Both of these readings by Rotenburg and Frances discuss what the importance of determining Canada’s future and women’s place in it while the war is going on, because war is a cataclyst for change and changes need to be made. Rotenburg argues that this is a woman’s war, that women are being suppressed, being made into ‘obedient robots’ that serve men. Jobs, education are not for women, they are sent to the Church, Kitchen and Children. If you’re not married they want to know why not, if you are they tell you how many children you need to have and when. Women provide the never ending stream of men to fight for their country. Kitchens sphere men are interrupting, asking questions, poking their heads in and trying to offer advice. Second sphere, children, of course they want them but they don’t want them to grow up to be pieces of the war machine. A woman’s war is too see her children grow free and strong without having to kill to earn that title. How are we supposed to believe in religion when all it’s taught us is being dethroned? We have been taught that we should reign righteously, is that forgotten? Is might truly right? The woman’s job is not to wait to build a better place after the war, but to build it now. You cannot have something done the way you want it done unless you yourself do it. Women as guardians. Women need to be prepared for battle, just a different type of battle. Rotenburg ties all these things together in a serious question for Canada at the time, what position will Canada take when the war stops in regards to women? Will they go back to their roles in kitchen, children and church. What role will they have? It is clear from the First World War that men have no interest in the role of women or their importance in after war.
These articles are trying to tell women that there IS a place for them in society, but they have to unite together to make those positions because men will not allow those places to exist. They want women to remain within the ‘trinity’ role where they have three explicit focuses as previously mentioned. The problem with this outlook is that it actually convinces women that they actually belong there. This is something that Frances discusses is the role of women after the war and if they will still be involved in their community affairs. Women in these positions learned things about themselves, that they CAN do men’s work and make a positive change in their communities by taking leadership roles. Women have to use their brains to plan for Canada’s future. Women have to get to know their community, see it, feel it and smell it. This article is largely a cry for women to abandon their household roles, or their roles from being a spectator and actually becoming involved and further KNOWING the things they are talking about. Women have proved their capacities in being able to hold both their jobs and their community involvement. Women could get involved with the slums, taking roles in their government and searching for issues to the problem intellectually. What will happen to Canada when the war is over, will we fall back into old patterns or will we embrace new identities.
In my own thoughts and leading away from the readings a little here, I think what the main point that BOTH of these authors are addressing is that an identity cannot be made for women if they don’t make it aware that there is an identity that needs to be attached to them. Women were not seen as relevant and they lacked definition besides the woman behind the man. This was a unique cry out from authors during the war to encourage women to define themselves, to define their sisters within their country so that all of them could lead the lives that made sense in their new identities. How are you supposed to make the government and people of the country see your concerns and issues if you’re not even identifiable to them? Frances addresses this a little more significantly when she discusses the importance of women to KNOW their surroundings. To become involved, to know what is going on in their areas and to not only address it from their rocking chairs knitting at home but to address the issue as an equal intellectual with the capacity to solve the issue. This was a crucial time period for really defining the desires of women as a group, as prior to these opportunities in war, there wasn’t much of a group of women that were seen as intellectuals fighting for a cause. They were seen as passive parts of society, and these articles are a cry out to change that passive role and become active members of the community. Another big theme I saw here was the desire to abandon the trinity of jobs women were responsible to do. They wanted to be able to have a say in their own lives, at the same time as working and raising children and being church going women. The articles draw on a main function, the ability of being able to multitask, which could also be associated with the ability to be intelligent. It is because of this ability to multitask women are arguing for recognition for their capabilities to do so, and to be given the right to make their own calls in their own affairs without the disturbance of men. This is a defining factor of our culture even today. Women want to develop careers without a man, they want to achieve goals and they don’t want a man involved in that, they want to earn it the same as a man. Women want to be able to step in front of a man for once, instead of being locked behind. That is what these articles are begging the women of the war to do, is evaluate where they stand and take a step forward instead of being planted in the same place they had always been, behind the man.
Rotenberg and Frances both provide an account that highlights the position of women in the second world war and deals their role in the public sphere. Rotenberg highlights the role of women in war by referring to the war as being a women’s war. She talks about the enslavement of women under fascism and their inability to practice the freedoms they have worked years to gain. She talks about the regimes interference in the private sphere, in the welfare of the women’s children, and in religion, all of which work to diminish the rights and freedoms of the individual and set back the nation into moral, social, and political degression. In the context of the war, women are reduced to unthinking and obedient robots confined to their role in the kitchen, as mothers, and in the church. Having any sort of agency in the public sphere was out of the question for a sex considered inferior to men. Especially living under a doctrine of National Socialism, women were bound to be considered to be unequal and as servers to the Master Aryan race. Rotenberg emphasizes the importance of women’s role in the public sphere and claims that through the realization of the issues involving the right for the woman to be the boss of the kitchen, the right for her to aspire for a better future for her children, and the right for her to be able to choose whichever religion and practice without the infringement of a tyrannical regime, women will know the war to be their war and to address these issues as women who want a new world order.
Frances also highlights the role of women outside of the private sphere by focusing on the possibilities of the kinds of roles the women could have in the public sphere even after the war had ended. She talks about how women had developed skills and experience through their work and had wanted to keep working together with a team so to have some influence in the public domain and invoke recognition of the importance of their contributions outside of the roles that society had confined or limited them to.In a sense, Frances is referring to the breaking of the barrier of limitations subjected upon women and letting them use their minds to plan their own place in the future of Canada.
In my opinion, I believe that the war’s causing of the change in gender roles for the women, through their increased engagement in the public sphere as means for supporting the war effort, did good for the women as it allowed them to realize their potential in the economic and social aspects of society. I believe Rotenberg and Frances make a good point when they point out how the role of women could be so much more and was so much more than the limitations of the private sphere that they were confined in allowed them to be. It also made them more conscious members of the community as they came to terms with the issues plaguing the community-issues that heavily pertained to the kinds of roles that women were familiar with and that meant something to them. For example, the concern for a better future for their children in the face of a war demanding conscription was something that women as mothers could identify with and which made them realize their ability to be able to bring these issues in the forefront in the public domain through the use of their own agency.
World War II was a watershed moment in Canada history in regards to women’s roles. There was the belief that women were too fragile and had to stay home and tend to the house and children while the hardy men worked outside to provide for the family. However, during World War II, this family structure changed dramatically as both men and women now worked outside the home. Men were on the front lines while the women supported from behind the scenes back home through contributing and keeping the home economy alive. Due to the lack of young, capable men leaving for the war, the women stepped in to tend to the industry back home. They were able to balance both work and home, proving that they were just as capable as men, if not more. Also, contrary to outdated beliefs that women could not work in a group, they proved otherwise. They were able to initiate, organize, lead, and carry out various fundraisers to raise money for the war effectively and efficiently within a short period of time. By working outside the home due to the opportunity given by World War II, many intelligent women realized that they could keep this new lifestyle, seeing the changes that they have made with the new skills they have gained. This moment when they realized that they wanted to keep these new opportunities and the positions they have worked for and gained was the watershed moment in Canadian history. The women now had awareness of their powers and desire to be able to contribute equally to their nation alongside their male counterparts.
From the primary sources “It’s a Woman’s War” by Mattie Rotenberg and “ Now is the Time for Volunteer Workers to Chart the Future” by Anne Frances, we gain insight about the sentiments women had towards the war and their role at home with the absence of men. Both sources identify the new roles and responsibilities women gained as positive steps for the future of Canada and the role women will hopefully play in that future. Each author understands that unless there is a cohesive movement towards reform, the advancement women experienced socially and economically during the war will have a finite existence. In relation to the war effort itself, each article is wholly supportive of the battle at hand and the need to support the men fighting on the front lines. Nevertheless, each author is also in favor of advocating for the fight they face as women at home. Idleness will not prove successful and without activism women may never regain the positions they inherited during the war years. Each author, while advocating for change at home also notes the privilege to do so in a democracy. Where in Germany and other fascist or totalitarian regimes, they’re plight may be insurmountable. I think that the point each author makes is not for complete reform but for changes that recognize women as competent and capable members of society whose involvement can only bring about prosperity. They do not want to abandon traditional, more domestic roles such as childcare and work in the kitchen, but should be able to pursue opportunities available to men if they so choose. Especially considering they have proven their value in the war effort.
The primary documents “Now is the Time for Volunteer Workers to Chart the Future,” and “It’s a Women’s War,” are documents written by women expressing their views on the changing roles of women during and following World War Two. The change in womens’ typical role of working in the home, to working in the industry in a time of Total War is explained in both documents. A prominent issue facing many women was the question of what were women going to do when the men returned from combat. Frances’ article pegs many questions such as why should woman have to go back to working exclusively at home, and why even after all they have proven and contributed, are they forced to retake their old societal roles. Frances states that many women in fact do not want to go back to working only in the home, they gain more satisfaction participating in the workforce than they do sewing, cleaning and cooking only. Both documents also come to similar conclusions, which are unless a united movement towards permanent reform takes place, women will eventually end up back in the home. Though it is acknowledged that many women in fact want to go back to the home, and want to continue their traditional role, what needs to take place is the option for women to choose. Though immediate and complete reform would be almost impossible, the main goal, it seems, is just to change the mindset of many people and make them understand that women can contribute to society with just as much fervor and competence as men. Rotenberg discusses the issues that women faced in the NAZI totalitarian regime. It is impossible for reform to happen when an all powerful seemingly, demigod, is dictating everything that happens within the regime. Additionally, Hitler believed that women were needed to produce strong children who would further aid in his war effort. Women, as valued members of society, should have the right to decide how they want to live their lives and have the choice to work in the workforce or work exclusively in the home.
Being from a First Nation Culture one of the teachings that you will receive from any elder is that women and females in general are the most powerful being because of the ability to give birth. For this point alone women are regarded so highly in our culture and their views, their advice and their motherhood is taken very seriously and that they should and shall be protected from any form of harm at all costs possible.
Now having said this and after reading these articles I cannot really speak on these points from a euro centered point of view from which these women I am assuming come from.
In my culture the Secwepemc or Shuswap peoples of the interior Salish do not consider the women to be the weaker sex, in fact we see them and believe them to be way stronger than any man, and i stress any man. We as a people also have a differing view on feminism because as basic is the matter is, that within the household, the community and on the land the woman has the very last say on what goes, she makes the rules or disregards them if she doesn’t agree with what is being said. No such need for movements is needed because the greatest leaders from my Nation are that of women. While we have had great male leaders it is the mothers, the daughters, the grandmothers, aunts and sisters who taught them.
So while I understand what is being said in the articles about equality, the need for women to strike while the iron is hot, in terms of seeking a place in life. The desire for women to be taken seriously and not for granted is of the utmost importance. But in the end while I understand it and I can see the struggle it just feels a little alien to me to speak on it, because of the way I was brought up and brought to believe.
I think that the programs which broadcast these two different messages are significant. Both are about unification and female empowerment, but I think that both the audience and the medium are important factors in assessing these sources.
Rotenberg’s program was on the “Trans-Canada Matinee” – an afternoon broadcast on the CBC. She appeals directly to women to unite and create the new world order. Because of this, I’m guessing that women were the main audience of the program, perhaps while they are at home. Rotenberg personalizes her message to women whose lives focussed on childrearing, cooking and devotion, speaking of the Nazi’s invasions on these inseparable parts of women’s private lives. This is about women at home for women who stay at home. The message is to stay at home and mold the culture that they want their children to grow up in, a culture of strong moral fibre which can be created through happy homes. This is just a guess, but she too is probably a stay-at-home mom. Using the same ideology as the vilified man she speaks of, “Hitler himself says that his battles are fought with ideas, no less than with guns”.
Frances’ article was in “Saturday Night” magazine, which was probably read by more educated women, and men too. While Rotenberg who tries to find a place for women in society at home, Frances tries to find a place for women outside the home. She indicates that although some women would prefer to retire at home once the men return, many female professionals want to continue to work in the public sphere. She believes that by working outside of the home that women can cure the ills of society: unemployment, juvenile delinquency and the like. She stresses the importance of education and participatory community involvement to these women. She’s finding a place for working women in society.
nkular93, 
cprimus, 
kenthen, and 4 others are discussing.
enorthwood 10:20 pm on March 3, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Both of these readings by Rotenburg and Frances discuss what the importance of determining Canada’s future and women’s place in it while the war is going on, because war is a cataclyst for change and changes need to be made. Rotenburg argues that this is a woman’s war, that women are being suppressed, being made into ‘obedient robots’ that serve men. Jobs, education are not for women, they are sent to the Church, Kitchen and Children. If you’re not married they want to know why not, if you are they tell you how many children you need to have and when. Women provide the never ending stream of men to fight for their country. Kitchens sphere men are interrupting, asking questions, poking their heads in and trying to offer advice. Second sphere, children, of course they want them but they don’t want them to grow up to be pieces of the war machine. A woman’s war is too see her children grow free and strong without having to kill to earn that title. How are we supposed to believe in religion when all it’s taught us is being dethroned? We have been taught that we should reign righteously, is that forgotten? Is might truly right? The woman’s job is not to wait to build a better place after the war, but to build it now. You cannot have something done the way you want it done unless you yourself do it. Women as guardians. Women need to be prepared for battle, just a different type of battle. Rotenburg ties all these things together in a serious question for Canada at the time, what position will Canada take when the war stops in regards to women? Will they go back to their roles in kitchen, children and church. What role will they have? It is clear from the First World War that men have no interest in the role of women or their importance in after war.
These articles are trying to tell women that there IS a place for them in society, but they have to unite together to make those positions because men will not allow those places to exist. They want women to remain within the ‘trinity’ role where they have three explicit focuses as previously mentioned. The problem with this outlook is that it actually convinces women that they actually belong there. This is something that Frances discusses is the role of women after the war and if they will still be involved in their community affairs. Women in these positions learned things about themselves, that they CAN do men’s work and make a positive change in their communities by taking leadership roles. Women have to use their brains to plan for Canada’s future. Women have to get to know their community, see it, feel it and smell it. This article is largely a cry for women to abandon their household roles, or their roles from being a spectator and actually becoming involved and further KNOWING the things they are talking about. Women have proved their capacities in being able to hold both their jobs and their community involvement. Women could get involved with the slums, taking roles in their government and searching for issues to the problem intellectually. What will happen to Canada when the war is over, will we fall back into old patterns or will we embrace new identities.
In my own thoughts and leading away from the readings a little here, I think what the main point that BOTH of these authors are addressing is that an identity cannot be made for women if they don’t make it aware that there is an identity that needs to be attached to them. Women were not seen as relevant and they lacked definition besides the woman behind the man. This was a unique cry out from authors during the war to encourage women to define themselves, to define their sisters within their country so that all of them could lead the lives that made sense in their new identities. How are you supposed to make the government and people of the country see your concerns and issues if you’re not even identifiable to them? Frances addresses this a little more significantly when she discusses the importance of women to KNOW their surroundings. To become involved, to know what is going on in their areas and to not only address it from their rocking chairs knitting at home but to address the issue as an equal intellectual with the capacity to solve the issue. This was a crucial time period for really defining the desires of women as a group, as prior to these opportunities in war, there wasn’t much of a group of women that were seen as intellectuals fighting for a cause. They were seen as passive parts of society, and these articles are a cry out to change that passive role and become active members of the community. Another big theme I saw here was the desire to abandon the trinity of jobs women were responsible to do. They wanted to be able to have a say in their own lives, at the same time as working and raising children and being church going women. The articles draw on a main function, the ability of being able to multitask, which could also be associated with the ability to be intelligent. It is because of this ability to multitask women are arguing for recognition for their capabilities to do so, and to be given the right to make their own calls in their own affairs without the disturbance of men. This is a defining factor of our culture even today. Women want to develop careers without a man, they want to achieve goals and they don’t want a man involved in that, they want to earn it the same as a man. Women want to be able to step in front of a man for once, instead of being locked behind. That is what these articles are begging the women of the war to do, is evaluate where they stand and take a step forward instead of being planted in the same place they had always been, behind the man.
nkular93 12:31 am on March 5, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Rotenberg and Frances both provide an account that highlights the position of women in the second world war and deals their role in the public sphere. Rotenberg highlights the role of women in war by referring to the war as being a women’s war. She talks about the enslavement of women under fascism and their inability to practice the freedoms they have worked years to gain. She talks about the regimes interference in the private sphere, in the welfare of the women’s children, and in religion, all of which work to diminish the rights and freedoms of the individual and set back the nation into moral, social, and political degression. In the context of the war, women are reduced to unthinking and obedient robots confined to their role in the kitchen, as mothers, and in the church. Having any sort of agency in the public sphere was out of the question for a sex considered inferior to men. Especially living under a doctrine of National Socialism, women were bound to be considered to be unequal and as servers to the Master Aryan race. Rotenberg emphasizes the importance of women’s role in the public sphere and claims that through the realization of the issues involving the right for the woman to be the boss of the kitchen, the right for her to aspire for a better future for her children, and the right for her to be able to choose whichever religion and practice without the infringement of a tyrannical regime, women will know the war to be their war and to address these issues as women who want a new world order.
Frances also highlights the role of women outside of the private sphere by focusing on the possibilities of the kinds of roles the women could have in the public sphere even after the war had ended. She talks about how women had developed skills and experience through their work and had wanted to keep working together with a team so to have some influence in the public domain and invoke recognition of the importance of their contributions outside of the roles that society had confined or limited them to.In a sense, Frances is referring to the breaking of the barrier of limitations subjected upon women and letting them use their minds to plan their own place in the future of Canada.
In my opinion, I believe that the war’s causing of the change in gender roles for the women, through their increased engagement in the public sphere as means for supporting the war effort, did good for the women as it allowed them to realize their potential in the economic and social aspects of society. I believe Rotenberg and Frances make a good point when they point out how the role of women could be so much more and was so much more than the limitations of the private sphere that they were confined in allowed them to be. It also made them more conscious members of the community as they came to terms with the issues plaguing the community-issues that heavily pertained to the kinds of roles that women were familiar with and that meant something to them. For example, the concern for a better future for their children in the face of a war demanding conscription was something that women as mothers could identify with and which made them realize their ability to be able to bring these issues in the forefront in the public domain through the use of their own agency.
millyzhu 10:44 pm on March 3, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
World War II was a watershed moment in Canada history in regards to women’s roles. There was the belief that women were too fragile and had to stay home and tend to the house and children while the hardy men worked outside to provide for the family. However, during World War II, this family structure changed dramatically as both men and women now worked outside the home. Men were on the front lines while the women supported from behind the scenes back home through contributing and keeping the home economy alive. Due to the lack of young, capable men leaving for the war, the women stepped in to tend to the industry back home. They were able to balance both work and home, proving that they were just as capable as men, if not more. Also, contrary to outdated beliefs that women could not work in a group, they proved otherwise. They were able to initiate, organize, lead, and carry out various fundraisers to raise money for the war effectively and efficiently within a short period of time. By working outside the home due to the opportunity given by World War II, many intelligent women realized that they could keep this new lifestyle, seeing the changes that they have made with the new skills they have gained. This moment when they realized that they wanted to keep these new opportunities and the positions they have worked for and gained was the watershed moment in Canadian history. The women now had awareness of their powers and desire to be able to contribute equally to their nation alongside their male counterparts.
mosachoff 4:17 pm on March 4, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
From the primary sources “It’s a Woman’s War” by Mattie Rotenberg and “ Now is the Time for Volunteer Workers to Chart the Future” by Anne Frances, we gain insight about the sentiments women had towards the war and their role at home with the absence of men. Both sources identify the new roles and responsibilities women gained as positive steps for the future of Canada and the role women will hopefully play in that future. Each author understands that unless there is a cohesive movement towards reform, the advancement women experienced socially and economically during the war will have a finite existence. In relation to the war effort itself, each article is wholly supportive of the battle at hand and the need to support the men fighting on the front lines. Nevertheless, each author is also in favor of advocating for the fight they face as women at home. Idleness will not prove successful and without activism women may never regain the positions they inherited during the war years. Each author, while advocating for change at home also notes the privilege to do so in a democracy. Where in Germany and other fascist or totalitarian regimes, they’re plight may be insurmountable. I think that the point each author makes is not for complete reform but for changes that recognize women as competent and capable members of society whose involvement can only bring about prosperity. They do not want to abandon traditional, more domestic roles such as childcare and work in the kitchen, but should be able to pursue opportunities available to men if they so choose. Especially considering they have proven their value in the war effort.
alexwickett 5:10 pm on March 4, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The primary documents “Now is the Time for Volunteer Workers to Chart the Future,” and “It’s a Women’s War,” are documents written by women expressing their views on the changing roles of women during and following World War Two. The change in womens’ typical role of working in the home, to working in the industry in a time of Total War is explained in both documents. A prominent issue facing many women was the question of what were women going to do when the men returned from combat. Frances’ article pegs many questions such as why should woman have to go back to working exclusively at home, and why even after all they have proven and contributed, are they forced to retake their old societal roles. Frances states that many women in fact do not want to go back to working only in the home, they gain more satisfaction participating in the workforce than they do sewing, cleaning and cooking only. Both documents also come to similar conclusions, which are unless a united movement towards permanent reform takes place, women will eventually end up back in the home. Though it is acknowledged that many women in fact want to go back to the home, and want to continue their traditional role, what needs to take place is the option for women to choose. Though immediate and complete reform would be almost impossible, the main goal, it seems, is just to change the mindset of many people and make them understand that women can contribute to society with just as much fervor and competence as men. Rotenberg discusses the issues that women faced in the NAZI totalitarian regime. It is impossible for reform to happen when an all powerful seemingly, demigod, is dictating everything that happens within the regime. Additionally, Hitler believed that women were needed to produce strong children who would further aid in his war effort. Women, as valued members of society, should have the right to decide how they want to live their lives and have the choice to work in the workforce or work exclusively in the home.
kenthen 5:38 pm on March 4, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Being from a First Nation Culture one of the teachings that you will receive from any elder is that women and females in general are the most powerful being because of the ability to give birth. For this point alone women are regarded so highly in our culture and their views, their advice and their motherhood is taken very seriously and that they should and shall be protected from any form of harm at all costs possible.
Now having said this and after reading these articles I cannot really speak on these points from a euro centered point of view from which these women I am assuming come from.
In my culture the Secwepemc or Shuswap peoples of the interior Salish do not consider the women to be the weaker sex, in fact we see them and believe them to be way stronger than any man, and i stress any man. We as a people also have a differing view on feminism because as basic is the matter is, that within the household, the community and on the land the woman has the very last say on what goes, she makes the rules or disregards them if she doesn’t agree with what is being said. No such need for movements is needed because the greatest leaders from my Nation are that of women. While we have had great male leaders it is the mothers, the daughters, the grandmothers, aunts and sisters who taught them.
So while I understand what is being said in the articles about equality, the need for women to strike while the iron is hot, in terms of seeking a place in life. The desire for women to be taken seriously and not for granted is of the utmost importance. But in the end while I understand it and I can see the struggle it just feels a little alien to me to speak on it, because of the way I was brought up and brought to believe.
cprimus 7:08 pm on March 4, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
For us, by us?
I think that the programs which broadcast these two different messages are significant. Both are about unification and female empowerment, but I think that both the audience and the medium are important factors in assessing these sources.
Rotenberg’s program was on the “Trans-Canada Matinee” – an afternoon broadcast on the CBC. She appeals directly to women to unite and create the new world order. Because of this, I’m guessing that women were the main audience of the program, perhaps while they are at home. Rotenberg personalizes her message to women whose lives focussed on childrearing, cooking and devotion, speaking of the Nazi’s invasions on these inseparable parts of women’s private lives. This is about women at home for women who stay at home. The message is to stay at home and mold the culture that they want their children to grow up in, a culture of strong moral fibre which can be created through happy homes. This is just a guess, but she too is probably a stay-at-home mom. Using the same ideology as the vilified man she speaks of, “Hitler himself says that his battles are fought with ideas, no less than with guns”.
Frances’ article was in “Saturday Night” magazine, which was probably read by more educated women, and men too. While Rotenberg who tries to find a place for women in society at home, Frances tries to find a place for women outside the home. She indicates that although some women would prefer to retire at home once the men return, many female professionals want to continue to work in the public sphere. She believes that by working outside of the home that women can cure the ills of society: unemployment, juvenile delinquency and the like. She stresses the importance of education and participatory community involvement to these women. She’s finding a place for working women in society.
cprimus 7:17 pm on March 4, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Edit: the title was not supposed to have a question mark after it. It was supposed to be a period.