TIME-MAKER FOR HOMEMAKERS
This ad aims to popularize home telephones by offering the prospect of free time to women accustomed to spending their days juggling multiple domestic chores. In contrast to ads from the 1960s and 1970s which promote free time as something which allows women to escape from the domestic sphere, this ad suggests that free time is desirable for women because it reconfirms their mastery of–and thus their position in–that sphere. Unlike later ads that challenge the belief that women are best kept at home to cook, clean and care for the family, this pre-1960s ad actually celebrates that belief.

PINK IS FOR GIRLS
Not only striking for its bold graphics, this ad is noticeable for its insistence on a single definition of femininity. Although softness, gentleness and even a liking for the color pink are valid characteristics for women to embrace and embody, they are not, as this ad implies, more authentically feminine than such qualities as toughness, assertiveness or a penchant for the color blue. Nevertheless, the gender stereotyping so clearly evident in this ad pervaded mid-century thought. As the feminist movement of the 1960s increasingly influenced American society, however, advertising’s simplistic representations of women slowly gave way to the more complex versions of femininity found in many of today’s ads.

MODESS…BECAUSE
Carrying the tradition of objectifying women to its furthest extreme, this ad depicts a woman in such a static pose that she essentially becomes-–like the flowers, paintings and urns that surround her–a work of art. Typically employed to attract attention to an unrelated product, the objectified female form in this ad functions instead to distract attention from the product it promotes and which contemporary cultural attitudes deemed an inappropriate subject for public conversation: tampons.

LIFE GOT TOUGHER. WE GOT STRONGER.
PUT AN END TO WOMEN’S SUFFERAGE
SHE’S VERY CHARLIE
CAN YOU COMPETE WITH YOUR DAUGHTER’S ‘LITTLE GIRL LOOK’?

SECRET ANTI-PERSPIRANT
Although this ad’s acknowledgement that women do indeed sweat–and therefore need deoderant protection–moves a step beyond the coy modesty that characterized earlier advertisements for hygiene products for women, its explanation of why women sweat does not. Making no reference to physical or even mental exertion as a cause of sweating, the ad claims that women sweat when their ‘mood’ changes. The implication of this claim–that women are emotional and unpredictable–is thus more traditional than progressive.

GET LUCKY!
With its blatantly sexual imagery, this ad both parodies and popularizes the long-standing popular culture tradition of objectifying women. As a parody, the ad critiques knowing sexuality, the idealized yet essentially unnatural and unattainable female form, and the objectifying male gaze. At the same time, however, the ad capitalizes on the very qualities it parodies: the female model’s come-hither look, her lithely voluptuous body and the male model’s obvious attraction to her. Like ads from the 1960s and 1970s which co-opted contemporary feminist cries for liberation from the domestic sphere to sell unrelated products, this fragrance ad is successful because it draws on modern notions of female empowerment which dictate that women can be strong and physically attractive at the same time.

EYE-DENTIFY!
The seemingly empowering message of this ad–that women are free to define themselves however they see fit–in fact undermines feminist logic because it perpetuates the traditional belief that women are defined by how they looked rather than by the things they do. The implication that a woman can become ‘intellectual’ or ‘sophisticated’ simply on the basis of the type of fake-eyelash she chooses to wear is clearly foolish. More problematically, it is actually harmful to women’s chances of becoming men’s social and political equals. As long as popular culture contends that a woman’s appearance outweighs her substance, she will not be regarded in the same light as a man who has achieve dominant social status on the basis of ability rather than looks.

SHE’S BAKING COFFEE CAKE
The premise of this ad is that Robin Hood CoolRise flour liberates women by freeing them from the kitchen. But while it is true that the woman it depicts no longer has to “spend hours and hours in the kitchen”, her day is still largely devoted to domestic concerns. Rather than being free to spend time alone, with friends or pursuing a career, she simply spends more time cleaning house and taking care of her children. Thus this ad’s promise to liberate women is tempered by contemporary social realities.

ADECO COPIERS
The irony of this ad is that it appropriates the slogans and spirit of the 1960s feminist movement in order to sell a product to women still constrained by the very social norms feminism tried to do away with. By directing the ad toward women, its creators support–and implicitly promote–the mid-century opinion that, if they worked at all, women should be secretaries but not bosses. Thus the feminist message of the ad is undermined by traditional values. On a larger scale, the feminist movement itself was ultimately undermined by popular culture’s adoption of its spirit but not its substance.

YOU’VE COME A LONG WAY, BABY! [BLACK WOMAN]
Although the tagline of this campaign attributes improved social and political status to the modern American woman, the absence of a ‘before’ photograph in this particular ad is not-so-subtle proof of the fact that black women in the 1970s had not in fact come very far at all. The success of the ‘You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby!’ campaign depended on precisely the juxtaposition between old and new which this ad lacks, making the isolated contemporary figure it depicts particularly striking and disheartening.