J. Howard Miller’s “We can do it!” poster for the Westinghouse Electric Company. – Smithsonian Museum of American History. “We Can Do It!”. Accessed on March 31 2020. https://americanhistory.si.edu
She dominates our perception of female empowerment – the face of modern feminism.
She has carefully applied makeup, yet her rolled sleeve and flexed arm indicates that she is fierce and determined. She beckons you with a firm “We can do it!” and is the embodiment of the modern woman; strong and independent. Unfortunately, our perception of this ‘Rosie the Riveter’ is doused in myth, distorting our view of feminist history.
Historically, the fear of female independence outside of the domestic sphere had been pervasive. Throughout WWII, there were objections to women working outside of their gender role. As Sara mentioned in the first lecture, these objections had to be opposed – the major combatant was ‘Rosie the Riveter’.
So, who is she? According to the song “Rosie the Riveter”, she was “making history working for victory” ¹ on the factory assembly line. The first visual depiction of Rosie was a masculine Riveter illustrated by Norman Rockwell ². With arms that could rival a Greek god, she casually eats a sandwich while crushing Mein Kampf underfoot. Neither fully encompasses our idea of a ‘Rosie the Riveter’. This ‘Rosie’ was a war worker who is patriotic, but not outwardly feminine. Where does our ‘Rosie’ fit into this?
1943 Des Monies Register cartoon reflects the fear of WWII financially emancipating women. Coleman, Penny. Rosie the Riveter: Women Working on the Home Front in World War II. New York: Crown Publishing, 1995, pg. 98.
Rosie the Riveter
Rockwell’s Rosie Norman Rockwell Museum, “Rosie the Riveter – 1943”. Accessed April 2, 2020. www.nrm.org
Poster from Miller’s series. Depicts women as passive observer/attendant to the conflicts of man. Kimble, and Olsen. “Visual Rhetoric Representing Rosie the Riveter. Michigan State University Press 9, No. 4 (2006): 559 www-jstor-org.ezproxy
Well, the truth is that she doesn’t, not in the way we see her.
Created for the Westinghouse company by J. Miller, she was overshadowed by Rockwell’s until 1980. Miller’s image was exclusively hung in Westinghouse factories for only two weeks. According to Kimble and Olson, the “We can do it!” message was not aimed at recruitment of working women but Westinghouse team unity³. Furthermore, the determined fist did not signal her passionate individualism. It was Westinghouse’s “routine gesture used for rallies and community building” ⁴.
Additionally, the poster was part of a series designed by Miller that features women as emblems of the home and family⁵. All, like ‘Rosie’, are gorgeously made up with pink cheeks and long lashes, showing that even working women continued to be the subject of the male gaze. To add insult to injury, Kimble and Olson remark that Westinghouse didn’t even employ Riveters⁶. She was never ‘Rosie the Riveter’.
When taken out of context, the “We can do it!” poster’s meaning has become the feminist message we desire. Not only was she not seen by most American women, but she was part of a series that underestimated and patronised women. The poster’s message has been twisted and changed in our memory until it is no longer recognisable to its contemporaries. This transformation of our perspective over time can also be applied to how WWII changed lives for women. Although regarded as a fundamental turning point, feminist theorist D’Ann Campbell observes that women only “temporarily assumed new roles […] no permanent or radical transformation took place” ⁷. Most were forced to forfeit their jobs to returning soldiers and resume their domestic role. Clearly, although guided by facts, war is what we make it, and our memory is what shapes it.
References:
¹ Coleman, Penny. Rosie the Riveter: Women Working on the Home Front in World War II. New York: Crown Publishing, 1995, pg. 16.
² Norman Rockwell Museum, “Rosie the Riveter – 1943”. Accessed April 2, 2020. https://www.nrm.org/rosie-the-riveter/
³ Kimble, James, and Olsen, Lester. “Visual Rhetoric Representing Rosie the Riveter: Myth and Misconception in J. Howard Miller’s “We can do it!” poster”. Michigan State University Press 9, No. 4 (2006): 554 https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/stable/41940102?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
⁴ Ibid, pg. 551
⁵ Ibid, pg. 558
⁶ Ibid, pg. 551
⁷ Campbell, D’Ann. “Women in Combat: The World War II Experience in the United States, Great Britain, Germany, and the Soviet Union”. The Journey of Military History 57, No. 2 (1993): 302 https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/stable/2944060?sid=primo&origin=crossref&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
There wasn’t enough room in my post, but if you guys are interested in Rockwell’s Roise I would really recommend reading this JSTOR Journal article! https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/stable/41940102?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
I think this is such an important post and that every woman should read it! We often take Rosie the Riveter at face value and never feel the need to delve deeper into her true meaning. The exploitation of feminist values to promote a patriarchal agenda is such a disgusting inversion I am surprised more people do not know about this. As you wrote the fear of women independence has been rife throughout history and especially here, sadly I do not see thing changing completely any time soon. Nonetheless, this post is super important and definitely one I’m going to share!
I really enjoyed reading your post! I think it’s important to consider the intention and origin of figures such as Rosie the Riveter who have become such strong parts of culture. I think we take a lot of things at face value and don’t consider or know of their meanings and historical context. This inspired me to look at symbolic figures with a harsher eye.
I learnt a lot from this, that I’ll definitely be sharing with others!
I found this to be a very eye-opening and substantiated post. I think this serves as an important remind of society’s tendency to celebrate small achievements in equality – whether on the basis of gender, race or sexuality – rather than focusing on changes that still need to be made. As you’ve addressed, Rosie is now used as a symbol of female empowerment during the Second World War, yet in reality she was far from the feminist symbol she is now perceived to be. We now celebrate Rosie as being a feminist figure and proof of progress in female rights, in essence she is a symbol of a fictitious sexual equality. I feel like this attitude persists in varying aspects of society, where changes or symbols of change are highlighted as a way to dismiss the need for further change. For example, gay marriage is often regarded by many as an achievement of equality, a symbolic piece of legislation that proves that social progress has been made, yet in reality the LGBT+ community still face continued discrimination. Similarly, feminist progress is celebrated, and symbols like Rosie are melded into something to be proud of. Personally, I perceive this tendency to be particularly inimical, as we continue to focus on what has been achieved, such as women’s suffrage, prohibition of discrimination in the workplace and female employment outside the domestic sector rather than on persisting issues such as the wage gap, prevalence of the male gaze and gender norms.
Thanks for this, Brooke. It would be hard to talk about war without going into the significance of women during these times. They’re not just overlooked in times of war, but I’m glad you put the spotlight on what’s even worse. Times of war (and pandemics) expose the fragilities of a society. You’d think humanity would learn from their mistakes, once such events have passed. Your analysis of something that was once considered feminist shows just how important it is to be critical of how much can be hidden under a feminist label.
I was really surprised by the facts. ‘Rosie’ was used to summon women to the frontlines of economic demand, and conveniently dropped after men returned from the war. It’s said that old habits die hard. But women took on a totally new role in times of war, one that defied philosophers, politicians, and cultural norms over centuries past. They took on roles as breadwinners and child-rearers, and their capabilities were largely ignored after the war. I think a lot of this is due to the feminine ideal.
It’s much more limiting than the masculine ideal. I’d say there are more rules – “don’t work out too much, you’ll get too muscular.” “Leave that job to men.” I’m still surprised when I’m in a hospital and see the vast majority of nurses being female, and most doctors are male. There’s no scientific evidence behind women being less capable than men, and history has shown no shortage of extraordinary, brilliant women, who have outgrown the circumstances they were bound by and managed to stand out in history books.
The feminine ideal is pervasive. Just take a look at the role of First Ladies all around their world. Whatever career they formerly had must be juggled with the commitments of First Lady. Their opinions must be prudent, their wardrobes are under scrutiny, and they’re expected to accompany their husbands and almost be buffers between the President and the media. The role of the First Lady is heavily centered on appearance, and they are under constant scrutiny, but receive little acknowledgement of their efforts. It’s a double standard. Do we know, or care, about what Angela Merkel’s husband wears, or why he isn’t by her side at many official events? Is Jacinda Ardern’s partner expected to organize events or promote certain charities?
Recognizing that these historical models, once champions for a feminist cause, are actually ideas that are used by men when it’s convenient, is key. Women’s work isn’t just an extra wheel on a tricycle, it’s a pillar and a crutch simultaneously – without it, society would be crippled. As new generations, we should be learning about this in classrooms, and shaping the feminine ideal to be one that gives women the scope to fulfil all their potential.