Category: Women, History of

JF Ptak Science Books LLC  Post 662

Abdullah Cigarettes has a twisted reliance with the recognition
of the social equality of women and making money.  Mostly it was making money.  Someone there at Abdullah corporate figured out
that there was an easy way of increasing their sales without spending huge
amounts of money on market development—open their market interests to
women.  And in the case pictured here,
from The Illustrated London News of 1929, the Abdullah people were making a
direct appeal to the literal empowerment of women via the national right to
vote.  This came a little post facto, as
women were given (?) the right in 1918*, though it seems that there were no ads
reaching out to women in GB until 1926/7, voting rights or not. 

There was very good money to be made with cigarettes, which were/are
basically the non-kosher hot dogs (or worse) of the tobacco industry, the
tobacco equivalent of the utilization of the pig’s squeal, the remnant of other
products that was filled with profit.  For
the overwhelming part of the history of tobacco smoking by the Western world,
the tobacco that was gathered and stuffed into a paper roll and smoked was the
lowest form of utilizing the product, the vice of the poor. This degraded
spectacle was soon morphed into an enormous social advantage and gigantic
economic opportunity for the producers.

It wasn’t just Abdullah, of course; nor was Abdullah the
first on the scene:  that “honor” belongs
to Helmar Cigarettes, which in 1919 posted an advertisement for a  pack of its cigs buried in a sea of female
faces. The tobacco companies didn’t embrace the notion of the growing
recognition of women, but did follow it, taking advantage of the new and
growing rights and their new marketability and giving everyone free access to
the same deadly diseases.  Exploitation
of the emergence of the new social power was the key to making money for those
companies. 

In the U.S.,
Marlboro started mild ads directed at women in 1926, tempting its gentle
readers with ad copy like this: “Has smoking any more to do with a woman’s
morals than has the color of her hair? Marlboros now ride in so many
limousines, attend so many bridge parties, and repose in so many
handbags.” George Washington Hill followed this lead but was more bold,
pushing Lucky Strikes right to the forefront (in 1927) of the menace.

All of this worked very well:  tobacco revenues in the U.S. went from
$12  million in 1926 to $40 million in
1930, this based largely on the new female marketization, tempting women’s new
economic and political power with the power of the cigarette, dressed in the
fashion of subverting the power structure, just like flapper’s dress, bobbed
hair and slacks. 

Abdullah also blurred the age barrier for smokers by pushing
their product with images of what seem to be ‘tweens, a move that expands the
concept of nastiness. (It should be remembered that the baseball player Honus
Wagner demanded that his picture be removed from the baseball cards distributed
with Sweet Caporel cigarettes because he thought the tobacco company was trying
to corrupt the young with it—the result was that his card is among the rarest
and most expensive of all baseball cards.) I don’t think that there’s much room
for negotiation in this image—it plainly is directed at the young.  But of course it was all a nasty business,
top to bottom—even the American Medical Association got into the act, publishing
their first cigarette ad in their journals in 1933—a practice that would last
to 1952.  The cancer connections were
there, but the lobby by the concerned national interests of the tobacco
companies were fierce, and the first warning labels about the cigarette/cancer connection
didn’t appear on packages of cigarettes until Surgeon General Jesse Steinfeld’s
tenure in 1970.** (Fat and heart diseases kills more, but so do hospitals.  Lee Iococa fought seatbelts in his cars for
years, and on and on into the night goes this song.)

I wonder why there hasn’t been more recognition of the
earlier history of lung cancer—particularly since it really doesn’t seem to
exist in the 19^th century and before.  The disease only starts to show up in the
1920’s, after men had been smoking cigarettes for 20 years or so.  The epidemic of lung cancer rose with the
consumption of cigarette–it is of particular forensic interest to look at lung
cancer rates among men and women from 1950-1980.  These stats are a surprise to no one, the
rate of cancer among women spiking in the 1950-1980 era, when their habits were
mature from long use of the liberating agent. 
 Cigarettes was just one of many
ways in which women expressed their modernism—but is almost certainly the
deadliest. 

 *American women would get the vote two years later, in 1920;
that follows the New Zealand
lead, which granted women the right to vote in 1893.  Ah how many times the Kiwis beat the rest of
the world to the punch for the correct political behavior!  On the other hand, women in Mexico got the vote in 1948; in Kuwait,
they waited a little longer, until 2005. 

JF Ptak Science Books LLC  Post 409

“‘Love is strong as death,” and so is the obedience and reverence paid to the ashes of the dead, ruling husband”

The Ladies Calling, in Two Parts by the Author of The Whole Duty of Man, The Causes of the Decay of Christian Piety, and The Gentlemans Calling, by Richard Allestree, printed in Oxford in its popular eight impression in 1685, was hardly a novel or unique approach to the coaching of the supplicating and correct behavior of women.

Its eight printings in a dozen years (assuming that the print run was at least largish, this would qualify as a best-seller in today’s market) was a testament to its somewhat mirror-like expectation of the social visions of the time, also making it hardly alone in its challenges to the neo-individuality of the female sex. It was pretty much what was to be expected, a “normal” vision of the actions of women, including as ever the not-so-faint aroma of the codification of sexuality, or at least the value of women as sexual objects.  (It is true that well-married women did have a sort of power through the husband, but if the promise of children was broken or if there was something not quite right in the private life, the wife could be gotten rid of very easily, and her power by association would be gone)

The titles of its eight chapters pretty much tell the whole story:   Of Modesty,  Of Meekness, Of Compassion, Of Affability, Of Piety, Of Virgins, Of Wives.Of Widows. The message, or, rather, the demand:  be compassionately meek, religious and observant, happy, virginal until wifely and then wifely until death, and then acting properly after the death of that  which gave you nearly purpose. Be true and faithful and genuflectorial and obedient to your god and husband, and not necessarily in that order at all times.  Ideally, the woman would obey the callings and creations of the church representing the whims of the creator; though there were some times when the husband would be needed for elucidation and guidance to even the teachings/programs of the religious authority.  The creation of patriarchy had been at least a 2000-year-old process in the 17th century, and this book was yet another in the subtle changes to the regulation of that wall. 

The following two sections are pulled from the chapter on Meekness (and illustrated by an architect of Catch-22edness, M.C. Escher, on the inescapable logic of cohesive subjugation):

“1. In the next place we may rank Meekness as a necessary feminine Vertu; this even nature seems to teach, which abhors monstrosities and disproportions, and therefore having allotted to women a more smooth and soft composition of body, infers thereby her intention, that the mind should correspond with it. For tho the adulterations of art, can represent in the same Face beauty in one position, and deformity in another, yet nature is more sincere, and never meant a serene and clear forhead, should be the frontispiece to a cloudy tempestuous heart. ‘Tis therefore to be wisht they would take the admonition, and whilst they consult their glasses, whether to applaud or improve their outward form, they would cast one look inwards, and examine what symmetry is there held with a fair outside; whether any storm of passion darken and overcast their interior beauty, and use at least an equal dilligence to rescu that; as they would to clear their face from any stain or blemish.”

“3. And first for the Meekness of the Understanding, it consists in a
pliableness to conviction, and is directly opposite to that sullen
adherence observable in too many; who judg of tenets not by their
conformity to truth and reason, but to their prepossessions and
tenaciously retain’d opinions, only because they (or some in whom they
confide) have once own’d them; and certainly such a temper is of all
others the most obstructive to Wisdom.”

The following is a Wordle Word Map of Meekness, featuring a vaguely three-dimensional 5,000-word
word map of the contents, the words weighted, the most often occurring
words appearing largest, and so on.  I’m not sure exactly what I’m learning from it, or learning more than I’d learn from reading two paragraphs of the chapter. 

Some further quotes from this work, including the seven remaining chapters:

Of Modesty
“That the Obligation to Moral & Christian Vertues is in it self universal, and not confin’d to any Sex or Person, is not to be denied: yet, as in human Constitutions there are often Precepts, which (tho not exclusive of any, do yet) more peculiarly and eminently level at som particular rank or order of Men; so in the laws of God and Nature, there appears the like distinction. That all-wise Creator, who hath put peculiar proprieties and inclinations into his Creatures, hath accordingly design’d their actuating and improving them: and altho in mankind, which differs nor in species but in gender, the variety may seem less; yet there is still enough to found som diversity, either in the kind or degree of duty”

Of Compassion
“But this is yet more unnatural in the female Sex, which being of softer mold, is more pliant and yielding to the impressions of pitty, and by the strength of fancy redoubles the horror of any sad object; yea so remarkable is this tenderness, that God, when he would most magnify his own compassion, illustrates it by that of women, as the highest human instance. Indeed such a propension have women to commiseration, that they are usually taxed with an excess in it; so that any imprudent lenity is Proverbially called, A womanish Pitty, and therefore it may be thought an impertinence to exhort them to that which they can scarce avoid.”

Of Affability
“But hitherto we consider Affability only in its ethnic dress, as it is a human ornament; ’twill appear yet more enamoring upon a second view, when we look on it as bearing the impress of the Sanctuary, as a divine Vertu. And that it is capable of being so, we have the autority of St. Paul, who inserts it in the number of those Christian Graces which he recommends to his Roman Proselites; condescend to them of low estate, Rom. 12. 16. and that we may the better discern its valu, ’tis observable that he links it with the most eminent Vertu of Humility; for it immediatly follows his Precept of be not high minded. Indeed ’tis not only joined with it as a Friend or Allie, but derived from it as its stock and Principle: and certainly a more divine extraction it cannot have, Humility being the Alpha and Omega of Vertues, that which laies the foundation, (without which the most towring Structure will but crush it self with its own weight) and that which perfects and consummates the building also, secures and crowns all other Graces; which when they are most verdant and flourishing, are like Jonas his gourd, that may afford some shadow and refreshment for a while, but are apt to breed that worm which will destroy them. When once they are smitten with Pride, they instantly fade and wither; so necessary is humility both for the acquiring and conserving, all that is good in us.”

Of Piety
“Piety is taken for our more immediate entercourse with God, in things purely divine, as Adorations, Praiers, Aspirations, and all pantings and breathings of the soul after him; and in this notion ’tis more particularly called Devotion. And this is comprehended it: the other, as a part in the whole; nay indeed, as an effect in its cause; for where Piety has not first formed and modelled the soul, there can be no true Devotion.”

Of Virgins
“Virginity is first in order of time, and if we wil take S. Pauls judgment in respect of excellence also, 1 Cor. 7. And indeed she that preserves her self in that state upon the account he mentions v. 33. that she may care for the things that are of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in Spirit, deserves a great deal of veneration, as making one of the nearest approaches to the Angelical State, And accordingly in the primitive time, such a Virginity was had in a singular estimation, and by the assignment of the Schoolmen, hath a particular coronet of glory belonging to it.”

Of Wives
“In that of a Wife her duty has several aspects, as it relates, first to his Person, secondly to his Reputation, thirdly to his Fortune.”

Of Widowhood: 
“THE next state which can succeed to that of Marriage is Widowhood, which tho it supersedes those duties which were terminated merely in the person of the husband, yet it endears those which may be paid to his ashes. Love is strong as death.”

“Love is strong as death.”  So is obedience, or obedient love, or meekness rapped up in a quilt of obedient love in a field of affable, modest, pious modesty, commanded by the male even in death.

I said earlier that the idea of patriarchy and the war on gender is a 2500-year-old process.  It is remarkable to think about the advances in equal rights for women in the last 115 years, especially in the light of the introduction of money into the equation.  Within the last 400 years or so the concept of private acummulation of property came along to the not-wealthy classes mostly (perhaps) as the standard practice of the transfer of dowry/property/children from the women to man via marriage. (I say “115” and not “100” years because, at Tahakopa, on 28 November 1893, New Zealand became the first country to grant voting rights to women on a national basis–hats off again to NZ for being first again in so many important categories.) That said, and with the extraordinary weight of money, the subjugation part was very well entrenched until relatively recent times.  As a matter of fact in the history of patriarchy this would represent only about 3% of the timeline of subjugation–1.5% if you were being honest about it. 

So in the history of the enslavement of women,  and of all the billions of lives of women that have been lived during that time over 25 centuries, it is only within the lifetimes of living grandmothers that the true superior progress in achieving equality of rights for the sexes has been made.  If that sort of realization doesn’t illuminate the darkly myopic views of people who would want to continue ruling via exploiting differentiation, I don’t know what will.  That for 2500 years something was “normal” and acceptable; and then in the last 115 or so years, it became less so, and now in the last 50 years it is a recognized embarrassment and mistake to anyone with a brain.  Condensing backwards vision like this is an interesting practice, especially when you put it up alongside other, contemporary issues that smack of this sort of discrimination, like California’s Proposition 8.  I just hope that it won’t take a hundred years for the majority of the people living in this country to recognize that we were being stupid.  I trust that New Zealand won’t take nearly this long.