THE DECLARATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL
May 14, 1948On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over a Palestine expired, the Jewish People’s Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum, and approved the following proclamation, declaring the establishment of the State of Israel. The new state was recognized that night by the United States and three days later by the USSR.
Text:
ERETZ-ISRAEL [(Hebrew) – the Land of Israel, Palestine] was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.
Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. In recent decades they returned in their masses. Pioneers, ma’pilim[(Hebrew) – immigrants coming to Eretz-Israel in defiance of restrictive legislation] and defenders, they made deserts bloom, revived the Hebrew language, built villages and towns, and created a thriving community controlling its own economy and culture, loving peace but knowing how to defend itself, bringing the blessings of progress to all the country’s inhabitants, and aspiring towards independent nationhood.
In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country.
This right was recognized in the Balfour Declaration of the 2nd November, 1917, and re-affirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction to the historic connection between the Jewish people and Eretz-Israel and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home.
The catastrophe which recently befell the Jewish people – the massacre of millions of Jews in Europe – was another clear demonstration of the urgency of solving the problem of its homelessness by re-establishing in Eretz-Israel the Jewish State, which would open the gates of the homeland wide to every Jew and confer upon the Jewish people the status of a fully privileged member of the comity of nations.
Survivors of the Nazi holocaust in Europe, as well as Jews from other parts of the world, continued to migrate to Eretz-Israel, undaunted by difficulties, restrictions and dangers, and never ceased to assert their right to a life of dignity, freedom and honest toil in their national homeland.
In the Second World War, the Jewish community of this country contributed its full share to the struggle of the freedom- and peace-loving nations against the forces of Nazi wickedness and, by the blood of its soldiers and its war effort, gained the right to be reckoned among the peoples who founded the United Nations.
On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.
This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.
ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE’S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.
WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the People’s Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People’s Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called “Israel”.
THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.
WE APPEAL to the United Nations to assist the Jewish people in the building-up of its State and to receive the State of Israel into the comity of nations.
WE APPEAL – in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months – to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.
WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.
WE APPEAL to the Jewish people throughout the Diaspora to rally round the Jews of Eretz-Israel in the tasks of immigration and upbuilding and to stand by them in the great struggle for the realization of the age-old dream – the redemption of Israel.
PLACING OUR TRUST IN THE “ROCK OF ISRAEL”, WE AFFIX OUR SIGNATURES TO THIS PROCLAMATION AT THIS SESSION OF THE PROVISIONAL COUNCIL OF STATE, ON THE SOIL OF THE HOMELAND, IN THE CITY OF TEL-AVIV, ON THIS SABBATH EVE, THE 5TH DAY OF IYAR, 5708 (14TH MAY,1948).
David Ben-Gurion
Daniel Auster
Mordekhai Bentov
Yitzchak Ben Zvi
Eliyahu Berligne
Fritz Bernstein
Rabbi Wolf Gold
Meir Grabovsky
Yitzchak Gruenbaum
Dr. Abraham Granovsky
Eliyahu Dobkin
Meir Wilner-Kovner
Zerach Wahrhaftig
Herzl Vardi |
Rachel Cohen
Rabbi Kalman Kahana
Saadia Kobashi
Rabbi Yitzchak Meir Levin
Meir David Loewenstein
Zvi Luria
Golda Myerson
Nachum Nir
Zvi Segal
Rabbi Yehuda Leib Hacohen Fishman
|
David Zvi Pinkas
Aharon Zisling
Moshe Kolodny
Eliezer Kaplan
Abraham Katznelson
Felix Rosenblueth
David Remez
Berl Repetur
Mordekhai Shattner
Ben Zion Sternberg
Bekhor Shitreet
Moshe Shapira
Moshe Shertok
|
* Published in the Official Gazette, No. 1 of the 5th, Iyar, 5708 (14th May, 1948).
Establishment of Israel:
Analysis of Israel’s Declaration of Establishment
by Prof. E. Gutmann
David Ben-Gurion Reads Israel’s Declaration of Establishment of the State |
Introduction
The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel was approved at a festive session of the People’s Council, comprised of representatives of the yishuv(the Jewish community in Palestine) and the Zionist movement, on Friday, May 14, 1948, several hours before the British Mandate for Palestine came to an end.
The Declaration consists of seven sections, and stipulates six matters:
- Asserts the natural right of the Jewish people to exercise self-determination in its sovereign state.
- Proclaims the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, named “the State of Israel.”
- Establishes provisional institutions of state governance
- States that an elected constituent assembly will formulate a constitution within several months.
- Sets forth the principles of the political rule of the newly formed state
- Calls for peace and cooperation with the Arabs of Israel, neighboring countries and Jews around the world.
The Text of the Declaration
First Section
 The first section of the Declaration, which may be considered its historical preface, succinctly reviews the ties of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel – in concrete historical terms as well as in aspirations.
This section, which takes up nearly half the declaration, makes reference to the following subjects:
(a) the political, cultural, and religious formation of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, and its political independence there;
(b) the hopes of the Jewish people to return to its homeland from all parts of the Diaspora;
(c) immigration and settlement in the country, and the aspiration for independence and statehood;
(d) international recognition of the Jewish people’s right to return to the country, in the Balfour Declaration;
(e) the lesson of the Holocaust – that Jewish independence is a necessity;
(f) the clandestine immigration of Holocaust survivors to Palestine and the yishuv’s contribution to the war effort against the Nazis, which entitles it to be among the founders of the United Nations; and
(g) the recognition, expressed in the UN partition resolution, of the Jewish people’s right to its own state. (The words “an irrevocable right” were appended to the Declaration in case this UN resolution be abrogated and a decision taken instead to establish a UN trusteeship regime throughout Palestine, since the Arab state had not been established and Jerusalem had not been internationalized.)
Second Section
 The second section of the Declaration, one sentence long, addresses the normative aspect of Israel’s establishment: it states that it is the natural right of the Jewish people to be like any other people, exercising self-determination in its sovereign state. The importance of this second section is in the assertion that the establishment of the state is based on the natural right of self-determination and is not subject to decisions of other states or international organizations. Nevertheless, the next section, the declarative one, rests in part on the UN General Assembly resolution.
Third Section
The third section, one paragraph long, is the proclamation of the establishment of the State of Israel, and it is the most important operative part of the Declaration. The rest of the document can be seen as supportive elaboration. From an international legal point of view, this section alone would have sufficed. The precise text here reads “…the establishment of a Jewish State in the Land of Israel – the State of Israel.” The precise meaning of the term “Jewish state,” which recurs four times in the Declaration, has since prompted much public debate, which has recently grown in intensity. However, at the time of the writing of the Declaration, this had hardly occasioned either discussion or questions. It seemed clear that the reference was both to the “Jewish state” mentioned by the UN Resolution, and to the state of the “Jewish people,” mentioned several times in the Declaration as am yehudi (“Jewish people”), and once each as am yisrael (“people of Israel”) and ha‘am ha’ivri (“the Hebrew people”).
Fourth Section
The fourth section, the institutional part of the Declaration, sets forth the time for the beginning of independence and the operation of the state’s institutions – in fact, their continuing operation under new names. This section also states that a constitution is to be enacted by an elected constitutional council, and that governmental institutions are to be elected in accordance with the constitution. Finally, a date is set for the inauguration of these bodies: October 1, 1948. These details and the timetable were stipulated so as to correspond to the provisions of the UN resolution in these matters.
Fifth Section
 The fifth section of the Declaration, its second declarative section, is the most important of all in terms of its domestic educational and informational function. In but a few words, it gives expression to the basic principles and guidelines of the Israeli polity. As the Supreme Court subsequently ruled, this section expresses the vision and the credo of the people regarding the character, the goals and values of Israeli society and its state:
- Israel is to be a state of Jewish immigration – aliya – and of “the ingathering of the exiles.” This principle was set forth in legal and practical terms in the Law of Return, passed two years later (1950);
- Israel is to be a state of development for the benefit of all its inhabitants;
- Perhaps most importantly, Israel is to be a state based on the fundamentals of freedom, justice and peace, a state in which all the inhabitants will enjoy equality of social and political rights, along with freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.
It is true that the word “democracy” does not appear in this impressive list, but there can be no doubt that the Declaration’s authors and signatories intended to establish an exemplary democratic regime. Perhaps they thought that the rest of the document’s contents made it unnecessary to cite “democracy” specifically.
Two points in this part of the Declaration deserve emphasis:
- The guidelines indicating that the fundamentals of freedom, justice and peace be those “envisaged by the prophets of Israel” underscores the message of Israel as a Jewish state – though the authors of the Declaration undoubtedly regarded this vision as a source of universal values;
- This list of egalitarian principles assures not only the rights and equality of the individual citizen, but also collective rights, for the notion of freedom of religion is meaningless unless it implies freedom for every religion. Similarly, the freedoms of language, education and culture are meaningful only if they entitle every national group to speak its own language, to educate its children according to its goals and to maintain its own culture. It seems evident that it was the intent of the authors of the Declaration to assure hereby the rights of religious and national minorities, i.e., the Arabs, and that less thought was given to individuals and groups within the Jewish majority. However, the struggle to implement the rights of both the Jewish majority and the Arab minority have continued to this day.
Sixth Section
 The sixth section of the Declaration includes appeals for the cooperation of both external and internal factors. The internal factor – “the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel” – is called upon to preserve peace and participate in the building of the state. Full and equal citizenship – implying, first and foremost, due representation in all state institutions – is conferred on them. The phrasing of the appeal makes it clear that it is addressed to an Arab people. The significance is that although the state is Jewish, it is inhabited by two peoples. It should be stressed here that the term “Palestinian” had not yet become prevalent at that time.
The appeal for peace and good neighborly relations is addressed to all neighboring countries and peoples and is manifested in the assertion of Israel’s willingness to make its contribution toward development of the Middle East. The timing of this message is worth bearing in mind, for the country had endured half a year of a very violent struggle and Arab armies had already begun to invade it, wishing to prevent Israel’s independence.
The Declaration also urges the United Nations to admit Israel to its ranks; this came to pass only a year later. Finally, the authors urge the Jewish people in the Diaspora to rally around the state in the tasks of immigration, upbuilding and struggle.
Seventh Section
The seventh and last section of the Declaration, the part containing the signatures, begins with the phrase: “Placing our trust in the Rock of Israel, we affix our signatures…” It comes as no surprise that these opening words had prompted a debate among the members of the People’s Council, reflecting the disagreements between its secular and religious members concerning the future image of the state. The debate ended in tacit acquiescence, presumably because of the reluctance to engage in such a discussion at that time. It should be mentioned, however, that the representatives of the haredi (ultra-Orthodox) community subsequently took exception to the entire Declaration, stating that it greatly offended their sensitivities.
The Manifesto
At the festive session that approved the Declaration, the newly proclaimed state (which, strictly speaking, had not yet come into existence at that moment) passed its first legislative act: the Manifesto, whose name and format have no parallel in the Israeli lawbooks. According to the legal experts of the time, this document was needed because the Declaration itself, although equipped with a quasi-legislative section that stipulated the inauguration of the state’s provisional governing institutions, amounted to a public proclamation and was not an authentic legislative act.
Indeed, the first paragraph of the Manifesto repeated the Declaration by stipulating the Provisional Council of State as the legislative authority. However, it also authorized the Council to devolve some of its powers to the Provisional Government for the purpose of urgent legislation. This provision was considered essential under the military circumstances of the time, enemy forces having already invaded Israel’s territory in certain locations. This legal option of main legislation by the executive branch, which had first been introduced in the Manifesto, still exists, although it has been substantially modified and curtailed. It was enacted by the Law and Administration Ordinance, passed about a week later, and is now contained in the Basic Law: The Government.
The second paragraph of the Manifesto put some of the important results of independence in legal terms: it annulled all legal provisions resulting from the Anti-Zionist policies of the British administration, especially those originating in the 1939 White Paper, that aimed to restrict Jewish immigration and land ownership in Palestine.
The third and last paragraph of the Manifesto ensured the continuity of the law in effect in Palestine at the end of the Mandate, with the exception of the provisions which contradicted the establishment of the state (such as those mentioned in the previous paragraph), and until such provisions were amended by original Israeli legislation. The new Israeli authorities received all the powers of the previous Mandatory ones. This clause prevented judicial chaos. Thus, Israel inherited Mandatory law, which, although far from being identical with British law, included important elements of British jurisprudence and public law. However, this continuity also imposed on Israeli law many non- and even anti-democratic provisions for lengthy periods of time and caused a legislative lethargy which impaired the speedy passing of original Israeli legislation.
The continuity provision was copied almost verbatim into Paragraph 11 of the aforementioned Law and Administration Ordinance, which was, in fact, Israel’s first regular statute.
A Constitution for the State of Israel
The Declaration of Independence envisaged the enactment of a constitution within several months. However, Israel still has no constitution, and progress towards it has been exceedingly slow.
A constituent assembly was elected in Israel’s first general elections (January 25, 1949); the assembly’s first action was to pass the so-called Transition Law, by which it reconstituted itself as the “First Knesset.” A protracted debate ensued between the proponents of a constitution – those favoring immediate enactment of a constitution – and its opponents, some of whom ruled out the very idea of a constitution, while others argued that the time was not ripe. Finally, the Knesset adopted a compromise resolution – in effect, a decision not to adopt a constitution. The text of this resolution (1950), known as the “Harari Resolution” after its sponsor, MK I. Harari, is as follows:
The First Knesset instructs the Constitutional, Legislation and Judicial Committee to prepare a draft State Constitution. The constitution will be built chapter by chapter, in such a way that each will constitute a separate Basic Law. The chapters shall be presented to the Knesset when the committee completes its work, and all the chapters shall be combined into the Constitution of the State.
Since that resolution was adopted, the Knesset has passed eleven basic laws (two of them – Basic Law: The Government and Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation – have been passed twice). This effort is not yet complete, although it is commonly thought that most of the constitution’s chapters (i.e., the Basic Laws) have been enacted and that the missing ones will soon be ready.
The passing of the Basic Laws: Human Dignity and Freedom of Occupation (passed in 1992 and 1994) has been called a “constitutional revolution,” because these laws introduced the constitutional protection of human rights, though not of all rights. This may be considered the closing of a circle in respect of the principles of governance and justice begun with the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. These two Basic Laws begin with the same meaningful clause:
Fundamental human rights in Israel are based on recognition of the value of man, the sanctity of human life and freedom, and shall be honored in the spirit of the principles in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.
Since then, the Israeli lawbook has included not only the principles of justice, liberty, freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture, and complete equality of social and political rights for all citizens, irrespective of religion, race and sex, but also constitutional principles acknowledging the freedom and sovereignty of all human beings and the sanctity of human life.
The Constitutional Authority of the Declaration
Until these two Basic Laws were enacted, the meaning and legal validity of the “principles” section of the Declaration was under public debate, although it was generally acknowledged that the Declaration (and its section on principles) should not be considered as legally binding in the ordinary sense. The first President of the Supreme Court Justice M. Smoira put this as follows:
The Declaration expresses the vision and credo of the people; but it is not a constitutional law making a practical ruling on the upholding or nullification of various ordinances and statutes.
These remarks may be regarded as a minimalist rule for the interpretation of the Declaration. Later, other interpretations were heard from time to time, seeking to broaden, if only slightly, the legal validity of this document. Two examples follow, the first by Justice S. Agranat:
It is true that the Declaration is ‘not a constitutional law that makes a practical ruling on the upholding or nullification of various ordinances and statutes,’ but insofar as it ‘expresses the vision and credo of the people,’ we are obligated to take heed of the matters set forth therein when we seek to interpret and construe the laws of the state
.The following is excerpted from a ruling by Justice Z. Berenson:
The legal force [of the Declaration] exists in the [rule] that every legal provision should be interpreted in its light and to the extent possible, in keeping with its guiding principles and not contrary thereto. However, when an explicit statutory measure of the Knesset leaves no room for doubt, it should be honored even if inconsistent with the principles in the Declaration of Independence.
Here the Declaration serves as an interpretive tool. One may state that, at least within this constraint, it has a legal validity of sorts or represents a legal norm that expresses the values of the state. A subsequent ruling reflects this thinking:
The democratic character of the State of Israel finds its expression in the Declaration of Independence. These principles light our path and represent the credo of the people, in the light of which laws are interpreted and basic principles determined.
However, since the Basic Laws: Human Dignity and Freedom of Occupation were passed, the principles set forth in the Declaration have become a substantive, binding component of legislation and law.
Time after time judges have incorporated statements in their verdicts referring to Israel as a democratic state by citing principles in the Declaration. One such remark was made by Justice Agranat in the ruling cited above:
The set of laws according to which the political institutions in Israel were established and under which they operate attest that [Israel] is indeed a state with democratic foundations. Furthermore, the matters mentioned in the Declaration of Independence – especially those on basing the state on the fundamentals of freedom and the assurance of freedom of conscience – indicate that Israel is a freedom-loving state.
However, neither the Declaration nor any other enactment of the state contained the word “democracy” or derivatives thereof. No “democratic state” is mentioned alongside a “Jewish state,” although it is absolutely clear that the founders had such a state in mind. This rather regrettable lacuna has recently been set right by the two aforementioned Basic Laws, for both contain the identical clause (except for two or three words):
The purpose of this Basic Law is to protect ….. in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.
“A Jewish and Democratic State”
Since the passage of these two Basic Laws, these two definitive characteristics of the state – the Jewish and the democratic – have been inextricably intertwined. However, if the legislators had hoped that this formulation would put to rest the debate over Israel’s being Jewish and democratic, the opposite occurred. From the moment these Basic Laws were passed, public debate over this issue and its implications has recurred, and more vehemently so. Some argue that national harmony requires a full symbiosis between these two adhesive attributes, and they consider such a symbiosis not only necessary but also possible. Others believe that the two values clash in substantive ways and cannot be attained in tandem. Thus, they say, one must yield to the other: either democracy to Jewishness or vice versa. The continuum between these polar attitudes is filled with a great many views pertaining to every substantial issue on the public agenda. Some even consider the two values unequal in status a priori, citing the order in which the two determining words appear in the foregoing clause.
This dispute will undoubtedly continue, and although it may seem theoretical and abstract, it is neither. Not only will the struggle be waged over the relationship between these two components, but a stand will have to be taken on the principles, the meaning and the practical significance of each. At the time the Declaration was written, a tacit and largely unarticulated consent existed concerning the essence of the Jewish state, and disagreements were, for some time, put aside. The same may be said, even more explicitly, about the democratic character of the state – a matter in which almost no one took an interest. Now, amazingly, voices are being heard from different parts, demonstrating not only a misunderstanding of the principles of democracy, but also a disregard of them.
Recently, the domestic dispute over the Jewish character of the state has become very bitter. Dissent ranges from the conceptual and the ideological to the practical – Sabbath observance, marriage and divorce laws, budgets for religious institutions – with a tendency to adopt radical and excessively rigid positions. Furthermore, the political arrangements governing the status, powers and functions of religion (called the “status quo on religious affairs”) are steadily crumbling amid rising social tension.
A large majority of Jews take for granted that Israel is a Jewish state and cannot envisage anything else. Although quite a few would prefer to see a different Jewish state – with disagreements over the degree of difference – only a very small minority would seek to abolish it. Many of the country’s Arab citizens acknowledge that Israel is a Jewish state and will remain so, and some regret this. Be this as it may, there can be no doubt that on the day when Jews cease to be a majority in Israel, Israel will cease to be Jewish.
The Declaration – A Review
The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, the first official document of the state, is marking its jubilee – as is the state. The Declaration bears importance of the highest magnitude, for it symbolizes a momentous change in Jewish history. In its contents, structure, and language, it is one of the most impressive of its genre. In its structure and stylistic cadence, the Declaration is a literary gem, its elegant phrasing successfully blending solemnity and exaltation, sober idealism and practicality, coupled with daring, moral force and lucid foresight. The operative sections of the Declaration – i.e., the very proclamation of the formation of the state and its provisional governing institutions – are of historical value only. This cannot be said about the other parts of the Declaration. The historical section was, and perhaps still is, the most portentous Zionist manifesto of all.
The most important section of the Declaration is that dealing with values and principles, which contains political and legal messages that remain relevant to this day. It is still Israel’s charter of human and civil rights, enfolding all the basic principles and values that no enlightened society can do without. Obviously, there are abundant disparities, even gaping ones, between ideals and realities, between promises made and promises honored. For this reason, as this article draws to a close, an attempt should be made to determine which of the promises in the Declaration have been fulfilled and which have not. Of course, it is impossible at this juncture to draw up a detailed, accurate, and reasoned “balance sheet,” but one may briefly address – at the risk of being accused of excessive brevity – the development of several of these principles in the reality of Israel.
“Aliya – the Ingathering of the Exiles”
A fundamental aspiration of Zionism and the state, this may be viewed – in the most general way – as a success story, though not everyone would agree. The Law of Return was enacted to give concrete legal form to this cause and, despite criticism of its details, it is hard to envisage the State of Israel without it. The main emphasis has been on the stage of “the ingathering of exiles,” the arrival and attraction of faraway Diaspora communities. It was accompanied, perhaps unavoidably, by severe hardship for many immigrants, and the ensuing social inequalities have left scars. Although the Declaration says nothing about integration of exiles and national solidarity, this is obviously the “heart and soul” of the ingathering, and the balance in this respect is far from being fully satisfactory.
Those who regard Jewish immigration not only as a right, but also as a duty, probably regard it as at least a partial failure. Even today, more than half of the world’s Jews do not live in Israel, and the number of emigrants leaving Israel is growing; however, the proportion of world Jewry living in Israel is on the rise.
“Development of the Country for the Benefit of All its Inhabitants”
In this matter, too, Israel may congratulate itself for making much progress and attaining an impressive rate of development. The state is among the world’s most developed with regard to economy and culture. Its standard of living and quality of life have been rising steadily, despite the impediments of its security situation. All citizens have benefited from these trends – though not equally, as Israel is one of the few developed countries in which the income gap is actually widening.
“Freedom, Justice and Peace”
These universal values, in the absence of which a society cannot be sound nor a state enlightened, account for a hefty portion of the Jewish heritage; a Jewish state not guided by them is inconceivable. Although nobody fails to espouse these values, Israelis from all sectors of society have widely varying interpretations for them. This state of affairs is most conspicuous with respect to peace, of course, but it also applies to liberty and justice. Under such circumstances, it is quite amazing that a golden mean, or at least a workable compromise, is so often attained. In this sense, Israel’s performance does not outrank the soundest of nations, but it does not fall significantly short of them.
“Complete Equality of Social and Political Rights”
The Declaration indeed referred to complete equality and, perhaps, to equal opportunity – not only formally (i.e., in law and justice), but also in the implementation of these rights in all areas of life: political, social, economic and perhaps also cultural. Equality is a goal, and its complete attainment cannot occur with ease, if at all. Therefore, the question is to what extent such equality has been achieved and whether the trend is leading toward greater or lesser equality.
When the state was founded, Jewish Israeli society was rather egalitarian in many respects, and in certain senses this trait has gathered strength since then. One of the great accomplishments is the far-reaching equality in political rights of the citizens, including Arabs, and in the courts, where equality under the law is strongly, although not fully, prevalent. However, there are pockets of blatant inequality in resource allocation for development purposes. Although the declared intent is to narrow this disparity, and although visible action is being taken to demonstrate that this is being done, there remains much room for improvement.
The Equality of Women’s Rights Law (1951) was meant to make the Declaration’s assurance in this respect effective. The statute indeed prescribes legal equality for men and women in all matters of jurisprudence, and adds that any legal provision that discriminates against women qua women shall not be applied. Indeed, much action toward greater equity has been taken over the years, in both judicial and social affairs. However, this law makes a significant exception: in all matters of marital status, women’s equality does not apply. Indeed, this exclusion has been expanded to cover all matters related to so-called religious institutions of state, such as rabbinical courts and religious councils, with some minor exceptions. Truth to tell, however, even the law prescribing equal wages for men and women (1964) falls far short of full implementation.
The Declaration speaks of equal rights and refrains, for good reason, from speaking of equal obligations. However, a soundly functioning regime obviously concerns itself with this aspect, too, for it is also a factor in equality. Israel is not among the world’s most egregious performers in its infringements of this principle. Nevertheless, there have been occasional grievances, and public debate sometimes erupts over a case of inequality in obligations. Equality, or, to be more accurate, more equitable justice in apportioning the tax burden is the subject of struggles all over the world, and let us admit that Israel has much room for improvement in this respect – not only concerning women. Another matter that has evoked bitter public controversy for some time is equality in carrying the burden of military service, especially in what we call the induction of yeshiva students. The duration of annual reserve duty also remains irksome to many in this respect.
“Freedom of Religion and Conscience”
In the fifty years since the Declaration of Independence was written, it has become clear that intricate problems are involved in honoring freedom of religion, conscience and faith in a country where religion (or to be more precise, religions) holds an official status and wields state-sponsored administrative and judicial functions. Freedom of religion in Israel is, first and foremost, the power granted to the religious establishment to set norms and rules of behavior for its adherents, and the definition of citizenship (at least with respect to Jews) is also fundamentally religious and in accord with religious law. As to freedom of worship – a matter that is mostly internal to the various religious communities – the High Court of Justice ruled that:
Freedom of religion and worship is but one of the personal freedoms assured [to individuals] in every democratic regime. The very existence and assurance of this freedom entails the risk of schism among various religious currents and movements, but this risk in no way diminishes the freedom of religion and conscience.
By the same token, the state must have the power to limit the freedom of worship in very exceptional and extreme cases, and all one can say about this matter is that such action should be taken with the utmost caution.
Court judgments have expanded the freedom of religion significantly by including in it the freedom from religion. Thus the courts have stipulated that both freedom of religion and freedom from religion, to which both citizens and residents are entitled, are overarching values in Israel – originating in the rule of law (in its substantive sense) and in rulings by the courts. Religious commandments – or religiously derived principles – are not law in Israel unless they are incorporated into a law. However, one can hardly say that the government’s performance has always studiously corresponded to the spirit of this ruling, and the tendencies emanating from steadily-growing population groups are also pointing in other directions.
“Freedom of Language, Education, and Culture”
It is clear that the freedom of language assured in the Declaration refers to the right of Israeli Arabs not only to speak and provide education in their language but also to use Arabic in all official contacts. Recognition of Arabic as an official language has solved this problem and, practically speaking, no special difficulties have come up over the years.
The authors of the Declaration had a similar situation in mind when they referred to freedom of education, and presumably they also intended to enshrine the right of all “streams” in Jewish education. On this basis, parents were eventually granted the possibility of enrolling their children in education subsystems of their choice. Obviously, freedom of education was not meant to empower every parent to dictate his children’s curriculum nor to teach at home, in circumvention of all school settings (although a quite liberal interpretation of the relevant statutes has allowed such cases).
Indeed, a large majority of Israelis accept what they are offered in this regard. This may also be indicative of a basic rule with respect to rights: use them or prepare to lose them. Recently, problems have arisen because of schools’ refusal to honor parents’ freedom to choose their children’s education by rejecting certain children without justifying the rejection on any formal grounds.
Israel may congratulate itself on its freedom of culture. The only significant infringement is the official censorship of plays and films and, perhaps, some indirect censorship of cultural artifacts and advertising. Notably, however, the trend in this matter has been toward greater liberalism, and only time will tell what the future holds. Of course, those who consider lavish governmental and public support an essential condition for cultural freedom would not depict the Israeli situation in glowing terms. This attitude, however, would make the scope of this freedom unconventionally broad.
“Safeguard[ing] the Holy Places of All Religions”
The country’s holy places, and the free access to them, primarily those of Muslims and Christians, have been safeguarded very meticulously, especially since many such shrines came under Israeli control after the Six-Day War. This situation has been noted favorably by most religions represented in Israel, despite occasional incidents.
A Look Towards the Future
We are witnessing today, thus, the continuing development of the democratic State of Israel, based on the values of freedom, justice and peace, as cited in the Declaration. Furthermore, the Declaration’s calls for “bonds of cooperation and mutual help” and “a common effort for the advancement of the Middle East” are being realized in the continuing peace process between Israel and her Arab neighbors.
Appendix 1:The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel
Appendix 2: Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty
Appendix 3: Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation
Appendix 4: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations)
|
34°03′35″N 118°17′50″WCoordinates: 
Stephen Darori on Iconic Media and Photography 
103 thoughts on “Love And Marriage? 25 Vintage Ads Depicting Blatant Sexism”
I “think” the intent of the Goldie Hawn or Goldie Hawn look-alike one is based on her dumb/simpleton blonde Laugh In characterization that she was well known for and perhaps maybe not so much a “women are idiots” message.
Ugh! Most of those are horrid! Thankfully, they’re a thing of the past. Unfortunately, we haven’t moved beyond the attitudes in some of them.
The Total one, I get. They’re saying the cereal will give her the energy she needs to keep up with her housekeeping. I don’t really find that too offensive and think it’s a bit tame compared to some of today’s weight loss ads which are just focused on being thin. Heck, we all still have housekeeping to do, no matter what glass ceilings have been shattered. I’ve blogged about fatigue issues getting in the way of housework. It’s a real problem for some.
And, I wouldn’t mind a vacuum for Christmas, but that’s just me – lol. I’m all about the practical gifts and not getting something that’s going to be useless clutter.
Wow, a douche with Lysol?
@Nashpam – Ha! I thought the same thing!
Calm down ladies. I’m purposely not checking his coffee for store freshness, because seriously that spanking looks like fun.
They are horrid, but they are not all a thing of the past. Has anyone seen the latest Dr. Pepper 10 campaign? The tagline is “Not for women!” and it is straight from the 1930s playbook. Here’s an article about it. I stopped buying all Dr. Pepper products as my way of letting them know they are totally out of touch. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/story/2011-10-10/dr-pepper-for-men/50717788/1
How many fingers does that one lady have?? :-p
These are hilarious (in a totally disturbing, I can’t believe people actually would print that dribble kinda way). Thanks for posting. I needed a little amusement in my day.
yeah the spanking is hot and the blowing in your face, too…double entendrés much? anyway, the “automatic” thing is laughable because I drive stick and my husband CANT
hahah wow those are bad! I love how the on the self cleaning ad, the women says she broke 14 fingernails. Do they think women can’t count how many fingers they have? My goodness.
http://www.fitandpreggers.com
@Suzie – Me too! I’m going to add that line to the post!
I love the Schlitz one (didn’t burn the beer)! I want to frame it and put it in my kitchen. I’ve made some pretty egregious cooking mistakes, where the only redeeming part of the meal has been the accompanying glass of wine
I have to admit, I did giggle a little at the “you didn’t burn the beer” ad.
That douche advert is hilarious. “Ladies! Is YOUR vagina feminine enough?”
Is it wrong that i found these hysterical (& offensive, but mostly hysterical)? Thanks for sharing these!
I can’t seem to be able to click through to read the fine print. Am I missing the links?
Wow, those are hysterical, in a horrifying kind of way.
http://www.thegentlemom.com
These were great to laugh at…and cry at lol. How about that yellow bikini, wow any higher cut and it would be stuck under her armpits. Wonder if it comes in any other colours…..
This post cracks me up. Granted it’s super disturbing they are in fact from our past but I’d say most women have a good sense of humor now days. Love love love the schlitz beer one, though I too would be okay with burnt dinner as long as there was still beer.
So THAT’S where doucheing and the vagina monologues came from. Stinky balled men who didn’t like the natural smell of a woman. Your hubby will leave you if your vagina smells like a vagina and not a field of roses… This post made me sick… in a good way.
I love how the woman in the Hoover ad has an empty thought bubble over her head. “Husbands, your wife doesn’t know what she wants until YOU tell her — get her a Hoover!”
I’ll bet you can find current day ads that are almost as insulting and I don’t mean in a girlie magazine. Some just seem like they are aimed at women.
So many things to say but one thing that sticks out to me is Lysol feminine products. Lysol? really?!? Lol yikes!
Like ads were not offensive to men , children , the elderly and animals of both sexes back then and now? Heck homer simpson, Bart simpson , grampa simpson and the simpson’s pet dog certainly do not paint males in general in a grand light now do they? Nor do other adds and television programs for the rest of the population , those adds above are not only insulting to women they are insulting to men as well as if a man in general thinks like that? My hubs sure as hell would be insulted if he were depicted in that light as a wife beater, who can’t do his own shopping, cooking and cleaning yet expects his supposed mindless wife too lol he would boycott those products in a heart beat.
http://www.savingadvice.com/articles/2007/12/05/101947_twelve-ways-advertisers-insult-consumers.html advertising and views like this have been around since the dawn of organized written civilization written in our very religious and law texts yet nothing has changed except how we word it and depict it along with the current mindset of the times . http://www.trivia-library.com/a/history-of-advertising-ancient-history-middle-ages-and-the-early-days.htm In Shakespeare’s A Winter’s Tale, Autolycus sings: “Come, buy of me; come buy, come buy, buy, lads, or else your lasses cry.” so how better to advertise without insulting everyone? Now that would be far more interesting to see because no matter what you do someone will feel jilted.
I’m not sure whats wrong here. Doesn’t everyone physically abuse their wife when the coffee isn’t as fresh as it could be?
As a young female, these ads depress me. Not because I find them horrible, but because it makes me pine for simpler times. Some women still live to please their husbands, I know I do.
Bravo! One who still believes in being a good woman and wife out of conviction. Your husband is fortunate to have you!
And there are a lot of adds insulting to people with physical and mental disability’s and debilitating conditions and different skin tones, after all what paraplegic can climb a mountain after eating a health food bar? And how many time’s have you heard so easy a child can do it yet you know someone with the mind of an infant due to an accident or birth defect who is taken care of? Or here’s one use this pearl face powder to give you a healthy peachy glow yet the add is in ebony magazine XD So do we make things that everyone can use or do we market for specific demographic’s insulting and leaving out the rest ? Yes those adds above are insulting but not just to women yet i still find the humor in them .
I couldn’t read most of the images either, and for the one that suggested the wordy body was most important, I tried to save the image in case the site just shrunk it down too much, the image itself is tiny sized and unreadable.
Oh well. Still, I’m in agreance that most of these are no worse than the ones out there today. (The Milk Council’s PMS, Toyota’s minivan, most truck ads, and Dr. Pepper’s new product come to mind, and don’t EVEN get me started on the diet pills…)
Anybody remember the Virgina Slim’s “you’ve come a long way, baby?” ads? Yes, now you too can kill yourself and those around you in public!
LMAO @ “intimate neglect.”
Feminist idiot writing a stupid article. Found this via Yahoo, and figured I’d see some funny ads. Have a laugh at how things have changed, not see a full blown bulldike lesbian convention freaking out over some old ads. Sexism is still out there, yes, but it’s dying and taking on a new form, one in which men are discriminated against. Spousal abuse and divorce court come to mind immediately, my own father was terrified of getting a divorce because he was afraid he’d lose all his kids no matter what they said about wanting to live with him. So, Ms. Article Lady… Would you like some cheese with your whine?
All this from a female Native American (yes, that would be the smallest “minority” in the world). Have a nice day.
What is going on in the ad with the man stepping on the head of the woman/rug thing. I can’t read it. What is that advertising.
I left off the question mark.
Babble editors must not think Ipo Vogel is a very disgruntled, sexist, prejudiced, very ignorant and hostile, very poor example of a Native American ANYTHING! I am shamed if her claim to my ancestry is true, and apologize for her unseemly ignorant vomiting. Thrown out of her own tribe no doubt for the shame she causes.
My birth name: Raven
My coming of age name : Silvercat
My spirit Guide : The Florida panther and …
My Tribe : Nez Pierce
Ya -teh-hey
Some of these are just ridiculous, especially the “A girl-sized hand needs a girl-sized pen” ad. Who screwed up and let her out of the kitchen long enough to learn how to write, anyway? (Sorry ladies… I couldn’t resist.)
It’s definitely a good thing that ads aren’t generally like this anymore, but over the past decade or so, I’ve noticed things swinging the opposite way, though not as much in print ads as in television commercials. There are tons of commercials that portray men either as clueless simpletons who have no idea what goes on around them and need to be told what to do, what to buy, etc., by their wives.
My least favorite in recent history is the Sears ad for central air conditioning systems, where the woman say something like “It’s going to be a scorcher. You should call Sears and get a new central air system.” He’s sitting there reading the newspaper, probably attempting to enjoy his last few minutes of relaxation before heading to work, and says “Ok, I’ll call tomorrow.” She leans over, hands him a phone, and says, “You’ll call NOW!” Thus ends the commercial, but he should have told her “Excuse me? Are your fingers broken? If you’re in that big a freaking hurry, pull out *your* credit card, make the call, and leave me alone.”
No, that’s no worse than some of the print ads above, but the point is, we feel your pain, ladies. I wish advertisers didn’t feel the need to belittle either gender, but as long as advertisers think it helps to sell products, they will.
Funny thing… When these ads were used the US seemed to have a more integral ethic, national pride and family value. WOW all before “sexism” was put to an end, and women were allowed to exploit their goods.
Gimme a break. Things should go back in this direction, We’d se no more Kardouchians and Paris Whoreltons or Lindsey Lowlifes.
Thank God I came of age in the “You can laugh at anything you want” age. These ads are first and foremost highly entertaining. They are funny because they are wrong. It’s how we were and we’ve evolved since then, okay? Getting all high and mighty about things one cannot change is silly. I grew up seeing all those ads, and more, and I turned out fine. I knew they were wrong then, just as I know it now. You talk about sexism and gender inequality, but you don’t want to give us any credit for having the brains to evaluate them for ourselves.
Wow! I would liked to have seen the year’s that these were created. I think the sad part is that while we’ve come far, we haven’t come as far as we think we have in advertising. (Anyone seen a Go-Daddy or Axe commercial lately?)
Sidebar: Nothing would make me happier than receiving a Hoover for Christmas this year. Seriously. I asked for one.
Ok, so now we have Victoria’s Secret ads where women(girls) prance with their boobs pushed up so far that choking is a real threat. Yes, they are beautiful, and yes, I am sure they are paid well. But the real secret there is that fake boobs sell.
omg this is hilarious.
Insane and outrageous.
Seriously?! People are still getting upset about this??? Yes, the current day ones can be a little frustrating. But we can’t change what was printed over 50 years ago! Get over it! It doesn’t do any good to keep bringing it up! The one about losing weight while cleaning? Sounds good to me! I am a housewife and I do clean and losing weight sounds great!
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/stereotyping/women_and_girls/women_beauty.cfm
These made me laugh. And yes, there are ads out there that put men down too. The Carl Jr.s ad about how if it wasn’t for them some men would starve drives my husband crazy, he hates it so much. Again, I just laugh
Having grown up during this time period, I am very familiar with the “women are stupid” mentality: they just don’t know how to drive, etc. I sat in my room and listened to the men at cocktail parties making jokes about it and the women laughing right along with them. I learned how to manipulate men by saying, “Well, I just can’t do this…can you help me?” But it is hard to understand, with things changing so quickly these days, that some of the women at that time had had mothers or grandmothers who remembered not having the right to vote! I also remember rebelling against all this when I was passed up for opportunities in school because I was a girl and became a very angry teenager in the 60′s…just in time for the women’s lib movement and everything else that was going on.
But having also cleaned and waxed the linoleum and hardwood floors in my floors on my hands and knees with my mom, we were thrilled when Dad came home with a floor polisher. We also the first family in the neighborhood to have a dishwasher because mom and I got tired of boiling my baby brother’s glass bottles and nipples in hot water, as prescribed in those days, so she was able to sterilize them in the dishwasher while also (yay) saving us all from having to wash and dry all those dishes. (Yes, Dad participated.) And need I mention not having to hang the clothes outside on the line? Or having the clothes come out soft and warm and a few of them not needing ironing? I still needed to sprinkle all the clothes with a Coke bottle with a corked special sprinkler cap, roll them up to get nice and damp, spray them with spray starch (another time-saving invention) and spend hours ironing while watching Ethel and Lucy play dumb on I Love Lucy on our new black and white TV! (No permanent press in those days. But I was so proud that Dad was the second dad in the neighborhood to buy us one! Electric mixers, pop-up toasters…all those things were wonderful! And just as exciting to buy as are all the new appliances we buy today! Have you seen the current ads for the Frigidaire or the newest washers and dryers?
Last one:
BTW: Sex is not only used in advertising today, but in many high fashion ads women are depicted as INVITING abuse! What are all the torn-up clothes about…half ripped off the body as if a woman has just been raped. And have you listened to current music lately? Or watched an R-rated film or late night TV? Violent sexual abuse of women is glorified! Today I’m angry about that! Let’s face it…much has changed, but not in every case for the better. And, yes, Goldie Hawn was playing the part of a “dumb blonde” who danced on SNL, so in that case, blondes should be upset, which I’m not, so…’nuf said!
There was something to the lysol douching. a family member was told that for birth control prevention. Her sister told her to cease and desist and the next month she was pregnant. so almost two years of great bc then poof
Macie, thanks for perpetuating rape culture. Men have control over themselves, and they decide to rape people. Clothes don’t make people rape. Do some serious reading.
Also, most men, and some women, consider breasts sex objects, when they are not. They are erogenous zones in both sexes. Yet women have to legally keep them covered when boys and men don’t, thus “indecent” (legal term) body part is hidden from view, and only legally allowed to be shown if someone is working in an adult establishment.
When a woman can’t walk down the street without a top on but a man can, in America, this is very sad, and sadder still that people still think that would invite rape, or that she is crazy. They are the same parts. Literally. Scientifically. Sex object? I could care less about mine during sex. Almost 100% of my life, breasts are the same as a mans – doing nothing. I do not have kids. They are not FOR anything, until they are being used….yet as a woman, I can’t show mine? I basically live in the Middle East. And the US government, allows states to decide for themselves, when it should be a basic human right to not be discriminated against based on sex or gender. And yet it continues.
I am disgusted with America. The message to girls is clear: you are not equal. You cannot do the same as a boy, and your breasts make you a sexual object.
Wow. People need to see the light. When you are mad that your girlfriend, mom, or friend is raped, realize that by not allowing the same rights to women, you help men and women everywhere perpetuate rape culture, by allowing people to objectify and hide women’s breasts, thus making them (and the owner) indecent. Did you know that women who show their breasts, even if they barely have any, (meanwhile a fat man can have DD breasts showing) and she is registered as a sex offender in most places in America? Seriously.
Discrimination is still here. Legally.
I’m still trying to figure out that oven cleaning one. I only have 10 fingers..is she cleaning the oven with her feet also tha she can break 14 nails?
By the way thats not a crumpled bumper. Thats a fender. Now,, get back to the kitchen and make me a sammich!
Some fairly extreme reactions posted here. Yes, these are a bit sad and, in our current time, silly as all heck. I could not read many of them to even figure out compelte what was being advertised. I’m just glad I don’t have to look at such junk these days. And I wish many of current-day ads were also not being shown as many are still rather disturbing and usually make me NOT want to buy a product. The most interesting thing is how few years ago many of these were printed. Thanks for the yesteryear tour.
Think about it the ads today are only subtlety different. Todays ads show the woman doing every thing from dishes to cleaning of floors, dusting, carpet cleaning, windows, child care, cooking, etc. Half of which being done after she comes home from work.
These are so funny! I’m totally printing the beer one to hang in my kitchen as well!
Hey on your quote “I’m to pretty to do my homework so my brother has to do it for me” you missed that it’s “too” not “to” – the T-shirt graphic has that right; guess someone needs a brother that’s a proofreader.
For those who are wondering, the woman-rug ad was for Mr. Leggs dacron-rayon blend slacks; the copy reads, “Though she was a tiger lady, our hero didn’t have to fire a shot to floor her. After one look at his Mr. Leggs slacks, she was ready to have him walk all over her. If you’d like your own doll-to-doll carpeting, hunt up a pair of these he-man, Mr. Leggs slacks.”
o_O…….
I’d really like it if some of these were larger so I could read the text (as you suggest).
Well, you know, back when women had a sense of shame and some self-respect, back when they were cleaning house and eating Total, they weren’t the fat cows they are today.
And about the shoe ad, “Keep Her Where She Belongs. You know… naked, on the floor, kissing your feet? That’s where women belong.”
My woman agrees with that and is quite happy down there.
14 fingernails? Perhaps ‘the woman belongs in the kitchen’ isn’t the only stereotype there. Either that, or she has quite a few more fingers than your average human.
Sadly, Apple still pushes some of the stereotypes listed. After all, the iPad is supposed to be great for women, because they don’t need much from a complicated ol’ desktop computer-just something easy to use to find recipes and knitting patterns. (2010 blog post from an Apple PR guy) I’ll bet he can’t even figure out simple HTML without his handy drag and drop blog editor. Wait, nevermind, another perk you get from buying Apple? Never having to learn how to drag and drop, like on those complicated Windows and Linux OSs. Seriously?
Ahh the good old days.
Those commenting on housecleaning not being that big of an issue, try to remember all the commercials you’ve seen of men doing housework. Mr. Clean does not count, because he just hands the stuff to the woman cleaning. I only can think of one commercial myself, where the entire family is handing off that magic eraser in the kitchen.
please, girls…
you should feel empowered that a man designed easy-opening ketchup with you in mind to allow you 1 more service to please YOUR man!
(beware you don’t chip a nail!)
How do you fix a woman’s watch?
You don’t…there’s a clock on the oven!
Ok. First, stop living in the past. This is a different day and time and todays male has given a supporting role to women. They are appreciative and grateful for the contribution sacrifically given by the woman of today. Secondly, the commentator on these pics needs to seriously GET A LIFE and stop the hate!! Hey, if you don’t like the man you’re with, find SOMEONE who will make you sing instead of whine like a jackass about something that happened years ago. This is a NEW DAY!!!!
What is the problem with appliances as gifts?
Personally I would like a new vacuum for Mother’s day. The one I have doesn’t work wonderfully and a working one would make my job much easier.
I must have absorbed acres of these, as a big, early reader – but I only remember Mr. Lee’s shirts. Verbatim.
“How do you get your shirts so clean, Mr. Lee?”
“Ancient Chinese secret.”
“My husband, some hotshot. Here’s his ancient Chinese secret….
((PS: Genuine party joke from the era of drunk Twister))
Long story short:
Woman buys vase at a garage sale, genie gives her a wish.
She’s lonely, her cat loves her, so turn him into a man.
Swooning, etc.
Man/Cat: “Now aren’t you sorry you had me fixed?”
Personally, I think more of these are funny rather than “horrid” as most claim on here. There is nothing wrong with being a housewife, so please stop the negativity. I’m proud we have come as far as we have to be accepted in the ways we are now, but honestly, I do look to my husband to be the head of the household & I enjoy making our “house” a “home”. I feel that a lot of these comments about these pictures are basically stating that “It’s stupid to be a housewife” Really? C’mon now!
Cindy, I saw some Mother’s Day gift suggestions, including a vacuum on Lowe’s email ad that came today.
these ads aren’t even funny and they weren’t back then either.
I do think it’s sad that old attitudes like this seem to be keeping some women from enjoying cooking today. I love cooking and being a stay at home mom, but that is my choice and what I dreamed of doing.
being a homemaker is honest work that I am proud to do. It is not my whole identity and it is still a valid economic option when daycare costs are incredibly high. Men can make great homemakers, too.
I was born in 1948 so I was either not born yet when these adverts were out or a a baby. I still grew up in a era when pretty and dumb (which I was back then was a sure guy getter). I am glad, now that I an 63 (and still pretty but very smart) that I have a great guy who does everything for me and a house keeper (so I don’t have to break my 10 beautiful long fingernails – LOL. I wish I had the brains back then was I was young and beautiful.
i know that these ads are very sexist, but what i really don’t like is your reaction.
please, most of these ads were made in the 1950′s, and the people who made the ads have probably already died. therefore you shouldn’t react to them so harshly.
It’s silly to think that women (and men) aren’t still prisoners of societal expectations. The really achievement is to define yourself and choose your own path. It has always been so.
What are all you women doing on this comment board? Get into the kitchen and make supper! And don’t burn the beer.
If the women today would stay at home the America would be a much better place. The only reason they go out and work is so they don’t have to take care of a husband, and so they can take care of more than one man.
Pretty good, except for propagating the “75 cent” myth as if it were gender related. Look into the facts and psychology. It is clear that the problem is with negotiation and satisfaction.
Men measure success by money and are harder negotiators. Men who don’t do well at negotiation are also making less than men who do well at it.
Reduce the whiny blame gaming and take action. Make your own way. That is independence…
I’m a woman and I’m not angry at men – I’m angry at WOMEN. Women have become 100% hypocrites. Look at how much money is spent just so a woman can look “hot”. Really? Hot? “Hot” is a term that denotes being receptive to intercourse. “Hot” used to be the goal of foreplay and the biggest complaint of women – that men don’t spend enough time using foreplay to get her “hot” before sex is initiated. No problem guys – we’ll wear things – think things – do things that puts our sexuality out on our sleeves so all you have to do is pluck the one you want to … well … it rhymes with pluck. Then we’ll complain when you don’t take us seriously and you’ll be punished for it. Yeah, if you notice those ads ARE directed toward the men and not the women. Women don’t want to another woman to tell her how to get a man they want to hear it from the men. So these days women dress in shoes and clothes that are impossible to move about in just so she will look “hot” for men and then complain that women of yesterday were soooooo stupid to let the men rule them.
Some of these ads are over the top by today’s standards, but I am more struck by the possibility that the author (Monica Bielanko) might have some serious self-esteem issues, and an axe to grind of her own. Perhaps these ads hit a little too close to home for her? For example, look at some of her comments on these ads:
“You can take your kitchen appliances and shove it, mister.”
“I’d love to show you my reaction if my husband rolled up on Christmas morning with a new vacuum for me.”
“I’d love to get the dude behind this ad in a sweaty headlock. HOW DO YOU LIKE ME NOW? HUH? THAT INDELICATE ENOUGH FOR YA?”
“I can drive a stick and my husband can’t, suckas!”
“Yeah I can open it. WHEN I CRACK IT ON YOUR SKULL.”
If Monica is married, then I certainly pity her husband if he has to deal with this kind of attitude.
The ads depicted are from an age where gender discrimination was tilted in favor of men. We now live in an age where it is tilted in favor of women.
Today’s media is just as skewed, depicting men as helpless buffoons while women save the day. Facts are irrelevant—for example, whenever you watch television today, the bad guys tend to be white while the good guys tend to be black.
In my view, women and men have always been equal, but we have different priorities in life, and we have traditionally chosen different areas of expertise. Is that such a bad thing? It is great that women have more opportunities available to them today. We should and do celebrate that. But why must we turn it into a competition? Do we really need woman boxers and truck drivers? Is it wrong to acknowledge that, in general, certain groups of people tend to be more talented in certain areas, while other groups tend to be better at other tasks?
Oh, and one more thing—the so-called “gender-related wage gap” is a myth perpetuated by feminists who want to have their cake (work fewer hours than their male counterparts) and eat it too (earn the same amount as those who log more hours and/or produce more than they do). In my 27 years in the workforce, I have never once seen a job that offered different wages for men than for women.
Well, I’ll take the anti on this. So what, that’s what sold products then. Today’s ads are mostly the same, in many cases making the man the “dumb” one. How is that better?
I’m having difficulty deciding which comment is the most astounding, MOD’s or ssarefascists’s. Both are jaw-dropping.
Sam Hill: “If the women today would stay at home the America would be a much better place. The only reason they go out and work is so they don’t have to take care of a husband, and so they can take care of more than one man.”
SH, few men do not expect their wives to work, and many men use the term “gold diggers” for women who do not financially support themselves. What would you say to those men?
I don’t understand what the issue is. It’s a different time and place. But now we have to sit through commercials that make the men, husbands look like idiots. Is that OK?
Well… Call me what you will….. I truely miss the wholesome type woman that was lost with ERA. Now women want to act like men, but expect to be treated like a lady…..That’s why Chivalry is dead!
I think we have a long way to go and it’s our fault. How many men do you know who would wear platform shoes with 4inch heels,have their chests cut open to look sexy and other other things we do in the name of retaining our youth and looking beautiful! I wear makeup and look nice but come on !
I was laughing out loud at the Hoover ad: it happened at my house when I was a kid. My Mom was P.O.! Not because my Dad EVER made her feel like her place was in the kitchen (she’s a horrible cook, and he’s a great cook, btw), or any of that. I think it was because she was always used to getting “good” gifts from my Dad. You know, like cars, coats, etc. (and we weren’t rich by any standards). He got her stuff she wanted, in other words. Honestly though, the vacuum was such an upgrade to the one we had before that MY BROTHER and I appreciated the thing more than she did. It was waaaay lighter: the previous one felt like it was made of lead.
She still talks/fumes about it, and that was a little over 30 years ago!
I was watching the Graham Norton show last weekend (Jon Hamm, Charlize Theron, Steve Coogan guests), and they actually showed the ‘Blow In Her Face’ ad! Then I saw this blog.
I’m glad that we’ve taught my daughter that she can be anything she wants to be. She’s had great female role-models, none of which are the simple, lame-o type of woman that’s being pitched to in these ads. I can’t believe these ads even worked.
One of my earliest TV memories is an ad for a hair spray. A woman Dr. just worked a 16-hour shift at the hosp, but her hair still looks great!. Even at the time, I knew there was something wrong with having to be a fashion plate no matter what.
Can’t see anything wrong here. Move along. Guys tell her you’re going out to smoke a cigar with some friends. After you kick over her ironong board.
The big thing now for liberals and attention starved media rabble rousers like the one who wrote the above article is to cry ‘sexism’ over everything.
For the past 30+ years feminsm has been the #1 cause of divorce, gender confusion and the *ucked up state of this nations soul.
You & your “type” are the whole cause of the US being in the state of turmoil it is in today! You don’t see NOTHING past your snotty nose. You need to blow the CRAP out of it, but BLOW HARD, cause it’s also DEEP in your head. You weren’t even a thought when these ads were used. What an IDIOT! You don’t have ANY “class”. I would DEFINATELY not call you a lady. You have some pretty bad psycological issues that really needs addressed! You look pretty on the outside, but there’s a whole lot of UGLY inside. If you are married, you MUST be venting out this hatred by using jokes. I’m only guessing, but you are probably a lezzie. Thats my observation. Now here’s my comment…Men are the stupidest, idiotic, dumbest fools when it comes to commercials (OR sitcoms) these days. USUALLY men are not even a part of a family in an ad or sitcom. Men cannot get a government job. You are encouraged to apply if you are a woman, handicapped, or minority, which means anyone but a MAN! You need to take your bra burning mentality and find a good life. Someone done you wrong somewhere, & I am truly sorry about that…WHAT YOU REALLY NEED IS JESUS! GET SAVED! HE’LL GIVE YOU A NEW HEART & A NEW LIFE! CALL ON HIM NOW!!! Romans 10:13 “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the LORD shall be saved”.
Oh come on people! Women’ lib did nothing but liberate men from their responsibilities. It was all about getting women out of the home and into the workforce by ripping up the security of the homemaker and no-fault divorce. There used to be hundreds of laws giving advantages and protections to women. Women actually lost rights because of women’ lib. Now if your husband divorces his wife, he is no longer required to provide her with a house to live in and support her and mothers no longer get custody of their children by default. Wake up girls!
Woah this weblog is great i like studying your posts. Stay up the good paintings! You know, lots of persons are hunting round for this info, you could help them greatly.
Its such as you read my mind! You seem to grasp so much approximately this, such as you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you could do with some percent to drive the message house a little bit, however instead of that, that is great blog. A great read. I will certainly be back.
I feel that is among the most vital information for me. And i am satisfied reading your article. But want to commentary on some common issues, The site style is wonderful, the articles is in point of fact great : D. Excellent task, cheers
You’re in point of fact a just right webmaster. The website loading pace is incredible. It kind of feels that you are doing any distinctive trick. Also, The contents are masterpiece. you’ve done a excellent task in this topic!
It is actually a great and useful piece of info. I’m glad that you just shared this helpful info with us. Please keep us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.
Gee, all so offensive. Not like the Levi’s ad right next to them discribing how women can make their butts more shapely.
God why do people get bothered by this, it’s over and done with~~
[o3o i guess i’m just one of them people who thinks one should bury the hachet]
Fantastic website. Plenty of helpful information here. I’m sending it to some pals ans also sharing in delicious. And obviously, thank you on your effort!
I’m extremely impressed together with your writing talents and also with the format on your weblog. Is that this a paid theme or did you customize it yourself? Either way keep up the excellent quality writing, it is rare to peer a nice blog like this one today..
Its sad how sexism is still aorund. I mean grow up already. One gender isn’t superior to the other. Women just can’t pee standing up and men can’t have kids. The end.
Wow. Such negative sexism. My sister, an unmarried feminist, once complained to me that there were no real men left. Real men like women. Not women trying to be men. Embrace your difference. Behind every great man there was a great woman. Men need the accolades, I guess. Great women do not.
Honestly, the Dr Pepper 10 is more sexist towards men than it is women. Women can drink any old soda they want, but men won’t drink from a can that doesn’t look like a bullet? It’s just as ridiculous and sexist as those Bic for Her pens.
I hate how sexist those ads are, but I couldn’t help laughing at the sheer ridiculousness.
Men suck.
A generalization demeaning to the male sex?
Yes.
But after all they’ve done to us, I think they deserve it.