Constructing the Past

Volume 3 Issue 1 Article 6

2002

Shaping the American Woman: Feminism and Advertising in the

1950s
Christina Catalano
Illinois Wesleyan University

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/constructing

Recommended Citation
Catalano, Christina (2002) "Shaping the American Woman: Feminism and Advertising in
the 1950s," Constructing the Past: Vol. 3 : Iss. 1 , Article 6.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/constructing/vol3/iss1/6

This Article is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital
Commons @ IWU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this material in any
way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For
other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights
are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This material
has been accepted for inclusion by editorial board of the Undergraduate Economic Review and the
Economics Department at Illinois Wesleyan University. For more information, please contact
digitalcommons@iwu.edu.
©Copyright is owned by the author of this document.
Shaping the American Woman: Feminism and Advertising in the 1950s

Abstract
This article is a critique of the feminist assertion that 1950s advertising was degrading to women. It
shows that in several advertisments from the time period, women were portrayed as being competent
and successful, both in working in the home and outside of it as well.

This article is available in Constructing the Past: https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/constructing/vol3/iss1/6


44 .Jared Calloway
"The Basis of Franklin's Duplicative Satires" American Literature 32, no. 3
(Novcmber !9ClO): 267-279.
'J Max Hall, Benjamill F"l"lIllklin and Polly Baker, 129, 1J6. The purpose of Max Hall's
book is to prove that Franklin wrote "The Speech of Miss Polly Baker." Almost
all ofFrallklin 's biographcrs and the editors of his papers accept Hall's argument.
'8 Thomas Jetferson, 777(' CnmpleteJejftrson: Containing His Major Writings, Published
and UnfJllhlished, Exce!'t His Lellers, cd. Saul, K. Padover (New York: Tudor
Publishing Company, 194J), 892-3.
'9 Indeed. the inaccuracies of Jefferson's account are many and I will omit them due to
spatial constraints.
.\0 As already mentioned, 1 am leaving out the only other female pseudonym of his I
know offor two reasons: limited space and I just discovered the existence of The
Left Hand recelltly and have not had adequatc time to research it.
Constructing The Past 45
Shaping the American Woman: Feminism and
Advertising in the 1950s
Christina Catalano
T
he 1950s proved to be an important era for American women. With
the end of World War II, men returned to the United States and to
_ theirjobs, which had temporarily been assumed by women. Women
now out of work turned toward the home and domestic activity. Advanced
industrialization and the beginnings of suburbs further separated the
environments of women and men. "The commercial world, where goods were
produced, and the home, where they were consumed, grew geographically and
culturally farther apart.'" At the same time, the Cold War placed an added
emphasis on family unity as a defense against communism, making the role of
women as wives and mothers crucial to the preservation of the United States
and its democratic ideals.
Since the feminist movement that took place in the late I 960s, there have
been many debates concerning the rights and roles of women. Often feminists,
due to their biases and personal/political agendas, identify the 1950s as the
pinnacle of gender inequality. Furthennore, they claim that mass media,
especially advertising in women's magazines, perpetuated the denigration of
women. According to them, ads during this time period portrayed women as
stupid, submissive, purely domestic creatures; they claim this is historical
truth. However, through re-examining original advertisements in a variety of
magazines from the 1950s while keeping in mind the culture of the lime, it
becomes increasingly evident that often these ads were neither belittling to
women nor antifeminist. In fact, the historical truth is that they were sometimes
just the opposite, picturing women in varied roles and positions of power.
In 1973, Alice Courtney and Sarah Lockeretz did a large-scale study of
eight general interest magazines from the 1950s. After analyzing the
advertisements in them, they came to several conc'lusions about the role and
portrayal ofwomen in the ads. These generalizations have been widely accepted
and are often cited among feminist writers. Yet, in my examination of the same
magazines (namely Life, Newsweek, and Time) and their advel1iscments, I found
such conclusions to be premature at best, if not false.
Courtney and Lockeretz tirst stated that, according 10 magazine ads, "a
woman's place is in the home. "2 My findings were quite to the contrary. While
it is true that some ads pictured women in a domestic environment, women
were often pictured in other settings as well. For example, Figure I (attached)
contains an ad from Newsweek magazine in 1952. The woman pictured is using
power tools to repair an airplane. (Note that the man in the ad is doing basic
secretarial duties, filling out fom1s and handling paperwork.) Not only is this
woman pictured outside of her supposed "place," but she is engaging in di fficult

46 Christina Catalano
mechanical labor in ajob that is crucial to the safety and well-being of airplane
passengers. Life magazine ran an ad in 1950 showing a young girl graduating
from college, a~ depicted in Figure 2, Furthennore, ads from another magazine
(though not one studied by Courtney and Lockeretz), National Geographic,
quite often picture women travelling, Note Figures 3 and 4, (from 1950 and
1952, respcctively), which both picture what appear to be professional women
travelling alone. Obviously their environment, similar to the environment of
most women in magazines, was not limited to the home either.
Courtney and Lockeretz went on to conclude thai "women do not make
important decisions or do important things.'" Yet Figure I, as mentioned above,
pictured a woman fixing all airplane, ajob that could potentially save hundreds
oflives. Additionally, Figure 5 consists of a 1952 advertisement from National
Geo?,raphic magazine, A woman telephone operator is pictured with the caption
"The Call that Saved a Plane." It proceeded to tell of how "the alert, cool­
thinking operator, Mrs. Lucille Wilson" took heroic action that enabled a plane
to have a safe emergency landing. Though subtle, this ad also showed that
married women, such as Mrs. Wilson, were capable of working outside the
home and making crucial decisions that save lives at that. Additionally, women
were often pictured buying large-ticket items. "In 1976 Belkaoui and Belkaoui
did a similar study ... [and] found that in 1958, 'With the exclusion of small­
ticket items ... the important buying decisions (for such items as cars, stocks
and bonds, machinery) were left entirely to men. "'4 Figures 6 and 7 (from
Nell:'ilveek and Good Housekeeping, respectively) depict women buying stocks
and cars independent of a man's opinion or assistance.
Furthennore, looking more deeply into Courtney and Lockeretz's assertions
reveals the hidden assumptions underlying their conclusions. Note that the
first conclusion drawn was "a woman's place is in the home," while the second
states that "women do not make important decisions or do important things."
These two statements, especially when made together, logically imply that the
home is not a place where "important" decisions are made or "important"
things are done.
Courtney and Lockerel2 are not alone in their degradation of the housewife.
This attitude is common to many feminists, most notably the famous author of
The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan. As historian Joanne Meyerowitz
explains, Friedan "presented domesticity as a problem," and she "demoted
full-time domesticity to the lower status of a false consciousness."5 Looking
down on women's role in the home, Friedan complained that "the great majority
of American women have no other ambition than to be housewives."6 She
proceeded not only to belittle housewives, but also to insult American society
as a whole in her speculation that "Perhaps it is only a sick or immature society
that chooses to make women housewives, not people."7
The assumption that domesticity was not "important" is quite ill-founded.
Hou~ewives were indeed people who were responsible for managing an entire
Constructing The Past 47
household. This included keeping a home beautiful and clean and making sure
that functions within the household ran smoothly. While these tasks are often
taken for granted, they were ex tremely important for the proper functioning of
family life, Women in the domestic sphere were also responsible for raising
children - for creating healthy, moral, and able members of society. On a larger
scale, women had the awesome power and responsibility to shape the next
generation of Americans and greatly intluence tl1e future of American society.
To describe this task as anything but "important" would be a gross
understatement.
Some advertisements imply that society in the 1950s recognized and
appreciated the often difficult and tiring traditional tasks ofwomt;n. Figure 8,
an ad from Beller Homes and Gardens in 1956, depicts a father attempting to
feed two babies. Judging from the expression of both the father and one of the
babies, he is experiencing little success in accomplishing a job that was quite
common for a woman, Figure 9, which originated from the same magazine, goes
even further to ~mphasize that men can not effectively perfonn the traditional
domestic tasks of women. The man pictured is attempting to clean dishes and
care for a small child, but he looks very uncomfortable in this traditional woman's
role. The woman, on the other hand, is pictured at her husband's desk in the
workplace. She is smiling and her posture is relaxed, showing that she is confident
and at ease in her husband's work environment.
Furthennore, feminist criticism of the roles of women as being only
housewives and mothers undennines their overall message, Feminists aim at
liberating the woman and increasing her sense of efficacy and self-w011h,
Conversely, by constantly encouraging women to take "real" jobs outside of
the home, they have rendered all of the work that women do within the home
menial. In all of their criticism of advertising denigrating women, it seems tl1at
thejeminists have denigrated American women who choose to remain at home
with the (false) implications that their work is unimportant and their roles as
devoted wives and mothers are insignificant to society.
Another dubious conclusion reached by Courtney and Lockeretz was
that magazine ads imply that "women are dependent and need men's
protection."s However, many of the ads discussed show evidence to the
contrary. Women were often pictured traveling, working, and purchasing
independent of males or male influence. Ads that pictured women in the home
further emphasized that their capability for domesticity was superior to that of
men.
Finally, Courtney and Lockeretz concluded that "men regard women
primarily as sex objects."9 In all of the ads included in my research, I did not
notice any that seemed to use women's sex or sex appeal to. sell products,
While women pictured were often beautiful, they did not seem to be "sexy" or
look like "sex objects." Perhaps, though unintentionally so, my own biases are

46 Christina Catalano
mechanical labor in ajob that is crucial to the safety and well-being of airplane
passengers. Life magazine ran an ad in 1950 showing a young girl graduating
from college, a~ depicted in Figure 2. Furthermore, ads from another magazine
(though not one studied by Courtney and Lockeretz), National Geographic,
quite often picture women travelling. Note Figures 3 and 4, (from 1950 and
1952, respectively), which both picture what appear to be professional women
travelling alone. Obviously their environment, similar to the environment of
most women in magazines, was not limited to the home either.
Courtney and Lockeretz went on to conclude that "women do not make
important decisions or do important things.", Yet Figure I, as mentioned above,
pictured a woman fixing an airplane, a job that cou Id potentially save hundreds
of lives. Additionally, Figure 5 consists ofa 1952 advertisement from National
Geographic magazine. A woman telephone operator is pictured with the caption
"The Call that Saved a Plane." It proceeded to tell of how "the alert, cool­
thinking operator, Mrs. Lucille Wilson" took heroic action that enabled a plane
to have a safe emergency landing. Though subtle, this ad also showed that
married women, such as Mrs. Wilson, were capable of working outside the
home and making crucial decisions that save lives at that. Additionally, women
were often pictured buying large-ticket items. "In 1976 Belkaoui and Belkaoui
did a similar study ... [and] found that in 1958, 'With the exclusion of small­
ticket items ... the important buying decisions (for such items as cars, stocks
and bonds, machinery) were left entirely to men. "'4 Figures 6 and 7 (from
Newsweek and Good Housekeeping, respectively) depict women buying stocks
and cars independent of a man's opinion or assistance.
Furthermore, looking more deeply into Courtney and Lockeretz's assertions
reveals the hidden assumptions underlying their conclusions. Note that the
first conclusion drawn was "a woman's place is in the home," while the second
states that "women do not make important decisions or do important things."
These two statements, especially when made together, logically imply that the
home is not a place where "important" decisions are made or "important"
things are done.
Courtney and Lockeretz are not alone in their degradation ofthe housewife.
This attitude is common to many feminists, most notably the famous author of
The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan. As historian Joanne Meyerowitz
explains, Friedan "presented domesticity as a problem," and she "demoted
full-time domesticity to the lower status of a false consciousness."s Looking
down on women's role in the home, Friedan complained that "the great majority
of American women have no other ambition than to be housewives."6 She
proceeded not only to belittle housewives, but also to insult American society
as a whole in her speculation that "Perhaps it is only a sick or immature society
that chooses to make women housewives, not people."7
The assumption that domesticity was not "important" is quite ill-founded.
Housewives were indeed people who were responsible for managing an entire
Constructing The Past 47
household. This included keeping a home beautiful and clean and making sure
that functions within the household ran smoothly. While these tasks are often
taken for granted, they were extremely important for the proper functioning of
family life. Women in the domestic sphere were also responsible for raising
children - for creating healthy, moral, and able members of society. On a larger
scale, women had the awesome power and responsibility to shape the next
generation of Americans and greatly influence the future of American society.
To describe this task as anything but "important" would be a gross
understatement.
Some advertisements imply that society in the 1950s recognized and
appreciated the often difficult and tiring traditional tasks ofwom~n. Figure 8,
an ad from Beller Homes and Gardens in 1956, depicts a father attempting to
feed two babies. Judging from the expression of both the father and one of the
babies, he is experiencing little success in accomplishing ajob that was quite
common for a woman. Figure 9, which originated from the same magazine, goes
even further to ~mphasize that men can not effectively perform the traditional
domestic tasks of women. The man pictured is attempting to clean dishes and
care for a small child, but he looks very uncomfortable in this traditional woman's
role. The woman, on the other hand, is pictured at her husband's desk in the
workplace. She is smiling and her posture is relaxed, showing that she is confident
and at ease in her husband's work environment.
Furthermore, feminist criticism of the roles of women as being on(v
housewives and mothers undermines their overall message. Feminists aim at
liberating the woman and increasing her sense of efficacy and self-worth.
Conversely, by constantly encouraging women to take "real" jobs outside of
the home, they have rendered all of the work that women do within the home
menial. In all of their criticism of advertising denigrating women, it seems that
thefeminists have denigrated American women who choose to remain at home
with the (false) implications that their work is unimportant and their roles as
devoted wives and mothers are insignificant to society. .
Another dubious conclusion reached by Courtney and Lockeretz was
that magazine ads imply that "women are dependent and need men's
protection."8 However, many of the ads discussed show evidence to the
contrary. Women were often pictured traveling, working, and purchasing
independent of males or male influence. Ads that pictured women in the home
further emphasized that their capability for domesticity was superior to that of
men.
Finally, Courtney and Lockeretz concluded that "men regard women
primarily as sex objects."9 In all of the ads included in my research, I did not
notice any that seemed to use women's sex or sex appeal to.sell products.
While women pictured were often beautiful, they did not seem to be "sexy" or
look like "sex objects." Perhaps, though unintentionally so, my own biases are

4R Christina Catalano
presenting themselves. Growing up in an era where brazen sexual connotations
and partial nudity are the norm in advertising, the fifties were comparatively
un-sexual, as suggestions and implications were much subtler. Therefore,
admittcdly it is nearly impossible for me to recognize sexuality in advertisements
from the 1950s through the eyes of a young adult in the 1990s due to my
previous experiences and biases.
Hence each of the conclusions reached by Courtney and Lockeretz in
their studies of women in advertising in the 1950s have been disproved with
evidence that suggests otherwise. It is important to note that their study was
performed in the early 1970s, perhaps during the last few waves of the feminist
movement. Therefore, Courtney and
Lockeretz may have developed biases from this era that caused them to go
too far in their assumptions. Yet feminists in the 1990s continue to display the
same obvious biases that lead to false conclusions about gender discrimination
and the denigration of women in 1950s advertising.
In her book (published as recently as 1994), Susan Douglas makes assertions
about the damaging effect that such ads had on women, especially young
girls, of the time. In her exaggeration of the negative impact of advertising on
women's self-esteem, she notes "it wasn't just our mothers who took in these
messages. We daughters absorbed them as well, and they encouraged us to
respect Dad and ridicule Mom."'o Perhaps Douglas's family situation was
unique. However, nearly all media productions including advertisements, put a
heavy focus on the fanlily as a whole. Children were taught to love and respect
both of their parents (perhaps even more so than today), as family unity was
seen as a key factor in defending America from communism. If anything, children
were emotionally closer to their mother, as most of a child's time was traditionally
spent with her.
Despite contradictory evidence, the attitude persists that "no period of
advertising denigrated women more...There were such reprehensible portrayals
during those years that the advertising industry has yet to recover."1 I In fact,
however, few women in'the 1950s or the present view their portrayal as devoted
wives and mothers as "denigrating." And if the advertising industry is truly
attempting to "recover" from this period, its methods for doing so are
questionable; women in advertising have gone from wholesome, moral, rational
leaders of the home to the scantily-clad waifs that are frequently pictured
today.
Obviously feminist generalizations about the historical portrayal of women
in advertising are exaggerated at best and often false. The reason for their
misrepresentation of historical topics, in this case advertising, lies in the biases
that drive their conclusions. Feminist historians are constantly looking to prove
that women were indeed denigrated, belillied. and restricted in the past in order
to make women seem as though they are the victims of gender discrimination.
Constmeting The Past 49
Claims of victimization in the past are intended to legitimize giving women more
power now, and so advance the feminist agenda. Thus, feminists view
advertisements in the 1950s with predetermined conclusions, and their
examination of historical documents focuses on finding evidence to support
their notions rather than discovering historical truth. Any material that could
be interpreted (often misinterpreted) as discriminatory is called to attention,
while evidence to the contrary is conveniently ignored.
Debates about the portrayal of women in magazine advertisements come
as no surprise, as women were pictured in them more often than men. Ads
frequent,ly included women because it was specifically women that they were
target,ing. In fact, Betty Friedan noted years ago that "seventy-five percent of
all consumer adveltising budgets is spent to appeal to womeo."12 Why? The
answer lies in the fact that thc decade placed an "overriding emphasis on
consl,lmption as a particularly female activity."ll Advertising logically targeted
women because, as Douglas herself acknowledged, "America's consumer
culture was predicated on the notion that women were the major consumers of
most goods."'4 While feminists noted such observations about advertising,
they failed to recognize that the role of primary consumer was, in many ways,
empowering to women.
Thus, in the 1950s advertising reflected the growing reality that "women
had substantial and growing intluence on purchasing decisions."'5 W0I11en
were not only the primary consumers of domestic goods (cleaning supplies,
food items, beauty/personal care items), but they often had a significant
influence over larger purchases as well. For example, Figure 7 pictures a woman
who bought a car and is encouraging women readers to do the same.
Additionally, Figure 10 shows a man upsel because he made a wrong decision
in choosing home insurance. After his home was destroyed in a fire, he "hated
to tell her" (presumably his wife) of his mistake, implying that, although he
made the decision to purchase the insurance, the husband ultimately had to
answer to his wife. FurthemlOre, Figure II not only depicts a matriarchal
househol'd by picturing the mother at the center of the family, but it also tells of
her purchasing power by stating "everybody looks to Mother when it comes
to the final decision."
Indeed it was women who were the main consumers and buyers of goods
and services, and with this buying came a great deal of power over family
finances. Although men traditionally worked and earned the money, it was
women who controlled it and therefore exerted dominant power and intluence
over countless aspects of family life.
The ability to shop and spend money also implies individual autonomy
and personal freedom. Emily Rosenberg, a female historian who apparently
does not have a feminist agenda to promote, noted the "strong identification
between consumption (the ability to choose products, ne~ images, new

4R Christina Catalano
presenting themselves. Growing up in an era where brazen sexual connotations
and partial nudity are the norm in advcrtising, the fifties were comparatively
un-sexual, as suggestions and implications were much subtler. Therefore,
admittedly it is nearly impossible for me to recognize sexuality in advertisements
from the 1950s through the eyes of a young adult in the 19905 due to my
previous cxperiences and biases.
Hence «ach of the conclusions reached by Courtney and Lockeretz in
their studies of women in advertising in the 1950s have been disproved with
evidence that suggests otherwise. It is important to note that their study was
performed in the early 1970s, perhaps during the last few waves of the feminist
movement. Therefore, Courtney and
Lockeretz may have developed biases from this era that caused them to go
too far i.n their assumptions. Yet feminists in the 11990s continue to display the
same obvious biases that lead to false conclusions about gender discrimination
and the denigration of women in 1950s advertising.
In her book (published as recently as 1994), Susan Douglas makes assertions
about the damaging effect that such ads had on women, especially young
girls, of the time. In her exaggeration of the negative impact of advertising on
women's self-esteem, she notes "it wasn't just our mothers who took in these
messages. We daughters absorbed them as well, and they encouraged us to
respect Dad and ridicule Mom."lo Perhaps Douglas's family situation was
unique. However, nearly all media productions including advertisements, put a
heavy focus on the family as a whole. Children were taught to love and respect
both of their parents (perhaps even more so than today), as family unity was
seell as a kcy factor in defending America from communism. If anything, children
were emotionally closer to their mother, as most of a child's time was traditionally
spent with her.
Despite contradictory evidence, the attitude persists that "no period of
advertising denigrated women more ...There were such reprehensible portrayals
during those years that the advertising industry has yet to recover. "11 In fact,
howcver, few women in the 1950s or the present view their portrayal as devoted
wives and mothers as "denigrating." And if the advertising industry is truly
attempting to "recover" from this period, its methods for doing so are
queslionable; women in advertising have gone from wholesome, moral, rational
leaders of the home to the scantily-clad waifs that are frequently pictured
today.
Obviously feminist generalizations about the historical portrayal of women
in advertising are exaggerated at best and often false. The reason for their
misrepresentation ofhjstorical topics, in this case advertising, lies in the biases
that drive their conclusions. Feminist historians are constantly lookjng to prove
that women were indeed denigrated, belittled. and restricted in the past in order
to make women seem as though they are the victims of gender discrimination.
Constmcting The Past 49
Claims ofvictimization in the past are intended to legitimize giving women more
power now, and so advance the feminist agenda. Thus, fem·inists view
advertisements in the 1950s with predetermined conclusions, and their
examination of historical documents focuses on finding evidence to support
their notions rather than discovering historical truth. Any material that could
be interpreted (often misinterpreted) as discriminatory is called to attention,
while evidence to the contrary is conveniently ignored.
Debates aboul the portmyalofwomen in magazine advertisements come
as no surprise, as women were pictured in them more often than men. Ads
frequently included women because it was specifically women that they were
targeting. In fact, Betty Friedan noted years ago that "seventy-five percent of
all consumer advertising budgets is spent to appeal to women."12 Why? The
answer lies in the fact that the decade placed an "overriding emphasis on
consl;lmption as a particularly female activity."13 Advertising logically targeted
women because, as Douglas herself acknowledged, "America's consumer
culture was predicated on the notion that women were the major consumers of
most gQods."'4 While feminists notcd such observations about advertising,
they failed to recognize that the role of primary consumer was, in many ways,
empowering to women.
Thus, in the 1950s advertising reflected the growing reality that "women
had substantial and growing intluence on purchasing decisions."" Wonlen
were not only the primary consumers of domestic goods (cleaning supplies,
food items, beauty/personal care items), but they often had a significant
influence over larger purchases as well. For example, Figure 7 pictures a woman
who bought a car and is encouraging women readers to do the same.
Additionally, Figure ,10 shows a man upset because he made a wrong dccision
in choosing home insurance. After his home was destroyed in a fire, he "haled
to tell her" (presumably his wife) of his mistake, implying that, although he
made the decision to purchase the insurance, the husband ultimately had to
answer to his wife. Furthermore, Figure II not only depicts a matriarchal
household by picturing the mother at the center of the family, but it also tells of
her purchasing power by stating "everybody looks to Mother when it comes
to the final decision."
Indeed it was women who were the main consumers and buyers of goods
and services, and with this buying came a great deal of power over family
finances. Although men traditionally worked and earned the money, it was
women who controlled it and therefore exerted dominant power and influence
over countless aspects of family life.
The ability to shop and spend money also implies individual autonomy
and personal freedom. Emily Rosenberg, a female historian who apparently
does not have a feminist agenda to promote, noted the "strong identification
between consumption (the ability to choose rroducts, new images, new

50 Christina Catalano
locations, neW identifiers) and freedom itself."'6 Thus, the consuming woman
of the 1950s "had the power, through purchasing, to change her image and, by
doing so, possibly change her life as well."17
Advertisers attempted to make it easy for women readers to relate to the
women in ads in order to effectively market and sell their products. Because the
majority of American women in the fifties did not have a payingjob outside the
home, it is logical that most advertisements pictured women in the domestic
sphere. Most advertisers "had to emphasize their roles as wives and mothers,
because it wa" in these capacities, not in their capacities as secretaries or
nurses, that women bought."IR This is especially true of traditional women's
magazines (such as Befter Homes and Gardens, Good Housekeeping, etc.),
which were often "more likely to portray women in the home and less likely to
portray women at work or outside the home."19 Advertisers reasoned that
women who read traditional women's magazines (which usually related to
domesticity) were women who indeed took traditional women's roles. Therefore,
women in the ads of traditional women's magazines were often pictured in the
home so women readers could relate to them, thus effectively marketing and
selling the product at hand.
Similarly, the same concept of encouraging the reader to relate to the ad
subject was employed in nontraditional women's magazines as wei!. These
magazines covered topics of general interest, including business, and were
read mainly by working men and women. In order to allow working women to
relate to their advertisements, such magazines often contained ads that
"portrayed women in more employment roles than women's magazines,"2o which
usually targeted women in the home.
Thus, women, although mostly portrayed in the domestic sphere, were
not limited to advertising images only of this nature; they were also pictured
shopping, working, and even saving lives. Despite feminist views that picturing
women in the home was a sexist and patriarchal attempt by male executives to
restrict and denigrate women, the (historical) truth seems to lie in simple
marketing logic: advertisers wanted to appeal to their audience. Through rational
and logical marketing schemes, advertisers' goals in their portrayal of women
(no matter what this portrayal may have been) were to generate profits through
appealing to the largest percentage of their readers. In the 1950s, this often
included picluring women in the home. If these portrayals were detrimental to
women (and I would argue they were not), such was nol the intention of
advertisers, magazine editors, or society as a whole. Nevertheless, it has often
been said lhat hindsight is always "twenty-twenty"; if any pejorative
assumptions or prejudices did underlay the historical portrayal of women, they
are far more obvious to later generations and even more so to feminist historians
who ale avidly'seeking them.
One's position about the porlrayal of women in advertisements is partially
contingent upon his/her perception of the role of advertising in society. Do
Constructing The Past 51
ads imitate life or does life imitate ads'/ Most feminists give so much attention
to advertising and its supposedly detrimental effects on the female persona in
part because they believe the latter to be true. Friedan herself asserts that
"This image - created by women's magazines, by advertisements ...- shapes
women's lives today and mirrors their dreams."21 Thus, the belief that adverlising
has a great deal of power and influence over society causcs feminists to
(over)analyze ads of the past and be excessively critical or even unfair in their
scrutiny.
To the contrary, other historians seem to be in agreement that life imitates
advertising. As Kurtz noted, "Advertising has unintentionally served as a
recorder of the century's cultural revolution and the external and intemallives
of women."22 Furthermore, Diane Ballhel made the keen observation that
"advertisements are .. .about society. Moreover, they are totally embedded
within it. Understood as such, advertisements are not a pack of lies as their
adversaries would have it. Rather, they reflect shared understandings [within
society] ... ."23 Hence, according to such views, advertisements simply miITored
the society (or audience) that they targeted. Advertising, then, did not hann or
denigrate women; rather, it portrayed reality. And in examining reality, not the
product of unbridled biases, I indeed found (at least some semblance) of
historical truth.
Historical truth is an elusive topic. The best way to decipher truth is to
examine sources as close to the original event or happening as possible. In this
case, through studying advertisements of the 1950s, I attempted to discover
the truth about their portrayal of women. In the past, various feminist authors
who have studied similar magazines have pronounced historical "lmth" about
1950s advertisements. Yet, in my analysis ofthe original sources and the feminist
conclusions about their content and purpose, I discovered blatant and obvious
biases. It seems that feminists went about searching for historical truth
backwards in that they first formed conclusions and then searched for historical
evidence to effectively prove them. And this reductionist approach produced
nothing more than political propaganda.
.Historical truth must he discovered, not proven, for proof implies
previously-drawn conclusions based on biases, Today PostmodernislTi
encourages such reprehensible methodology in the search for historical tl1Jth,
producing "personal histories" designed to advance personal/political agendas
instead of historical truth. To indeed find historical truth one must approach
primary sources with an open and objective mind; admittedly, biases nearly
always exist, but every attempt should be made to minimize them. Even with
proper methodology, the exact and complete truth may never be found about
the past. Therefore, critics oftl1Jth arc welcome to the discipline, as it is through
critical and analytical minds that history is constantly improving upon itself,
inching closer and closer to the ultimate goal of historical truth

50 Christina Catalano
locations, neW identifiers) and freedom itself."16 Thus, the consuming woman
of the 1950s "had the power, through purchasing, to change her image and, by
doing so, possibly change her life as well."'7
Advertisers attempted to make it easy for women readers to relate to the
women in ads in order to effectively market and sell their products. Because the
majority of American women in the fifties did not have a paying job outside the
home, it is logical that most advertisements pictured women in the domestic
sphere. Most advertisers "had to emphasize their roles as wives and mothers,
because it was in these capacities, not in their capacities as secretaries or
nurses, that women bought."'R This is especially true of traditional women's
magazines (such as Berter Homes and Gardells, Good Housekeeping, etc.),
which were often "more likely to portray women in the home and less likely to
portray women at work or outside the home."'9 Advertisers reasoned that
women who read traditional women's magazines (which usually related to
domesticity) were women who indeed took traditional women's roles. Therefore,
women in the ads of traditional women's magazines were often pictured in the
home so women readers could relate to them, thus effectively marketing and
selling the product at hand.
Similarly, the same concept of encouraging the reader to relate to the ad
subject was employed in nontraditional women's magazines as well. These
magazines covered topics of general interest, including business, and were
read mainly by working men and women. In order to allow working women to
relate to their advertisements, such magazines often contained ads that
"portrayed women in more employment roles than women's magazines,"2o which
usually targeted women in the home.
Thus, women, although mostly portrayed in the domestic sphere, were
not limited to advertising images only of this nature; they were also pictured
shopping, working, and even saving lives. Despite feminist views that picturing
women in the home was a sexist and patriarchal attempt by male executives to
restrict and denigrate women, the (historical) truth seems to lie in simple
marketing logic: advertisers wanted to appeal to their audience. lbrough rational
and logical marketing schemes, advertisers' goals in their portrayal of women
(no matter what this portrayal may have been) were to generate profits through
appealing to the largest percentage of their readers. In the I 950s, this often
included picturing women in the home. If these portrayals were detrimental to
women (and I would argue they were not), such was not the intention of
advertisers, magazine editors, or society as a whole. Nevertheless, it has often
been said that hindsight is always "twenty-twenty"; if any pejorative
assumptions or prejudices did underlay the historical portrayal of women, they
are far more obvious to later generations and even more so to feminist historians
who are aVidly:seeking them.
One's position about the portrayal of women in advertisements is partially
contingent upon his/her perception of the role of advertising in society. Do
COllstructing The Past 51
ads imitate life or does life imitate ads') Most feminists give so much attention
to advertising and its supposedly detrimental effects on the female persona in
part because they believe the latter to be true. Friedan herself asserts that
"This image - created by women's magazines, by advertisements ...- shapes
women's lives today and mirrors their dreams." 21 11IUs, 'the belief that advertising
has a great dea'l of power and influence over society causes feminists to
(over)analyze ads of the past and be excessively critical or even unfair in their
scrutiny.
To the contrary, other historians seem to be in agreement 'lhatlife imitates
advertising. As Kur,tz Floted, "Advertising has unintentionally served as a
recorder of the century's cultural revolution and the external and intemallives
of women."22 Furthermore, Diane Barthel made the keen observation ,that
"advertisements are .. .about society. Moreover, they are totally embedded
within it. Understood as such, advel1isements are not a pack of lies as their
adversaries would have it. Rather, they reflect shared understandings [within
society) ...."23 Hence, according to such views, advertisements simply minored
the society (or audience) that they targeted. Advertising, then, did not han11 or
denigrate women; rather, it portrayed reality. And in examining rea/in', not the
product of unbridled biases, I indeed found (at least some semblance) of
historical truth.
Historical truth is an elusive topic. The best way to decipher truth is to
examine sources as close to the original event or happening as possible. In this
case, through studying advertisements of the 1950s, I attempted to discover
the truth about their portrayal of women. In the past, various feminist authors
who have studied similar magazines have pronounced historical "truth" about
1950s advertisements. Yet, in my analysis oftlle original sources and the feminist
conclusions about their content and purpose, I discovered blatant and obvious
biases. It seems that feminists went about searching for historical truth
backwards in that they first formed conclusions and Ihen searched for historical
evidence to effectively prove them. And this ,eductionist approach produced
nothing more than political propaganda.
. Historical truth must be discovered, not proven, for proof implies
previously-drawn conclusions based on biases. l'oday Postmodernism
encourages such reprehensible methodology in the search for historicaltl1Jth,
producing "personal histories" designed to advance personal/political agendas
instead of historical truth. To indeed find historical truth one must approach
primary sources wilhan opcn and objective mind; admittedly, biases nearly
always exist, but every attempt should be made to minimize them. Even with
proper methodology, the exacl and complete truth may never be found about
the past. Therefore, critics oflruth are welcome to the discipline, as it is through
critical and analytical minds lhat history is constantly improving upon itself,
inching closer and closer to the ultimate goal of historical truth.
 Constructing The Past 53
52 Christina Catalano

Appendix h ... l

~;iI\f'CjI, - . - ;•• ~1.-]1.1: :~:ft).}. ;.~: ',' ..

'''''I~i';'-~'~':"':-" (l····:,,::J
-I:"~~ :.~~
. C .'+;~:~l
·'l,.l ....... ;'~ ;.,A;_ .... ..
The CJIlIhat
_
:::!=:
. - . -.. .
-. .-
.
-- .=:'­ :~~:-.~ s.ved J P'tlne
1.',
.~-
J\ ••••• ~ ...
__
--='
'. -: - .':'''' It ~-2:S-=':':
.. ..... @~~3§
1_-'0 ....
.. ..- .. . ~.
~_." I
BuIll n.mdnll

fil
'-., .'"'t" . , .... ~ . . . . . . . . . . ._ . _ 4 0 _ . . . . . . , . . . . . .

~-:"'.
~:i~~ ff~
I~·:-::-:.:.~~:. :..-.-:..~.-.----. ;..:..~~; . -"- -' ..~-::--'
. r. I.!; •
r. " :!t. .... ~
~:~~:-:::~:--:- -= ~:~~.,~-t~~: :B~ ":.:
~<;E~~~~~~~;j ~;~;.~~~~:~:;':': '-~
'-~'--':J..,;;, ::':.-
~ -';:::::-_"7.. __ 1_\::;:~
~.;
g{L~~ ;:~~i;;;.1

- I :lIioll (li! (:OIl\I'"lly ........,.".

......... ••,
::;:;r.:..~-:;.,~ ~-':- :~,;--: ~ "'''~

Figure 5 National Geographic, Figure 6 Newstt'eek, 18 April

April 1952, 104. 1955,89.
Figure 1 Newsweek, 14 Figure 2 Life, 2 May 1950,26.
January 1952,35.

..... .
~

~
m
··~ ~iilpb.-~~-
. ~('. '.~ ~~.~' d~TWoJObs
-- "'.
-'
; .......
~ .
" .

fo'Al c. 1'nOI"'e'lj 1001

- .............., ...... .._..._-.-"-.-.

.........e - .....

•
'
-.­.....
..... ·.-,-O-'.·_r... ..~--_
~~4-'_ ..... _•.•
':. '':;7:; _~:t, ..
-r~r'~~~f=;~a ~:~g~rr~:f::
-'.~ ~(PaciF

•
2G~~_
1-'·-... ­
.... - -~"I''''

~~.~~~
~ ~:~
.... " ' - " " . ~",,,' '. ,.~~ ' • • . It.

E
~ .,,~~,~:;: ::'.~':.:;'-

\r,,"EF.
~i~~~JI§~~~ §~~~--~~~~~~~~ I..~ «(~ ~'" ~.~ I
~j~~ S5~:~ ..
.•
_ ,­_..
...- •••••. ~ .•
....w.~_.,_
........
_..,' ,4 _,
,.~

.
~''''''''
,"
_.
.. '..
...

~._

-,­
... _-_._._~--_.'-_._--_ ..._-------------­ {"I,,,,I - ........

-
. \~
( ~=---:~~~~"':':: ~ ,~:' ~ ~ . :",.~,~~"':".::-~

I
.~":': ~,:::-;: : :'~' ..: :":':
~:.~ :j;~ ,'"-: :,:_:.~:;'.. ~~..:: .-: ~~_-::
..
:!:. - p
G__ N4F'~... -~,. .
f'~lf'.' ~~"fII'sro~s~
Il
i'........

~:;::~~ .. :i'~_~.-••. ,-I- -'--'-'

0
~::I.~-~ ~

-~~~~~~~.
,~, .._,...:01, ......."¥""" ",.,1 1~).!1

Figure 7 Good Housekeeping, Figure 8 Belle,- fful/Il:'s and Gardens,

July 1955,26. February 1956,6.

Figure 3 National Geographic, Figure 4 National Geographic,

March 1950, 18. April 1952, 22.
 COllstmcting The Past 53
52 Christina Catalano

Appendix r-..... l

~i:[!?~ ,::>:.:: lhe Catl that

;:. ,: ,.'" 'L Saved. P'tlne
;"; .~
...'•'·<"·'t"'·~
J' ._. _.. ·l··,.r,.
." r~,,:'~~:~

" ~!~_
,?" ,-'-~,} '.
.... .. "; ~~~~~ BuIll Hnndall
_.a;o ..... ,_•.

.. ..­
n.,- ........... _~ ...
_'.~ ~::._
- 't'" .:."'. .
If:':'-:'::''':::::.:'':'~~-··''' ';~.":.::-"-:- ~~.-:'::-:

;i~[~ riE~i;~:; ~~i~~:1>-~

, {»I""

..0-' ,
; .•' f,t,L'

.. - ... ...• "­

;/: '.;'~f~~t_~ ~~
~

.::.::~-:~.:~;c~:
::7;~',';_ '
._.
'1'.
i· ;.~..:." ~
,! (:Ilioll (lil (:Ollll'''"Y''''''''''''''

.:.. 4:.:;..:·~=~-:":~:
.., . Figure 5 Nationa! Geographic, Figure 6 Newsweek, 18 April
April 1952, 104. 1955,89.
Figure 1 Newsweek, t4 Figure 2 Life, 2 May 1950,26,
January 1952,35.

UIJIA
i_ ~;,/i/

_, ......., ....

... ::-~~ . ::
·
:':':::iiI~~~'
.'
m ..... ; -.-.­
­
"'~~I;l '.JO_~' rnontr.~ d,-,TWo)Ob~ 1:;101

•
.
~ ~
- .
..
-~f.~~f:~~~:: ~~~l~:~f~¥~
.-.,",,_ ... ~ ~~ j
~ ..J_ _.

"'~~~a+
.... · ,·_1 ....
............ t ••

2~~N~~Fr~

--, •. r>
.,~. ~~

~'&ill~
...-:;.'

• .
:E":':'~;e=

iJ!
. '

h' .

::::''':':~'",,:
......
... -
;~

~.::
..
-
...." ,oO, _.

' ....• ._._

'.~

_~
;';'::-:-:--~.:'
_

:-:.',;-.....
-­
.. ';::::-" ~ "!f'!:"
".

~~,..~.
~'"

~
~
_"
\..
I.,,~.

:::i; : :,::~~~'. ~~~-;.~' .-::~:~_-:-:

.. '~'
.
'...:.:.

<-v· Uil'JI­
.,
.-­
~{;!fb~~~~ ij§~~:~:~~~~~
·---·---·-----~-·----

f :':~.-:.?~::~ ,::-:::~.__:_:~J~='=:..:-.l.::~

G.;AtN..d~~· ~T"""
fm.'.t.L,~~~rrtJt~r'.4'

......~.....".;,.,~ ...,.,•• "~1.~.'

4 •

- i'Af....
--:i:=~_-:_

Figure 7 Good Housekeeping,

E >5Ll1J ~;
tl'~ _~~~. .','
I ;/1'/('(/

Figure 8 Bellerl/vllle.l' and Gardens,

~ ',- ••••• ",

__ '-_~ __ -,o~'- ,~~:. July 1955,26. February 1956,6.

Figure 3 Natio/lal Geographic, Figure 4 National Geographic,

March 1950, 18. April 1952, 22.
 Constructing The Past 55
54 Christina Catalano

r··-----' -,
I

M,d'm' Suppose you traded

~hl "'Ih your hU5bandl
-h_.11I

I
2
Endnotes

Jan Kurtz, "Dream Girls: Women in Advertising," USA Todu)', January 1997, 5c.
Alice Courtney and Sarah Lockeretz, "A Woman's Place: An Analysis of the Roles
Portrayed by Women in Magazine Advertisements," JOl/rnal o{Marketing Research

til J Ibid.
8 (February 1971): 93.

4 Linda J. Busby and Greg Leichty, "Feminism and Advertising in Traditional and

Nontraditional Women's Magazines, 1950s-1980s," JOl/matism Quarterly 70

(Summer 1993): 249.
I Joanne Meyerowitz, Not June C1em'a: Women and Gender in Postwar America"

.
L
/945-/960 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994),252.
,~_
...­ ..
• • 0/ •• , •."._ _ -,- .. - . . . - .

6 Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique (New York: Dell Publishing, 1963),219.
_~~: L:'=:::~ :':;:if:.:;~·¥
~ _.~

7 Ibid., 223 .

~~:~~~ ,···~·_-·-··ii;;;:~for.1 iL
:-:.:::::. ,:=:-.:.~.:::-~,:.:" .-....-..- ~:=ii":";:::=.:
8 Courtney and Lockeretz, "A Woman's Place," 94.
9 Ibid., 95. .
.•'......... l;,........-. """"''' 1.~1. j<l
10 Susan J. Douglas, Where the Girls Are: Growing lip Female with the Mass Media

(New York: Random House, 1994),54-55.

Figure 9 Beller Homes and Gardens, hgure IU J'varronatveographic, II Adrienne Ward Fawcett, "NalTowcast in the Past, Women Earn Revised Role in
April 1956, 27. March 1952,34. Advertising," Advertising Age, 4 October 1993, S I.
12 Friedan, Feminine Mystique, 202.

tl Emily S. Rosenberg, "Consuming Women: Imagt:S ofAmericanization In the 'American

Century,'" Diplomatic History 23 (Scprember 1999): 482.
14 Douglas, Where the Girls Are, 56.

IS Rosenberg, "Consuming Women," 485.

16 Ibid., 496.
~ E.(.:....:.::.:a...~ 17 Ibid., 482.
...... -!-::.
18 Douglas, Where the Girls Are, 56.
19 Busby, "Feminism and Advertising," 255.
20 Ibid., 257.

21 Friedan, Feminine Mystique, 29.

22 Kurtz, "Dream Girls," 9c.

2J Diane Barthel, Puning on Appearances: Gender and Advc.:rtising (Philadelphia: Temple

University Press, 1998), 12.

\\r(;,11<

Figure II Tillli',29 July 1957,49.

 Constructing The Past 55
54 Christina Catalano

"
Madam I SlIwose tw IOOed
johs with you, husband?
I
Endnott'S

Jan Kurtz, "Dream Girls: Women in Advertising," USA Today, January 1997, 5c.

.'
1 Alice Courtney and Sarah Lockeretz, "A Woman's Place: An Analysis of the Roles
Portrayed by Women in Magazine AdvcT1isements," Journal o.fMarketing Research
8 (February 1971): 93.
J Ibid.

• Linda 1. Busby and Greg Leichty, "Feminism and Advcrtising in Traditional and
Nontraditional Women's Magazines, 1950s-1980s," Jou,."a!ism Quarterly 70
(Summer 1993): 249.
~ Joanne Meyerowitz, Not June Cleaver: Women and Gender in Postwar America"
L
1945-1960 (Philadelphia: Temple University Prcss, 1994),252.
. .. ,J .• • ~. _ _ ....... -. __ .. _ ~.. l'"

6 Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique (New York: Dell Publishing, 1963),219.
_ _ .......... t-. .. " ••• _ ....

•~~=~~~ 1_ .:~: ~~::~:~ ~1~C.~:;~¥

,···~·_-_·~ii;;;~forol~
:- ..::~:: ':::7.:~=:-~.-.. ... ~- ::'.:=;;-;:::=
....."...,I(;,....,........... _~ I.~'-~

'Ibid., 223 .
8 Courtney and Lockeretz, "A Woman's Place," 94.
9 Ibid., 95.

10 Susan 1. Douglas, Where the Girls Are: Growing lip Female with the Mass Media

(New York: Random House, 1994),54-55.

Figure 9 Better Homes and Gardens, hgure tV JvaClOnatlJeographic, II Adrienne Ward Fawcett, "NalTowcast in the Past, Women Earn Revised Role in
April 1956,27. March 1952,34. Advertising," Advertising Age. 4 October 1993, S I.
11 Friedan, Feminine Myslique, 202.

Il Emily S. Rosenberg, "Consuming Women: Imagl.'S of AmericaniZ<ltion in the' American

Century,''' Diplomalic Hi!ilory 23 (Seprembcr 1999): 482.
" Douglas, Where the Girls Are, 56.
I~ Rosenberg, "Consuming Woml:Jl," 485.
16 Ibid., 496.

11 Ibid., 482.
IK Douglas, Where the Girls Are, 56.
19 Busby, "Feminism and Advl:rtising," 255.

10 Ibid., 257.

11 Friedan, Feminine Mystique, 29.

II Kurtz, "Dream Girls," 9c.

lJ Diane Barthel, Putting on Appcaranct:s: Gl.'Jlder and Advmising (Philadelphia: Tcmple

University Press, 1998), 12.

Figure II TiIlll',29.July 1957,49.