Anniversary into the United States entry into the First World War and would focus on those who embrace peace and refuse to support the war effort. They wanted to know whether or not phs could merge our 2017 bienniel conference with their. I was thrilled to have them become an official cosponsor and part of the program committee. It was also four years ago this mornings keynote speaker, professor Erika Kullman and i were in contact with the peace history journal. It was around that time she was informing me when her three year term at the journal finished she planned to step down in order to complete her manuscript on the International Migration of german war veterans. Like any good organizational president i tried to get her to change her mind, since she had been such a great editor and because i wanted to pass off the work of finding a replacement to my successor. She refused, but she did remain a valued member of the organization and is now serving on the board of the peace history society. Erika kullman is a professor and former director of womens studies at Idaho State University where she teaches courses in womens history, u. S. Industrial reform and transnationallism. Dr. Kullman received her ph. D. From washington State University where she conducted research on 20th century early peace movements and conducted studies in womens gender and First World War, including the book of little comfort and Fallen Soldiers and she is currently working on a digital history project of german choral groups and the sound escape is in the 1920s United States. Dr. Kullman has twice been awarded an isu outstanding researcher award and recently started a refuge scholarship for prospective Idaho State University students in response to the nationalistic sentiment surrounding refuges in politics today. Her talk, mustering support for war, gender conformity and inevitability of the First World War comes in part from her first book, petty coats and white feathers about womens protest of the First World War. Please join me in welcoming dr. Kullman. [ applause ] thank you very much for that gracious introduction, christie. I appreciate all the work thats gone into this wonderful conference, thanks to andrew bolton. Thanks for inviting me as well as david hosteter. I will start my remarks with a story. It begins about a year ago the university of mississippi held a conference called gender war and memory and the angloamerican world. I submitted a paper and was accepted. So i headed off to oxford, mississippi, for this conference. Like all conferences, it was a wonderful time to catch wake up old friends, colleagues and a chance to meet some new people. I noticed on the program was a scholar named lisa meyer, some of you may be familiar with her work. She published a book in 1998 called creating g. I. Jane in society and power in the army corps in 1992. This came out just as i was trying to massage the book christie mentioned into my dissertation of my first book. I read it with much interest even though her book was about world war ii. I was interested to see how women in that world war ii era responded to war since my book was dealing with how women responded to the First World War. Her book obviously dealt with women who wanted to join the war effort in the military. My interest was more in women who wanted to stop the war. I think its always important to look at both sides to see the variety of ways women respond to war. I was excited to see lisa meyer on the program. Her session came toward the end of the conference, on a panel with a couple of other folks. She gave her paper and addressed many of the questions i deal with, too, we probably, all those of us who do gender think about, the confluence of women and war. She talked about the ways in which women were prevented from doing full military service in Second World War because of presumed physical weakness, they simply werent Strong Enough to do the job of soldiering, the presumed way in which women were thought to not have the mental capacities to do the job of soldiering the way it was assumed their emotionalselves would overcome them and they would be unable to do the job needed. Probably the most interesting or maybe controversial point was the way in which it was assumed womens presence in the military would be a distraction to the men who were assume dollars to be doing the real work of soldiering. They would be attracted to women who would be present there with them and they would be unable to carry through their presumed duties in the military. She gave a paper on this topic and was a very interesting paper and she received a lot of questions during the q a period when the session was over. While she and the other Panel Members were talking after the papers had finished there was a lot of interest in this notion of how women can become equally a part of the fighting forces of the military. A lot of folks talked about how now folks have accepted women into the military and women being accepted into the citadel and women going to westpoint and women becoming named generals, becoming decorated generals. The holdout at that point was women still werent accepted fully into the marines but it was thought this would happen soon. There was talk about how women cant be considered equal to men unless they have authority and power over men. Once women are leading military units into war that will happen, where women you will see women at the top of a fighting unit go into a battle and command and have authority over men, and that this is kind of the final step toward full equality. These ideas come from a variety of places ah mong others, get da learner, the womans historian who talks about how women can be measured in society and women need to have Actual Authority and power over men. These were the questions and answers going on in the q a session after lisas paper. As i was listening to all of this i began to feel frankly, sick to my stomach. I began to think, well, yes, we do want to see women achieve full equality in society. I begin to feel sick of the notion of women leading men into battle. You get those two little voices in your head. One says, oh, its the end of the conference, everybodys exhausted. I really wanted to go home by this point. Sit and listen. The other voice says, no, you have to Say Something, better Say Something now. Its time. I gingerly raised my hand and say i would never want to see a woman who wants to achieve something be held back from that achievement, i wonder whether we really want to applaud the entry into the military of more people. And perhaps that part of feminists who are also pacifists might view this in a different way. All the attention was on me so people turned around and looked, whos saying this. I became really uncomfortable. Lisa was sitting up in the panel and she nodded appreciably and respectfully. We tossed that back and forth for a little bit. Then i realized later, this is really the central issue thats been nagging at me for the past 20 years. How can women be fully equal into American Society . Can they still advocate peace . Can they still not support war . Or do they have to support war fully engaged in this aspect of American Society to be seen as equal. This was the question i realized was gnawing at me. I want to get back to that question of whether women can be fully equal citizens in society and still advocate peace in just a minute. I want to finish my story. The next morning everybody was leaving the conference and lisa and i shared a van ride to the airport. I got to know her a little bit better. I told her i had read her book. She had been in the military before her academic career and had been discriminated in the military and then i understood her position better. She had this great idea. She said, we should do a journal issue on this very question, have some kind of forum where people would submit papers and we could kind of get at this question. I thought, that is a great idea. We sort of left it at that. Unfortunately, i didnt hear from lisa any more and maybe thats not my fault for not following through. I still think its a great idea. I kept coming back to this question how women can become fully equal in society and still seek peace. Then i started to think of other ways getting at that question thinking about that question. One other way might be to say, well, as women do become more fully integrated into society, does that result in a more Peaceful Society . Does that result in a reduction in the number of times that nations go off to fight wars . If youre thinking wow, shes thinking about Steven Pinkers book, the better angels of our nature, youre right. Thats one place it can be seen. Ive not read the 800 page book, maybe some of you have and i would welcome your perspective, but ive read a lot about the controversial nature what pinkers argument is and in a nutshell, its that our ancestors were horribly violent. He uses forensic data to talk about bashed in skulls and things like this to suggest then by the time we come to the 20th century, the organization, societal nature of the way humans have organized themselves have actually resulted in less violence, that people will surrender their violent, more violent natures to the state and let the state deal with violence through law, through organized war and so forth. So in a nutshell, thats his argument. I guess, you know, thats a debatable point, whether or not the 20th century. The book was written in i think 2011, whether the 20th century has in fact been less violent. Way of been through war after war in my lifetime. We just had a man who brutally killed some 60 people and wound twod twod wounded 200 others at a music concert and seemed an awful lot like an act of war. This led me not to believe what Steven Pinkers saying but uses women equality as societys sign we are less violent in our time. I think another corollary we could use, has womens presence in the military and lisa meyers work, the Second World War and so forth, has their greater presence in the military made the military a Different Institution and perhaps led to the femization of the military and therefore a military thats less violent. I have data, the most recent data i could find was 15 of the u. S. Military is made up of females. Certainly, we have seen women graduating from westpoint becoming decorated generals and so forth. Im not sure we can say anything about whether the military has changed, given those still relatively low numbers. 15 is not great. I think this is a debatable point. The military touts its more peaceful objectives for example distributing relief, pacifying a situation that will then enable School Children to go to school. We hear about that aspect of the military perhaps these days than we did before. Im not sure we can say womens presence in the military has changed that institution. But i think thats a debatable point. Certainly, i think we can say women have in fact achieved greater equality in our society in all different kinds of ways. After the First World War women gained the right to vote. The suffrage act passed after 1920. Womens historians will argue they gained that right to vote because of their support for the u. S. Government and its military during the First World War and then rewarded with suffrage. Other historians would argue, no, suffrage was already going to pass. The western states had already passed suffrage laws and so forth. I guess the First World War for me had that kind of confluence of really important changing situations in which women were on the verge of gaining suffrage just as the war happened. For me, the emblem of that context was janet rankin, who was the first representative to go to the u. S. Congress in washington and not long after she arrived in washington, d. C. From montana, the vote wilson declared war and congress was asked to vote on his war declaration. She was right there and she voted against the war deck clar rays in 1917. Weve made strides in politics. Still have a long way to go, still havent elected a woman president and not anywhere near parity in the houses of congress in washington, d. C. You certainly could talk about economic gains women have made. Theyre now welcome in just about any professor. Theyve made Great Strides. We can social and cultural measurements are harder to take. Women have made Great Strides in many different professions although as weve seen lately it frequently comes at a cost we hear almost daily now about Sexual Harassment that takes place in various occupations. Given that stride, we can ask whether or not women having achieved greater equality has in any way changed the likelihood of violence and war as an institution that the state uses. So what i want to do now. Those are things i hope we can revisit. What i want to do now is shift gears and talk about my reach and the way in which ive tried to see whether women can advocate equality for women and still advocate for peace. The best example that i came up with, as i was doing my research, was a group of ladies called the new york city womens peace party. These ladies had did that work of continuing to claim womens equality and also advocate peace. Unlike a lot of suffragists at the time who then fell in with the war effort in the United States, these ladies set themselves apart from that and continued to be pacifists. They did most of their work through their newsletter newspaper journal, called four lights. So this journal has now been digitized. Its only a few clicks away on your computer screen. Back when i was doing my research i had to read the microfilm at the peace collection. Its out there. You can see it. Its a fabulous fabulous journal. What four lights did for me was allow me to see how that combination could work and how well it worked. And what i came up what i came away with was the ways in which you have to be radical in order to do those two things, to do feminism and pacifism at the same time. These women were really really good at turning convention on their heads and seeing the world in a different way. Many of them were part of heterodoxy, bohemian women women in greenwich village, many single working women. Many had come against militarism, a mixed gender antiPreparedness Movement, as wilson began to head down the path toward war, they tried to prevent and throw a wrench in the Preparedness Movement in the United States. Four lights became their vehicle and kind of their organ. It didnt last very long. Ill get into that in a bit. I wanted to describe to you the way this thing was set up. If you look at the mast head, it has an ocean. It has a huge wooden ship with multiple sails kind of bobbing along on the ocean. Alongside that they have a quote. They took as their inspiration, magellan, so the european explorer, and they said on the mast head there it said, then he showed four lights when he wished them to set full sail and follow in his wake. These ladies saw themselves as providing a bye con of light they hoped other people would follow. They then underneath that is a banner that reads, an adventure in internationalism. They started publishing in january of 1917. That tells you as the nation was heading off to war, they viewed themselves as internationalists, not nationalists, like you might expect people would do at a time of war or close to a time of war. That told me this was going to be something different. What i think these women were able to do in their newsletter, was to take gender conventions, again, and really show how they operate in society, and so their newsletter, their journal was full of little vinnettes about how they operated to gain peoples acceptance of war. One of the best examples, they had a reporter, sarah clegghorn, who was in toronto, she saw in canadian Society Women were parading around the downtown area handing out cards to men, young men that they saw who were not in uniform. They would distribute white feathers to those men who were not in uniform and had not enlisted. They would give petticoats to men who had not enlisted. The idea is pretty obvious, if youre not going to be a soldier and protect me you might as well look like me and wear petticoats. The idea is to shame men thinking they have to do their duty and enlist in the this military to protect women. As Canadian Women did this if they gained the enlistment of 10 men using the method of shame, they would get a piece of jewelry. A lovely piece of jewelry. You see whats going on here. You have to fulfill your gender role for the country to go off to war. That was one vignette i saw. Another thing i saw was the way they picked apart language, and the way they noticed how language was being twisted to certain ends. They talked about, for example, the motion of making the world safe for democracy. They really wanted to know, now, what does that mean . What does it mean to make the world safe for democracy . What do we mean by democracy here in this instance . They argued that the word, peace was now being conscripted. They talked about how the word peace would appear alongside the same tents as the word force and questioned how language was being used by president wilson and others to put the nation in this wartime footing. One of the best examples of their critical eye was when they wrote an article that was critical of the nation. This is a magazine that still exists today. This is a magazine owned by a pacifist named oswald garrison. He was the son of a famous female pacifist. The nation would actually, not too many years after 1917, be edited by a member of the new york simmons peace party, frieda. They took the nation to task. Here for me as i was doing my research in this 1st world war time period i really felt a comradeship with these ladies. As i had been studying for my comps for my ph. D. Program, i was studying the progressives. And for me, the progressives were great. They did reform, they were all about education, they helped build parks in in ter cities. They helped educate. But then i learned about their ideology of efficiency and i began to turn on them. I could see the new york city womens peace Party Members were going through the same thing of then turning on a vaunted journal like the nation. Heres the article that appeared in the nation they criticized. The nation reported on the practice of soldiers in europe coming into towns in belgium and raping and pillaging and looting. They had heard of these atrocities and were reporting on them. As they reported specifically on rape that had occurred, they said, well, for these poor victims of rape, they would be better off dead, so the women victims of rape, it would be better in two way, better for the individual victim of a rape to just die. Secondly, it would be better off for society as a whole if female victims of rape would not survive. So the new york city women read this article and as they were really good at, they picked it apart. They said, now, wait a minute. Who decided that females who are raped are now expendable . How is that . What does that mean . They realized, oh, rape means shes now used, and that shes now shes been dishonored, right . Her status has been dishonored by this act of rape and therefore shes better off dead, now that she has no honor, now that her honor has been taken away. So they said why is womens sexual function is a notion that women gratify male lust, why is that the only way women are seen as honorable. They made that comment and then they went on to say why would society be better off if victims of rape are dead . How does Society Benefit from that . Oh. Is it because women, to be functioning members of society, have to be married and have to be mothers and therefore since these women have lost their honor, no one would marry them and therefore their lives are expendable . So they were really really good at picking apart things like that. The other thing they were good at was a final zinger at the end of a commentary like this. In this case, they said, men seem to be unanimous in this opinion womens lives are expendable if theyre victim of rape. It would be interesting to see how many women feel the same way. In that, i thought, ahha, theyre aware of complicity, aware of the fact if women, too, feel the only function in society is to be a wife and mother and if thats interrupted of them being victims of rape they need to change their thinking. Thats a typical way of four lights way of operating. Sadly it was confiscated under the auspices of the espionage act in 1917 shortly after the war declaration and the post office refused to distribute the journal and the women stopped publishing until the treaty of versailles was signed in 1919. They then came out with another newsletter. As you can imagine, they were not happy with the treaty of versailles and made several criticisms of that. So that is in a nutshell, i found the way in which the new york city womens peace party operates to criticize what they saw evenihappening in their own society, they were willing again to not only not be muted by the powers that be but they also continued to, in my sense of reading the journal, they seemed to take womens equality as a given and point out when women were not being treated equally as in the case of the story in the nation. They operated with such a sense of confidence, thats what i came across with in the journal overall, they didnt seem to question their ability to do what they were doing, do the criticism they felt was important, and so the i found that sense of confidence really exhilarating, and it certainly changed the way i see the way i see how a nation goes to war. So, at this point, i kind of want to shift gears again and i guess kind of do the kind of criticism that the new york city womens peace party did so well, namely, to pick apart language. I dont know how many of you watched the ken burns vietnam series thats been on pbs lately. I watched much of it, not all of it. It was a big commitment but i watch at a lot of it. As i was watching the series, i noticed the frequency with which the word honor was used, as a way to explain the policies that were shaping the u. S. s war effort in vietnam. Im sure everyone is familiar with how that word was used. Certainly, kennedy used it repeatedly. Johnson and nixon as well. Peace with honor, im sure many of you are familiar with that phrase. I started to wonder, what does that mean . What does it mean for a nation to have honor and then to lose it or being on the brink of losing it . Of course i began to wonder whether we werent talking about johnson himself losing honor. Of course we were. Thats what he meant by we cant lose honor and also said particularly during the resolution he justified his speech at Johns Hopkins of 1965. He said that the nation cant sacrifice its honor. I wondered about this word honor and whether to some degree it doesnt also mean male honor, whether its a manly honor assumed to exist on the part of the nation. This was one way we could employ the new york city peace partys way of taking a magnifying glass to a term like that, to see how does it really function . Do we just want to accept that . Do we just want to say, yeah, the nations honor needs to be defended. What do we mean when we say that. This is one situation ill use a baseball analogy, either hit the long ball and really get into this or i can square up and bunt and maybe ill get to first base but then i need you to help take me home here. I think its these ways we can help again not mute voices that would be critical the way in which honor seems to function in these kinds of periods. To the other thing i wanted to mention regarding the vietnam series, i thought one of the most poignant moment of the series was when the veteran was interviewed a veteran there in vietnam towards the end, after the u. S. Had already pulled out in january of 1973, he was with a unit that continued on and was waiting to be evacuated during the civil war. Thats a debatable point. Many people dont like the way the series viewed the civil war. He said a vietnam woman came to him and his buddies and his unit and offered herself to them in exchange for sea rations. He said that he and his unit did that, they raped her, whether its called rape i guess at that point would be another point of debate. They used her and then offered her food. So he said he wasnt proud of that but at the time he said he felt like it was his role as a man and as a soldier, to do this. So i thought, again, its quite alarming that that weapon of war continues to be used. Of course we all know that it has been and still is today. So i think we need to again pick this business of war apart and see what we can make of it and see if we can continue to let muted voices be heard. So at this point, i would welcome any questions or comments that you may have, reminding you that there are microphones on either end and also someone that will come with a microphone if youre not able to be. Thank you. [ applause ] good morning. Good morning. Hi. Im wendy, the curator of the peace collection and the one who put up four lights. Yeah anyway a journal worth being digitized. Actually, now, some of the womens peace party papers are part of the gail sungage subscriptions. I have two separate questions. The first one has to do with the issues that linda carver brought up in her 1998 book no constitutional right to be ladies when she actually talks about the obligations of citizenship, one debatable has been military service. And clearly, she would argue that one of the reasons women have not yet received we have not yet received full equal citizenship rights, nor did the 19th amendment grant those, would be because of the lack of military citizenship. Yeah. I mean, military service. Thats one issue to raise. The idea of obligation and citizenship rights. Yes. The other has to do with more specifics about world war i and id wonder how you would add into your sort of scenario about the womens peace party and their radicalism, i grant you they were. That has to do with the National Womens party and their picketing of the white house, not not necessarily a peace point of view, for those of you who dont know but members of the National Womens party, a suffrage organization at the time, picketed the white house, i dont know for how many months but starting in 1917, Holding Signs that called wilson, kaiser wilson, talked about the hypocrisy of the United States fighting for democracy around the world when women at home did not have full democracy. Even though they were led by a couple of Swathmore College pacifists, they did not have a consistent policy against the war but were against this idea of using the ideals of democracy to fight it, when obviously the u. S. Didnt grant that to everybody at home. They were attacked by people outside of the white house and they were actually attacked by the state and taken to the Virginia Work house and force fed, which was typical of suffrage activists at the time. Anyway, i wonder where you would fit that, not a passivist stance into this idea about democracy and citizenship. Thank you. The first issue regarding linda kerbers point about the idea of citizen obligation that full citizenship does require a military service or duty in order to be granted full citizenship. I guess while you were talking i thought of the equal rights amendment the National Womens party supported and i guess would have some people argues the era would have forced women to do military service, they would have been forced to be subject to the draft, for example. Yeah. I think that the assumption of military service must be given by a full citizenship, though, wouldnt that be undercut by conscientious objecttors, which, of course, is what were going to hear about during this conference. So i guess women then could say, well, we, too, would object to war. So i guess the question would be how does Conscientious Objection then interact with that notion of that to be a full citizen, you have an obligation to take up arms to fight in a war, because men have had full citizenship not always, of course, but and had that option. Of course, many men do not fight in wars because of age, ability or disability. Right. And other conscientious so the list of ways people were granted deferments during vietnam is quite extensive. So then your second question was related to the national the suffragists. Yeah. The suffragists from the Womens National party pikt the white house after the war declaration with these huge banner in which they said essentially why should we be fighting for democracy when women dont have the right to vote here at home. Some would argue those acts were actually quite successful in that they then put the question to the foreof democracy and who is considers a full citizenship. Are you asking me that as a strategy of whether i think it was just in sort of like this larger picture, gender issues, democracy, citizenship yeah. Youre right, they werent passivists, per se, they didnt say the u. S. Shouldnt be in this war out of the war, instead, they said how is the war making the world safe for democracy when were not there really isnt democracy here at home . Again, i think thats a debatable point. We have womens historians who think that was what changed womens minds, you obviously disagree versus the other sense that womens suffrage laws had been passed already. In new york, 1917, giving new york women the right to vote. I dont know. I guess i cant answer how successful that was but i know the Hunger Strike burns and alice paul went on, where was it . In virginia . At the courthouse where they would put women prisoners. That the news that came out about that certainly put the u. S. Government in a bad light. Maybe somebody else can offer a better i know we have better minds in the audience who have dealt with women and violence. I thought you were referring, too, to the 1913 parade that i know Kimberly Jensen has written about where women were parading for suffrage and they were attacked and wound up in jail and certainly got a sense of how ready u. S. Society was to accept women as being full citizens. Thanks. Im ellen barfield. Im here with the center on con sunshowe conscience and war. I am a veteran and i thank you very much about the commentary about the commonly agreed upon, not universally, but commonly agreed upon idea part of being a citizen is being willing to serve in the military whether or not you actually do, thank goodness even massive war machines cant absorb every man or woman and every reason why everyone wouldnt end up serving, their numbers were low in draft numbers. Commenting but i may come to a question and like to hear what you have to say. I joined in 77, when the army was just intending to increase the percentage to 15 which it still is. Thats 40 years ago, they havent gone any higher, do you know the researched statistic it takes about 30 of a previously disallowed group to get in before they can be theirselves i didnt know that. And bring their mindset to something they hadnt been able to be in. It has to be double before they have real effect according to this researcher. Interesting idea. Absolutely, through the years since i served and the push to let lbgts be open and trans, im terribly split, because, yeah, i dont want anybody in the military and yet sadly part of perceiving equality is that, for the general public. Im very sad about that but its true. It happens when i served, went in, in the spring of 77, i was still in the womens army corps. They hadnt changed that, in the middle of that it changed and i got to live history which was wonderful. My whole life and becoming a passivist for my whole life after my army service. People ask me, how is that . Why would that happen . Theyre interested in hearing my story. Its useful for peace work. Its a rel cognizant dissidence perhaps im more equal because i served and they listen to me more about peace issues because i served. Veterans have something to say the general public doesnt have about war. Thank you so much. This was a very interesting talk and theres splits and conflicts. Its tough. I think your comments are making me realize how beneficial it is to have women in the military, because otherwise, yes, here we go, because otherwise we wouldnt have your perspective on this right now. And, again, i wonder about wendys comments earlier, at what point, two things. One, do you think that even given the 15 you said there needs to be 30 . I wonder if you could comment on were we to reach 30 how do you think womens presence in the military would or could change . Or maybe it wouldnt. Exactly. And it certainly true in Police Forces too. Which are getting more militaryized. Would i as dvocate for 30 threshold. To impact the stuss or should we shut down the institutions. I would say the ladder. I probably wouldnt have always said that. In the short run, if one cop fails to shoot one black boy thats good. Because there was a woman standing next to him. Or the cop was a woman. They saved one life. In the short run its good and we need to abolish militaries and cops too. I dream of the day. I wont see it. I dream of it. In the short run, better is better. But not good enough. Is what i would say. I wonder too, what i dont want to get stuck in the mind set of is to assume that only women could change the military. Again were at this conference well hear about male conscientious objectors. We have heard last night about german male pass fist. We dont want to get into the trap of thinking if women dont achieve 30 of the military the military will never change. That couldnt be true. And all women are necessarily more peaceful and all that. It is an argument to be made. I dont think i agree with it. For instance a personal story, my immediate family left the home places my dads family moved several how miles away when i was 13. And i hadnt seen the relatives for a long time. My dad was too young for world wa 2. His four older brothers were navy pilots. I made some friends on a peace wander stayed with one of my aints and uncles. They hadnt seen me since i was a child. And he was much more happy and congrattoir about it. She was touchy. I thought it was weird. He was in it and knew how awful it was. She had to stay home and justify it to herself and the children. It made sense. Thats not saying she was aggressive and violent. She had to mentally sort of accommodate the idea. Where he was in the middle of it and realized it was bogus. Who knows. Its a tough one. Thank you so much for bringing us the struggle between the ideas. Thank you for sharing your story. I appreciate your comments. Gail from the university of detroit mercy. As you were talking, i couldnt help but think back to the recent president ial election. And in particularly one advertisement by the trump campaign. That presented Hillary Clinton as the dangerous war candidate. And it was very graphic. It would show hilary and show huge bombs and explosions. And i remember i couldnt believe it. Hilary, big bomb and explosions. And the message was that trump was the peace candidate. And it seemed to me that she was in a catch 22 situation. The more she focussed on her competency as a military perp and chief. The more people could attack her. Of course if she had said she was for world peace, she could be attacked from that direction. Its almost like no matter what she would do, she would be faulted. And i wonder if you think women in politics and in the military are in this kind of catch 22 situation. Yeah. Thats the great comment. Yeah, i guess to think about the opposite would be how are male candidates perceived . Certainly it seemed lilk clinton struggled with his past when he protested. Correct me if im wrong. In england. Against the vietnam war . Is that correct . That came back to haunt him i guess as a candidate. And to be honest i dont know how he responded to that. I dont think we can i dont feel comfortable trying to think about trump because i dont understand where any of that would could possibly come from. And im not sure we want to waste our time thinking about it. I do see an agree with your sense of because it does tell you what a woman president ial candidate faces with that sense of she might not be Strong Enough to be the commander in chief. Again we have the turp of being you have to be strong a strong, strong in many ways, and for me clinton epitomizes that strength. And she wasnt seen as legitimate or it was used and seen as hawkish. I would have trouble parsing the trump campaigns use of that. I was in idaho nobody bothers with political adds in many state. Its red beyond i didnt see those ads. Thank you for the reminder of the this is the ka none drum. And women politicians from to deal with this in real life. Editor of peace and change. I want to panel this afternoon well talk about racial issues. I want to bring that into sort of ask you how it complicates the really interesting questions youre asking. Ill make a couple quick points in regard to that. African american vetter raps dont get listened to more. After they serve. In fact some are brutally lynched while in uniform. For trying to raise the voices. Secondly im wondering if even the radical women youre talking about tried to link up with some of these other groups and what im thinking about is there was a march after the race riot ins st. Louis in 1917. A march where people are carrying signs saying mr. President why not make america sick for democracy. The same questions are being asked. I want to put that into the conversation. Yeah. In fact its mary white who reported in the pages of four lights about the east st. Louis riot. So you can read about her response to that. Yeah, the idea of i guess the ideal soldier looks a certain way. And its not white. I think thats absolutely true. Its not female. Yeah. So that race becomes an issue here as well. Of equality. Of so the question that was asked earlier about do you in fact need to serve in the military to be considered a full citizen was a question that would be asked of African Americans too. And no matter how they served for example during First World War the harlem group that did serve was very proud of their service. And used it adds leverage to try and gain full access into u. S. Society. And it didnt work. Of course the military wasnt integrated until 1950. Under truman. So thats again i would urge you to go to the digitized version of four lights and see her report on the east st. Louis riot. And how it helped them i think further their argument of what is democracy mean. I think it sort of turns your first question on its head. Can women be fully equal in society and advocate for peace . If youre a person of color and advocate for peace youre not considered fully equal in society. I want to just throw that into the mix. Yes, thank you. My name is rick. I teach at the university of south australia. I have never seen a spotlight before. This is very interesting. Thank you for talking us and walking us through that. Which it never occurred to me before. That was terrific. My interest was peaked by the comment two questions ago about police. And i want to make a comparison. In the last 40 years in australia. Im not sure the situation here. We had massive affirmative action drive to get policewomen. Now depending on where you are between 25 and 40 of Police Forces. And now women. Although very small in the senior rank. That will have to happen over the next few decades. Absolutely 40 years now of good strong data indicated very strongly theres less violence. Far less corruption. And far greater acceptance of reconciliation and Restorative Justice as a result of women coming into police. It is astonishing. So whether there will be again you were talking about finding evidence and data that might assist your thesis. That will have to be the subject of scholarship. That has been strong scholarship. Which is my area. My quick comment and for your comment and question. One of the things that you didnt mention and you might and it might be on your list oz to why there was this enormous reluctant to include women in the military. Was because men were going to be seen as too valorous. Take risks bauds they might want to abandon colleagues because they have been trained to do so if they were male. But less likely to do so if they are women. So the idea is that men that with women being present in the military, men would feel they had to protect them. So they wouldnt do the mission or not focus on the mission. Instead focussed on prelkting women. That notion of protecting women need male protection is a long and deep one. And its certainly part of the what we have to try to come out of. And well to put your two comments together, women serving on Police Forces would surely be a key to that. Where women are in charge of being the protector. And i think thats brilliant. Thats a good point about the mind set. So one place to look for that is earnest hemming way book a farewell to arms. He has a group of soldiers around a fire talking about how let the women protect their homes. Well and everybody said no, we have to protect our home. Men have to protect our homes. So i think that trip was long and deep. The quick observation again for your response. And again a couple years ago there was a massive scandal. I assume there have been scandals in even modern democracy and military. This was around a half dozen young men in the 20s and 30s. Having sex with a number of women in the military. In base. And then filming it. And in a secret camera and distributing it online. And there were some comments around the baa foonish comments this is just boys at play. Thats where we are these days. The head of the military came out and sacked them immediately. Made one of the strongest statements one could imagine about how disgraceful that behavior was. And it led to a massive shift in australia military. Consciousness. About how that sort of behavior was unacceptable and there was a mind set shift. It was dramatic. In fact he was given a day honor as a result of that comment. Whats your view on the way in which having women in the military may have given rise either to or abuse or stronger statements from people about how its unacceptable . Well, i would go back to your other comment regarding women in the police force. That is not i have not heard that. As a possible solution to all of the issues that have been raised about policing. African American Communities here in the United States. I have not heard that. Its usually mentioned that we need more African Americans on the police force. Nobody to my knowledge noted that had we need more women on Police Forces. Its a very interesting notion. So your question was whether or not females presence in the military would give rise to or give rise to the. More abuse of women. And whether or not the unevident blt of the abuse has led to comments like they have to suck it up because thats the nature of the task. Or strong statements which have condemned the behavior. And allowed the military to get reputation of honor. Im probably not the best person to answer that question. And i would welcome somebodys greater knowledge. But i think thats a great question. To think about. Thank you. Both. We have questions and comments out of this fantastic session. Our last question is going to come from this gentleman her. Sam walker, professor criminal Justice University of nebraska. I want to speak to the question of the National Womens party and role in terms of pushing the suffrage amendment during world war i. The women party was the creation of alice paul. My hero. Thats a short list. Shes really a figure out of the 1960s. Direct action, uncompromising, a constitutional vision of solving social problems and especially problems like suffrage through the constitutional law. The amendment. She a very clear strategy. It drove the mainstream of suffrage activists nuts. She had a very that was do focus on a constitutional amendment. And to that through direct action. And to focus only on suffrage. And just not get involved in the question of this or this. Most progressive women signed up for the war effort in various capacities. And she was quite different. Its so the other part of her strategy was to direct her attention at president wilson. That drove the other suffrages nuts who were largely democrats who supported wilson. And just to continue to force the issue. And to take his declared war goals, war make the world safe for democracy. And the rhetoric saying what about democracy at home. Half the population cannot vote. So that is her thinking and what drove her actions that in my opinion i have published on this, was really responsible for getting that suffrage amendment passed in 1920. Okay. Direct action and staying focussed. Thank you. So i encourage everyone to continue enjoying the sessions at this wonderful conference to come. And thank you all for your participation. In my presentation and we will hear a word or two from an organizer. Thank you. Please give a round of applause. This weekend on the cspan net work. Saturday at 9 15 p. M. Eastern. On cspan. Former president ial speech writers for president nixon to obama. Sunday at 6 30 p. M. , doctor anthony on how your zip code impacts your health. On book tv on cspan 2. Saturday at 9 00 p. M. Eastern, Daily Caller News Foundation editor in chief Christopher Bedford on his book the art of the donald. Lessons from americas philosopher in chief. Sunday at 11 00 a. M. Author and her book the mayflower. The families the voyage and the founding of america. On American History tv on cspan 3. Saturday at 8 55 p. M. Eastern. Pen State University history professor on the u. S. Capitol art and architecture. Sunday at 9 10 p. M. The Ground Breaking ceremony. This weekend on the cspan net work. Sunday on q and a. Journalist and author robert mary. On his book. He was a very consequential and effective president. And you cant figure out how. Or how or why he was able to accomplish what he accomplished. Because he was indirect. He was a manager. He was not man of force. It turns out that without that force, he had a amazing capacity to manipulate people. And manipulate them into doing the things that he wanted them to do while they thought it was their idea. Sunday night at 8 eastern. On q and a. On cspan. Up next. Members of the quaker and other christian peace organizations discuss the response of the group to british and american entry into world war i. This one hour ten minute discussion was part of a conference hosted by the National World war i museum and memorial in kansas city, missouri. Good morning. And welcome to this forum on genesis and persistence in advocacy for peace. Faith organizations. My name is john roth. Editor of the review and professor of history at a
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.