232
The Journal of American Culture Volume 38, Number 3 September 2015
American Women’s Wartime
Dress: Sociocultural Ambiguity
Regarding Women’s Roles During
World War II
Martha L. Hall, Belinda T. Orzada and Dilia Lopez-Gydosh
Introduction
United States history of the 1930s and 40s is
framed by the Great Depression and World War
II. With the Wall Street crash of 1929, many
Americans were left poor and unemployed. The
reality of a depressed economy affected everyone,
from those families who lost jobs to those who
lost entire fortunes. With rising tensions in Europe and extensive drought impacting Midwestern
farms, the social dynamics of the 1930s often center on the massive unemployment and economic
decline experienced by millions of Americans.
However, there are some scholars and historians who assert that the historical narrative tends
to revolve around the lives of men (Dubois and
Dumenil 537). The experiences and social history
of men have shaped the public consciousness of
the 1930s and 1940s culture. According to
Dubois and Dumenil social instability felt during
the Great Depression caused a cultural shift, with
security and reassurance being sought in the
domestic sphere (537). Women as caregivers
became the American cultural archetype of
femininity.
Traditional Gender Roles and
Dress
The normative role of women in the American
society in the 1930s was exemplified by the traditional gender constructions of men as producers
and providers and women as wives and mothers
(Gourley 12). Womanhood, as such, was equated
with domestic life. The cultural perception was a
woman’s ultimate goal was to be married and to
have children, to have her life revolve around
domesticity (Gluck 4).
Media pressure on women exacerbated the
issue, and in one case literally defined women’s
role and stressing its maintenance (see Figure 1).
Martha L. Hall is a PhD candidate in Biomechanics and Movement Science at the University of Delaware, focusing on expressive wearable technology for children with special needs. Hall received her MS in Fashion & Apparel Studies from University of Delaware in
2013, studying social psychological aspects of dress and dress aesthetics.
Belinda T. Orzada, PhD, is Professor and Graduate Program Director in the Fashion and Apparel Studies department at the University
of Delaware. Her scholarship focuses on creative problem-solving in apparel design and twentieth century historic dress.
Dilia Lopez-Gydosh is Assistant Professor and Curator in the Fashion and Apparel Studies department at the University of Delaware.
The Journal of American Culture, 38:3
© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
American Women’s Wartime Dress Martha L. Hall, Belinda T. Orzada, and Dilia Lopez-Gydosh
233
Figure 1. Advertisement for Ladies Home Journal from The Saturday Evening Post 21 June, 1930.
Ladies Home Journal, a leading women’s magazine at this time, coined a new term in 1930,
“homemaker – noun. Feminine: one who makes a
home, who manages a household, cares for her
children, and promotes happiness and well-being
for her family” (Ladies Home Journal 142).
Women, as homemakers, were portrayed as vital
to the successful socio-economic status of the
family unit, and subsequently to an improved
American economy. According to contemporary
media, it was through creative use of meager food
stuffs and household supplies, as well as leaving
public sector employment to men, that women
could ensure an end to the Depression.
Women’s fashion during the early-to-mid thirties reflected the American culture and this ideology of femininity. The silhouette for women’s
fashion during this period was a slim, more bodyconscious silhouette than in the previous decade.
Dresses were often cut on the bias, creating a narrow although fluid shape, which highlighted
women’s bodies. Trendsetters in women’s fashion
included the romantic looks designed by Jeanne
Lanvin, the neoclassical gowns by Madame Gres,
234
The Journal of American Culture Volume 38, Number 3 September 2015
and sensual eveningwear inspired by Hollywood
film actresses, all which further expressed a traditional face of femininity.
Despite the cultural expectation of women to
primarily be homemakers, some women, usually
of those of lower socio-economic status, continued to work outside the home out of financial
necessity. These women held various jobs, from
service to manufacturing. However, middle class
and/or married women working outside the home
were publically criticized in the media and perceived as taking jobs away from unemployed men
(Anderson 10). In fact, during the Great Depression, many employers would not hire married
women, with some states making efforts to bar
them from paid work completely (Weatherford
xi). This sentiment resonated with contemporary
society: a “1936 Gallup poll revealed that 82% of
respondents felt that wives should not work if
their husbands had jobs” (Yellin 39). With the
depressed economy, job scarcity forced many
working women out of the public sphere and back
into the home. Women who had to work outside
the home were often able to secure jobs in stereotypically feminine employment, such as domestic
service, clerking, secretarial work, and teaching
(Cardinale 22). Job placement only became problematic with work that was considered masculine.
Gender Role Conflict
By the late 1930s, tensions in Europe erupted
and the question of American involvement in yet
another world war pulled the country between
isolation and intervention. That all changed with
the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941,
when President Roosevelt declared war on Japan
and, soon after, the Axis powers in Europe.
At this point, patriotism became a central focus
of American culture. Men and women were rallied to do their part, to help the war effort. The
country was united behind a common enemy.
After Pearl Harbor, the cultural and societal
expectation was that every American supported
this war.
President Roosevelt created the Office of War
Information or OWI. Its purpose was to provide
war-related news to the general public (Gourley
104). This office was also responsible for much of
the patriotic literature, or propaganda, in the form
of print advertisements and posters, that urged
women to “do their part” by emphasizing
women’s moral strength while at the same time
declaring that the country desperately needed
their help (see Figure 2).
There were several media entities stimulating
women’s participation in the war effort. These
include the War Advertising Council, the Writers’
War Board, and the Magazine Bureau of the
Office of War Information (Walker 15). Each
affected women’s magazine content during
WWII, “encourag[ing] women to cope effectively
with rationing and shortages, to do volunteer
work, and. . .to enter the labor force” (15). This
propaganda was presented through the medium of
magazine advertisements, columns, short fiction,
and feature articles.
Media of this kind insisted it was a woman’s
patriotic duty to help the war effort, either on the
home front, through volunteer work, or by taking
a “war job” (Campbell “Women at War” 65).
According to William Chafe, most women in
effect had two wartime jobs: paid war work as
well as their normal household responsibilities
(25). However, it is the “war work” that is cited
by historians and scholars as evidence of the pivotal change witnessed in American women’s
social history (25). Women were compelled to
take on new roles which undercut the conventional notions regarding their abilities and places
in society.
According to Catherine Gourley, “as World
War II began, women viewed their place as being
supportive of their men oversees. As the war continued women were asked to play greater roles”
(102). They were told that they played a key part
in the war effort, that they could directly help the
Allied Forces to win the war. By sacrifice, by volunteering, or by taking jobs, they could bring the
boys home. Regardless of how American women
chose to participate in the war effort, the focus
remained on the temporary nature of the situation
American Women’s Wartime Dress Martha L. Hall, Belinda T. Orzada, and Dilia Lopez-Gydosh
235
Figure 2. Ladies Home Journal article entitled “United We Serve” by Ruth Mary Packard, Dec. 1941.
and that disruption to the norm would only last
“for the duration” (Campbell “Women at War”
37). Women were often reminded of their secondary status, despite their encouragement to “do
their duty” (37).
Doris Weatherford, in her book about American
women during World War II, describes the cultural
precedence set with First World War (x). The
exodus of American men to fight in Europe caused
a drain on domestic labor. Consequently, the US
government actively solicited women to join the
workforce, and fill in vacant jobs deemed “appropriate” for women, such as clerical work and
nursing.
With men once again leaving the workforce, this
time to fight in the Second World War, the US
government began a marketing campaign to recruit
women to replace the male workforce. However,
the nature of the work offered to women had
greatly expanded beyond the cultural confines of
America during the 1910s. President Roosevelt had
declared America “the arsenal of the democracy”
(Chafe 21), necessitating huge production demands.
It was vital that America continue to produce and
supply both its domestic needs and its military
contracts to the Allied Forces.
In order to fill the vacancy in domestic labor,
the Office of War Information initiated a propa-
The Journal of American Culture Volume 38, Number 3 September 2015
236
ganda campaign for the recruitment of “women
power.” “The government needed two types of
women worker: military recruits, and civilian
recruits to work both in war industries and also to
replace men who had left their peacetime jobs to
go to war” (Gourley 104-05). Women responded
en masse, with many entering the workforce or
volunteering for nonactive military service.
Sociocultural Ambiguity
Author Beverly Gordon describes this new role
for women as difficult in many respects (239).
Women were raised at the time to behave, dress,
and act in a certain (feminine) way. This shift into
the workforce, and adopting the traditional male
role of family provider, caused a cultural conflict.
To help alleviate this, government recruitment
campaigns focused on the temporary nature of the
circumstances, while stressing the message that
women needed to still maintain their femininity
(239). This was partly achieved through recruitment posters and propaganda illustrating beautifully groomed women as nurses, potential
A
volunteers, or factory workers. Wartime propaganda presented a new feminine ideal not only
representative in women’s role supporting the
war effort, or women as temporary laborers, but
also as beautiful objects worth fighting for, or
women as “America personified.” The famous
depiction of Rosie the Riveter exemplifies this
dichotomy: she is strong and at the same time
beautiful. Wartime propaganda of women is comparatively dramatic when compared to the media
illustrations of women just a few years prior
(Gourley 107). Previously, women were illustrated mostly as housewives, worried about pleasing their families via domestic obligations,
whereas during the war, women were illustrated
as glamorous workers and volunteers, poised to
ensure Allied victory (see Figure 3A,B). These
images helped to convey a sense of normalcy, or
at the very least, the expectation of a return to
normalcy at the war’s end.
During the WWII, six million women entered
the workforce (Yellin 39). With employers needing to fill the vacancies left by drafted men, necessity propelled women out of the domestic sphere
and into the public sphere. As described by Emily
Yellin, “Suddenly, the standard idea of seeing
B
Figure 3. Comparison of American women in marketing campaigns. Advertisement in Ladies Home Journal
Mar. 1934 (L) and US Employment Service poster 1944 by John Newton Howitt (R).
American Women’s Wartime Dress Martha L. Hall, Belinda T. Orzada, and Dilia Lopez-Gydosh
women as fragile creatures, ill-suited for work
outside the home, much less hard labor, seemed a
peacetime luxury. Like never before, America
asked women to take up the slack – to join in producing the vital machinery of war” (39).
New Roles, New Clothes
Women in war time jobs needed appropriate
clothing to wear. Daytime dresses and skirts were
dangerous and impractical for factory work. Pants
were adopted by many women out of necessity,
for munitions work and similar hardworking
activities (Buckland “Fashion as a Tool” 142).
This change of dress is symbolic of the change in
American women’s roles during the war. This
adoption of masculine dress, by literally wearing
the pants, is an outward expression of the cultural
shift in women as homemakers to women as
workers (see Figure 4).
It was challenging to find what were considered appropriate clothes for factory work. Some
American women felt that wearing sturdy trousers and flat shoes was the most practical for
them to wear for production jobs. However,
Figure 4. Female factory worker at Douglas
Aircraft Co. Long Beach, California, Oct. 1942. 4x5
Kodachrome transparency by Alfred Palmer for the
Office of War Information; Library of Congress;
www.loc.gov/pictures/; 6 January 2014; Web.
237
these items were often difficult for women to
find in retail stores, due to their distinction as
clothing for men (Mendes and de la Haye 119).
Pants for women, such as palazzo pants, which
were full-cut pants fashionable for in-home
entertaining during the early 1930s, had existed
before. Other types of pants were also worn but
only for specific sporting activities. Women who
wore pants for everyday wear attracted much
public attention and were often artists, or film
actresses, such as Marlene Dietrich and Katharine
Hepburn. For many American women, the
notion of wearing trousers in public undercut the
contemporary sociocultural concept of femininity (Patnode 234).
Furthermore, the modern product category of
women’s pants was not commercially available on
a national level during World War II. American
retailers soon filled the niche and began advertising women’s slacks as an option for work or
leisure. Sandra Buckland describes some contemporary advertising for women’s pants that
featured a model wearing denim work pants, but
with evening shoes and pearls (146). This type of
ad illustrates the cultural conflict over women
working in what were considered masculine jobs.
Another example highlighting the issue of
women wearing pants is with a 1942 series of articles that appeared in a Texas newspaper called
The San Antonio Light (“Women Everywhere
Taking to Slacks”). A syndicated cartoonist
named Russ Westover drew a comic called Tillie
the Toiler, about a wartime working girl who
sometimes was drawn wearing trousers. Westover
was asked to write a special column about the
“dos and don’ts” for women wearing pants (see
Figure 5). The following is an excerpt from his
first column, beginning with an introduction from
the newspaper editor:
With women, everywhere taking more and more to
slacks, overalls, halter-alls, and similar garb formerly
associated only with males and publicity-minded feminine movie stars, a man offers some advice to the
opposite sex about wearing pants. He happens to be an
expert on women’s styles, whose famous comic strip
character, “Tillie the Toiler,” was one of the original
factors in popularizing slacks among working girls.
This is the first of a series of articles written especially
for The Light.
238
The Journal of American Culture Volume 38, Number 3 September 2015
Women in Uniform
Figure 5. The comic strip character Tillie the Toiler
created by Russ Westover, 1942. TILLIE THE
TOILER Ó1942, King Features Syndicate, Inc.,
World rights reserved.
Russ Westover writes,
I find that among women the question no long is,
“Shall I wear trousers?” but “What kind of trousers
shall I wear and when?” Slacks for women have passed
the fad stage; they are every day garb for hundreds of
thousands of them and are actually mandatory in
numerous industries from coast to coast. In the
machine shops of the naval station at Alameda, Calif.,
at the Pan American Airways base at New York, the
rule is: all women employees wear pants.
However, the utility of slacks, halter-alls and such, as
feminine garb in war work doesn’t mean that skirts are
going to be, or should be, abandoned altogether. It
isn’t necessary, and it is undesirable, both from the
standpoint of expediency and feminine attractiveness.
Slacks designed for all hours of the day are available
now, but as a uniform to replace skirts in public, they
are affected and in bad taste. Furthermore, to abandon
all skirts and dresses in favor of mannish attire would
be wasteful of materials urgently needed for the war
effort. (“Women Everywhere Taking to Slacks”)
Women were also volunteering for the military,
which was another significant example of the cultural change in women’s roles during World War
II. Prior to the Second World War, women’s military service was limited to the Army or Navy
Nurse Corps (Gordy, Hogan and Pritchard 84).
During the war, women were actively recruited
for volunteer military service. However, their
duties would be limited to stereotypically feminine jobs. The understanding was these women
would release men from noncombat tasks, such as
clerical work and nursing, so men could be used
for masculine tasks, like combat (“Women in
Uniform,” Campbell 137).
In order to facilitate recruitment, the US War
Department affirmed the equality of women
regarding military service (Weatherford 29). This
sentiment was not universally shared, and passing
legislation allowing female recruits proved
difficult and controversial (“Women at War,”
Campbell 20). There were many contemporary
political leaders who challenged this notion. For
instance, during a hearing in the House of Representatives in 1942, Congressman Hoffman of
Michigan stated, “Take women into the armed
services in any appreciable number, who then will
manage the home fires; who will do the cooking,
the washing, the mending, the humble, homey
tasks to which every woman has devoted herself?”
(qtd. in Weatherford 30).
There was much popular concern that women
in the military would be “sacrificing their femininity by usurping men’s roles” (Dubois and
Dumenil 546). This perception of women taking
over male roles led to both the creation of separate
nonactive military positions, as well as the constant refrain of only “for the duration” (547).
Women’s work, both in the public sector and the
military remained normative as long as it was
interpreted as temporary, that is, lasting the duration of the war.
By 1943, there were women in every branch of
the military: the Women’s Army Corps, or
American Women’s Wartime Dress Martha L. Hall, Belinda T. Orzada, and Dilia Lopez-Gydosh
WACs, the Women Accepted for the Volunteer
Service, or WAVES (for the Navy), Semper Paratus Always Ready, or SPARs (for the Coast
Guard), Marine Corps Women’s Reserve, and
Women Air Force Service Pilots, or WASPs
(Gordy, Hogan and Pritchard 84). In total, about
350,000 women served in the military branch during the war (“Women at War,” Campbell 20).
Recruitment posters for the female military
branches depicted women who were beautiful and
chic in their tailored uniforms. Military propaganda used the attractiveness of the uniforms as
inducement for recruitment (McEuen 140).
Although these women would be taking on what
was perceived as a masculine role, they should still
look feminine, so the uniforms needed to look both
professional and feminine. Women’s military uniforms were cut in a masculine “V” shape, mimicking men’s uniforms and the male figure with its
strong shoulders, yet they were tailored to
women’s bodies thereby highlighting the bust and
waist (140). These uniforms were designed to be
flattering to women and attractive to men (Walford
92). Some contemporary fashion designers were
asked to design uniforms to help sell the idea and
the appeal of women in uniform to the American
public. For example, fashion designer Mainbocher,
designed the uniforms for the WAVES (Women
Volunteers for the Navy), and designer Elizabeth
Hawes designed the uniforms for the female volunteers for the American Red Cross (see Figure 6).
Fashion on the Home front
Although not as glamorously depicted in wartime propaganda, many women expressed their
patriotism and sacrifice “on the home front.” In
this way, many American women, even those not
directly serving in military or war jobs, were
affected by the inherent challenges of wartime.
Emily Yellin writes, “Like many women during
the war, my mother planted a Victory Garden,
volunteered at a USO canteen, and coped with
rationing” (xiv). These women played an underserved role during World War II. They faced
239
Figure 6. Mainbocher for United States Navy,
WAVES uniform, 1942 USA. (c) The Museum at
FIT.
several challenges, with raising children and taking care of the home single-handedly among them
(“Women at War,” Campbell 165). These “heroes
on the home front” did their best to maintain the
highest quality of life they could for themselves
and their families (185). The popular press at the
time focused on the sacrifices and heroism of
homemakers, noting their creative use of leftovers, or their ability to make do and mend as
their patriotic duty (Anderson 87).
Clothing worn by women on the home front
was shaped by wartime conditions. The American
fashion industry was completely changed due to
WWII. The US government instituted measures
to ensure materials and supplies would be plentiful for war-related industries. Prior to the United
States entering World War II, President Roosevelt
had promised to support Allied Forces with
weapons and other needed supplies, dubbing
America the arsenal of democracy. When the
240
The Journal of American Culture Volume 38, Number 3 September 2015
United States entered the war in 1941, American
forces required their own supplies. Thus, the United States needed to meet domestic needs, while
still keeping the promise to foreign allies. In order
to fulfill these extended manufacturing requirements, Roosevelt formed the War Production
Board in 1942 and enacted Public Order 671,
which allowed the President of the United States
to prioritize production for armed forces over
those of private interests (Arnold 142). The purpose of the War Production Board was to curtail
any manufacturing deemed unnecessary. The
WPB created a series of governmental orders
which specifically provided domestic manufacturing guidelines. Related to apparel manufacturing,
these guidelines included restrictions on fiber,
yardage, as well as design details (142).
Governmental order L-85 pertained to
women’s clothing. L-85 specified allocations of
yardage and trim and, by default, restricted
certain types of clothing designs. Metal was a
restricted material as well — conserved for military use — so fashion designers had the opportunity to be creative with their closures. The WPB
encouraged the advertising of the restrictions and
limitations, with the hope that Americans would
purchase patriotically. Women’s Wear Daily illustrated the L-85 restrictions in their magazine for
their readers’ benefit (see Figure 7).
Restrictions on clothing manufacturing were
intended to save 15% of domestic fabric production and to limit variation in women’s dress (Blum
94). Clothing styles based on WPB guidelines
were intended to not differ dramatically from prewar styles, so that they wouldn’t inadvertently
cause disruption in women’s fashion (94). As
quoted from a WPB memo,
In view of present and prospective shortages, it seems
essential to attempt to produce the maximum number
of garments out of existing and future yardages. . .In
view of the fact that women’s and children’s apparel is
subject to extreme variation in fashion, it also appears
desirable to establish such restrictions that may prevent radical changes which would render obsolete
existing clothing in women’s wardrobes. (qtd. in
Arnold 142)
These guidelines and restrictions were based on
current fashion at the time of the regulations’
Figure 7. Authorized measurements for slacks, play
clothes, separates. (8 Apr. 1942) Women’s Wear
Daily 64, 1.
development. Subsequently, American women’s
fashion was based on a prewar silhouette and
limited to certain lengths, styles and details,
thereby effectively creating a wartime look. The
prewar styles of “square shoulders and short
skirts were so influential that those responsible
for drawing up L-85 could not envisage
women’s fashion without [shoulder] pads”
(Baker 52). It is for this reason that historians
American Women’s Wartime Dress Martha L. Hall, Belinda T. Orzada, and Dilia Lopez-Gydosh
describe fashion as being frozen by the WPB
regulations.
The fashion press demonstrated their support
of the WPB by showcasing the new styles as versatile and practical (Arnold 143). Articles featured
the new wartime look described it as perfect for
the modern woman. Wartime fashions were illustrated with the continual narrative of the “American Look.” American women were being
reassured that despite the circumstances, despite
restrictions, despite the war, style would not be
affected. They could still look beautiful even in
wartime (Eiger 96).
Women’s fashion in the United States was also
changed by the circumstances in Europe. The war
raging in Europe interrupted the influence of
French fashion on American style. For much of
modern history, Paris has been considered the
fashion capital of the world. With the dawn of
World War II in 1939, the Parisian monopoly on
fashion design began to falter, and the latest styles
and trends were no longer being supplied by
French fashion houses. The resulting collapse followed the German occupation of Paris in 1940,
when the French government could no longer
export its goods to the United States (Arnold
135).
Prior to this, fashion designers in the United
States were relatively unknown. American fashion
leaders and magazine editors, such as Carmel
Snow of Harper’s Bazaar, had always celebrated
Parisian designers, considering them the trendsetters (Walford 61). Therefore, as fashion inspiration and styles originated in Paris, American
designers were mostly relegated to the role of
copycats. Otherwise, US fashion designers were
either small-scale businesses, or had been the
unknown talent behind department store brands
(61). For the department store, these designers
furnished their in-house labels and were usually
not identified by name.
By the summer of 1940, fashion insiders were
already meeting in New York to develop a wartime strategy (Arnold 135). They questioned how
American fashion survive would without Paris.
The answer lay with American fashion designers.
American designers, such as Gilbert Adrian and
241
Claire McCardell, were suddenly being thrust
into the limelight (McEuen 136). According to
Charlie Scheips,
Freed of the dominating influence of Paris, designers
in America were forced to rely on their own talents
and resources, giving a new perspective to American
fashion during the war years. The fashion industry,
along with the motion-picture and broadcasting industries, became an integral part of the war effort as the
country’s resources and energies were redirected
toward a common purpose. Fashion publications, once
bastions of the frivolous, now featured well-heeled
women dressed in uniform or cited particulars of their
war work as volunteers and professionals. Patriotic
styles abounded, from war-appropriate wardrobes for
social and civil leaders to working clothes for women
from all walks of life who joined the war effort.
(Scheips 67)
By 1941, when America entered the war, fashion spreads were often promoting American
designers in patriotic language, suggesting that
consumption equated to civic duty. As described
by Sandra Buckland,
During the war years, chic American women prided
themselves in showing their sense of social consciousness and patriotism by dressing in an appropriately
restrained manner. From their prewar wardrobes, they
relinquished the fantasy of their Schiaparelli or the
grandeur of their Balenciagas. The mainstays of their
wardrobes are almost identically tailored suits made of
sensible, sturdy fabrics like tweed and worsted wool.
The jacket was cleanly cut and worn over a plain skirt
that just covered the knee. With broad shoulders as
their only fashion characteristic, these are remembered
as ‘Victory Suits’. Women used as little fabric and as
few buttons as possible; this austerity became part of
patriotic American chic. (Buckland “Promoting American Fashion” 31)
America during World War II was urging its
citizenry to do its part; to support the war
effort, be it in the military or on the home
front. The circumstance of war challenged the
traditional notions of men’s and women’s roles
in society. With men fighting overseas, American women became Rosies, they became
WAVES, and they became heroes on the home
front. These changes in women’s roles necessitated a change in wardrobe. French fashion was
no longer an option, and America became the
home of patriotic chic based on practical clothes
and tailored fashions. Whether they needed
pants for factory work or Victory Suits for volunteer work, American women were donning a
new wartime dress.
242
The Journal of American Culture Volume 38, Number 3 September 2015
Works Cited
Anderson, Karen. Wartime Women: Sex Roles, Family Relations, and
the Status of Women During World War II. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1981. Print.
Arnold, Rebecca. The American Look: Fashion, Sportswear and the
Image of Women in 1930s and 1940s. New York: I.B. Tauris,
2009. Print.
Baker, Patricia. Fashions of a Decade: The 1940s. New York: Chelsea
House, 2007. Print.
Blum, John Morton. V Was for Victory: Politics and American Culture During World War II. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1976. Print.
Buckland, Sandra Stansbery. “Fashion as a Tool for World War II: A
Case Study Supporting the SI Theory.” Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal 18.3 (2000): 140–51. Web. 11 Apr. 2013.
——. Promoting American Fashion 1940-1945: From Understudy to
Star. Diss. Ohio State University, 1996. Print.
Campbell, D’Ann. Women at War with America: Private Lives in a
Patriotic Era. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.
Print.
——. “Women in Uniform: The World War II Experiment.” Military Affairs 51.3 (July 1987): 137. Print.
Cardinale, Richard. “Women in the Workplace: Revisiting the Production Soldiers, 1939-1945.” Work Study 51.3 (2002): 121–33.
Print.
Chafe, William. “World War II as a Pivotal Experience for American
Women.” Women and War: The Changing Status of American
Women from the 1930s to the 1950s. Ed. Maria Diedrich and Dorothea Fischer-Hornung. New York: Berg, 1990. Print.
DuBois, Ellen Carol, and Lynn Dumenil. Through Women’s Eyes:
An American History with Documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin, 2009. Print.
Eiger, Janet Nancy. The Effects of World War II Shortages and Regulations on American Women’s Fashions, 1942–1945. MS thesis,
University of Texas at Austin, 1980. Print.
Gordon, Beverly. “Showing the Colors: America.” Wearing Propaganda: Textiles on the Home Front in Japan, Britain, and the United States, 1931-1945. Ed. Jacqueline M. Atkins. New Haven:
Yale UP, 2005. Print.
Gordy, Laurie L., Jennifer Hogan, and Alice Pritchard. “Assessing
‘Herstory’ of WWII: Content Analysis of High School Textbooks.” Equity & Excellence in Education 37 (2004): 80–91. Web.
30 July 2012.
Gourley, Catherine. Rosie and Mrs. America: Perceptions of Women
in the 1930s and 1940s. Minneapolis: Twenty-First Century
Books, 2008. Print.
Gluck, Sherna Berger. Rosie the Riveter Revisited: Women, the War,
and Social Change. Boston: Twayne, 1987. Print.
Ladies Home Journal. Advertisement. Saturday Evening Post June
21, 1930: 142.
Mendes, Valerie, and Amy de la Haye. 20th Century Fashion. London: Thames and Hudson, 1999. Print.
McEuen, Melissa A. Making War Making Women: Femininity and
Duty on the American Home Front, 1941-1945. Athens: U of
Georgia P, 2011. Print.
Patnode, Stephen R. “‘Keeping it Under Your Hat’: Safety Campaigns and Fashion in the World War II Factory.” Journal of
American Culture 35.3 (September 2012): 231–43. Web. 10 Apr.
2013.
Scheips, Charlie. American Fashion. New York: Assouline, 2007.
Print.
Walford, Jonathan. Forties Fashion: From Siren Suits to the New
Look. New York: Thames & Hudson, 2008. Print.
Walker, Nancy A., ed. Women’s Magazines 1940–1960: Gender Roles
and the Popular Press. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin, 1998. Print.
Weatherford, Doris. American Women and World War II. New
York: Facts on File, 1990. Print.
“Women Everywhere Taking to Slacks.” 2 May 2012. Yesteryear
Once More: Life As It Was Reported Back Then.
Yesteryearsnews.wordpress.com. Web. 3 April 2013.
Yellin, Emily. Our Mothers’ War: American Women at Home and at
the Front During World War II. New York: Free Press, 2004.
Print.
Copyright of Journal of American Culture is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.