What pushes a woman to take a stand against something when
she hasn’t defined herself as an activist in the past? In the 60s and 70s women
were pushed by the need to protect their children and families from nuclear
attack and the dangers of the Vietnam War. During a time when a nuclear attack
from the Soviets was looming over the head of Americans, many began to fight
against the testing of nuclear weapons from both sides and wanted a ban on
tests from both sides. Women previously hadn’t become involved in protests
unless they self-identified as a feminist and many of the women protesting the
dangers of the Cold War did not, which left a void for their voices to be
heard. To create effective social change, women needed to create an identity
that would be respected in society. While reading Women Strike for Peace by Amy Swerdlow, I was immediately struck
how the women of the movement chose to define themselves. In a time where women
were not typically seen as having a place in the public sphere of politics,
domesticity and stay at home mothers were still the expected roles society had
for women, but the women of WSP used their status as mothers to create space
for their voices to be heard politically. This was originally mind blowing to
me because it seems absolutely backwards and I struggled to grasp how the
movement was able to be successful using this strategy.
The example in the text that illustrated the women’s
motherhood image clearly for me was when the women were called into the House
of Un-American Activities Committee for suspected communist infiltrations.
Before the trials even began the WSP effectively used the media to shed
positive light on their movement and dampened the HUAC’s image, which in turn
shifted the power away from the HUAC. “The WSP show that HUAC did not
demoralize the movement. In fact, it strengthened WSP and increased the number
of adherents and financial supporters” (Swerdlow, Women Strike for Peace, 106). The WSP turned this potentially
damaging event to spread their movement and explain themselves. Besides
spreading their movement, the HUAC also allowed the women of WSP to showcase
their identities as mothers. While testifying Blanche Posner declared ‘“This
movement was inspired and motivated by mothers love for children…”’ (Swerdlow, Women Strike for Peace, 111). Women even
brought their children into the court putting their motherhood platform front
and center. Being a mother was the only identifier that these women clung to so
they could claim respectable political space.
Women were accepting that they were only mothers because it
created a new acceptable space for them to present their ideas and concerns
politically as long as it was framed as a concern for their only job in the
world: protecting their families. The
women’s arguments were made valid because they were protecting children and
husbands (specifically from the violence and detrimental effects of nuclear
attacks, tests, and war), as were their role as prescribed by societal norms.
Both in the introduction and conclusion, Swerdlow refers to the members of WSP
as “ordinary,” when in fact, these women were far from falling into such a
category. WSP used their motherhood to hide that they were forcing their way
into the role of activists to fight for the peace they believed in. They were
able to gain momentum and national attention by highlighting their womanly
aspects. This served as a protection of sorts because women at the time
certainly couldn’t be seen behind major social change. This movement brought new
questions to the table for women who wanted to become politically active. Can a
mother be a feminist as well if she is playing into typical gender roles? If
the women of the WSP were not supported by their affluent husbands to travel to
international meetings and demonstrations, would the movement have been as
successful? While I wouldn’t necessarily classify the women of the WSP as
feminist, I would say that they evolved from being only mothers into successful
and strong activists. The women knew how to use part of their identities to
make their voices heard but they were also effective at writing legislation
that was passed and helped many men out of the draft when their attention
shifted to the Vietnam War. I am left wondering if the women did not
self-identify as mothers or feminist, would they have been able to have claimed
space as just activist fighting against violence?
Well Babbeh, I'll tell ya hwat, I herd sum gfud thangs bout dat gere batd gum gurl Varlies Solansis. I hewrasrd that she went and dad gum all overt MC hammer and his 4chan party wagon
ReplyDeleteThe point you make regarding women of WSP as self-defining through their motherhood is something that definitely works through the whole book. In terms of the question that you pose, Can a mother be a feminist if she is playing into typical gender roles?, I think that we also need to think about this self-defining ability. Swerdlow describes that the women of WSP did not have the language to be able to speak about their experiences in terms of oppression and liberation, so it is my thought that the women did the best they could with what they did know - they could not name structures of sexism, racism, and classism directly, but they knew that decisions made by men negatively effected themselves and their children. I think that these women were able to define themselves and their needs, which at the time were peace and safety, and in doing so also defined what feminism meant for them. While it might not be the idea of feminism that other women of the time period held on to or the idea of feminism that we hold on to today, it was their idea of feminism (even if they might not have used the word).
ReplyDelete