Protecting the Mother land

The nation is most often imagined as a woman, and in fact born of a woman, whereas the state is almost always male. In Latin, ‘nation’ is a feminine word, while ‘state’ is masculine. The nation is wild, apolitical, and primitive. The state is organized and cultivated – within the limits of reason and law. This feminization has created representations of the nation as one ‘under threat and sexual danger, and construes invasion or colonization as male heterosexual rape’, as in ‘the rape of Kuwait’ – a male hero and female victim (Pettman 1998:157). Furthermore, all agency is in the hands of the masculine state: ‘women are the symbol of the nation, men its agents’ (McClintock 1993:1). Men must protect the women, children, home, and land – ‘the motherland’. There are vastly different ideas of how men and women sacrifice for the country: men march into battle with agency and patriotism, while the woman ‘woefully, but willingly, offers up her children (sons) to battle’ (Nagel and Feitz 2007:39). During war, women ‘become the guardians of cradles and coffins’ (Afshar 2003:183), while their husbands, brothers, and fathers perish protecting them from the enemy, or the ‘other’ by race, religion, or ideology. Women are used as the moral justification for entering into conflict, and are ‘sources of emotional, physical, and sexual comfort for men at war’ (Nagel and Feitz 2007:39), who are undertaking the true task of protecting the motherland. The space that women occupy in this system is to populate the nation and teach nationalist identities and roles to the children. The spatial boundaries created within the gendered idea of states and nations have permeated society for millennia. ‘Women are forever caught between the symbolic uses different national projects make of them, and the ways in which actual women experience, engage with or resist nationalism’ (Pettman 1998:159). This nationalism is inherently focused on the masculine, and has ‘typically sprung from masculinized memory, masculinized humiliation and masculinized hope’ (Enloe 1989:44), leaving women worldwide to consider the role prescribed to them by nationalism and the role created by themselves out of necessity and willpower. In times of war, traditional gender constructs are concurrently weakened in reality and reinforced through art and representation seeped in nationalism. The active role of women in protecting the state evolved dramatically during the history of the United States, but despite some progress, the traditional storyline of a male agent protecting a symbolic female remains – whether it is the state saving the nation or male soldiers protecting the women at home. This article considers why increased female presence in the military and state agency is still subject to discussion and often opposed by the cultural subconscious. It relates to the fact that it threatens this structure of nationalism, which is based on the premise of the masculine as reasoned, structured, and fit for service, and the feminine as uncouth, uncontrolled, and acting on a force that cannot be articulated in words and therefore is not safe. This narrative is analyzed through the change in the United States’ personifications of the nation from Miss Columbia to Uncle Sam. The representation of women in propaganda changes during the World Wars as women assume roles in the military. Accounts from the Iraq War are retrofitted to conform to traditional gender roles, such as the dramatization of Jessica Lynch in 2003. Ultimately, this article asks: are we locked into this narrative by the collective memory and conditioning created by nationalism, or can we expect a parallel change in the representation of women in language, art, and media as women earn and gain more agency? Feminization of the military is perceived as a threat to military capacity and identity in two ways: women's bodies cannot perform the duties of a soldier, and even if women's bodies can perform the necessary duties, the idea of a soldier as a ‘masculine fighting machine’ is weakened and emasculated when women join their ranks (Pin-Fat and Stern 2005:33). A woman's body is also involved in the hideous war crime of systemic rape, which undercuts both the affected women and the men who are supposed to protect them (Afshar 2003:182). This physical rape by an ‘other’ matches the aforementioned rhetorical use of rape in the context of invasion or colonization and the passiveness of a woman's role during wartime. Even when women actively participate in wars and revolutions, there is strict societal pressure for women to return to the domestic space relegated to them in the traditional boundaries of nationalism and male agency in the state (ibid.:178). Feminization of the military and related governmental and peace processes threaten to devalue the role of men in these traditionally male spheres and counter long-held ideals of nationalistic gender roles. Before there was Uncle Sam, Miss Columbia was the personification of the United States, a goddess in flowing robes representing the nation from 1697 until being overshadowed in the 1950s by a male figure. She often wore a liberty cap as a symbol of freed slaves, and was portrayed as a school teacher and protector of immigrants willing to welcome them into her home, the United States. This was especially true for the rights of persecuted Chinese, Jewish, and German immigrants (Figures 1 and 2) (Franke-Ruta 2013). She also shows compassion for the weak and suffering. In a famous political cartoon, Columbia protests the high mortality rate of the Civil War, demanding ‘Mr. LINCOLN, give me back my 500,000 sons!!!’ (Figure 3). After Antietam, the bloodiest battle of the Civil War, the image ‘Columbia Confronts the President’ reflected the North's sentiment that Lincoln was cavalierly deploying troops and War Department resources (Figure 4) (The Lehrman Institute n.d.). In World War I, Miss Columbia ‘pleaded, beseeched and implored viewers to save food, send their sons to war and buy bonds’ (Figures 5 and 6). Though the World Wars saw great advancement for women in the workforce and military, both out of necessity and women's movements, the basic framework of nationalism upon which so many of our social constructs and gender roles depend did not transform. Many campaign posters depicted women in traditional roles as mothers, urging them to plant gardens (‘Every Garden a Munition Plant’) and send their sons to war (Figure 7). Edward Lordan asserts that the virginal and protective Columbia fell out of favour with the United States, as she represented a ‘new, fledgling, virginal country’, while Uncle Sam depicted the new American image of ‘the toughest guy out there . . . rolling up his sleeves. He's going to go pound on somebody’ (as quoted in Pitz 2008). He purports that the change happened because ‘these images only work if they resonate with the audience’ (ibid.), and Americans now saw their country as a global policeman full of agency, a trait nearly exclusive to men under the rubric of nationalism. Miss Columbia's disappearance is likely also due to the emergence of the Statue of Liberty as a depiction of the protective, motherly United States. Yet another theory supposes that people grew tired of Miss Columbia's ‘nagging’ during World War I to endure hardships for the good of the country and its European allies. With the move towards the militant Uncle Sam and focus on the more passive Lady Liberty, Miss Columbia fell out of favour with the American audience as a representation of American ideals. World War I was a watershed moment in the creation of modern military propaganda that would later evolve into commercial advertising. This is due to both ‘total war’, which required sacrifices from all parts of society, and the broader reach of newspapers and media. Propaganda here refers to the ‘set of messages from the “state” to the “society”’ with the explicit aim to ‘enlist persuasion, in addition to discipline and coercion’ (Row 2002:141, 144). Public schools and the advertising industry materials in the United States faced intervention and the addition of wartime propaganda from the Committee on Public Information, a clearinghouse created by Woodrow Wilson (Funk 2011:67). Large posters were displayed on street corners and mailed to homes as postcards, while cartoons and images were printed in daily newspapers, fliers, and pamphlets, reaching a circulation of several million. Trench newspapers featured much of the propaganda, especially those depicting young, beautiful women doing traditionally male jobs, and distributed to men on the battleplanes. Thomas Row asserts that the intent of these images was to alleviate soldiers’ concerns that women were replacing them in society in their absence; the attractive women ‘appear to be “playing” at their jobs’ (Row 2002:164) instead of performing them seriously as men would. Media also depicted women as sexualized victims, such as Harry R. Hopps’ ‘Destroy This Mad Brute’ in which a helpless woman in a torn dress is sexually victimized by an ape that represents German imperial aggression (Figure 8) (Funk 2011:74). While women are either playing at their new jobs or the victims of sexual violence at the hands of enemy soldiers, men had the opportunity to become American adventure heroes in the vein of Theodore Roosevelt's Rough Riders, such as in James Montgomery Flagg's ‘Be a U.S. Marine!’ poster (Figure 9) (ibid.). These exciting combat roles remained strictly for men, as seen in a classic World War I poster with both the tagline ‘Gee!! I Wish I Were a Man – I’d Join the Navy’ next to a beautiful young woman in a suggestive sailor outfit and text saying, ‘Be a Man and Do It’ (Figure 10). The phallocentric framework of the American subconscious remained despite changes in workforce participation. Feminine stereotypes and a focus on male agency were exploited for marketing and propaganda on both sides of the Atlantic. Despite strict austerity measures to redirect all available resources to the war, the British government reserved money for feminine ‘necessities’, such as lipstick, corsets, and clothing, during both World Wars, lest male soldiers return to see the motherland and feminine ideal they had been fighting to protect had disappeared (Noakes 1998). In G.K. Odell's ‘Keep These Hands Off!’, a mother with full make-up holds a child and is threatened by the monster-like hands of enemy forces to encourage the purchase of victory bonds (Figure 11). The image of the feminine ideal somewhat altered during the war due to domestic necessity. Rosie the Riveter famously encouraged women to work in factories while the men were away in J. Howard Miller's ‘We Can Do It!’ poster (Figure 12). These jobs were always intended as temporary, such as in Lawrence Wilbur's ‘Longing Won’t Bring Him Back Sooner. . . Get a War Job!’ (Figure 13). The defense industries and civilian service aimed these jobs at women who had not previously worked needed convincing to join the labour force during the total war effort (The National Archives n.d.). The domestic efforts of American woman were integral to wartime success. As the ‘invisible combatants’ (Campbell 1993:301) of World War II, women filled new roles at home, as is well-remembered through Rosie the Riveter. Female European soldiers were performing well in the field, though they were mostly in protected antiaircraft units immune from being captured as prisoners of war. To encourage participation in these units, Winston Churchill's daughter, Mary, served in an antiaircraft brigade. U.S. Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall and Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered a highly confidential experiment to see if American women would achieve similar positive results in the field. The results shocked Marshall, as mixed gender units far outperformed all-male units by intellectual, physical, and psychological measures. The armed forces needed additional soldiers, yet the large resource of American women went unutilized (ibid.:302). General Russell Reynolds, Director of the Military Personnel Division, said ‘It is not believed that national policy or public opinion is yet ready to accept the use of women in field force units’ (as quoted in ibid.). The military and executive branch felt that traditional nationalistic notions of gender roles and protection would not support the introduction of American women into the military. Women in the United States were instead confined to non-combat roles, such as stenography in the Royal Typewriter Company's ‘Victory Waits on Your Fingers’ poster (Figure 14). In contrast, 125,000 women were drafted into specific roles in antiaircraft units in Great Britain, and an additional 430,000 women volunteered between 1941 and 1944 (Campbell 1993:306). During one of the first battlefield moments of women in antiaircraft units, British General Frederick Pile stated, ‘Beyond a tendency to chatter when there was a lull, [the women] behaved like a veteran party, and shot an enemy plane into the sea’ (quoted in ibid.:307). But the patriarchal framework for nationalism proved a global phenomenon. Despite integration into the military, it was still illegal for British women to be trained in artillery usage or fire weapons. A possible reason for the difference in willingness to include women in the army was that all British women were constantly under threat of death as German bombs ravaged the United Kingdom, while American women were further from the battlefront and in less perceived immediate danger. Additionally, the British and German armies were more in need of additional soldiers and ‘necessity, once it became dire enough, overcame culture’ (ibid.:323). The exclusion of women from combat in the United States through the World Wars was directly related to public and congressional opinion based on centuries of nationalistic thought and the lack of absolute need that was present in Europe. It would take additional decades of women gaining agency to change representation in the American armed forces. Structural and geopolitical changes have altered the gender composition of the U.S. armed forces in the last half century. After the Cold War, integration occurred quickly during personnel downsizing, and female participation rose to 14.5% in 1999, twelve percentage points higher than in 1972 (Stachowitsch 2013). Limitations on female participation persisted, including eligibility for jobs in which no qualified men were available, high sexual abuse rates, and few opportunities for women's advancement. In the 1990s, women were negatively depicted in the military, with their integration ‘constructed as an antithesis to traditional military values and a symptom of military and national decline’ (ibid.). The feminization of the military at this time due to even partial gender integration led to a decrease in the perception of the military as a cornerstone of nationalism and American exceptionalism. This occurred despite the United States presenting itself as the world's role model of democracy, human rights, and gender equality. The marketing of an integrated military changed to display strategic efficiency against the war on terror after 9/11, similar to how the British and German governments utilized an efficacy argument during World War II to bolster women's participation in their armed forces. Some propaganda and media portrayal of women in the military still called upon traditional gender stereotypes, with women acting as peacekeepers and non-threatening members of the military. Depictions of women in the US military change according to the political party in power, with Republican presidents and legislatures utilizing conservative gender policies both in civilian and military spheres (ibid.). The U.S. military is still demographically divergent from the larger U.S. population in several ways: The composition of the armed forces is disproportionately young, male, less educated, and non-white. Military culture still ‘reflects its long history of celebrating masculinity, maintaining classed hierarchy, and enshrining (Nagel and Feitz and Feitz that during the of the Iraq War, propaganda utilized as in to US and and and The to the dramatization of the and and of young, and Jessica a soldier who was a and This is in to that of and who went for their The U.S. of that Lynch to her out of being as a of war despite Lynch later that she had a The I a that she was a fact that Lynch has is was as (Pin-Fat and Stern upon of the utilizing that would if a in a similar feminine of including her to become a and were by the her and (Pin-Fat and Stern The men involved in the have remained and and Feitz also that a role in the of the Lynch was and to (Nagel and Feitz while and were that the dramatization of is a of the of men a in from a ‘other’ with of moral and Feitz this was to of gender and even in the of changes in its The of women in the U.S. military gender integration has seen mixed with women's depiction in the military based on global and political ideology. These of women and war of not to American in and men only to a return to traditional gender roles (Afshar that in between national the of and the of the nation used to women's participation in the armed are once to fit the heterosexual why women are in women return to the so that male can their not social and political consider women's participation as only during and the and units to return to their of The is that women have always been an integral of war in battle as and The depiction of these roles, has been and for millennia. only is society in it of women's in this cultural framework one be by and within both the ranks of the U.S. military as well as there would be a It would be the that – the that once up that of patriarchal the nation would be to be less more and asserts that the symbolic of women during war can a different perception of and and to a more and less and to and the of nations and of Women have traditionally been represented as the and of national and conservative of and men have been and the of national (McClintock The in the of American history have seen both of traditional gender roles during and of these roles through art, propaganda, and media The change in these of gender and war are are not by and war as in civilian military and have changed The by can no be one of men going to the battlefront to an ‘other’ and protect the women and children in the motherland (Afshar women in the military, and roles in government are to to the possible through the and the has women's sacrifices and to war sons to The reality of women's can no be for the of the of nationalism. the of the nation, for the of the a new nationalism must

Agency (philosophy · Battle · Criminology · Nationalism · Patriotism · Political science · Politics · Sacrifice · Sociology · State (computer science · Gender Politics and Representation · Gender Studies · Gender, Security, and Conflict · History · Jewish and Middle Eastern Studies · Law

• African feminist interpretations of political actions, practices and policies

  Norita Mdege•Feminist Media Studies•2025

  Add to list

• Women in Combat

  D’ann Campbell, D'Ann Campbell•The Journal of Military History•1993

  Add to list

• The Scripting of Private Jessica Lynch

  Open Access•Véronique Pin-Fat, Monika Stern et al.•Alternatives Global Local Political•2005

  Add to list

• Nationalism and after

  Open Access•Jan Jindy Pettman•Review of International Studies•1998

  Add to list

• Bananas, beaches and bases

  Cynthia H Enloe, Cynthia Enloe•Bananas, beaches and bases•1989

  Add to list

• When the Earth is Female and the Nation is Mother

  Open Access•Saraswati Sunindyo•Feminist Review•1998

  Add to list

• Family Feuds

  Anne Mcclintock•Feminist Review•1993

  Add to list

• Women and wars

  Haleh Afshar•Development in Practice•2003

  Add to list