During World War I women did not have much involvement in the war, when it came to fighting. The women were forced to stay at home while the men went out and fought for their country. The immense number of men going out to join the army left a very high number of jobs at home undone. Since most men were gone the women were given the opportunity to fill in for the men. This gave them more power and rights. However, most of this control was stripped back away from the women once the war was over and the men returned. The only involvement the women had directly to the war was serving as nurses, working in munitions factories, sowing clothes and other similar jobs, but the women never entered the battlefields.
During World War II women had a more involvement in the battlefields. After the bombing of Pearl harbor people began to abandon some of the weak feminine views because they knew that more manpower was needed in the war. In 1942, the women’s Auxiliary Army Corps was established in a bill. This allowed women to go to combat in some areas of the military. Slowly new groups were made so that the women could have some involvement in the war. Like a new section in the Navy. However, they were still discriminated in lack of military benefits that most men received. It wasn’t until 1943 that the women gained full military status with the same benefits.
Comparing the role of women in each of these wars is very interesting because we see the evolution of women’s rights in this short span of time. In both cases the women were a crucial part to the war, but it is quite clear that during World War II they had more rights and power. However, we must notice that the women gained most of these rights because the countries knew that they need the women fighting and would probably not have received these rights if they weren’t needed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with what you are saying about the evolution of women. Like you say, ironically, this short span of time that we see this change occur is probably what gave the women the opportunity that they needed to participate in the ways that they did. The countries didn't have enough "recover time" so when another world war came around it seemed as if the countries just needed bodies, willing to put aside the differences over man vs. woman. Once they war was over, they could use the fact that they HAD been needed and that they did a good job to help gain the rights that they wanted.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the point you are trying to convey. You use sufficient evidence and truly convince me that women's role in the war significantly increased in WWII compared to WWI. One sentence that I think you incorporated a lot of evidence was when you said, "The only involvement the women had directly to the war was serving as nurses, working in munitions factories, sowing clothes and other similar jobs, but the women never entered the battlefields." On a gramatical note you may need to edit this post just because a few words need captializing and some of your sentences are wordy. However, the ideas behind this piece are great.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your sentiment on the acquisition of woman's rights. I thought it was insightful of you to see the link between the necessary increase of the woman workforce and the grudging acquiescence of a similar increase of their rights. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and once those times had passed the measures taken lingered on till this day.
ReplyDeleteI think you make a good point about how women had a larger role in WWII than WWI. I agree that it reflects the growth of women's rights over this time period, however, I do not think that that is the only reason women had more power or opportunities in WWII than WWI. You touched on this with your last sentence: women received rights out of desperation, not because society had progressed so much in such a short time.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your post about how women had more rights in World War II than in World War I. What was interesting to me, though, was that some women even had certain military duties - like those in the Auxiliary Army Corps. I hadn't found that in my research, and am glad that your Op-ed talked about it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this view. Though I don't agree with how u phrased one sentence. "After the bombing of Pearl harbor people began to abandon some of the weak feminine views because they knew that more manpower was needed in the war." You are saying that the war needed more "manpower", which contradicts what you said about women gaining more power. I believe that women became as important to men, rather than women becoming men and adding "more men".
ReplyDeleteYour op-ed reflects an evident point that I strongly agree with. The role of women in WWII was more significant than in WWI. You do mention slightly that in WWII the government was more desperate and therefore women were accepted more and given more rights.
ReplyDeleteI thought this was well written.