Women's Identities at War: Gender, Motherhood, and Politics in Britain and France during the First World War

by Susan R. Grayzel

There are few moments in history when the division between the sexes seems as "natural" as during men go off to the "war front," while women stay behind on the "home front." But the very notion of the home front was an invention of the First World War, when, for the first time, "home" and "domestic" became adjectives that modified the military term "front." Such an innovation acknowledged the significant and presumably new contributions of civilians, especially women, to the war effort.

Yet, as Susan Grayzel argues, throughout the war, traditional notions of masculinity and femininity survived, primarily through the maintenance of--and indeed reemphasis on--soldiering and mothering as the core of gender and national identities. Drawing on sources that range from popular fiction and war memorials to newspapers and legislative debates, Grayzel analyzes the effects of World War I on ideas about civic participation, national service, morality, sexuality, and identity in wartime Britain and France. Despite the appearance of enormous challenges to gender roles due to the upheavals of war, the forces of stability prevailed, she says, demonstrating the Western European gender system's remarkable resilience.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, World War I

360 pages, Paperback

First published June 1, 1999

About the author

Susan R. Grayzel is Professor of History at Utah State University.

Reviews

[Jackie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book that examines the role of British and French women in the First World War

[Victoria · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book, ultimately, was a really good summation and discussion of women's identities during the period. Grayzel's final point, that drastic gender changes were ultimately contained throughout the period by constant revisions and suchres throughout the war such that there was no need for drastic restructuring after the war, I think holds up very well at the end of the book.

That said, there are many problems with the book. One is Grayzel's unwillingness to address men's roles, which could have furthered her point. I found myself asking if the shift of men from fathers to soldiers meant there wasn't a change. Likewise, Grayzel doesn't address how the state's taking over of fatherhood may have influenced further change later in the period. Likewise, Grayzel often falls into the trap of assuming the word "motherhood" always shows continuation, but often she does not try to define the word in the context.

Another major problem is her comparison between Britain and France. There are a lot of cases where she glosses over discrepancies between the two in a way that isn't that simple at all. Also, many chapters, such as chapter five, simply don't have enough evidence to support representations of both cases. While the comparison didn't necessarily drastically harm the book, I'm not sure it was necessary in all cases.

In the end, however, the book was a very useful book to read and debate as a grad student, and I think it makes a strong argument against those that might claim that gender roles had to be drastically reconstituted in the interwar period.

[Vicki · Rating 4 out of 5]

Grayzel used a comparative approach to a gender study of how women viewed their role during World War I in both Britain and France. Her argument is compelling as she provides much evidence to support that women saw motherhood as their primary means in contributing to the war effort by raising patriotic sons and loyal soldiers. Her thesis is multilayered and rich, but I was most fascinated with the last chapter where the subject gender being used in the mourning process was broached. Few authors have studied how memorials and monuments after the war tended to depict women as symbols for the entire nation's sorrow. I used this chapter as part of historiographic analysis for my comp exams.

[Jo · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this for a history paper. So I'm not rating this as a fun book to read. I don't think I'd read this just because. There were times where I felt like the author contradicts herself. For instance, she mentioned that scholars no longer agree that British women gained the right to vote because of the war. But then she goes on to explain how women's suffrage became discussed and eventually they received limited suffrage BECAUSE OF THEIR SERVICE IN THE WAR. So that confused me. Susan Grayzel has written quite a few book on WW1, specifically on women in WW1. I feel like Women and the First World War is the best. However, that one is the most broad. This book just features Britain and France, so she can only talk about what happened in these two countries. If you're looking for a book that broadly discusses women across the world dealing with WW1 I'd recommend Women and the First World War. It talks more about women's war work, including being on the front, being spies, and working in factories, which I feel like was missing in this book.

[TimEs · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good book for a cultural history of gender in the years of WWI. I did feel like her description of the every day lives of women was a bit lacking. We see a little bit of this towards the end with the description of women "stealing" the bodies of their children from the state. I'd also like to have seen more regarding the impacts on future feminist movements from this war period. Her central argument is that the war had a conservative impact on gender relations rather than an innovative impact. This is pretty well supported by her sources. In terms of a scholarly work, I think it's decent.

[Marine]

A great overview of women's role and impact during the first world war. From nurses, mothers, and volunteers, this book is perfect for the general public as well as for academic readers (which I am).