By Abigail Harrison
Edited by Frank Oddy and Mark Potter
Although an informative tool, advertising fundamentally aspires to influence. Advertising is
targeted in order to persuade potential consumers to purchase a company’s goods or services. The specificity associated with this influence provides historians with critical insights into the desires of particular demographics at a given point. Collating advertisements and analysing this medium provides a crucial understanding of societal norms and the general tone of an era. Focussing on the twentieth century, advertising was highly gendered and conformed to heteronormative ideals. Advertising for men focussed on connotations of power, hyper-masculinity, and attaining a devoted, submissive wife. Advertising for women on the other hand, singularly fixated on enhancing a woman’s capability to please a love interest or a household. Historian Bronwen Edwards highlights the power of fashion magazine Vogue in influencing metropolitan fashion and bringing the notion of the store as a panacea to the fore. Vogue used a multitude of adverts, all of which contributed to a pressure on women to conform to increased ideals of modernity.[1] Carol Dyhouse charts the influence that film stars and glamour had on twentieth century Britain, particularly focusing on the inter-war years.[2] This essay will argue that although adverts were not the main contributor to gender formation, as much of this was already established by a long history of patriarchal laws and power structures. Advertising remained crucial in promoting gendered consumption habits in Britain. A range of adverts and supporting secondary sources spanning the twentieth century will be evaluated with consideration for their historiographical contexts. This essay will consider the role of advertising in the beauty and clothing industries; in love, as an ideal and an institution; and in terms of the domestic sphere where technologies and goods were unnecessarily gendered.
Throughout the twentieth century, the cosmetics industry embodied a delicate balance that
women were obliged to adhere. Beauty standards were in a permanent state of flux, coercing
women to comply with ever-changing benchmarks of femininity for the pleasure of society,
notably men.[3] A woman’s worth was intrinsically linked to male approval. Advertising framed aesthetics as a female necessity in order to secure a suitor and acted as a guide for how one should look, and how to achieve it.[4] Women therefore faced significant pressure to maintain ideals of femininity, largely through advertisements.[5]
This Pond’s advert (Figure 1) epitomises this requirement to be attractive to men. Miss Claire
d’Arcis Dunham, engaged to a war veteran from Washington signals the paradigm of happiness for a woman in the 1940s. The advert sells the notion that their products were responsible for her good fortune, implying it has the ability to transcend class and status. Pond’s advert furthered the idea that women must strive for security, through acquiring a spouse, a standard not set for or held by men. The glorification of overt female dependence on men was not an invention of advertising, nor was this ideology and sexism kept alive solely because of advertising, however, adverts such as this perpetuated gender roles within the cosmetic industry. Alongside swathes of similar adverts, Pond’s subscribes to the premise that the ultimate goal for females is marriage and, to achieve this, women must behave within a strict set of expected standards. Furthermore, if women do not meet such standards, they therefore require cosmetic enhancement to be deemed acceptable. Thus, within the cosmetic industry, advertisements were integral to the formation of ideology which fostered insecurity in women regarding their appearance and placed an onus on women to see themselves as a commodity for male objectification.
This Snowfire advert (Figure 2) emphasises the influence of film-stars and glamour on British fashion. Make-up was increasingly common in the middle and working classes as women from these sectors saw an increase in real wages and job opportunities. In tandem, advertising industries targeted women to spend their newly acquired disposable income. In the 1930s, the popularity of film stars provides companies with easily exploitable advertising opportunities featuring glamourous role models for the average woman. The advert plays upon the general concept that women were expected to be respectable, aesthetically pleasing and reserved.
Women were faced with a challenging paradox, where makeup was the trademark of a harlot,
yet women were expected to present themselves as flawless. Such paradoxes exist for women
in all aspects of their appearance, extending beyond the cosmetic industry and the 1930s. The constant undermining of a woman’s sense of self primes women as advertising targets,
allowing companies to augment sales from a female vulnerability that they have manufactured. Specific to this example, such contradiction led to the increased popularity of makeup that covered blemished skin whilst looking invisible to the untrained eye. This sold women the dream that they could emulate Hollywood actresses through usage of Snowfire’s products. Emulation theory states that the lower classes would attempt to replicate the goods, way of life and aesthetics of upper classes and celebrities on a cost-friendly budget. Snowfire thus sold more cosmetics, namely the illusion of transcending class. Furthermore, the advert only markets shades catered for white skin, with the darkest shade being named ‘sun-tan’. This encapsulates the makeup industry in Britain being largely exclusionary of those who didn’t conform to Eurocentric beauty standards. Though Snowfire sold the promise of transformative products, in reality they only furthered the destructive narrative that women should conform to a homogenous, non-inclusive archetype that conflated gentility and beauty.
Gender roles were also distinct in clothing advertisements. Advertisements for female clothing focussed on exhibiting glamourous women and ideal body types, again with the goal of male pleasure. Women’s bodies were dictated to them through various fashion magazines and advertisements.[6] Vogue sold the notion of London as a fashion metropolis, drawing parallels between metropolitan style and femininity.[7] Women looked to Vogue to direct their purchasing decisions, which gave the magazine incredible reach within the fashion world.[8] Vogue’s influence is demonstrated by the synchronous shift of shopping habits towards ready-to-wear clothing and an uptrend towards advertising national brands advertised by the magazine and the use of Vogue by the West End to parade the latest garments and trends.[9]
Advertisements for clothing directed at men also play into the same gender stereotypes. Men
were expected to dress smartly in order to secure a woman that would be a good future
housewife, or in the case of Figure 3, dress powerfully to domineer his wife into submissive
domestic ‘bliss’. The Van Heusen advert from 1950 demonstrates that despite a surge in jobs
resulting from the war effort, in post war Britain, women’s expected role continued to be a
domestic housewife. When comparing the Van Heusen and the Orlon adverts (Figures 3 and 4), the Van Heusen uses terminology such as “it’s a man’s world”, “For men only”, “power-
packed patterns” to reinforce the image of masculinity as the dominant role of a man, especially over their wife. Contrastingly, the Orlon advert concerns itself with modernity rather than domesticity with pressure on women to look fashionable for the sake of on lookers. Boots used this idea at the crux of their advertising campaign “The Modern Way to Loveliness”.[10] The divergence of language seen cements the notion that for men, clothing was an opportunity to display their manhood, whereas for women, advertising stressed that women were obligated to move with trends in order to stay socially relevant and desirable. Simply put, for men fashion was framed a source of pride and for women a source of pressure; a continuous reminder that they are obliged to maintain their looks and appearance. This can be seen in the advert for women’s clothing by Orlon (Figure 4). It is two men who hold the blueprints implying creative control. The message is clear: fashion was a “man’s world” but a woman’s burden.
Marriage experienced a dynamic shift in the twentieth century. By the 1950s, women had less
children, who were born closer together, dedicating less time to the household and more to
work.[11] Advancements in the pill, the decriminalisation of abortion and the increased
acceptability and accessibility of divorce also meant that women enjoyed increased freedoms
with less scrutiny.[12] Nevertheless, advertisements largely continued to perpetuate stereotypes about gender roles in marriage, which illustrates that despite advancements for women’s legal rights in a marriage, societally roles remained the same. A wife was still expected to run the household and effectuate domestic duties, despite work and other commitments.
This Halifax advert from 1975 (Figure 5) embodies the role that marriage played in a young
woman’s life. Their slogan: “Promise. Confidence. Security.” plays upon the narrative that
marriage was essential for a woman to thrive in society. The advert concludes with the phrase
“Tomorrow will look that much brighter,” which reinforces the important of marriage for future financial security for a woman in the form of her husband. Halifax used the marital imagery to convey a narrative of security that paralleled with their promise of financial security. Halifax’s advert emphasised the importance of marriage in a society that gradually drifted from heteronormative ideals that marriage was a business arrangement that was dictated to two individuals. This advert reinforces stereotypes that women were reliant on men and that marriage was the ideal that a couple should strive towards.
These adverts from Puritan in 1956 (Figure 6) and Heal’s in the 1980s (Figure 7) despite being 30 years apart, both emphasise that marriage constitutes women adopting domestic
responsibility. Getting married is a hallmark that signifies the female as caretaker for husbands and children. Puritan’s advert stresses how busy a woman will be in married life, looking after husband and home, yet reinforces the pressure on women to look good. They use the slogan “Keeps Active Hands Attractive Hands,” which illustrates the multifaceted role that a twentieth century wife must play as both useful and attractive. Heal’s advert conveys a similar narrative: “Start as you mean to go on.” Their advertisement is for a wedding gift registry for homeware targeted to brides with the implication of lifelong domestic service. They also describe such machinery as ‘elegant’, which is reminiscent of the expectation upon women to present themselves alongside their homes in an aesthetically pleasing way. Heal’s attempts to advertise to women with the promise of convenient living was typical of appliance advertisements in the twentieth century, addressing the issue of dwindling domestic servants, which was a concern in middle and upper-class households.[13] Despite achievements of feminist movements, both adverts support the prevailing that women belong in the home with marriage signalling a contractual agreement as provider for male needs. Although these adverts market convenience, they subtly perpetuate a narrative that was anything but – instead promoting a lifetime of hard, unrecognised work that was increasingly expected alongside wage labour.
Domesticity is a key theme that permeates gender-based advertisements of the 1900s, an
extension of the narrative that women’s activities outside the home constitute merely an
addendum to her main domestic role.[14] Women during this period were predominantly defined by domesticity and to abandon such ideals was met with societal disapproval. While
domesticity was expected amongst women, and advertising did not inherently create this
narrative, it did play a vital role in encouraging these stereotypes.
This OXO advert (Figure 8) demonstrates temporary changing gender roles during the Second World War. The man is depicted to be the cook, where the woman stands in the doorway, onlooking. Her arm is branded with W.V.S, which stands for the Women’s Voluntary Service, depicting her contribution to the war effort and shift away from a domestic primary purpose. Analysing this advert in isolation, OXO seems to reflect the changing fortunes for women following their wartime recruitment into the workplace. Analysing the adverts that followed, however, it is clear that this feminist shift was fleeting. Ultimately adverts post-war reverted to gender stereotypes and upheld traditional gender roles.
These two Hoover adverts (Figures 9 and 10) reflect this post-war regression of gender roles.
The first advert (Figure 9) portrays a bride on her wedding day, longingly gazing at a collection of Hoover irons, with her gaze away from the camera. This is in contrast to the second advert (Figure 10), which depicts two men standing over two washing machines, with strong stances and authoritative gazes. This different staging invites the viewer to associate the woman as the housewife, indecisive yet excited over her new appliances, whereas men appear dominant and knowledgeable. Hoover perpetuates the stereotypes of men as inherently industrial, capable of dealing with heavy machinery and women as delicate and without agency, having these irons generously bestowed upon her. Moreover, it took a significant amount of time for domestic gadgets to penetrate British homes, unlike leisure technologies including radios and televisions.[15] Domesticity was presented in advertising as a given, where gadgets offered to divert a woman’s attention elsewhere, it was to elsewhere within the home.
To conclude, advertising held a critical role in perpetuating socially assigned gender roles,
separate but equally as damaging as restrictions placed upon women by patriarchal laws. In
some cases, advertisements appealed specifically to women through pressure to emulate
modern, glamorous fashions set by film stars. Other adverts instead reinforced distinct roles
for men and women, with women occupying the home whilst men are portrayed as powerful
breadwinners. Despite a deviance from this narrative during the war, with a dismantling of
traditional gender roles, much of this progress regressed once peacetime resumed and men
returned home, an evolution that is captured by advertising trends. Advertisements containing harmful gender stereotypes were banned in 2019, but harmful ideologies permeate today.[16] An insight into the history of advertising through a gendered lens is critical to determine its lingering impact. Additionally, of particular note, is the predominance of white people occupying the advertising sphere. During my research, I found a distinct lack of adverts that showed anything but a white, heteronormative paradigm of British life. Equally disappointing, much of the study of gendered advertising is not intersectional and fails to cover a diversity of race, sexuality or self-expression. This essay would benefit from further analysis into intersectional advertising or lack thereof, and how this affected gendered advertising or those who received it.
Figure 1: Pond, “She’s Engaged! She’s Lovely! She uses Ponds!” Pond’s Magazine Advert (1940s).
Figure 2: Snowfire, “Film-Star Glamour”, Snowfire Vanishing Cream and Face Powder Advert (mid-1930s).
Figure 3: Van Heusen, “Show Her it's a Man's World”, Van Heusen Ties Advert (1950).
Figure 4: DuPont, New Blueprint in Fashions with a Care-free Future! Orlon Acrylic Fibre Advert, (1950s).
Figure 5: Halifax Building Society, “Promise. Confidence. Security”. Halifax Advert (1975).
Figure 6: Puritan, “Time on Her Hands!” Puritan Soap Advert (1956).
Figure 7: Heal’s, “Start as You Mean to Go on”, Heal's Coupon Advert (1980s).
Figure 8: OXO, “Remember Mother's Advice”, OXO Advert (1941).
Figure 9: Hoover, “One Way or the Other Jenny Will Always do her Ironing with a Hoover”, Hoover Houseware Range Advert (1960s).
Figure 10: Hoover, “The Mean Machines from Hoover. Who Better?” Hoover Washing Machines Advert (1986).
Notes
[1] Bronwen Edwards, “We Are Fatally Influenced by Goods Bought in Bond Street,” Fashion Theory, 10/1-2 (2006), pp. 73-93.
[2] Carol Dyhouse, Glamour: Women, History, Feminism (London & New York, Zed Books, 2011), pp. 49-79.
[3] Richard Hornsey, “’The modern way to loveliness’: middle-class cosmetics and chain-store beauty culture in mid-twentieth century Britain,” Women’s History Review, 28/1 (2019), p. 132.
[4] Dyhouse, Glamour, p.51.
[5] Hornsey, “The modern way” p. 132.
[6] Ina Zweiniger-Bargielowska, Women in Twentieth-Century Britain (London & New York, Routledge, 2014), pp. 183-195.
[7] Edwards, “We are Fatally”, p. 75.
[8] Edwards, “We are Fatally”, pp. 75-79.
[9] Edwards, “We are Fatally”, pp.76-77.
[10] Hornsey “The modern way”, pp. 111-132.
[11] Penny Summerfield, “Women in Britain since 1945: Companionate Marriage and the Double Burden” in Catterall and Obelkevich, (eds.) Understanding Post-War British Society. (London: Taylor & Francis Group, 1994), p. 62.
[12] Kate Fisher, “’She Was Quite Satisfied with the Arrangements I Made’: Gender and Birth Control in Britain 1920-1950,” Past and Present, 169 (2000), pp. 161-193.
[13] Sue Bowden and Avner Offer, “The Technological Revolution That Never Was,” in de Grazia and Furlough (eds.), The Sex of Things, Gender and Consumption in Historical Perspective (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1996), p. 266.
[14] Vanessa Taylor and Graeme Gooday, “Gender and Agency in the Anthropocene: Energy, Women, and the Home in Twentieth-Century Britain,” RCC Perspectives, 1 (2020), p. 13.
[15] Taylor and Gooday, “Gender and Agency”, pp. 259-265.
[16] Jim Waterson, “UK advertising watchdog to crack down on sexist stereotypes.” The Guardian, 14 December 2018 <https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/dec/14/uk-
advertising-watchdog-to-crack-down-on-sexist-stereotypers> [Accessed 15 April 2021].
Bibliography
All advertisements were taken from the Advertising Archives
Becker, Gary S. “A Theory of the Allocation of Time.” The Economic Journal. 75/299. 1965
Bowden, Sue and Avner Offer. “The Technological Revolution That Never Was.” in de
Grazia and Furlough (eds.). The Sex of Things, Gender and Consumption in Historical
Perspective Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1996
Conekin, Becky E. “From Haughty to Nice: How British Fashion Images Changed from the
1950s to the 1960s.” Photography & Culture. 3/3. 2010
Dyhouse, Carol. Glamour: Women, History, Feminism London & New York: Zed Books,
2011
Edwards, Bronwen. “We Are Fatally Influenced by Goods Bought in Bond Street,” Fashion
Theory, 10/1-2. 2006
Evans, Caroline and Minna Thornton. “Fashion, Representation, Femininity.” Feminist
Review. 38. 1991
Fisher, Kate. “’She Was Quite Satisfied with the Arrangements I Made’: Gender and Birth
Control in Britain 1920-1950,” Past and Present, 169, 2000
Hornsey, Richard. “’The modern way to loveliness’: middle-class cosmetics and chain-store
beauty culture in mid-twentieth century Britain.” Women’s History Review. 28/1. 2019
Hilton, Matthew. “The Female Consumer and the Politics of Consumption in Twentieth-
Century Britain.” The Historical Journal. 45/1. 2002
Lewis, Jane. “Gender, the Family and Women’s Agency in the Building of States’: The
British Case.” Social History. 19/1. 1994
Neuhaus, Jessamyn. “The Way to a Man’s Heart: Gender Roles, Domestic Ideology and
Cookbooks in the 1950s.” Journal of Social History. 32/3. 1999
Nixon, Sean. “Life in the kitchen: Television advertising, the housewife and domestic
modernity in Britain, 1955-1969.” Contemporary British History. 31/1. 2017
Taylor, James. “Racialised representations in British and American advertising.” The Royal
Geographical Society. 29/2. 1997
Taylor, Vanessa and Graeme Gooday. “Gender and Agency in the Anthropocene: Energy,
Women, and the Home in Twentieth-Century Britain.” RCC Perspectives. 1. 2020
Waterson, Jim. “UK advertising watchdog to crack down on sexist stereotypes.” The
Guardian. 14 December, 2018. <https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/dec/14/uk-
advertising-watchdog-to-crack-down-on-sexist-stereotypers> [Accessed 15 April 2021]
Comments