Powerful/Pushover: Femininity and roles in WSP and anti-draft housewives

It is an essential theme to the story of Women Strike for Peace that women embraced the role of motherhood. In order to be affective activists, they drew upon the position of mothers as wardens of the family to oppose health issues from nuclear warfare for the sake of their children, and opposed the draft for the sake of their sons and husbands. While reaffirming their status as wives and mothers, women also embraced their femininity and class status to reap the benefits of being treated as delicate, proper females.

One such example is in the women’s anti-draft activity. In chapter eight, Swerdlow describes women sitting in offices of men they had counseled because they were well aware that their presence as “respectable mothers” would help their cause. The idea of “respectability” at the time presumably connotes white upper/middle class housewifery to the exclusion of non-white women. In this, WSP enacted a relatively reformist movement that allowed them to take advantage of stereotypes and status quo ideas about womanhood.

For example, outside the white house in 1964, women were confronted by police relatively non-violently while the two men:

“…who had spoken at the rally and who had joined the women in the march were treated much more severely than were the WSP women. They were dragged on the pavement, beaten, and arrested. This only confirmed the women in their belief that middle-aged, middle-class mothers could get away with more militancy than young men and that WSP had to do even more to aid the resistance” (179).

In such circumstances, women benefitted from the oppressive view of women as fragile and passive, and were able to use it to their advantage in making a highly public scene. In the media criticism that followed this event, the national mainstream perception of the WSP’s behavior becomes clear. Newspapers wagged their fingers at women received for being too brash and not obedient enough to police demands. Swerdlow explains that “the unladylike confrontation with the police at the White House contradicted the image WSP had nurtured carefully for close to six years” (180). Their important and sought after image of mainstream, respectable, feminine housewives resonated with the country.

Despite Swerdlow’s summary of the reaction to their actions, It is not entirely clear within her text how consciously or not women preferred relatively reformist behavior. Such behavior is apparent in their emphasis on opposing war-mongering decisions made by men in government without opposing the power structure that encourages such violent and imperialistic activity. If they are not aware, I am not attempting to downplay the importance and value of their activism simply because it does not fit within modern objectives of progressive Western feminism.  In addition, their outspoken and persistent behavior certainly was not “ladylike,” but their concern over their image reflects their understanding that maintain feminine symbolism would help them. In addition, in her conclusion, Swerdlow addresses that the WSP, “…carried with it the heavy baggage of the political repression, , cultural conformity, and antifeminism that marked the Cold War consensus of the 1950s” (233). Acting within the means of their timeframe, women exhibited leanings toward radicalism in their non-exclusionary, local, non-hierarchical, female-dominated structure. Radicalism in terms of breaking free of assigned gender roles (or at least having the option) did not exist because they were unwilling, uninspired unaware or unable to incorporate it into effective activism tactics.

           

I am not attempting to scorn women who chose not to give up their roles as housewives or break from the bonds of femininity and class status required for societal respect, but I am attempting to understand the potential consequences (positive or negative) of doing so. Many may attest that without their upholding of many traditional values, they would not have garnered any support from mainstream women, the media, or been able to avoid more serious political and congressional reprimand (e.g: anti-draft DC protest, HUAC hearings, etc.). This was essential to their success, but a potential negative consequence that I see in their home lives is the inability of some women to have a choice in their role at home. It serves an example of female oppression, but also as an interesting manifestation of the very values that inspired women to join WSP.

Women were encouraged by traditional societal norms and persuasions to act as good, reliable and happy (and perhaps dainty) housewives, which empowered their role as a warden or protector of a household. This reinforces stereotypes about gender roles, and that women are seen as naturally inclined to protect nature, children and the Earth. However, the socially accepted role of mother that includes this idea gave them the to be seen as exemplary women making decisions for their family’s well being. The role of protector, however, also illustrates how women put immense energy into anti-draft activity that was all focused on the well being of men and not necessarily themselves. Even in this service of men, women still received resistance at home.

Much like the experiences of women in Common Sense and a Little Fire, expectations from the family can be a source of stress and tension for active women. Swerdlow describes many husbands as supportive of the cause and of their wives as political “surrogates,” especially because they felt less capable of accessing their political voice for fear of their jobs (185). Even these men, the ones allied with female activism, voiced concerns and distress over not having dinner ready, steady companionship, and an upkept home. Ultimately, Swerdlow says, men and families were anxious for the activism to end. Women had to devote energy to their WSP cause, caring for their families, and dealing emotionally with resistance from home.

Though Swerdow contends that lack of support from families did not curtail her own involvement or that of other prominent figures, the resistance still shows that women were still not acting within their intended roles.

In her conclusion of the chapter, Swerdlow resolves that when women are involved with and leading a struggle-ridden movement, they begin to understand their lack of personal and political power and begin to question it. In this, the lack of awareness or concern that women feel over their assigned role and place in society will only appear as a pressing issue once traditional courses of action have created obstacles.

The WSP women bore the burdens of accomplishing great tasks while never rejecting their role of housewives. By embracing the role, they garnered support from less-politically inclined women that may otherwise have not experienced the empowering struggle of power-relations and role-frustration. Whether intentional or not, the use of mainstream motherhood and the lack of rejection of traditional roles and femininity may have ultimately lead more women to join the cause of their own rights, and potentially promote further action.