Month: March 2016

“A New Era for Women” By Shanic M. Martinez

Close your eyes and picture the U.S. in the 1940s during WWII. Try to imagine the many assembly plants that were scattered throughout the nation. What kind of people do you picture building the fighter planes and bombers? Still wondering? The builders of these fighting machines were women. They were the mothers, sisters, wives, and girlfriends of the men that were oversees risking their lives for the sake of our beloved country. They were called “Rosies” after the 1940s song “Rosie the Riveter,” a song that details a women who is “making history” while “working for history (Rosie the Riveter Song).

The common belief at this time was that they were “young, white, and middle-class” (Honey 19). However, according to Professor of English and Women’s Studies at the University of Nebraska, Maureen Honey’s book titled Creating the Rosie the Riveter: Class, Gender, and Propaganda During WWII this belief is a common misconception. Studies have shown that most women were “working- class” women who “needed the money to achieve a reasonable standard of living. This finding is supported by the Regional Oral History Office at the UC Berkley Library who collected a myriad of female oral histories during WWII. The fascinating life of Mary K. Cohen is one oral history that tell the story of a young poor Jewish woman who traveled 2 ½ hours to an assembly factory in order to support her family and also her country.

Cohen was born in Chicago, Illinois on July 23, 1923. Her parents emigrated from the Ukraine to Chicago, and later moved to the Bronx due to issues surrounding her father’s job. Because her family’s financial issues, she was forced to have her first job at the age of eight plucking kosher chickens at 3 cents per chicken. At the age of 14, Cohen added to her work experience by babysitting a couple of children. It was in this job that she also received 36 hours’ worth of flying lessons. The fact that Cohen had many work experience before she even was an adult supports Honey’s finding that most women had “prewar experience in the labor force.” This finding debunks the myth that most “Rosies’” first job was working in the factory.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Cohen felt the need to “do something,” she wanted “to do something special” (Regional Oral History Office 11). She responded to an ad in the newspaper looking for workersn to build fighter planes. This job was so important to her that she can clearly recall her first day working in the factory. She remembers how she was instructed on how to use the drill and that the shifts became quite competitive. Cohen mentions that “it didn’t matter as far as the money.” I find this interesting seeing as how all of the $65 that she received was to help her family that were struggling (Regional Oral History Office 13). It appears that if she was paid more or less, it didn’t matter as the team’s sole concern was to get the planes out (Regional Oral History Office 12). It was not about the quantity of the money that motivated her, but the quantity of the planes that her team finished. For her, “it was a very patriotic feeling” (Regional Oral History Office 12).

One aspect of Cohen’s job during the war that she recalls was that was the first time that women wore pants (Regional Oral History Office 11).  Outside of assembly plant, women were still wearing skirts and dresses. As a result, Cohen received many disapproving stares from non-working women. One women even said “You still can dress like a lady. You’re not dressed like a lady.”  To which Cohen responded “Yeah, but we’re working on machines” The other lady “just walked away” (Regional Oral History Office 19).  I find the reaction from these non- “Rosies” interesting as they should be supporting what the “Rosies” are doing to help aid the war. These women are working grueling jobs building fighter planes day in and day out and people only chose to comment on the fabric that covers their legs. The wearing of pants was not a fashion statement, but a safety issue. Cohen points out how one wouldn’t a “dress to be caught into the drill or into the machinery” as that would lead to a “real problem” (Regional Oral History Office 19).  This is why the 1943 documentary by Ford Motor company “Women on the War Path” and the photographs issued by the Office of War Information (OWI) feature women with pants. These agencies want to show women that there is no safety hazard will drilling and riving. They also want to show that pants provided “Rosies” the ability to move around efficiently to create more war planes and thus help their country win the war.

http://vm136.lib.berkeley.edu/BANC/ROHO/projects/rosie/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55NCElsbjeQ

https://blackboard.temple.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-4731870-dt-content-rid-50128485_2/courses/LA_MN_HIST_2818_1901956_50F/Maureen%20Honey%20Creating%20Rosie%20the%20Riveter.pdf

Does the Barbie of the Past Represent the Barbie of Today? by William Kowalik

Thinking about Barbie for most people would conjure up the image of a ridiculously slender and un-proportional fashionable doll that lives in a pink mansion, drives a pink car and can do anything! Barbie as a children’s toy for girls (and boys) could be seen as a heroic inspirational figure that can inspire kids to do whatever they set their minds to. President Barbie? You can be President too! Perhaps Barbie…if she were real would be the most multitalented person, trying her hand at every career imaginable…or simply indecisive. Maybe she just hasn’t found the right one yet. That’s up for you to decide.

Barbie started off as a fashionable, independent career woman. Her relationship with domesticity has fluctuated with the changing tastes of the times over her fifty-seven year life (Pearson and Mullins 229). Although earlier on “Handler turned down a vacuum company’s offer to make a Barbie sized vacuum because Barbie didn’t do what Charlotte Johnson termed ‘rough housework’” (Lord 10). As the tumultuous Sixties pushed forward, the image of Barbie as an independent career woman changed to become more like Barbie the housewife. Ken, her boyfriend/husband/male-counterpart arrived on the scene at this time. M.G. Lord says of the original Barbie, “Barbie taught girls what was expected of women, and women in the fifties would have been a failure without a male consort” (Lord 11). By the late 1960’s Barbie began to return to work outside the home. In 1973, Barbie as a career woman returned, although quite clearly subservient to make coworkers and bosses, as evidenced by “Barbie the Stewardess” and “Ken the Pilot” (Pearson and Mullins 249).

Could one argue that the Barbie “brand” of today is so different today than when she was created? While I’m sure a convincing argument in favor of that could be made, Barbie in 1959 and Barbie in 2016 present a very similar idea, young women can do what they want with their lives and proudly and confidently do so. Putting aside the problematic nature of body image that Barbie has traditionally presented, it seems that she is a good role model, encouraging positive play that stimulates imagination and possibilities. The Barbie website appropriately sums up this vision well: “With more than 150 careers on her resume– from registered nurse to rock star, veterinarian to aerobics instructor, pilot to police officer– Barbie continues to take on aspirational and culturally relevant roles while also serving as a role model and agent of change for girls. She first broke the “plastic ceiling” in the 1960s when, as an astronaut, she went to the moon… four years before Neil Armstrong. In the 1980s she took to the boardroom as “Day to Night” CEO Barbie, just as women began to break into the C-suite. And in the 1990s, she ran for President, before any female candidate ever made it onto the presidential ballot” (“Barbie Careers”). Although the need for pushing this might seem irrelevant today when so many women do work, it is the image of “What’s Cookin? And “Leisure Hours” Barbie that seems irrelevant (Pearson and Mullins 238). Particularly in STEM fields, men still greatly outnumber women. This still leaves the opportunity for Barbie to continue to be a role model. “”Well before 1963, when Betty Friedan defined the ‘problem that has no name,’ a significant number of women were defying the Feminine Mystique and forging a place for themselves in the male-dominated workforce. Barbie was created in the image of these women…Consequently, the doll had revolutionary from the outset by even tacitly acknowledging women’s and power in a wide range of settings” (Pearson and Mullins 256).

Barbie has always been a sign of the times. Her careers, matched outfits, and lifestyle have all been representative of the time in which they were created. “Barbie is a direct reflection of the cultural impulses that formed us” (Lord 17). Barbie today might have an iPhone. A few of the dolls set to be released this spring, show the dolls in Yoga poses, it appears they’re health conscious. Another significant different is the introduction of different sizes: “Original”, “Tall”, “Petite”, and “Curvy”—for the first time making Barbie proportions at least somewhat like real women (“Barbie”). So can you say that the Barbie of the past represents the Barbie of today? Or is the Barbie of today something completely different. I’d say that while yes they have differences, but Barbie is still Barbie. That hasn’t changed. From her first progressive career choices in the 60’s, she’s always led the way for young girls to follow their dreams especially with the current branding “You Can Be Anything”.

Lord, M. G. Forever Barbie: The Unauthorized Biography of a Real Doll. New York: William Morrow, (2004) Print.

Peason, Marlys, and Paul Mullins. “Domesticating Barbie: An Archaeology of Barbie Material Culture and Domestic Ideology.” International Journal of Historical Archaeology 3.4 (1999): 225-59. Print.

How the Ears Became the Icon: A Look at the Design of Mickey Mouse by Keira C Wingert

When one hears the word “Disney,” one of the first images that may come to mind is the iconic symbol of a large circle with two smaller circles overlapping it like ears—the ubiquitous silhouette of Mickey Mouse, one of animator Walt Disney’s most popular characters. Mickey himself has played many roles in Disney films; he has appeared as a cowboy, a sailor, a pilot, a musician, and even a magician’s assistant. His personality has developed since his conception, going from a lovable scamp to a goof to a hero. As his personality changed, so did his iconic appearance. These changes were mourned by some, such as illustrator Maurice Sendak, who believed that the change in Mickey’s design changed him from a common street mouse to whom kids growing up in the Depression could relate, to a wide-eyed, commercialized character more palatable to a mainstream audience (Sendak, 192). However, despite the many changes to the character’s appearance and the many costumes he has worn, the Mickey Mouse’s famous saucer-like ears have remained consistent in representing the character—and the Disney brand—overall.

RcGyBB84i (The iconic, simply designed Mickey Mouse symbol)

Before Mickey Mouse was a famous mouse, he was a relatively unknown rabbit—Oswald the Rabbit, to be exact. Oswald made his debut in 1927 in the short Hungry Hobos, created by Walt Disney and cartoonist Ub Iwerks (Kindelan, par. 3). The rights to the design on Oswald belonged to Universal Studios, under whom Disney and Iwerks were working at the time. When the studio would not give Disney more money for production, he and his cartoonist decided to work independently. They could no longer use the character Oswald, so they tweaked his appearance to transform him into the mouse we know today (par. 5). The newly created Mickey Mouse was nearly identical to Oswald the Rabbit, save for his new round, disc-like ears.

(Oswald the Rabbit)

Mickey Mouse made his debut in 1928 in Steamboat Willie and became an instant hit. Soon, more Mickey Mouse shorts were being released, referencing popular culture and other American 5669cb641900002300789924icons; for example, in the short Plane Crazy, Mickey appears as a cartoon mouse version of the famed and beloved Charles Lindbergh. Mickey’s design soon became all the rage in America, thanks to Walt Disney’s marketing genius; it wasn’t long after these shorts were premiered that a plethora of Mickey Mouse merchandise was released, and a children’s fan club, the Mickey Mouse Club, was founded (Suddath, par. 3).

1935 became a big year for changes in Mickey’s appearance when Disney animator Fred Moore gave the mouse a pear-shaped body, pupils, white gloves, and a cuter, shortened nose. This new design was a huge improvement for the animators, who found the character’s previously circular body limiting in terms of movement (par. 4). Mickey now had a more human look than in his earlier appearances, in which his eyes were simply black dots and he wore no shoes or gloves (Quindlen, 202).  The new elements of Mickey’s design also became iconic not only for the Disney brand but for animation at large:  many cartoon characters created after Mickey, such as the Warner Brothers’ Bugs Bunny, Universal’s Woody Woodpecker, and even Nintendo’s Mario, mirrored the white gloves first seen on Fred Moore’s revamped Mickey Mouse.

Mickey’s also made his Technicolor debut that same year in The Band Concert (Suddath, par. 4). While Mickey had been drawn in color before, he had never been animated in color; this short marked the first time viewers saw the fully conceptualized Mickey Mouse design in motion. In The Band Concert, Mickey is wearing an oversized marching band conductor-esque costume rather than his usual shorts, but the animators stuck to the colors they had previously drawn Mickey wearing:  gold and red. This color combination worked well together in an animated format, and from then on, Mickey’s traditional costume of just shorts used those colors.

A03f3b-jpe(Mickey Mouse in The Band Concert)

Since then, Mickey’s appearance has only changed to keep up with new forms of media. The character has begun making appearances in 3D, such as in the 2002  Playstation 2 cult classic video game Kingdom Hearts or in the 2013 short Get A Horse! (Suddath, par. 7). Regardless of his new foray into 3D animation, Mickey’s flat, black ears are still representative of his overall character and the brand nostalgia associated with him. While his appearance, outfit, and even personality have changed over the years, the design of Mickey Mouse’s ears has solidified the character as an American cultural icon.

Works Cited

Kindelan, Katie. “Lost Inspiration for Mickey Mouse Discovered in England Film Archive.” ABC News. ABC News, 29 November 2011. Web. 10 March 2016.

Quindlen, Anna. “Modern Museum Celebrates Mickey.” A Mickey Mouse Reader. Ed. Garry Apgar. University Press of Mississippi, 2014. 200-203. Print.

Sendak, Maurice. “Growing Up with Mickey.” A Mickey Mouse Reader. Ed. Garry Apgar. University Press of Mississippi, 2014. 191-194. Print.

Suddath, Claire. “A Brief History of Mickey Mouse.” Time. Time, Inc., 18 November 2008. 10 March 2016. Web.