I'm-a show you how to make your man say

Feb 24, 2006 16:28

OK, so this image is smaller than I'd hoped, BUT you can still see the important parts: Rosie and the caption.


Read more... )

flyers, feminism, work, rhodes, images, women

Leave a comment

Comments 9

carolinebishop February 25 2006, 02:22:48 UTC
Okay, having been pretty much the most involved person in the ws dept at Rhodes, I can answer allll your questions.

1. Yes, the Margaret Hyde Council is extremely conservative, as a group of rich white ladies can only be. Brenna, Sheria, and I had to "lunch" with them last year to try to talk them into giving us money. Needless to say, all we were allowed to talk about was a lot of "feel good" noblesse oblige stuff.

2. There are many people who find Rosie offensive, apparently on both sides of the spectrum. Personally, I don't give a shit either way, but I know that there are feminists who see the image as a very carefully construction of acceptable WWII femininity (note that Rosie wears lipstick, for example). However, I'm not sure how she gives offense to the other side.

Reply

swiggett February 25 2006, 02:45:38 UTC
I will say I'm surprised that people are offended by Rosie... maybe I've just been brainwashed by the patriarchy, but always seemed rather benign to me.

Reply

punkiejeannien February 25 2006, 04:06:45 UTC
*narrow eyed stare* OK, so it's all well and good that Rosie wears lipstick, I think-- I mean, think about it. I don't wear makeup and I'll put on a little lipstick before I get my picture taken. Also, who wants to look at an ugly woman? If Rosie weren't pretty, human nature would take over and we wouldn't have even paid attention to her. I call that good marketing.

I think she is, if nothing else, intriguing. I mean, she was built to coerce women in to the workforce, but has endured as a symbol that women are going to stick around no matter what even though AFTER the war, they were like, "OK, the men are back, you can go tend to the babies again" and we (women) were like, "Ummexcusemeknow."

Blargh.

Reply

carolinebishop February 25 2006, 04:50:28 UTC
I remembered the discussion of the possible offense of Rosie from a women's history class, and was trying to remember the reasoning, so I poked around on the internet a bit.

It's particularly interesting to compare the Norman Rockwell version of Rosie with the more well known version by J Howard Miller. Here's a link to Rockwell's: http://www.artchive.com/artchive/r/rockwell/rockwell_rosie.jpg

Of course, Miller's version is wearing lipstick, rouge, fingernail polish, and mascara, is less muscular, and has plucked eyebrows.

It's also interesting that, as you say, she was created as male propaganda, where she remained all the rage for about four years, and that men have now spent the last 60 trying to convince us of the opposite (get thee back into the homes!). There's nothing wrong with reclaiming symbols from the patriarchy, but I think it's important to remember that such a process can never be unproblematic.

[/grad school]

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

punkiejeannien February 25 2006, 04:07:21 UTC
nope, not Southern, the woman who told me is a Yankee and grew up up there

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

punkiejeannien February 26 2006, 09:22:39 UTC
PENIS

Reply


virtuistic February 25 2006, 10:58:55 UTC
Stupid people are stupid... and I think certain kinds of stupidity should be punished. Pain or death, I ain't picky.

A few years ago, my resolution was to climb a mountain and scream "Stop being stupid!" at the world. I always dreamed it would respond cheerfully with a resounding, "OK!"

Alas.

Reply

punkiejeannien February 26 2006, 09:23:07 UTC
yeah, I try that while I'm driving sometimes and it doesn't do anything. I've now resorted to the middle finger.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up