26. 1900-1930- Women's Worlds In Collision
Between 1900 and 1930, the world was at war. Between the Russo-Japanese War and World War I, nearly every part of the world was affected. Women at home or at the front played a vital role in fighting for peace, sustaining the war effort, and rebuilding. For women in Russia, the wars resulted in a revolution that promised much and gave them little. In Turkey, the war brought reforms that forced modernization of women's lives. In the end, World War I was a catalyst for profound changes for women, but these were slow to materialize.
How to cite this source?
Remedial Herstory Project Editors. "25. 1850-1950 - WOMEN’S LIVES UNDER IMPERIALISM" The Remedial Herstory Project. November 1, 2025. www.remedialherstory.com.
Trigger Warning: This chapter references rape and sexual assault.
At the turn of the century, imperial nations clashed in a series of conflicts. Starting with the first global war, the Russo-Japanese War from 1904-1905, and ending with two more global wars known as the World Wars. World War I was meant to be the war to “end all wars,” but naturally, given the need to number it, such was not the case. Yet, this label was not given out of naivete or blind optimism that no wars would ever take place again, but out of sheer hope that the world powers would be wise enough to never let a war of this scale happen again.
In all of these conflicts, women served their nations in official capacities never seen before. From Japan, to the US, to India, to Europe, and Africa, women everywhere saw their roles transformed and reframed, while their rights and responsibilities irreversibly evolved.
Join the Club
Join our email list and help us make herstory!
The Russo-Japanese War
Before World War I, the first truly global conflict was the Russo-Japanese War; what some historians refer to as World War Zero - although other European wars like the Seven Years War have also been in contention for such a title. As European powers divided up Africa and looked for spheres of influence in China, emerging powers in Russia and Japan sought to engage in the political and economic games of the age, namely: industrialization, militarism, imperialism, and nationalism. Both nations used state-driven industrialization, which drew women into the workforce, and used their new wealth to fund efforts to expand power and control over neighboring regions.
Imperialism is catastrophic for the people and states that lie in the path of the militant power, but it is even bloodier when two powers bump into one another. In this case, both Japan and Russia sought control over Manchuria, a region north of Korea, to control regional ports and expand their economic opportunities. Manchuria shared its borders with Russia, under the rule of Tsar Nicholas II, which sought to expand its influence in the Korean and Liaodong peninsulas. Japan was concerned about Russian aggression in the region given that the Japanese themselves had been working to establish dominance over the Korean peninsula since they began a trade relationship in 1876.
Initially, Japan offered a deal to cede control of Manchuria to Russia in exchange for unimpeded influence over Korea, but Russia rejected the proposal - quite possibly seeing expansion there in their future. In response, the Russo-Japanese War began in 1904 when Japan launched a surprise attack on the Russian navy at Port Arthur. The Japanese navy, led by Admiral Togo Heihachiro, successfully damaged Russian naval vessels and gained the upper hand in battles at Port Arthur and Liaoyang. By the end of that year, Japan had sunk every ship in Russia's Pacific fleet, and the surrender of the Port Arthur garrison marked a significant, surprise victory for Japan. Russia later suffered heavy losses in the Battle of the Yellow Sea and had to mobilize its Baltic Fleet as reinforcements. This war gained international attention because it is the first major indicator of what war between two industrialized and imperial powers looks like. The war was also supported by European powers: France backing Russia and Britain backing Japan.
In this war, cultural definitions of masculinity, or what it meant to be a man, were at the forefront. At the turn of the century, Japanese military conscription and compulsory education shaped modern military manhood. Japan's nation-building efforts formed an idealized “manly” image in military academies and on battlefields, and followed the historical trend of excluding women - even those capable of performing necessary military tasks. Militarization favored a specific type of masculinity over femininity seen in military parades exercised around the world. Physical examinations during conscription, or recruitment, played a role in shaping the reputation of men, and the Japanese military even intentionally adopted aspects of a Western diet to make its male soldiers stronger and more “masculine” in appearance. They promoted hygiene and physical fitness through military-style exercise for men.
Masculinity was similarly used in Russia as a not just a trait of their military, but their governing bodies. Historian Christine D. Worobec notes that ruling elites viewed their peasant class as,
devoid of masculine characteristics. According to landowners and government officials, peasants displayed feminine qualities by being inferior, weak, irrational, and potentially disruptive. Distinguishing itself as masculine and superior, strong, rational, and orderly, the state was able to preserve hierarchical power relationships and avoid fundamental reforms in the agrarian sector until after the first bursts of revolutionary fervor in 1905–6, when it appeared that if the state did not tame the savage peasant, it would be destroyed.
She continues by noting that the stratification of Russian society was deeply entwined with the notions of patriarchy and paternalism, where “Women and children found themselves subordinated to husbands and fathers just as peasants as a whole were subordinated to the tsar, the supreme father.” A number of Russian revolts were connected to this notion of subordination from the top down, though most did not consider the subordination at the most basic level: the home.
As a result of this emphasis on masculinity, homophobia in Japan, Russia, and the West was rampant, and intensified in military circles - despite countless members of LGBTQ+ community having served in wars throughout human history (including this one). Men who were considered weakly, or non-conforming to standards of masculinity were considered “feminine” and undesirable, while women - who were not in the military and subject to this physical regimen - were seen as the antithesis of strength. Ideal masculinity was also associated with mental and physical strength.
As masculinity segregated itself from femininity, what it meant to be feminine was a bit unclear. Certainly it was tied to maternity, care, and tenderness, but the Russo-Japanese War also saw Japan’s first state-sponsored military brothels emerge, what would later be termed the “Comfort Women” stations in World War Two, as Japanese leaders believed that prostitutes were necessary to control male sexual desire, because, they believed, “real men” should need to have sex with submissive women regularly. Similarly, Russian soldiers were accused of mass rapes in their marches through Manchuria. The definition of masculinity in this time and these cultures was thus emphasizing dominating rather than other qualities of manhood like protecting. The use of brothels and violently sexualizing enemy women that began with the Russo-Japanese War would peak in WWII with unimaginable sexual crimes against women.
Postcards of the war traveled the world with depictions of the war’s progress, and as in most wars, women’s bodies were used in these depictions to evoke feelings and stir people to support one side of the conflict over another. For example, one cartoon showed a feminized “Saint Russia” naked and tied to a post at the mercy of a leering Japanese soldier.
The Russo-Japanese War concluded with the Treaty of Portsmouth, mediated by American President Theodore Roosevelt in 1905 in New Hampshire. Despite Japan's clear victory, the country faced significant financial losses and had limited bargaining power. Therefore, the treaty resulted in Russia ceding Port Arthur to Japan while retaining the northern part of Sakhalin Island. Roosevelt's support of Tsar Nicholas in refusing indemnities led to a frustrated Japan and anti-American riots soon broke out in Tokyo - seeding resentments that would remain several decades later in the outbreak of World War II.
While they were not in the war’s battlefield spotlight, both nations looked to engage their women in the war effort as a part of the emerging “home front” of war. The civilians of each nation had to provide the food and supplies for their soldiers fighting in these wars, and such contributions are not only critical to one’s victory in any given conflict, but they similarly reflect the public’s attachment and aspirations surrounding the war. For women, who are typically kept far from the battlefields, participation on the home front is often viewed as a method of advancing rights and freedoms.
However, in both cases, the participation on the home fronts and the people’s reaction to the war’s aftermath are similarly reflective of these aspirations not being achieved through the war. For Russians, the slate of losses dealt to them by the Japanese limited the war’s popularity and further depleted public support of the Romanov tsar. Thus, the support of the Russian home front was complicated by an emerging public revolution. Likewise, Japan’s surprise victory had been fueled by civilians’ support in food and supply production, as well as heavy taxation, but their military had also paid dearly for that victory in the way of Japanese soldiers’ lives which also negatively affected the families they left behind. Japanese wives and families had expected that through the demand of war reparations from Russia, they would be compensated for the losses of their husbands and sons, but Japanese officials had been persuaded by US President Theodore Roosevelt to opt for peace without such reparations. A similar public revolt followed in Japan, leading to political upheaval and reform.
Still, Russia agreed to withdraw from Manchuria and recognize Japanese control of Korea, which was formally annexed by Japan just five years later. The war marked a shift in global power dynamics with an Asian nation defeating a European power for the first time, and demoralized the Russian Empire, contributing to the Russian Revolution a decade later. It also initiated warfare among major powers in the Pacific region.
The Russo-Japanese War ultimately foreshadowed future global conflicts, and was marked by extreme brutality. It is estimated that both sides suffered casualties exceeding 150,000, and tragically, around 20,000 Chinese civilians, mostly women, lost their lives for simply being caught in the path of the warring parties. The deaths of many civilians can be attributed to the brutal actions of the Russian forces in Manchuria. Journalists who reported on the war described instances where Russian soldiers looted and set fire to numerous villages, as well as committed acts of rape and murder against the women residing there.
Yet, the war was treated as nothing short of a global spectacle with journalists from around the world flocking to see two industrialized powers engage in modern war. Tensions between global leaders around the world continued to grow and it seems the brutal lessons of the Russo-Japanese War were not minded. The war that should have been heeded as a warning of the World Wars to follow, wasn’t.
Drawing of Japanese forces storming a Russian position
Unimpeded (adj.), not obstructed or hindered.
Japanese forces marching in Seoul, South Korea
World War I
The Russo-Japanese War would be quickly and unquestionably overshadowed by the subsequent World War I. World War I is a haunting reminder of the dangers of war because just how many people were killed before world leaders (all male) called for a stop. Ten million combatants were killed, perhaps double to triple those figures for the number wounded and maimed - physically and mentally - while the number of civilians who were killed in the crossfire, starved, or lost to disease spread by war is unfathomable. World War I ended the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires and devastated others. It also led to the Great Depression, which claimed additional human lives.
World War I was caused by the same things that caused the Russo-Japanese War - the desire for power and resources. It was made worse by shifting alliances that caused more nations than necessary to get involved. What should have been an isolated conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, turned to global war because of militarism, alliances, imperialism, and nationalism.
In a centuries-long competition for lands and conquest, Europeans had seen both a series of wars for their colonies’ independence and continued efforts by wealthy nations to assume control over poorer nations. Such a competition for influence and power was ongoing in the Balkans, where the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Russia were continuously applying pressure to significantly smaller states. In June of 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand - heir to the Austrian throne - was assassinated in Sarajevo, Bosnia, by Serbian nationalists determined to retain their sovereignty. Many point to the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian heir to the throne and his wife, Sophie the Duchess of Hohenberg, as the catalyst for the war, but their murders were merely an excuse for the war that had been looming for decades owing to increasing militarization and competition over resources needed to fuel the industrial nations.
As the prospect of war was immediately thrown on the table, a complicated web of alliances was pulled to the surface. Serbia called on their ally, Russia, to back them in the war. Austria-Hungary called on their ally, the newly united Germany, to support them. Germany was eager to use this war as an excuse to expand, while the Ottomans also eagerly dove in as they wanted to challenge Russia for economic influence in the Black Sea and the Middle East. France was required by treaty to back Russia in the event of war, so the prospect of war was daunting for Germany from that start, and their experts knew they needed to quickly sack Paris to remove France from the war before turning to face Russia - the European giant - with their full strength. To do this, they decided to act immediately and invaded France on August 2, 1914, through neutral Belgium: their ultimate downfall. The violation of Belgium's neutrality and the resulting assaults on human rights, such as massacres and rape by the invaders, caused Britain, previously neutral, to join the war. Russia, France, and Britain, longtime rivals even as recently as the Russo-Japanese War, were on the same side.
The web of alliances throughout Europe was complicated and interesting for several reasons, but perhaps most interesting of all is the relationship between several of the biggest decision-makers in this war. Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany and King George of Britain were first cousins, sharing Queen Victoria as their grandmother. Tsar Nicholas was also one of George’s first cousins on the other side who cemented his connections to the British royal family by marrying Queen Victoria’s favorite granddaughter, Princess Alexandra or Alix of Hesse. Just one year before the war, all three emperors were at a family event, the wedding of Wilhelm’s daughter, Princess Victoria Louise of Prussia. These ambitious cousins were now engaged in the bloodiest war in world history. They, along with the other world leaders involved in this massive conflict that saw over twenty nations at war, would never see the battlefield, but they would send millions of their own people to die on them in the name of power.
Similarly, the war erupted around the globe, largely due to relationships countries shared (or hoped to share) with Europeans; this includes both colonial and alliance-based relationships. In Asia, hostilities began in August of 1914 when New Zealand - part of the British Commonwealth - occupied Samoa, a German territory at the time. Australia - also part of the British Commonwealth - similarly seized German New Guinea weeks later. China also declared war on the Germans, seizing their holdings in Chinese port cities, while Japan sailed into naval supremacy in the region by taking on German vessels in the region trying desperately to hold on to their colonial holdings. Other Allied forces also saw naval battle with the Germans in this region, and stretching through the Pacific.
While North American nations like Canada and the United States would join the war in Europe, most of South America remained neutral in this war. With the exception of Brazil, who sent naval, air, and medical forces to participate in the war, most South American nations that did declare war did so later in the conflict in hopes of gaining political favor, but did not become directly involved. Nonetheless, some still found themselves in the front row seats of naval battles off the coast of Chile, the Cape of Good Hope, and the Falkland Islands.
Relationships with European nations also brought about the participation of nations in the Middle East and Africa. For Africa, this included both the transporting of colonial forces to the battlefields of Europe, as well as direct warfare between nations under opposing colonial forces. British and French soldiers led local colonial troops against the German colonies of Kamerun (modern Republic of Cameroon) and Togoland (modern Togo and part of Ghana), while German soldiers and colonial forces from the colony of South-West Africa attacked the British colony of South Africa. Likewise, colonial forces from India were similarly uprooted for service on the battlefields of Europe. In many ways, it was this global explosion of war that brought into question the nature and risks of colonization itself.
Nationalism (n.), identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.
Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and Duchess Sophie
Map of alliances in World War I
India
The complication of colonial participation in such a war may be best illustrated in India. This one colony alone provided over a million troops for the British war effort, and 70,000 were lost. The vast majority of these soldiers fought against the Ottoman Empire in now infamous campaigns like Gallipoli.
When forced to join the war as part of the empire, Indian women’s enthusiasm was palpable. Royal women of the native states offered their support. During World War I, the government created the Society for the Employment of Muslim Women to address the wartime labor shortages and encourage women to work in the Battalions of Women Workers. In six months, 14,000 women in Istanbul had applied for employment through the society. This brought women of all classes into the workforce previously dominated by men.
Sultan Shah Jahan, the Begum of Bhopal, spoke at the Delhi War Conference, stating, “The need of the Empire is undoubtedly India’s opportunity.” Surprisingly, even the political bourgeoisie, including nationalist parties like the Indian National Congress, supported the war effort. Both moderate and extremist factions within the Congress hoped that India's contribution to the war would lead to the desired "dominion" status within the British Empire. Notable figures like Annie Besant, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi, and Jawaharlal Nehru encouraged women to join the struggle for independence. Female social reformers like Swarnakumari Devi and her daughter Sarala Devi Chaudhurani played important roles in inspiring women to participate in the nation's cause. Ramabhai Ranade, a women's rights activist, gave a loyalist speech at the Bombay War Conference and received recognition for her support.
But for girls and women of the lower classes, the war touched closer to home as their fathers, husbands, and sons were fighting the war. The letter from one girl to her father on the front survives, where she wrote, “Dear Father, [...] This is Kishan Devi. I am writing in to inform that I am alright over here [...] We were really scared after receiving your letter [...] My heart is yours. You are everything to me, and I worry about you. I am like a living dead without you [...] Reply to our letter soon.” Devi was not alone, as letter writing was an important part of women’s roles during the war. Women all around the world, corresponded with their fathers and brothers, fiancés and husbands. Most women at home wrote letters to keep up morale of the men in the trenches abroad. Emily Chitticks wrote to her fiancée Private William Martin, saying, “My Dearest Will [...] I shall be so relieved to get a letter from you. I can't help feeling a bit anxious dear [...] I know God can take care of you wherever you are and if it's his will darling he will so are you to come back to me, that's how I feel about it dear, if we only put our trust in Him. I am sure he will.” Soon after, she learned he was killed in action. Future dominion status or the grander step of independence was highly sought after, but cooperation in the war could quite literally hit home.
Sultan Shah Jahan
Women’s Pacifism
Well before the true horrors of World War I would emerge on the front pages of newspapers around the world, an active group of women around the world were those involved in peace efforts during this period. From the mid-1800s onwards, there were early efforts to promote transnational women's peace work, but this wouldn’t really come to fruition until World War I, when the deadliness of war took on a whole new dimension.
One notable early example was Julia Ward Howe, an American activist, who called for a Mother's Peace Day after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. In 1873, this day was celebrated for the first time in various American cities, as well as in England, Switzerland, Italy, and France. There were also other early initiatives, although short-lived, such as the efforts of Marie Goegg from Switzerland in 1868, and the establishment of several women’s peace organizations in the late 1890s one by Eugénie Potonié-Pierre and Ellen Robinson and another in Paris by Gabrielle Wiesniewska.
In the years leading up to the war, women flocked to Europe to promote peace between nations. Jeanne Mélin, a French pacifist and feminist, attended 30 peace conferences in France during the final months of 1913. She believed deeply that women were the life givers, and as a result, could prevent wars that took life away. The work of Mélin and others of the time had a central message that women had been largely excluded from political affairs, and thus it was argued, perhaps women’s involvement in such matters could help prevent such outcomes. She advocated for using education to stamp out violent behaviors and developed a system of co-education of girls and boys centered on the idea of exchanging masculine and feminine strengths. Mélin joined many pacifists across nations of her era who claimed capitalism was responsible for war, a position that incurred the wrath of capitalists and threatened their lives.
Sensing the impending war, in the days, weeks, and months that followed men and women involved in pacifist efforts went to work. Initially, women’s pacifism focused on condemning war itself as inhumane rather than analyzing the specific political circumstances leading to the war. Then, in July, Jean Jaurès, an outspoken labor leader and pacifist, was assassinated before giving a high profile address. Mélin was a supporter of Jaurès and was horrified at his death, but the rapidly changing landscape put her perspectives in a tailspin. She was frustrated that German pacifists refused to accept German culpability in the conflict and felt pacifism without consideration for socio-political circumstances may not be the best path. By August, her home in France was bombed by the Germans, and for Mélin and other women pacifists, these early months of war served as a transition phase in their philosophical positions on war when war was no longer an abstract, far-away concept.
Peace activities faced censorship and severe restrictions in all warring nations, while neutral countries provided more opportunities for pacifists to express their disapproval of the war. For instance, in New York, 1,200 women participated in a silent women's peace parade in August 1914. In the same year, Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence from Britain and Rosika Schwimmer from Hungary toured the United States, delivering lectures on peace.
The organization of anti-war efforts led to the establishment of the Woman's Peace Party in Washington, D.C., in January 1915, with 3,000 women participating. Their program called for a convention of neutral nations, advocating continuous mediation as a means to reach a negotiated peace. Women marched in all black and wrote letters in their home countries, hoping to keep their husbands, sons, and fathers safe. One of the most popular songs in America in 1915 was “I Didn’t Raise my Boy to be a Soldier,” as women around the country - and around the world - desperately tried to keep their loved ones from becoming a number in the growing statistics of the war. While some managed to stay neutral throughout, others were inevitably dragged in; like the United States in 1917.
As matters escalated, discussions about an international women's meeting began in Europe when the International Women’s Suffrage Alliance (IWSA) canceled its scheduled congress in Berlin. Organized by Germany’s first female jurist, Anita Augspurg, and Dutch pacifist Aletta Jacobs, more than 1,000 female delegates came together at the Hague in 1915 to discuss not only the end of this war, but the prevention of wars in the future. These women had to brave political repercussions, hazardous travel, and the risk of entering already war-torn Europe to show their dedication to peace.
During the congress, participants advocated for political rights for women, democratic measures, international arbitration, democratic control of foreign policy, disarmament, free trade, and pacifist education. They viewed equity and democracy as essential prerequisites for a peaceful world order. The congress participants also believed that women's suffrage was necessary for women to have political influence and played on societal norms of motherhood to support their radical political demands.
The congress also led to the establishment of the International Committee of Women for Permanent Peace (ICWPP). This committee worked to maintain international communication but faced increasing challenges due to travel restrictions, disrupted mail routes, and financial difficulties throughout the war. National sections of the ICWPP focused on spreading peace propaganda and organizing relief work in their respective countries. Activities in the warring nations faced severe restrictions and opposition from nationalist groups and even other women's organizations. Sadly, their voices were muffled by the ongoing call for supremacy through war from those who wanted no piece of their peace.
Female delegates to the 1915 Women's Peace Conference in The Hague
Overlooker (n.), a person who supervises workers or oversees a task.
Strap (n.), a piece of leather used to beat someone.
Pledge (v.), giving up items as security for the fulfillment of a contract or the payment of a debt and is liable to forfeiture in the event of failure.
Pawn (n.), an object left as security for money lent.
Jeanne Mélin
Women’s Peace Parade in New York, 1914
Jurist (n.), an expert in or writer on law; a judge or lawyer.
Disarmament (n.), the reduction or withdrawal of military forces and weapons.
Propaganda (n.), information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
International Congress of Women in 1915. left to right:1. Lucy Thoumaian – Armenia, 2. Leopoldine Kulka, 3. Laura Hughes – Canada, 4. Rosika Schwimmer – Hungary, 5. Anika Augspurg – Germany, 6. Jane Addams – United States, 7. Eugénie Hamer – Belgium, 8. Aletta Jacobs – Netherlands, 9. Chrystal Macmillan – UK, 10. Rosa Genoni – Italy, 11. Anna Kleman – Sweden, 12. Thora Daugaard – Denmark, 13. Louise Keilhau – Norway
Women’s War Support
While male world leaders poured more and more of their young men onto the battlefields of Europe, women everywhere were required to play a role as well. This was meant to be a supportive role in line with cultural views of femininity, but gradually morphed into more active roles as the war dragged on and devastating numbers of male lives were lost. Initially, however, the goal was for women to serve by supporting the men who went to war - writing letters, sending small gifts and food, and general encouragement.
Yet, the war demanded a shift in women's traditional roles, blurring the lines between their expected behaviors. Propaganda portrayed women as gentle, vulnerable homemakers who were both objects of affection and victims of enemy atrocities. The men of Europe were called on to defend and attract them through their actions on the frontlines. At the same time, they were depicted as resilient and active participants in the war effort. They were told through propaganda that they could play critical roles on the “home front” for the glory of their country in the same way that their fathers, brothers, and husbands were.
In this vein of civic duty, women in multiple countries aggressively supported conscription efforts through a form of “toxic femininity,” that bullied men into doing their “male duty.” This was most evident in Britain. In 1914, the Order of the White Feather was created as a propaganda campaign to shame men into enlisting. The white feather symbol represented cowardice and neglect of duty. It was believed to have originated from cockfighting, where a white tail feather indicated a weak and passive bird. In August 1914, a group of women in Folkestone handed out white feathers to non-uniformed men to shame and pressure them to join the fight. The movement spread across the country, gaining attention in the media. Some men faced harassment and coercion, even if they were contributing to the war effort in critical civilian roles like farming, industrial production, and more.
The tactics employed by the women varied in effectiveness, sometimes targeting the wrong individuals, including injured veterans. These women’s taunts were so prolific that the government was compelled to issue badges to acknowledge civilian contributions in an effort to fix the situation, but criticism continued. The campaign stirred controversy, but the women involved remained steadfast in their beliefs that “real” men should fight to protect their country. Prominent figures such as Mary Augusta Ward, Emma Orczy, and Emmeline Pankhurst supported the movement, as suffragettes used this evolving narrative to argue that women actively involved in the war deserved full citizenship more than male pacifists or conscientious objectors.
Government-issued propaganda posters served to reinforce these gender norms. Posters played a vital role in spreading messages, and on them, women were often depicted as personifications of nations, embodying qualities like morality, virtue, innocence, and justice. The Imperial Maritime League appealed to British women to ensure their men enlisted, aligning with Kitchener's famous "Your country needs you!" poster, which targeted men. The home was portrayed as a place of security that needed protection from German aggression at any cost. Those who refused to join the war effort risked being rejected by their sweethearts and faced accusations and blame.
Order of the White Feather pinning a feather on a civilian man
World War I Propaganda
Women in the Labor Force
Some women believed that they could, collectively, improve their station through supporting the war. If women could prove that they too could take on the rigors of war, perhaps their nations would then better recognize their status, rights, and ideas. Namely, multiple Western nations were grappling with the issue of suffrage, and many women hoped their performance in the war could be the deciding factor.
By the end of the war, over 1.4 German women and 4.7 million British women had joined the war effort, while the Americans boasted over nine million women joining their formal labor force to meet war needs. Even the Ottoman Empire created the Islamic Organization for the Employment of Women to help make up for their shortage of manpower after the drafts, and by the end of the war women were shouldering much of the labor in the country, despite their similar lack of political representation.
The way the war impacted the gendered labor force was a bit different for women living in the war zones like in Belgium, because they didn’t have enough warning or time to pull men from their jobs into armed service. Even with forced deportations of male workers starting in 1916, women did not systematically replace men as they did in neighboring countries. The majority of Belgian women mobilized to ensure nutritional survival. Many joined charities, while others engaged in civil resistance. Women in the unoccupied zone and those in exile were also tasked with supporting the army, caring for the wounded, and assisting refugees. Women were also responsible for the wellbeing of children left behind in the war-torn region and often had to evacuate them to France or Switzerland. Despite efforts to provide jobs, income insecurity grew, leading to clandestine prostitution near the trenches
In areas not physically overwhelmed by the war, women continued in domestic roles and also saw increasing participation outside the home performing secretarial work and other accepted “women’s jobs.” Sewing workshops were established to produce military clothing, and small factories employed women to make gas masks and camouflage netting.Yet, with millions of men away from home around the world, women jumped into manufacturing and agricultural roles as a chance to provide for their families or improve their prospects. In Russia, 15 million men were drafted to fight, causing a shortage of labor in jobs that were essential to sustain the war effort. There, and in many other places, the government relaxed restrictions on female and child labor, leading to a significant increase in the number of women working in fields that often were off-limits to them.
They took on jobs traditionally dominated by men, such as metalwork, machine manufacturing, and munitions production. They also filled in for men in various male-driven roles like streetcar conductors, truck drivers, and railway workers. Women entered fields like accounting, utilities and telegraph operation, and took on jobs as messengers, mechanics, chimney sweeps, mail carriers, police officers, janitors, and carters. Despite their important contributions, women were paid significantly less than men, earning as little as 35 percent of male wages.
Some people criticized their involvement, perceiving women as a threat to male dominance in these fields and society-at-large. The largest increase in female labor occurred in agriculture, where women made up around 72 percent of workers on peasant farms and 58 percent on landowner estates by 1916. However, male farmers saw the increase of women in the profession as a sort of "feminization" of agricultural labor and met these women farmers with negativity and hostility. For them, women were an unwelcome challenge to male control. Similar resistance could be found in other fields, and only increased when the war came to a close and soldiers returned home and needed to resume the jobs they left behind.
Women in the United Kingdom doing industrial labor during World War I
Women working in a munitions factory
A woman working as a chimney sweep during World War I
Wartime Nursing
From the just first days of the war, the hospitals were quickly overwhelmed from the brutality. Starting with the invasion of Belgium, women were called upon to help everywhere. Women from all walks of life, regardless of their medical skills, rushed to improvised aid stations set up in various places like schools, museums, monasteries, and castles. Contrary to the romanticized image of nurturing angels, these nurses faced physically demanding, poorly compensated, and emotionally challenging work in hospitals and convalescent facilities. Women also joined auxiliary services in the army, performing tasks like laundry, cleaning, disinfection, cooking, and sewing.
Women’s direct participation in the war can be seen best in the medical field, as they were seen as having natural qualities useful for this role. Most warring nations had tens of thousands of volunteer nurses and doctors to try to serve their country and stem the tide of extreme loss from the traumatic injuries of industrial war, the introduction of chemical warfare, psychological phenomena like shellshock, and general disease that followed warring bodies. The numbers of those wounded in this war were entirely overwhelming, and their injuries equally horrific. Medical professionals could not have saved even half of those they did without these waves of female volunteers racing around to provide treatments, change bandages, feed, clean, and comfort the wounded soldiers in the hundreds of hospitals that surrounded the battlefields of Europe.
While nursing is often considered a field that allowed women to contribute while keeping them safe from the dangers of the battlefield, an estimated 1,500 nurses lost their lives in the process as they contracted disease or fell victim to bombing and shelling when serving so close to the front lines. While serving in France, one American anesthetist, Sophie Gran, wrote that she “had just given this poor boy anesthesia when a bomb hit. We were supposed to hit the floor, but he was out and didn’t know what was going on. I took a tray and put it over our heads.” Working in these hospitals they witnessed all the greatest horrors of the war, and in doing so, they saved countless lives.
Women also contributed to the medical care of soldiers from afar by producing and packing medical supplies, donating blood, and contributing to lifesaving medical developments. For example, Marie Curie, who was already an eminent scientist having been awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1903 with her husband for their theory of radioactivity, and the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1911 for her work with radioactive isotopes, invented mobile X-ray cars nicknamed "little Curies," which led to more precise and critical healthcare for the most at-risk patients. Around 150 women were trained to be X-ray operators on the battlefront, including Curie herself.
Convalescent (n.), a person who is recovering after an illness or operation.
Auxiliary (adj.), providing supplementary or additional help and support.
A painting of victims of a chemical attack
Midwives and Doctors
Another significant shift amid the Industrial Revolution was in relation to women’s medical care. Advancements in technology and science in the wake of the Enlightenment coalesced into a rethinking of birthing practices and women’s health. Long before factories opened up labor opportunities, the practice of midwifery was one of the accepted ways that women worked outside the home around the world, throughout history. However, increasingly, governments worked to certify and professionalize industries, including medicine. Midwifery was generally a safe option in birth for women, but high maternal death rates led to scholars examining the field scientifically, and men entered the field as trained obstetricians. Many of the men drawn to this field had personally lost loved ones at birth.
In the 1500s, The Rosengarten became the first obstetrical textbook written by a male apothecary. It provided instructions, probably taken from common midwife practices, on how to rotate the baby with pressure on the abdomen to get it into the proper position and introduced new methods and tools to extract the baby. Women at the time were largely illiterate, so how many of the midwives attending women at birth were familiar with the content of the text is hard to say, but the result of this over the next few centuries was tension between the midwives who had made careers in a field available to them and the male doctors who took over in the name of professionalism.
In the battle between midwives and male doctors, it’s wrong to assume that there was one party that unilaterally knew more, performed better, or cared more deeply about the women they were attending. There were undoubtedly good and bad actors in both professions. It is also wrong to assume that a professionalization of the practice meant that midwives were not well-versed and qualified to assist in birthing children, nor that they weren’t using modern and evolving medical instruments for interventions.
Further the “professionalization” of midwifery could really damage female patients. Their male physicians had never been through what they were going through, but far worse, Victorian gendered expectations respected women’s modesty. Sometimes, the doctors wouldn’t even look at the woman’s body during the birthing process. Thus, women died at higher rates under these male doctors, but still the doctors drove female midwives out of their jobs.
The male doctors won the battle for the monopoly on birth. In America by the 1800s, especially among the wealthy and urban, doctors were preferred. No longer did women give birth with their female neighbors there for support and advice. Rather, they gave birth alone with just their mother, sister, or other trusted woman, and a male doctor in attendance. In Philadelphia over a ten-year period, the number of midwives fell from 21 to six. As men were not allowed to look at a naked woman, even during childbirth, male medical students weren’t allowed to watch births, so instead only learned from textbooks until they were active in the field.
Normal, healthy births remained largely successful, but complications in birth are quite common. Babies can get stuck in the birth canal, be poorly positioned, and need an alternative, emergency removal. Throughout history, caesarian sections (today known as c-sections) had been performed in many of these cases. The surgery was reserved for extreme circumstances when it was evident the mother was dying or already dead and there was a chance to save the baby. Having a caesarian section was basically a death sentence for the mother for centuries. In 1814, a report from London announced that only 20-22 known cesarean sections had been attempted in the empire and only nine had succeeded in saving the babies, while just two had succeeded in saving the mother.
The first undisputed and well-documented caesarian section in Ireland took place in 1738 and saved both mother and baby; it was performed by a female midwife, Mary Donally. She was called to help Alice O’Neal, the 30-year-old wife of an Irish farmer who had been in labor for 12 days. Mary cut Alice’s stomach with a razor while an assistant walked a mile to get silk to stitch the mother up. Even though the surgery worked, the medical community in Europe debated the validity of the procedure and few were willing to perform it, even into the 1900s. As the surgery put the mother’s life at extreme risk, much of the debate was about which life was more valuable. In Britain, for example, there was much more support for killing the baby to save the mother.
Life without the cesarean section meant many women continued to die, regardless of their status and access to the best medical care. Most notably, in 1817, Princess Charlotte, George IV's only child, died in childbirth at the young age of 21. Her baby was two weeks late and labor lasted for 50 hours, but no doctors were willing to perform the radical emergency procedure with the princess’s life on the line. In the end, the nine-pound baby was stillborn. Doctors removed the placenta with difficulty, and six hours later, Charlotte died. The obstetrician, Sir Richard Croft, was harassed mercilessly by the masses, and he shot himself a few days later. King George was left without an heir, and the throne passed first to his brother and then to his niece, Queen Victoria.
While it remained a debated and extreme surgical option, this does not mean that practitioners did not still attempt it as a means of survival. A notable case of a successful cesarean section occurred in South Africa in 1826, by Dr. James Barry. Barry was identified as female at birth and raised as a girl by the name of Margaret Ann Bulkley. Barry had been raped as a youth and the resulting child was raised by his mother, but the stretch marks from pregnancy remained for his entire life. When his uncle died, he assumed the name James in his stead and used his new identity as an opportunity for self-betterment, enrolling in medical school in Edinburgh - a school where he would not have gained access as a woman. This does not appear to be a simple matter of education access, but rather, Barry seems to have identified as male, for he remained James for the rest of his life.
Barry had a highly successful and controversial medical career, serving as a physician all over the world and in the Crimean War. While in South Africa, he performed a caesarian section that saved both the mother and child. The grateful mother named her new baby James in his honor. When Barry died years later, it was discovered that he was biologically female or perhaps intersex. How he would have liked to be remembered is sadly unknown, but one can only presume it was as he had lived.
An additional concern of the professionalization of childbirth was that in hospitals, before germs were understood and sterilization common, doctors would often go from surgery to surgery, carrying infections to women in labor. By the 1800s, the maternal death rate reached between two and eight per 100 deliveries, around ten times the rate outside the hospital. In New York, in 1840, 80 percent of women who gave birth in a hospital died.
The field continued to progress in its study of how to preserve the lives of babies and their mothers through various methods of care and surgery. This grew in leaps and bounds through the 20th century, particularly, as more women were able to join the field and concepts of safety surpassed antiquated concepts of enforced modesty. Medical providers - women and men alike - worked to make childbirth safer, faster, and less painful for both mother and child. The discovery of anesthetics like chloroform was not far behind, but like the c-section, many were reluctant to use it in labor. Only after Queen Victoria consented to its use during the birth of her eighth child did it quickly become widely accepted in obstetric practice.
Obstetrician (n.), a physician or surgeon qualified to practice in childbirth.
Apothecary (n.), a person who prepared and sold medicines and drugs; pharmacist.
Labor with a midwife
15th century woodcut depicting a cesarean section being performed on a dying mother
Stillborn (adj.), (of an infant) born dead.
Dr. James Barry
Intersex (n.), a condition in which individuals have biological sex characteristics that do not fit into the typical male or female categories
Anesthetic (n.), a substance that induces insensitivity to pain.
Conclusion
Industrialization improved women’s lives, perhaps more than it did men’s. It led to somewhat better medical care in pregnancy and women and men in industrial work did better economically than their agrarian peers. Thus, the standard of living increased considerably as a result. Despite low wages, some women did find means of supporting themselves, and a few even acquired considerable wealth. Industrialization also upended the patriarchal norms in some ways because it challenged the idea of a “male provider,” as it was increasingly obvious that more and more women needed to work to make ends meet. Women’s income also allowed them to become independent consumers, and with that new role came great power to influence production.
It is important to note that industrialization also fueled western imperial expansion. Factories could produce more weapons, fueling military conquests in Africa, Asia, Siberia, the Pacific Islands, and the western Americas - all of which were desired for raw materials and laborers to fuel production. Whether in positions of leadership or in missionary efforts, women both supported imperialism and fought against it.
Industrialization changed the global make-up, shifted power structures, and allowed the Global North to impose its systems on others, including their views of women. How did class and region change the effects of industrialization? Did the benefits of industrialization outweigh the costs? How would women’s role in the labor force influence policy and social change? Would women be able to enter industries considered “male”? How would society adapt to allow for women to be wage earners and mothers? Maybe the greatest question of all - what would it take for women to earn the vote and thereby increase their say in these matters?