The aspect I find the most interesting about the war is the shift in the popular vision of the definition and implications of "war". As the book states, "war was seen as a test of 'manhood'" (27) and those sent to fight were viewed as heroes. The book discusses the involvement of conscription in this phenomenon as well as the ability to rationalize motivations for the fighting. I find myself wondering about the impact of changing gender roles in shifting the idea of war valor/duty. It seems as though the Victorian notions of masculinity are largely at play. The idea of the male being the guardian protector and agressor fits with the notion of war as a duty. However, since the role of women at home and in the workplace was becoming more independent, I would like to research a bit more about the possible influence on war attitudes.
Female independence and War valor
Submitted by Lauren Mitchell on Mon, 01/21/2013 - 19:24
Comments
Elizabeth Hartney
Mon, 01/21/2013 - 20:33
Permalink
I think this period of time
I think this period of time was definitely a turning point for traditional gender roles and I was definitely struck by what you said. Why is it that we always think of WWII as being the time period when women finally gained some independence when it was WWI that gave them the right to vote and the freedom to get out of the house? I had never really considered that question until I read this book.
Jeff Drouin
Mon, 01/21/2013 - 21:28
Permalink
We're going to look at gender
We're going to look at gender specifically starting next week, with Vera Brittain's accounts of being a university student and then joining the nursing corps, and how the experiences changed her. The stories she tells about her relatives' reactions to her new manners (smoking cigarettes!) are often very funny. The war posters and some of the periodical materials will deal with gender and chaning roles head on.