Blog #142 – En-Gendering the Spanish American War
Throughout the year, we use different lens with which to analyze certain events – we can analyze events or people’s actions through an economic lens or a political lens or a social / cultural lens. During our Reconstruction unit, we used a racial lens to look at how Reconstruction policies affected free Blacks. Now, we turn to American imperialism and instead of analyzing American foreign policy, or our relationship with other nations, through a diplomatic lens or a commercial lens, we are using the lens of gender to explore the Spanish American War. This angle was originally presented by historian Kristin Hoganson in 1998. To help you answer the questions raised by this blog, you’ll need to have read the article, “En-Gendering the Spanish American War”.
The question that this gender lens attempts to ask is, is there another way of looking at the causes of the Spanish-American War?
First, some context for Teddy Roosevelt’s charge up San Juan Hill in Cuba during the war. He was part of a generation of Americans who were raised on glorious tales of Civil War gallantry told by the veterans of the war. His generation of men aspired to have their own fight where they could test their courage and honor, and the Spanish American War provided such a chance without the grizzly slaughter of four years of a civil war. Also, TR’s father had not fought in the Civil War being too busy making money. Furthermore, TR grew up as a very sickly, asthmatic child who was very fragile until he reinvented himself in his 20s out on the Great Plains in North Dakota raising cattle in the summers. It’s likely he never thought that when he was a boy listening to stories of valor at Gettysburg would he get a chance to do the same thing and face an enemy with bullets flying at him. Lastly, when the war started, TR resigned his post in the McKinley administration as Assistant Secretary of the Navy to form his own militia unit for the war which was dubbed by the press, “the Rough Riders” but he called this militia unit the Children of the Dragon’s Blood. TR would also later go on to defend what he would call “the strenuous life” which included playing manly sports, continual exertion, challenging nature through hunting and exploration, cleaning up corruption, busting trusts, and waving the ultimate symbol of his manhood, his “big stick” in the international arena.
So why did America come to the defense of the Cubans in 1898? The article lists the following possible reasons:
- commercial rewards of empire
- an extension of a global Manifest Destiny
- a quest for naval bases
- humanitarian concerns for the Cubans
- a chance to enact some Christian “uplift”
- glory
- revenge for the destruction of the Maine
- motivated by yellow journalism
But the article proposed another cause – a crisis of upper and middle class white manhood. There seemed to be threats to traditional notions of manhood all around – the creature comforts of an industrial America were making men “soft” and “sluggish”; making money no matter what seemed to corrode the manly sense of honor and integrity; men lost their jobs, their self-respect, and their independence and vitality because of the Depression of 1893; but possibly most shocking was the rise of the “New Woman” who wanted the right to vote and participate in politics. In this new era, women’s virtue was superior to men’s because look at all of the economic, social, and political problems that men’s “virtue” had caused from 1865-1898 that the Progressive Era would try to solve when it occurred a few years later. I mean, let’s remember that women were leading the reformist charge during that era.
Let’s take a look at another cartoon from this time period. Here’s a cartoon from Puck.
The caption reads, “The duty of the hour – to save her not only from Spain but from a worse fate.” After reading this article, I’d like you to interpret this cartoon through the gendered lens mentioned in the article.
Your job – answer the following questions:
- Do you agree with this gendered interpretation of the causes of the Spanish American War? Why or why not?
- What is a strength of using this lens? What is a weakness? Explain.
- Interpret the cartoon above of the Cuban woman in a frying pan (or the one below of the Rough Riders) using the gender lens. Describe in detail how you can use gender to interpret different aspects of the cartoon.
A minimum of 400 words total for all three answers. Due by class on Friday, February 11.
An article on how the Span-Am War led to American empire – https://www.bunkhistory.org/resources/1785
An analysis of the American / British alliance that grew out of the Span-Am War as shown in cartoons – https://visualizingcultures.mit.edu/civilization_and_barbarism/cb_essay02.html
After reading the article I agree with the gendered interpretation of the causes of the Spanish American War. I think during this time period gender roles were highly influential within the workplace, especially once women began to work outside of the home. Some men were hyper-sensitive about their masculinity because they were raised with stories of war heroes who fought for their country. I think that these men who were raised with these ideas wanted to fight in a war to prove their masculinity and help their self-esteem. These gender role stereotypes helped fuel the war because I think the men wanted to fight not just for America but also to prove their masculinity. I think this idea also influenced Teddy Roosevelt and his desire to go to war. The article speaks on how Roosevelt was a sickly child, which is looked down upon during that era because he was not a “strong man”. I think because of this Teddy Roosevelt wanted to fight and why he said, “I will welcome almost any war” as we read about in the article, “Remember the Maine”. These gender factors along with the many other aspects helped cause the Spanish-American war.
Using a gender lens when looking at history gives a bigger picture of what is happening during that time period and how society can have an effect on events during that era. Although we don’t know if it is exactly correct, using gendered lenses can help get insight into the minds of people in the past and help to contextualize the time period. Despite the fact that there are many strengths that come with using gendered interpretations to view history, there are weaknesses such as the idea that we are using our perception and interpretation to understand how they felt. It is hard to completely understand what these people in history felt or believed because it was so long ago but using context clues can help us figure it out.
After studying the cartoon, I think that it represents how Americans feel it is their duty to rescue this poor, vulnerable, Cuban woman before she gets killed within the fires of anarchy. It portrays the imperialist American idea that the vulnerable can be saved by America and democracy. It shows how they need to not only rescue the incapable, helpless Cuban women but the Cubans themselves. The gender lens is immensely important when interpreting the cartoon because I think the artist wanted it to portray Cuba as a helpless woman and how Americans need to reach out their hands like shown holding the pan and save Cuba before it gets burned in the fires of anarchy. I used the Americans’ view of gender and saving Cuba to help interpret what message this cartoon is trying to say.
I agree that the gendered interpretation is one of the affecting factors that started the war. As the article and the blog said, the generation of men at this time grew up looking up to civil war heros and seeing these manly men protecting American women. When men started to lose their jobs, and self respect because of the industrial revolutions and the depression, they believed that the idea of the manly man protecting the women was slipping. They needed something to show that the men still had power and were needed to protect the country. A great example of this was Teddy Roosevelt; he grew up listening to war heros and as he grew up he wanted to do the same things that they did, he famously said “I will welcome almost any war”. He got this opportunity when he stormed the hill, which he later said was one of his favorite days.
Using this lens is good because it shows us a different angle to look at the situation and shows how society affected events at this time. Using this specific lens can put us into the mind of people at this time and give more context to the time period. The weakness though comes in that we think differently than they did back then so it is hard to compare their ideals to ours.
I think that the cartoon represents how Americans think that it is their job to rescue the Cubans, and also women before they get killed within the fires of anarchy. It shows the American idea that the vulnerable can be saved by America and democracy. The gender lens is immensely important when interpreting the cartoon because I think the artist was saying that not only will America save Cubans but also women. The Americans’ view of gender can be used to save Cuba to help interpret what message this cartoon is trying to say.
Personally, I can see where this interpretation of the Spanish-American war is coming from and I do agree with it. The image depicted is showing a woman in a pot sitting above “ Anarchy”. I interpreted this as it is the man’s job to save the woman from the war. Maybe the war was seen as a way for men to get their traditional roles back, and put women back in the domestic role. As mentioned in the article, men kind of lost their way since the civil war, so when there was a conflict with Spain, some men might’ve seen this as an opportunity to follow traditions and gain what was once lost. I do not believe this was the only reason America decided to join the war, but it very well could have been a big factor. When looking at topics or events from a gender lens, it allows people to see the situation from all perspectives. It could lead to people being more optimistic and see why some people feel this way and maybe make a connection with what happened. A weakness to the gender lens could be painting the opposite gender as the antagonist or having a negative aspect about them. Like when looking through a gender lens for the Spanish-American war, men can be seen as dogmatic and not living up to the past generation of men, which may have some truth to it. The cartoon below is showing Theodore Roosevelt and other white American men fighting with the Spaniards. The American men are shown as bigger and patriotic with guns and flags in their hands, and it almost looks like they’re stepping on the Spaniards. The Spaniards are shown as smaller and helpless, they look very frantic maybe even caught off guard. The fact that there are no women in the cartoon at all can be a message itself. We know that the war was used as a way for men to regain power, a lot of men could have been threatened by the new roles women were taking. During this time women were leading many reforms, gaining the right to vote, and being more active in politics. This cartoon could be used to show that men are the ones doing the hard work and fighting in wars and that women aren’t in the picture (literally) and should respect men for taking on the big hard tasks. (402 words)
After reading through both the article and the blog, I would say I agree with the overall notion being presented. The gendered lens is not only important to consider, particularly in the Spanish-American War, but it is generally correct in the claims laid by those who use it. The article mentioned that the modern advances in society caused men to feel like they were losing their manhood as a group, or that their masculinity was being attacked. New jobs in things like management, politics, and general overseeing of things without the performance of manual labor caused men to consider themselves less manly, and they wanted a war to prove that they still had what it takes to protect their home and family, to prove that they could live up to the stories of glory that they had been hearing all their lives about the civil war.
One major strength of using this lens is that it shows the researcher how seemingly inconsequential things in a geopolitical conflict such as gender can have a massive impact. When looking at something like a war, normally you wouldn’t consider the underlying societal tides that might draw a country to desire war; instead, you would focus on economic motivations, strategic advantages that could arise from a victory, and the delicate balance of risk and reward that might motivate a country, or more to the point its leaders, to launch themselves into war. A disadvantage that I notice is simply that you don’t delve as deeply into the things mentioned above. Instead of diving into the economic and militant advantages of winning a war, you look at the societal gains and what steps forward or back are we taking from a social justice standpoint. There are advantages and disadvantages, but overall it’s just a different way to look at things, and no more or less important than any other lens you might view the Spanish-American War through.
The cartoon I will be analyzing is the second one, which shows a large figure which strongly resembles Teddy Roosevelt trampling what appear to be Spanish soldiers. He is accompanied by several other larger-than-life men, and the cartoon is captioned “The Rough Riders. They are rough on the Spaniards, whether they ride or walk.” The artist is clearly symbolizing the Americans as bigger and better than the Spanish, and it seems to me that the purpose behind it is to make the Rough Riders into the absolute good guys of the situation, even though their presence was relatively questionable. This depiction of the Rough Riders also shows them attacking from behind the Spaniards, possibly insinuating that they could sneak around and attack from behind enemy lines easier because of their unofficial status. I think this cartoon made its intentions very clear; it wants the viewer to understand that America is right, good, and better in every way than Spain.
I can agree with the concept that gendered interpretation had a great influence towards the Spanish-American War. As women left their domestic lives and branched outside of their homes and entered the political world, men seemed to become threatened by their presence. There were men who’s masculinity made them want to fight a war that “proved” their personal selves. Men like Teddy Roosevelt felt they should be excited to fight a war and welcome one, because it was the manly thing to do. The thought of a “New Women ” who indulged themselves in what was normally an all male political environment, threatened to emasculate men. There was the thought that participating in this war would “toughen American men for survival”, and this Spanish-American War put an end to the crisis of manhood.
Bringing in the account of gender during this time can open eyes to how little things may have changed. This helps to see where certain influences come from, and the large or little effects that take place from it. Gendered interpretation also shows the change of dynamics between women and men over the years, and can show how both genders have essentially evolved over time. Now while there are nice positives, some more negative effects that using this lens can create include mistaking one’s motives for a gender influence. Some when reading the article could perceive that a man only fought in the war because his masculinity was threatened. While that may not be fully true, we wouldn’t want to think that’s their “only” motive. It isn’t the most accurate way to interpret past events- however it does give an interesting perspective. That is why I believe that the gendered interpretation was a great influence, rather than a main cause.
In the first cartoon, I believe that the main purpose is to say to Americans that they need to save these “vulnerable” women before they let themselves “go up in flames”. This cartoon shows the woman in great need of help, and that she would not survive in the anarchy below her. With using the gendered lens outlook, we can interpret that the makers of this cartoon believe that the woman needs saving. The cartoon could imply that the woman is helpless and needs the saving of a man. The cartoon also expresses that Cuba is in great deal of guidance, by using the term “anarchy” it shows that Cuba has no proper authority- which is why the Americans come to help.
1. I do not agree with the whole gender construct. I do agree that the ideology played a major role in the Spanish American war. Ever since the beginning of the creation of this country, men were seen as those who had to do the “heavy lifting”. Women were always seen as subservient to men. The thing that really gave a push was the cartoonists and yellow journalism. When newspapers would publish articles that would highlight the “real men” as those who wanted to fight. They depicted people who were against the war, like McKinley as a woman with a baby. Of course, these cartoons picture masculinity and femininity as the center of it’s message. Richard R. Kenny stated that “Men do not artibitrate questions of honor.” This means that men don’t question the cause, they will fight for the good of the person or group of people that they are trying to protect. The “New Woman” played a major role in this new toxic masculinity mindset. The “New woman” is a mindset of those who rose to empower in the wake of the progressive Era of America. These new women were especially seen as a threat to masculinity. American film actress, Colleen Moore even states that “They were smart and sophisticated, with an air of independence about them, and so casual about their looks and clothes and manners as to be almost slapdash. I don’t know if I realized as soon as I began seeing them that they represented the wave of the future, but I do know I was drawn to them. I shared their restlessness, understood their determination to free themselves of the Victorian shackles of the pre-World War I era and find out for themselves what life was all about.” All of these characteristics were equal or even more than what men attained in that time period. These women also asserted the superiority of feminine virtue. Which was the one thing that really angered the corrupt of society, and dominated the political system. Morality and intelligence was what women were seen to have over men. This only got worse for men in the depression of 1893, which caused them to lose almost everything to their name. Of course, the darwinian ideology played a role, by killing the unsuited off. This loss of male superiority would always cause disaster in the home sphere. Like the article states, this gendered rhetoric is restricting, and even arresting. It limits us to 2 specific gender roles. The strong man, and the damsel in distress– and I’m sure you can guess who’s the damsel in distress. Identity for individuals is almost the complex thing that has been carried on for centuries, such limitation scrambles identity for an individual so severely, which causes one to lose themselves in the process.
2.
A strength of using this type of lens is that it will plant the issue elsewhere. The only strengths for the corrupt, which want all men to play an aggressive role. For many, this is an actual weakness. It restricts us to two gender roles. The strong man and the damsel in distress (you can probably guess who the damsel in distress is). Individual identity is a difficult issue that has persisted for generations; such limitations severely muddle an individual’s identity, causing them to lose themselves in the process.
3.
The cartoon by “puck” magazine, highlights the men as the aggressive fighter, like Roosevelt was in the war. We can see that this image is on a battlefield. All we can see is men, no women fighting passionately as they do. American men are viciously stepping on the lives of Spanish individuals. We can look at this with a gendered lens because it essentially shows that men are the ones who fight for this country and anyone else who opposes such actions are seen as a “weak woman.”
I do agree with this gendered interpretation of the causes of the Spanish American Way. In this time, men definitely did feel threatened with their masculinity and needed a new way to prove their manliness, even if it was not the best way. Men were becoming emasculated because women were all of the sudden moving up on the power scale and men felt that they needed something to prove that they were still masculine enough to fight a war and be manly.
A strength of using this lens is that you can see how things might’ve started with the simplicity of gender equality. If we didn’t look at the Spanish American War with this lens, we wouldn’t have seen the big amount of sexism beneath it. The Spanish American war was all just for men to prove themselves worthy enough to fight. We can also see the sexism in other parts of history by looking through this lens. A weakness of looking through this lens could be the same reason. Maybe it is worse to see the sexism in history. Maybe we want to think that the people who made America today weren’t sexist and that they had all genders in mind when creating America. We want to see how every gender was involved, and we don’t want to make another gender feel bad about learning history.
You can use the cartoon “Off comes his coat – now look out” to see how gender was a big part in people’s way of thinking. In this cartoon, uncle Sam is seen to be ripping off his coat, which is something a woman back then couldn’t/wouldn’t do. The American symbols (Eagle, Flag) around Uncle Sam are also showing that the person representing America is a strong, dangerous man, surrounded by the symbols of America and there is no place for a woman in that cartoon.
I somewhat agree with the gendered interpretation of the causes of the Spanish American War. Given that the west has always had different cultural expectations for men and women, it is safe to assume that in a time of galvanization, it might be expected that these differences would be exploited to mobilize the population. The article outlined several tactics used to support the push for war. Cartoons and politicians targeted archetypal masculinity, saying that it would be to undermine manhood if men would not go to war to fight. Targeting masculinity, or questioning a man’s vigor is a sure fire way to atleast galvanize some percentage of the population to a cause. For example, President McKinely was compared to an old woman for his trepidations about going to war with Spain. Even though being calculated or cautious isn’t a biologically striated trait, and femininity is not synonymous with weakness, supporters of the war branded McKinely as being weak or emasculated in order to undermine his position. This deliberate conflation of “feminine” with “weak” served to counter the feelings of disenfranchisement being felt by middle class men at the time. Men were now being fed a cause to “reclaim” their masculinity, which they perceived to have been taken away or diminished by the “New Women” entering traditionally “male domains”.
One strength of using this lens is that it allows causes of historical events to be more accurately determined. To say that traditional gender roles, or even biological predispositions have had no effect on how men and women participated in society throughout history would be inaccurate. However, a potential weakness of this lens is that it fails to treat each person it analyzes as a complete individual. Broad based characteristics like gender, which may well have had an effect on the behavior of people during this period of history, were likely not the sole or predominant determinants. Viewing people simply as a product of their race, sex, or religion is never going to give a sufficiently complete and complex view of who they were or what motivated them. The fact is that every aspect of a person influences their behavior to some degree. Certainly the politically orchestrated threat to masculinity had an influence of men’s fervor for war, but to say that fantasies of a broader American Empire did not have an equally profound influence would be overtly untrue. This lens is useful, but only in moderation.
Using the gendered lens, it is clear that the cartoon is preying on man’s responsibility to protect women under traditional notions of masculinity. The cartoon depicts a presumably Cuban woman being burnt alive in a pan labeled “Spanish Misrule”. The Cartoon is playing off of the responsibility men feel at this time to protect women, and by depicting the woman as helpless and in distress, serves to undermine the “New Women” archetype that had been circulating in America at the time.
I believe that gender roles heavily contributed to the causes of the Spanish American War. After the depression of 1893, men were desperate to prove that they were better than figures of the “New Woman” era. In their minds, they had to show values of honor, integrity, and valor in order to be true leaders. They wanted to fight to “save” their women and Cuba from Spain. Their purposes of announcing war became clouded by their own insecurities surrounding the ‘American Man’ because they believed that to be a man was to fight, no matter what. Because of this, gender was a driving cause of the Spanish-American War.
A strength of using this lens is that it allows for events to be seen from a new perspective. Other sides of a conflict can be revealed, and new paths of thinking are explored. A weakness, or even just something to consider, of this lens is the differences in ideologies from their time period to ours. During this time, men’s only path in life was to be manly, go to war, and die. If they lost this grasp of manliness, they would be nothing. Men who didn’t subscribe to glory, valor, and manhood were portrayed as weak, puny figures, or women. A gendered ideology almost ignores the fact that men during this time had no way out of American manhood. While I believe that this is a good tool to discover the true causes of war, people should also consider that people during this time period knew only of manliness, war, and glory.
After analyzing the cartoon below, I have come to the conclusion that gender in fact was a driving cause of the Spanish-American War. A man carrying the American flag is standing over Spanish men who are portrayed as weak and running for their lives. The American men in the cartoon are dressed in almost cowboy-like clothing, and they have smug expressions on their faces. The Spanish men are cowering under them with expressions of terror on their faces. The caption reads, “The Rough Riders. They are rough on the Spaniards, whether they ride or walk.” From this, we can see that American men were entranced to war to regain their sense of superiority. They need to have control over a group of weakened individuals, so when the U.S.S Maine sunk they jumped to go to war with Spain.
I disagree with the gendered interpretation of the causes of the Spanish-American war. I disagree because while it definitely I think was a motivator that could have motivated specifically American men to want to go to war and test their honor and manhood I think ultimately that the main factor was the humanitarian concerns and sympathy with the Cubans that Americans felt for Cuba because America had also gone to war with a European power just a century earlier in there fight for independence. A strength of using this lens is it is another way to look at the possible different causes and or factors for why things may happen, it is also good because throughout history there have been many events that have happened were the main causes for a said event happening were gender-based. I lastly think it is a strength because of the fact that it takes into account both men’s and women’s points of view on causes and effects that have happened to societies and civilizations throughout history instead of just using a biased view taken from men that will only tell their side of the story and represent them. A weakness for using this is that if using this lens it may not be entirely accurate or might be mistaken for being the main cause for events that happen throughout history when actually it could be deeper underlying motives or completely separate ones that don’t even have gender as a motivator for a said event happening. A last weakness is that it may become to subjective and opinion-based rather than focusing on facts and what actually happened, an example of this would be how throughout history we usually see one group of men that tell the story of what happened without hearing from other perspectives To me, it seems the cartoon on the bottom is depicting these men who seem very larger than life in their appearance being much bigger and better it seems than the men below them because these men are fleeing and running away in the face of a battle and since these men are doing this they are depicted as having no honor and manhood whereas the bigger men are depicted this way because by fighting in a war and testing their honor and manhood that they have regained because it was lost during the industrial era and that these are men that are filled with honor, glory and manhood because they have been transformed into these very masculine men by a man who represents manhood Teddy Roosevelt
Yes, I do somewhat agree with the gender interpretation of the causes of the Spanish American War. In the time period of the war, gender roles were changing and women began to be more independent and powerful which caused men to be more self-conscious about themselves since they weren’t the “leading role”. Women began to start getting out of the house, working, gaining income, and not always being under the rule of a male figure. Since women started rising in their power, men realized that they weren’t that powerful anymore and that influenced them to fight in the war. I think maybe they were trying to prove something to themselves on how they were the powerful ones and not the women. Although I don’t think it’s the only reason why America decided to join the war, I do think it was a big factor.
Using this lens can help us look at what happened in the time period and compare it to other generations. I think a strength of using this lens is seeing how women can become more independent and evolve from the people they were centuries ago. We see that they’re no longer the people that get bossed around by a male figure or the people that stay home and aren’t really allowed to do anything. We can see them now, going out, earning income, and becoming people that can influence other generations of women. Although there are many strengths to this lens, there are also multiple weaknesses including the fact that we could be looking at a misinterpretation of an event which could lead to lots of questioning on whether the event actually happened the way it was told.
When looking at the cartoon using a gender lens, we see that there’s a vulnerable, scared-looking, Cuban woman on top of a pan. I think this cartoon can show that America is trying to “save” Cuba since we see that the thing holding the pan is an American. The cartoon, being created by an American, also says the word “Anarchy” meaning Cuba is under a rule that isn’t great or responsive. With the gender lens, I think the artist portrayed Cuba as the “woman”. Since the view of women was, weak, scared, not important, unpowerful, etc. The woman symbolizes the country, Cuba, and how they need to be taken over by American rule to be “better”. It was the man’s job to save the women.
I believe that gender roles had a big influence on the causes of the Spanish American War. As mentioned in the blog, the men during the time of the Spanish-American war grew up in the period following the civil war, hearing the stories of glorious civil war heroes. For example, Theodore Roosevelt grew up in this time period and he went on to become a war hero. His talk of the “Strenuous Life” became a popular notion among men, which consisted of showing off your manhood through sports, hunting, busting trusts, and continual exertion. Not only this but “New Woman” was rising as well and men felt threatened by this. Men were feeling emasculated were desperate to prove their masculinity to the world, and used the Spanish-American war to do so.
Using the gender lens helps to uncover the true causes of what was going on during this time period and helps us to discover the influence these had on the war. Not only that but by using a gender lens, we can truly picture the situation and come up with conclusions based on the current status of their gender stereotypes. This would be a strength of using the lens, and another would be how we can see the massive impact gender roles had on our country, so much that it made men want to go to war. A weakness of using this lens would be you aren’t looking at the other factors that may have had other influences on the war. There is more to the story that can’t be thought about while only looking from one perspective. I believe that it’s good to look at something from multiple points of view to truly get a full understanding.
The cartoon of the woman in the frying pan has a caption that reads ” “The duty of the hour – to save her not only from Spain but from a worse fate.” This caption straight up reflects the responsibility men felt to save helpless women and prove their masculinity. In the cartoon, you see a woman, a symbol of Cuba, represented as the damsel in distress who needed to be saved from Spanish rule. This is a direct representation of how American men came to save Cuba from Spain, which is why Cuba is represented as a distressed woman. At this point in time, women were seen as something that needed constant help and saving, which is exactly how the United States was treating Cuba. Weaker countries and men were portrayed as women in cartoons, which is why I believe that Cuba was portrayed by a woman. Gender roles are very dominant in this cartoon as seen by the damsel in distress depiction and the sexist caption about how women need to be saved.
New comment
I agree that the gendered interpretation is one of the affecting factors that started the war. Gender roles were a huge topic at this time. As the article and the blog said, the generation of men at this time grew up looking up to civil war heros and seeing these manly men protecting American women. The men were supposed to be big strong manly men that took care of the family. When men started to lose their jobs, and self respect because of the industrial revolutions and the depression, they believed that the idea of the manly man protecting the women was slipping. They needed something to show that the men still had power and were needed to protect the country. A great example of this was Teddy Roosevelt; he grew up listening to war heros and as he grew up he wanted to do the same things that they did, he famously said “I will welcome almost any war”. He got this opportunity when he stormed the hill, which he later said was one of his favorite days.
Using this lens is good because it shows us a different angle to look at the situation and shows how society affected events at this time. Using this specific lens can put us into the mind of people at this time and give more context to the time period. The weakness though comes in that we think differently than they did back then so it is hard to compare their ideals to ours. It is very hard to know everything that happened in the past, especially what people were thinking. But looking through different lenses and seeing different perspectives will help us to piece together what was happening and what people were thinking in the past.
I think that the cartoon represents how Americans think that they have to interfere in other countries’ problems and how it is their job to rescue the cubans, and also women before they get killed within the fires of anarchy and the Spanish mistreatment. It shows the American idea that the vulnerable can be saved by America and democracy. The gender lens is immensely important when interpreting the cartoon because I think the artist was saying that not only will America save cubans but also women. The Americans’ view of gender and international interference can be used to help interpret what message this cartoon is trying to say.
I don’t completely agree with the opinion that the Spanish American War was fought because men were losing their sense of masculinity, but I can definitely see where this point of view comes from. The depression of 1893 certainly played a part in this loss of masculinity for men. They lost their jobs and struggled with the fact that women were starting to get the ability to vote and participate in politics. However, I do not think there is a direct correlation between the loss of masculinity and the war. I think that the men were looking for something and perhaps the war could have been an outlet of their anger because they had lost their jobs and money. I think that more than anything, this was a chance for the U.S. to show off their strength as a global power and become this large and important country that we know of today. It also seemed like the U.S. was a little bored. Ever since the Revolution, we had been having wars every fifty years or so and it seemed like this was another chance to have one. It also seemed like senators and congress were unbothered by this war when John Hay described it as a “splendid little war.”
A strength of using this lens is that it gives us another motive for why we went to war with Spain. Besides the fact that our ship was close to another enemy ship when it blew up, we have almost no evidence that it was Spain and we found out later that the explosion came from inside-outside the ship, meaning something caused an explosion in the ship. This shows us that they did not blow us up. A weakness of this view is that the senators or congressmen and the president, the people who declare this war, are likely not struggling with their manhood. They have money, they have power, and they have powerful positions. Declaring this war was not going to boost their tiny egos. Perhaps it would boost their already large egos, but they had very little to gain from this war, in my opinion.
I see the Cuban woman in the pan labeled, “Spanish Misrule,” waving a Cuban flag. To me this could be a representation of how the Spanish were controlling the Cubans. The land they are above is on fire and says anarchy, which means absence of government, or a state of disorder due to absence, and I think the author is trying to convey that the Spanish are not good rulers of the Cuban people and are holding them back. The fire on the land also supports this because it means the land and people are in disarray. The cartoon could be related to gender roles because it seems like the pan, or housework is holding the woman back from helping in politics and Spanish misrule could also be contributing to this.
Yes, I agree with the gendered interpretation of the Spanish American War. The gendered interpretation was basically that men didn’t want to be viewed as weak or soft. I agree that men at the time wanted to be seen as strong, independent and hardworking, they had a large sense of pride. When men lost their jobs with the Depression of 1893 they also lost some of their independence and self respect. The men probably wanted to show that they were still strong and not weak, that they could still protect the women, so to show that they went to war to prove that they were independent, strong and basically all around “manly”. When men were depicted to be feminine in cartoons because they didn’t want to go to war it probably just enraged them and made them want to go to war to prove that they were manly. Cartoons seemed to show that true men go to war to protect women and their honor, so some men went to war to show that they were true men. So yes I think that gender played a role in the Spanish American War.
The strength of using a gender lens is that it diversifies how you view the time and subject. You’ll be able to see how things during the time may have affected a certain gender or how a certain gender would have affected things. When you consider gender you may also be able to compare how things were and how they are now and how gender may have changed and affected things. There is a weakness though and that is gendered lens is diverse and may not be completely true, you never know.
The cartoon with the caption “The duty of the hour – to save her not only from Spain but from a worse fate.” The cartoon shows a woman waving a Cuban flag in a frying pan that says Spanish misrule. The frying pan is held over an island with burning tents and the word anarchy in the middle of the flames. The island besides the tents seems empty. The woman in the frying pan may symbolize the Cuban people being kind of weak and that the people in Cuba are being misruled by the Spanish. Women were viewed as weaker and needed to be saved so the cartoonist may have made Cuba a woman to depict that they need help.
I agree that the Spanish-American War had gendered causes. Men were generally, and still are, seen as strong and tough, while women are weak. Men had lots of toxic masculinity to adhere to these societal standards. They felt like they needed to fight someone. This is why Teddy Rosevelt was for going to war just because he wanted to fight. They felt as if they needed to prove their masculinity and that they were weak like women, as women had started being employed in jobs usually worked by men. Many cartoons in this time period highlighted men with feminine qualities, such as being weak, fragile, and even having a baby.
Using the gendered lens, there are strengths and weaknesses. With this lens, we can understand why some laws were enacted and societal roles due to inequalities in gender. We can look at laws through this lens and see what was some things happening during this time period that may have led to this enactment in congress. In the past, and even today, women are seen as lesser than men. Men feel now, and have felt in the past, that they have a right to control women. Men also feel a sense of toxic masculinity from other men. They feel as if they have to be strong and out there, not weak “like a woman”. This leads to the inequalities between men and women specifically, but gender, also as we know it, is a social construct. A weakness using the gendered lens at looking through history is that many of it is based on the individual looking through the lens. For example, some look at the causes of the Spanish-American War through this lens and see that toxic masculinity led to the causes of the war, but many others just see it as these were places in society and didn’t have a direct impact on the war.
I decided to interpret the cartoon of the woman in the frying pan. The woman representing Cuba represents Cuba as weak and just able to be thrown around in the pan (which represents Spanish misrule). It shows that it is the US’s responsibility to save Cuba, where the US is a man and Cuba is a weak woman who needs to be saved. Using a gendered lens is important when analyzing this cartoon because at a glance you obviously see that Cuba is under Spanish control and are being burned by anarchy, but with the lens you see even more. You see that the woman representing Cuba shows how women are treated and how men saw where their place should be in society.
I agree with the claim that gender roles influenced the Spanish-American war heavily. An extreme stereotype, that has existed for centuries, and still exists in today’s world, is the idea that men are more capable, and more knowledgeable in many areas of the workforce than women. This stereotype, that boys grew up around in this time period, inflicted a strong sense of masculinity in them, and if challenged, became fragile. When women started acquiring roles in the workforce, and having more opportunities and say in politics, the idea of men being powerful, and having leverage over women slowly decreased, and many men knew this. As boys grew into men, and joined the military, they used the Spanish American War to fight not only for their goal of the independence of Cuba, but to show that they still had the “leverage” over women, and were still “masculine”. After the Maine sank, Senator Richard R. Kenny stated, “American manhood and American chivalry give back the answer that innocent blood shall be avenged.” By saying American manhood proves that America must go to war, Kenny implies that men are tougher, and stronger, and their physique is challenging, and implies that womanhood is softer, and weaker. This contributes to the idea that gender roles influence the Spanish-American War because with political leaders (specifically men) constantly promoting the idea that as men they must be willing to fight and challenge other countries, it only encourages the sense of masculinity that men were so engaged with. This then strengthens the fragility of their masculinity, as when it is soon challenged by women, men become insecure, and less focused on the good of the country, and rather the good of themselves, and proving their masculinity is stronger than women.
This lens shows the beginning of the path of sexism that our country has been on for many years. It provides insight into how it all started, and why the stereotypes for men and women are so engraved into our brains, without us even realizing it. While that is a strength for this lens, as it is extremely important to take a step back and view the world from a different view, this lens can also be a weakness to look through. This lens can almost overdo the idea of gender roles. It overlooks the actual personality of an individual, as just basing them off of their gender. There will still be men who act as society’s perception of masculine, as just being who they are, as there will be women who still act feminine. It is important to recognize that everyone, regardless of their gender, also have personalities that will impact the role they believe they fill in society.
The cartoon of the woman in the pan from Puck, and the caption to go with it, “the duty of the hour – to save her not only from Spain but from a worse fate,” showcases more sexism that was engraved into the minds of those living during the Spanish American War. With the Cuban woman being carried to “safety” and over the anarchy, it implies that women cannot save themselves, and without the help of a man, their lives will “go up in flames”. The caption implies that it is the duty of the man to save women, as their masculinity is capable of doing so, which contributes to the overall idea from this time period that women are inferior to men.
After reading the blog post and the article I agree with the gender roles. Many men during this time period believed that they needed to protect the women. So when depicting president McKinley as “Old Woman” and figures like Uncle Sam dressed like a man ripping his coat off and labeled “Off come his coat-now look out”. The depiction and differences between the two made the men who went to war like real men. The men who were scared or did not fight were dressed like women. Showing the highly gender lens that were present and used. Making them look weak and like the “real” men needed to help or save the women. So if many men did this especially the men in political power would be like a women and be the “New Women”
Some of the strengths of using the gender roles as stated before that men seemed powerful it made them look like real men if they supported or fought in the war. This made many men want to go and train for the military and fight for America. This then later encouraged many cartoons to be made showing the “New Woman”. These cartoons encouraged these men to support and might in the war.
Some of the downsides of using the gender roles is that the cartoonist who made the “Old Woman” made the president look weak and made him look like a women. Which could cause conflicts and not represent the president in a good way. Which can lead to a strength because many men didn’t want to be like McKinley they would try and be better then him. Which would make many men go and in role in the military of train with Theodore Roosevelt to train and be apart of him army The Rough Riders.
After looking at the cartoon and using the gender lens, this proves that gender roles were used to depict the war. They made the Cuban women look like in trouble. That men in that time needed to save her. Many cartoons made in this time if there was a women that means they are innocent of the men should help them. America especially American men believed it was their job to save Cuba especially Cuban women so they don’t have to experience or see the Anarcy fire below the pot. This cartoon was probably made to show that men and America need to help.
I agree in part with the gendered interpretation of the causes of the Spanish American War. I agree because men back then would get very offended when compared to women. There were so many cartoons showing men who didn’t want war as women, which probably offended the men. This caused them to try and prove their “manliness”, so they rushed into war. The reason that I only agree in part with the gendered interpretation of the causes of the Spanish American War is that I think that there were also other causes as well. Our interests in Cuba played a big part in the Spanish American War because we did not want our money to go to waste. In addition, the threat of having a big European power in control of an island so close to Florida was very scary from a military standpoint. So, although I think that gender might have played a role in the Spanish American War, I think that there were other issues that played a bigger role in the Spanish American War.
A strength of the gender lens is being able to see causes of the Spanish American War that might not have previously been thought of. Without this lens, it is hard to see that there could have been other factors in play besides the main issues. Although we will never be able to fully understand how people thought back then, using the gender lens gives us more insight into their thoughts. A weakness of using this lens would be that it could make people think that those gender things were the only causes of the Spanish American War, which would be false. Another weakness of using this lens is assuming that everyone thought this way. Even though a lot of people might have thought that way, we cannot assume that everyone thought the same way. Some men did not go fight in the war to prove their manliness so we should not overlook the other reasons for fighting.
Using the gender lens, the cartoon below could mean that the United States has to intervene in Cuba to protect them from Spanish misrule and anarchy. Cuba is shown as a woman in this cartoon, which shows that Cuba is weak and fragile. This cartoon could make American men want to prove their manliness by going to war to save a woman. The gender lens was very helpful in interpreting this cartoon because it helps to know how they thought back then and why this image might make people back then want to take action.
I agree that the gendered interpretation is one of the affecting factors that started the war. I think during this time period gender roles were highly influential within the workplace, especially once women began to work outside of the home. As the article and the blog said, the generation of men at this time grew up looking up to civil war heroes and seeing these manly men protecting American women. Some men were hyper-sensitive about their masculinity because they were raised with stories of war heroes who fought for their country. I think that the men who were raised like this wanted to prove their masculinity by fighting in a war. I think the gender role stereotypes helped fuel the war mainly so that men can prove this masculinity. An example of this was Teddy Roosevelt; he grew up listening to war heroes and as he grew up he wanted to do the same things that they did, he famously said: “I will welcome almost any war”. He got this opportunity when he stormed the hill, which he later said was one of his favorite days.
Using a gender lens when looking at history can give a bigger picture of what is happening during that time period and how society can have an effect on events during that era. Although we don’t know for sure if it is correct or not, using this specific lens can put us into the mind of people at this time and give more context to the time period. Although there are many strengths that come with this, the weakness though comes in that we think differently than they did back then so it is hard to compare their ideas to ours. We are using our perception and interpretation to try to understand how they felt. It is hard to fully understand what these people in history felt or what they believed because it was so long ago in history but using our clues can help us better interpret.
After studying the cartoon, I think it represents how Americans think it is their job to rescue the Cubans, specifically the poor Cuban woman before she gets killed within the anarchy. It shows the American idea that the vulnerable can be saved by America and democracy. The gender lens is very important when you interpret this cartoon because I think that the artists wanted to portray Cuba as a helpless poor woman and that America needs to send a helping hand and save Cuba. I used the American’s view of gender and saving Cuba to interpret what message the cartoon is saying.
I agree with this gendered interpretation regarding the causes of the civil war because of the gender roles and stereotypes. When women started to work outside of the home and got the right to vote, men started to feel like their masculinity was threatened. Some men were also raised with the idea of war and when new jobs were opening up that didn’t require fighting like politics, when working that job they felt less manly. Women were also thought of as weak, for example in some cartoons men who are ready to fight are dressed very manly but in other cases men who do not want to fight are dressed as women like when Mkinley was dressed as an old lady because he had his doubts about fighting the spanish.
The strength of using this lens is that now people can see the bigger picture and can see how life was back then for both men and women. Using this lens can also help us learn what people were thinking and how society really was but this also leads to a weakness because we don’t actually know what people were thinking even if we have a good idea we can’t be 100% sure which could lead to incorrect information and does not take into account every other thing that could have factored the civil war.
In the second cartoon you can see that there is a man holding the american flag and another man behind him you can also see more soldiers behind them and they appear much larger than the other men that are seen in the photo the other men are in line looking like they are ready to fight but some of them have a very scare look on their face looking back up at the american soldiers. These smaller men are portrayed as weak because as we learned in the article in cartoons weak men are seen as small or dressed like women. These small men are the spanish and they are being portrayed as weak because that is how americans saw them they saw them as weak. The cartoon is also labeled “the rough riders”.Overall I think that this cartoon is trying to show how Americans are superior to the spanish. I think that the “rough riders are supposed to be portrayed as the good guys, fighting against the “weak” spanish, and protecting the country.
1. I kind of agree with this interpretation because there is definitely an accuracy to it but it is not enough to be in the top tier of causes. Gender definitely had a role in this war. It is evident from the many cartoons and quotes stemming from this. These insults helped pressure people of power, specifically Mckinley, into accepting war. By showing him in women’s clothes, the public view was drastically turning against him. With that being said, I also think that there was just a war fever at the time. America had undergone major changes through the Gilded age and needed to flex their muscles. This desire grew considering how removed from war they had been. Also, war valor is less of a gender role than it is a Nationalistic characteristic. Personally, I don’t think the Civil War stories of valor can be defined as a gender role. It is more of a generational pressure to follow in the footsteps of your ancestors. I definitely think that gender played a role in the push for war and was very apparent in propaganda and groups like the Rough Riders, but other factors were bigger.
2. By looking through the gendered lens, we get an in depth view of societal belief and culture back then. Most historical recordings only look at the grand scheme of things and primarily focus on the people in power and the collective groupings of people. With this lens, we can look at individual beliefs of people. These beliefs are found across many Americans regardless of social class or political party. Another strength of this is seeing an unexpected response to industrialization and Progressivism. Industrialization jobs labeled men as “weaker”. Many of the reforms in the Progressive Era were led by women. Feeling displaced, masculinity became stressed and created a domino effect on many historic events. This is just a perspective that you never read about in textbooks. This perspective is also a weakness in this lens. The lens covers a very small portion of society back then and only has loose ties to some major events. A lot of this perspective is only shown through the press and some groups. Other than these events, It is hard to discover concrete evidence in favor of it. With it being a small lens, it is also hard to explain/cover other events of the time period.
3. The Puck magazine detailing the Rough Riders is a perfect representation of how masculinity was viewed in this era. The American men (led by Teddy Roosevelt) are shown much bigger than their enemies. They have very brave phases and look valiant in the middle of a gun fight. They also run right into action while TR is carrying the American flag. The caption reads “They are rough on the Spaniards, whether they ride or walk”. This is a manipulative tactic to convince men to go to war. It shows the American soldiers and war itself as cool and something that makes you a real man’s man.
I both agree and disagree, because although looking from a perspective that is different from another, we still may not have all of the facts. Yes, the article stated that there were several reasons to go to war with Spain; not all of them may be necessarily true, given the amount of information that has been skewed throughout the years. For example threats to masculinity, there definitely was something to be said about a country that refuses to go to war but it may not have been totally about masculinity itself. It is almost guaranteed to mobilize at least some percentage of the population when you target masculinity, or doubt a man’s vigor. But I also agree because, at the time men were supposed to be strong and provide for their families. But when jobs were being taken by women and men were being put out of work it definitely hurt their ego and their pride. So by doing this it not only hurts a man’s ego, but also strikes the men of the country as a whole to want to go to war.
Using certain lenses to help us look at history can be helpful but can also not be. A strength of using this lens is seeing a story that may have not been seen before, having all of the facts or not. Having a second perspective allows historians and us to be able to dig deeper into a piece of history and find out what really happened, by connecting one perspective with another. A weakness would be an event written in one article saying something happened this way and another article saying it happened another. Now without another perspective to show us which is right or perhaps they’re both wrong, a second perspective can lead to the misinterpreting of crucial parts of history. One way you can use gender to interpret different aspects is by putting yourself in the shoes of the opposite gender and start to think about what types of things are going on during this time period. By doing this you can look at the picture through a different set of eyes and think about what this could mean. You could think about it maybe that the men of America are “ valiantly” saving the women and the people of Cuba from Spanish tyranny and perhaps an even worse fate; anarchy. Or you could think of it as America as a whole saving Cuba from Spanish tyranny and complete downfall.
After reading the blog and the article, I support the gendered interpretation as one of the causes of the Spanish-American War. During this time, men and masculinity significantly impacted the actions of politicians and their decisions to escalate the situation in Cuba. Industrial advancements in America threatened manhood, and men were losing their sense of honor and decency. The power of the “New Woman,” who craved the right to vote and enter the political sphere, added to the decline of the men’s independence and self-respect. Many male Americans who were too young to have fought in the Civil War were born into celebrated stories of the war bravely spoken by those who experienced the fight. Led by Lieutenant Colonel Theodore Roosevelt, once a sickly and weak boy, men of this generation desired an opportunity for their chance to show the courage and resolution that the generation before them displayed. A less devastating war, the Spanish America War, was an opportunity to become war heroes to a country with immense power. The war offered these men a solution to the defining moment of questioning their manhood. In addition to other causes of the war, gender did play a role in those who promoted the war and those who fought in it.
Using gender as a lens of the Spanish-American War, we can explore new ideas to understand why the United States proclaimed war again Spain in 1898. Now was an opportunity for men to follow the mold of their fathers and become brave heroes for their generation. As the self-esteem of men was declining, going to war would strengthen the will and toughness of American men as the power in the nation was shifting. Some believed that this would lift men back into the leadership role, and the rising role of women would diminish. While it is a strength to use gender to understand how society and politics affect a person in a period, it is also a weakness to rely on gender when so many other factors, like religion, class, and education, shape someone’s identity. In this case, people’s decisions, going to war, depend on so many variables and are so complex they can’t be looked at under just one lens.
The image depicts a Cuban woman, defenseless and beautiful, searching for help as she is held under Spanish misrule. The flames of anarchy are threatening her life. The symbolism of a white hand holding the frying pan indicates that American intervention is needed. The quote describing the image states, “The duty of the hour- to save her not only from Spain but also from a worse fate.” This implies that the assistance of America was needed to save Cuba. This image, along with others, inspired many Americas to fight in the war to become tough and noble heroes.
I do agree with the gendered interpretation of the causes of the Spanish-American war because gender has a key role to play in the motivation for men wanting to go to war. There were several causes listed in the article for damaged masculinity such as the rise of money-hungry capitalists, the effects of the 1893 depression, and the idea of “a new woman”. Because of these causes, the men felt the need to prove their worth and fix their damaged ego. Of course when a conflict with Cuba emerged and was spread dramatically by Yellow Journalists, the idea that Cuba needed saving became widespread. Who else to do the saving than the big strong men? At least that was their self-view. Using their strength, honor, and virtue to save helpless Cuba from the evil clutches of Spain. Men became willing, if not eager, to join the war and fight. Defending Cuba was the perfect solution for broken masculinity. The American men saw themselves as a masculine avenger and the embodiment of a hero (an idea that started from revolutionary/civil war male heroes). Without the toxic male ideas of wanting to be depicted as chivalrous then they would likely not feel the desire to get involved with international conflicts. A woman could be seen as the normal group that wasn’t morally affected by male standards, and according to the article has more “morality and independence”.
The strength of using this lens is important to revealing different perspectives around the causes of the Spanish-American war. Analyzing the war this way helps break down bias surrounding it from a male perspective. To be able to question the set interpretations of the war is useful to get a fuller picture, not just of Gender, but all of the other cultural significance that comes with it. Though viewing it through this lens still has its weaknesses, such as taking away from the most obvious cause of the war, white supremacy, and culturally developed imperialism. While gender having a role in the cause is hard to deny, it should not cloud the real, and arguably worse reason for “helping” Cuba, which is to depict America as a savior for a “savage and helpless” country.
In the photo above the rough riders are depicted as a strong masculine force. Clearing based on the size of the rough riders, they are viewing themselves as big, strong, and powerful (something men attempt to be). Compared to this, the shorter and smaller Spaniards (Spanish flag) are scared and running. Being cowardly is the opposite of having honor and chivalry (traditional traits the men desire). The rough riders are seen holding the American flag, waving a gun and a confrontation posture signaling that they are ready to fight, Fighting, as said by the article, became necessary to uphold the virtues of manhood. Men saw the opportunity to fight a foreign country and jumped on it to preserve their manliness that was being threatened by changing times,
1. Yes I do agree with the gendered interpretations of the causes of the Spanish American War. Throughout history women have always been thought of as the weak fragile gender. Women always need a brave strong man to come and rescue them. When the men’s pride was becoming hurt by the rise of the “New Woman” I can totally picture many men wanting a new form of asserting dominance, which resulted in war. The men of that era wanted to bring back their honor, integrity, and valor. They wanted to elevate their self esteems by saving the poor helpless women of Cuba from Spain. These intentions of war by men were fueled even more by cartoons from this time period. Along with other important causes of the Spanish-American War, I believe that gender was a major influencer in the decision of war.
2. A strength of using the gender lens is that it gives us a completely new perspective on the reasons that things happened. We are able to analyze situations from the past and have a new way of understanding people’s motivations. The gender lens is also a strength because it is sadly still relatable to this day. Women these days are still fighting for completely equal opportunities as men. Because of this we are able to have a clearer, more understandable lens to look back through to earlier in time. The weakness of the gender lens is that it can put everyone into one category. For me personally, when reading the article, I was led to believe that all men during that time period only wanted war to boost their masculinity. But in reality that wasn’t true, there were many reasons people wanted war with Spain, for example, to protect our investments in Cuba, or to protect us from a potential invasion since Cuba is so close to us. The gender lens can mask some of the other reasons people had for doing things, and place all people in one group.
3. Using the gender lens I can interpret the cartoon of the woman in a frying pan as appealing to men’s feeling of needing to assert dominance and help the suffering woman. The frying pan is labeled as Spanish misrule and she is being burned over fire that says Anarchy. This cartoon depicts the woman as helpless and is trying to convince men to go to war with Spain to protect this woman and all other Cuban women from Spanish rule.
Reading this article has convinced me that not only pressures from the newspaper, religious groups, political advantages, and geostrategic market urges were the main triggers of the Spanish-American War. Rather, the underlying sense of an utter lack of masculinity and increasing feminine (perceived as derogatory/damaging/disparaging) social influence in late nineteenth century American culture was the tipping point that convinced the male American audience that going to war was absolutely necessary in order to restore America’s virtuous sense of “manhood” and “manliness”.
Misogyny today is often very subtle to the point where misogynists believe they can fly under the radar while making misogynistic remarks dissembled as “jokes” or branded as “dark humor, you wouldn’t get it”. (Oftentimes, they make these comments because they are insecure in their own masculinity or inability to attract and date women.) These insults are rooted in offensive stereotypes and often attack members of their own sex for having “feminine” interests, labeling them as weak or gay (which, should be noted, is homophobic in this sense due to its association with femininity and therefore weakness). This gives the impression to boys that they must be masculine at all times or else they are at risk of being harped onby their own sex. The problem with this is that it promotes disparaging comments against women and other minority groups, their perception of masculinity is often restricting and toxic, and it leads to them being aggressive all the time to prove a point. If they are not brash and surly, they do not feel like true men due to the standard of fragile American manhood first promoted during the late nineteenth century.
“True men go to war to protect the principles of chivalry and the women who embody them; dishonorable, cowardly men ravage women or become them” (AP After the Fact 536). Somewhere along the way, “protecting the principles of chivalry” and cowardly men raping women got lost in translation to “oppressive conservative values” and “she was asking for it”.
This defensiveness turned aggressiveness can be seen at the peak trigger time of the Spanish-American War. U.S. senators had a similar knee-jerk reaction to the jabs at their manhood. “‘The country must take up arms,’ thundered Representative James R. Mann of Illinois—not because of some ‘fancied slight’ or ‘commercial wrong’ or lust for empire but ‘because it has become necessary to fight if we would uphold our manhood’” (AP After the Fact 536).
The gender lens disregards the fact that casual misogyny was rampant in the nineteenth century (not to say it isn’t today) and some of these portrayals might have been entirely ignorant and unintentional. Political cartoon artists might simply have been experimenting with anatomy. It is also more focused on the emotional and social aspects of security rather than the political and geographic ones; it fixates on social justice over economic advantage. In addition to that, an unseen bias could be poking its way from the author’s mind onto the pen and ink. A female author is more impaired to write the men as the hyperbolic antagonist whereas a male author is more likely to have a defensive, honeyed stance.
The below image depicts war hero Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders trampling tiny Spaniards. Having a smaller frame is a stereotypically feminine trait, and the Spaniards’ slight frame is to show their feebleness and fragility. Not only is the artist comparing women to the enemy and everyone else who doesn’t want to have a war, but they are equating weakness with femininity. Roosevelt and the Rough Riders are idealized as stomping, aggressive giants, setting the standard for toxic masculinity to come into play.
1 I agree that gendered interpretation was one cause of the Spanish-American War. Since the Civil War, there hadn’t been a major war in America and men wanted a way to show their strength and put women in their “place”. The “New Woman” was emerging and threatening to take men’s places in politics, society, and jobs. Men were beginning to be seen as weak by different people in society and they were losing respect. When the situation with Spain occurred, most men saw it as a way to show their masculinity and have women go back to work in the house and raise children. Women were still seen as below men and as if they needed saving. Many of the cartoons from this time period show women needing saving and men saving those women. The men who didn’t save the women were depicted as old women to show that they were weak and “unmanly”. The stereotypes of this time period were very strong and made men feel like they had to be better, stronger, and more masculine than the “New Women”. I think that while there were other more direct causes to the Spanish-American War, the gender roles in this time were an underlying factor that caused many men to push for the war to happen.
2 A strength of using this lens is it helps us see how gender roles were viewed in this time period. It’s easy to compare them to other gender roles throughout America’s history. There are many similarities and differences that the gender lens allows to be seen. A weakness of using this lens is it only looks at one of the many factors of a person’s identity. There are a lot of other parts of identity that affect the way that people viewed the Spanish-American War. It’s misleading if you focus only on one type of lens, like gender. To fully understand why different types of people wanted to go to war, many different characteristics (race, gender, ethnicity, etc) have to be looked at.
3 This cartoon is showing how America, specifically men, want to save the poor, helpless, Cuban woman from the misrule of Spain. During this time America was acting as an imperialist country and wanted to spread democracy to other countries. I think that by labeling the pan with Spanish Misrule they are showing that there should be a democracy in all parts of the world. America also sympathizes with Cuba and sees a comparison between their revolt against the British and the Cubans revolt against Spain. Continuing on with the idea of gender contributing to the war, the cartoon is called, “The duty of the hour – to save her not only from Spain but from a worse fate”. This shows that the American men feel and need to save the women of Cuba because they see her as weak and helpless. The men used the war to prove themselves to society and themselves. The cartoon supports the idea of gender roles being a cause of the war along with other things.
1. I don’t agree with the gender interpretation on the CAUSES of the war. How people chose to portray men and women was not a leading cause of the Spanish-American war. The stereotypes being passed around could have more to do with men trying to prove themselves during the war instead of going to war to prove themselves. It seems more the idea of Manifest Destiny played a role and America’s never-ending greed for more land had more reason to push for war than men trying to keep their wives in place and maintain superiority over them.
2. A strength of using this lens is bringing attention to how men were supposed to act in war and what differentiated a man from being considered a real man vs. being a woman. The article explained how Congress Representatives thought it was necessary to fight in order to uphold manhood- this sets the tone for what is expected of a man, not of a woman who wanted to fight in the war (no mention of womanhood). It boosts the confidence of men who want to fight and have an impact in the war, but what a man is “supposed to be” also can add a lot of pressure to men who cannot exactly live up to what is required to “retaining ones manly-hood”. This stereotype of women also almost evenly provides a stereotype for a man. In a man’s case, this lens can be both positive and negative, but for women, it is a bit harder to see the positive in being thought of as pleasant young ladies (unless it acts as fuel to prove the men wrong).
3. Through the gender lens, The Rough Riders cartoon can be seen as an example of what a “strong American man” is supposed to do, compared to the frail, scared, women-like Spanish running away. The American men in this cartoon are similar to the “Off comes his coat–now look out!” cartoon of Uncle Sam because the big large characters with guns in their hands to look like they are leading other men to ‘salvation’. Uncle Sam, like these men, also looks like a hero, whose ready to fearlessly take on the enemy. As said before, the army of men who are being stepped over by the invading American men are to be thought of as the women because they look cowardly and (by Americans) dishonorable because they are running away from the men whom they are fighting the war against. Similarly, this image shows how much more powerful and manly one is the larger they are shown in cartoons.
I agree with the gendered interpretation that was presented in the article as one of the causes of the Spanish American war. The evidence that the article presents includes words said by political leaders and newspaper cartoons that have common gender stereotypes. For example, Representative James R. Mann of Illinois when discussing whether to go to war said, ”because it has become necessary to fight if we would uphold our manhood.” The article shares that Theodore Roosevelt and the men of his generation grew up listening about male war heroes from the Civil War, yet did not have an opportunity to prove their “manhood.” This was further worsened by the industrial period where middle and upper class men were perceived as “sluggish” or “soft,” and women were increasingly demanding their equal rights. This gendered interpretation presented in the article supports that one of the main reasons that men went to war was to attempt to promote and preserve their manhood.
A strength of using this gendered lens is that it helps explain a complex situation. At the time, there was no clear sole reason why the US went to war against Spain. Looking at the causes of war from this lensse helps explain why the US felt the need to go to war. Another strength of this gendered lense is that it can also be applied to many other examples throughout male-dominated US history. A weakness of using this lens is that gender has always been and continues to be stereotyped and weaponized for the benefit of men. This is a weakness because this is not unique and it cannot be applied to one situation like this because it’s always present. This lens can also be applied to political situations today, like when countries dispute and go to war over minimal issues.
The cartoon of the cuban woman in a frying pan is a depiction of the recurring white savior complex that has plagued the males of America for the past few hundred years. In the cartoon the woman in the frying pan is a symbol of Cuba, looking as though she is a damsel in distress in need of saving. The white male hand holding the frying pan represents America, saving Cuba from “oh so bad” anarchist Spain. The caption refers to the “duty” that America has to save Cuba from Spain. This feeds into the stereotype that a man’s “duty” is to protect defenseless women.
I cant 100% agree that the Spanish American War happened because men were losing their sense of masculinity, however I certainly see why people think that it did. Because men lost jobs in the 1893 depression, they also struggled with the fact that women were starting to get the ability to vote and participate in politics. However, I do not think there is a direct connection between the loss of masculinity and the Spanish American war. I think that the men were looking for something and perhaps the war could have been an outlet of their anger because they had lost their jobs and money. I speculate that more than anything, this was a chance for the United States to assert them self as a power house country and their strength as a global power and become an important country that it still is today. The government also didn’t really have a problem with the war and were hardly bothered by attacking this war. After the American Revolutionary War, Americans had been involved in a war about every fifty years, and when Americans started to blame the Spaniards for sinking the USS Maine, this seemed like it was another chance to have another war.
A strength of using this lens is that it depicts to us another reason for why the United States went to war with Spain. Because the USS Maine was close to a Spanish ship when it exploded, there is almost no evidence that it was Spain and the government later found out that the explosion came from inside of the boat, which meant that something caused an explosion inside of the ship. This is evidence that the Spaniards did not blow up the USS Maine in the first place. A possible downside to this point of view is that the government was likely not having a hard time with attempting to show off. They had jobs that were important to the country, lots of money, and influence in the American people already. Accepting and starting this war was not going to have an effect on their mentality. I think that the government had not much to gain in the Spanish American War because they already had so much.
The Cuban woman in the frying pan has a caption that reads ” “The duty of the hour to save her not only from Spain but from a worse fate.” The caption can reflect the way that men had thought they had to save helpless women and establish their toughness. In the picture there is a woman, a representation of Cuba, being a lady who needed to be saved from the rule of Spain. This shows how American men and Rough Riders came to save Cuba from Spain, which is why Cuba is seen as a woman in need of saving. During this time period, women were seen as something that needed lots of help and saving, which is very similar to how the United States was behaving towards Cuba. Smaller and frailer countries were depicted as women in political cartoons, which is why I think that Cuba was being compared to a woman.
After reading the article, I pretty much fully agree with the idea that the gendered lens presents. I agree that through the gendered lens, you can see that with the coming of this new age, men felt that they needed something to “reclaim” their manhood. They felt that new advances in their society caused jobs that required manly tasks like manual labor to diminish which in turn made them feel like they were becoming less manly. They then wanted a reason to reclaim their old manhood, which presented itself perfectly in the form of a war. When they then entered this war, they looked at Cuba as a fragile women that they would seem manly saving from the big bad Spanish. They used this opportunity to maybe become war hero’s like the people they heard about in the Civil War.
One strength that the gendered lens presents is that it is perfectly able to show how small, seemingly meaningless ideas can have a bigger impact on the world than people can fathom. In the case of the Spanish-American War, most people would look to the supposed attack on the USS Maine as the reason for why we entered into this short but bloody war, but people who use this gendered lens would look at it and see tons of other different reasons for why we decided to go to war with the Spanish. A big weakness of this lens is that when you are looking through it you would not be able to see the other big reasons for why we started the Spanish-American War. There are many different lens’ that you can look at this conflict through, and each of them will present multiple reasons for why we would start a war with somebody.
After analyzing the second cartoon featuring who I can assume is Teddy Roosevelt, I uncovered many different things. The first thing that I saw was the size difference between the Americans and the Spanish. I interpreted this as a way to symbolize how the Americans are bigger and way manlier than the Spanish soldiers. The second big thing that I saw was how the huge army of the Spanish soldiers was running away from the small group of Roosevelt’s Rough Riders. I assumed that this was showing how the Americans perceived the Spanish government as cowardly for praying on a fragile “womanly” country like Cuba.
I agree with the gendered interpretation of the causes of the Spanish American War. Before the Civil War women would work in the home sphere and not go out to do what was seen as more “masculine” jobs. Now, in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s women were given more job opportunities. They began working in factories, tailoring, and becoming teachers and secretaries. Most of these used to be considered male jobs and when women started to come into the workforce these jobs lost their power and masculinity. The males who used to work these jobs now had to go to war to satisfy their sense of strength and honor. They needed to go to war and fight to uphold their manhood and chivalry. Men who were opposed to the war were viewed as cowardly and portrayed in feminine fashion. The Spanish American War was a call to action for men to keep their manly tradition alive. Women also began to move into politics but as the men went into war they had to move back to their old roles as nurturers who were under the men.
The strength of using a gendered lens to interpret historical events is that we can all relate to how genders are perceived differently and treated differently even in our time. Readers can relate to the stereotypes against each gender. For instance, while secretaries were originally considered a masculine career, as soon as women started performing this same occupation it lost its power and respectability. Using this lens creates a relatability to past events. The weakness of using a gendered lens to view history is that it may overly simplify complicated issues. There usually is much more to historical events and why they occurred then just based on gender norms. This gives too narrow of a lense.
When analyzing this cartoon I interpret it as showing how Americans and American imperialism feel the need to help other countries and underprivileged people from the hardships presented to them in their countries. In the cartoon there is a Cuban woman in a pan of Spanish control being held over the fire of anarchy. This really represents one of the main issues of the Spanish American war because the Spanish were mistreating the Cuban people and unfairly ruling over them. The hand could be interpreted as America lending a helping hand to the “helpless” Cubans to keep them out of the fire and help them from the cruel rule of the Spanish. This cartoon really represents the way Americans feel it is their responsibility to help the more needy.
I somewhat agree with the gendered interpretation of the causes of the Spanish American War. Gender roles were one of the biggest topics and influences at the time, and factors such as the Depression of 1893 and the “Rise of the new Woman” played a big role in threatening masculinity. Because of this, men were urging and longing for an opportunity to prove their astounding sense of manlihood. And knowing that you’d think what better than a war to prove their masculinity, hence fighting in the Spanish American War to prove it. While this is a good reason, I also don’t think it was the only or main reason for the war. Other factors did weigh in heavily as well such as Americas large sense of pride and longing for expansion geographically, marketing wise and politically.
One strength of using this lens is that you can learn more factors as to why this war happened and different views, as well as more descriptively explaining what happened and getting more views for a more accurate interpretation eventually in the long run. on the other hand, one weakness of using this lens is that the interpretation that you could be looking at and studying could backfire and be inaccurate. it could also be interpreted differently than to now, meaning they could’ve meant something else back then, but thats not what we think they meant now.
The cartoon of the woman in the frying pan with the caption that reads “The duty of the hour – to save her not only from Spain but from a worse fate.” is the one I will be interpreting. The caption alone reflects the responsibility men at time felt to save the helpless woman just to prove their masculinity. The woman in the cartoon who represents a symbol of Cuba is in danger and needs to be saved from Spanish rule. Just as American men and America saved Cuba from Spain, the men are saving the woman represented in the cartoon as Cuba from Spanish rule. The woman represents how weaker countries were seen at the time, helpless and in need of saving. The hand of the man represents the stronger countries saving the weaker ones from the hell they are in and enduring. And the word anarchy at the bottom in the fire represents the disorder of rule that the weaker countries were experiancing that they needed saving from.
I agree that the article showed the gender interpretations of the Spanish American war through the depictions, cartoons, and the use of women as a sign of weakness or cowardice. This was seen in the article in many parts such as how it claimed that the people who were undecided or against war with Spain were called and depicted among people as women, claiming them to be dishonorable and cowardly men who become women. The views that this caused would in some ways lead to more people leaning to go to war with Spain whether they actually felt it was the best course of action or out of fear of being labeled a cowardly female. Back in that time period the strengths and weaknesses of the lens were that calling men cowardly women could get them to change their mind to being pro war in order to not be ostracized. The weakness to this was, “The “New Woman” would be defanged. Women would resume their “proper” roles as nurturers who respected their men and raised their sons to be the next generation of brave honorable males”. As quoted from the article it basically stated that the women at this time were now back to just housewives who would raise the next generation of brave American males. This in turn set back attempts at progress to prove that women were equal to men and extend their rights. In the cartoon of the Cuban women in the frying pan we clearly see as it is literally labeled on the pan that the Spanish have misruled the Cubans, this signified how the Cubans have been treated poorly by the Spanish. The cartoon shows the Cubans as a woman being cooked over the open flame of “anarchy” that the island is. This depiction is showing the Cubans as women which is tied to what people were depicting the Americans that were against war with Spain as. The other image depicts Teddy Roosevelt and the other American soldiers beating back the Spanish forces. It shows the Americans as large and fierce while making the Spanish look small and puny to the Americans as they run away as to not be destroyed. As you can see in the image there are no women present signifying that the men were the brave ones which goes on to represent the issues with the unfair mislabeling of women as weak and not as brave as men.
I partially agree with the gendered interpretation of the Spanish-American war in the lense that in society everything is gendered, and not that the war in particular was gendered. Of course there are going to be depictions of men as women when they’re meant to be interpreted as weak, but that’s not because the Spanish-American war specifically was more gendered than any other large event in history may be. When a society is built of sexist values, even war propaganda will be sexist as well. One strength of using a gendered lense to see war is that you can easily differentiate how differently men and women of the time perceived the war. Because they were constantly portrayed as weak or as unenthusiastic about the war, women of the time were probably not the ones bracing themselves for combat or writing newspaper articles about how “America needs to go to war!!!”. Men, on the other hand, were more likely to be excited about going to war or enthusiastically training for combat because of the societal pressure placed on them to be “manly”. When one constantly sees cartoons or other media encouraging them to be manly and go to war, it’s very easy to see why men participated more than women in the war. A weakness of using ONLY a gender lense to see war is that it ignores other societal pressure placed on both men and women in all aspects of their life, even before war was in the picture. Using a gender lense ignores the sexist normal of that time period. In the Puck cartoon, a gender lense can be used by examining the characters in the cartoon, specifically the strong, manly men at the front. They are portrayed as the epitome of manliness, squashing their weaker opponents under their boots. By drawing the men large and in charge the artist is able to glorify war by making it a “man’s job” and a good, manly idea. Because manliness is pervieved as good (and femininity as bad), the manly men in the image make the war itself seem good. This cartoon is clearly pro-war because it uses ideas a patriarchal society views as “good” (manliness) to advertise those fighting in the war. If the cartoon portrayed women fighting instead, it would likely be an anti-war cartoon, because women are seen as something to be protected, and definitely not able to fight and win in a war. Manliness and strength (the way the men easily defeat their opponents) is seen as good, and therefore makes the war seem good as well.
I think that gender roles were a huge factor in causes of the Spanish-American War. One good example of this that I read in the article “En-Gendering the Spanish-American War” was the depression of 1893. Men lost their jobs and their self-respect, because of this they felt even more threatened by “New Woman” who wanted to have a voice in politics and a life outside the “proper” female life of serving her husband and raising her kids. Men wanted to fight the war for many reasons but a main one was winning back the dignity that they had lost. I think men felt threatened and insecure about women wanting to have a prominent role in politics. Alice Stone said it well when she said that the war was declared by a congress full of men. Men really did need this war in order to feel that sense of power that they were deprived of.
There are different strengths and weaknesses when using lenses. Strengths of looking at this piece of history through a gender perspective are seeing history from a more modern point of view. During this time, it wasn’t strange for women to be treated like this because that was just the way it was, men were more powerful then women and had more authority. When going back into history and recognizing the wrongdoing of men in these situations it provides a more accurate look on history, and in this case, the cause of the Spanish-American War. Obviously gender was not the only factor in fighting this war, but now that we are able to recognize gender as one of the factors, there’s more history to go back and look at. Theres more documents to read through and evidence to back up this theory rather than using the same claims for the reasons we went to war.
The women in the cartoon looks like she’s in danger. She is standing in pan that says “Spanish misrule” on the side of it, and is being cooked over a fire that has “anarchy” spelled on within in. The use of the word anarchy makes me feel like the artist is saying that because of the lack of authority in with the Spanish, Americans feel the need to step in and save the poor women in Cuba. Without the American interference, innocent Cuban women will be burned alive by the mistreatment and lack of authority by Spain. (405 words)
1. I do agree with the gendered interpretation of the causes of the Spanish American War, and I believe that gender roles were somewhat of a contributing factor in the Spanish American War. Women started to do things on their own without being accompanied by men, such as working, being out of the house, gaining income, ect. The men that were fighting this war grew up during the Civil War period, and looked up to war heroes that were all male. Now, with changing gender norms, there were women who were taking the place of the men, and people needed to adjust to that. While this wasn’t the primary reason that America chose to join the war, it definitely influenced the decision.
2. A big strength when it comes to using the lens is that we can see more perspectives on what was going on during that time period. In history, we often hear about everything through the eyes of white men, as they were the ones that documented everything. These new perspectives open our eyes to more views, and we can have a better understanding on what happened. However, one weakness that this does bring is that we could not be able to completely interpret what happened, as it was from a different time period. On top of that, these separate perspectives could be inaccurate.
3. For the second cartoon, we can see a man with a cowboy hat, pistol, and american flag, who’s likely from the south, portrayed as a hero. He stands atop lots of Spanish soldiers, who are all looking up at him scared. We can also see another American man standing behind him, who looks like he’s about to hit one of the hispanics with the back of the gun. This cartoon is trying to symbolize how men should be war heroes instead of women, because they are strong and tough. Whoever illustrated this cartoon likely does not agree with women being placed in traditionally manly roles, and wants people to think that men are better suited for these jobs.
I agree with the gendered interpretation of the Spanish American war. Strong war fighting men have been America’s leaders for a long time. They were worshiped and the standard of American manliness. An example of this would be George Washington who fought for American Independence then became the first president. Even after that most of the presidents had some background with battles. The article explained how this new generation of men hadn’t fought in the civil war and they were anxious for a fight to prove themselves. The article also provided the support of how political cartoons referring to the war portrayed men who agreed with the war as manly and chivalrous but men against the war and imperialism were womanly, weak, and evil. These are both very convincing points in my opinion. Of course there are other things that triggered the Spanish American war, but you cannot study it without considering the gender aspect.
A strength of using this lense is having a variety with your interpretations. Most people view history through the lenses of diplomacy, commerce, imperial ambition, national mission, and national security. Looking through the lenses of gender and even race adds different perspectives and new insights. It also can make history seem more relatable. Not everyone can understand complex politics but everyone can understand gender. Looking though this lens has its own strengths it also has weaknesses. A weakness of looking through the lenses of gender is that we could be wrong. We are using our modern day ideas of gender and masculinity and applying them to a historical situation. We cannot be 100% certain on how they felt; this is just an educated guess.
By looking through the lens of gender I can notice many details in the portrait and interpret many things about the political cartoon of the rough riders. I interpret that the large American men are heroic and manly. The tiny Spaniards they are fighting, on the other hand, are weak, womanly, and cowardly. I also interpret that the Americans running with their massive American flag show that fighting and bravery are aligned with patriotism. The Americans are holding their flag while the Spaniards dropped theirs in an attempt to save themselves. Cartoons like these could have persuaded the men back then to fight in the Spanish American war , because they were scared of being seen as weak or womanly. They were anxious for a battle to prove otherwise and this was the perfect opportunity.
I disagree with the gendered interpretations of the Spanish American War. I think that with the growth of women and the changing of equality amongst the genders, chivalry is becoming outdated. I think the cartoons speak to men more than women when they need to be more gender-neutral. If the cartoons were more open to both genders supporting a common interest such as a problem for America, then I think that the cartoons would have a stronger message due to the fact that they appeal to both genders, thus creating a strong audience. I do think that it was important to only face towards one gender because it gives more motivation to go to war.
The strength of using gendered interpretations is that the “old fashion” men and women who support chivalry and feel strongly about masculinity will take the situation as an original idea that is being destroyed or an old way of life that is being lost. This feeling of loss would create an upset and a passion to keep this way of life will rise up amongst the people that still believe and the support from this crowd would be very high. The weakness of having gendered intrepritations of cartoons, is that the other gender not being represented might feel absent or not important in the situation. If a gender doen’t fell 100% involved or important than it is hard to create concrete claims of why you are doing what you are doing. I think that was a huge factor in the American and Spanish Wat, because people focused a lot more on defending American interest which did lean heavily toward chivalry, but they also broadened it by saying it was American and that is what I think was the push over for a majority of support.
Looking at the second cartoon through the lens of genered interpretation we can see that there are large figured American men who are rushing in guns blazing to Cube. As these men are rushing in we see smaller figured Cuban men running away and in fear. The main man in the center of the cartoon can strongly represent Thedore Roosevelt, the caption of the cartoon reads Rough Riders and describes then as rough on Spainards. This could relate to how Americans viewed themselves as an inferior country to the Cubans. With sush a significant man in the cartoon I think this leans towards a more masculin interpretation, with this important man and another man that looks average, I think it would boost male support to any American big or small.
I agree with the gendered interpretation of the causes of the Spanish-American War; During this era, women became more involved in politics and the workplace, creating female leaders for the reform movements. The “New Woman” posed a threat to the emasculation of men when women dominantly influenced the political system. The increasing female initiative and leadership in society made some men sensitive to their masculinity. It was thought that manhood was being attacked and men found themselves searching for ways to become more “manly”. This led to more interest and support of the war. Men not only wanted to fight for the country but to prove their masculinity. Most men heard the stories of glorious heroes during the Civil War. Additionally, Theodore Roosevelt spoke of his “strenuous life” which portrayed manhood through most “masculine” activities such as hunting, sports, and trust-busting. Men wanted the opportunity where they could protect the vulnerable women and children through war and live up to the stories of glory to prove their masculinity. I believe T.Roosevelt and the war hero stories, along with the emasculation of men factored into the push for the Spanish-American War.
The strength of using a gender lens is the wider perspective given on past society. It allows for the underlying causes of events, in this case, the War, to be acknowledged. The influence of gender on war is something not many people would think of and, using a gender lens allows for that. It also permits improved contextualization through a better understanding of the gender stereotypes created by society and their impacts on the War. Despite the strengths of the lens, there are weaknesses. Looking through one perspective can risk a biased interpretation. Other influences of an event can be ignored or missed when only viewing a single outlook/lens.
While using a gender lens to interpret the cartoon, I found a scared woman wrapped in a Cuban flag, searching for help. Right off the bat, a woman is portrayed as representing vulnerability, docility, and helplessness. The woman is over flames of anarchy in a frying pan, held by a white hand. The white hand portrays that American intervention is needed to assist with the Spanish misrule and anarchy occurring. Overall, I perceived that the cartoon addresses an imperialistic view of America saving Cuba. It shows how the Cubans are in desperate need of guidance or else they will perish in the flames of Anarchy under Spanish rule.
1.) I AGREE WITH THIS GENDERED INTERPRETATION AS ONE OF THE FACTORS THAT TRIGGERED THE SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR. I BELIEVE THAT THE SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR HAD ESTABLISHED OPPORTUNITIES FOR MEN TO PROVE HIS MANLY GRIT AND PROTECT THE CODE OF CHIVALRY AND KEEP THE TRADITION OF MEN WHO FOUGHT IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION AND THE CIVIL WAR WHERE THEY WOULD EMERGE AS NEW GENERATIONS OF WAR HEROES. ESPECIALLY DUE TO THE FACT THAT MEN WERE SEEN AS “SLUGGISH” OR “WEAK” AS A RESULT OF THE INDUSTRIAL AGE AND MEN HAD LOST THEIR JOBS AND SELF-RESPECT DURING THE DEPRESSION OF 1893. THE MEN WERE ALSO THREATHENED TO BE EMASCULATED BY THE IDEA OF THE “NEW WOMAN”.
2.) ADVANTAGES OF USING THIS GENDERED LENS ARE IT WOULD GIVE US A NEW PERSPECTIVE (LIKE THE HISTORIOGRAPHY) AND IT WOULD GIVE US A POSSIBLE FACTOR THAT HAD CAUSED THE SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR. A DISADVANTAGE OF ANALYZING HISTORY WITH GENDER IS THAT IT PRESENT BIAS TOWARDS A GENDER’S PERSPECTIVE OR EXPERIENCES. BASED ON THE ARTICLE THAT FOR YEARS, HISTORIANS HAVE BEEN USING LENSES OF DIPLOMACY, COMMERCE, IMPERIAL AMBITION, NATIONAL MISSION, AND NATIONAL SECURITY WHICH ARE NOT LIKELY TO GO OUT OF FASHION.
3.) THE CARTOON IS DEPICTED WITH A CUBAN WOMAN ON A FRYING PAN LABELED WITH “SPANISH MISRULE” THAT IS BEING HELD ABOVE FLAMES WITH THE WORD “ANARCHY” ON IT. I BELIEVE THAT THIS CARTOON IS A PROPAGANDA TO GO TO WAR. THE CARTOON SHOWS THE CLASSIC THEME OF “A DAMSEL IN DISTRESS” AND I THINK THAT THE HAND HOLDING THE PAN IS AMERICA’S (WHO WOULD BE THE HEROIC MAN) DUTY (“THE DUTY OF THE HOUR”) TO SAVE HER (AND THE OTHER CUBANS IN THIS CASE) FROM THE ANARCHY OF SPANISH MISRULE. THE OTHER CARTOON IS DEPICTED WITH AMERICANS (THAT LOOKS LIKE THEODORE ROOSEVELT AND HIS “ROUGH RIDERS”) LARGER IN SIZE THAN THE SPANISH MEN. ACCORDING TO THE ARTICLE, ROOSEVELT HAD BEEN FULL ON HIS SENSE OF COURAGE AND PRIDE THAT HE HAD STORMED THE SPANISH ENTRENCHMENT BY HIMSELF AND HE HAD NEGLECTED TO GIVE ORDERS TO ATTACK.
After reading the article, i somewhat agree with the gender roles and interpretation as maybe not being the main cause for the Spanish American War, but one of them. Around that time period, the “Rise of the New Woman” lifestyle and ideology was becoming almost a trend, and as more and more women were taking on the roles that usually males did, men became desperate to prove they were better than this era. These men, being raised in a society where the “manly war hero” was set as a goal, wanted to prove they were manly enough to fight in a war and boost their self-esteem. By fighting in the war, they attempted to regain their dominant ego and place women back into their domestic roles where they thought their belonged. Although this was one of the main factors for the war, it wasn’t the only one. Other factors such as America’s desire for expansion geographically, marketing expansions and American pride also played a huge role in the cause of the Spanish American War.
One strength of using a gender lens is that it helps you learn and understand the different reasons for wanting to fight in the Spanish-American War, as well as a more clear description of what was going on in that time period. On the other hand, one weakness to using this lens is that the interpretation could be inaccurate and backfire on whoever’s trying to study it. The information could also have changed or been interpreted differently, and not exactly mean the same thing it once did.
In my opinion, the cartoon image of the woman in the frying pan that is captioned “The duty of the hour-to save her not only from Spain but from a worse fate” represents the responsibility men felt at the time to save the clueless, helpless woman for the purpose of boosting their ego and to prove their masculinity. The woman in the cartoon is representing Cuba and a manly hand is saving her (Cuba) from Spanish rule. Just as America once saved Cuba from Spanish rule, the men are saving the women, who like other countries at the time, were seen as helpless and in need of saving. The word anarchy on the bottom set on fire also represents the disorder of the rule that the weaker countries were going through and needed American men to come and save them.
1. After reading the article I do agree that using stereotypes and interpretations were a major contributor to the Spanish-American war, but I don’t necessarily agree with the ways this was accomplished. I think that there has always been a thought surrounding the roles of men and women in our country, these stereotypes will never go away. Men will no matter what be seen as the “moneymakers”, “providers”, and ” strongest”, and women are seen as these, “less than”, “caregivers” and “weak” people. So when it comes to the use and interpretations of men and women in the Spanish-American war I don’t agree with the deeper meanings behind it all but for the purpose of a cartoon, I do agree. For as far back as anyone cans ee at this point, women stayed home and didn’t have jobs if not necessary, but during this time we see more women getting jobs and making more money, this made the men feel threatened and didn’t like that they would have the same jobs as them. Disagreeing with war would make a man less “man-like” so if someone didn’t, the stereotype of women was what they would become. For example, the cartoon of McKinley depicted as an old woman just because he had doubts about the war.
2. Using a lens during this time period gives the people a different way to look at a situation, in this case, the issue of war. It was a way for people to understand an opinion other than their own and to see the bigger picture of whats happening around them. In the past using certain things like the lenses made more people aware of issues and conversations as well as finding new ways to look at something because of the lens. The weakness of using a lens is that it is more difficult for us now to understand where and what something might be from because of the lenses that they used, morals and sterosypes were definitely different from how they are today and 100 years from now people will feel the same about our lenses we use today.
3. In the Rough RIders cartoon the Rough Riders are depicted as very large men, symbolizing the power they have. In the cartoon, the Spanish are shown way smaller then the Americans, symbolizing there “under-dog” representation throughout this war. Becuase the Americans are so big and the Spanish are so little, think that the cartoonist is expressing that America is better then the Spanish. Also in the cartoon the faces on the Spanish show complete terrior and fear, while the Americans look “fierce” and one almost grinning at the sight of torture.
After reading the article, “En-Gendering the Spanish American War”as well as the blog, I agree with the gendered interpretation of the causes of the Spanish American War. During this period, gender roles were tremendously influential within places of work, roles in the home, and daily life decisions. Gender was another way to place males in females into a category: weak or strong, smart or dumb, etc. So when the rise of the “New Women” came about, where women were trying to improve their appearance of being weak, petite, and not capable of doing anything but raising children. Into an equal level with the men starting with voting rights, professions, and a part in politics, which only lead men to preserve politics. This created a corrupt male influence in the political system. Adding on to the women’s roles rising it was the fact that the men hadn’t had the favorable chance to fight for their country in a war. We must take into account that these men have grown up being exposed to all of these war heroes who were perceived as honorary legends who proved their “masculinity” by fighting or dying for their country. Another fuel to the fire of going to war was the fact that if you opposed the war you were deemed as “womanly”. An example of this is in a piece of propaganda where President McKinley, who had his doubts about fighting the Spanish is depicted as an old woman who is trying to sweep back the sea because he wasn’t sure about war, they questioned his manliness.
The strength of taking advantage of the gender lens is we get a broadened frame of mind of what occurred in the period and how big of an impact society affects the era. Despite the fact that we don’t know if this approach is correct we can use it to help us take a deeper look into the minds of the people who were involved or affected. However, using gendered interpretations to investigate history can just as well welcome room for our own bias to lead us to forget that our world and ideals can be different especally because of the time gap.
The cartoon, “The duty of the hour – to save her not only from Spain but from a worse fate.” shows the everlasting “helpless, defenseless woman needing to be saved by a big strong man because she can’t help herself”. The propaganda would trigger the men to want to participate in the war to protect the women because in that time that is what masculinity was depicted as. Displayed in the image is a “helpless” woman sitting in a pot of Spanish misruling, over the fire of anarchy leading America to think the war is a war to protect America but to also protect vulnerable women. It also portrays how America wants to be the police over everyone else and step in when they think they are needed. That is why the white hand is saving the woman from the pot just as she is about to get smolder.
I agree that the gendered interpretation was a contributing factor to the Spanish-American War. This lens shows how toxic masculinity encouraged men to fight. In the article, Roosevelt is proving his manhood in the best way possible, in war. He even says, “was the greatest day of my life”. Roosevelt was motivated by avoiding any femininity at all costs. In the cartoons during that time, President Mckinley, who had many doubts about the war, was depicted as an old woman. War heroes, like Roosevelt, were praised for their political leadership. Furthermore, the “new woman” movement threatened many men. This movement was challenging the political world that was heavily dominated by men. Therefore, many men thought things were getting “too feminine”. Additionally, the increase in machinery was making men “lazy”, while political leaders had lost their honor and integrity for becoming too greedy. These examples all added to the ideology that men needed to have a ”masculine” role in order to prove themselves. The victory of war would create more male political leaders, toughen men for survival, and prove chivalry by “saving” Cuba. These were all the more reasons why American Belligerency stemmed from toxic masculinity.
The strength of using this lens is that it takes a social viewpoint of the Spanish-American War. Of course, there was the Manifest Destiny and Imperialist power that encouraged the war, but using this lens allows us to dive deeper. The gender lens shows how much toxic masculinity impacted men. It created a mass hysteria for many men who feared that they would lose chivalry or power, specifically, their manhood. This possibly means that men were so afraid of femininity that they would do anything to counter it, including sacrificing their lives.
The weakness of using this lens is that it doesn’t highlight other aspects of the war, which is why it’s necessary that you use more than one lens. For example, if you used the race lens, you would understand that America’s White Supremacy plays a major role in the Spanish- American War. Americans felt like they needed to be a savior to Philipines and Cuba by freeing them and giving them education and consumer goods.
When observing cartoon #1, I can see a frightened woman cooking in a pan of Spanish Misrule over the flame of “Anarchy”. She has a Cuban flag too. Using the lens, I can infer that Cuba is defenseless and under the power of the corrupted Spanish Empire. This also adds to the sexist idea of how Cuba is seen as a woman. This is a negative connotation because women are viewed as powerless, and that they need a man. This “man” would be America. I think the cartoon is using sexist stereotypes to justify engaging in the war.
I agree with the interpretation of the gendered lens especially as it played a key role in the causes of the Spanish-American War. The article states that in the period many men began to feel they were losing their manliness, due to industrialization from lack of manual labor being flushed out by office jobs. Another factor to this belief that masculinity was being attacked was the rise of the “New Women” who began fighting for their rights and the direct result was the men’s ideals of protecting women beginning to fade out. The unrest they felt by men across the country was represented by their enduring urge to go to war to prove their manliness. They wanted to echo their ancestors from the civil war and show their strength in battles.
A strength I found when using the gender lens was that it showed a unique angle that’s often overlooked in history. It also shows how impactful gender was in situations like the Spanish-American War, as one wouldn’t think of gender as a significant factor which then leads to a broadened understanding of the past. However, this particular lens does come with its weaknesses as it also broadens people into groups rather than the individuals they are, practically restricting us to a black and white filter. Although in the Spanish-American war the gender lens was generally beneficial because of the masculinity and femininity discussion, it’s also evident that an individual’s gender didn’t immediately decide their minds. It also strictly restricts perspectives to stereotypes of the strong man and weak women which starkly contrasts the women who fought for their rights and stood their ground. To conclude, in some aspects the gendered lens can indeed be a beneficial tool to understanding history, however, one must also consider that there were many more factors to debates and issues besides gender itself.
I choose to analyze the bottom cartoon, which depicts giant men led by Teddy Roosevelt in a masculine tone dressed in the Rough Rider’s apparel. As they loom over the Spanish soldiers who are either running or being squashed, it shows the masculinity the Americans previously were itching for. Even as Teddy recalls, “was the great day of my life” this quote further expresses the yearning that Teddy and the Rought Riders felt for battle. The cartoon shows the Americans as bigger and more masculine than the enemy Spanish soldiers who look timid and frantic further illustrating the powerful Americans. It supports the Gender lens by heavily relying on the idea of masculinity and the men who had it. The conclusion I interpreted from the cartoon was that the artist wanted to show its audience America’s strength as it heroically portrays Roosevelt in battle. The artist supported this movement and wanted others to see that America was doing the right thing.
1. I partially agree with the gendered interpretation of the Spanish-American war. I think that looking at it from a gendered standpoint is a partial way to interpret why the war happened but it is not the only way. There were a plethora of reasons as to why it started making it only down to gender makes it seem like you only focus on one part of the overarching bigger picture. While on the other hand, I think that looking at the fact that gender was a part of it is a good idea to go in-depth as to one of the reasons the war happened. Men wanted to be portrayed as these superheroic manly studs because of this cartoons and writing would depict men who didn’t want to go to war as a sissy because of these cartoons and writing it pushed more men to want to go to war with Spain.
2. The strength of utilizing a gender focal point is that it broadens how you view the time and subject. You’ll have the option to perceive what things during the time might have meant for a specific orientation or what a specific orientation would have meant for things. At the point when you consider orientation you may likewise have the option to analyze how things were and the way that they are presently and what orientation might have changed and meant for things. There is a shortcoming however and those are you don’t get an in-depth look at other reasons for things. Such as in the Spanish American war gender wasn’t the only reason for going to war it was also the sinking of the Maine as well as the US wanting to protect its investment in Cuba on top of the US wanting to flex that it is now also a global powerhouse.
3. In the top cartoon we can see a woman in danger of being besieged by the anarchy of the island. Because of this, we need our nation’s manly men to go in and fight for the poor defenseless women. But if you would happen to not want to fight then you yourself are a coward and no man at all you are in fact a woman. Because of this, we must protect both our honor and the honor of our women by going to war with that completely uncivilized place to protect our values.
1.) I do agree with this gendered interpretation of the causes of the Spanish American War because we can understand the intentions and result of the Spanish American War by analyzing the general behavior of women and men during that time period. The masculinity of men seemed to be threatened during the time of the war. Everytime a woman contributed to something positive while the men were fighting the war, their fragile sense of masculinity shattered a bit. Thus proving their masculinity was always fragile, even before the war. We can see this through cartoons where men were portrayed as feminine/woman-like. “Men opposing war or indecisive about it, such as McKinley, are dressed as women.” Somehow, being feminine or woman-like makes them look weaker. If a woman opposes war, that doesn’t make them weak. It was the men who wanted to fight in the war just to prove their masculinity and help their self-esteem. It was the men that seemed weak when they lost self-respect after losing their jobs in the depression of 1893. It was the women who maintained morality and intelligence; the “touchstones of politics.” I do find it intriguing that the stance someone had on the war, decided if they were manly or not. I find it intriguing that it was said to be a “crisis of manhood” when comforts that the industrial age had produced were making men “sluggish” and “soft.” I suppose the war was a victory due to these stereotypes and how the motivation came from men needing to prove their worth.
2.)One strength of using this lens is that we are able to pay more attention to better understanding of the general behavior of individuals in society.how women became more prominent in politics. We see how women played a role in shaping gender policies. It’s interesting to see how gender policies were shaped by women being seen as fragile and vulnerable and in need of a man to “save them.” But the weakness in using this lens is that it’s more than just gender that plays into the character of an individual. It’s unfair to group people based solely on gender when there are other factors like ethnicity, religion, class, and education. It is also stereotypical in a way.
3.) I think the woman in the Spanish Misrule cartoon is a Cuban woman who seems to need help to get away from the life-threatening flames of anarchy on the Cuban Island. The hand on the frying pan may be a white, American male’s hand indicating that white, American males are the only ones who can intervene and “save” them. It’s also quite possible that it’s referring to Cuba as a whole that needs America to step in and save them from Spanish rule. This cartoon is definitely pro-war.
I agree with this interpretation of the war, but not heavily. I definitely think that a big part of war in general is gendered; as a self-proclaimed hippie (I’m maybe half-joking here) I’d love to see people resolve conflicts without killing each other, but of course that’s difficult when so many men are in power. That’s not to say that women are never violent of course, but it does feel like it could be an issue of men in power feeling un-masculine if they aren’t able to defend their respective causes by fighting. Roosevelt, at least the way the article depicts him, may have felt that war affirmed his masculinity. On the other hand, I don’t think it was a huge part of why the war started- just one of many factors. This is a good lens to use on the Spanish-American War because we can use what we learn from this use to evaluate situations that occur today. These themes of gender and masculinity are applicable throughout time, and so they are always useful. But of course, we don’t want to overstate their significance. While they are versatile and important when addressing issues that impact those who aren’t (often white) adult men, we probably can’t call them the primary reason behind events like the Spanish-American War. Goals like expansion and revenge are much more concrete reasons for it. Although they do fit into this lens as well, they also have logical arguments outside of it; I think that the desire to protect your country and the people you love isn’t just an issue of manhood, although the quest for manliness could possibly magnify it.
The first cartoon does fit well into this lens. The fact that Cuba is depicted as a woman who “Spanish misrule” us frying over “anarchy” shows what the author (probably) thought of Cuba and masculinity. The depiction of Cuba as ~helpless~ woman feeds into the view that America needs to rescue it to prove its masculinity- what kind of men would they be if they let the lovely Cuba live in danger? The caption explicitly says that it is America’s “duty” to save Cuba, so the decision to make it a woman must have been a deliberate one aimed at appealing to this gendered lens of the war. This view of women as helpless damsels was especially prevalent at the time, making this depiction all the more convincing for men in the US. The very fact that we can examine this cartoon in a constructive way shows that gender and masculinity likely were influential factors in the initiation of the Spanish-American War, even if they weren’t the biggest ones.