Architect Barbie:: helpful or harmful?

About a foot high and made of synthetic materials that smelled like expensive plastic, Barbie made her debut on March 9, 1959. Back then, Barbie was a teenage fashion model. But over the decades, she quickly climbed the corporate ladder. Her résumé includes stints as an astronaut, ballerina, babysitter, surgeon and doctor. She then decided to become an aerobics instructor, art teacher, race car driver, paleontologist, firefighter, the guest editor of a fashion magazine, and, yes, a cashier at McDonald's.

But this time, Barbie somehow squeezed in five years of architecture school, took an internship and passed her ARE (Architectural Registration Exam), and made her debut as an architect. She wears a hard hat now and carries a set of construction documents. But she is also wearing a sporty cropped black jacket, a trendy dress, hipster glasses and unflattering ankle boots.

Heels may be fine for the office, but not on the job site. It’s a little tricky traipsing through mud and concrete or balancing on steel beams. Mattel seemed to forget to show her with a rounded back from 80 hours a week hunched over a drafting table and a claw for a hand gripping the mouse doing endless CAD edits. And really, her belly should be pouched and flabby from hours of sitting and eating a bad diet; her face pale and corpse-like from lack of exercise; her lips chewed to a frazzle from the pressures of deadlines. Her hair should show two months of root growth. She’s so busy she couldn’t get to the salon. Her accessories need include a Starbucks grande latte with a double shot of espresso, chased by a few slugs of Pepto-Bismol, and a prescription of anti-anxiety pills in her desk drawer.

Why Women Like ‘Em Big

We say size doesn’t matter. But yet we like them big. We marvel at the curves, the slope of the shoulders, the taughtness of form. We salivate and fantasize, even fetishize. A good one can stop us in our tracks; we bat our eyelashes, blush and say to ourselves: I must have it.

But why? Why do we seem to prefer them so big?

The humble table lamp -- the bigger, the better. For all the preening we do in our homes, we have come to love big lamps. Take a look around, I bet there are a few in your home. These days lamps are as important in making an impact as a sofa or a table. But this hasn’t always been so.

Although electricity arrived in the suburbs by 1905, it wasn’t until the 1920s that electrical lamps became popular in the home. With the arrival of the Art Deco style, lighting designers explored new designs. Many of us can remember one of the first lamps we owned -- the spring form adjustable lamp we bought our freshman year in college and set in our cramped dorm rooms to study. Initially created in 1932 George Carwardine, an engineer, was inspired by the form of the human arm. He experimented with different springs creating a light that was very functional and stylish. The “Anglepoise 1209” he named it. Two years later Herbert Terry & Sons manufactured Carwardine's improved design dubbed the “1227”. The design has changed little since then.

1959 Cadillac Cyclone

The trend in interior decorating toward tall, large-scale table lamps in preference to floor lamps blossomed during the 1950s. I’m not sure why. I can certainly speculate… Cars were big back then and punctuated by big fins. The 50s was a decade of optimism. Gender roles were divided and defined. Women were encouraged to stay at home, beautify themselves as well as their homes, while men were out in the workforce. Bigness embodied a feeling of prosperity and excitement.

You can see a lot of big lamps used in set design of movies from the 50s.


Pillow Talk (1959) is one example. Doris Day’s character, Jan Morrow, is an interior decorator. In her own apartment in NYC she’s got a pair of big lamps in her bedroom. She has a telephone line that she has to share with Brad Allen, a composer and womanizer played by Rock Hudson, who is always on the phone sweet talking a female or two. Hudson gets a glimpse at Day and decides she will be the next object of his affection. In order to get close to her, he plays a gay man.

Rock Hudson has a few of his own big lamps too.





There are a variety of big vintage lamps on the market today: murano glass... (Swank Lighting)



ceramic (also from Swank Lighting)

But a leader in big lamp making, I think, was Sascha Brastoff. Brastoff worked in Los Angeles from 1953 until about 1973 creating decorative accessories, ceramics, enamels on copper, and resins of his own design.

I have three of his lamps. Kitchy, I know but I love them. I had a date one time who exclaimed that he hated my foo dog lamp (above). I am certain that was the last time we went out.

I got this lamp for my husband for a birthday. (don't look at the cords, I'm 'rearranging'.) He wasn't terribly excited. I have a third Brastoff big lamp in storage. It is of a blue, gold and white abstract stripe design. My husband doesn’t like it. He says it is much too big.

There’s no need to pay for the work of famous names to get great big lamps (at auction Brastoff’s lamps are quite affordable). You can get something big and stylish for less. Head down to your local flea market, estate sale or auction house. Who knows what you might find to light up?

(Top lamp was a find at Rivermarket Antiques in KC. I had the wallpaper roller converted, of course, into a lamp.)

Artist: Lizzie Siddal (1829-1862)

… All changes pass me like a dream,
I neither sing nor pray;
And thou art like the poisonous tree
That stole my life away.

- Elizabeth Siddal from “Love and Hate”

Many of us have succumbed to the powers of attraction.

Our bodies ruling over our heads. Our emotions soon to follow.

A spell is cast and no matter hard we fight to break it, we just can’t seem to get away.

Dante Gabriel Rossetti was one of those… a sorcerer of sorts, and not the good kind. Lizzie Siddal, an artist in her own right, fell under his spell. Today, she is known more as a model or a muse, for the drama with Rossetti and not her work.

Beatrix by DGR

At the age of twenty, Elizabeth Eleanor Siddall was working as a milliner. She was unusual in appearance than most of the girls her age. Tall and lean with a mass of glorious red hair, she had agate-colored eyes and alabaster skin. Her voice soft and scant. She caught the attention of many men. She was introduced to Dante Gabriel Rossetti and soon, at his demand, she became his exclusive model.

Lizzie showed promise as an artist, and Rossetti took her on as a student. He had her live with him. He dropped the remaining ‘L’ from her last name. And then he promised to marry her.

Self-Portrait 1853-54

By 1854, several of Lizzie’s paintings and illustrations appeared in the Pre-Raphaelite Exhibition. Lizzie was the only female artist. The following year, John Ruskin saw her work and purchased everything. Ruskin even gave her an allowance to continue her work.

Years passed and Rossetti ’s promises to marry her went unrealized. He began to entertain other artists’ models. Their relationship became tumultuous. Several times she tried to leave but was always worried Rossetti would replace her with a younger, prettier muse. Grief stricken, Lizzie would often fall ill taking laudanum for relief.

In May of 1860, Rossetti and Lizzie finally married. The following May, she gave birth to a stillborn daughter. By the end of the year, Lizzie was pregnant again. In February, she went out to dinner with Rossetti and a friend. She returned home and he went out again. At 11:30 he came home to a dark room. He called to her and received no reply. In bed he found her with an empty vile of laudanum next to the bed.

The grieving husband threw a manuscript of poems he had written into her casket. he began to drink. And take chloral.

Seven years went by and then Rossetti persuaded his friends to exhume Lizzie's body. He wanted to publish the poems he had thrown into her coffin. Late one night, they dug up her grave and pried open the coffin. The poems were retrieved and drenched in disinfectant. His friends told him, not to worry…. Lizzie looked remarkably well.

Georgiana, the wife of the painter Edward Burne-Jones, said of Rossetti: “no one could produce the peculiar charm of his voice with its sonorous roll and beautiful cadences.” No one really knows why or how another person can cast such a powerful spell onto another. No one really knows why people cannot break away from others. But you wonder if Lizzie was able to break from his spell and finally leave him not having to carry the label of a divorced or 'fallen' woman, how good her work could have become.

More "Falling" Women

William Holman Hunt shocked his female viewers when he painted “The Awakening Conscience” in 1853. This melodrama of sin and recognition was meant to teach women a vital lesson about her role in society. Surely this gave cause for some women to be upset?

A new ideal of womanhood was developing in the nineteenth-century. Spurred on by the anxiety created by the Industrial Revolution, the expanding mercantile-industrial middle class needed to establish a new identity and self-justification. The world of commerce was becoming increasingly the play ground of corporations rather than individual entrepreneurs. (Does this sound familiar today?)

The Industrial Revolution promised material and cultural success. And it was delivered with the abuse of laborers, absence of personal tax and the marginalization of women. With the increase of money came vice and debauchery -- something the revolutionaries fought so hard against to win their independence from Britain -- which began to creep in and contaminate the new world. “Luxury,” one American writer urged Thomas Jefferson in 1782 “consisted of a dull, animal enjoyment which left minds stupefied and bodies enervated by wallowing forever in one continual puddle of voluptuousness.”

Women were advised to cover up their arms and legs. And after age 16, the wrists and ankles. This image dates from 1868. (I have no idea where I got this image, have had it for years, my apologies for lack of credit.)

Something had to change. Reform was needed. Instead of reorganizing and recognizing the greed of emerging capitalistic society, reform was controlled in the home. With economic changes came a new family dynamic. Men left the home to work while women stayed behind to care for the house and children. This is nothing new, this structure has worked in the past and it works for many today. However, back then a heavy burden was placed upon women to be moral guiders. This “new ideal of womanhood” created very particular attitudes about work and family. It was clearly defined and drilled into girls at a very young age. It essentially had four characteristics that any good and proper young woman should cultivate: piety, purity, domesticity, and submissiveness.

Religion or piety was considered the core of woman’s virtue. It was to be the source of her strength. Young men looking for a wife were cautioned to first look for piety; if that was there, everything else would follow. Religion was considered the divine right of women. It was a gift of god. Her piousness gave her the strength to control the naughty and vulgar world of men. Women were warned not to let their literary or intellectual pursuits take them away from religion. If so, she could risk being barren.

From Godey's Lady's Book March 1850, Philadelphia. Quiet moment between friends before THE wedding night.

Purity was the essential piety to a young woman. Without it she was considered unnatural, unfeminine or worse no woman at all. She was considered a ‘fallen woman’. The marriage night was to be the single greatest event of a woman’s life. It was then when she “bestowed her greatest ‘treasure’ upon her husband”.


Mrs. John Farrar (Eliza was her name) wrote in a manual The Young Lady’s Friend lending advice how to avoid trouble: “Sit not with another in a place that is too narrow; read not out of the same book; let your eagerness to see anything induce you to place your head close to another person’s.” It was a huge success in America with reprints well into the 1890s.

Were women really buying into this?

“The Old, Old Story Was Told again at 3 O’Clock in the Morning” chromolithograph (although this version in b/w) unknown printer, c. 1870.

I was walking Billy one warm summer night. A cab came to a screeching halt and out poured three young girls from the car door, falling over one another into the street. They were also falling out of their dresses and shrieking in drunken obnoxious laughter. One girl couldn’t find her 4” high-heel shoe and another was uncertain if this was even the street where she lived. In the darkness, a sneer of disapproval came over my face followed by a cold shudder. I thought – wow - my friends and I certainly dressed differently at that age. And then a cold clammy sweat began to seep from my pores in horror knowing years ago I had untamed nights like that. I felt a little ill, but why? Would I have not blinked an eye if this was a taxi full of three young males? What if these were older men? Would that be any less appropriate? Was I judging these girls because they were girls? Haven’t we come a long way?

One girl could not get her key into the door and began doubting that she lived in the house. So she decided to take a nap in the front yard. The other two girls were laughing and dancing in the street. The cab driver, concerned, got out of his car and came up to me. He said: “Is this how young girls behave in your country?”

Smart or safe are not two words that came to my mind to describe this behavior. But I am certainly glad to be a woman living in this country. Although his comment did make me wonder: has conventional gendering behavior not changed that much? Today, how many husbands sit at home anxiously taping their foot as they await their drunken wives to teeter-totter home giggling at 3 O’clock in the morning? Women seem to just get annoyed when husbands come home from a late night out drinking -- they hog the bed, they smell and they miss the toilet. But men seem to fear when women behave this way. As if they will sully their reputation or run off you a much younger man... Double standard still prevails.

Architect: Mary Rockwell Hook (1877-1978)

Mary Rockwell Hook once described a troubling time in her early years when she was studying at the École des Beaux-Arts. After class, she had to run as fast as she could to a taxi as she dodged buckets of water being thrown at her by disgruntled male students. She was the only girl in her class, and the second American female to attend after Julia Morgan. The year was 1906.

This hostile gender bias wasn’t anything new. Previously, she studied at the Art Institute of Chicago, the only female in her class she experienced similar behavior. Some parents thought that young men could not learn to their full potential with a young woman present. Many parents wanted their money spent on a solid education for their sons. The fairer sex was much too distracting, it was thought. This theory still holds true today by some parents. But a more prevalent theory was that architecture was a male domain and considered no place for a lady.

The house she designed for her parents. 1908. It was the first home in the area to have a built-in garage. The city didn't know what to do with this. It conflicted with regulations, so she had to put in a fire-proof steel garage door which still exists today. The house originally had outdoor porches which have since been enclosed.

Upon Mary Rockwell Hook’s return back to the United States, she applied for a job with an architecture firm. They turned her down because of the simple fact that she was a female, and they didn’t want to watch her climb all over life-sized models. But MRH was not intimidated. She was driven and had the support of her family behind her. Another architecture firm did accept her, but her father did not like the idea of Mary working for a salary. Aware of her well-trained solid skills, he commissioned her to design their family home in Kansas City. It was here where she launched a prolific career as one of Kansas City’s most innovative architects and became a pioneer among professional women.

One of my favorites. I went to a small school in this area and when I had to around the hilly neighborhood for soccer or field hockey practice, I used to admire it.

She did have a number of things in her favor. Born on September 8, 1877 in Junction City, Kansas, she was the third of five daughters, (sandwiched between Florence, Bertha, then Catherine and Emily). Her parents insisted on the highest standards of education. She graduated from Wellesley in 1900 and her father’s successful business in banking and grain elevator business allowed for Mary to travel widely.

I’m partial to her houses. Mrs. Blandings introduced MRH a number of months ago, of course presenting the story of MRH very well. I am attracted to MRH’s designs for her open floor plans mixed with a little bit of the unpredictable. Although her designs are asymmetrical, there is something incredibly harmonious and balanced about them. Older houses in Missouri have always possessed a quirky twist. Mid-western architects provided their own interpretations on East coast designs with a dash of European idiosyncrasy. MRH did just that. But each one of her homes has a well thought-out spatial plan with interesting, unique appointments.

I am of the belief that a woman is -- if living with the opposite gender -- truly the head honcho of the home. She is the one, no matter how progressive the relationship is, who is ultimately responsible for a well-ordered home. Therefore, it makes sense to me that she would have invaluable insight of the structure, the circulation patterns, storage space and light. No one knows the flow of the house better than the one who is responsible for maintaining it.

The house she designed for herself where she lived with her husband who she wed at the wise age of 44.

Many types of female birds are in charge of the construction of the nest. She is the one who decides the location. She has her chicks to think about. She knows that she needs to build her nest on a sturdy branch. She knows she needs protection from the weather and from predators. She delegates to the male about gathering twine and twig of all sizes. It is the mother bird who stays behind to manage construction and place every piece with astounding accuracy.

So, I applaud Mary Rockwell Hook. She is one of Kansas City's pioneer mother birds. She was one of the country’s first architects, and formed an architectural partnership with Eric Douglas Macwilliam Remington. She worked throughout the United States – from Colorado to a sandy key off the coast of Florida. She was the first to use cast-in-place concrete walls. Many of her aeries can be seen in the Sunset Hills around Loose Park. MRH used recycled materials such as a slate roof from an old church, and thick beams from abandoned railroad bridges. She liked to juxtapose the rough with the elegant. She combined stone and brick with tall broad windows conscious of bringing the outdoors inside. She wasn’t afraid of much and took risks. She even was known to construct small platforms or stages in various rooms throughout houses for an occasional and impromptu piece of theatre. I think in her own words Mary Rockwell Hook describes her work best, "Houses should be fun".

Mary died on her birthday 101 years after her birth.

My apologies featuring the houses from afar. All photos by me from my camera as a lurker on the streets.

Lilly Reich: "Behind every great man, there is a great woman."

Lilly Reich played an enormous role in the development of Mies van der Rohe’s designs. Though she has been credited in a few scholarly journals, we have largely forgotten her name today. Google any piece of furniture by Mies, and you will usually see his name as the creator alone.

It is interesting to note that Mies did not fully develop any furniture designs successfully before or after his professional and personal relationship with Lilly Reich.

Barcelona Chair

Brno Chair
MR Chair

Reich co-designed these chairs with Mies.

After all, architecture and industrial design were considered men’s work. There were male as well as female practitioners, and yet we know mainly of the men who created things. Is it a question of quality? Were women just not as technically inclined as their male counterparts? Was it Mies name that brought validity to Reich’s work? Was she disregarded because she was sharing a bed with him?

Born in Berlin to a well-to-do family in 1885, Reich began her career as a textile and women’s clothing designer -- an acceptable trade for a woman in those days. In 1912, she became a member of the Deutsche Werkbund which was an organization dedicated to the promotion of German made products and designs and sponsored by the government. Had she not studied there and seen the wide range of activities open to women, then we might have not been graced with the legacy of her designs.

Reich flourished as a textile, clothing and furniture designer. She was also an architect and exhibition designer. Her achievements are matched by few women contemporaries of her time such as Charlotte Perriand and Eileen Gray. In 1920, she was appointed the first female director of Deutsche Werkbund. She is known for her collaboration with Mies from 1925 until 1938 – but his fame overshadowed hers.

In 1927, the couple collaborated on “The Velvet and Silk Café” for The Women’s Fashion Exhibition held in Berlin.

The space was defined by supple silks and velvets in the color of gold suspended from rods giving the effect of flowing into one another.

In 1929, Mies was chosen to design the German Pavilion for the International Exhibition in Barcelona. He chose Reich as his co-collaborator. Reich was responsible for the curvilinear forms and vivid colors of Mies work. She brought sophistication to her work.

Reich continually explored the visual as well as tactile qualities. She explored the contrasts between polished metal and textured surfaces.

Reich was responsible for the cane seat and back on the MR Chair. (This is not exactly the right image – I’m still looking for it.)

In 1930, when Mies was chosen to head Bauhaus, he took Reich with him to head the weaving studio and interiors workshop. She also became the first woman (at a time when few women were teaching) to teach interior design which included also furniture design.

When Mies left Germany in 1937, she continued to manage his personal and business affairs. An absolute professional, she was talented and she was keen. She remained indispensable to him long after his departure to the US. She took care of his office, of his legal disputes and saved all the drawings he left behind. She helped his family financially – his ex-wife and three children who had been left behind. During their partnership, Reich reportedly bowed to his authority leaving the overall concepts to him while compulsively attending to refinements and details.

In September 1939, Reich visited Mies in the United States. She and Mies spent a few weeks together. She wanted to stay, but Mies did very little to persuade her to remain. She managed to get back to Berlin at the height of the war where she faithfully began a long and dutiful correspondence with Mies. But she never saw him again.

Table: Tubular steel and beech veneer over brick plywood, (1931).Manufactured by Shea & Latone, Inc., Pennsylvania. MoMA.

Reich is credited for this enameled tubular steel and wicker chair. It was this design that was altered for the Villa Tugendhat to be used as a dining chair.

(Top image from "Collaborations: The Private Life of Modern Architecture" by Beatriz Colomina, The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, September 1999. Above cafe image from "Lilly Reich: Designer and Arcitect" by Mathilda McQuaid, Museum of Modern Art and Abrams, 1996)

The Picture Window. Was It So Picturesque?

Post-WWII techniques made it possible to provide inexpensive single-family unattached housing for ordinary citizens. Two-bedroom homes could be built fast, cheap and in large numbers. Suburban homes popped up like dandelions spreading ferociously across the ground.

The picture window looked over them. Residential architects felt that a change in style was needed for the change in attitude after the war. Wasn't everyone filled with optimism? Homes and interiors reflected a renewed, forward-looking spirit. They were airy, open spaces filled with well-edited clean-lined furnishings and the latest appliances.

Having a picture window was being an American patriot. It was pastoral. It made for a humble home. It welcomed the landscape from outside. It was cozy, lofty, and let the sunshine in. It promised shared viewpoints and values with every other American in the neighborhood. It showed the insides of the every-day activities -- quiet routines of an idealized happy family.


House after house, street after street, neighborhood after neighborhood, city after city -- the picture window symbolized a kind of democracy. Didn't everyone want a harmonious family, social mobility and individual fulfillment? Isn't that what suburbia is all about?

A democracy of the same. Same houses, same families, same lives, same thoughts and same beliefs. After all, wouldn't social and cultural homogeneity develop a well-tuned focus on the progress of the group over the individual?

Television shows helped as a guide. Families were perfect. Nobody ever raised their voice and all problems were resolved equitably. Women were delighted to cook and clean. They dressed in pearls and high heel shoes. Their hair was always perfectly teased and sprayed, their lipstick cleanly in place and their waist-line trim as they waited for their husbands to arrive home. Their job was to keep their families and their homes running efficiently and to be desired by their husbands. Their husbands were men and worked hard to keep the family happy by affording things. This was the message shown to a generation who were supposed to grow up and emulate their parents.

Conformity doesn't foster tolerance or assistance. It suppresses problems. How could problems erupt within a supposed quarantined, perfect and protected space?

Is that all there is, is that all there is

If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing

Let's break out the booze and have a ball

If that's all there is

~ Peggy Lee

Lipstick Anyone?

Last night I grabbed my pathetic nub of lipstick left over from the summer months. The color was "Enigma." I smeared it on my lips, leashed up my unruly terrier, and went out the door for our evening walk. Damn it! I thought. Enigma is a pink. We are well into autumn. A bordeaux color would be more appropriate. Or better yet, a good fire red. Why did I care? It was late at night and no one would see me. This got me thinking about lipsticks....

"A painted face is a false face, a true falsehood, not a true face."

The Puritan Thomas Tuke wrote in 1616 in his "Discourse Against Painting and Tincturing". He condemned makeup for creating a "false face." Many young women would make rouges and lip tints from household products. Even home-made remedies to clear up blotchy patches on the skin.

Starting in the 1960s, some women blamed male-dominated consumer industries for manipulating women into buying beauty products. They have a point. On the one hand, we generally like to look good. We hate getting whistled at, but we also hate it when we’re not given the look over. On the other hand, don’t we actually feel better after we put a little color on our face?

Did we buy into the needs that advertisers falsely created? Are we that superficial? Do we really believe in the promises of the anti-aging creams?

It takes time to put on all those serums and creams and eye reduction potions. The act of beautifying ourselves is really a lot of work. It is time consuming, narcissistic and absorbing. And expensive. We have to read the labels, experiment with what works and what doesn’t, and even visit our dermatologists to get a prescription for something promising us more miracles.

Why do we wear make-up anyway?

History shows despite adversities in life such as war, economic depression and social change, we still desire to look good. For whom? Women in jail color their hair with Kool-Aid, Nair their brows and rub deodorant all over their feet to soften their heels. They don’t do this for their visitors. They do it for themselves.

Women have always been the pioneers of the cosmetics industry. Helena Rubinstein, Elizabeth Arden, Estee Lauder, Mary Kay Ash… these women did not launch their companies to manipulate women. Women knew what they were buying. It is the ritual, the array of colors, the mastery of skill, sharing of knowledge, and the tiny compacts we lie to keep in our handbags. The acceptance of wearing makeup was no fad, but a way in which women wanted to show themselves to the public.

Cosmetic use became popular in the 19th century but many saw it as a mark for a clandestine woman. Lip and cheek rouge were considered scandalous. Only prostitutes wore makeup. The proper woman was to bite her lips and pinch their cheeks before greeting company.

Manet's 'Nana' of 1877 -- the glorification of self-adornment. Chicly extending her little finger as if to sip tea as she applies her lip color. This painting is of an immoral woman showing her process of adornment.

By the turn of the century, make-up was still frowned upon anyone other than a woman of the night or a music-hall performer. Husbands could even divorce their wives for wearing it.

The suffragette movement struggled to win the vote. They also fought for the right to wear red lipstick as a symbol of feminine defiance.

Inez Milholland Boissevain leading the suffrage procession on her white horse.

Washington, D.C., March 3, 1913.

Women who used cosmetics were called rebellious, uncontrollable and dangerous. 1920s flappers were condemned by some for wearing heavy eyeliners and bright lip and cheek colors. Stylish women begin tweezing their eyebrows and wearing black around the eyes.

In the following decade, Hollywood inspired standards for beauty. Most women want to look like movie idols. If we look good, we feel better. Despite the Depression, lipstick remained very affordable.

In 1938, the cosmetic firm Volupté introduced two new lipstick shades. One was called "Lady" and the other "Hussy." "Lady" was marketed toward the quieter woman. It had a soft mat finish. Mademoiselle magazine explained that this one was for The kind who preferred lighter shades, "smart clothes and tiny strands of pearls." "Hussy" on the other hand was a darker shade, "with a gleaming lustre" and peddled to the woman who liked to be "just a little bit shocking."

"Hussy" outsold "Lady" five to one. The names of these lipstick colors evoke moods. They were not branding the type of female. Female identities were once fixed, set by class, family lineage and social etiquette. It was all about to change.

Rosie the Riveter

By WWII, red lipstick is seen as a symbol of patriotism. Women were encouraged to wear make-up as they worked male jobs. Women defied hardship and they took pride in their appearance.

With post-war optimism comes a renewed emphasis on the family. There was a shortage of men. Women were told to try to look as beautiful as possible to catch a husband.

The 1960s arrive and Elizabeth Taylor stars in Cleopatra, 'Swinging London' style come to full bloom, and Twiggy wears false eyelashes.

The women's liberation movement emerges. There is a backlash against the concept of adorning oneself to please men. Women denounce makeup. Bras are burned and shaving their legs stops.

It doesn’t last long. Super-glam arrives in the 1980s. Vanity and decadence are celebrated. Expertly applied make-up symbolizes the high-maintenance grooming of the wealthy wife. Men in hair bands start donning makeup as well.

We hated being objectified in this video.
But how many of us paused and thought.. "excellent lipstick shade."

Honestly, did anyone find this manly?

In the 1990s women became more interested in finding their own natural beauty enhancing it with lighter, less visible formulas. Nude lipstick, natural muted palettes.

Now in this decade, we are going beneath the skin. Botox, collagen, facial rejuvenation, bleaching creams, tattooing makeup…

Do we do this for our husbands, boyfriends, or the younger handsome neighbor we discretely watch behind the blinds mow his yard?

In 1936 Vogue magazine conducted a survey. Nearly 100 percent of male respondents disapproved of noticeable makeup. If you ask most men today, they will respond the same.

Red has a subliminal message. And we know this. It suggests sexual arousal. It inspires awe and fear. Just as men are concerned about size, we are concerned about our own control.