This Dove deodorant commercial, sent in by Emma H., is a nice, simple example of how women are taught that certain feminine performances are required. In the commercial, the woman wants to wear a sleeveless dress. Her comment is followed by the following text:
Emphasis on “has” and “of course,” of course.
Watch it:
This is the same Dove, of course, that markets itself with the “real beauty” campaign and is owned by the same company as Axe.
Oh no! I’m in big trouble! I’m a woman who doesn’t shave her underarms OR wear deodorant AND I go out in public in sleeveless tops. I guess I missed compulsory feminism class. (Not watching TV helps! The only time I see commercials is on this blog.)
Are you sure “feminism” is the word you want? 
Stinky stinky! I hope “public” means your co-op.
For me, I wasn’t just told I “needed” to shave my legs by the T.V., I was (and am) told by family, friends, random person on the street…. OK, I’m not actually told by the random person on the street, but the look says it all. Usually I just were pants because it more convenient than shaving, or dealing with the comments if I don’t. I envy men, and the ease that they can wear things like swim suits and shorts. On the rare occasion I go swimming, i worn swim trunks more recently. (Have you SEEN the cuts on most swim suits now a days? Is it too much to ask to have shorts for bottom and tops that don’t make you nervous that you’re going to fall out every time you jump into a pool? I can’t be the only only who like going to the pool/beach/etc. to actually SWIM and MOVE around. How are you suppose to have fun with razor bumps in your nether regions or a top that isn’t supportive?)
I’ve also faced pressure from family and friends to shave my underarms and legs. I remember one time I went out wearing a sleeveless sundress with my family. Before I could get in the car, my mother pulled me aside and asked me if I was “REALLY sure I wanted to go out without shaving”. I asked her why I wouldn’t go out without shaving. Her first answer was that I would be mistaken for a lesbian, to which my response was to remind her that my best friend, who is lesbian, shaves her legs, underarms, and arms. Her second response was that I would look too masculine, to which I reminded her I was going on in a dress and wedge sandals, so if anyone thought I looked “too masculine” they had some seriously strict gender ideals.
Personally, I don’t get the idea that women “need” to shave their legs and underarms. I hate the feeling of stubble growing back in my armpits, as it itches like mad. The only way to manage it is to shave every time I take a shower, and I’m really not up for that. I’d rather be comfortable while going sleeveless then make everyone absolutely aware that I’m straight and a female.
Totally sympathize. I want swim trunks with shorts SO BADLY. The skin on my upper thighs is really sensitive, and I have yet to find a way to get that area hairless without pain and irritation.
Swim trunks for ladies? Please, world? PLEASE?
Re: shorts to swim in
Two words: wetsuit shorts. I highly recommend the 1mm O’Neills (no affiliation, that’s just what I own).
Why they’re awesome:
1. They offer full bum coverage.
2. The fabric is thicker, so stays in place without “creeping.”
3. Nobody looks at you funny, because they look like exactly like plain old boyshort bottoms (also a good solution, but beware: a lot of them don’t have full bum coverage, so they creep like mad).
4. No more razor burn! EVER!
5. You can go swimming whenever you want— no advance warning necessary!
6. The material is waaay more durable than the usual lycra (am I the only one whose swimsuits always end up with fuzzy bums from sitting on pool edges??). In fact, it seems to last practically forever; no fading or anything.
7. They’re not skintight like swimsuit bottoms, and they don’t usually have elastic at the legs (so a model’s body is not required).
(Oh, and if you want more coverage up above, try a tankini top.)
Oh yeah, and you can also do a search for “womens board shorts.”
They’re literally swim trunks for women. They go as long as knee-length.
Can you tell I live in a surfing town??
Also! Thank you so much! Now I just need to find a matching top in a 36H… I know there’s some stores who sell tops for larger chested women over in Britain, but I like holding what I’m buying before I buy it.k
truth is, sometimes I shave my underarms when I feel like it. Other times, I don’t.
fact is, I actually started shaving my armpits at a very young age because there’s hygiene rules in Islam that demanded for both males and females to shave their armpits for cleanliness reasons!
but anyway, I really don’t understand why people make such a big deal over this. Who cares if a woman has airy armpits (and legs)?!
oo, thank you for that interesting factoid! 
i always assumed that it was a hygiene thing, even though now people tell me that it really isn’t less hygienic.. i sweat so much that i really still feel like the sweat sticks to the hair unless i shave, but is this all in my mind? so yeah, i always thought men should shave too!
Having hygienic armpit flora takes some grooming in itself, I found. When I’m healthy and well-hydrated, the hair supports a bacterial colony that you can’t really smell at all. I say that from smelling other people doing the same thing, not just claiming I must smell like a rose because no one wants to say anything.
I sound like a hippie. Oops.
When I’m nervous or unhappy, I stink. That does make you feel vulnerable. Folks who wear antiperspirant are totally cheating the “I CAN SMELL YOUR FEAR” system. Har. So I wear it any time I know I’m going to be nervous, like a job interview. But most people react well to the faint smell of a relaxed and friendly ape, whether consciously or not.
I started shaving my legs after several genuinely concerned female classmates — independently of each other — offered to help me learn how to shave.
I was about 12.5 years old.
Same here. I wish I hadn’t started shaving. I had such fine, soft blonde hair on my legs before I started shaving… *sigh*
Shaving has no effect on the color or thickness of hair. It sounds like you simply started shaving before your hair follicles were fully receptive to androgens.
Or maybe it should be, “Before you started producing your adult level of androgens.” I don’t know anything about biology 
who doesn’t shave her underarms OR wear deodorant
========
I hope this is not implying that the above practices have as a result an easy maintenance of underarm odor for everyone. God, so many people who don’t wear deodorant simply stink. If you have never used public transportation in certain areas and climates, or have never had certain co-workers with certain habits, you simply do not know what I am talking about. Unless you move 12ft away, it’s intense and it’s bad.
Personally, in my experience the biggest offenders have never been people who smell of fresh sweat (stale sweat, on the other hand…) but people who, because of age or health, have trouble cleaning after themselves and smell of urine and excrement.
And that guy in the bus who, for some strange reason, smelled of moldy, wet anorak, too.
@ Elena: fresh sweat (stale sweat, on the other hand…)
Totally agree that sweat smells vary in all kinds of directions, and they can vary enormously whether fresh or stale.
What I find intriguing is the extremely opposite reactions that people can have to the “bad” smells. Some people don’t care at all and are not bothered, others feel like they are going to die. I would venture both are the result of different mixes of social conditioning, even though there is a part to smelling many odors that is physical and innate.
Smells are due to bacterias. Soap is actually as efficient as any anti-bacterial compound from a deodorant (or less armful than alcohol from old fashioned deodorants). Anti-perspirants are useful only if you do not take shower everyday. If you took a shower, the bacterias will not spread very fast. And added fragrances are to me as annoying as bad smells.
So basically deodorants are useful only to people with questionable hygiene.
This is a gross oversimplification. Admittedly, we can often smell ourselves far more easily than those around us can, but I shower every day, have no medical problems that would cause an unpleasant odor, and still find that my underarms can become rather smelly if I don’t wear deodorant.
I think the point here is that women are forced to conform to certain standards of beauty and “hygiene”, NOT that people should be forced to not shave. Everyone should have the right to choose what to do with their own body.
Speaking of compulsory shaving requirement, has anyone else been disturbed by the media’s obsession with Monique’s unshaven legs? People have gone so far as to call it un-hygienic. I never shaved arm/leg hair in my life and no ones ever called me dirty, but in the words of the old spice commercial “I’m A MAN!”….
I was gonna mention Mo’nique’s unshaved legs here, too. Thanks for bringing it up. She is so self-confident, assertive, and badass. I love her.
Off-topic, but the media is also obsessed with her open marriage. She’s happy, but the media doesn’t like the idea of a happily married couple who practices an open marriage.
Why is Man Hair acceptable but Woman Hair is dirty and unhygienic? (Except for the instance of Islamic folks, where everybody’s hair is considered equally unacceptable.)
It’s like people really believe that men and women are different species. Men are humans who are also mammals and naturally they are hairy. Women are… something else?
“It’s like people really believe that men and women are different species.”
They really do. I never understand how people can believe that women and men are really _so_ different. The opposite of “woman” should be “girl” — not “man.”
I know. An example are those dumb books from the early 1990s, I remember those when I was a kid. These books had titles like “WOMEN ARE FROM VENUS, MEN ARE FROM MARS.” and I’d always be like, “that’s silly. Men and women are from Earth.”
Oh god, don’t get me started on that book! I majored in linguistics in college, and one of my focuses was sociolinguistics. Let me tell you, that books is just _utter_ BS! It’s basically the “intelligent design” of sociolinguistics. (That and the idea that non-standard dialects are flawed.) Ugh, the guy who wrote that book actually bought his PhD from a diploma mill. Honestly I could go on for pages and pages about how messed up the whole thing is.
Look up some articles on Deborah Cameron. She’s a feminist and linguist, and she’s extremely intelligent, perceptive, and fair. She’s written a lot of articles criticizing “Men are from Mars,” some academic and some for a general audience. You can find many of them online. I highly suggest them!
By the way, those self-help books were popular in the late ’80s and early ’90s because they represent a reaction against second-wave feminism. The academic world experienced the same reaction, too. It’s called “difference theory.” The idea is that girls and boys are raised in extremely different environments, to the extent that they pretty much come from different cultures. Of course, this is a highly essentialist notion of gender. It just focuses on “nurture,” rather than “nature.” And this theory is appealing because it argues that women are in no way oppressed, overtly or insidiously. Rather, all girls come from one culture and all boys come from another culture. And girls need to learn how to communicate with boys.
Two of the most blatant problems with this theory are that girls and boys are largely raised together, and that individual girls and boys come from all different cultures and subcultures. Again, that’s where Deborah Cameron’s excellent body of work comes in. There’s also a great article by Penny Eckert, “The Whole Woman: Sex and Gender Differences in Variation.” She points out that individuals are far more than their gender: they have race, class, ethnicity, personal interests, etc. So sociological studies that reduce individuals to gender are fundamentally flawed.
I am suddenly reminded of a conversation I had years ago, when I was about 12 or 13, with a boy my age who thought it was absolutely terrible that Muslim men had to shave all their body hair. I repeatedly asked him why that was bad for men but it wasn’t for the women, and he never gave me an answer beyond ‘because it’s gross’.
I think the conversation culminated with me rolling up my trousers to show my hairy shins and him actually screaming and running away in horror, which I found hilarious.
I think people, male, female or neither, should be able to do what they damn well feel like with their body hair, but I’m sick of this assumption that body hair magically becomes ‘unhygienic’ when it’s on a woman (even though men tend to sweat more!).
While there’s no denying the heavy cultural and social pressures on women to shave all manner of body parts, I think the interpretation of the text in the advert is somewhat misleading. Consider an analogy. I want to send a letter to my grandma. I have to go to the post office, of course! The “have to” here obviously expresses a hypothetical imperative, conditional on my desire to send a letter. It’s not as if there’s an outward imperative, requiring my presence at the post office whether I like it or not. Similarly in this advert, methinks. It’s not as if this woman is setting out to challenge convention and has to be admonished by the advertisers; she wants not to appear with undearm hair. Of course, you might think this desire is an expression of false consciousness or Foucauldian “power” or whatever, which brings us back to the social pressures mentioned above…
But I think the subject of the sentence kind of implies where the imperative is coming from. If I say “I have to do something,” then I am placing the imperative on myself. But an ad saying that “she has to shave her legs”, we don’t know whether she thinks so, but there’s more implication that the imperative comes from elsewhere.
That’s my interpretation, anyway. I see what you mean, but I agree with Lisa’s reading.
Actually, Dove picked a pretty good example: if you’re a violinist in a recital, you want people listening to the music, not staring at your armpits. Unfortunate but true. If men are doing a recital, especially if they’ve gone professional, they have to dress nice, as well.
Sorry, but while Dove’s campaign may ultimately be about gender, this isolated example is also about the traditions surrounding Classical music.
I find it sadly telling that in USian (at least) society, women’s natural bodies are seen as unproffesional and not nice.
I can understand what you are getting at groggette, but I think it’s worth noting that if it were a man performing he would definitely be judged tor wearing anything sleeveless. In that sort of formal situation a man has almost not flexibility in what he can wear. Long sleeve button up dress shirt and slacks required. Jacket/tie optional. There is (I mean this in the general societal sense, rather than my own personal views on the way things ought to be) no garment that would be viewed as appropriate for a man formal setting that would expose his arms, or legs, or back, or more than an inch or two of his neckline. (Think about the shape of menswear, there are really only two options for your legs, and about 4 or 5 for the torso, compared to an almost uncountable variety for women (e.g. diagonal cuts and different shaped necklines etc))
Also the “rules” for mens’ body hair are much more lax, but I don’t think you can really say they are non-existent (except for leg hair, which for whatever reason men are expected to never shave and women to always shave). In a formal setting with an unbuttoned collar people would comment if your chest hair had enough volume to show through. And I would guess that most men in situations where they will be sleeveless and have to raise their arms, would want to trim their armpit hair even if they don’t shave it off completely.
Point taken, but I do think there’s a difference between actually augmenting your body (shaving) and covering up your body (nothing sleeveless). But yes, men do face some crappy clothing issues also. And just because I’m sure someone (not necessarily you Rob) will bring it up, yes there are some professions where men are expected to have short hair and a clean shaven face, but those hair requirements aren’t applied to all men the way leg and underarm shaving is for women.
Slightly off topic, but your line about men being expected to never shave their legs got a small laugh out of me…. I know way too many cyclists
(leg hair + road rash = no fun)
But just because a conceptually similar set of rules also exists for males doesn’t make either set of rules a good thing.
Men have more rigid rules for clothing because they are not supposed to be LIKE WOMEN; hence the sexism implicit in the “rules” (which men made, by the way, and women enforce). Women get false power from being able to wear dresses (usually sexualized) and makeup and high heels and other consumerist expensive products. And women are supposed to feel great about having all these “choices.” These are “choices” that lock women into money and time–and are even criticized for spending so much money and time on “trivial” matters. It is not the same to say that men and women are equally oppressed by clothing and shaving rules.
If you get a chance, read the pages in Michael Schwalbe’s Sociologically Examined Life on “false parallels.” Or Allan Johnson’s The Gender Knot.
Yes, masculinity is defined negatively — in terms of what it is not. And because masculinity is supposed to be the opposite of femininity, femininity is defined as everything bad.
Well, in context it is OK. She wants a sleeveless dress. There are social conventions that forces her not to show hair under her arm pits. She is also free to wear sleeves. I do not think that a man showing body hair at such a concert would be accepted either.
Shaving her arm pits is as important as dressing nicely. Within the context, I find it normal to have social requirements dressing style.
I want to note that she would be accepted if she was dressing like a man, much more than a male concertist dressing like a woman. And if there is a social pressure on gender in this context, it would probably be more on the men.
Dove did not mean her that she “has to” shave. It is only in the context of wearing a sleeveless dress that she has.
I think you totally missed the point of this post. Lisa’s criticism was of the social convention that dictates women cannot wear sleeveless dresses or tops without shaving under our arms.
There are social conventions we have to apply somewhere. In this context, it was not sexist, because a male violinist would not be able to do so either.
Sure the social convention that dictates women to shave their arm pits is ridiculous. I would not mind to see a female athlete with hair there. But this is not the same context.
I do not think I missed the point.
It is sexist because in the US, women are expected to be hairless except for their scalps, eyebrows and lashes, and perhaps a small amount of hair in the pubic region. Although businesses are trying to push “manscaping,” it’s not requisite the way it is for women.
That is the point. You could certainly go on to say that it’s sexist that men cannot wear sleeveless outfits when they perform classical music. But that is a separate issue. One is about fashion, and one is about women’s bodies being considered normal only when they’re artificial.
Can I just add that a woman wearing a long-sleeved dress going down to her ankles for a formal event would be seen as, basically, crazy by a lot of people? Maybe a woman could get away with a pantsuit for a recital like this… in certain places… ?? I don’t know, I just don’t get the “But women can go SLEEVELESS!! Don’t you see how FREE you are????” argument. I think women feel constant pressure to show off their bodies, and their fashion “choices” should be evaluated in that context, is my point, I think.
But this advertisement is about a special context. Not about US in general. I agree that expecting women to shave their arm pits is sexist is in general. But not in this context.
I just wanted to also say that Muslim men and women are asked to keep certain areas free of hair, which does not include the arms or legs.
“Can I just add that a woman wearing a long-sleeved dress going down to her ankles for a formal event would be seen as, basically, crazy by a lot of people?”
Really? Wow… American society is so focused on appearance. I have worn a long sleeve dressed, down to my ankles, with a scarf and i thought I looked nice. oh, and yes, my scarf matched my dress.
“Really? Wow… American society is so focused on appearance.”
While that’s definitely true, I don’t think that the Americans are more concerned with appearance than the people of other countries are. For example, I think the US has a low rate of cosmetic surgery compared to certain other countries. And the way Americans dress day-to-day is much more casual than the way people of many other nationalities typically dress.
As for the specific example of a long-sleeved dress being unacceptable… I think it’s just that when it comes to formal dresses, sleeveless is currently in style. But even so, it’s quite common to wear a little jacket over a dress. I don’t think Americans fetishize women’s arms or anything. And it’s typical for formal dresses to reach the ankles. So I don’t think anyone would _actually_ be shocked by long-sleeved, ankle-length dress. A dress like that could be perceived as a little dowdy, though.
What’s very upsetting is that many women are now shaving their vulvas (which they mistakenly call their vaginas). Or at least many women in college. Part of the mainstreaming of pornography and infantilizing of women.
The equivalent would be men shaving their testicles.
Plenty of men do shave their testicles.
I don’t want to get too into this, since it could easily become too personal for my comfort. However, there are reasons that adult women like or prefer to remove all or most of our pubic hair that are our own. Making it about infantilization of women is overly simplistic. No woman should feel guilty or dirty for choosing to leave things as nature made them, but I’m very uncomfortable with your implication that women who do choose to remove pubic hair are participating in our own subjugation.
That’s true. Trimming the hair down there , at least for me, is about being comforatable (less itchy) and not about being infantized or sexualized. (NOT shaving for me, just shortening the hair… though I know of women who actually shave for comfort, though I don’t know how. Maybe their skin isn’t as sensitive as mine.)
Well, I do shave a lot of that area (it’s really uncomfortable if I don’t… not socially speaking, but physically), but I think reducing what’s now a cultural trend to MY personal choice just isn’t fair. It wasn’t that long ago women weren’t going hairless, and it wasn’t because they didn’t know it was possible to remove the hair… it’s because normal women have pubic hair (!!!). That women are now culturally expected to have bald vulvas IS infantilizing.
Fair enough. Personally, I have massive issues with going bare, including lack of cushioning, skin irritation, and prickly stubble that starts growing, I swear to God, fifteen minutes after I shave.
I also know who find that shaving or waxing genuinely makes their lives better.
I find the way that shaving is marketed right now to be offensive to women, but that doesn’t mean there’s anything inherently wrong with shaving itself.
The idea that women’s bodies are only considered accepted when they are “artificial” is ridiculous. Aside from the difficulty in defining exactly the dichotomy between “natural” and “artificial,” very little about grooming, clothing, and gender signs are not “artificial,” whether for men or women.
I live in a “clean-shaven” society for men and men are socialized to shave every day. They can easily be discriminated against or lose a job if they do not conform to a series of rules about facial or head hair. (Whether it is technically against the law is irrelevant, it’s the de facto practice and the cultural norms that matter). There are very few people (men and women) who never do anything artificial to the hair on their heads, and men who never shave or trim their facial hair in a certain artificial way. In our society, a man who wears an enormous “let it all grow out” beard and mustache like they did in the 1800s would be considered odd, to say the least, ridiculous and ugly, much more frequently. Crime and punishment.
How much of this cultural shaving imposition bothers each respective sex (facial shaving for men and body shaving for women)? Apparently, it doesn’t bother most people that much. I think most people think of it on the same level as taking a shower or brushing your teeth, as far as daily imposed body maintenance routines. Furthermore, like many socialized behaviors, after the meanings about said behavior are internalized, it’s the *not* carrying out of the behavior that bothers a large majority of people.
The main reason why I think this shaving practice became the norm for women is that, after women’s clothing started changing in the 1900s and they started uncovering parts of their bodies publicly, if they hadn’t been shaving already, underarm and leg hair certainly stood out as it had never before, and it certainly also stood out as a visual symbol for masculinity. And this symbol has been maintained very strongly until today. Furthermore, given all the recent abnormal behavior of visible groups of women with a homosexual mentality to either shave their heads or not shave their legs (that is to copy-cat the gender signs for masculinity from men), there is a more recent meaning of homosexuality that is now often attached to a woman not shaving (but it also depends on the country and area). Then, there is also the sexual attractiveness standard attached to women shaving their underarms and legs, which ties into concepts about femininity.
IMO, it is not the imposition for women of the physical act of shaving legs and underarms itself that is a problem, because you have societies where a substantial number of women don’t shave and are treated like crap, but how the meaning of shaving ties into other problematic concepts of femininity, beauty and sexual attractiveness in our culture. Given that it refers to the body, it has its set of complications related to cultural issues about the body, just as rules about head hair and facial hair impact another set of meanings.
I think the imposition of thinness and the excessive sexualization of women’s bodies, in dress or body implants, or plastic surgery, causes much more harm to women’s psyche’s than any little shaving ritual.
Holy sh*t. I think you and I might actually more-or-less agree on something here.
I think that shaving underarms and calves (for women) and faces and necks (for men) are roughly parallel cultural practices. Both involve shaving parts of the body that are often exposed in public; both are reasonably easy for most people. You don’t have to like either practice, but since they seem balance each other, it’s hard to call either one sexist.
However, there are certain kinds of body-hair rituals that I consider sexist. One is eyebrow threading/waxing. I personally choose to practice these grooming rituals at times, for purely aesthetic reasons. Unlike, say, shaving, getting your brows done hurts like a mofo (albeit for a very short time). And while I really do like the finished product, it makes me sad the anyone would do this to themselves because they felt they would be socially unacceptable otherwise.
Shaving or waxing sexual parts (testicles or vulvas) likewise strikes me as sexist, for several reasons. Far more women than men do it; it is painful or uncomfortable for many people; and women who don’t do it are sometimes portrayed as dirty and disgusting.
I read the way they had the ‘of course’ pop up a little after the ‘she has to shave’ as a slightly sarcastic/tongue-in-cheek nod to the fact that it is so often considered a necessity.
As in, I think Dove is actually acknowledging that it is not actually necessary for underarms to be shaved; they have just chosen to focus on this aspect of their deodorant because it is something that so many underarm-shaving women will be looking out for.
[...] updated for using Flex 4Wonkette : DC Metro A Perfect Example Of Why White People Should …An Example of Compulsory Femininity » Sociological ImagesA royal example for Brunei youth | Brunei NEWS, Brunei HEADLINES …Strategic – Free Ezine [...]
This post prompted me to look up the history of shaving. What I found really interesting is how obsessed people have been with shaving bodily hair since antiquity. Also, all the horribly low-tech implements and techniques that were used (ouch!) Then there are the copy-cat fashion fads about shaving, highlighting that this practice has as many class symbols as it does gender ones.
As it was also pointed out somewhere else that if you look at Western paintings of women throughout the ages, you don’t see body hair for older paintings.
If the info on this page is correct, there is a lot of interesting cultural developments throughout the ages. Examples:
http://www.quikshave.com/timeline.htm
300 B.C. -
During this same time in ROME, young men about age twenty-one are required to have their first shave. They kick this off by celebrating their official entry into manhood with an elaborate party-like ritual. Other guy friends are invited to watch and give the novice shavee a bunch of nice gifts. Only soldiers and those training to become philosophers are excused from participating in this cultural ordeal.
292 B.C. -
The renowned SCIPIO AFRICANUS MAJOR (236-183 B.C.), conqueror of Hannibal in 202 B.C. also affirms the mode for being clean-shaven. He is admired and copied by men throughout Rome and by neighbors.
50 B.C. -
In ROME, many men are following the grooming example of JULIUS CAESAR (101-44 B.C.), who has his facial hairs individually plucked out with tweezers every day. He also writes this same year that “the Britons shave every part of their body except their head and upper lip.”
54 – 68 A.D. -
In early Rome, POPPAEA, wife of the notorious EMPEROR NERO, uses depilatory creams to remove unwanted body hair on a daily basis.
THE MIDDLE AGES: 476 – 1270 A.D. -
Because women in Europe wear very large and outrageous headdresses, the bizarre beauty secret of removing all hair from the eyebrows, eyelashes, temples, and necks becomes tress chic. This is masochistically accomplished by plucking and shaving every day, but a real lady who wants to represent herself in the ideal image of contemporary female beauty, knows this is a must. Sure, this makes a woman seem practically bald and somewhat extraterrestrial looking, but it is The Look to die for!
1100 – 1199 -
The Twelfth Century radically changes the way many societies dress and groom. In the beginning, FRENCH MEN are wearing non-stop beards, but by the close of the century, almost all chins were clean-shaven.
MID to LATE 1700s -
Both men and women remove all hair from the forehead to wear artificial press-on mouseskin eyebrows.
EARLY 1800s -
European women are still concocting homemade depilatories in the kitchen.
1830 -
American men have stopped going out in public with only their shaved, baldheads. They now wear hairpieces or hats.
1903 -
GILLETTE begins his legendary climb to the top as king of the U.S. shaving market, thanks to his shaver’s high quality, low price affordability, and his keen approach to marketing. In 1903, his total sales were 51 razors and 168 blades.
1904 -
GILLETTE’S total sales for the new state-of-the-art safety razor reach 90,000 razors and 123,000 blades.
Valentin 6:03 pm on March 12, 2010 | # | Reply
There are social conventions we have to apply somewhere. In this context, it was not sexist, because a male violinist would not be able to do so either.
Sure the social convention that dictates women to shave their arm pits is ridiculous. I would not mind to see a female athlete with hair there. But this is not the same context.
================
Your comment prompted me think about how sports is one of the few public rituals where there has been a much more vivid shift for acceptance for women’s aggressive behavior (which consequently is tied into current concepts of femininity and masculinity). To a large extent, this also includes accepting more “masculine” looks for women in sports, given that the same looks would be completely deplored elsewhere.
I don’t argue that femininity is bad in its essence, or that it should be done away with, but that it has often been defined in partially harmful ways and has messed up a lot of women’s psyches. And it’s these aspects of definitions of femininity that need changing. Since, from a moral perspective, I see aggressiveness just like a knife (it can be used to kill some innocent victim or to make a sandwich for someone who is hungry), not every exercise of aggressiveness in sports is a good thing, for men or for women. Thus, as many women become more and more a photocopy of men, there is a mix of good and bad in that process just as well.
[...] recently marketed to women all carry the mantra of liberation – freedom from under-arm hair (Dove deodorant), menstrual cycles (Seasonale), or even pesky stomach aches (probiotic yogurt)– yet they all [...]
I’m an 18 year old and I stopped shaving my legs and underarms more than a year ago. I don’t know how many other American girls my age are the same way, but I wouldn’t be surprised if I was the only student in my school who is this way.
I stopped because I realized that I didn’t like shaving. To me, it was a waste of time because I hardly ever (at that time) wore anything shorter than knee-length or short sleeves, because I’m a little bit curvier and have never been one to show off my body – another thing society has brainwashed me with; fat people can’t show skin.
It’s funny that when I stopped shaving I started to feel a lot more confident in my body, because if I didn’t do the one thing women are “supposed” to do, there was nothing I couldn’t feel confident about.
Since then I’ve taken to wearing whatever I like, with or without tights, in public. I love my body hair, and I actually find body hair very sexy on men. On women, I think it says that a woman has learned to love herself.
People need to understand that not shaving ≠ not showering. Yes, you can not shave and be clean at the same time.
Surprisingly enough, body hair is only as unhygienic as society makes it out to be by brainwashing us by telling us that it is something to be ashamed of, and it is something to spend money on.
As for the case of deodorant, because I’m fairly health-conscious, I stopped using antiperspirants because of the ingredients involved and the fact that they didn’t even work in the first place.
Fact is, the body HAS to sweat. You don’t sweat, you die from toxic buildup in your system. However, I’m sure many women who take themselves too seriously would rather die than (heaven forbid) to show the world that they are humans.
I use crystal body deodorant that works by using natural minerals that fight against odor-producing bacteria. You still sweat but don’t smell (unless you don’t apply it to CLEAN skin, post-shower). I also use it on my feet because my feet sweat a lot when I don’t wear socks with shoes, and it’s amazing how well it eliminates odor.
I was about to applaud Dove for caring about “real beauty” and not using the same tactics that other beauty product companies do to pressure women into buying their product. Then I saw this commercial, and I scoffed.
But then again, if Dove didn’t have deodorant to sell, all they’d have is their formaldehyde-laden hair products that caused my skin to break out in bumps.
Love yourself.
I’m NOT a woman, but I don’t like my own armpit hair, so I shave my pits. I find armpit hair in general ugly, on men or on women – but I also think that other people don’t necessarily need to have the same concepts of beauty and ugliness as I have. My own aesthetic principles apply to me and my world, everybody is free to do what they want. Nobody has to do anything – other than die, of course, that’s something we all have to do in the end.
As a male, I consider myself a white collar hippy. I like to look professional with a tie and such when I need to. I, however, hate the way things have gone with shaving and all that hair removal jazz. I hate make up on women, I hate unnatural fragrance or the masking of natural scents. I hate that social conditioning makes women and men insecure about their own bodies, I broke free from it all surprisingly early in puberty when I found an old playboy that showed women with pubic hair.
The most shock and awe moment in my life was a day at the beach when I saw a feminist in a bikini with hairy legs, arms, pubic area, long happy trail, pits, the works. No make up, light tan, and clearly such strong confidence. I was only still in my teens, and she was clearly over 25, so I had no chance. I didn’t have the guts to say what a beautiful woman she was as I was in swim trunks and I was having a hard enough time hiding my “excitement.”
Sad though, even rebel girls trying to gain some confidence slather on more gunk than the average one. Hippy chicks can be cool, but remind me too much of hippy guys. Too many drugs, too little care for themselves which results in not shaving just from being lazy, not because they want to. I have a large amount of hair on the top of my head, and I keep it clean despite my inner hippy. A vinegar rinse in the shower is amazing for the hair, and is completely natural.
I just need to find another white collar hippy I guess. They are hard to find, as one wouldn’t know I am. One wouldn’t know how much I love heavy metal either, so I will keep searching.
I applaud any woman who forgos the pressure of shavings and fragrance. Natural is not just sexier/more beautiful, it makes life easier. Guys and other women need to stop judging women who take the natural path.
© 2010 Sociological Images
