denying that American women are vain or cruel, or even thoughtless, delicately intimates that they are imbecile. * . * Haws thuselucidated the difficulty, it is not surprising to find that he has no hope for the reform, but saysithat birds will be worn while the world lasts. But, after this pessimistic prophecy, there is true heroism in his willingness to come WY forth and himself lead a forlorn hope =—§ | against this desperate lack of compre- AO hension on the part of the average woman. He fully believes that such ey . purely sentimental arguments as the hideously bad taste of the custom, 2 its wholesale destruction of inno- cent and joyous life, the hushed song of God’s feathered minstrels, the sufferings of the birds and of their young, left to a lingering alt: ths death by starvation, can have no IN OLE VIRGINIE. “WHERE ARE YOU GOING ?* “NO, ANOTHER SHIPLOAD OF OLD MAYDES.” weight with American women; but he hasan argu- ment, a practical argument, which will, he says, meet the case. If the birds are killed, insect life flourishes unchecked; unchecked insect life must result in dimin- ished crops, and diminished crops result in increased prices forall agricultural pro- ductions; thus proving, by the unanswerable argument of dollars and cents, that women shouid not encour- age the destruction of birds by using them for decorative millinery. This is avery old argument, and it is to be re- gretted that Mr. Bok had not KIS PEARLS OF ETIQUETTE. [IS NOT THE CORRECT THING TO BE CARELESS IN DRRSS AT HOME, ANY MORE THAN WHEN ABROAD. run across it many years ago and trained his batteries for reform. He can now use it for all it is worth, and it is pleas- ing to think that practical women, who cannot grasp the fact that a bird must be killed before it is worn, will now, thanks to Mr, Bok, be able to trace out the logical sequence between the trimming of their hats with birds, or parts of birds, and the en- hanced cost of beans and cabbages. * « * EANWHILE, let those whose re- seal lations with American women have not led them to suppose that the pecun- iary argument is most potent, retain faith that the average woman is not utterly void of sense and feeling, and that the wearing of birds will pass and go, as other barbarous cus- toms have already disappeared. Thos. Conyngton. 774 th a!