While some companies are capitalizing on Obama’s election, others are using the end of Bush’s presidency in advertising. Check out the ad at the bottom of this page:
(Veet is for hair removal.)
Found here.
bodies: hair
Captain Crab sent in a link to this story in the Mail Online about two girls who were kicked out of school for being “two blonde.” Here are the girls:
The girls claim the headmaster said they would be expelled “unless they dyed their hair brown.” He says he simply sent them home until they had it dyed, and that this is in accordance with the school’s dress code, which does not allow “unnatural” hair colors.
It brings up some interesting questions about “naturalness” and how we alter our bodies. Is an “unnatural” hair color any color that a human has never had without help from some type of chemical or other coloring agent? Or is “unnatural” a color other than what your hair would be if you didn’t dye it? Both of these girls dyed their hair colors that many women dye their hair and that some people do have “naturally,” that is, without bleaching it. Does the fact that they chose blonde have anything to do with the reaction? If they had dyed their hair black or auburn, would they have been sent home? I have no idea, I’m just wondering.
You could also use this story to discuss attempts to control kids at school through the use of uniforms, dress/appearance codes, etc., and the way kids always try to get around them, leading to constant renegotiations of what is acceptable and unacceptable between students and school authorities.
Thanks, Captain!
Taylor D. sent in a link to a set of vintage ads featuring African Americans. This one is for wigs. Notice the commodification of liberation and freedom: you buy it in the form of a wig, which gives you a whole new look in seconds!
This one is for a hair straightener:
Of course, the “tamer” and “the boss” that can “stir up some beautiful new excitement in your life” can also refer to the man who is stroking her hair, playing into the idea of the man who tames a wild woman–and that all women, deep down, want a strong man to tame them.
This next one uses women’s fear that men won’t find them attractive to sell deoderant:
Thanks, Taylor!
Nevada is a battleground state, and the state elections have gotten nasty (on both sides); the mailers I get every day don’t even pretend to be about issues any more, they’re just attack ads. I got this one, against a Democratic candidate, a couple of days ago:
I thought the photo they chose to illustrate “radical groups” was interesting. There were no specifics about what type of “radical” groups, or what they are radical about. To me, this image seemed like it was supposed to bring up the threat of radical (angry) feminists, but I don’t know if that was the specific type of radical this was meant to evoke or if that’s just what it makes me think of.
Anyway, it might be useful for a discussion of political discourses (for instance, how groups selectively use words like “radical,” “progressive,” “traditional,” “regressive,” and so on to depict change as either good or threatening), as well as what types of political agendas even appearances have become associated with “radical” politics (for instance, a woman wearing multiple necklaces and dreadlocks symbolizes radicalism).
On-the-road post from Flagstaff, AZ:
The other day I was standing in a salon and noticed some styling products by Redken for Men. I realized they provide an excellent example of how, when companies try to convince men to buy things traditionally reserved for women (and thus marked feminine), they have to masculinize them. This is particularly true when it comes to beauty products, since men aren’t supposed to worry about things like their skin.
On the Redken website, the products are described as, “Focused technology for stronger hair and balanced scalp.” I’m not sure I’ve ever bought mousse or shampoo described to me as technology before. Notice how the names of these styling products attempt to make them seem manly:
Grip Tight gel.
Men maneuver things, like high-end cars and power tools. And their hair.
Don’t take dandruff lying down! Retaliate!
Tough = masculine.
Men work hard. So does their molding paste.
Bulk Up!
Be smarter and sportier than your hair.
Redken for Men’s gray-hair-covering service is not dye, it’s Color Camo.
It might be useful to compare images of products like these with this verse from the currently-popular country song “I’m Still a Guy,” by Brad Paisley:
These days there’s dudes getting facials
Manicured waxed and botoxed
But with deep spray on tans and creamy lotioney hands
You can’t grip a tackle box
With all of these men lining up to get neutered
It’s hip now to be feminized I don’t highlight my hair
I’ve still got a pair
Yeah, honey I’m still a guy
My eyebrows ain’t plucked
Theres a gun in my truck
Thank God I’m still a guy
I’ve driven from Vegas to Oklahoma and nearly back in the last 10 days. I’ve heard this song several times now.
Anyway, this could be good for a discussion of changing ideals of masculinity (and the idea of the metrosexual) or the gendering of products into men’s and women’s versions even though they’re really the same.
See also Touch of Gray hair dye and another set of beauty products for men.
In the comments, pharmacopaeia mentioned that the New Zealand salon Manscape caters to men and has to work to masculinize its services and products (starting with the name, obviously). Their tagline is “taking the ape out of the modern man.” They also offer clients cold beers while they get beautified. They offer a sports massage, “perfect for pre and post event training.” They reassure men about the eyebrow maintenance service by saying “Shape & tidy – there’s nothing girly about this!” The manicure (Man-I-Cure) is called Handy Work, and the pedicure is described as “manly.”
Thanks for letting us know, p.!
NEW: Here’s another example I found in Rolling Stone, which tells men to take charge of their hair:
Captain Crab sent in this image (found here) of pubic hair dye:
Here is a link to the betty website. According to the site,
In less than one year, over 100,000 happy customers are using betty to naturally match their hair above, cover gray or just for fun! Whether you’re a blonde (be a true blonde now!), radiant auburn, rich brunette, raven black or want to try hot pink for fun, our easy to use no-drip formula gives you the perfect finishing touch.
These might be useful for a discussion of the ever-increasing standards for personal beauty: once upon a time, you just worried about gray hair on your head. And taking care of things “down there” meant obsessing over odor and controlling evidence of menstruation. Now women get genital plastic surgery and “vaginal rejuvenation” (those sites aren’t work-appropriate) as they age or after childbirth, shave or wax their pubic hair, and apparently can now dye their pubic hair to be sure it doesn’t show signs of aging (or just doesn’t match their hair)–although the betty website FAQ link does mention that men also use the product. I can’t help but suspect that the mainstreaming of porn and increased access (especially online) to images of women’s genitals is providing average women with a new body part to compare to other women and find lacking.
At least the pink seems like something you’d just do for fun, not out of a concern to hide signs of aging. Although maybe there are 50-year-old women out there running around with pink pubes. What do I know?
Thanks, Captain!
It is a norm for women in the U.S. to shave their armpits, but this is not the norm elsewhere, even in countries that have relatively a lot in common with the U.S. (like France I’ve been corrected). How did armpit shaving become the norm in the U.S.? And who benefited from this?
Vee the Monsoon sent us the following commentary and ad. It turns out, women shave in the U.S. today, in part, because of a concerted marketing effort on the part of companies that stood to profit from the creation of such a norm with the creation of anxiety about “objectionable hair.”
From The Straight Dope:
…U.S. women were browbeaten into shaving underarm hair by a sustained marketing assault that began in 1915. (Leg hair came later.) The aim of… the Great Underarm Campaign was to inform American womanhood of a problem that till then it didn’t know it had, namely unsightly underarm hair. To be sure, women had been concerned about the appearance of their hair since time immemorial, but (sensibly) only the stuff you could see. Prior to World War I this meant scalp and, for an unlucky few, facial hair. Around 1915, however, sleeveless dresses became popular, opening up a whole new field of female vulnerability for marketers to exploit…. the underarm campaign began in May, 1915, in Harper’s Bazaar, a magazine aimed at the upper crust. The first ad ‘featured a waist-up photograph of a young woman who appears to be dressed in a slip with a toga-like outfit covering one shoulder. Her arms are arched over her head revealing perfectly clear armpits. The first part of the ad read “Summer Dress and Modern Dancing combine to make necessary the removal of objectionable
hair.
From the May 1915 issue of Harper’s Bazaar:
Thanks Vee!
NEW! Another example from the U.K., 1934 (found here). This one encourages the dissolving of armpit hair as a way to fight armpit odor:
Jennifer E.-B. sent in these three images.
The text on the website for this men’s t-shirt:
What goes into being a Dad? You’ll find 100% leadership, 100% guidance, 100% sacrifice, and 24/7 dedication. These Christian Dad Facts and more are printed on this inspirational tribute. A loving gift, comfy 100% cotton tee is machine washable and made in the USA.
The “ingredients” on the t-shirt include dedication, love, wisdom, and leadership. The “serving size” is “2 helpings of advice.”
The website for this women’s shirt says:
Ever wonder what makes up a Mom? Well, there’s 100% sugar, 100% sacrifice, 100% caring, and 24/7 comforting. These Christian Mom Facts and more are printed on this inspirational tribute. A sweet gift, comfy 100% cotton tee is machine washable and made in the USA.
The “ingredients” include comforting, love, wisdom, total compassion, sugar, sacrifice, and caring. The “serving size” is 5 hugs per day.
Then there is this child’s t-shirt that says “Daddy did my hair”:
As Jennifer points out,
I think it brings up a lot of unspoken norms about parental responsibility and ability. First, it indicates that it is the norm for mommy to do the daughter’s hair, but out of the norm for daddy to do it–we don’t see t-shirts saying mommy did my hair, right? (I searched and didn’t find any.) Because that’s just taken for granted. But if Dad does it, it is something to be noticed (and maybe he even gets praised for doing something that is a routine job for mom). Second, the implication is that dads cannot do their daughter’s hair “correctly.” So there is an expectation that if dad does the hair it will be a mess. Think about what this says about men–we certainly think they are capable of doing all kinds of very complex tasks at work–but we don’t think they can comb hair or put in a ponytail??? Third, I think the shirt serves the purpose of justifying the girl’s looks for the mom. In other words, no moms want others to think they would do such a poor job on the girl’s hair. They want others to know that it looks like this because daddy did it. Moms feel pressure to have their kids look great (and behave well) all the time, no matter how hectic the day is. And, of course, the shirt is for a girl, not a boy. No one really cares how a boy’s hair looks.
Thanks, Jennifer!
Captain Crab sent in a link to this story in the Mail Online about two girls who were kicked out of school for being “two blonde.” Here are the girls:
The girls claim the headmaster said they would be expelled “unless they dyed their hair brown.” He says he simply sent them home until they had it dyed, and that this is in accordance with the school’s dress code, which does not allow “unnatural” hair colors.
It brings up some interesting questions about “naturalness” and how we alter our bodies. Is an “unnatural” hair color any color that a human has never had without help from some type of chemical or other coloring agent? Or is “unnatural” a color other than what your hair would be if you didn’t dye it? Both of these girls dyed their hair colors that many women dye their hair and that some people do have “naturally,” that is, without bleaching it. Does the fact that they chose blonde have anything to do with the reaction? If they had dyed their hair black or auburn, would they have been sent home? I have no idea, I’m just wondering.
You could also use this story to discuss attempts to control kids at school through the use of uniforms, dress/appearance codes, etc., and the way kids always try to get around them, leading to constant renegotiations of what is acceptable and unacceptable between students and school authorities.
Thanks, Captain!
Taylor D. sent in a link to a set of vintage ads featuring African Americans. This one is for wigs. Notice the commodification of liberation and freedom: you buy it in the form of a wig, which gives you a whole new look in seconds!
This one is for a hair straightener:
Of course, the “tamer” and “the boss” that can “stir up some beautiful new excitement in your life” can also refer to the man who is stroking her hair, playing into the idea of the man who tames a wild woman–and that all women, deep down, want a strong man to tame them.
This next one uses women’s fear that men won’t find them attractive to sell deoderant:
Thanks, Taylor!
Nevada is a battleground state, and the state elections have gotten nasty (on both sides); the mailers I get every day don’t even pretend to be about issues any more, they’re just attack ads. I got this one, against a Democratic candidate, a couple of days ago:
I thought the photo they chose to illustrate “radical groups” was interesting. There were no specifics about what type of “radical” groups, or what they are radical about. To me, this image seemed like it was supposed to bring up the threat of radical (angry) feminists, but I don’t know if that was the specific type of radical this was meant to evoke or if that’s just what it makes me think of.
Anyway, it might be useful for a discussion of political discourses (for instance, how groups selectively use words like “radical,” “progressive,” “traditional,” “regressive,” and so on to depict change as either good or threatening), as well as what types of political agendas even appearances have become associated with “radical” politics (for instance, a woman wearing multiple necklaces and dreadlocks symbolizes radicalism).
On-the-road post from Flagstaff, AZ:
The other day I was standing in a salon and noticed some styling products by Redken for Men. I realized they provide an excellent example of how, when companies try to convince men to buy things traditionally reserved for women (and thus marked feminine), they have to masculinize them. This is particularly true when it comes to beauty products, since men aren’t supposed to worry about things like their skin.
On the Redken website, the products are described as, “Focused technology for stronger hair and balanced scalp.” I’m not sure I’ve ever bought mousse or shampoo described to me as technology before. Notice how the names of these styling products attempt to make them seem manly:
Grip Tight gel.
Men maneuver things, like high-end cars and power tools. And their hair.
Don’t take dandruff lying down! Retaliate!
Tough = masculine.
Men work hard. So does their molding paste.
Bulk Up!
Be smarter and sportier than your hair.
Redken for Men’s gray-hair-covering service is not dye, it’s Color Camo.
It might be useful to compare images of products like these with this verse from the currently-popular country song “I’m Still a Guy,” by Brad Paisley:
These days there’s dudes getting facials
Manicured waxed and botoxed
But with deep spray on tans and creamy lotioney hands
You can’t grip a tackle box
With all of these men lining up to get neutered
It’s hip now to be feminized I don’t highlight my hair
I’ve still got a pair
Yeah, honey I’m still a guyMy eyebrows ain’t plucked
Theres a gun in my truck
Thank God I’m still a guy
I’ve driven from Vegas to Oklahoma and nearly back in the last 10 days. I’ve heard this song several times now.
Anyway, this could be good for a discussion of changing ideals of masculinity (and the idea of the metrosexual) or the gendering of products into men’s and women’s versions even though they’re really the same.
See also Touch of Gray hair dye and another set of beauty products for men.
In the comments, pharmacopaeia mentioned that the New Zealand salon Manscape caters to men and has to work to masculinize its services and products (starting with the name, obviously). Their tagline is “taking the ape out of the modern man.” They also offer clients cold beers while they get beautified. They offer a sports massage, “perfect for pre and post event training.” They reassure men about the eyebrow maintenance service by saying “Shape & tidy – there’s nothing girly about this!” The manicure (Man-I-Cure) is called Handy Work, and the pedicure is described as “manly.”
Thanks for letting us know, p.!
NEW: Here’s another example I found in Rolling Stone, which tells men to take charge of their hair:
Captain Crab sent in this image (found here) of pubic hair dye:
Here is a link to the betty website. According to the site,
In less than one year, over 100,000 happy customers are using betty to naturally match their hair above, cover gray or just for fun! Whether you’re a blonde (be a true blonde now!), radiant auburn, rich brunette, raven black or want to try hot pink for fun, our easy to use no-drip formula gives you the perfect finishing touch.
These might be useful for a discussion of the ever-increasing standards for personal beauty: once upon a time, you just worried about gray hair on your head. And taking care of things “down there” meant obsessing over odor and controlling evidence of menstruation. Now women get genital plastic surgery and “vaginal rejuvenation” (those sites aren’t work-appropriate) as they age or after childbirth, shave or wax their pubic hair, and apparently can now dye their pubic hair to be sure it doesn’t show signs of aging (or just doesn’t match their hair)–although the betty website FAQ link does mention that men also use the product. I can’t help but suspect that the mainstreaming of porn and increased access (especially online) to images of women’s genitals is providing average women with a new body part to compare to other women and find lacking.
At least the pink seems like something you’d just do for fun, not out of a concern to hide signs of aging. Although maybe there are 50-year-old women out there running around with pink pubes. What do I know?
Thanks, Captain!
It is a norm for women in the U.S. to shave their armpits, but this is not the norm elsewhere, even in countries that have relatively a lot in common with the U.S. (like France I’ve been corrected). How did armpit shaving become the norm in the U.S.? And who benefited from this?
Vee the Monsoon sent us the following commentary and ad. It turns out, women shave in the U.S. today, in part, because of a concerted marketing effort on the part of companies that stood to profit from the creation of such a norm with the creation of anxiety about “objectionable hair.”
From The Straight Dope:
…U.S. women were browbeaten into shaving underarm hair by a sustained marketing assault that began in 1915. (Leg hair came later.) The aim of… the Great Underarm Campaign was to inform American womanhood of a problem that till then it didn’t know it had, namely unsightly underarm hair. To be sure, women had been concerned about the appearance of their hair since time immemorial, but (sensibly) only the stuff you could see. Prior to World War I this meant scalp and, for an unlucky few, facial hair. Around 1915, however, sleeveless dresses became popular, opening up a whole new field of female vulnerability for marketers to exploit…. the underarm campaign began in May, 1915, in Harper’s Bazaar, a magazine aimed at the upper crust. The first ad ‘featured a waist-up photograph of a young woman who appears to be dressed in a slip with a toga-like outfit covering one shoulder. Her arms are arched over her head revealing perfectly clear armpits. The first part of the ad read “Summer Dress and Modern Dancing combine to make necessary the removal of objectionable
hair.
From the May 1915 issue of Harper’s Bazaar:
Thanks Vee!
NEW! Another example from the U.K., 1934 (found here). This one encourages the dissolving of armpit hair as a way to fight armpit odor:
Jennifer E.-B. sent in these three images.
The text on the website for this men’s t-shirt:
What goes into being a Dad? You’ll find 100% leadership, 100% guidance, 100% sacrifice, and 24/7 dedication. These Christian Dad Facts and more are printed on this inspirational tribute. A loving gift, comfy 100% cotton tee is machine washable and made in the USA.
The “ingredients” on the t-shirt include dedication, love, wisdom, and leadership. The “serving size” is “2 helpings of advice.”
The website for this women’s shirt says:
Ever wonder what makes up a Mom? Well, there’s 100% sugar, 100% sacrifice, 100% caring, and 24/7 comforting. These Christian Mom Facts and more are printed on this inspirational tribute. A sweet gift, comfy 100% cotton tee is machine washable and made in the USA.
The “ingredients” include comforting, love, wisdom, total compassion, sugar, sacrifice, and caring. The “serving size” is 5 hugs per day.
Then there is this child’s t-shirt that says “Daddy did my hair”:
As Jennifer points out,
I think it brings up a lot of unspoken norms about parental responsibility and ability. First, it indicates that it is the norm for mommy to do the daughter’s hair, but out of the norm for daddy to do it–we don’t see t-shirts saying mommy did my hair, right? (I searched and didn’t find any.) Because that’s just taken for granted. But if Dad does it, it is something to be noticed (and maybe he even gets praised for doing something that is a routine job for mom). Second, the implication is that dads cannot do their daughter’s hair “correctly.” So there is an expectation that if dad does the hair it will be a mess. Think about what this says about men–we certainly think they are capable of doing all kinds of very complex tasks at work–but we don’t think they can comb hair or put in a ponytail??? Third, I think the shirt serves the purpose of justifying the girl’s looks for the mom. In other words, no moms want others to think they would do such a poor job on the girl’s hair. They want others to know that it looks like this because daddy did it. Moms feel pressure to have their kids look great (and behave well) all the time, no matter how hectic the day is. And, of course, the shirt is for a girl, not a boy. No one really cares how a boy’s hair looks.
Thanks, Jennifer!