a hairy double standard

I grew up spending summers at an overnight camp that was part of a very liberal youth movement. I had heterosexual male counselors (and later co-counselors) who owned shirts reading: "This is what a feminist looks like". So it was pretty early on that I began to question sexist cultural norms and double standards. One being hair removal. Why was I expected to have silky smooth legs and underarms while my male peers were supposed to feel pride at every new hair that sprouted on their pubescent bodies?

I've heard numerous theories over the years and I came to the conclusion that sometime in our not-so-distant past some (presumably) male decided women should be silky smooth to touch (like babies) and a new social construction was born.

Today I decided to google the issue and find a decisive answer once and for all.  Here's what I came up with:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"1914 - 1918: WORLD WAR I -
Why Women Shave Their Legs and Underarms -
We all know the power of advertising.  At the turn of the century, for example, the South African Diamond company, DeBeers, created the image that the diamond was forever and therefore would make an excellent wedding ring. (bloggers note: this is a whole other post for me!)
Another marketing campaign around this time convinced the women of North America to shave their body hair.  Notably, women in the other parts of the world do not engage on masse in this ritual.  Even in French Canada, the habit is not largely undertaken.
It all began with the May 1915 edition of Harper's Bazaar magazine that featured a model sporting the latest fashion.  She wore a sleeveless evening gown that exposed, for the first time in fashion, her bare shoulders, and armpits. (advert on right, courtesy of wikimedia)
A young marketing executive with the Wilkinson Sword Company, who also made razor blades for men, designed a campaign to convince the women of North America that:
(a)  Underarm hair was unhygienic  (b)  It was unfeminine.
In two years, the sales of razor blades doubled as our grandmothers and great grandmothers made themselves conform to this socially constructed gender stereotype.  This norm for North American women has been reinforced by several generations of daughters who role-modeled their mothers."   the source 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brilliant marketing scheme!  But if you ask me, shaving sucks. It's an environmental nightmare (all those razors and shaving cream cans), it causes hair to grow faster and thicker, and it has the potential to leave scars (I know).  Lucky for me, my parents presented twelve-year-old me (keen on shaving what little hair I had) with the alternative pictured on the right.  It was the very first epilator created by Epilady in Israel. I used to call it an electronic waxer, because twelve year olds didn't know what an epilator was, and it essentially did the same thing.

Following the death of my trusty epilady many years ago, I resorted to waxing.  I was enthused to discover a new generation of epilators several years ago, and while I still use mine (pictured left), a plethora of newer models have since been churned out. They're environmentally friendlier than waxing (or shaving), they catch even the most minuscule of hairs, and in the long-run it reduces hair and hairgrowth.
But the point of this post wasn't to market epilators (though I highly recommend them!), it was to point out the history of this highly accepted myth, the environmental damage it causes, and an alternative which lies between razors and hairy legs.