An advertisement of the 1920’s, proclaiming the wonders of a particular beauty aid, offered the new women of the day the following reminder: “Being a woman means more today than ever before. She wants more and she gets more. But she has to put more into the job.“’ This bit of wisdom offers much insight into the lot of the flapper, who invested untold hours in the binding of her breasts, the bobbing of her hair, and the slimming of her waist; the result was the simultaneous emulation of both her younger sister and the opposite sex. While both such figures are seemingly at odds with one another, either interpretation of the flapper’s new look could be perceived as a threat to gendered spheres; many believed that masculinity, along with the power it entailed, was in grave danger. This view was reflected in the popular media, as male journalists, struggling with these new interpretations of womanhood, mocked the flapper and her convictions. Their attempt, be it conscious or unconscious, was to remove some of the flapper’s newfound power, thus reasserting traditional gender roles. A young student, looking back on previous generations from the vantage point of the 1920’s, expressed her joy in the fact that she could “think and act, perceive and execute, reason and react in a thousand different ways that my grandmother and even my mother never could.“* This was by no means an exaggeration; the woman of the early twentieth century had undergone quite a transformation during the period following the war, a transformation so complete she was hardly recognizable. Kenneth A. Yellis, in “Prosperity’s Child: Some Thoughts on the Flapper,” offers a comparison between the flapper and the Gibson girl of her mother’s generation. These two icons were polar opposites in both thought and deed; Yellis describes the Gibson girl as “wifely,” “modest,” and “stable,” while her post-WWI counterpart is “brazen,” “single,” and “capable of sin.” He ultimately concludes that the Gibson girl, with her large bust, wide hips, concealed legs, and long hair, was the “utter antithesis” of the new woman of the 1920’s3 A mere glance at the flapper could have easily proven the above point. Having rid herself of any previously “feminine” curves, she chose to paint her face and chop both her hemline and her hair; such acts were not only seen as revolutionary, but as distinctly sexual. The sensuality of the Gibson girl’s flowing locks had been confined to the privacy of her own home; pinned up during the course of the day, her hair was seen only at night, by the eyes of her husband. Bobbed hair, always down, could not be tamed in such a fashion. The flapper’s hair was worn freely, and was thus attacked as a promiscuous affront to domesticity.4 The clothing that accompanied such a hairstyle, considered equally appalling, did not help matters much. For starters, there wasn’t much of it; the petticoat, along with the garter, waist, and corset, were tossed aside in favor of the short skirt and pair of sheer silk stockings -- both of which often showed quite a bit of the new woman’s leg. Yet it was her face that was perhaps the most shocking of all; much of the general population directly associated cosmetics with prostitution.5 Lipstick, rouge, and powder, combined with shortened skirts, bobbed hairdos, and “loose” morals, resulted in a complete upheaval of traditional notions of femininity. Maintaining such a scandalous appearance was not an easy task. It not only necessitated keeping abreast of the latest fashions and hairstyles, but the self-infliction of physical harm.

Sat Feb 4 18:52:48 2012