War
often plays a tremendous part in the transformation of gender roles, not only
on a military front but also on the civilian side. The wars of the 20th
century revolutionized the roles that women were to have in society; these wars
were a considerable element in the advancement of women’s rights in America.
World War II especially changed the way that women functioned in a wartime and
postwar environment. The period after World War II would continue to redefine
the way women were perceived in the military, in the workplace, and in the
political arena and would lay the groundwork for the furthering of women’s
rights in the decades to follow.
In the early 19th century,
the few women that did work outside the home were often employed in domestic
jobs, such as housekeepers, maids, and cooks. In the late 19th
century, some women were often forced to seek employment in the advancing
industrial age, but at lower wages and sometimes worse conditions than men. Women
continued on in this way until the start of World War I, when they took a more
active part in the military and in the workforce to replace the men away at war1.
During World War I, women played a large part in replacing men in their
abandoned jobs, filling positions in the railroads, machine shops, steel mills,
ammunition factories and airplane factories, as well less industrial jobs at
hotels, theaters and banks. In the military, women often worked as nurses.
After the war ended women were quickly replaced in the jobs by men as they
transitioned back to the home, although some women did remain in the work
force. The tremendous effort made by women during World War I was not completely
overlooked, however. Women’s effort in the war was rewarded with the 19th
Amendment, ratified in 1920 – women were now finally given the right to vote.
In the years heading into World War
II, women were once again mainly in the home, taking care of their families.
Although more than pre-World War I, women were still a minimal part of
America’s workforce and those in the workforce only did so out of necessity.
The 19th century belief that women were not capable of dealing with
the tough world outside their homes because they were sensitive and fragile was
still a commonly held belief2. As jobs became vacated by men going
off to war, women once again rose to the occasion, some taking jobs in heavy
industry while others signed up to join the military. These women did so often
under threats of divorce and disownment by family – mail read by censors during
this period to various female relatives threatened them with these two actions
if they were to enter the military or go into the workforce3. Susan
B. Anthony II wrote during the war that “the conditions of war are definitely
pulling women out of the house into the world. The peace must not push them
back into the house unless they wish to go there”4.
As women entered the industrial
workforce in massive numbers, they came to the attention of the unions in their
various fields. Before the war, the unions, such as CIO, paid minimal attention
to the needs and concerns of women in industry but as their numbers swelled, it
became impossible to completely ignore them. Overall, the number of female
union membership quadrupled during the war years5. UE & UAW
hired more female staff than ever before and encouraged female union members to
seek positions in leadership. UE President Fitzgerald pushed for women to
strive for leadership, noting that, “Unless we develop the proper leadership,
unless we encourage women to take an active part in the affairs of our
organization, the men of this union are going to find themselves in a position
where the structure of the union will be weakened”6. However, even
as women were urged into leadership positions and began taking a larger part in
voicing their concerns, there was still a sexual division among the union
staff. On one occasion, female members were even required to cook and serve
dinner for the male members after a union meeting7. Concerns of
female union members that were considered female concerns were also largely
ignored; women were welcome to be a part of the union but they had to accept
the terms previously defined by men. The union was more concerned with keeping
male union members interested in union activities and dealing with their
concerns first, as James Burswald, of Local 329, stated, “Our first interest is
interesting male members in union activity since women very likely will not be
employed in our shop after the war”8. This became increasingly true
as the war came to a close and a ‘normal’ workforce was reestablished; women
were no longer pushed to seek higher, leadership positions in the union and
women’s power in the union quickly eroded.
When
these women reentered the workforce, it was understood that the jobs they were
filling during war time were only temporary positions because of the scarcity
of employable men. The women fully intended to return to their homes, husbands
and housework once the war was over but experience and economic reasons would
begin to change their minds. When polled, 2/3 of employed women said that they
intended to continue to work or seek employment after the war9. In
an effort to help get women back to their place in the family, many services
offered during the war became unavailable to women after the war. Childcare
centers opened during World War II that allowed mothers to work began to shut
down immediately after VJ day; working mothers would not see this kind of assistance
again until the 1960s10. Women were considered essential to family
survival and stability even by the government and although democracy, in
contrast to patriarchy, within the family was a positive, this was not meant to
say that the sexes were equal in a cultural aspect. Even educated women working
as professionals in sociology and family believed that once married, a woman’s
place was at the home because marriage and a career were incompatible. All of
this made it difficult for women to challenge these social inequities without
appearing seditious. Although working class women’s organizations would try to
oppose this, their common sense, matter of fact messages did not stand a chance
against family and child professionals11.
Advertisers
also took an active role in persuading women that their job was keeping a home.
These advertisers encouraged ‘dreaming’ by both men and women – dreaming of a
new home, with modern appliances and other simple luxuries that they could
have. This plan would eventually backfire because, after a rest period
immediately following the war, these women would reenter the workforce because
they wanted to maintain a standard of living that one income would not always
support12.
As
the war in Europe ended, American women workers began to immediately feel the
effects. The number of women employed after VE Day decreased by four million,
from 19,500,000 to 15,500,000. However, the men employed in the factories used
for essential war needs were also losing employment, although in smaller
numbers13. Millions of women were now not only unemployed but
widowers as well and found it hard to cope with raising children and making
ends meet. These women struggled to pay the bills and were often forced to
return to live with parents, grandparents or find roommates. Other women eager
to work were turned away by former employers Nona Pool wanted to continue her
work as a welder but was turned away when the guy said, “Oh, I wouldn’t doubt
that you’re a good welder, but we don’t have the facilities for women”14.
Other women, like Ottilie Gattuss even wrote to President Truman saying, “I
happen to be a widow with a mother and a son to support… I would like to know
why, after serving a company in good faith for almost three-and-a-half years,
it is now impossible to obtain employment with them. I am a lather hand and was
classified as skilled labour, but simply because I happen to be a woman, I am
not wanted”15. Women discharged from military service arriving home
suffered similar problems; having learned specialized skills but no longer
employed by the government, they were forced to accept menial jobs below their
skill level if they were single. If they had a family, they were “supposed to
take up with the dishes and dusting right where she left off”16.
Women
were not entirely barred from the workforce, though. The ones that managed to
stay employed moved from industrial jobs to more white collar jobs. Women would
begin to take over office jobs that were once considered men’s jobs. Women were
also employed in the FBI for similar tasks, at an increase of five times the
previous total. The former Rosie the Riveter transformed herself into Wendy the
White Collar Worker17.
Politically,
women did not pursue the possibilities that came after the war. Women were not
supposed to show anger in public and this would handicap their effectiveness in
the political arena. However, women were often put in charge of working for
peace postwar because it was her duty to do so and women were suited to the
task18.
Because
of the war, women learned that they could do things that they had never
considered and work in jobs that they would have thought impossible to do. They
learned things about their own capabilities and their importance; they earned
medals for bravery, suffered from ridicule, and acquired important skills. They
had been called by their government and they did not fail. The new self-image
of these women whether they returned home or continued on in the workforce laid
the foundations for the women’s liberation movements of the 1960s and helped
the women of today reach even higher positions than ever before.
Notes
1.
Doris Weatherford, American
Women and World War II, (Oxford: Facts on File, Inc, 1990), 308.
2.
Brenda Lewis, Women at War:
The Women of World War II - At Home, at Work, on the Front Line,
(London: Amber Book, 2002), 21.
3.
Ibid., 22.
4.
Susan B. Anthony II, "Out of the
Kitchen - Into the War," American Women in a World at War, ed. Judy Barrett
Litoff and David C. Smith (Plymouth: SR Books, 1997), 217.
5. Ruth Milkman,
"American Women and Industrial Unionism during World War II," Behind
the Lines: Gender and the Two World Wars. Edited by Margaret Randolph
Higonnet, Jane Jenson, Sonya Michel and Margaret Collins Weitz. (London: Yale
University Press, 1987). 168.
6.
Ibid., 173.
7.
Ibid., 172-175.
8.
Ibid., 176.
9.
Doris Weatherford, American
Women and World War II, 307.
10. Sonya Michel,
"American Women and the Discourse of the Democratic Family in World War
II," Behind the Lines: Gender and the Two World Wars. Edited by
Margaret Randolph Higonnet, Jane Jenson, Sonya Michel and Margaret Collins
Weitz. (London: Yale University Press, 1987). 154.
11. Ibid.,
155-157.
12. Doris
Weatherford, American
Women and World War II, 312.
13. Ibid.,
307.
14. Brenda
Lewis, Women
at War: The Women of World War II - At Home, at Work, on the Front Line,
248.
15. Ibid.,
248.
16. Doris
Weatherford, American
Women and World War II, 111.
17. Ibid.,
108.
18. Ibid.,
315-316.
References
Anthony
II, Susan B. Out
of the Kitchen - Into the War. American Women in a World at War. Edited by Judy
Barrett Litoff and David C. Smith. Plymouth: SR Books, 1997.
Lewis,
Brenda. Women
at War: The Women of World War II - At Home, at Work, on the Front Line.
London: Amber Book, 2002.
Michel, Sonya. American Women and
the Discourse of the Democratic Family in World War II. Behind the
Lines: Gender and the Two World Wars. Edited by Margaret Randolph Higonnet,
Jane Jenson, Sonya Michel and Margaret Collins Weitz. London:
Yale University Press, 1987.
Milkman, Ruth. American Women and
Industrial Unionism during World War II. Behind the Lines: Gender and
the Two World Wars. Edited by Margaret Randolph Higonnet, Jane Jenson,
Sonya Michel and Margaret Collins Weitz. London: Yale
University Press, 1987.
Weatherford,
Doris. American
Women and World War II. Oxford: Facts on File, Inc, 1990.
No comments:
Post a Comment