Dylan
Deines
Dr.
Brown
27
April 2016
Women
Strike for Peace
Intro
“Hiroshima has become a metaphor not just for nuclear war
but for war and destruction and violence toward civilians. It's not just the
idea we should not use nuclear arms. We should not start another war because
it's madness”- Max von Sydow.
August 6th,
1945 is a day that no human being on this planet will ever forget, for it marks
the day that the first atomic bombs were ever dropped, eventually ending World
War II, but with a price. In Hiroshima, the most devastated of the two cities that
were targeted, approximately 135,000 casualties were recorded. In Nagasaki
64,000 casualties occurred. All in all, around 200,000 people were effected
directly by the bombs (Atomic Bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and that is
not including the amount of people who suffered years after the bomb from
radiation and poison that came with the after-effects (BBC On This Day).
It was
the most shocking piece of technology the world had ever seen. Devastated by
the bombs, Japan surrendered on September 2nd, 1945 officially
ending World War II. America welcomed
their heroes home and celebrated the end of the war. They were victorious! On
the other side of the world though, in Japan, people mourned for their lost
loved ones and began the long and slow process of rebuilding their city and
their livelihood. (Hersey)
It was
not until 1946 with the publication of Hiroshima, written by John Hersey, that
the world really understood the absolute destruction that occurred when the
bombs were dropped that unfaithful day. First published as columns in the New
Yorker, Hiroshima revealed the stories of six people who witnessed and survived
the ordeal. People began to mourn with the Japanese and began to hate what
America did, began to hate that civilians were the ones targeted, and began to wonder
what could have happened if the Japanese were the first ones to discover the
nuke.
This led
to many movements for nuclear disarmament, especially during the Cold War. Kids
began learning how to hide underneath desks and bomb shelters became increasingly
popular. The nuclear race between America and the Soviet Union, as well as
other Allied nations was in full effect. The world was preparing for an all-out
nuclear warfare. The world was preparing for doomsday (Campaign for Nuclear
Disarmament).
One such
movement arose in the wake of a bomb being tested by the Soviet Union. Although
there were many, the WSP’s movement for peace after the testing of nuclear
missiles by the Soviet Union is one of the most profound protests to this day.
To completely understand the movements effectiveness, you need to understand
what the mindset of the people were during the Cold War. People were scared.
They had already watched so many men lose their lives from World War II that
the idea of another war was a realistic nightmare that seemed to shadow the world,
but this time everyone would have the atomic bomb. New journalism was at its
height because of Hersey’s Hiroshima, so people could imagine the consequences
of another war. Media was also just beginning to really take off, so people saw
first-hand the effects of war. Public outcry at this time was immense, and
would continue to be this way until the end of the Vietnam War.
The WSP and its Origins
In 1961, 16 years after the bombing
of Japan by atomic bombs (Shaller), nearly 50,000 women left their jobs and
homes in one of the biggest peace movements that the United States had ever
seen up until that point. The Cold War
was at one of its most critical states in history, as the Soviet Union had just
tested a few of its new atomic bombs—the residue from them slowly making its
way over United States cities (Swerdlow). In response, as was the Cold War
fashion at the time, the United States threatened to do the same and test their
own weapons of mass destruction. Although it would only be a “test” that they
wanted to perform, many feared that the residue from the bomb would create
health risks for people all over the world. The 50,000 women, mostly mothers,
feared for their children’s safety (Swerdlow).
In a society where men were favored
as the dominant beings, where men were expected to make the decisions and wives
were expected to stay home, the movement for peace performed by these women was
something no one thought possible; yet what was thought impossible happened,
begging the question how? What motivations did these mothers have to drop their
work and their domesticity to march for peace?
Women in the 1960’s had gone through
some rough times: from the Great Depression in 1929, all the way to the end of
World War II, and then the Cold War following right afterwards (Shaller). The
women of this generation were strong because of their fearlessness during these
times. Nearly 500,000 American men died during World War II (By the Numbers-
World Wide Deaths), forcing women to step up and fill the void left by the
deaths of American soldiers. At the beginning of the war there were 12 million
women working for wages, by the end of the war, nearly 17 million were employed
(Shaller). 80 percent of the public voted against women working, but by 1942 (a
year after the war started) that figure was flipped and 80 percent of the
public believed it was acceptable for women to work, “Wartime labor shortages
changed public policy and attitudes toward women in the work force, especially
in jobs traditionally held by men in shipyards, on assembly lines, and in
aircraft factories,” (Shaller 848). Propaganda at the time called women in to
action, “encourage[ing] women to join the industrial work force,” (Shaller
848).
By 1945, however, the return of men
from the war led to the decrease of women in the workforce and the numbers
returned to where they were before the war began (Shaller). The women of the
generation, however, felt their own sense of victory. They played a huge key
part in the victory of the war (American
Women: Report of the President's Commission on the Status of Women)
Most woman may not have been on the front lines, but nonetheless the women of
World War II fought their own kind of battle, and in the end they came out on
top and wanting more (Swerdlow).
Dagmar Wilson, a children’s book
illustrator, gave the women of the war the opportunity to fight another battle.
Wilson was angered by recent world events, “not only by the resumption of
nuclear testing after a three-year hiatus but also by the Berlin Wall crisis,
which, she feared, could escalate into a push-button nuclear holocaust,”
(Swerdlow 17). A comment by her husband, Christopher Wilson, influenced her to
do something about it, “once women become determined they usually get their
way.” It was only a few days later when a group of 6 women, including Dagmar
Wilson, got together and began to figure out what could be done to save the
health and livelihood of their children (Dorothy Marder Women Strike for Peace
Exhibit). Wilson described the encounter as such: “It was a warm September
night in 1961. Six Women sat in a Georgetown living room. We were worried. We
were indignant. We were angry. The Soviet Union and the U.S.A. were accusing
each other of having broken a moratorium on nuclear testing. What matter who
broke it when everyone’s children would fall victim to radioactive Strontium
90?... Perhaps, we told ourselves that night, in the face of male ‘logic,’
which seemed to us utterly illogical, it was time for women to speak out,”
(Swerdlow 17).
The women used their contacts in
order for the movement to gain steam, calling old friends that they found in
their phone book and telling those friends to tell others. In only five weeks
the women were able to gain thousands of supporters for the movement,
organizing 68 local actions and creating the motto “Appeal to all governments
to end the arms race—not the human race,” (Swerdlow 18). The women also sent
letters to higher and famous officials, such as Jacqueline Kennedy and Nina
Khrushchev, in hopes of getting even more people to join the motion for peace,
but they were mostly ignored. Despite the fact that they didn’t have a famous
face to ignite the movement, it took off regardless.
The women who joined the movement
“were college-educated women who had participated in the work force in the war
years, many finding more interesting and satisfying employment than their older
sisters and mothers had, because of the shortage of men. At the war’s end most
of the future WSP women left the work force, sometimes reluctantly, to contribute
to the baby boom and to practice full-time live-in motherhood while populating
the suburbs, along with millions of their white, middle-class cohorts,”
(Swerdlow 2).
2 months later, from the original
meeting of 6 women in September of 1961, 50,000 women in 60 different
communities banded together in one single outburst, a group made solely of
women, driven by women, and influenced by women, to make their voices known to
the world about their disgust with the governments of both the Soviet Union and
the United States of America. In only 2-years’ time after the formation of
Women Strike for Peace and their one-day protest, John F. Kennedy signed the
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty on August 5, 1963 with the Soviet Union (Nuclear Test
Ban Treaty).
Mothers Take Over
What made the WSP so successful?
Other organizations that had originated before the WSP took years to see their
full potential, yet the women of WSP were able to do it in just a couple of
months, and without the help of men or famous affiliations. The founder was
just an ordinary, middle class mother who found that the state of her current
surrounding were far less than ideal, and yet she was able to create one of the
biggest women-based (non-feminist) movements in United States history. To
answer that question, their “identity” as mothers be an important part of the
study.
When the men came back from World
War II the idea of “motherhood” and the importance of nurturing, loving, and
domesticity took on a whole new form of importance to society. With nearly half
a million soldiers lost a significant void in the population was ever present,
thus the baby boom became the answer to this problem. Women, more than ever,
expected to have multiple children and stay home to nurture them while their
husbands worked. Mothers became more important than ever in their efforts to
return the country back to normalcy, and it is this important role that in the
end gave the women of the WSP more power than they had ever had before,
“[Angnes] Meyer urged fifties women to ‘boldly announce that no job is more
exacting, more necessary, or more rewarding that that of housewife and
mother,’” (Swerdlow 2).
Thus their identity as mothers in
the formation of the WSP was more influential than their identities as simple
women. The idea that mothers were protesting for change sparked interest and
allowed the women of the organization appeal to society in an effective and
clear way. Amy Swerdlow writes, “What attracted the media was the notion that
the ‘lady next door,’ who had been living in her kitchen in domestic bliss for
over a decade, was moving into public spaces and occupying them with militancy
and determination. Instead of listening demurely, she was lecturing and
demanding, and she could not be ignored or attacked because she was doing it
all in the name of a hallowed institution—motherhood,” (Swerdlow 21).
Understanding the effect of
identifying as mothers, the WSPers focused their rhetoric strategies towards
that one identity, “I don’t belong to any organization,” explained a woman
being interviewed by Sophia Wyatt of the Manchester Guardian, “I’ve got a child
of ten,” (Swerdlow 16). Mass media coverage of the movement greatly increased
the favorability of the women, and helped to create the “motherhood” identity
even stronger. In fact, the media made every opportunity they could to describe
the women of the WSP as “mothers,” “The press chose to identify Wilson
primarily as a mother, despite the fact that she made it clear in the first
strike press release that she was a ‘well-known children’s book illustrator.’
The Baltimore Sun describes Wilson as a ‘small elfin woman who has three
daughters and whose usual spare-time occupation is illustrating children’s
books,’” (Swerdlow 22). With the media attention they needed, the women of the
WSP were on the correct path of success.
Unlike other successful protests in the
past, the WSP had a goal that was not directly tied to themselves, but instead
was directed to the protection of innocent children. The movement was easily
relatable to everyone across the country and spoke to individuals on a very
personal level. This rhetorical goal put other people who disagreed with what
the women were doing in a tough situation; the WSP had the power, now all they
had to do was harness it. Another huge reason to the WSP’s success was their
lack of hierarchy in the organization. Although there was a founder, the women
organized themselves, made their own rhetorical slogans, and recruited their
own people. There was not anyone telling them what to do, and that appealed to
many women who joined the WSP. Women harnessed their own creative and
rhetorical ability, making their protest unlike any other.
That is not to assume that there
weren’t people against what the women of the WSP were doing; with any movement
there is always some kind of retaliation to it otherwise it wouldn’t be a
protest. The Cold War made America more prideful of its nation more than
ever—mostly because the idea of not being “prideful” led people to believe one
was either a socialist or a communist. The idea of women in America speaking
out against Cold War politics scared many people, including Chief William H.
Parker of the Los Angeles Police Department, “There undoubtedly were many fine
people duped into thinking they were doing something constructive, but this
type of revolution against constituted authority serve[s] the Soviet well. I’m
sure this ‘demonstration for peace’ has been well noted in the Kremlin and that
they are happy about the whole movement,” (Swerdlow 24). Other officials, such
as Mayor Sam Yorty of Los Angeles also disagreed with what the movement meant
in regards to a political stand-point, “I urge that you restate your allegiance
wo your country and acknowledge that government must be supported in whatever
it must do to deal with international events,” (Swerdlow 24). Other painted the
organization as just a “mob of women,” who did not fully grasp the dangers of
protest against the government during the Cold War (Swerdlow 24). Even more
surprising was the outcry against the movement by other women, specifically
those themselves in politics. Wilson wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt in hopes she
would be a part of the movement, she wrote “Your presence and voice would give
incalculable inspiration to women strange to the ways of political activity,
but brought together to ask the leaders of the world and the lawmakers of our
nation for a peaceful and uncontaminated present and future for us all,” to
which Roosevelt responded, “I am sorry to say that I cannot be with you on
October 25th, and I do not plan to do anything to help unless you
have consulted the President and the Secretary of State and have their
consent.” She would later say in one of her columns, “I do not approve of this
kind of action. It seems meaningless to me,” (Swerdlow 20-21). Abandoned by
state officials and the first women, the “housewives” of the WSP literally did
all the work themselves.
Despite the negative talk of the movement,
the women of the WSP kept true to what they were trying to accomplish. The
organization’s motto, “End the Arms Race—Not the Human Race,” outlined the WSP
goals, but they specifically had six demands that they wished to be enacted,
“(1) a ban on all atomic weapons testing; (2) negotations to put all atomic
weapons under international control; (3) concrete steps to be taken at once
toward worldwide disarmament; (4) immediate allocation of as much of the
national budget to preparation for peace as was being spent in preparation for
war; (5) an immediate moratorium on name-calling on both sides; (6) the
strengthening of the United nations,” (Swerdlow 20). Their rhetorical goal, however, was to appeal
to the women and the men of the country, who have mothers who worry about their
safety or are themselves mothers and fathers worried about their children’s
safety.
Let the Protest Begin
With the groups configured, the goals
defined, and the women more eager than ever to make a statement, the day of
protest finally came. Over 50,000 women lined the streets all across the
country to make their voices heard and their ideas echoed. Now came the
question, how was the best way to convey their notions? In this section we will
be analyzing the rhetorical artifacts used by the women of the WSP,
specifically, the slogans they used and their rhetorical effectiveness.
The women of the WSP used their
identity as mothers (mostly because of their rhetorical goals as well as the
influence by the media) to inspire the type of slogans they used during their
one-day protest that happened on November 1, 1961. Women lined the streets of
their respective locations, pushing “baby carriages [and] holding placards”
(Swerdlow) that protested nuclear testing. The symbol of the carriage was an
important artifact to the women of the WSP, which represented their motherhood
in the most obvious of ways.
The baby carriage wasn’t just an
object to these women, it was a rhetorical device garnered to draw the most
attention to their identity. Beyond the physical description of the carriage (a
4 legged, mobile, cart that makes transporting babies easier), the carriage
represented motherhood, but not just the classical sense of “motherhood.” A
baby carriage represented a women’s escape from domesticity. Without the baby
carriage getting out of the house and socially interacting with society would
be too much of a physical strain. The women’s “escape” from domesticity became
their “freedom.” The carriage said much about the mother who owned one as well.
It meant that they had an active or busy lifestyle. Daily tasks had to be
completed despite having a kid, and it was the carriage that allowed women to
get the things that needed to be completed complete. Using it as a rhetorical
device, the women showed that they were just as obliged as any other man or
woman to their “freedom” outside of the house; their freedom to speak out
against the government; and their freedom to protest. It also showed that women
had other things on the agenda other than their daily chores and toils at home.
Because of the stroller women were able to get things done, and that idea was
echoed when they used the carriage as a rhetorical device; it meant that women
had political goals on their mind, and despite just being “mothers” they were
going to do whatever they could to have their voices heard.
Beyond the carriage was the women’s
slogans such as “Save the Children”, “Testing Damages the Unborn,” and “Let’s
Live in Peace, not Pieces,” (Swerdlow).
The slogan “Save the Children” was
an obvious, yet effective strategy. Like the carriage, the slogan helped form
the “motherhood” idea that was so instrumental to their rhetorical goals and to
their media attention. The slogan did a few things for their movement: It
played with the stereotype of the image of women being nurturers to not only
their children, but all children. The WSP put not just their own children’s
livelihood in retrospect, but rather, all children. It made the protest
relatable for everyone. The slogan was especially effective because of the
recent baby boom that America had gone through after World War II. The baby
boom was a patriotic effort to bring society back to normalcy; it was an
attempt to make America even stronger after losing so much of its men. Why
would society want to risk what they worked so hard to accomplish by allowing
nuclear testing to go on? Children are an obvious importance at every point in
history, but never were they more important than during the baby boom. The
slogan scared people. They did not want
to lose anyone else to the war, or the aftermath of one.
“Testing Damages the Unborn” is
another extremely effective slogan, for it called for the future to be put in
retrospect and also specifically targeted pregnant couples to challenge nuclear
testing. The slogan is a single declarative sentence that’s purpose is to be
informative, especially to those who were unaware of the effects of nuclear
testing. It was not just the children that were already alive, it was even the
children that were unborn; it was not just the present, it was even the future.
Many thought that the Cold War would lead to the first nuclear war and
consequently the end of the world, but little knew that even the preparation of
a nuclear warfare would lead to health concerns. Like the other slogan, this
was a scare tactic that appealed to the emotion of its listeners, but also used
the strategy of Kairos to be even more effective. Because of the recent baby
boom, the importance that was put on children, and the Cold War became the most
opportune moment for the slogan to take form.
Finally, “Let’s Live in Peace, not
Pieces” is the final artifact we will be analyzing. Another scare tactic, the
slogan above evokes some quite devastating imagery that reminded people of the
images they saw during World War II. Film coverage of the war showed people at
home how devastating war could be. The slogan also called into remembrance of
the first nuclear bombs ever to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Images of
the mushroom cloud and the shadows of human beings stuck on walls after be
disintegrated came into listeners’ minds. The slogan obviously leads to one
answer, to live in peace rather than to die. The obviousness of the answer to
the slogan led many to support the ideas that the WSP had and as well as join
the movement for peace. The slogan’s word play on the word “peace” and “pieces”
also put the protest on a spectrum; on one side you have what the WSP was
fighting for, peace, and the other side is represented by the government, who,
to the WSP at least, rather see people in literal “pieces” than a world of
“peace.”
The artifacts used in the protest
had to especially be effective because the protest was only a one-day event.
Unlike other protests that take on a series of events, the WSP did not have
that luxury because all 50,000 women were mothers and therefore had other
responsibilities. For these women to drop everything for this one-day event,
however, was effective itself. It showed society exactly how serious these
women were and how they expected to be treated as such. (Heaney)
Conclusion
As day turned to night and the
protestors headed back to home to perform their motherly duties, the women of
the WSP returned to their homes successful. A few months later John F. Kennedy
would say, “I saw the ladies myself. I
recognized why they were here. There were a great many of them. It was in the
rain. I understand what they were attempting to say, therefore, I consider
their message was received." The women of WSP are largely credited with
having an immense influence of the signing of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,
specifically by Jerome Wiesner, John F Kennedy’s chief science advisor, who “gave
the major credit for moving Pres. Kennedy toward the limited Test Ban Treaty of
1963, not to arms controllers inside the government, but to Women Strike for
Peace and to Sane and Linus Pauling." That being said, however, the
question still seems to be unanswered. Why, more than any other group, were
these women successful in influencing the government to do what they wanted?
The
woman of the WSP challenged the system more outright and fearlessly than any
other group at that time. With the passing of the Smith Act in 1940, any sign
of advocating communism was pinned illegal. Other groups that challenged the
politics during the Cold War were often times cited as traitors of the country
and thrown into jail for years. WSP’s seemingly lack of group hierarchy made it
impossible for anti-communist groups, such as the House UnAmerican Activities
Committee (HUAC), to target them directly, but also their identity and
influence as mothers made it particularly difficult to challenge their protest
(Women History Since 1874)
The
HUAC, however did try hold the women of the WSP accountable for their actions
and subpoenaed them in 1962. Vancouver Sun of British Columbia reported the
meeting as such, “When the first woman headed to the witness table, the crowd
rose silently to its feet. The irritated Chairman Clyde Doyle of California
outlawed standing. They applauded the next witness and Doyle outlawed clapping.
Then they took to running out to kiss the witness. Finally, each woman as she
was called was met and handed a huge bouquet. By then Doyle was a beaten man.
By the third day the crowd was giving standing ovations to the heroines with
impunity,” (Women in American History Since 1874).
The
women of the WSP made the HUAC seem like a joke and helped aid in the organizations
ultimate downfall as a serious government entity. Vancouver Sun would continue
in their article to say, “"The dreaded House Un-American Activities
Committee met its Waterloo this week. It tangled with 500 irate women. They
laughed at it. Kleig lights glared. Television cameras whirred, and fifty
reporters scribbled notes while babies cried and cooed during the fantastic
inquisition.” The women of the WSP did something no man seemed to be able to
do, and that was challenge the system of Cold War politics and get away with
it. Their identity as mother’s gave the women more power than any other organization,
and their success showed the world that women were able to achieve goals that
men could not. The women’s protest would set up other protests later in
history, and it would help end the era of McCarthyism and the fear to speak out
against Cold War politics. (Women in American History Since 1874)
The
first witness in the trial would sum up the protest in one elegant quote, and
therefore it only makes sense to conclude with the same quote, “This movement
was inspired and motivated by mothers' love for children... When they were
putting their breakfast on the table, they saw not only the wheaties and milk,
but they also saw strontium 90 and iodine 131... They feared for the health and
life of their children. That is the only motivation."
Citation
American Women: Report of the President's Commission
on the Status of Women, 1963, by the President's
Commission on the Status of Women. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1963. Web.
"BBC ON THIS DAY | 6 | 1945: US Drops Atomic
Bomb on Hiroshima." BBC News. BBC, 1945. Web. 27 Apr. 2016. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/6/newsid_3602000/3602189
Calkin, Homer L. Women in American Foreign
Affairs. Washington: Dept. of State, 1977. Print.
"Dorothy
Marder Women Strike for Peace Exhibit." Dorothy Marder Women Strike for
Peace Exhibit. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/Exhibits/Dorothy
Marder/MarderExhibit1A_files/MarderExhibit1A.html>.
"Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament." The
History of CND. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.cnduk.org/about/item/437>.
Hersey, John, Warren Chappell, and Edith Goodkind
Rosenwald. Hiroshima. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946. Print.
"History of American Women since 1874." Women
Strike for Peace, 1961. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.
<http://harvey.binghamton.edu/~hist266/week10/peace.htm>.
Rojas, Heaney. The Place of Framing: Multiple
Audiences and Antiwar Protests near Fort Bragg. Print.
"Nuclear Test Ban Treaty." John F.
Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum. Web. 05 Apr. 2016. <http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/Nuclear-Test-Ban-Treaty.aspx>.
Schaller, Michael, Robert Schlzinger, John
Bezis-Selfa, Jannette Thomas Greenwood, Andrew Kirk, Sarah J. Purcell, and
Aaron Sheehan-Dean. American Horizons: U.S. History in a Global Context.
2nd ed. Vol. 2. New York: Oxford UP, 2013. Print.
"Sharing Stories Inspiring Change." Women
Strike for Peace. Jewish Women's Archive. Web. 05 Apr. 2016.
<http://jwa.org/thisweek/nov/01/1961/wsfp>.
Swerdlow, Amy. Women Strike for Peace:
Traditional Motherhood and Radical Politics in the 1960s. Chicago: U of
Chicago, 1993. Print.
"The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki." Total Casualties. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml>.
"Women Strike for Peace, 1962." History
By Zim. 2013. Web. 05 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.historybyzim.com/2013/08/women-strike-for-peace-1962/>.
No comments:
Post a Comment