According to Wikipedia (which everyone knows is always correct), the woman depicted in this poster is not actually Rosie the Riveter at all, but she is commonly mistaken to be Rosie. (I actually thought this as well, until today.) For the sake of having an illustration to go with this post, I will do my part to further that misconception. :) I am actually talking about the entire Rosie the Riveter movement, rather than the actual person, anyway, so this poster works fine as a representation of that.So... Rosie the Riveter is a widely recognized icon from the World War II era. She appeared in many films and posters which were used by the U.S. government to encourage women to go to work in support of the war effort. Prior to this time A woman's place is in the home was the norm, and few women worked. Those that did were employed in the few "female" occupations--teacher, secretary, nurse, etc.
However, following the United States' entry into World War II in 1941, millions of traditionally male jobs were left vacant by those who had gone off to fight. Suddenly, women's labor was urgently needed to help fill shortages created by the expanded wartime economy, especially in the production of military hardware. Because of this, the US government instituted a campaign to encourage women to enter the work force and fill these positions. These women who answered the government's call to work wore hard-hats and overalls and operated heavy machinery--they represented a radical departure from the traditional American feminine ideal of housewife and mother.
According to the Encyclopedia of American Economic History, the "Rosie the Riveter" movement increased the number of working American women by 57% from 1940 to 1944, to around 20 million. It is also estimated that the proportion of jobs that would be "acceptable" for women was raised by employers from 29 to 85%.
The above illustration depicts a woman wearing a handkerchief on her head in the traditional housewife style, contrasted by her work overalls, muscular arms, and stubbornly set expression on her face. It if often used as an icon for feminist groups, since it is believed by many that Rosie the Riveter opened up the workforce for women. This may or may not be true, I don't know enough about it to say. (There are other people that claim the whole thing was only temporary and that when the war ended most of the women lost their jobs and went back to their traditional roles from before the war.)
However, I will now explain the reasons I would never use this not-Rosie the Riveter poster as a feminist icon. I like her, she's cute, has nice arms, big muscles, and I admire her for still being feminine while working at a "male" job. I must say I can relate to her in that respect--a women in a predominately male-dominated field. However, I DON'T like that the whole campaign of Rosie the Riveter was began by the government to tell women they should be working. It's pretty obvious it wouldn't have happened were it not for the fact that there was no one else available to fill the jobs because they were all off fighting in the war. There was no "anything boys can do girls can do too" attitude, it was more of desperation. There was nothing "liberating" to women about this. It was simply another thing in which they were told what they could and couldn't do. You couldn't work in these man-jobs before, but now you can because we say you can. So do it. To me this is very very different than if a woman had chosen to enter a certain job on her own, and done so against whatever opposition she may have encountered, and succeeded to any degree. She would be much more of a feminist icon to me than Rosie.
Perhaps it is because I don't like being told what to do. I don't like the whole "you can't work!"... "ok, now you can work!"... and now, from feminists, I get the message that I should work. Being a mother/homemaker has reached the point now where it is almost looked down upon in society. I would rather have the option of doing what I feel is best.
Now I want to make sure it's clear that I mean no disrespect in any way to Rosie the Riveter or any of the women that began working though this movement. I admire them greatly for responding to the need of their country and stepping up to a challenge that probably seemed intimidating and scary. It must have taken a lot of guts and a lot of strength (I mean, those jobs were not easy! Riveting is not like knitting...).
I don't consider myself a feminist in the radical sense of the word, but I do get worked up about certain things sometimes. For instance, in class the other day our professor made mention of a historical female mathematician/physicist by the name of Emmy Noether. He asked if any of us had heard of her and a few of us nodded our heads. Pointing at a few of the girls in the class he said "she should be your hero! and yours!" etc. This kind of got on my nerves a little because I see no reason why her gender should automatically make her my hero. Yes, I respect her for all the hard work she did and the things she discovered. Yes I admire her for working extra had to succeed in a male-dominated field where she was often ignored, patronized, or looked down upon. But I don't think she should automatically be my hero just because we both happen to have two X chromsomes. There are other mathematicians and physicists whose work excites me more than hers, there are other areas of math and physics that I enjoy more than the area in which she worked. Yes, I admire her, but she is not my hero.
Now I've gone off on a slight tangent from the original point of this post, but I'll just end it with a variation on an idea I heard expressed by Kip Thorne. I would rather be known as a successful astronomer than as a successful female astronomer.
1 comment:
well said!
Post a Comment