‘You’ve come a long way, baby’

I stumbled across this compilation of Virginia Slims commercials from 1969 as part of research for my final essay for Women & Power.

Watch the commercials.

Here’s the excerpt from my paper that referenced these commercials as an example of consumer feminism:

Cigarette companies pushed their purse-sized cancer sticks onto women by advertising smoking as a way for women to show their liberation, not to mention the possibility of becoming thin and therefore beautiful like the anorexic models puffing away in the ads. Philip Morris marketed the first cigarette “for women only” in 1968 when they unveiled Virginia Slims with their “You’ve come a long way, baby” ad campaign.

Commercials told women that Virginia Slims were “slim cigarettes for women only, tailored for the feminine hand, slimmer than the fat cigarettes men smoke, with flavor women like – mellow, mild Virginia flavor, in slim purse packs.” The campaign included many different commercials but all carried the same theme. Images of suffragist parades would take over the screen with a male voice-over said, “men had all the rights, then at last women won their rights and one by one, they won them all.” Then the screen was filled with very thin women dressed in modern fashion with complete makeup, false eyelashes and hair done-up in 70s flair, and smoking away on her Virginia Slim cigarette. The male-voice over was replaced by a jingle sung by an all-male group: “You’ve come a long way, baby, to get where you got to today. You got your own cigarette now, baby, you’ve come a long, long way.”  Now “liberated” women could purchase, display and even breathe their equality with cigarettes.

The ad’s message assumes all is equal now between men and women, all you have to do to be a part of it is buy and smoke cigarettes. And since sex and beauty ideals were also used to sell the cigarettes, not only could you embrace your equality, you could also get thin and catch a man. Virginia Slims continued this type of advertising through the 1990s when cigarette advertising was banned. Ad slogans included “It’s a woman thing” and “Find your voice” – both a variation on the theme of women empowerment, equality and liberation. Ruth Rosen pointed out the paradox posed by this pseudo-feminism, “ads appropriated the language of emancipation in order to sell women products that could harm their health” (Rosen, 2006).

Consumer feminism is a form of backlash since it ignores the systemic sexism and issues women face and focuses on what each individual woman can do to embrace her equality. This brand of pseudo-feminism is predicated on the belief that all things are already equal: women simply have to purchase and consume it. Consumer feminism also promotes unhealthy beauty ideals and this obsession with appearance “reinforced the very non-feminist idea that each woman was responsible for her own failure or success” (Rosen). In other words, equality is yours for the taking. If you fail to, it’s your fault, not the male-dominated, sexist culture in which you live.

Ruth Rosen, The World Split Open: How the Modern Women’s Movement Changed America, (2006), 311, 313.

Filed under: advertising, women's health, advertising, beauty ideals, cigarettes, consumer feminism, marketing, Ruth Rosen, sexism, smoking, The World Split Open, truth in advertising, Virginia Slims, women

Who will be Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court?

With Justice David Souter retiring from the U.S. Supreme Court, President Obama will make the first judicial nomination of his presidency. Who will it be? A woman, maybe? Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who’s been battling cancer, is the only woman on the bench after the retirement of Sandra Day O’Connor.

Let the speculation begin. Who do you think it should be?

Filed under: law & courts, David Souter, judges, judicial nominees, Obama, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, U.S. Supreme Court

NY Times op-ed asks “Is Rape Serious?”

“Is Rape Serious” by Nicholas D. Kristof, op-ed columnist, The New York Times

Yes, Mr. Kristof, rape is serious. But this op-ed did not go far enough in its questioning and framing of such a serious issue.

First, I must laud Kristof for raising the issue of the justice system’s mistreatment and mishandling or rape cases. Yet, I take issue with his approach and lack of analysis. His op-ed fell short of doing justice to the injustice done to rape victims in the U.S. I realize that such a complex issue cannot be completely covered in one op-ed piece, but with a little bit of research, some better journalism and some sensitivity, he could have made this a stellar op-ed

1. The last sentence smacks of neocolonialism. So is he saying that Afghan men are barbaric b/c of the way they treat women, but somehow men in the U.S. aren’t even though they treat women the same way as this op-ed explains?
2. Kristof pointed out that our society still questions whether rape is a traumatic event, but why? He overlooked the inherent sexism. If a man were raped repeatedly in his home, would the traumatic nature of the event be up for debate? Would police let a lab take six months to produce evidence that would aid in finding and prosecuting the perp? Would the high cost of producing such evidence be seen as an impediment then? In addition to sexism, Kristof glossed many other reasons society questions the traumatic nature of rape. A woman’s body is still not truly thought of as her own: the powerful, who uphold the status quo, decide the purpose and value of a woman’s body for her. We typically only raise this issue when discussing reproductive rights, but the issue of ownership plays a huge role in violence against women too.
3. Kristoff wrote, “Some Americans used to argue that it was impossible to rape an unwilling woman… the refusal to test rape kits seems a throwback to the same antediluvian skepticism.” Antediluvian? Rape was “okay” by society’s standards, OUR society, way past the Great Flood that made Noah build the Ark. Would it have hurt to add the bit of American history that didn’t recognize rape as a crime until the 20th century? Maybe reference Susan Brownmiller’s Against Our Will? His handling of this issue makes me wonder if he even knows the book exists.
4. Obviously, I’m sickened by what Kristof is pointing his finger at. The justice system’s handling of rape case is disgusting and sometimes just as bad if not worse than the actual rape itself. But I expect more from The New York Times op-ed department about this injustice. If the media doesn’t raise the issue and hold the government’s feet to the fire, who will? Voters can do this, but it the responsibility of the media to report on this as well. Each of us, in our own way, must be fervent in keeping democracy alive. To question, to be skeptical is a very American thing to do.

Filed under: violence against women, women & the media, journalism, media, neocolonialism, Nicholas Kristof, rape, rape kits, sexism, The New York Times, violence against women

keep the discussion going

To build on the momentum created in our Spring 2009 Women and Power class at Carnegie Mellon, we’ve created this blog to share articles, stories, insight and opinion about the women’s movement and feminism.

Class members and instructors – past and present – can become contributors (e-mail Leanne to get authorization). Everyone else is welcome to post comments.

Filed under: admin, Carnegie Mellon University, feminism, women's movement