Embedded Files
Volume 3 | Issue 6 - War & Peace
Article by Sarah Bramham. Edited by Kate Major. Additional Research by Ellie Veryard.
It has been argued by many that the First World War massively destabilised gender roles in Britain. Whilst men were engaged in brutal military combat their jobs back home were left vacant. This labour shortage needed to be resolved as the men’s brave work on the battlefields desperately needed to be supported by a strong home front in order to achieve victory. This provided a brilliant opportunity for women to enter the public sphere and demonstrate their patriotism. However, women’s participation in war work gave them grounds to demand equality with men and to demand public recognition. This created tension and saw the beginnings of a gender struggle. As men returned home from War, many were dismayed to find their wives were no longer the Victorian ‘angels of the house’ they had left behind. Instead, a new and independent woman had emerged. Women’s increased status as a result of their war work conflicted with men’s desire to receive celebration and recognition for their own war work. These men had expected to return from war as the masters of the women and children they had fought to protect, but for many men this was certainly not what they returned to.
Voluntary Aid Detachments (VADs) were established in 1909. Women involved with these organisations assisted professional nurses on the battlefields. Many of these women equated their service with that of male soldiers, and therefore expected similar recognition. Organisations such as the VAD witnessed the beginnings of antagonism between the sexes. The Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC), the Women’s Royal Naval Service (WRNS), and the Women’s Royal Air force (WRAF) furthered the image of female soldiers. Members wore military style uniforms and marched in parade grounds, which contributed even more to the blurring of gender lines and the shifting of the gender order as uniforms and marches provided physical symbols of women’s ‘masculinisation’.
Women in uniform provoked ideas of a sexual challenge to men and moved women from the private to the public sphere. This was unpopular and many believed women didn’t deserve recognition as soldiers as they had not experienced the ‘horrors’ of war. But, despite disapproval, what is undeniable is the fact that women entering the public sphere successfully began to dismantle the image of women as the ‘subordinate gender’.
Meanwhile, whilst women were gaining an increased status, ideals of masculinity were changing. Prior to the war, nervousness had been seen as a failure of manliness prior to the war. Men were expected be physically fit and were taught team spirit. However, the war acted as a test of manliness, and ideals of masculinity changed. Value was placed on endurance. Trauma was now a matter of emotional exploration, as opposed to something which men should seek to repress. Fear became seen as a universal experience which men were not immune to. Emotional suffering became a mark of courage, with heroic manliness being the prize for enduring such suffering. This prize counteracted the natural human urge for self-preservation. Because such importance was placed on endurance, conscientious objectors were treated especially harshly. They were condemned as they had endured little suffering to earn sympathy. Men who suffered with shell shock can be easily seen as men struggling to cope with these new values of manliness. Shell shock represented an inability to control fear and was considered a ‘hysterical’ and therefore ‘feminine’ reaction. By the end of the war, concepts of masculinity had clearly been greatly modified. There was no longer an absolute standard of manliness.
In conclusion, it is evident that women’s war work firmly established their presence in the public sphere and challenged male superiority. Women had proved their worth and highlighted that they too had qualities worthy of recognition in the public domain. Men, on the other hand, had a very different experience of war. Their repressed emotional characteristics (usually attributed to women) demanded acceptance and accommodation. Thus, it is evident that men and women’s roles were becoming more aligned. One might expect this unification to encourage some form of harmony between the sexes, but what happened was much the opposite and antagonism was the outcome. However, it should be noted that the new gender ideals encouraged by the war were not necessarily readily accepted with ease. Men who did not display emotional endurance, such as those who suffered shell shock, were still condemned as hysterical. Also, women in masculine military uniform carrying out men’s work were arguably unpopular, which highlights how uncomfortable society was with the challenge they presented to the gender order.
• Between 1914 and 1918 over 50,000 women served in the Voluntary Aid Detachment, providing assistance in battlefield hospitals due to the growing shortage of trained nurses. Founded in 1909, the VAD already had a membership eager to assist in 1914; their numbers dramatically increased as the war continued. To serve overseas, the VAD’s had to have three months nursing experience and be over 23 years old. They served as nurses, cooks and ambulance drivers.
• The Women’s Royal Auxiliary Air Force was highly popular with recruits when first launched in 1918 as part of the national war effort but was disbanded in 1920, made redundant with the onset of peace. Many recruits to the WRAF, had previously served in the Women’s Royal Navy Service, founded in 1917.
• The Women’s Royal Navy Service, or WRENS, served in the war effort in a range of roles from cooks to electricians, weapons analysts to radar assessors to much more. Like the WRAF, it too was disbanded in peacetime, surviving only until 1919.
• Over 57,000 women served in the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps between 1917 and 1918.
Report abuse