Tag: women in WWII

Keyword: WAR | Women in war

War is no place for women. There is too much violence and terror. Women should be protected and stay at home where it is safe, patiently waiting for men to return while taking care of the children. Except… “at home”, they are left to be raped my enemy troops, bombed by enemy planes, expelled from their houses by enemy invaders. Violence and terror are unavoidable, unless war is thousands of kilometres away. In this case, apprehension takes over and women live in constant anxiety. Better to do something. That is why they prepare the defences of the places where they live, they go to work the fields and feed themselves and their children (and also sending supplies to the troops); they replace men in factories (especially of weapons and ammunition); they take care of their husbands’ businesses; they fundraise money to send to the army. Others enlist as nurses, as spies, as members of the resistance, as code breakers, as strategists *.

War is no place for women. John Keegan, an English historian and Professor in the Military Academy, stated that “women (…) do not fight” and that “warfare (…) is an entirely masculine activity”. John Keegan forgot (or was totally unaware) about the many women who disguised themselves as men to go to (probably) all battles that were ever fought. There are some records of this, but many remain hidden in history. John Keegan also forgot (or was totally unaware) about women like Queen Boudicca, who led her people in the fight (and beating) the Romans; the emperor’s consort Lady Fu Hao, who successfully commanded an entire army and conquered many lands; Queen Nzinga Mbande, who fought (and having some success) the Portuguese colonialism; and the university student Lyudmila Pavlichenko, who is still the most accomplished female sniper (having killed 309 Nazis). This is just to name a few **. Men with John Keegan’s mentality have been doing research on history and archaeology, deliberately preventing women from contributing. So, when a DNA test was made on a Viking’s skeleton, who everyone assumed was a male warrior, and it was discovered to be a skeleton of a female warrior no one could believe it. Surprise, surprise.

War is no place for women. Nowadays, there are 11 countries in the world where military service is mandatory for women (as well as for men): Benin, Cape Verde, Eritrea, Israel, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, North Korea, Norway, Sweden, and Tunisia. Denmark will soon be part of this list. Many other countries accept women in their armed forces as volunteers. Thus, today there are many generals, military engineers, commanders of Navy ships, Army troops, and Air Force squadrons, military nurses and military doctors who are women. There are even female snipers and submarine crew female members. This time, all official and duly registered.

War is no place for women. In a conversation with the military historian Margaret MacMillan, the writer Sarah Hall realized that “women’s exclusions from armies and from institutions are commonplace, but they are also excised from historical documentation and artistic representation”. It’s as if women are not allowed to write about war, whether it’s imposed by men or self-imposed. Margaret MacMillan ignored men who were trying to belittle her and wrote many books about war. Born right after World War II, Svetlana Alexievich had heard about war since a little child. War was everywhere, but little was being said about the one million women who fought alongside men in the Soviet Army. Thus, Svetlana Alexievich, as a journalist, decided to write the book “The Unwomanly Face of War: An Oral History of Women in World War II”, a collection of stories directly told by Soviet women who fought in World War II. More recently, a former USA trooper who served in Iraq, Brian Van Reet, chose a woman to be the protagonist of his book “Spoils”, where he describes, in a fictional story, the true horror of the war.

War is no place for women. Our society still sees women as “vulnerable”, “non-violent”, and only going to war as part of the “resistance” or to carry out “auxiliary jobs”. If we look closely, the narrative about women in war is often about how they sacrifice their motherhood, leaving their children behind, and how they stop feeling “feminine” as in becoming cold with their boyfriends or husbands. Or remaining unmarried, the horror. Men also have children and also leave them behind. Men also miss their families. Men also become cold with their girlfriends or wives when they return home due to the terrible things they have witnessed. But men are heroes whereas women are not even mentioned. The job is the same, the horror is the same, the consequences are the same to both men and women. Both men and women have to learn how to kill, learn the tactics of war, learn how to work with each other to avoid dying. The training is the same. But men are seen as more capable than women, regardless of the fact that women have proven over and over again that they are perfectly able to do the same as men. On the other hand, there are also pacifists among men. When military service is mandatory, there are always many men who try to escape it. And, as you read above, when women can’t be accepted, they disguise as men to take the place of those men who are escaping it.

War is no place for women. Yeah, right.

 

* Watch the documentary “War Gamers” on how a group of women found the way to beat the U-Boot strategy, turning the tables in the Battle of the Atlantic.

** Check the extensive lists of women in ancient warfare, women in warfare (1500–1699), women in 18th-century warfare, women in warfare and the military in the 19th century, women in warfare and the military (1900–1945), women in World War I, women in World War II, women in warfare and the military (1945–1999), and women in warfare and the military (2000–present).

Also…
. Read and watch the video at the end of the page about what happened to British women during the World War I: “12 Things You Didn’t Know About Women In The First World War”

 

Keyword: WORK | The role of women in society

At some point in human history, the role of women in society became bearing children. Of course, this was disguised in many ways. For example, as the dream of every woman to marry the Prince Charming and be happily ever after (with a bunch of kids, naturally). Or as the idea that every woman’s happiest day was when they would get married and start a family (and be pregnant as often as possible). Women who wouldn’t get married were spinsters or promiscuous, the kind no man would ever want. These women would be excluded from society and duly ignored. Or made fun of, as we can read in Jane Austen’s books. Married women with no children wouldn’t have their lives easier either, as a matter of fact. They were seen as having some kind of defect. “Real” complete women were those who got married and had children. Obviously, this is wrong. Women don’t need to get married and have children to be complete. They are born complete. As do men.

Try as they may, men never fully succeeded in selling this lie to all women. Most women bought it, it’s true, and many still do nowadays. However, working women (single or married, with or without children) have always been a reality throughout history. For example, Artemisia Gentileschi (1593–1653) was a famous Renaissance painter. Maria Sibylla Merian (1647-1717) found how butterflies were born (male scientists before her thought butterflies would magically appear in nature out of nowhere). Ada Lovelace (1815-1852) was the first ever computer programmer (yes, the first programmer was a woman, not a man). Dorothy Garrod (1892-1968) was the archaeologist who found evidence of the first farming people and made other groundbreaking discoveries.

True, only women can have children, but this fact should not be a reason to restrict women to just one role in society. It should not be a reason to treat women as merchandise either, giving men the “right” to make them marry whoever they might think fit. All in the name of future heirs. Male heirs, that is. Women are much more than that. They have brains and courage and are capable of extraordinary things, whether they are allowed or not.

When World War II broke up, men were eager to join the military to fight (on both sides). At the time, men would see women as “weak” and “in need of protection”, but they didn’t have any problem leaving women alone during a very dark and dangerous time. Alone and with no livelihood resources to support themselves and their children. Plus, men left their countries without anyone to make the economy work. Thus, it is hardly surprising that women decided to step in. Many found their place in war, despite not being allowed to fight. They were nurses, spies, entertainers, translators, secretaries, code breakers, strategists. Those who were “left behind” proved they were neither defenceless nor incapable of doing a “man’s job”: they became farmers, factory workers, administrators, members of the Resistance. They kept the economy working and made sure provisions of all kinds would reach the troops in the front line. Once men were back, broken and defeated (even those on the winning side), they realized that women not only had found ways to sustain themselves and their children, but had thrived in places where only men were previously allowed. Good luck in trying to convince women to go back being just bearers of children.

Yet, men tried, even to this day. Working women are constantly seen as “bad mothers” because they supposedly neglect their children. In addition, women who wish to further their professional careers are often seen as bossy and aggressive while men are seen as ambitious and driven. Women who don’t want children are (still) seen as abnormal and those who don’t want to marry have “their priorities mixed up”. Children are presumably more important than work only to women, never to men. In interviews, actresses and female writers are much more likely to be asked about their families than actors and male writers. It’s like women couldn’t stand alone without a husband or children, while for men that is not remotely important for their professions.

Women have always been able to stand by themselves. Each year we learn more and more stories of extraordinary women who broke the mould. Since the beginning of human history, women have been mothers and wives, but also property owners, business people, queens and administrators, artists and scientists, explorers and farmers, writers and sportspeople. Women have been everywhere and they have been doing everything. There are those who are competent and those who aren’t, just like men. So, maybe those extraordinary women didn’t break the mold. Maybe there was no mold, just prejudices. Keeping women out of the labour market is as senseless as it is useless. They will always find a way to get there, not because they challenge the system, but because it’s their natural place. It takes more effort to keep them out than to embrace their input. Women can further society the same way as men, not because they are “caring” or “peacemakers”, but because they are as smart and competent as men.