To the women of Canada,
Wherever we turn to day [sic], we see and hear the oft repeated
phrase “this is total war.” If we, the women of the Western
World, accept this as literally true, we must fight for victory just
as valiantly as our gallant soldiers, sailors and airmen.
Our weapons on the spiritual side are courage, faith and inspiration.
On the mental plane, we must cultivate clear, forceful
minds. From the physical standpoint, we must keep our bodies
healthy, strong. On the material side, we must look to our
budgets and find new economies in every sphere, in the
kitchen, in our wardrobes, in our daily beauty routine.
…Our men are fighting for the preservation of good things of
life – beauty is certainly one of them – beauty of character, of
expression, beauty of self-sacrifice. Let us preserve these ideals
while the battle rages.
Helena Rubinstein
Chatelaine, March 1942 [1]
Total wars, like the two world wars of the Twentieth century, command nearly complete attention of political, economic and social resources. They impact all areas of life, including gender relationships and social status. In November 1942, an advertisement for the Canada Starch Company appeared in Chatelaine, a popular magazine for middle-class Canadian women, which encouraged Canadians to pay tribute, “to those mothers and wives who are exerting every effort to keep the workers of Canada fit [and] vigorous….” It continued, “They are Canada’s housesoldiers. They are doing their part by devoting their skill and knowledge to providing appetizing and nourishing meals that protect and preserve the health of those carrying on the war work of the nation.” [2] The Department of Munitions and Supply for Canada also ran an advertisement in Chatelaine that suggested women could best contribute to the war effort as “good” wives and homemakers. The advertisement observed that, “Men produce more when their minds are at ease, when they are not worried by domestic problems.” [3] It advised women that, “If you shoulder these worries and help your men to relax, you are playing a real part in winning the war.” [4] It encouraged women to, “do [their] part cheerfully for [their] country’s sake. Keep that man of yours fit and happy for his job.” [5] The advertisement provided women with the slogan, “Brave men shall not die because I faltered.” [6]
According to Chatelaine, women supported the war effort by symbolizing a democratic ideal. As Chatelaine contributor Helena Rubinstein noted to the women of Canada in the epigraph, among other things, Canadian men were fighting to preserve the beautiful housewife heroine. “He’s fighting for you –so it’s up to you to look the part!” stated a January 1943 advertisement for Woodbury Cold Cream. [7] A November 1942 advertisement for Palmolive Beauty Oils upheld the image of a beautiful woman supplying the motivation for men to fight. A blonde starlet declared, “I pledge myself to guard every bit of beauty that he [soldiers, sailors and airmen] cherishes in me.” [8]
For women who wished to support the war effort through their femininity, the Don Juan Lipstick Company created the new colour “Military Red” to help them express their patriotism. [9] Tangee, a competitor of Don Juan’s, acknowledged in 1943 that “No lipstick – ours or anyone else’s – will win the war.” “But,” the advertisement continued, “it symbolizes one of the reasons why we are fighting … the precious right of women to be feminine and lovely – under any circumstance.” [10]
Chatelaine did recognize and applaud the growing number of women who were working in factories to support the war effort and the women who donned the uniforms of the three women’s military services. But, even among these women who performed “double duty” [11] during the war years, femininity was not to be neglected. The Tangee advertisement noted of Canadian and American women that, “It’s a reflection of the free democratic way of life that you have succeeded in keeping your femininity – even though you are doing man’s work!” [12] To encourage women to keep up their beauty routine, Palmolive sponsored a “Miss War Worker” beauty contest. [13] Other beauty pageants were also organized for women working in factories. In August 1944 Chatelaine correspondent Adele White observed about one such contest that, “The winner was no breath-taking blonde, no dashing brunette nor flashing redhead. She was the all-Canadian type with chestnut hair, fair skin and grey eyes. It was her attention to detail, her carriage, her complexion, her hands, smile and trim, straight figure–all as perfect as possible.” [14] Chatelaine’s wartime message was clear: Canadian women should look their best while supporting their men.
Indeed, one of the central concerns regarding the possible impacts of war on society is whether or not war acts as an agent that liberates women from a subordinate role within the nuclear family and confinement in the private sphere of the home. Certainly, the emphases on the importance of motherhood and femininity to the development of womanhood during periods of conflict have created a framework through which many academics, consciously and unconsciously, have measured changes in gender norms. Women are less likely to be considered liberated if they are associated with motherhood and the home; conversely, women’s association with the public sphere, and in particular paid employment, is often used to suggest progress. [15]
In general terms, there are three main schools of thought as to how the two world wars of the twentieth century affected social attitudes about women’s places in societies. A number of commentators argue that the wars taught women independence and helped to “liberate” them from the home. Other historians suggest that the wars actually hampered women’s fight for equality and that women were pushed or ran back to the home with renewed vigour in 1918 and again in 1945. A third school of thought proposes that the wars were not watershed moments and women’s social status was unaltered during, or immediately after, either conflict. [16]
An examination of Chatelaine from 1928 to 1956 illustrated that issues the magazine considered to be of concern to women did not really fluctuate in the nearly thirty years under examination. However, how Chatelaine represented modern Canadian womanhood changed noticeably with the perceived threat to peace in the late 1930s. In concert with an overt threat of war in 1936-1937, and war itself in 1939, the images of women in the magazine shifted from being characteristically female by sex to characteristically female by gender in that women were no longer simply defined by their sex, instead a distinct prescription for how their gender were supposed to look and behave was provided. Moreover, women were increasingly connected to the private sphere of hearth and home. [17]
While reading through the examples published in Chatelaine during the Second World War one cannot help but smile as the contrast to today’s modern woman appears stark (would any woman these days think she was doing her part in support of a war effort my wearing “Military Red” lipstick?). Yet those images not only attempted to shape a then modern view of womanhood, they also served to reflect a perceived ideal. As such, the humour we currently see in those images is a product of the over seventy year “evolution” of gender norms in Canada. Additionally, despite sound academic research that suggests otherwise, the popularly held view still tends to be that the Second World War acted as a catalyst for middle-class women to enter the paid labour force and gain equality with their male counterparts, thus, anything that contradicts this perceived “fact” appears distorted and possibly even drole. [18] Certainly, however, it is important to look for actual cause and effect relationships.
As Westerners end over a decade of war in Afghanistan (c. 2001-2013), I cannot help but wonder what future researchers will be able to discern about gender relationships in our society during this period of conflict. While popular rhetoric includes Canadians fighting to “liberate” Afghan women, did we unconsciously reinforce–through the media and unconscious governmental and societal messaging – a domestic role on Canadian women by encouraging a predominately male combat arms force to protect the rights of Canadians, particularly their own families? Perhaps due to the limited nature of the war in Afghanistan–meaning that it did not draw the complete attention of all political, economic and social resources that the country possesses and thus resulted in a more limited social impact that either World War One or World War Two –the effects on gender norms are limited to those directly connected to the military as a member or a spouse. As such, did we subconsciously encourage military families to embrace domesticity in order to keep the home fires burning?
Interestingly, in a longitudinal study that began just prior to the war in Afghanistan, American researches discovered that military women and men are more likely to get married but only military men are more likely to remain married in comparison to “comparable” civilians. Additionally, upon leaving the military, both veteran men and women are more likely to get divorced than their civilian counterparts. Consequently, the study concluded that “the military may encourage unions that would not normally be formalized into marriage in a civilian context, and are consequently more fragile upon exit from the military.” [19] Arguably, this relationship is underscored during periods of conflict.
While Westerners fight for equality around the globe, perhaps it is time to look in the mirror. Unquestionably, elapsed time allows for a broader perspective of the image being examined, meaning that it is easier to critique images of men and women during the Second World War than it is contemporary ones, yet this difficulty should not prevent a careful examination of contemporary popular gender images. The important thing to remember, however, is that while analysis and understanding is important, judgment is best left untouched. In the words of a Chatelaine contributor to the November 1945 issue:
Oh mother … it will be all right. This is my generation.
Yours earned the right to careers. And it – it was a bit
swamping for mine. Girls felt they simply had to go to work
and have a career, just like the boys. But with the war we
have gone one farther. We’ve earned the right not to have a
career, if we don’t want it. If we want to get married and
have children and darn a man’s socks, surely we’re entitled to
it? Some of us want just that. If we don’t want it, we can be
anything, but if we do want it … why, I’ve fought for my
home and my children! I stuck it out there [in the women’s
army] and looked at death so close I saw the whites of his
eyes. … Mother, darling, I’m going out tonight and get me
that little house and those children if I’m lucky! [20]
