Gender History - Coursework Example

Gender History War has been the significant aspect of human life and human civilization. It cannot be limited just to the political affair. The war stirs the social life of the ordinary people, their day today lives and their principles and attitudes towards life. The people couldn’t think about their lives on personal level and any single personal matter related to their lives became the matter of nationality. The nationality and the patriotism of the individual are judged basically by gender. During the Second World War the parameters for being a masculine figure the men were supposed to be the active participants in the battlefield while for a woman it is important to be chaste and moral to prove that she is a good citizen. The benchmark of patriotism is thus based on the gender of the individual. Here we are going to focus on the same gender construction of the Second World War especially in Britain. Same issue is discussed by Prof. Sonya Rose in her book “Which People’s War.” Here we are going to discuss the points which are related to the gender construction during the Second World War. Keywords: War, Gender Construction, patriotism, citizenship. Gender construction and War All wars which occurred in the history are mainly fought by the men and there are very exceptional cases where women have taken part on actual battlefield right from the mythological war to the modern war. It is generally anticipated that only men are eligible to serve as a soldiers because of their physical strength they have got by nature. Rather the masculinity of any man is judged by his willingness to fight. Of course it doesn’t mean that the women had never participated in the war actively. Some exceptional cases of course are there like Saint Joan or Rani of Jhansi etc. But these women have comprised only 1% and the rest of the women have denied for this work. Generally men and women are socialized to play their role according to their gender. Their minds are culturally prepared accordingly. Hence gender has always been the important and unavoidable matter in the war. Men are given the status of heroes and are always anticipated as the subject while the women are always taken for granted as a fragile creature and they are subject to be raped during the war time. Generally war time work used to be divided on the basis of gender. Janet Lee in her book “War Girl”states, “Women’s entry into this masculine space of war in any role other than that of nurse, that submissive angel of mercy, threatened the foundation of wartime gender construction with its division into masculine military forces and feminine home front.”[1] Interracial sex during the war: During the war time one of the things was supposed to be the blatant to the femininity and that was some British women used to keep the sexual relationship with the American soldiers who used to be the Negroes. The British women and girls were involved in immoral sex with the Americans is defined by Sonya Rose with one fine example when she quotes, “Two of the officers suddenly flashed their torches into the road. There stood a girl and a Negro with their arms round each other. Titters and subdued American voices came from the outer side of the road where the Lorries were drawn up. Girls were inside one of the Lorries with the men. As the engine was being started the girls got out. The lorry moved slowly away and in the darkness of the night a female voice cried out, ‘Good night my darkie boy. I’ll see you at eight tomorrow night.’ The girl and one of her friends then walked a few yards and joined men who were going by another lorry. Footnote: [1] War Girls, by Janet Lee, Published by Manchester University Press, 2005, page 54 Men’s and women’s voices came from neighbouring doorways. Once when an officer flashed his lamp I saw two negroes and two girls in fond embraces.” [2] here again the racial differences were connected with the sexual habit and it was anticipated that the black men were less self controlled as far as sexual behaviour is concerned and they were supposed to be very immature and childlike while involving in sex activity. The morals of the British women became the hot subject for discussion during war. Many scholars have propounded that the sexual morality had been the crucial to demarcate the boundaries of the nation. While commenting on sexuality and nationalism George Mosse said “The control of sexual desire, deeply constitutive of bourgeois notions of respectability, was integral to developing nationalism.” [3] Many girls and young women during the war continued to have sexual pleasures with the soldiers. The morals of the women were the burning topic in Britain during the Second World War and the concern about the morality of the young women and girls. The cautionary morality tales were published in newspapers throughout the newspapers which would focus on the moral purity. Thus the concept of ideal citizenship was directly linked with the morality and purity especially of the young women. This rule of course was not applicable for the men. Here Rose writes, “It simultaneously incorporated virtuous women and all men as comrades in struggle.”[4] Footnotes: [2] the series of letters has been reprinted in part and discussed by Elbert L. Harris, ‘Social activities of the Negro Soldier in England,’ Negro History Bulletin 11/7 (April 1948) 153-6) [3] George Moss, Nationalism and Sexuality. Middle Class Morality and Sexual Norms in Modern Europe, Maddison: University of Wisconsin Press 1985) [4]“Which People’s War, Sonya Rose Page 91, 92,) The morality and purity of the women were being connected with the virtuous nation and these girls with loose characters would be considered as the danger to the virtuous nation. The activities of seeking sexual pleasure illicitly were supposed to be the villainous activity and a hindrance in establishing a strong and virtuous nation. Here Rose uses the term “Libidinal Femininity.”[5] Rose further described about the connection of citizenship with that of chastity and morality. The women who are engaged in the sexual activities were debarred from the citizenship. The girls and the women exposing libidinal femininity were rebuked as ‘failed citizens.’ And their actions would be supposed as an anti-citizen activities. Thus during the Second World War the young women and the Jews were supposed to be disloyal to the nation and the Jews would be regarded as “un-English,” or “un-British.” There are different obligations involved as far as citizenship of women was concerned. Though women had all the formal rights of citizen as those of men, actually the political rights were disadvantageous to them as compared to men. They were denied some major political and social privileges. They were given lower wages as compared to men. They were also treated subordinate as far as property right was concerned. They were always under the hanging sword of loss of British nationality. During War time the British women were also suffering from the restricted employment opportunities. When the war started the responsibilities of the citizens were divided on the basis of gender. Footnote: [5] “Which Rose Sonya People’s War, Page, 92, In this context Angela Wollacott uses the term ‘patriotic involvement’ could also result in the blurring of gendered responsibilities [6] Concept of masculinity: During the wartime the masculinity and good citizenship were closely connected with each other. The traditional idea of masculinity affected many people during the war. Masculinity was based on the willingness or actual participation in war. Those were considered the real men who would actually go on the battlefields. In reality the society is built by individuals. Some of them who wanted to be the soldiers for proving their masculinity but some of the men had different ideas about the masculinity. Sonya Rose has focused on the various ways men participated in the war. They would do their day time job as well as they would work as the volunteers for wartime organizations such as Home Guard or air raid warden. “The gender is gendered linguistically, although its gendering is unstable. As a ‘homeland’, as a space of belonging, the nation can either be masculine or feminine – fatherland or motherland.” [7] When the question of citizenship and gender arouse women were given very humiliating status by not considering as the full citizens of the nation state. They had been regarded as inappropriate and ineligible to enjoy the rights of full citizenship and the contradiction is that at the same time the nation is always symbolized as a female image when we say our nation as a “motherland.” Women have always taken for granted as the mothers and sources of reproduction rather than the active participants in the wartime deeds. [6]“Women Munitions Makers, War and Citizenship, September 1999, Page 373, [7]Historicizing National Identity or who imagines what and when’, in G Eley and R.G. Sunny [eds], becoming national [New York1996] pg. 167 But women were able to take the responsibilities of the job which were traditionally regarded as the masculine jobs. Amy Wharton in her book “The Sociology of Gender” writes, “Historical research on the second World War , for example, shows that when men were unavailable, women filled many jobs that were performed almost exclusively by men prior to war.” [8] “The awareness that constructions of masculinity and femininity signify and articulate various power relations has also influenced historical analysis of gendered subjectivity. It has further strengthened the argument that the relation between discourses of masculinity and femininity and ‘real men and women’ is always mediated.”[9] Author Sonya Rose in her book “Which People’s War” describes how the national belonging, or British national identity, was anticipated in the public culture of the World War II home front. Who was included as British, how did the British describe themselves as a singular people, and what were the consequences of those depictions? This book depicts the notions of Britishness and belonging, and her six ornately meticulous and thematic main chapters investigate how understandings of class, gender, ethnicity, race, geography, and empire contributed to the making of a national identity during wartime. [8] Wharton Amy, “The Sociology of Gender” Published by Blackwell Publishing, 2004, pg 167 [9] (Dudink Stefan, Hagemann Karen, “Masculinities in Politics and War” Published by Manchester University Press, 2004, Pg xv) Conclusion: Sonya Rose has depicted a stunning picture of the gender discrimination during the war. She has also revealed the misconceptions of the patriotism and citizenship. The personal life of the individual was completely in the hands of the society and the patriotism was based on his attitude towards his own life and not by the work he or she did. The attitude towards women was very conventional. This is perhaps because of her traditional image of being pacifist and physically subordinate to those of the men. As Gill Plain described, “Woman has been appropriated as a symbol of peace and domesticity, a repository of the values that must be left at home in the heat of battle, and she has constituted as the object of battle.”[10] Modern world is the world of equality and so it is the time for every nation to think what it can do to eliminate the barriers on women and to motivate them to take active part on actual combat. As a human being if they wish they should have the right to play the active role in defending their nation. [10] Plain Gill, “Womens Fiction of the Second World War,” Published by Edinburgh University Press, 1996, pg ix Sources: 1. Rose Sonya “Which People’s War”, Published by Oxford University Press, 2003 2. Lee Janet, “War Girls,” Published by Manchester University Press, 2005, 3. the series of letters has been reprinted in part and discussed by Elbert L. Harris, ‘Social activities of the Negro Soldier in England,’ Negro History Bulletin 11/7 (April 1948) 153-6) 4. George Moss, Nationalism and Sexuality. Middle Class Morality and Sexual Norms in Modern Europe, Maddison: University of Wisconsin Press 1985) 5. Women Munitions Makers, War and Citizenship, September 1999, Page 373, 6. Historicizing National Identity or who imagines what and when’, in G Eley and R.G. Sunny [eds], becoming national [New York1996] pg. 167 7. (Dudink Stefan, Hagemann Karen, “Masculinities in Politics and War” Published by Manchester University Press, 2004, 8. Plain Gill, “Womens Fiction of the Second World War,” Published by Edinburgh University Press, 1996, pg ix 9. Wharton Amy, “The Sociology of Gender” Published by Blackwell Publishing, 2004 Read More