The Real Rosie.

Edited: I wanted to make this more clear. I am aware that the “man-hating” types of feminists are not true feminists. There is bad in every group. It wasn’t my intention to say those were real feminists. That being said, I am not a feminist. This isn’t a debate on abortion or gay marriages. It’s about the misuse of Rosie.

Oh my, it’s been awhile since I’ve done a post like this. If you’re an old follower and read some of my posts on my other blog which is now…ahem…retired, you’ll remember that I’m a pretty huge history nut. I love any time period, and I’m especially interested in the wars, and military. World War I and World War II interest me the most, by far. I love everything about the early 1900’s through the 60’s. How so many countries went haywire, how so many places and people changed. I’ve spent night after night staying up late to study on my own, dying to know more. I’ve read books, watched documentaries, even talked to a few folks who actually served in WWII and did studying on my own family’s history and their part during the war. One of my favorite parts of the World Wars is the women, and the part that they took on for their country, and for their families. And quite frankly, it does bug me when feminists use the “We Can Do it!” and stamp Rosie the Riveter on it, as if she would be okay with modern day feminism. Now, this isn’t going to be an anti-feminism post, because here’s the deal – I know a few feminists. Do I agree with everything they say? Nope. Would this blog post change their minds? Nope. This is about historical accuracy, because I want you all to know the amazing story of the riveters, of the women of the war. Because I love women. I love being a woman, and I believe that God has a very important job for women everywhere. I believe in women feeling confident, and knowing their strength. And to me, this is a great picture of womanhood. Just as Esther rose up to save her people, so did these riveters for their country, for their men, for their families.

British Land Girls, on the march.

During WWII, around 350,000 women served in the U.S. Armed Forces, at home and abroad. By 1945, nearly 1 out of 4 married women worked outside of home. It was at the urging of Eleanor Roosevelt and women’s groups, and impressed by the British use of women in service, General George Marshall supported the idea of introducing a women’s service branch into the Army. In May 1942, Congress instituted the Women’s Auxiliary Army Corps, later changed to the Women’s Army Corps, which had full military status. Its members, known as WACs, worked in more than 200 non-combatant jobs stateside and in every theater of the war. By 1945, there were more than 100,000 WACs and 6,000 female officers. In the Navy, members of Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service (WAVES) held the same status as naval reservists and provided support stateside. The Coast Guard and Marine Corps soon followed suit, though in smaller numbers.

While women worked in a variety of positions previously closed to them, the aviation industry saw the greatest increase in female workers. More than 310,000 women worked in the U.S. aircraft industry in 1943, representing 65 percent of the industry’s total workforce (compared to just 1 percent in the pre-war years). The munitions industry also heavily recruited women workers, as represented by the U.S. government’s “Rosie the Riveter” propaganda campaign. Based in small part on a real-life munitions worker, but primarily a fictitious character, the strong, bandanna-clad Rosie became one of the most successful recruitment tools in American history, and the most iconic image of working women during World War II.

Propaganda Poster.

So…why did they join? Did they do it for a feminist movement? Did they do it so they could be equal to men, or forsake their womanhood, families and husbands? To be the primary caretaker and breadwinner of the home? Most feminists now use the Rosie symbol to show that they are equals to men, but they’re forgetting the context of Rosie, and why women in this time fought for the right to work and help their country.

Women in uniform took office and clerical jobs in the armed forces in order to free men to fight. They also drove trucks, repaired airplanes, worked as laboratory technicians, rigged parachutes, served as radio operators, analyzed photographs, flew military aircraft across the country, test-flew newly repaired planes, and even trained anti-aircraft artillery gunners by acting as flying targets. Some women served near the front lines in the Army Nurse Corps, where 16 were killed as a result of direct enemy fire. Sixty-eight American service women were captured as POWs in the Philippines. More than 1,600 nurses were decorated for bravery under fire and meritorious service, and 565 WACs in the Pacific Theater won combat decorations. Nurses were in Normandy on D-plus-four.

They did this for their men, to provide for their families and give them the ability to go fight for their country. They did not do it because of the reason many feminists now claim. They didn’t happily toss out their dresses and shove on slacks and work hard day and night to be like men, they did it for the men. These women began providing for their families not because they felt above the men, or even equal (many women from this time period were very willing to step down from this job when the war was over.) it was so their husbands and other men in their lives could provide for their country.

Feminism started taking this world by storm in the late 1930’s-early 1940’s. Back then, we saw a very different type of feminism. We saw Rosie the Riveter’s, women who fought for the right to go to work so they could support their husbands and loved ones as they fought in the war. They did not scream for women’s rights by burning their bra’s, they did it in a classy manner. Not to say that there weren’t women that were…well, the opposite of classy. There are always bad people in the world. The type of “feminist” (not to say that these are true feminists, because they aren’t) that we have now are women who fight for the right to have kill their children, the ones who fight for “equality” while they call men stupid, arrogant pigs who only want one thing – sex. When you hear the word “feminist” what comes to mind? In all honesty, a classy woman does not come to mind, not anymore. I do not think of “Rosie’s” anymore. I think of women prancing around topless because, if men can go shirtless, they can too. I think of women who wear clothes-hanger jewelry because taking a child’s life is apparently a choice nowadays. And I’m not saying all feminists are like that, there are good women out there who believe in feminism. But they don’t believe in classy feminism, or biblical feminism. These are simply the ones that are getting the most attention, but they do exist.

These women were the true feminists. They fought for the lives of their loved ones during a terrifying war. Many of them died for this. They didn’t go to work for abortions, for the right to dress like men, or to be above men. They did it for their families, for their country, and for their lives.

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “The Real Rosie.

  1. Madelaine August 5, 2015 / 5:45 pm

    The women who go around calling themselves “feminists” and then say that men are arrogant pigs who only want sex are not feminists. They are misandrists, who have lost grasp of the true meaning of feminism: equality. Please do not call them feminists as that is not what they are. 90% of feminists are pro-choice and fight breast censorship, but that’s not trashy. That very well can be classy. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. You do not have to morally agree with it to be pro-choice. Pro-choice as about exactly what it’s called. A choice. Pro- choice means that you respect the right women have and deserve to have. It should be a choice whether or not they want to abort their fetus. It should be a choice whether or not they want to cary a baby. For some women, they’re choosing between life and death. They have health issues which being pregnant puts them at risk for, and sometimes, it’s life or death.

    Like

    • kalinann August 5, 2015 / 6:12 pm

      Sorry, I should’ve put my point on the word feminist and made it more clear. I meant to say that these aren’t true feminists, as you said. Feminism isn’t about man hating, and that was my main point. It should be about the woman being respected. That being said, abortion is murder. It’s killing a child, and I do not believe that murder should ever be a choice. You can disagree with me, of course, that’s your choice, but that being said, I won’t ever agree with it. I’ve seen too many premature babies that could’ve been aborted come out and live, I myself am a person who wasn’t supposed to live. Doctors told my mother to abort me, because we’d both die or I’d be handicapped. Abortion isn’t the answer.
      Breasts may not have been originally sexual, but the world has made them that way. Why do you think we make sexy lingerie? Attractive bras? Whether we like it or not, breasts ARE sexual.
      Thank you for commenting and sharing your opinion! 🙂 If you read more of my posts about this and maybe reread this one, you’ll see that I’m not calling those bad and mislabeled man-haters and etc, actual feminists. I’m actually trying to point out that they are the opposite. 🙂

      Like

      • stacy August 6, 2015 / 12:15 am

        If abortion isn’t the answer, what is? What will those people do in that situation? Let the pregnancy kill them so that a premature baby with a short life expectancy can be born? And yes, breasts are sexualized but they shouldn’t be. A pretty bra is no different than a pretty necklace or a pretty ring. And censoring them supports the idea that they are sexual.

        Like

      • kalinann August 6, 2015 / 12:17 am

        This isn’t even remotely related to the post, so I’m not quite sure why you’re trying debate over it. 🙂 murder is murder – there’s no excuse. Breasts are sexualized, and there’s no excuse to walk around topless. You do realize you’re on a Christian blog?

        Like

  2. stacy August 5, 2015 / 5:51 pm

    Men fought to be allowed to go around topless in the 1700s, and that fight is still valid today. It is exactly what women are now doing. Breasts are not sexual organs, they are baby feeders. They are sacks of fat. They are vital to human life and it’s a shame how they are sexualized and censored. It is only considered wrong because it is wrong in certain religious groups, and religion should not affect laws. We shouldn’t illegalize gay marriage because of the bible and we shouldn’t illegalize pork because of Islam.

    Like

    • kalinann August 5, 2015 / 6:07 pm

      Breasts are sexualized, yes, they are to feed babies, but they’ve become sexual. Thank you for your comment, but I obviously disagree. This wasn’t about homosexual marriage, so not sure why you brought that up.

      Like

      • stacy August 6, 2015 / 12:18 am

        I just brought it up as an example that some people use their religion to back up breasts being censored and I don’t think that’s just because religion should not affect state and government laws.

        Like

      • kalinann August 6, 2015 / 12:20 am

        I don’t think it was ever a religious thing. Even most atheists and non religious people believe in breast censorship.

        Like

  3. Katie Gibson August 5, 2015 / 6:27 pm

    I disagree that 99% of feminists are how you described. The bra burning men hating feminists make a small minority, they just seem like they are the majority because their acts get far more publicity than the acts of moderate feminists.

    Like

    • kalinann August 5, 2015 / 6:29 pm

      Try reading the edited top of the post, I tried clearing it up a bit! 🙂 sorry for the confusion. This wasn’t about feminism, just the misuse of Rosie by the “fake” feminists so to speak. 🙂

      Like

    • mikaylaannm August 5, 2015 / 6:48 pm

      I agree wholeheartedly, Katie. The bra burning incident happened one time, but for some reason any time people are disagreeing with feminism, it gets brought up. Kalin, You said that 99% of feminists were the way you had described as man-hating and such. That’s simply not true. It’s more like 1% are like that, and it just seems like the majority because the “bad seeds” get media attention. The goal of modern day feminism is to achieve things like equal pay. Because women currently make 78 cents to a man’s dollar. Feminists aren’t trying to be better than men, and they aren’t trying to hate men. They are just trying to be equal, that’s all. Women are sexualized and objectified in ways that men aren’t and it’s simply not fair. There is this giant misconception about feminism that you seem to buy into which makes me sad. I wish people would become more informed about feminism without assuming that it’s what you see on TV or read on the news. Women aren’t trying to be men. You can be a feminist and still be feminine. It’s not about losing your femininity. It’s about being looked at as capable and strong and independent.

      Like

      • kalinann August 5, 2015 / 6:50 pm

        Mikayla, as I said to Katie, this post wasn’t about the true feminists (like yourself and Katie, for instance.) it was about the misuse of Rosie the Riveter and the history. 🙂 As I said in the post, not all feminists are bad or like this, and I wasn’t saying that feminism is bad. I am, however, against using history as a defense when it’s taken out of context! Hope that clears this up!

        Like

      • mikaylaannm August 5, 2015 / 6:55 pm

        That does clear it up! Thanks, Kalin. I have a question for you! I’m just curious, and I’m not asking in a rude way or anything. But why don’t you consider yourself a Feminist?

        Like

      • kalinann August 5, 2015 / 6:59 pm

        I have weird views, haha. In many ways, I would label myself as one (I am all for women working outside of home if they need or want to, because I believe a lot of women are called by God to have careers and etc) but I do disagree with the main point of women being equal to men and vice versa in all ways, I’m pretty strict on gender roles and etc. I guess it’s mainly my convictions personally. 🙂

        Like

      • mikaylaannm August 5, 2015 / 7:05 pm

        That makes sense! I obviously disagree, but I understand where you’re coming from. I personally don’t like gender roles… There are some laid out in the Bible that I’m 100% fine with, but things like “girls=pink” and “boys=blue” I honestly can’t stand. Or the fact that women have to shave their legs and stuff. Because nothing like that is in the Bible. But yeah! We all have different personal convictions so I get what you’re saying. Thanks for answering!

        Like

  4. jesusandcoffee August 5, 2015 / 6:54 pm

    Hi Kalin,

    I hope this doesn’t come off as mean but you have been very mislead on the topic of modern-day feminism. I know you said you cleared up your “99% of feminists…” But I don’t think you cleared it up at all. 99% of feminists want equal pay, equal respect, and equal opportunities. Most modern-day feminists aren’t fighting for abortions or walking around naked. They’re fighting for equality and respect. You seem to believe that women have no place in the workforce unless she’s supporting a family and I just don’t get it because it’s not true. Women should have a very big place in the workforce if that’s what their dreams and goals are. With equally pay as men and equal job opportunities as men. Example, if I marry my boyfriend as soon as I can, I’ll have a full-time steady job while he’s still in school. That’s not a problem and it would seem that you think it is because I’d be the “bread-winner”. I’m just as capable and independent as a man. And I can still fulfill biblical roles while being 100% equal to a man. I really hope you will look into and be more open minded go present day feminism because it’s not man-hating or wanting to be a man. It’s fighting for what America was founded upon and is still failing at tremendously… equality.

    Like

    • kalinann August 5, 2015 / 6:57 pm

      I actually believe that women should be able to work outside of home. Personally, I don’t plan on having children, I do plan on having a career, already planning things out. Women do and should have freedom to work. This wasn’t about the women who worked, the whole point of Rosie was to allow those women to work. I’m not quite getting where you say I don’t believe that women have no place in workforce when I’m agreeing and defending with the Rosie movement itself, which is what gave them so much freedom to begin with. I don’t personally believe that women are equal to men in some ways, I think the Bible is clear that men are supposed to be the leader. That being said, there’s nothing wrong with a woman helping to provide if she needs to or just wants to.

      Like

  5. Courtney August 5, 2015 / 6:59 pm

    I don’t really want to get into the topics of abortion or equal rights or anything, just know that I understood and very much liked this post. (:

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s