When something feels natural or simply "just the way things are," we rarely stop to ask where that belief came from or who benefits from it. One of the most effective lessons pop culture teaches us is not what to think, but what not to question. Women's shaving norms in the twenty-first century are a powerful example of this process.
Being a critical consumer of information requires recognizing that cultural norms are often constructed rather than discovered. In the early twentieth century, Gillette recognized that it could drastically expand profits by marketing razors to women. To do this, they introduced a new idea into society: that women's body hair was dirty, embarrassing, and incompatible with femininity. These early advertisements functioned as discrete pop culture advertisements because they were intentional messages designed to persuade society.
Over time, these beliefs became so normalized that it stopped feeling like advertising at all. The advertisements and products increased, creating a shared cultural belief that women "naturally" shave their legs and armpits. By World War II, grooming norms were reinforced as moral and social obligations. Femininity had to be maintained. Pop culture actively disciplines women into grooming their bodies, pushing the narrative that body hair is embarrassing.
.png)
Fast forward to the present day, we see brands such as Billie positioning themselves as a progressive alternative razor brand. By showing women with visible leg and armpit hair, Billie frames shaving as optional. This pushes back against decades of shame-based advertising that taught women that hairlessness was nonnegotiable.
However, in order to critically consume media, we must look beyond tone and aesthetics. Billie's advertisements are still discrete texts that have a capitalist agenda - to profit from women's bodily insecurity. While the marketing messaging has shifted from "fix yourself" to "empower yourself," the real underlying economic structure remains intact. Resistance to the norm can be commercialized, too.
The tension between early twentieth-century ads and modern ones shows why pop culture studies matter. Popular ideas often feel status quo not because they are true, but because they are everywhere. Studying pop culture helps us see how gender norms, consumerism, and identity are created, and continuously reinforced, through everyday media.
If beauty standards are created by media messages, can progressive advertising truly challenge them, or is it simply finding a more palatable way to profit from women's bodies?
You make such a sharp point about how shaving feels “natural” only because we’ve been trained not to question it. I kept thinking about Brummett while reading your post, how pop culture doesn’t just entertain us, it quietly teaches us what’s acceptable. Gillette didn’t just sell razors; they sold the idea that women’s bodies needed fixing. And once that idea settled in, it stopped feeling like advertising and started feeling like truth.
ReplyDeleteI also love that you brought Billie into the conversation. Their ads look progressive, but like you said, the business model hasn’t changed. It’s still profit built on insecurity, just wrapped in pastel colors and empowerment language. That shift from “hide your hair” to “you’re free to choose!” feels less like liberation and more like rebranding.
Your post made me wonder about something bigger:
If companies helped create the insecurity in the first place, can they ever really be the ones to undo it or are they just selling us a softer version of the same message?
And here’s another thought I’m curious about:
What would pushing back against beauty norms look like if money wasn’t involved at all?
I really loved how you pointed out that shaving norms feel natural only because pop culture has made them feel unquestionable. Pop culture teaching us what not to question is incredibly effective!
ReplyDeleteGillette does such a great job showing how femininity and hygiene were intentionally tied to the company's profit and not biology. I also appreciated your take on Billie, especially the reminder that progressive branding can still serve capitalist goals. Framing shaving as optional feels empowering but it’s so interesting to realize that resistance can still be marketed.
I'm now starting to think about whether advertising can ever truly challenge beauty standards, or if it just finds more subtle ways to profit from them. This is such a thoughtful post that made me rethink how normal beauty practices actually get constructed!
I believe progressive advertising is usually a more palatable way to profit from women’s bodies and insecurities. However, I don’t believe this is always true. Many brands, including Billie, have challenged the “pink tax” and offer quality body care and hygiene products. In addition, they donate a portion of profits to women-focused organizations. That said, any company that markets razors to women is inevitably profiting from women’s insecurities to some extent. Personally, I do not like the way leg and armpit hair feel. I spent several years in my early 30s rejecting beauty standards, refusing to shave or wax. That was until I went through chemotherapy treatments and lost all my hair. My opinion on body hair changed, but not because of beauty standards set by the media, but because of how it felt on my body. Therefore, I think it’s important to note that women do not only shave because of advertising, societal pressures, or insecurities, but also because of a personal preference for how having smooth skin makes them feel.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, I appreciate your input, and I'm so sorry to hear you've gone through chemotherapy. I personally have always shaved or waxed because I don't like hair on my body, and if I were born in the 1800s or 1900s, I would probably steal my man's razor to get rid of it! Haha. I should've noted that women can also have personal preference to their hygiene that is unrelated to social "norms." Thank you!
Delete