1 Special Topic:Gender Roles in Wartime and Peacetime 1840:485/585:802 Spring Semester 2008 Paula Maggio Assistant Lecturer Women’s Studies Program The University of Akron Akron, Ohio Sources: William Broyles Jr., "Why Men Love War," (1-10) Barbara Ehrenreich, “Men Hate War Too,” (118-122) Matthew Evangelista, “Rough-and-Tumble World: Men Writing about Gender and War,” (327-334) Jean Bethke Elshtain, “Women: The Ferocious Few/The Noncombatant Many,” (163180) Jean Bethke Elshtain, “Men: The Militant Many/The Pacific Few,” (194-205) Joshua S Goldstein, Chapter One, War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa, (1-59) Summary of the readings: In these readings, we see a diversity of opinion about men’s and women’s role in war Broyles tells us men love war – while also hating it And he says men love it for a variety of reasons – romance, martyrdom, lust, hysteria Men, he says, find war a unique experience set apart from all others that gives them entry into a special fraternity of warriors Ehrenreich disputes Broyles’ notion that men love war, while arguing against Francis Fukuyama’s idea that men are genetically predisposed to aggression She argues that governments have to manipulate men into signing up for war and that once they so, they must undergo rigorous training in order to kill Even then, she says, “few men can bring themselves to shoot directly at individual enemies” (119) Meanwhile, Elshtain agrees with the idea that war – by binding people together in a common cause – is more interesting than peace, that it enthralls in a way that peace does not (166) And she sets up the binary division between men and women during war the idea of the Just Warrior and the Beautiful Soul She describes the various roles that both men and women play during wartime For men, those roles are the Militant Many, the Pacifist Few, and the Compassionate Warrior War and the battlefront belong to men, and in war, women appear as part of the backdrop “Men are the historic authors of organized violence,” Elshtain says (164) Women play the opposite roles: the Ferocious Few, the Noncombatant Many, and the Aggressive Mother (192-3) Home and the homefront, including babies, are woman’s territory Men may lead the government and own the homes, but women are responsible for the caretaking and nurturing that makes a house a home So at home, men appear as the backdrop While men describe and define war, women, who are affected by it, react (164) Men in modern war: Protect, defend, engage in acts of daring Act out of duty Men’s actions result in honor, glory, and tales of courage Men’s violence is moralized as a structured activity – war—and is depersonalized and Women in modern war: Designated non-combatants because they have babies Are removed from the circle immediately surrounding war – they are no longer direct spectators, praise bestowers, and wound tenders (183) But are still central to the war effort as they take over work men used to (Although in the US, out of 10 mothers with children under were not in the labor force during WWII) and provide wartime mobilization within the home – rationing, canning, learning new ways to cook, finding substitutes for meat, gardening, making Engage in defensive acts of protection Are non-heroic: They take care of things at home and the soldier at the front Are wives, sweethearts, mothers, sisters Women’s violence during war is outside of the political system, since they are not a part of the war system Female violence is seen as over-personalized and vindictive Female group violence is formless, the act of an out-of-control mob that is usually of lower-class composition (168) Does not become part of the national narrative (170) Exceptions: o French Resistance fighters, women who led partisan units into battle, women who fought in the streets with men during the liberation of Paris (although the professional French army never accepted women as equals) (177) o Soviet women, who formed the only regular female combat forces during the war, served as snipers, machinegunners, artillery women, and tank women At their peak in late 1943, 800K to million women served, which was percent of total military personnel (178) Elshtain also compares The Good Soldier to The Good Mother (221-225): Both are profoundly reshaped by their experiences Both care about another Both protect and defend The lives of both are defined by physicality Both are attuned to sounds: whimper, cry scream/ whine, hiss, explosion Both are involved with a force greater than themselves Goldstein uses evidence from a variety of disciplines to argue that the presence of war was at least sporadic throughout all periods of prehistory (26) and even peaceful societies hold a latent potential for war (32) Within current historical and political study of war and peace, gender is usually ignored (34) In contrast, the field of anthropology gives gender study serious attention He concludes, however, that war is a deeply rooted part of the human experience and that gendered war roles are permanent, not temporary They are permanent so that society can be ready for the possibility of war Within feminist theory, there are three main strands regarding war (39): Liberal feminism: says discrimination is sexist and women can be capable warriors Difference feminism: says there are deep-rooted and partly biological gender differences Postmodern feminism: says there are arbitrary cultural constructions favoring those men in power