As a historical movement, Women’s
Strike for Peace (WSP) not only left an impact on how it shaped national
conceptions of peace, but how those involved utilized non-traditional tactics
to gain strength as an organization. Although structure-less, WSPers developed
a strategized method, acknowledging the male privilege, utilizing a feminine
rhetoric, in order to engage an audience on a more personal level. Their
dedication and philosophy of personal in political was exemplified throughout
their arguments captivating a larger following and audience. Taking an approach
of strategic essentialism, WSP maneuvered themselves in the public sphere to
gain power as a social movement.
Strategic
essentialism is a technique where minority groups, that have been constructed
as inferior due to social ideologies, utilize the characteristics they have
been identified as in order to enhance themselves publically. This is an
intelligent method to manipulate what is traditionally thought of a social
group in order to make progress or to gain powers. As women have been
characterized as the weaker sex, due to biological attributes, the women of WSP
decided to use feminized and maternal rhetoric to establish interest in a
political realm.
As
many of the women of WSP were mothers, they believed it would be more effective
to stand on their experiences as mothers in order to gain political power and
influence. By connecting the responsibilities of motherhood to political rights
they fought for the protection of their children and for the children of the
future. Because of their maternal role, what male could argue that the WSPers
don’t understand their own biological instinct? By working around the boundaries
of head political counterparts, as they knowingly knew as women they would have
very limited chance of being in a position, they worked around them as
separatists, rallying women across the country to create a larger voice.
WSPers
used maternal rhetoric such as protecting “our husbands, sons, and brothers,”
rather than saying “men” in order to create a maternal connection to those in
war. Whether it was to argue how those in war were self-sacrificing or unable
to receive an education, WSPers fought to show how there are better ways to
resolve conflict than violence, by connecting it to the future of the country.
By fighting to end the draft, the men would be offered the opportunity to
receive an education strengthening the country’s decisions as a whole in a more
morale way in terms of resolving future issues of conflict.
Considered
very radical in their time, as they had to be in order for their voice to be
heard on a national and political level, WSPers reached out to women all across
the country and even went internationally in order to understand the effects of
war first-hand. Starting off as a letter writing campaign to
Radical is such a broad term, yet it is almost vague at times. What is considered "radical"? Is it what we consider outside our social norms? Is it a form of extremest thought that is considered absurd? I can't say for sure, but it's definitely something to ponder.
ReplyDeleteWhile the use of maternal rhetoric is a valid tactic when executed properly, it is often so-overused that it sometimes flops if it's the sole point of a movement. Is the symbol of motherly figures the main point that drives the WSP, or is maternal rhetoric just another nail hammered into the coffin of warmongers?
And lastly, while it is understandable that mothers did not want to see their sons go off to war and most likely die, why did the women of the WSP care about anybody but their own families? Selflessness is difficult quality to come across, so this is almost surprising to see in a movement
It is interesting that through their strategic essentialism they were considered radical. What is radical is defined by norms and regulation. While women are maternal, they also are meant to stay out of the political realm. When they used they maternal perspective to interject into male politics, they became radical. It became radical to care about peace and to want to protect human life.
ReplyDeleteThe interesting thing about this movement is that it was a specific class of women who had specific role as mothers. During this era there was a lot going on in terms of peace and fighting against war. It is interesting how other peace movements advocated and how they comparatively raised consciousness. I met I group of people recently who traveled around advocating for peace who have since began a commune type thing where they have an organic farm with CSA's and host retreats on wellness, self love, and peace. It is interesting the different ways that people try to promote peace.
In response to Eric, selflessness is interesting. Can a person aid somebody else for their own happiness or sense of security? I do not feel that the mothers caring for others was an act of selflessness. They were trying to fulfill their own desire for safety and well-being, while securing opportunities for safety and well-being for future generations.