Issuu

BL OOD MO NEY The Depiction of Women in Propaganda

SFMOMA

1917â€“1945

Aug 19th to 25th

08 16 22 28 29 4

WW1 USA

WW1 IRE

WW2 USA

CONCLUSION

INTERVIEW

In this essay, I will be responding to the statement: “through objects, cultures are recorded, providing us with tangible evidence concerning transformations in values and politics”. I will interrogate this statement through the lens of wartime propaganda, employed in the US and Ireland during the First and Second World Wars. I’ll address the depiction of women in this propaganda to determine how accurately their portrayal reflects the cultural values and gender politics that surrounded women of the time. Ultimately, I will follow the transformation in these values and politics from approximately 1914 to 1945 through the critique and evaluation of relevant propaganda. Propaganda can appear in many forms. Through my research, I’ve found that wartime posters harbour a wealth of evidence regarding women and their place in society. Essentially, posters are a form of communication between an active force (The US government for example) and a reactive force (the American public). Posters have the innate ability to convey complicated, nuanced thoughts and messages in a coherent and concentrated manner. This is why the poster is perfectly suited to the art of propaganda. In this essay, I’ll analyse a total of eight wartime political posters originating from the US and Ireland. From interpreting their social subtext, visual clichés and inherent biases, I’ll record a timeline of the cultural and political transformations pertaining to US and Irish women from the First to the Second World War.

Average male wage

= 10 cents

Average female wage

= 10 cents

One of the most chilling depictions of women in US propaganda is what I’ve come to call “women as victims”. In this 1917 poster we see a young woman clutching an infant, while the hulking “hun”, a brutish ape-like stereotype for a German soldier, shuffles towards her – a ploy to sell war bonds. The young women and child represent “home”, the United States, what the men are actually fighting for. This is a common cliché used to great effect in US wartime posters. The idea of women as victims of war was firmly rooted in reality, with accounts of war crimes and atrocities committed by German troops against women on the home fronts of the allied powers, but its use in this poster reveals more nuanced details about the cultural perception of women at the time. In my opinion, the poster is expressing the idea that women cannot defend themselves in any substantial way. It implies that it is the American man’s duty to protect the defenseless female population, communicated matterof-factly by the ominous hun figure looming over the young mother.

WW1 USA

Fig 1: Raleigh, Henry. Hun or Home? Buy More Liberty Bonds, Lithograph, 1917. 88

This sentiment is echoed in another 1917 poster “Destroy this Mad Brute, Enlist”. This poster is essentially identical to fig.1 with a few minor differences. It is a classic recruitment poster co-ercing men into enlisting in the US war effort. A damsel in distress is seen once more, helpless as ever (albeit in a more dramatic pose) held in the bloody arms of a German ape. The implication of women as vulnerable and weak was entrenched in US culture at the time. In fact, the persuasive power of portraying women as powerless victims – something men need to protect, is applicable to a wide range of wartime agendas (from enlistment to war bonds) because it so perfectly reflected the cultural values surrounding women at the time. David Crowley complies with this line of thinking in his writings. On the famous British propaganda poster “Daddy, what did YOU do in the Great War?” by Saville Lumley he had this to say:

“It relies on a combination of graphic codes and particular ideologies current in Edwardian and wartime Britain outside the direct control of Lumley...” The success of the poster in question, much like “Destroy This Mad Brute”, hinges on two key elements. Firstly, the so called “graphic codes”, in this case the grotesque German ape grasping the young woman. Secondly, the poster would have automatically conjured mental images of an American wife, sister or daughter being brutally abused by an enemy German soldier, an occurrence that was considered to run a serious risk of actually happening. This application of graphic imagery that tapped into cultural fears and values is what made the propaganda of WW1 successful.

Fig 2: Hoppes, Harry R. Destroy this Mad Brute, Enlist, 1917. 11

Another type of WW1 propaganda challenged masculinity in a more direct way. “Gee!! I Wish I Were a Man, I’d Join the Navy!” from 1917 perfectly exemplifies the US cultural perception of women during WW1. An attractive women dressed in a feminised version of a navy uniform proudly stating that if she were a man she would enlist. Her staunch declaration of wanting to fulfill a man’s role challenges a would-be sailor’s masculinity, if a woman wants to volunteer then the unregistered man would have felt uncomfortably feminized by the poster. It serves as a reminder that women in military roles weren’t yet culturally accepted. This paired with the condescending tone of the line “be a man and do it” the poster offers a glimpse at the sexist and misogynistic culture of WW1 America as gender equality is played for a cheap joke. The clichés of women painted as domestic figures and the blatant objectification of women as defenseless victims in WW1 propaganda are plainly reflective of US cultural values of the time whether the posters were targeted at men or women. Wartime posters have clearly recorded Ireland’s and America’s values surrounding women during WW1 very accurately and faithfully. However, from analysing the subsequent American posters of World War II (WW2), the transformations in these cultural values and politics are unearthed.

12 12

Fig 3: Christy, Howard Chandler. Gee!! I Wish I Were a Man, 1917.

110k

100k

90k

80k

70k

60k

50k

$ Yearly

Legal Occupations

Doctors and Surgeons

Chief Executives

Av. Male Wage

Av. Female Wage

Legal Occupations

Doctors and Surgeons

Chief Executives

Largest Wage Gaps

In this essay, I will be responding to the statement: “through objects, cultures are recorded, providing us with tangible evidence concerning transformations in values and politics”. I will interrogate this statement through the lens of wartime propaganda, employed in the US and Ireland during the First and Second World Wars. I’ll address the depiction of women in this propaganda to determine how accurately their portrayal reflects the cultural values and gender politics that surrounded women of the time. Ultimately, I will follow the transformation in these values and politics from approximately 1914 to 1945 through the critique and evaluation of relevant propaganda. Propaganda can appear in many forms. Through my research, I’ve found that wartime posters harbour a wealth of evidence regarding women and their place in society. Essentially, posters are a form of communication between an active force (The US government for example) and a reactive force (the American public). Posters have the innate ability to convey complicated, nuanced thoughts and messages in a coherent and concentrated manner. This is why the poster is perfectly suited to the art of propaganda. In this essay, I’ll analyse a total of eight wartime political posters originating from the US and Ireland. From interpreting their social subtext or visual clichés and inherent biases, I’ll record a timeline of the cultural and political transformations pertaining to US and Irish women from the First to the Second World War.

WW1 IRE Fig 4: Have you any women folk worth defending?, 1915. 16

Because anti-war sentiment was rife among Irish society, WW1 propaganda often leaned heavily into classical â€œIrish imageryâ€? in order to appeal to the indignant Irish. This included the red haired, fair skinned woman Kathleen Ni Houlihan, pictured in fig. She serves as a traditional symbol of Ireland itself, a figure reminiscent of a bygone era, offering the rose-tinted nostalgia of more romantic time in Irish history and legend. Prospective soldiers would have seen this poster and felt a sense of patriotism and duty, much like the damsels of the aforementioned US and Irish posters. Even though her appearance is rooted in historical and cultural significance of yesteryear, I personally believe the designerâ€™s choice to feature the character is deliberate for another reason. In my opinion, her inclusion relies on the same cultural values as the previous posters, playing on the belief that women are helpless and lesser than men. A patriotic and legendary figure, but depicted as female all the same and still in dire need of protection.

Fig 5: James Walker Ltd. Will You Answer the Call?, 1915. 19

Percentage of male fortune 500 CEOs

95%

Percentage of female fortune 500 CEOs

The Second World War pushed women into the workforce, as demonstrated in fig.7. A larger scale war called for more nurses, doctors, factory workers and drivers on the homefront. Women who previously had jobs that included so called “menial tasks” were thrown head first into what had formerly been exclusively men’s work. The cultural values had shifted, finally it was socially acceptable for women to work these types of jobs. Subsequently after the war, the women this poster represented didn’t leave the workforce as originally planned. This change is documented in wartime propaganda, as the posters shift from WW1 and WW2 clearly demonstrate this difference in employment. Nevertheless it’s important to note a big similarity between WW1 and WW2 posters. Ultimately these new professions, like the aforementioned “menial tasks”, were essentially in aid of men, like the injured soldier being cared for by the nurse in fig.7. On the other hand, the differences and similarities in culturally acceptable careers between 1914 and 1945 are evident in the wartime propaganda of both wars.

WW2 USA

Fig 6: Save his Life and Find your Own, 1943.

One of the most famous icons, let alone propaganda posters of WW2 is Rosie the Riveter. In this 1943 poster she boldly states her well-known call to action: “we can do it!”. Her mere appearance speaks volumes about the cultural transformation that US society underwent since the First World War. Flexing her arm and offering a steely stare, she is a far cry from the dainty young women pictured in WW1 propaganda being carried off by German soldiers. Nonetheless, Rosie the Riveter was undeniably a propaganda tool of the US government. She was portrayed as a strong capable woman to inspire other women to join the workforce and aid the war effort. However her persona was so accurate to the culture of the time that it began to appear in places other than propaganda. A wave of women’s movements, spearheaded by several women’s groups had begun to take a stronger stance in their pursuit of gender equality. Women from across the globe, from the UK, US and as far as Japan had started to reject oppression and establish a bond of “sisterhood” between countries and continents. Women were ready for change and were willing to fight for it. I believe this sentiment is echoed in Rosie the Riveter. The tough factory worker resonated so well with the culture of 1943 USA that she became part of the culture herself.

“The German woman has her own battlefield. With every child she brings to the world, she fights her battle for the nation. The man stands up for the Volk, exactly as the woman stands up for the family”-Adolf Hitler Fig 7: Miller, J. Howard, We Can Do It! 1943. 25

40k

35k

30k

25k

20k

15k

10k

$ Yearly

Health Technicians

Food service

Cashiers

Av. Male Wage

Av. Female Wage

Traffic Clerks

Bus Drivers

Office Clerks

Smallest Wage Gaps

The misogyny and toxic sexism of the Third Reich is universally well known. They objectified women and believed their role in life to be that of “subservience”.Worryingly, these beliefs do not seem too far from the ways in which women were depicted in US WW1 posters. Hitler declares that women serve the family while men serve the nation as a whole. To me, this sounds troublingly similar to the attitude taken by American WW1 propagandists when designing their posters. The previously discussed portrayals of women carrying out “menial tasks” in aid of the brave men that risk their lives in order to protect the country’s defenseless female population is, in my opinion, not so far removed from Hitler’s rhetoric. The transformation in US culture from WW1 to WW2 is unmistakable and undeniable when highlighted against such a reviled regime as the Third Reich. WW1-era US gender values may have somewhat paralleled the Nazi party’s, however, WW2-era posters display a far cry from the German’s abhorent doctrine, a shift clearly chronicled between the poster propaganda of both wars. Wartime posters are more than ploys to sell war bonds. They exhibit the clear narrative shift in US cultural values and politics between the wars through their charged social subtext and visual cliché. By nature, poster propaganda needs to tap into the very fabric of the culture that its targeting to successfully connect with and ultimately influence its viewers. Wartime propaganda from 1914–45 tapped into America and Ireland’s cultural values and politics surrounding women in order to fulfill its intended function of persuasion. As US cultural values surrounding women changed, so too did propaganda, adapting to fit its target market. Defenseless women being chased by barbaric apes turned into depictions of strong independent women ready to replace men in factories and hospitals. Conclusively, wartime propaganda posters were so carefully crafted to appeal to society that they were marketed at that ended up reflecting the society itself and overtime, recorded the transformations in cultural values and politics as exemplified in the US and Irish examples analysed in this essay.

The following interview is an excerpt from the radio show Freakonomics Radio, in an episode is called “The True Story of the Gender Pay Gap.” In this transcript, Steve Dubner interviews Claudia Goldin. Goldin has been working on gender economics for years, and has personally done some of the most influential research. Shes a professor of economics at Harvard. In 1990, Claudia Goldin became the first woman to get tenure in the Harvard economics department. In 2014, she served as president of the American Economic Association, the AEA. Her lecture at the annual AEA meeting was called “A Grand Gender Convergence: Its Last Chapter.”

INT ERV IEW

You have argued — and I’ll quote you to yourself — “The converging roles of men and women are among the grandest advances in the last century.” What do you mean by that, and why is it so grand?

Now, we hear about the gender pay gap a lot. We’re told repeatedly — including by the President of the United States in the State of the Union — that “women earn much less than men for doing the same work,” is one of the phrases that we hear — seventy-some cents on the dollar. So, first off, can you clarify what that really means? How true is that, when we hear a statement like that, especially in a political arena?

If we are talking about a gender pay gap, of whatever size — somewhere between 23 cents and zero cents less per dollar than a man — let’s look at what factors might contribute to that. So, number one, what about discrimination? What is the evidence that women earn less because they’re discriminated against on some dimension or another?

Dubner

I’m very much interested in converging roles having to do with the productive capacities of men and women. So that would be their education, their professional degrees, their life-cycle labor-force participation — meaning how many years have they been productive members of the workforce. And so, there are converging roles in these arenas and they have meant that men and women are significantly more alike in terms of how firms and employers would look at them and how they look at themselves.

Well, it is true that if you took individuals in the labor force and took those who were working full-time, full-year, and took all women, took the median annual earnings of those women and took the same thing for men, and divided the two, it would be .77 or around that, OK? And that’s a number that has increased. In early 1970’s it was .59 and there was a mantra, “59 cents on a dollar, that’s not enough, OK? We are equal to men, we deserve more.” So, is this for equal work? Is it equal individuals? What economists do is they use data to figure out whether the individuals are the same; they try to make them comparable as possible; they squeeze out these differences and productive attributes; they look for individuals who have the same education, the same labor-force participation rates over their life cycle, etc. And they squeeze those out and we still get a number that’s less than one. So, does that mean that women are receiving lower pay for equal work? That is possibly the case in certain places, but by and large, it’s not that. It’s something else.

Goldin

Talk for a moment about potential categorical differences between men and women that have shown up in some research. The different appetite for competition, as some have labeled it. Or, in another instance, the willingness to bargain on salary or flexibility. How much might those contribute to the pay gap?

Dubner

It’s hard to find the smoking guns, OK? The smoking guns existed in the past. I have found many a smoking gun where you find actual evidence of firms saying, for example, “I do not hire Negroes.” Or, “I do not hire women.” I mean, you actually find these in 1939. We don’t find those smoking guns now, but what we do try to do is hold everything constant that we can hold, get the best data that we can get. And what remains we don’t call discrimination, we call wage discrimination. Discrimination is such a loaded word that we don’t want to use that, so we use quotes around “wage discrimination.” And so the first thing is, what type of data do you need to do that? It would be incredibly rich data. And a couple of people have put together data using administrative records that are phenomenally good data that can hold lots of things constant, that can track individuals over their lifetimes and get to the answer. And the answer is that it’s a pretty small number, this number for wage discrimination once you hold lots of things constant. It’s probably there, but we’re not quite certain whether these differences are due to the fact that women, even those without kids, have more responsibilities or take more responsibilities in their own families — taking care of their parents, for example. So the answer is that we don’t have tons of evidence that it’s true discrimination.

I think there’s no doubt that they contribute to some degree. But let me tell you why I don’t think that they go the real distance. Some of the best studies that we have of the gender pay gap, following individuals longitudinally, show that when they show up right out of college, or out of law school, or after they get their M.B.A. — all the studies that we have indicate that wages are pretty similar then. So if men were better bargainers, they would have been better right then. And it doesn’t look as if they’re better bargainers to a degree that shows up as a very large number. But further down the pike in their lives, by 10-15 years out, we see very large differences in their pay. But we also see large differences in where they are, in their job titles, and a lot of that occurs a year or two after a kid is born, and it occurs for women and not for men. If anything, men tend to work somewhat harder.

Goldin

Let me ask you about one more contributory factor. The parent penalty, whatâ€™s often called the mommy tax. How significant is that as a contributory factor? So do you find that there are bigger differences between men and women between different occupations? In other words, what would be a more typical story? A man and a woman, letâ€™s say, who are observationally equivalent in terms of aptitude and education, and so on. What would be more typical, that the female would go into a profession where the average salary is lower than the man? Or that the female would go into the same profession as the man, but choose a particular type of occupation within that profession that might provide more latitude and therefore come with less salary?

Dubner

Well, it seems as if it’s a very large factor. That anything that leads you to want to have more time is going to be a large factor. Women often take jobs that have different characteristics, different amenities.

Right, so we have both things going on. So, we know that there is what many people call “occupational segregation.” Nurses are female. Doctors are — they were disproportionately male; in some specialties they still are. We know that nurses earn less than doctors, in general. So one might think that all of the difference in average earnings is going to be the difference because women select more into occupations that look like they’re paying less — big occupational groups that are paying less — and men select into occupations in which they pay more. But, really the lion’s share of the difference is due to the fact that in every occupation, just about, women receive less than men. And they’re receiving less than men for a host of reasons, one of which is that they’re not working the same amount of time. And in many occupations, working more hours or being there when the firm wants you to be there earns you a lot more. So, in fact, something like three-quarters of the difference, if you look at the 469 occupations in the Census, and you look at how much is due to the fact that women are disproportionately in certain occupations, and how much is due to the fact that within each occupation there are differences — 75% is due to the within each occupation. Thus, another way of putting it is, you could hypothetically give women the male distribution of occupations and you would wipe out only about a quarter of the difference in earnings between men and women.

Goldin

Female to Male ratio in Construction in Ireland

= Male

= Female

Female to Male ratio in Primary Teaching in Ireland

= Female

= Male