59 thoughts on “Blog #150 – Final Exam – En-gendering the Causes of the Spanish-American War.”

1. Juno Saulson March 5, 2023 at 9:51 pm

   1. First off, in order to answer this question, we need to focus on what the article defined as a “masculine man”.The writer defines a typical masculine man as someone who practices chivalry, upholds his honor, is assertive, aggressive, and is incredibly courageous. Those who didn’t fit into these molds of stereotypical masculinity were either emasculated or straight up depicted as women in political cartoons (see former President McKinley). In the past, American men have had a war to fight, they’ve had a means of exhibiting what they consider to be “manly”. But considering the state of the economy, foreign relations, and the lack of territory to settle in, men of this time period needed some way to express masculinity. I believe that the answer to this question isn’t as black and white as you might think. To elaborate on this: the so-called “masculinity crisis” of the time was a very real thing among insecure men, but I also believe that the ACTUAL humanitarian crisis in Cuba combined with the desire of conquering new lands/ the extension of Manifest Destiny trumped the “masculinity crisis” indefinitely. Yes, back then (and partially now), the expectations of a “true man” were particularly harsh towards those who didn’t fit within the archetype. But without the privilege that Roosevelt had, fighting an ENTIRE WAR over this mere insecurity would be a death sentence.

   2. The ideals portrayed in the article, particularly regarding American Masculinity are a considerable strength within the context of American History. Especially if you consider the origins of the “Rugged Individual” which stem from the cowboy and the revolutionary. These came about during the period of Westward Expansion and the Revolutionary War (respectively). In both of those examples, Americans felt the need to be aggressive and rough, to take what’s owed to them. These ideals caused a wave of hyper-masculinity among American Men. Imperialism and war were just an extension of these same ideals. In the case of Imperialism, Buffalo Bill’s Wild West show exhibits this perfectly. By portraying the cowboy as this masculine, aggressive, and charismatic figure, American men fell in love with the idea of becoming him. Which then led to the wave of hyper-masculinity of this period of Westward Expansion; the Imperialism during/after the Spanish-American War was simply an extension of this. During the Revolutionary War, colonists believed that they were fighting against their oppressors, they were becoming free, they were fighting for themselves. During the Spanish-American War, the ideals of masculinity from both of the aforementioned periods were resurfacing after a so-called masculinity “crisis”. Though, a weakness of this lens are the “threats to masculinity”. Oftentimes, the men who were upper middle class, making a considerable amount of money, and were able to live comfortably, didn’t feel insecure about their “lack of masculinity”. It’s likely that they didn’t care much AT ALL. Going to war and conquering new lands were incredibly arduous tasks; the majority of men didn’t want to risk their lives, their jobs, the livelihood of their families, over “wanting to be more manly”. When you think about that, the logic behind the article’s gendered lens sounds so incredibly stupid and illogical. Yes, I understand that there are people with nothing better to lose, people that are incredibly insecure about their status as a man, but going to war is simply a bridge too far.

   3. I’m gonna keep this last answer short because I’ve definitely written too much in the previous questions. Firstly, the Rough Riders are depicted VERY similarly to the cowboy archetype of the old west (or the romanticized version that arose during Westward Expansion). The hats, the gun holsters, everything about these characters just screams “cowboy”. Which as I mentioned in the previous question is just another example of Imperialism being an extension of Manifest Destiny. As for the Spanish Military, they’re illustrated in a way the article dubs “emasculating”. By appearing smaller and weaker, they seem to be a lot less “manly” than their American counterparts. If you consider the Empire’s history, it would make a lot of sense. At this point in history, they were wealthy, sure, but they were a lot smaller in terms of the size of their empire. The gender stereotypes illustrated in this cartoon are incredibly prominent at first glance. The Spanish are being depicted as weak and tiny in comparison to the “strong American men”, who again, are very reminiscent of those participating in Manifest Destiny. Those Settlers are VERY similar to the American Imperialists depicted.
2. Jacob Becker March 7, 2023 at 1:51 pm

   Gendering historical events can easily sway someone’s opinion one way or another with ease. In some regard, I agree with the gendered approach to the Spanish-American war. However, it shows a more forced perspective in the eyes of the reader. The cartoon depicting the female Cuban frying over the Spanish pot into anarchy shows the Cubans as powerless against the evil forces of the Spanish. If it were a man, then the reader would probably be under the assumption that there was a fight, but no, they used a woman to depict how helpless the Cubans are. In reality, the Spanish did not sabotage the U.S.S. Maine. It was the anti-Spanish stereotype created by the yellow journalists. The U.S.S. Maine was an accident. It used Spanish as the apparent target of the gullible American citizen. Essentially, yellow journalism successfully attempted to sway America’s strength to the side of war or anarchy by using a helpless Cuban female as a victim to the Spanish.
   The significant power of the gendered lens is that it is compelling to the reader. Imagine the person in the pan being male. Instead of seeing a frantic undiscerned woman, you would see a brave, noble, fighting man. Instead of the reader seeing the option of war as a course of heroism, the war was imperialistic, like that of the United States. Forcing one perspective in such a touching convincing demeanor makes any other conclusion easily dismissable because of the personal connection that gender can create. Also, gender varies from person to person. Just because a male agrees with war because of the susceptible does not mean an equally intelligent female will buy into the same thing. Gendering cartoons is vital because gender significantly influences the interpretation, but it is empowering to its demise. Using the gender lens, I interpret the pot handle cartoon as a pro-imperialistic attempt at war against the Spanish. It depicts the Spanish as savages forcing the Cubans into a melting pot of autocracy. The illustrator’s intent is in pro-war pro, imperialism, and anti-imperialism. The uneducated male American probably sees the image as an act of Spanish Tyranny against the Cubans, looking for retribution against the United States for annexing Texas and California. All in all, gendering cartoons can easily sway someone into an idea, such as war. The problem is the brutal effectiveness of gendering imagery on someone to do insatiable things for the “greater good.”
3. antonia p March 7, 2023 at 4:18 pm

   1. I think the fear of not being masculine did play a significant role in the Spanish-American war. During this time, women were fighting for their rights and working jobs that were once deemed “man’s” jobs. As mentioned in the article, the average man went from fighting wars to working “easy” jobs making money and turning them “soft”. I think there were also some men who wanted to prove they can have just as good virtue as women after realizing they caused many of America’s problems. Many grew up on the stories of older relatives fighting wars, winning, and living to tell the tale. Hearing these stories that are glorifying war also probably caused many to want the war.

   2. Using this lens brings both strengths and weaknesses. As a strength, we see how masculinity affects the choices of men. With Rosevelt, he, once again, grew up hearing the stories of men fighting in glorious wars, winning against the enemy. He moved out West and hunted to sort of “find himself”. Now, this can also be seen as a weakness. As you know we encounter bias in our everyday life. When it comes to history it is easy to present stuff with a bias. Looking through the en-gendered lens, men with a strong view of masculinity could just automatically be portrayed badly.

   3. In the first cartoon you see a Cuban woman sitting on top of a frying pan that says “Spanish rule” over a fire that says “anarchy”. I think the hand holding the frying pan is the Spanish. My interpretation of the cartoon is that Spanish rule was the one thing preventing Cuba from going into anarchy. As the caption reads, “The duty of the hour – to save her not only from Spain but from a worse fate”, Spain kept them close to anarchy but the U.S. can save her from it completely. Now though, in a gendered lens, the hand holding the pan seems very masculine and could be interpreted as holding the pan back from the flames of anarchy. This shows the stereotypical man saves woman. As shown in both interpretations when looking through the gendered lens it becomes simpler as “man does good” is a key component. Just the matter of noticing how the hand is masculine and Cuba is depicted as a woman with by the looks of it, fear in her eyes as she sees anarchy.
4. Enzo Morucci March 8, 2023 at 10:40 am

   I agree with the gendered interpretation of the Spanish-American war, as it is an effective way to summarize the war, although it might be less effective when dealing with other events. It is effective in this case because the support of the war was very much because of wanting to restore manliness or get their chance for honor and glory. Although when considering the logic of it, it quickly becomes rather nonsensical to go to war, because then you realize how much it’ll cost, and realize that ethics are broken. Yet they still wanted to go to war. I believe the reason they still wanted to go to war has to do with the 3 methods of convincing people of something: ethos, pathos, and logos. The fact they wanted to go to war very clearly shows the majority of them responded the most to pathos, having heard that they could gain honor and glory for them, and could transform them from cowards to heroes. Because the pathos argument was so effective on people’s brains, they rejected both logos and ethos, because no matter how much they considered it, their mind had been set on glory since the beginning. The strength of using this lens is that you can easily and effectively connect the dots between people’s actions, even when they might seem complete opposites of each other. Actions, while they may contradict, very often can be connected to the gender lens. Also, it provides an extra way to see history that gives us a much more complete image. However, it does have its disadvantages, one of which can be connected to ethos, pathos, and logos. Again, people more often respond to pathos, which the gender lens works best with, but sometimes people are most responding to the other two, and so trying to figure out their intentions solely off of the gender lens won’t work as well, and a pattern will not be as obvious. Therefore, just like any other historical lens, while it may work very well for a specific event, it must be used in tandem with the other lenses. As for the cartoon, the cartoonist uses a woman to depict Cuba, which, if you consider the way the majority of men saw women during that time period, shows that the cartoonist was using a woman to show how fragile and weak Cuba was in the hands of cruel Spanish misrule and so close to falling into anarchy. This also plays into the “damsel in distress” idea that made a large number of men probably feel righteous in starting a war, because they would be heroes and saviors of the “damsel in distress” that they believe Cuba is. Gender can be used to examine the cartoon as I just did because this cartoon was meant to incite certain feelings in people, especially men, feelings that are directly related to the gender lens, such as longing for honor, glory, and heroism.
5. Addison Wolfe March 8, 2023 at 10:46 am

   1. I think that the idea of there being a “crisis of manhood” played a pretty big role in the start and continuance of the Spanish American war. Like the article mentions, many men thought that since they hadn’t fought in a war in their generation that they were slowly loosing some of their manhood and didn’t look as strong or as bold anymore. These men were also probably used to being looked at as above women, because they could do something that women couldn’t (which was fight for their country). But since there hadn’t been a significant war/event where this was necessary, a piece of them probably felt missing and they believed that by going to war they could get that part back. The men didn’t want to be looked at as soft or sluggish, they wanted to be looked at as men who lead their country to victory.
   2. There are a couple of different strengths and weaknesses to using this lens. A main strength would be the fact that we can now notice a point in history where men weren’t necessarily just the “heroes” and they felt like they needed to prove themselves to the rest of the world. This is something that women and minorities had been trying to do for decades and in this instance we see men in somewhat of a similar position. As for a weakness to using this lens, this could potentially just portray men in a bad way. It could make them look like they weren’t fighting for the “right reasons” (if that’s even a thing). Usually people fight to protect their country, do good for it, etc. If you read this through this en-gendered lens, some people may think that many of these men are just fighting to be better than women.
   3. For the bottom cartoon with the Spanish military and the Rough Riders fighting, at first glance I notice the size of the people. The Rough Riders with Teddy Roosevelt are portrayed way larger than the Spanish men that are kind of stuffed down in the bottom. The Rough Riders are also shown looking stronger and more confident than the men at the bottom are. Those men look afraid and look like they are trying to run away from the fight. The Rough Riders also look pretty ruthless, like they don’t care what happens to the Spanish, and that is kind of depicted in the description at the bottom of the cartoon that says “They are rough on the Spaniards, whether they run or walk”. If you analyze this cartoon through the lens we are focusing on, it makes me think that the Rough Riders are the strong men in this case, and that the small Spaniards at the bottom are NOT being shown as boldly as them. In fact, they are almost portrayed similarly to how many women are in some political cartoons, like they are weak and need saving from the strong men.
6. Zachary Salloum March 8, 2023 at 6:27 pm

   I agree with this gendered interpretation of the causes of the Spanish American war. The gender lens does a good job of showing how traditional ideas of masculinity and femininity affected the political decisions that were made. Men living around the time of the Spanish-American war grew up hearing stories of valiant Civil War soldiers. It was their belief that to be a man was to fight for your country. This generation of men perceived themselves as weak and feminine, for not having fought in a war like their predecessors. Looking to find glory and re-affirm their masculinity, men clamored for war. These issues of masculinity are typically overlooked when talking about the causes for the Span-Am war; the gender lens provides a more complete picture of the time period. Because of this, I would agree that the gender lens is essential when dissecting the Span-Am war.

   The main strength of this lens is that it helps you understand the mentality of those living during the time period. It’s easier to envision why so many people wanted to go to war. Before looking through this lens, I thought it was kind of ridiculous that so many people wanted war, considering how horrible war is. However, when I considered that those men were eager to leave behind their boring factory jobs and become true men fighting the Spanish, it didn’t seem so far-fetched. The main weakness is that it is hard to prove that ideas of masculinity had any impact on political decision making. While a ‘crisis of masculinity” took place around the time of the Span-Am war, it is hard to prove that it actually caused the war. It is more probable that congressmen voted to declare war solely to gain a naval base, or to expand the U.S. economy. After all, these issues are more relevant to the country’s security. Even if the common man wanted war to show masculinity through fighting, politicians may have wanted war for different, more important reasons.

   The first political cartoon depicts a Cuban woman in a frying pan, labeled “Spanish misrule.” Below the pan, an island (presumably Cuba) is consumed by a fire that reads “anarchy.” The cartoonist, who is pro-imperialism, chose to depict Cuba as a helpless woman, to show that America had a moral duty to save Cuba from Spanish rule and complete anarchy. The caption of the cartoon confirms this, “The duty of the hour – to save her not only from Spain but from a worse fate.” Looking at this cartoon through the gender lens makes the cartoonist’s argument much more clear. Cuba being a woman matters. Since she is a woman, Cuba must be incapable of helping itself. She is in need of a strong, chivalrous man to save her from the cowardly Spanish, who would subject a woman to as cruel a punishment as a frying pan. The cartoonist intends Cuba’s savior to be none other than Uncle Sam, who would never let the Spanish harm her. In this case, the gender lens reveals how the details in political cartoons can invoke a sense of moral obligation in those who read them (those who read them during the end of the 19th century)..
7. Lauren M March 9, 2023 at 10:37 am

   While many factors usually play into large decisions such as war declarations, I believe that the masculinity of the young adult generation of the time played into the Spanish American War. Unfortunately, it is not unreasonable to say that in the US, human nature is often very selfish, and thus we must look to the individual to discover motivation for even large political elements. Several developments leading up to the Spanish American War would explain a crisis of masculinity. First, the emergence of the womens rights movement; Second, the increase in ease and comfort with urbanization, especially in the middle and upper classes; Third; the continued growth of the press and other media, imploring the continued spheres of influence; Forth, the apparent lack of war, which is supposedly needed as an outlet of rugged courage for men. All this resulted in a generation of politicians and citizen men who would jump at the opportunity to prove themselves as men. While many of the other reasons for war are highly plausible and likely played a role, since we must look for individual motivations as a basis for the other reasons to follow suit, it makes sense that gender be a leading reason.
   This lens is highly interesting, and I think it is an important one. As a benefit, It personalizes history and looks at the individual regarding political events, not just the documented and discussed motivations. These motivations are usually lofty and dehumanized and separated from the politicians that created them. This lens reacquaints the people with the power. However, this lens also makes overarching assumptions about genders as a whole (Though not unfounded ones) which is usually harmful on all accounts. Additionally one could argue that the lens may be looking for reasons where there simply is none.
   The above Cartoon is showing that not only does the US need to save Cuba from Spain, but also from itself. It shows the Spanish rule as the only thing between the woman, Liberty, and anarchy, implying that Cuba and its people are unfit to rule themselves. The cartoon of the Cuban women is not unlike the ones in the US depicting liberty as beautiful, fragile, and in need of protection. All this is because she is depicted by a woman. Additionally, the hand holding the frying man very much seems to be that of a man, showing the control and “duty to protect” that men give themselves.
8. Ireland K. March 9, 2023 at 1:09 pm

   1.) While their are usually many factors that contribute to a declaration of a war, I would say that the gendered interpretation of the Spanish American war, would be one of the main causes. As mentioned in the article, the fear of not being masculine had a significant role in this War. Right around this time in history, women played a key role. Women were fighting for their rights and were working in “men’s” jobs. Due to this apparently, men went from fighting wars to working “easy” jobs, which in return made them “soft”. These men also grew up hearing stories of their family members fighting in wars, winning them and the great pride and glory that came with that. A good example of this would be president Roosevelt, he grew up like this and within his generation he didn’t fight in a war like his family members. Overall during this time, glorifying war probably caused many to want the war.

   2.) This gendered lens is significant because it helps people who want to understand history in a different and more realistic perspective. This lens has both strengths and weaknesses. For strength it depicts how much masculinity means to men and how much they must prove it to themselves and others, though sometimes as extreme as going to war. This can also be a weakness because men with a strong view of masculinity could just automatically be portrayed badly.

   3.) Looking at this cartoon through the gender lens gives the reader a clearer perspective and understanding of what the cartoon truly means. Cuba is being depicted as a woman. This is important because this must mean that Cuba must be incapable of helping itself, because it is represented as a woman. “She” is in need of a man to save her from the Spanish. The cartoonist depicts Cuba’s “savior” as Uncle Sam, who would never let the Spanish harm “her”. This gender lens reveals how this cartoon forces perspective onto the eyes of the reader and how particular lenses impact the perspective of the reader.
9. Ashton Denys March 9, 2023 at 1:26 pm

   Well, I found the gendered view very interesting, so much so that I used it for my relevancy discussion, I’m cautious to fall completely head over heels for the idea. Well I completely agree with certain aspects, such as Roosevelt’s need to prove himself in a war, I’m hectic to chalk the whole thing up to American men wanting to have a war to fight in to prove themselves. To start with Roosevelt, I think their depiction of him and his need to affirm his masculinity via a war is dead on. I mean from everything we’ve seen of Roosevelt, he believes the only way for a man to fully prove himself is to go to war (quote from The True Flag I’m just too lazy to find the page) and I think this most definitely comes from him wanting to make up for his father paying off someone to fight for him. Now I don’t think this was him trying to one up his dad, as he had immense respect for his father who had died when Roosevelt was in his 20’s or so, but rather to bring back honor to his family name. The only part I’m hectic about is simplifying the entire cause of the war to be caused by a hunger for war from the younger generation of men. Well I think that could have been a cause, it feels like too much of an oversimplification, though I’m sure the paper wasn’t trying to say that was the only reason.

   Strengths of using this lens in my opinion is bringing to attention the overlooked emotional aspect of things. You can only get so far when looking at strictly political or social causes of a war and I think trying to use this lens could help bring to light feelings like patriotism, embarrassment, or prove oneself, though only if using these feelings along with other lenses. The weaknesses are the fact that this lens could lead to oversimplifications due to someone assuming a group of people felt the same way as an outspoken minority.

   In my opinion, the non-gendered meaning of this cartoon is that Spanish misrule is slowly killing Cuba over the fires of Anarchy. This can be seen in the fact that Ms. Cuba is distressed and is literally being cooked over the fires of Anarchy. Though the caption “The duty of the hour – to save her not only from Spain but from a worse fate” almost feels like it’s saying Cuba may fall into anarchy if we let the Spanish rule. Either way, I would say it’s a pro Spanish-American war. If I were to look at it through a gendered lens, the first thing I’d call attention to is the representation of Cuba as being a woman. To me, this is to invigorate a feeling of responsibility within the men of America to step up and do their duty to protect the fragile Cuba in need of protection. Almost saying “If you are a gentleman and chivalrous, you must help Cuba” which is also why I believe representations of things Americans need to protect, such as liberty, are portrayed as women. America itself is portrayed as a man, whose job it is to protect those women.
10. Jackson Mush March 9, 2023 at 1:57 pm

    I do agree that gender played a major part in the decision of going to war with the Spanish. In post civil war era America, many men grew up hearing about war stories and about the honor/valor their relatives fought with. When tensions of war were rising, this would be the perfect time for these men to “reestablish” themselves as men. Many historians explained how there was a crisis of manhood during this time and how industrial inventions were making men sluggish and soft, compared to every generation of Americans before them who fought in wars. There was also the rise of the “New woman” where women were starting to operate outside of their “normal” spheres. To add on for more economic reasons, there was a depression in 1893. This depression caused many men to lose their jobs and along with that, their self respect. Men throughout this whole time period were seeming to become “too soft” and going to fight a war was the only way to redeem their manhood. Though the redemption of manhood wasn’t the only reason for going to war (humanitarian crisis, U.S.S Maine explosion, yellow journalism), the redemption would be an added benefit for all men who fought.
    A strength of this lens is that it helps the reader understand what was going through most men’s minds during this time period, it lets you step into their shoes and observe from a masculine point of view. More specifically for this time period, the reason why men would want to fight a war. A weakness for the gendered lens would be that it speaks for one gender as a whole. Though the majority of men were looking for a way to restore their masculinity, grouping every single man into a category might not give the full truth. For history also, having facts and the truth is very important.
    The cartoon I chose to interpret was the rough riders one. The cartoon displays the American soldiers right front and center and they are very big compared to the Mexicans. They are wearing traditional cowboy clothing, big boots, big hats, and gun slinging. I feel as if this cartoon wants to show people that men in this time period are masculine. By showing these big heroic men with guns, fighting in a war against an enemy, the authors are really trying to put emphasis on how masculine our men really are. The Mexicans being portrayed as very small and frail is similar to how women are also portrayed in cartoons. Because the soldiers are so much bigger and standing up to these tiny people, it reinforces that men need to be heroic and chivalrous.
11. Bella Ruggirello March 9, 2023 at 2:10 pm

    The idea behind the gendered interpretation could’ve definitely caused issues in the war, such as people fearing they aren’t “masculine enough” and I agree with the gendered interpretation of the causes of the war. It sort of shows the reality behind the idea of ‘men always being superior to women’. The article said that men were worried because they hadn’t fought in a war in so long and they thought they were becoming “weak”. They didn’t want to be seen as weak only b because they were the ones who fought for their country. Which later meant that having a war to fight in, would eliminate all of the so-called “weakness” they had gained from not fighting. Many men during that time had learned about the soldiers who fought in the Civil War, and they wanted to be as strong as those men so they weren’t looked down upon by society.
    The main topic portrayed in the article was “masculinity” and in reading the article, we find out how it really affected the choices the men made during that period, though, the heavy push on masculinity back during the Civil War era could’ve had a negative effect, regarding the choices men made (again), but also the fact that they felt they had to prove themselves to the rest of the world. Kind of the opposite of life today, where men don’t need to fight in a fatal war to prove themselves. It was also especially strange considering the number of people who wanted war, like just so they could prove themselves. I guess it could’ve had something to do with people wanting to get away from their jobs and poor working conditions, but war? Over a job? No thanks.
    The first political cartoon has a woman sitting in a pan holding a Cuban flag, and she is held above or saved from the “burning” anarchists. I see the heavily gendered stereotype again in this cartoon, meaning the man is the one saving her from the burning anarchists, even though she could’ve saved herself. As per usual it’s the man saving the woman from the problem or in other words the man saving everything. The cartoon is basically implying that Cuba couldn’t help itself as well as being unable to take charge and be independent. would need America to come to its rescue, which isn’t true. The caption, “The duty of the hour – to save her not only from Spain but from a worse fate.” feeds even more into the fact everyone believed that Cuba needed to be saved from a so-called “worse fate”. What even was that worse fate?
12. Jack brunt March 9, 2023 at 4:31 pm

    After reading the entire article I overall disagree with the gendered approach to looking at this conflict. Even though I had some agreements I believed that the connections had little tie in between the war and gender causing it. The article mentioned that modern developments in society have made men feel that they as a group are losing their masculinity or that their masculinity is under attack. When American jobs shifted from hardened labor to more run of the mill desk jobs that we see today a new attitude arose for men in America, they felt the need for more “manly” jobs. A war hasn’t been seen for decades now and for many that’s the ultimate test of courage, bravery, and strength which a man should live up to. These men wanted to prove that they can live up to their fathers who fought in the civil war.
    One of the great strengths of using this lens is when you look at something like war, you usually don’t consider what makes a society that might make a country want war. also it shows how seemingly insignificant issues in a conflict can have a huge impact on the impact aswell as the society at home. Instead, you would focus on economic incentives, the strategic advantages that victory might bring, and the delicate balance of risk and reward that might motivate a country or even its leaders to go to war. The downside is, instead of diving into the economic and military benefits of winning a war, the article looks at the social benefits from a social justice perspective and what steps we are taking forward or backward. aswell this article didn’t go in depth about how these things affected war and homeland United States. Instead of diving into the economic and military benefits of winning a war. overall this article is just an attempt to tie in social justice issues to a non homeland conflict that had next to no relation.
    My cartoon was about the rough riders, with the large caption which I think is Puck (I couldn’t tell what the first letter was) . It showed what looked like TR in the blue waving on American soldiers while the Cuban army was retreating. When looking through the gendered lens it’s a showing of a strong man fighting off a weaker army of men. It is named the rough riders in what my opinion is to depict these men as tough and battle hardened and not having “feminine traits”.
13. Asher Leopold March 9, 2023 at 9:11 pm

    – In my opinion, the causes outlined in the article were pretty much all logical and true. The Spanish War was definitely worsened by the masculine need to fight in a war and have there masculine identity validated. However, I do also feel that the gendered approach to this topic definitely skews the view of the text. There is a lessened opportunity to let the reader form their own opinion by talking about pretty much any topic from a gendered or any very specific perspective. I think, while the gendered lens provides interesting insight, it is far deeper than the writing suggests. I believe that the real causes of the unrulieness during this time period was really due to many factors, specifically, the misrule and humanitarian crisis in Cuba, the felt need to fulfill Imperialism ideals due partly to manifest destiny acquiring new territories, and our desire to trade with more countries around the world are all more important causes than the ongoing crisis of men wanting to feel manly. Now, I am not saying that this need to feel masculine was not an issue that feuled the war, just that the issue was much more complex than that.
    – I think a strength to this viewpoint is just basically a new perspective, specifically a window into the thoughts and beliefs of the men at this time who feared being emasculated. It is always a good thing to understand every stance on a topic to form your own well-rounded opinion about anything. A big weakness is that it is a very skewed and almost biased in a way to the topic of the war and will not actually teach people about everything that happened. The Spanish – American War and the other ongoing conflicts at the time are all very complex and cannot be summed up quickly, so, by using this interpretation, people will not be forming a good understanding of these events.
    – This cartoon depicts a cuban woman waving flags. She is kneeling in a frying pan labled “Spanish Misrule” over a fire that is labeled “anarchy.” My interpretation of this image is that Cuba, and subsequent other nations possibly affected by American Imperialist efforts, are being destroyed or “burned” by misrule, in this case Spanish misrule. Moreover, Spanish misrule and political corruption is being feuled by the flames of anarchy, heating the pan and burning civillians. It makes sense that this cartoon is from Puck because it is very clearly anti-imperialism and in support with sympathy for the Cubans, and one would believe places like Hawaii and the Phillipenes as well.
14. Jacob G March 9, 2023 at 10:36 pm

    I agree with the gendered interpretation of the causes of the Spanish-American war. I believe this because the people who fought so heavily for war based their actions and opinions on the ability, and characteristics of their gender. Men who wanted war were manly and chivalrous, men who were against war were cowardly, womanly or even portrayed as women. Furthermore, when men fought in a war they did it for their own manhood and pride, and not for their belief in the American people. Throughout this time period cartoon after cartoon was used to portray different people with different positions in different lights. Many times they did this on gendered lines. One of these cartoons was McKinley, originally anti-war, portrayed as a woman brushing away the sea, which represented congresses support. Moreover, when uncle sam was portrayed as a strongman taking off his coat and ready to rumble.
    This lens has many strengths: like when using this lens we can see a perspective of an oppressed group of peoples whose voices were not heard before or previously suppressed. These women were not allowed in the political space or the public life in general. They were also considered to be the property of their husbands or fathers. With these people’s views being engendered by the use of this lens shows another side to an already well known and well studied topic, that being the spanish american war. However, this also has one weakness. When using this lens we can end up ignoring the ungendered and not sex based causes for wars like the Spanish-American.
    The Rough Rider cartoon in the puck magazine depicts the storming of San Juan Hill. This depicts the infamous Teddy Rosevelt, with his notorious revolver, with which he killed one spaniard. Teddy is followed by his troop of rough riders. All of these men are portrayed as strong, brave and virtuous men conquering the lesser, and smaller Spanish forces in Cuba, more specifically on the San Juan Hill. With the depiction of these men in the way they have been, with strength and virtue, it reinforces traditional values. Like those of chivalry, manliness and macho. Using the gendered lenses we see with this blog post we can determine and discover more personal causes that may be hidden behind the people within the events when other lenses are used. When gender is being used to see the main aspects of a cartoon we can determine reasons otherwise undeterminable from other perspectives. To use Teddy Roosevelt as an example; we would not know of his “macho and manly” personality if not for the gendered lens discovering his reasoning for his push to war and drive to fight. These gender roles and national pride led him to resigning from his Officer position in the Navy and his enrollment in the Army. This deeper reasoning may have been hidden if we did not use a gendered lens and the gender roles of the time to discover them.
15. Jayda Evans March 10, 2023 at 9:08 pm

    Yes, I agree with the gendered interpretation of the causes of the Spanish American War. In the En-Gendering the Spanish American War article, it says “It is a congress of men that declared it.” This depicts how men of the time declared war simply to prove their manliness. By going to war, it proved they can be big and tough and still do things women can’t do. It was said about Roosevelt, “War gave him a legendary, career launching victory and the manly glory he had pursued since childhood.” Men of the time looked up to him because he was a successful man with everything that he wanted. If war gave him glory, courage and honor then men felt that to be a man was to be just like Roosevelt.

    A strength of using this lens is that you can see the conflict from yet another angle. You see more than just economic, political or even racial viewpoints. This is important because to see history from another angle is to more fully understand the reasoning behind this war. To see from different views, allows us to diminish or attempt to get rid of the bias found in our history books. This could be a weakness because if you are only looking at this one lens, it could narrow your vision which would eliminate the purpose of having another lens at all. To avoid this issue, one must make sure to not eliminate the viewpoints of all other possible lenses.

    This cartoon illustrates the American idea of a manly man. The main man in the cartoon, presumably Teddy Roosevelt, is wielding an oversized pistol. He is holding a massive American flag over his head. He is five times the size of the Mexicans they are at war with. Around his waist is a belt of ammunition and the look on his face is murderous. In the article, it talks about how in political cartoons men that are against the war are depicted as women. Why are men that are against the war depicted as women? Because women of the time were seen as inferior, small and weak. A man who is against the war is seen as inferior, small and weak because that means they aren’t manly. In the cartoon, the huge men are the polar opposite: muscular, giant and patriotic. This is “manly and good” because it shows they can provide and protect. Manly men can win the war.
16. Emily Kruntovski March 10, 2023 at 9:18 pm

    1. According to Hoganson’s gendered analysis of the reasons of the Spanish American War, a crisis in upper- and middle-class white manhood was a major factor in American imperialism. The advent of the “New Woman,” who wanted to get involved in politics, the perception of males as being weak due to the luxuries of industrial America, and the 1893 Depression, which led to men losing their jobs and their self-respect, are all said to have endangered the conventional ideas of manhood. The gendered lens provides a new perspective to the investigation, complementing the other cited explanations including monetary incentives, Manifest Destiny, and humanitarian concerns. In my opinion, this interpretation is correct, and there is evidence to back it up. For instance, TR’s desire to lead the Rough Riders and fight for honor and manhood is congruent with the crisis of manhood theory. Furthermore, the fact that the war had extensive media coverage and that the accounts of valor and heroism were frequently idealized and overstated implies that there was a widespread desire to restore traditional masculine values that were thought to be in danger.

    2. Using a gendered lens has the advantage of allowing us to identify implicit biases and assumptions that other lenses might miss. By concentrating on gender, we may observe how conventional ideas of masculinity and femininity influence political and social developments. Yet, one drawback is that simplifying complicated historical events to one single element could be unduly reductive. While the gendered lens can offer insightful perspectives, it should be combined with other lenses to offer a more complete picture.

    3.The cartoon of the Cuban woman in the frying pan can be read in a variety of ways using the gendered lens. First of all, the representation of the woman in the frying pan might be interpreted as a metaphor for how women are objectified in the imperialist project. Like the land and resources that are being plundered, women are made into objects of conquest and dominance. Second, the caption “The duty of the hour – to save her not only from Spain but from a worse fate” serves as an illustration of the “White Man’s Burden” philosophy, which contends that white men have a responsibility to civilize and uplift all “savages” in the globe, especially women. The cartoon makes the implication that the American male has a responsibility to rescue and protect the Cuban woman. The Rough Riders cartoon can also be examined through a gendered lens. The image of the Rough Riders storming into battle might be interpreted as a reaffirmation of traditional masculinity, with an emphasis on physical strength, boldness, and bravery. The picture of the flag being raised high by a male soldier serves as a representation of pride and dignity for the country and serves to further the notion that the war is a test of American manhood. The phrase “On to victory” might be interpreted as a call to arms, asking men to protect their honor and manhood by taking up arms. Overall, the comic supports the premise that upper- and middle-class white manhood is in crisis by showing war as a chance to revive traditional manly characteristics.
17. Augusten L March 11, 2023 at 4:34 pm

    Although there were many other important factors that influenced the decision to go to war, I agree with the gendered interpretation and that the idea of needing to be a tough, masculine man played a crucial part in the Spanish American War. The men of this time were either not alive yet or not old enough to fight in the Civil War, but knew of the romanticized stories of war heroes, and as most of the other generations took part in a war, they felt the need to fight. As the article mentioned, when women pushed for more rights and equality, men saw this as making them less masculine, because women could do things that were generally considered to be for only men. Men at this time were insecure about their manhood, and seeing as going to war had typically been framed to be the honorable, tough, and heroic thing to do, it was a somewhat easy way for men to feel better about themselves.
    One of the strengths of using a gendered lens is that it portrays how masculinity and femininity influenced the actions and decisions in history. It shows the extent that having fragile masculinity had on Roosevelt and other American men, it is a highly important factor in starting the Spanish American War. The gendered lens helps us realize why this was a crucial part of the decision for war, and gives a more complete picture of men’s mindset at the time. By knowing what the men were thinking and what they were raised to see as masculinity, we can interpret how these ideals truly affected their actions. A weakness of using this lens could be that it overshadows the other reasons for war, and makes it seem like only an irrational choice due to being insecure with their masculinity. There were a lot of factors that went into the arguments for and against the Spanish American War, and while it is important to include reasons concerning gender, all the possible reasons should be looked into.
    The Rough Riders cartoon is likely to be for the Spanish-American War as it shows Roosevelt and the Rough Riders as the ideal tough, American man. He is proudly holding an American flag, and wearing a cowboy hat, and while the outfit could just be the fashion of the time, it appears to be something that a working man or cowboy would wear. This could be portraying him as a romanticized representative of the hardworking American man, paving the way into new lands with strength, an ideal held by many generations of Americans. The Spanish soldiers are drawn as small and easily crushed, running from the fighting, making the Americans appear to be the clear winners of the war. With the gendered lens, the Americans seem much tougher, a common expectation for masculine men, reflecting the goal of many men in the Spanish-American war: to be stronger, more masculine, and more heroic because of the war.
18. kaylin arthur March 11, 2023 at 11:05 pm

    1. I agree with this interpretation of the article, and I think it is a good way to focus on certain aspects of the war. In the article, it describes men as courageous, brave, and willing to make sacrifices to fight for their country, and anyone who did not fit this description was seen as weak and was not portrayed as masculine in the many political cartoons of the time. In the many past generations, the men have had a war to fight, such as the Civil War and the American Revolution. Now that they don’t have a war to fight, and they started working “easy” jobs, it has destroyed their masculinity. This interpretation is effective for this article because most of the support for the war was to bring back “masculine men” so they would have a war to fight. If all they heard were the stories of their ancestors fighting these wars, and doing great things for their country it romanticized the idea of war, and influenced them to want to join the war. A main example of this is with Roosevelt, he grew up hearing the many stories of his family fighting in the wars, and when there isn’t a war in his generation for him to fight, he does not fit the same role his family did.

    2. I would say there are both strengths and weaknesses to using this lens. One strength is seeing how masculinity and the war affected their choices, and what people’s ideas were in this time period. The ideas of the time also helped to shape the idea of the rugged individual. One weakness of using this lens is it doesn’t acknowledge the other reasons for the war. It only shows them going to war to become men and covers up the actual reason for the war. Another weakness of this lens is that it only focuses on the gender part of these cartoons and blocks out many of the other important aspects such as the meaning of the cartoon and how it portrays the people in the cartoon.

    3. The cartoon shows a Cuban woman in a frying pan hovering over the burning of the word “anarchy” and destroying everything under it. I think the main idea of this cartoon is that being under the rule of the Spanish is what prevented Cuba from anarchy, but the United States control could save it from everything. The gender lens is seen in a few ways in this cartoon. First, it portrays Cuba as a woman because it is unable to help itself and must rely on the help of other countries. It shows the country as weak and something that can’t be self-sufficient. It also shows the woman as fearful of what will happen, but is being saved from it by the man’s hand who is holding up the pan. It continues the main stereotype of a man saving a woman.
19. Samantha Jacobs March 11, 2023 at 11:35 pm

    Generation after generation of American men- dating all the way back to that of our founding fathers- have fought in a war. For just as long, the idea of men being chivalrous and honorable has been a social expectation and desire for men. When women’s roles expanded from their sphere of influence, joining politics and working jobs, men lost the heroic man-takes-care-of-women aspect of american life. The war was a way for men to regain their honor, because it would allow them to take care of the women once again. To answer the question at hand, i believe this might have played a miniscule part in further motivating the decision for war, but the other aspects, like glory an commercial advantages, were the real causes.

    Using a lens that takes gender divisions and explores it’s influence on the Spanish American War will allow us to better understand why it came to be. Gender has had a major impact on united states history. Without the societal division of men and women, and the mindset that’s come with, we wouldn’t have had major historical ideas and movements, like the cult of domesticity and women’s suffrage. The mindsets that come along with these, like a woman’s place in th eworld or a man’s responsibility to take care of his wife, has greatly affected american history. So, one can safely assume that it also played a role in the occurrence of the spanish american war. Using this lens provides us with a strong viewpoint to analyse the causes of the war. However, while there is strong historical presence of this throughout history, it would be difficult to prove that it was actually motivated by gender. As it is a viewpoint and not an event, it is more abstract. It would not have a specific, documented place in history, as it is subjective. Therefore, it would be difficult to trace a connection between gender influences and the the start of the war.

    Every single person in this scene is a man. There is not a single woman in the image. This likely reflects the sentiment that women were to remain at home, while the men go to war and protect them. You can tell that the larger men are the Americans, as they are depicted with the flag. The same can be said for the Spaniards and their flag. As this is an American cartoon, it makes sense that the Americans would be the ones depicted in a better light. With their puffed out chests, muscles, and large bodies, the Americans are presented as big, manly men. The Spaniards, however, are shown as small and cowardly, falling down and running away with their arms stretched out in a girlish manner.
20. Sabrina Schlotterer March 12, 2023 at 12:07 pm

    1. I do agree with this interpretation of a possible cause of the Spanish-American war. It’s pretty clear, at least to me, that this war was not actually fought to protect the people of Cuba from the Spaniards controlling them, which is why I was already of the opinion that this boom of expansion and faulty reasoning of it like this was just meant to make excuses for conquering more land and growing the American empire. This new viewpoint presented to us is the missing piece to that opinion; the reasoning behind it. That’s why I believe this interpretation, because it actually gives explanation to many decisions people made in terms of the war, like Roosevelt dropping everything to create a group of people to go fight in it. They wanted to keep expanding not only because of beliefs that used to be very prominent like manifest destiny, but also because it made them look like the great American leaders they grew up hearing so much about. Everyone wants glory, and this is how they achieved it; by being the strong, heroic men their fathers never could.

    2. Like I previously mentioned, a strength of using this lens is that it provides a new explanation and interpretation for the cause of this war. People study history not only just so we know what happened in the world before we were on it, but also because with every new generation comes endless new ideas and interpretations of things. For example, in the modern-day world, there is a growing feminist movement. That is probably what influenced this person to view the war in this way. However, that is also a great weakness of this lens. If this person had grown up in a different time period, they likely would have had a very different interpretation of this war, which leaves this interpretation very biased.

    3. In the first cartoon, it shows a hand grabbing the handle of a frying pan that hold a Cuban woman, lifting her up over a country in flames titled, “anarchy.” She appears to be helpless and being saved from her country burning in anarchy, as if the artist is comparing her to some sort of food and saying that she is being saved from getting burned and fried, which is probably meant to represent her dying or something bad because of the state of her country. One could look at this from a gendered perspective by assuming that the hand lifting her up is a man, saving her from the destruction her own country is causing her. This reflects the mindset of the United States at the time, by saying that they need to step in to help the less fortunate people of Cuba, like this poor woman cowering in fear and anguish who can’t even help herself because she’s a woman.
21. Parker March 12, 2023 at 12:36 pm

    I do in part agree with this interpretation. I see some of the points brought up in directing the motives of this war toward men being protective of their images. This seems like a bit of a stretch in some categories when considering that this war was fought for several reasons. Several of these reasons are very racist and selfish, but, representative of America as a whole at the time and their desire to conquer and expand their economy while disregarding the “uncivil” people who had previously inhabited. However, I can agree that some people and some motives for this war can be relayed to gender. The arguments that men could be manly by fighting and that partial motivation for the war can be derived from the societal standard that opposition to the war was “woman-like” are actually quite compelling. All together I think that some motive can be gender, but definitely not all or even a significant portion.
    It provides a very unique perspective of war and its motives, one that is not touched upon commonly. This in turn provides us with new information all around and can be used to enhance our understanding of certain events. One downside is that this is a very specific viewpoint. It provides a very narrow scope when looking at historical events, one would need to look into a topic additionally to form a full opinion, but, in conclusion, I feel that this lens can be very useful in enhancing a reader’s knowledge, and expanding their thinking. However, this is not a very summative view of history.
    In the Rough Riders cartoon gender is present in the form of the male image, and (male) war. Beginning with the male image, men are portrayed here as fearless, specifically American men, with them trampling on the opposing men. They are holding guns, and look powerful and strong, almost unstoppable. Additionally, with Teddy holding the American flag, this makes it seem like this male interpretation is the ideal American interpretation. Now moving on to (male) war. In the image, we see no women present, just men out fighting. This is seemingly in use as a way of painting war as a male practice and something manly. This is made out to be something awesome, a total devotion to the spirit of the American man, fighting for your country. In conclusion, this cartoon uses gender to portray war as an awesome manly endeavor, and American men as big, strong, and fearless in the face of battle.
22. Vincent March 12, 2023 at 3:19 pm

    1. Yes, because Teddy Roosevelt’s generation didn’t have a war to fight and it causes a lot of impatient young men who are eager to have a war. This makes most men pent up and whenever the option appears they push for war. The men of this time had heard of many different gallant war stories told by their forefathers and they didn’t have some of their own. Many men who saw the horrors of the Civil War and many past wars didn’t want anything to do with war and they were against the Spanish-American War. The Civil War and previous wars have had higher death tolls in the actual battles but the Spanish-American War had not that many deaths caused by fighting, the main cause was illnesses. The bloodiness of past wars wasn’t as prominent in this war because the U.S.’s military prowess was superior to the military of the Spanish.
    2. A strength of using this gender lens is that it can bring to light so many different things that people of a specific gender of a time period. The gendered interpretation can explain why so many Americans wanted to go to war and how much influence the male point of view is on the whole of a country. Some weaknesses of the gendered perspective is that the how and why might not be answered to the reader’s desire. For example the explanation would be a concept but not a deep dive on what the how and why is to be. People looking for an article or paper with “facts” and not what someone thinks could happen, would be turned away because the lens is not deep enough.
    3. The cartoon of the Rough Riders portrays them as larger than the Spanish troops. This might have to do with how the Rough Riders have more military knowledge than the Spanish. The Puck is an Anti-Imperialist magazine and this cartoon stays with the notion of anti-imperialism by making the Spanish smaller which portrays them as weaker and the Americans are larger and beating up the weaker Spanish. The Americans beating the seemingly helpless Spanish is implying that the American people shouldn’t support the conquering of the old spanish land. Teddy Roosevelt is leading the charge with an American flag in his hand to symbolize the U.S. claiming the land the battle in the cartoon is taking place on. The caption under the cartoon says “They are rough on the Spaniards, whether they ride or walk.” This can be interpreted as the Rough Riders didn’t care about whether or not the Spanish were retreating.
23. Andrew March 12, 2023 at 4:52 pm

    1. I agree with the gendered interpretation of the Spanish-American war, as it’s an effective way to interpret the war. I believe that the fear of being not masculine enough in a masculine society drives men to try to fit in with the accepted pro-war beliefs. If you were not pro-war, you were un-accepted in the male-dominated political society. For example, “President McKinley, who had his doubts about fighting the Spanish, is depicted as an “Old Women” trying to “Sweep Back the Sea” of congressional support for the war. This was meant to show that men who didn’t want to fight were cowardly and soft. As was popular belief surrounding the Spanish-American War, “Dishonorable, cowardly men ravage women or become them”. 1890s society accepted masculinity, and frowned upon feminism, or referred to it as cowardice.
    2. To strengthen the cause for going to war against the Spanish. Everyone wants to be socially accepted, so it would be against the popular opinion to oppose the war. With the “Macho Man” ideology, pro-war Americans could socially influence the support and the cause for going to war. It could gather support and unify the American people. Men wanted to be remembered as great ‘heroes’ to their family and descendants, like how their fathers and grandfathers were heroes for fighting in the Civil War. A weakness would be that it could appear as if the “Macho Man” ideology was sexist towards women and that the lens could be seen as a “Men are better than women” thing. It could appear as if men aren’t fighting for their country, or for a good reason, but instead only to be better than women. It could portray men in a bad, selfish way.
    3. (I am choosing the Rough Riders one): I think the gender lens is a good interpretation of the Rough Riders cartoon, because it shows how the American man is very strong, independent and masculine. With this in mind, almost every 18th century American man wants to be an “American War Hero”, and this was their chance to do so. With an American flag in one hand, and a gun in the other, this was the ideal American; being a brave man, fighting for their country. The Americans are pictured as giants compared to the very small Spaniards, presumably being unstoppable soldiers, who couldn’t possibly be taken down by the puny Spanish. It looks as if the Americans are superior to the inferior Spanish, similarly the belief of men being superior to women. The Americans also appear to be ruthless towards the Spanish; especially when referring to the caption, “They are rough on the Spaniards, whether they ride or walk”. It could be interpreted as the Spanish being superior to the Spanish, or, the Americans are bloodthirsty, but I think the popular belief, and the cartoon, is that the American men are far superior compared to any other race and gender, especially the Spanish.
24. Tyler C March 12, 2023 at 5:45 pm

    I agree with the idea of the gendered interpretation of the Spanish-American war. I think that many men during the period needed an event to re-secure them in their man hood. I think that many men had lost their security in their own sense of manhood during various events, such as the panic of 1893, as well as the many reform movements being captained by women during the late 1800s, and early 1900s. These would have caused many men to lose their sense of authority, because many men would have lost their jobs, and their wages. This may have made some men feel like they lost their family identity, as the money winner of the family, or the head of the household. To go along with that, women had increased social power, as the leaders of many reform movements. The combination of the economic downturn, and the increased social power, and calls for more political power for various groups, most likely led to men having a desire to find an outlet to regain their manhood. So, I think that many events could’ve been this outlet, but the Spanish American war was a very prime one. The idea of regaining manhood, and the gendered interpretation of a whole, displays a great reason for people to be motivated to participate in the war. Without people wanting to be in the war, the country never would’ve in the first place. So, yes, the gendered interpretation is very relevant when looking at the causes of the Spanish-American war because it shows us a very big reason why it even happened in the first place.
    A strength of using this lens is that it explains a very easy to understand reason for the wars happening. The motivation of finding manhood, or even just finding yourself, is very easy to accept as one that would’ve caused the war, because manhood is something that has been around forever, and gender is something that has been around forever. The ideas are relevant to us, and everyone, so it’s easy to apply to this situation. A weakness of this lens is that it can’t be applied to every situation. There are many wars and conflicts which don’t have an application for a gendered lens. Conflicts between separate groups, or conflicts motivated by greed, either economic or political, don’t really have an area for gender to have much of an influence.
    For the cartoon of the rough riders, gender is very relevant. It shows big, white, American men conquering smaller men who are running away from them. The big men trampling others shows the desire to regain manhood, and the aspect of it in the cartoon. The men feel, and could be big and strong in comparison to the others, which shows them with power, and strength, both things that are often associated with manhood in the past.
25. Christina Jones March 12, 2023 at 7:02 pm

    Yes, I agree with this lens of the war. I think that a lot of men back in this time period did think this way, and I kind of see it as them fishing for any reason to start a war because they so desperately wanted one. They felt that because of the “new women”, and because of the depression and the lack of jobs that they could find, their (very fragile) masculinity was being threatened. Thus, they blew everything out of proportion because they wanted a war. They were thinking with their heats, and not with their heads. So because of this, it would make complete sense that gender was a main cause of this particular war. None of the causes listed should be a reason to go to war, and in my opinion the men were being extremely over-dramatic when it came to their response.
    A strength of the lens is that it causes you to think in a different context- to open your eyes to the other reasons why the war could have started. For me, before I read the article, I was curious about why the war even started, because I didn’t get how things that seemed like they could have such an easy resolution could have such a dramatic consequence. This lens explained that for me because it dove deeper into the emotional and rational reasoning of the men who wanted to fight the war. A weakness comes with the fact that not all men thought this way, some of them were genuinely enraged and wanted to fight the war- some of them might not have felt like their masculinity was being threatened at all. Just because it was the way some men thought, doesn’t mean that all men thought that way. So the lens doesn’t cover everyone, and it leaves a lot of follow-up questions and blank spaces that can’t be answered or covered.
    This cartoon shows a very ‘male savior’ type thinking. It shows a woman in a frying pan held over the fire of Spain’s anarchy over Cuba. They put a woman over the fire to portray her as helpless, because apparently women can’t help themselves (according to male thinking in the past pertaining to gender roles and the fragility of women). Because of this, it made the men want to save her and gave them further drive to go to war because it was the ‘masculine’ and ‘heroic’ thing to do, and they no longer wanted to be soft and weak, instead they needed to save their women.
26. Claire P March 12, 2023 at 7:06 pm

    Though I don’t believe gender is the only interpriatation, I think it’s reasonable to looking at the Spanish American War form a gendered perspective. American men were worried that they were becoming “soft” from the indistuial age, and since American hadn’t been in war for a substantial amount of time, they felt it was their turn to go into combat. Hearing stories from their relatives about past wars ultimately fueled their masculine urge to want to go into battle. They believed they could regain their masculinity, as well as honor and glory, by fighting like their ancestors. In addition to the “crisis of manhood,” men were also threatened by the rise of “New Women” in America, primarly in politics. They were unsettled by women entering the male dominated sphere of government and politics and wanted to show their dominance through fighting and going to war. Overall, men felt the need to go to war to regain control of their persona.

    Using a gendered lens allows you to look at history from a new perspective that can be related to stereotypes of the past and present. It can be evidence for or against assumptions made about people based on their gender. If we only look at history through a political or economic viewpoint it limits conclusions that can be made about past events. On the other side, this lens could wrongfully portray one gender, in this case men and their reasonsoning behind wanting to go to war. It is also grouping a vast morjority of the population toegther which is an unfair representation.

    The cartoon shows a woman, with a cuban flag and the words “Cuba” around her, stuck in a frying pan reading “Spanish Misrule.” She is portrayed as helpless while being trapped by the Spanish frying pan. Under the frying pan there is an island with tents on fire with the words “anarchy” written across the flames. This shows how the female, representing Cuba, is slowly being cooked in the frying pan, showing Spain’s unfair ruling, over the island on fire of anarchy. Furthermore, the caption, reading “…to save her not only from Spain but from a worse fate,” explains how the woman is in need of assistance against Spain’s rule, therefore showing the cartoon is pro-imperialims and pro-war. The cartoon depicts to the fact that America needs to intervience between Cuba and Spain in order to save and protect Cuba, portrayed as the powerless woman.
27. Lindsay March 12, 2023 at 8:04 pm

    1.I do unfortunately see how gender, and specifically masculinity prompted the Spanish American war. In my opinion one’s ego is not a valid reason to go to war, the two are simply unproportionate. However, I do understand the pressure that men at the time had from the generations before. Men felt that war was a way to prove themselves, be worthy, and truly be a man. I assume that men during the time of the Spanish American war felt a great deal of inner turmoil. In addition to the war, the era of New Women also threatened men’s masculinity. The New women era also forced men to question their roles and forced them to accept change. With the combination of these events men undoubtedly rushed into war in an effort to protect their masculinity.

    2. Using this Gendered lens gives a different perspective of the Spanish American war and offers another explanation to the motives of America to go to war. This lens stimulates new thoughts and feelings towards Americans motives for partaking in the Spanish American war.However its weaknesses lie in the narrowness of the lens. The gendered lens doesn’t account for all the other reasons for the Spanish American war, instead it creates a whole new reason that sits on its own. This lens would be more beneficial if it tied in manifest destiny for example but instead it puts that cause aside.

    3.The Cartoon of the Cuban women in a frying pan depicts a cuban woman in a pan being held over the flames of anarchy. Viewers know the woman is Cuban because she holds the Cuban flag. The pan she is in reads “spanish misfortune” alluding to this woman being a victim to “spanish misfortune”. In addition the biggest feature of this cartoon is the fire the woman is being held over reads Anarchy. This is fitting for the Spanish American war because Americans constantly believed that countries were unfit to rule themselves. The caption of the cartoon reads “The duty of the hour – to save her not only from Spain but from a worse fate.”. The caption offers insight to the cartoon, and when put with my interpretations the general idea that I have come up with is that Americans have to save Cuba from the spanish. Saving Cuba from Spain for economic reasons was really the sole goal of the Spanish American war. This cartoon connects to the Gendered lens because this cartoon features a woman who needs saving. It is a very big stereotype/expectation that men have the duty of saving women. The women really fueled the cartoon’s point because it catered towards the rise of masculinity at the time. American men probably saw this cartoon not only as saving Spain but being a heroic manly hero.
28. Christian Pearson March 12, 2023 at 8:18 pm

    Kristin Hoganson’s theory on the Spanish American War proposes that one of the causes of the conflict was the crisis of upper and middle-class white masculinity. This gendered perspective suggests that traditional notions of manhood were threatened by industrial America, the Depression of 1893, and the emergence of the “New Woman” who challenged gender roles and sought political rights. In this context, the war became an opportunity for men to regain their sense of honor, courage, and masculinity.
    The traditional perspective on the war, which emphasizes economic gains, imperial ambitions, military strategy, and altruistic motives, disregards the cultural and societal elements that contributed to the conflict. By adopting a gendered approach to analyzing the Spanish American War, we can discern that it was a response to the perceived crisis of manhood in America during the early 1900s.
    Examining the causes of the war from a gendered perspective has advantages and disadvantages. On one hand, it can illuminate the cultural and societal elements that are frequently overlooked in traditional analyses, allowing us to understand the motivations of male soldiers and how gender impacted their viewpoints. On the other hand, it could oversimplify the complex economic, political, and diplomatic factors that contributed to the conflict and reinforce gender stereotypes, which might impede our understanding of the experiences of women and people of color during that time period.
    Examining the political cartoon of the Cuban woman in a frying pan through a gendered lens, I think it also highlights various gendered dynamics of the war. The cartoon portrays a helpless and objectified Cuban woman in a frying pan, surrounded by flames, representing the dangers of Spanish rule. The caption states that the United States had a moral obligation to protect the Cuban woman from harm, not just from Spain, but also from a worse fate.
    By interpreting women as passive and in need of male protection, the stereotype is reinforced, disregarding the Cuban women’s agency and resistance in their fight against Spanish colonialism. Additionally, the cartoon overlooks the gendered violence that accompanied the U.S. occupation of Cuba, which included the sexual assault and exploitation of Cuban women by U.S. soldiers.
    An examination of the Spanish American War from a gendered perspective can reveal significant cultural and social dynamics at play. However, it’s crucial to approach this analysis with a nuanced understanding of how gender, race, and power intersected during this historical period.
29. Christian Pearson March 12, 2023 at 8:40 pm

    As a senator from the Southern United States and a member of the Democratic Party, I stand in opposition to the imperialist policy of the current administration. While I agree that expanding our nation’s influence and trade opportunities could be beneficial, the cost of imperialism far outweighs any potential gains.
    One of the most pressing concerns for my constituents is the potential influx of cheap labor from territories acquired through imperialism. This would directly harm the working-class citizens of my region, who already struggle to make ends meet in the face of increasing competition from industrialization in the North. Additionally, we cannot ignore the racial tensions that exist in our country, particularly between white Americans and people of color. Allowing non-white individuals from territories we’ve conquered to become citizens would only exacerbate these tensions and lead to violence.
    Furthermore, the idea that we must “civilize” and “Christianize” the people of these territories is both arrogant and immoral. Our nation was founded on the principles of individual liberty and self-determination, and it is not our place to force our culture and values onto others. We must respect the sovereignty of other nations and their right to determine their own path forward.
    Moreover, the potential for imperialistic policy to lead to war cannot be ignored. The cost of war, both in terms of human lives and resources, is too high for us to engage in conflict unnecessarily. We must instead focus on diplomacy and peaceful means of resolving international conflicts.
    Finally, the cost of maintaining a large standing army to police these territories would be a tremendous burden on our economy and our citizens. We cannot ignore the lessons of history – empires that stretch themselves too thin often crumble under their own weight. It is not worth sacrificing the stability and prosperity of our own nation for the sake of expansion.
    In conclusion, while I understand the arguments in favor of imperialism put forward by some of my colleagues, I believe that the potential costs far outweigh any potential benefits. As a senator representing the interests of my constituents and the values of our nation, I cannot in good conscience support this policy. We must instead focus on maintaining strong relationships with our neighbors and trading partners while respecting their sovereignty and right to self-determination. Only through mutual respect and cooperation can we achieve lasting peace and prosperity for our nation and the world.
30. miller mann March 12, 2023 at 10:31 pm

    I think I agree with a gendered approach and interpretation of the Spanish American War and what led to it. The American Men leading up to the imperialistic era of America were becoming less “manly/masculine”, they were becoming “soft”. This may have been due to the lack of need for toughness in some of the young as the civil war had ended and war was not expected, but that doesn’t quite matter. The Spanish American war could very likely have been waged due to the feeling that more masculinity was needed in American society, and the men needed to prove their toughness after years of getting soft. We still without a doubt see similar things today, with men mostly, wanting to appear tough, even when there is no need, although they may not be to the same scale as waging war on a foreign country.
    A strength of using this lens could be that we see possible reasoning for why an unlikely war had to occur. We could infer that these men wanted to appear tougher, and we would not have learned such without said lens. When we look through this lens of gender, it becomes clear in some ways how “masculine men” came to be. Gender can be an easy thing to leave out of the conversation when talking historic events because everyone who had the right to vote and who held power, was the same gender, so it seems like a detail that would be unimportant to address, but the lens helps us look back on it and see it. A very prominent weakness I see with the lens of gender could be overlooking the other reasons that someone may want to wage war on another country. If we get caught up in assuming that the Spanish American War was waged simply due to things like toxic masculinity, we could be overlooking the simple things such as greed that existed in the American government at the time.
    In the cartoon of the rough riders, the rough riders themselves are depicted as what seem to be heroic. The artist seems to accentuate the ideas of the manly american man by making them bigger than everyone else, showing strength. If we look at the bottom, there are men wearing nice clothes, but they are on the ground, fearing the giant men standing above them. The rough riders however are dressed in clothes that are not as nice, possibly showing how they are not coddled in their lives and they are living life in a rugged way. With the bigger men having other traits showing their masculinity, and striking fear into the men below, this cartoon seems to have taken a view on the situation that was pro masculinity, and pro imperialism as the act of taking the territory made them more manly as shown in the cartoon.
31. Sylvie Ball March 12, 2023 at 10:35 pm

    The interesting thing about the wars that we have studied is they all have drastically different views on why the war was caused and how it affected the trajectory of our nation and the opposing nation. I do agree with using a gender lens to microscopically dissect the Spanish American war. There were varying reasons for using this one of the biggest being the time period, how in the Americas our military was spreading mass advertisement using the ideals of the masculine man. If American men were not deciding to contribute to the war between the Spanish in some way they weren’t seen as men at all. I like that we have tried looking at different big events with different perspectives and acknowledging how gender may be able to play a role in almost every event. Using gender as the primary scope of this war though can also be good because of the job opportunities it provided for unemployed workers and women who just wanted to take time to serve their country and fight. Though most were only helping off the battlefield they still played a significant part in keeping our soldiers healthy so we could make an effort to win the war. 2. A strength in using this lens is being able to explore different aspects of history when usually all we see is what men do, I mean maybe 10% of history is actually thought of and written from the perspective of women do taking the time to acknowledge and appreciate what they do in wartime is a big step up but one that will have to come along with more change a s well. I think it’s always healthy to focus on marginalized groups but in doing that a fault could be paying too much attention to what one group did and shutting the other group out of the picture as a whole but another fault could also be not looking at the other causes and effects of the war in categories like economics and race. There were many subtopics of the war that had to do with both. 3. As for the cartoon of the woman, I feel like it’s putting women in the spotlight instead of in the background using something from a more traditional environment for a woman at the time. I think instead of using their enclosure as a way to constrain them they use the frying pan as a symbol of a woman’s duality, they can work in the house while fighting for their own freedoms. In regards to the second cartoon I feel like it’s taking the male perspective of how they traditionally need to lead the charge. How gunslingers and cowboys and rough riders were all real and bigger men as shown in them tramplin over their enemies. And how being like this was more masculine and in turn would win them the war.
32. Noel Borgquist March 12, 2023 at 10:39 pm

    In terms of historical lenses, there can be many different approaches that can be taken in order to digest the context, events, and consequences, of certain historical events in different ways. This is most frequently seen in a racial lens, that analyses the ways that racial or ethnic groups are affected by institutions and policies, as seen in the APUSH coverage of the Reconstruction Era. When it comes to the gendered interpretation of the causes of the Spanish-American War, I think that this historical lens can hold a lot of merit. As was mentioned, it was a time of numerous social and political reforms, that led to the push for equal grounds between man and woman. And when you take that fact in to context, I think that the idea that the Spanish-American War was a crisis of American Masculinity is very compelling. At the time, a major war had not been fought within the generation, likely leaving many yearning for their own wartime stories and potential heroism, which was fueled by the glorified stories of the civil war from this generations parents and grandparents. The more I think about the idea of masculinity and wars, It brings me back to the topic of recent years, where many believe that since men do not line up at the recruitment offices nowadays, they have as a whole become soft. Overall, I think that it reflects back on this silly notion that to be a true “man” you have to be ready and willing to go and die in a war, and that if not, you’ll never be able to truly be a “man”. I think that this modern example reflects back on the period of relative American Military inaction, in which many felt their traditional view of a “man” being distorted, and needing for something to draw them back in to their mojo.

    A strength of this lens is that, like all other unique historical lenses, it can give us a unique view into the ways that certain cultural, and social ideals interacted with the general public and led certain events to happen. The notion of masculinity was extremely significant in a time like the late 1800s. On the contrast, I think that it can have a weakness of oversimplifying events. When we point the finger at one specific cause or reason for an event occurring, it can make our interpretation one dimensional, and non complex. In reality, historical events have hundreds of variables that influenced the actions of people, places, and nations to do what they did, and to simply say that the cause was, “Silly man do silly thing”, can oversimplify the event. While yes, I do think that masculinity could have had a very significant influence on the events, there is more than just one cause for complex historical events.

    The cartoon of the Cuban Woman in the frying pan depicts the masculine notion of saving the damsel in distress from her perils. In this cartoon, the Woman is a Cuban version of Lady Liberty, who is being put in danger by the hand of Spanish misrule, and is fueled by Anarchy. First, the Depiction of a Cuban Lady Liberty seeks to set up an allusion to Lady Liberty herself, and the idea of American-modeled democracy. Furthermore, one can view the disconnected hand (that of Spain) to be a callback to European Empires, that threaten the Latin American Democracies that the US wants to uphold. Next, the flames of Anarchy being used as a heat source can be seen as Spain using the anger and violent tendencies of some to undermine Liberty, and the work of American-esque Democratic efforts. Additionally, the Cartoonist wrote “Spanish Misrule” on the pan, not so subtly implying that the actions of the Spanish Empire are working to directly undermine and even kill the Cuban spirit of Liberty. Through the phrase, “The duty of the hour – to save her not only from Spain but from a worse fate.” we can see the gendered lens of masculinity, and the obligation of America to save this woman from danger.
33. christian p March 12, 2023 at 11:06 pm

    Kristin Hoganson’s theory on the Spanish American War proposes that one of the causes of the conflict was the crisis of upper and middle-class white masculinity. This gendered perspective suggests that traditional notions of manhood were threatened by industrial America, the Depression of 1893, and the emergence of the “New Woman” who challenged gender roles and sought political rights. In this context, the war became an opportunity for men to regain their sense of honor, courage, and masculinity.
    The traditional perspective on the war, which emphasizes economic gains, imperial ambitions, military strategy, and altruistic motives, disregards the cultural and societal elements that contributed to the conflict. By adopting a gendered approach to analyzing the Spanish American War, we can discern that it was a response to the perceived crisis of manhood in America during the early 1900s.
    Examining the causes of the war from a gendered perspective has advantages and disadvantages. On one hand, it can illuminate the cultural and societal elements that are frequently overlooked in traditional analyses, allowing us to understand the motivations of male soldiers and how gender impacted their viewpoints. On the other hand, it could oversimplify the complex economic, political, and diplomatic factors that contributed to the conflict and reinforce gender stereotypes, which might impede our understanding of the experiences of women and people of color during that time period.
    Examining the political cartoon of the Cuban woman in a frying pan through a gendered lens, I think it also highlights various gendered dynamics of the war. The cartoon portrays a helpless and objectified Cuban woman in a frying pan, surrounded by flames, representing the dangers of Spanish rule. The caption states that the United States had a moral obligation to protect the Cuban woman from harm, not just from Spain, but also from a worse fate.
    By interpreting women as passive and in need of male protection, the stereotype is reinforced, disregarding the Cuban women’s agency and resistance in their fight against Spanish colonialism. Additionally, the cartoon overlooks the gendered violence that accompanied the U.S. occupation of Cuba, which included the sexual assault and exploitation of Cuban women by U.S. soldiers.
    An examination of the Spanish American War from a gendered perspective can reveal significant cultural and social dynamics at play. However, it’s crucial to approach this analysis with a nuanced understanding of how gender, race, and power intersected during this historical period.
34. Arianna Shuboni-Ullmann March 12, 2023 at 11:11 pm

    I think that the patriarchy definitely held power over a man’s mental and physical state during this time period, as well as the present day. This is the reason that men are getting therapy at rates 50% lower than women. They are told that they must be strong and immovable, to be a protector and a provider. The patriarchy hurts everyone of all gender identities. The men of this time period definitely felt that, “peace” was impeding on their masculinity. Expansionists and yellow journalism grabbed a hold of this opening of weakness and used it to their advantage. I would not say that it was the reason that the Spanish War was caused, but definitely a driving factor for the emotions felt by the men making these decisions. But women shouldn’t hold power because they would let their emotions get the best of them.
    A Strength of using this lens would definitely have been to unite the American male population (at the time the only people able to declare/go to war or serve). The men who would be feeling emasculated by not serving in a war were now old enough to serve, as well as have their political views manipulated by the papers and imperialists while voting. The weakness of this idea is definitely having these young men who had only heard romanticized narratives of the civil war think that war would be all puppies and rainbows. Instead, it was more malaria and trench foot. Though the casualties were few, many people died of disease, more than died fighting in the war.
    Strong! Masculine! America! The rough riders didn’t really have any reason to go to war/conquest but a blurred sense of honor. On this road to conquest, we can see smaller people under them, infantilized because of the drastic power difference. America was still a global superpower even before imperialism, and is definitely one of the reasons imperialism worked. This gave Teddy Roosevelt an unlevel playing field while he went to war. I would say that my interpretation is anti-imperialism, because why would you want to be stepping on a little guy and scaring them? You can see them running in fear, and the person behind Teddy hitting them with the butt of his rifle. This gives negative connotations to their movement across the image. Though this is my viewpoint, it could also be interpreted as pro-imperialism, because the people underneath Teddy are Spaniards, who were viewed negatively by Americans during this time period. Americans viewing this cartoon may see it as good, because Teddy is dominating the Spanish and taking land for America! Huzzah!
35. Will Dabish March 12, 2023 at 11:14 pm

    1. This lens definitely ties a lot of reasons for war together, and it all makes sense. The Progressive movement was just starting, and the “New Woman” came with it, so men in both politics and the home were having their roles threatened. This war was a point to support emasculated men who felt their high place in society was being challenged. It also connects the political ideologies of the time, with “American manhood” coming up in Congress. Viewing the war from this lens just shows emasculated men being mad that their role was being fairly challenged, which makes a ton of sense for the time period (to me, at least).

    2. 1 HUGE strength of this lens is how it explains the mentality of Congressmen of the time. All the ideals of “manhood” and “American masculinity” that were popping up at the time are easily explained by viewing the men as just wanting to be seen as “manly” and “true men”. Those ideals are easily tied to the war via this lens. 1 major weakness is disregarding most other possible reasons, or chalking them up to “angry men want war”. There are the ideals of the “white savior” wanting to help Cubans become more “civilized”, and there’s the possibility of using Cuba as a strategic position to expand further into the Central American region. Both of those explanations make a lot of sense, and tie to the rampant imperialism that many Americans were supporting at the time.

    3. The upper comic portrays Cuba as this helpless woman, being tossed around due to Spanish misrule. The woman symbolizes that Cuba is helpless and innocent, and is just being tossed around by the more powerful Spain for no real reason. The woman is being portrayed as weak, and true Manly Men would have to go and save her. This obviously pushes the “men strong, women weak” agenda that was huge at the time. The comic also shows the woman looking down at her country, witnessing the anarchy but not being able to help. This illustrates women’s place in society of the time – being in the home, affected by the politics happening in the country, but not being able to support her cause or make any change for herself. This also helps support why the men need to help Cuba – Cuba can’t make any change for itself. It’s stuck in a spectating position, where it can’t make any change even if its society is dipping into chaos.
36. Spencer George March 12, 2023 at 11:32 pm

    The use of a gendered lens to look at the civil war can be completely beneficial when used in the right context. I think that it is incredibly true that the manly-hood of the men of the time period was at stake if there was no war to go off and fight. I do believe that the fire at the start of the Spanish-American war was truly fueled by all of the men who genetically felt that it was time to go and fight in a war and die valiantly in battle. When looking at the facts of wars lining up with generations, throughout the time period of the founding of America to now, nearly every generation has had its own war. The men from the revolutionary war fueled the men of the war of 1812, whose stories fueled the civil war, and so on and so forth. Gender roles are also not easy to overlook in this situation, with the ideals of a traditional man going to war and a traditional woman staying at home with the kids being so heavily reinforced across the country at this time. With all these types of factors beating down on the men of this generation, it’s truly very hard to blame them for believing that their calling is on the battlefield and not in the job market. The strength of using this lens is to be able to look at history from a different perspective than it is normally told. Most people are aware of the fact that most histories were written by men. So in the logic that forces the reader to see history through a different gendered lens, you can see history in a completely different way because you’re seeing history through a different lens than it was written through. I believe that the downside to this lens is a very broad generalization happens. The cartoon of the rough riders is very typical of the style of this time period. Most cartoons around then had the message they were trying to get across the fairly dead center on it. You can tell from this poster that they want to reinforce the message of good Americans and valiant war efforts in the minds of young men. The poster does look very cool and I can easily imagine being able to view myself on that poster looking cool and dying for my country if I was alive back then.
37. Sebastian March 12, 2023 at 11:39 pm

    1. I do agree with the interpretation of the causes of the Spanish American war because there were many pieces of evidence used in the article like the men wanting to be more manly. Although I agree that gender did have a cause in the war, I think that the other factors are more driving for example like the men wanting another war like the civil war to fight in. Women pushing the men to be more manly is something I could see happening back then because like the article said, men were becoming more lazy and depressed from the industrialization of the late 1800s and women would be strongly against this. As we all know, men did not care for women in politics but they did care about pleasing them and impressing them because this would lead to more praise from women. This is why I think these causes of the war are true.
    2. A strength of this lens is that we can get another factor that points to the spanish american war. In a broader sense it can show how being more or less manly can affect men’s choices. Another strength is that it shines light on women’s part in history. Although in this case it is only being connected by how women affected the mens choices through the war. A weakness with using this lens could be that some of it could be far fetched and not relevant I feel. In this case I agree with using the lens because of my answer in question 1 but in other cases of history I think that using this lens would not apply and it would get away from the real history if that makes sense. Perhaps in events earlier in america’s history when no one thought about masculinity and women were not there to bring it up.
    3. I will interpret the one with the rough riders. This cartoon greatly connects to masculinity. It appeals to manly ideals by showing a man with a gun taking over and conquering the cubans. This is shown with him stepping on them. Another manly aspect is that he is holding the American flag. Holding the flag shows patriotism which is very appealing to men. The whole cartoon gives off the true greatness of being a proud, strong and brave American soldier. This was probably used to sway more american men to want to fight and start the war because they wanted a taste of it.
38. Zackary Norwood March 12, 2023 at 11:49 pm

    1. In a way yes, I do agree with the gendered interpretation of the war. In the time period, women were beginning to be able to do roles that were previously seen as a mans job and as such men needed to look for another thing that is masculine and that women would not be able to do… go to war. And like the article said, men were beginning to “lose” their dignity in a way. There was a increase of dishonorful men, drunks, unemployed, people who had strayed from hard work and turned into corrupt businessmen, etc. There was a viewpoint at the time as well that men had strayed from the honor and self esteem, and hard work that had made them men in the first place, and as such it was probably a motivator in some aspect that war would aid in repairing this. Even today since the world wars and Vietnam, we do see some influencers coming out of the woodwork, like that of the controversial Andrew Tate that are advocating that men have become weak since that time. It’s the exact same thing we had seen a hundred years ago only modernized.
    2. The strength of the lens ultimately is that it provides a second theory as to what happened in our history. It’s very valuable to have a second insight as to what may have happened or even a second interpretation of the same evidence provided. As for the theory itself however, I think there is a possibility is to some degree correct as even today we see similarities between what the article says and what’s happening now in present day and to see a noticeable pattern in history is a indicator that there has to be a reason behind it. The only thing I would say the article overlooks however, is that there were unquestionable alternate reasons for the war such as manifest destiny, revenge, rewards, humanitarian aid, etc.
    3. I would say the quote itself villainizes Spain and essentially says that what Spain is doing to Cuba is bad, and it requires American intervention in the hour. The frying pan represents Spain, fueled by the anarchy it causes in Cuba, as it is held over the fire of anarchy. And the woman within it, holding a Cuban flag, is a “helpless” woman who needs saving, perhaps nodding towards a possible hind of the theory that men thought Cuba needed a mans intervention.
39. Ray Glory-Ejoyokah March 13, 2023 at 1:01 am

    No, I don’t believe this gendered interpretation of the causes of the Spanish American War. This excuse for the cause of the Spanish-American war is simply just a masculine pride excuse to cover up the truth behind its roots in Imperialist motives. Teddy Roosevelt, the main leader behind the Rough Riders, a group that was so behind the idea of fighting in the Spanish-American war for the sake of Valor and Glory was a big supporter of Imperialism. He even stated that he had a taste for ethnic contests,[4] and he believed these were necessary so that the civilized nations should establish themselves over the barbaric nations. He believed the great powers of the world had a twofold responsibility to suppress savagery and barbarism and to help those who are struggling toward civilization.
    The strength of using this lens is that it opens the interpreter of the Lens to new meanings that wouldn’t have been revealed without an understanding of the lens. The weakness is that it also limits the interpreter of full understanding of the thing being analyzed because it’s so fixed and 1 subject. It also can be misinterpreted depending on the area the thing being analyzed is from. It could be from a place that views women highly, which could greatly change the meaning of the article compared to one from a place where women are seen as lower-class citizens.
    The Image is depicting Cuba as a vulnerable, unprotected Woman. Under her is anarchy depicted as flames, cooking her, minimalizing her chances of survival. The woman looks lost, unhardened, and harmless. The frying pan is held by a strong white hand, resembling that American (white people) involvement is necessary for her survival. At the bottom of the cartoon, a quote says, “The duty of the hour-to save her not only from Spain- but from a worse fate”. With the addition of this quote, the artist of this cartoon Dalrymple emphasized, that the seeming “Spanish Misrule” was not only anarchy but also something that necessitated American involvement by including this quotation in the cartoon. Many Americans were undoubtedly influenced by this cartoon to support the war. During this time women were mainly seen as helpless, and not able to survive without the control or lead of a man; Depicting Cuba as a woman, and more one that’s small, helps feed into the idea of the country being weak and helpless. The Hand in control of the pot ( The United States), is large and masculine, which also contributes to the idea that a manly and large help is needed. It Contributes to the idea that the US is the manly, strong, impactful, and large country needed to save Cuba.
40. natehidalgo March 13, 2023 at 1:46 am

    Understanding how preconceived notions of masculinity and femininity impacted the political choices made during the Spanish-American War can be done effectively through the gender lens. Many of the men of that time believed that being a man meant serving your nation since they had grown up hearing tales of courageous Civil War heroes. Because of this, a significant portion of the male population felt weak and emasculated for not having participated in a war, and this feeling increased their desire for battle. It is difficult to prove a direct cause-and-effect relationship between these gendered beliefs and the start of hostilities, yet it is likely that the gender lens sheds light on the cultural and societal reasons that motivated certain people to advocate for war. The ability to better comprehend the motivations and mindset of those in that time period is one of the advantages of the gender lens. Without using this lens, it could be difficult to understand why so many individuals would desire to take part in an ultimately harmful and destructive fight. We may begin to understand the significance of gendered roles and expectations in that historical environment by looking at how cultural ideas of masculinity and femininity influenced their beliefs. Yet, it is crucial to acknowledge that other causes may have been more influential in the choice to go to war. Even Roosevelt, someone who we know really wanted to go to war because he wanted to feel manly, wanted to go to war for many other reasons as well. Things like naval bases, securing trade, and the explosion of the USS Maine also played a big role in determining whether to go to war. Putting it all on men wanting to be manly is a pretty massive oversimplification of the war. Although I think men wanting to go to war is a big reason we went to more, there were also many others. Given how most men at the time perceived women, it is clear that the cartoonist chose a woman to represent Cuba in order to highlight how helpless and vulnerable the country was under the harsh Spanish tyrannical rule and how near it came to a state of anarchy. The men felt like knights and thought they were saving a “damsel in distress”. The cartoon when examined through the gender lens shows that it was intended to evoke specific emotions in viewers, particularly men, including a desire for pride, glory, and heroism.
41. Gio Baldini March 13, 2023 at 8:58 am

    1. Overall, I agree with the gendered interpretation of the causes of the Spanish American War. This war was definitely influenced by the recent emotions and actions of males and females. If many males didn’t feel the need to go to war to basically prove their masculinity and strength and women didn’t begin to gain more and more power in their spheres of influence, things would have gone much differently. But, I think this isn’t the only reason for the start of this war. Many Americans believed in “Manifest Destiny” back then, which drove the imperialistic ideals that many Americans had, which, from trying to protect land that could be claimed, ended them up in a war. Without the concept of Manifest Destiny, we likely would have never ended up getting involved in Central America.
    2. A strength of having a gendered lens is seeing an approach that most do not explore in American History. Before recent times, it wasn’t even a concept, but even now, people still do not research through this lens often. When using it, you get to really see one of the main reasons things have been started and created in American History. Knowing this perspective is really important so we know what has happened in history exactly. But, it also has its weaknesses. One weakness is that you can easily get through history with this lens while missing a lot of crucial stuff. The gendered lens might be too focused on gender issues, which would result in the clouding of other information. While it’s important to have a look at history with a gendered interpretation, it can’t be the only way you look at history.
    3. When analyzing the cartoon “The Rough Riders” through a gender lens, I noticed several things. First of all, it shows the idea that American men are big and strong, and can just trample all over the Spaniards. This definitely goes in tandem with the idea that men need to be manly and fight in the war. That likely is what the cartoon is trying to do anyways, which is motivating American men to join in the war because we are all big and strong. Analyzing the cartoon with a gender lens also makes me think that, since American men are trying to be as macho as possible, their ego is probably being inflated. This is likely why the men are shown as stampeding on the Spaniards as if the war was easy to work and that there needs to be no effort for the soldiers of America.
42. AJ March 13, 2023 at 1:58 pm

    I believe the interpretation of using gender as a cause for the Spanish-American war doesn’t capture the entire picture. I think it’s a good reason, but not a main cause, more of a minor cause. If you use gender as the main reason, you’re skipping over our want to imperialize. We basically colonized the Philippines and Cuba, using their resources they had. These resources were used to strengthen ourselves, like our economy. The only strong point to a gender cause is that the men of age wanted to be like the civil war soldiers. They wanted their war for their generation. The biggest weakness is using that strength and saying it was the main cause for the war. Another point the gender cause makes is how men became “soft” and needed a war to have their manhood returned. Also, at the time, women were slowly gaining more rights and winning more protests. To men, this seemed like a weakness, as women were becoming more equal to them. The Rough riders cartoon by Puck illustrates the power that the US had at the time. The cartoon displays large Americans trampling over the Spanish soldiers as they run away. I believe Puck was trying to show how badly we were defeating the Spanish in war. The Americans are much larger than the tiny Spanish troops, comparing it to our armies, as we had a much grander army. When using the gender lens, both Americans look like they aren’t in the army, instead they look like normal western citizens. I think that ties back into there generation wanting to find manhood by fighting a war.
43. Teddy Abbot March 13, 2023 at 3:16 pm

    Yes, I do agree with the gender interpretation of the causes of the Spanish American War. The war had a big impact on ideas of what it meant to be a man in both the United States and Spain. In the United States, the war showed a chance for young men to display their bravery and patriotism, this led many to enlist in the military, especially white, middle-class men who saw military service as a way of showcasing their masculinity and dominance over people of color, who were frequently depicted as weak and inferior. Similarly, in Spain, the war was viewed as an opportunity for men to demonstrate their courage and defend their country’s honor. Women also played key roles both at home and in the battlefields. Some women even went to Cuba and the Philippines as nurses and aid workers. Women also worked as journalists to document the war, influencing public opinion. However, despite their contributions, women’s voices were often excluded from the public discussion surrounding the war. The rhetoric of the time often portrayed women as passive and fragile, in need of protection and guidance from men. The strength of using this lens is showing how important genders were viewed as at the time of the war. We see this with all the cartoons during the war making it seem like a bad thing to not want to go to war and portraying those people as weak women. These gender views also hurt women movements, with part of the resolution being “New Women” defanged. I believe the woman in the frying pan represents the people of Cuba who were suffering from Spanish rule. The caption of the picture points towards the idea that the Spanish were committing atrocities in Cuba and using the country’s people for their own benefit and pleasure. The woman being cooked represents the violence and suffering inflicted on the people of Cuba from the Spanish. This picture was pro imperialism because it is trying to say the people of Cuba need the U.S to come save them from the terrible things the Spanish are doing to them. The caption, “The duty of the hour – to save her not only from Spain but from a worse fate,” also points towards the idea that the United States has a responsibility to intervene in Cuba’s affairs in order to prevent the Cuban people from going through even greater atrocities or falling into the hands of another imperial power.
44. Avery Betts March 13, 2023 at 4:28 pm

    1: I agree with the idea that gender and masculinity served a role as a major cause of the Spanish American War, and at the very least it played a huge part in garnering support for the war. It added a much more personal aspect to the war that a great majority of men in that period could relate to more than just political reasons or helping out a country that had nothing to do with them personally. It gave an additional cause to fight for which boosted the war effort and got everybody excited. From what I’ve read so far, it seems like the men of America (especially Teddy Roosevelt) were just itching for some kind of conflict, and paired with all the other reasons they had that would justify the war, Cuba seemed like the perfect opportunity to show their honor and courage. While the causes that are generally accepted are valid and seem much more mature than showing off America’s masculinity, it was definitely an underlying theme that drove many people to support war.
    2: One strength of looking at things through a gendered lens is kind of a given, but it provides another entirely different perspective on something that helps put together a bigger picture. One lens really isn’t enough to tell the whole story without at least considering other possibilities. It builds your perspective and gives a better understanding of motives and the time period and can lead to new conclusions about what was once believed to be true. On the other hand, one weakness of a gendered lens is that it, more than most other lens’s, presents a lot of bias and tends to oversimplify the issue. By saying that the Spanish American War was caused by fragile masculinity, it undermines all other causes because now they’re just a cover-up for selfish and kind of immature reasons. Plus, it paints men as a whole in an overwhelmingly bad light. No matter where you look, you could say that a man did such-and-such for a reason that hurts or objectifies women by only looking at things through a gendered lens.
    3: This cartoon features a Cuban woman (shown by a Cuban flag and the word Cuba on a piece of fabric) in a frying pan titled “Spanish Misrule” above the flames of anarchy, set above two armies, one labeled Insurgents (rebels) and the other Autonomists (self government advocates). To me, this is showing the target audience that the Spanish are simultaneously keeping Cuba from the dangers of anarchy, just above the chaos, but also slowly cooking Cuba alive with its harmful misrule. This is telling the men of America that Cuba is pretty much a poor, helpless woman that needs to be saved not only from its oppressors, but from the dangers of leaving it to itself. It gives another opportunity to be masculine and save the damsel in distress, and also shows an argument for imperialism, saving Cuba from anarchy and Spain.
45. Sanuthi W March 13, 2023 at 5:37 pm

    1. There were many other important factors that influenced the decision to go to war, but I agree with the gendered interpretation of the war. The idea of needing to be a tough, masculine man played a crucial part in the Spanish American War since many of them needed to find a way to defend their masculinity due to the New Women era and to inspire them to fight in the war. Many of the men during this time were not alive yet or not old enough to fight in the Civil War so since most of the other generations took part in a war, they felt the need to fight in one. At the same time, women pushed for more rights and equality, but men saw this as making them less masculine since women could do things that were generally considered to be for only men. Many men at this time were extremely insecure about their manhood which caused bad mental health and many of them to be depressed seeing as going to war had typically been framed to be the honorable, tough, and heroic thing to do. Joining and supporting this war helped them regain their masculinity.
    2. Having a gendered lens is a strength and can help see an approach that most do not explore. When using it, you can really see one of the main reasons things have been started and created in American History. Knowing this perspective is really important so we know what has happened in history exactly. It also gives a better insight but it still has a weakness. You can easily get through history with this lens but you can also lose a lot of crucial information that’s in there and misinterpret it.
    3. Analyzing “The Rough Riders” through a gender lens showed a lot of things. The first thing I noticed was the American men were perceived to be bigger than the Spaniards and they trampled them. I believe this goes hand in hand with the idea that men needed to be manly and needed to fight in the war. I also noticed the stereotypes of the Spaniards and their hats which made them “look like” Spaniards. I believed this was used as a tactic to the American men in the picture are trying to influence other men to join the army and fight in the war by making them bigger and seeming “tough”.
46. Titus Smith March 13, 2023 at 7:28 pm

    I fully agree with the gendered interpretation of the causes of the Spanish American War. In the En-Gendering the Spanish American War article, it says “It is a congress of men that declared it.” This depicts how men of the time declared war simply to prove their manliness. One of the main reasons for imperialism as a whole was that we “were strong enough to win a war and annex a country so we should do it”. By going to war, it proved that American men are tough and still superior to the American women. People of the time commonly said this about Roosevelt, “War gave him a legendary, career-launching victory and the manly glory he had pursued since childhood.” Men of the time looked up to him because he was a success who accomplished many of his goals and he served as a role model. If war gave him glory, courage and honor then men felt that to be just like Roosevelt meant that they were real men. This glorification of war and war heroes created a sphere of “manliness” that led to the Spanish American war and further imperialism.
    a strength of using this lens is that it gives a new explanation for the cause of this war. Throughout history, regardless of the time or culture historians have searched for explanations for all types of seemingly random or nonsensical decisions made by people of the past and every new generation brings new ideas, answers, and interpretations of events. For example, in the modern-day world, there is a growing feminist movement, this movement has caused historians to look through history and insert feminist ideals into it, which is probably how this article was conceived. However, that is also a great weakness of this lens. If this person had grown up in a different time period, or as a different gender, there is a high chance that they would have a different viewpoint of this war, which leaves this interpretation very biased.
    The Cuban woman depicted in the frying pan can be interpreted in various ways when viewed through a gendered lens. Initially, the image may symbolize how women have historically been objectified and treated as conquests to be dominated. Even today, women are often seen as objects for male pleasure and control, and the woman in the cartoon is a visual representation of this notion. The caption “The duty of the hour – to save her not only from Spain but from a worse fate” reflects the “White Man’s Burden” philosophy, which perpetuates the belief that white men are ordained by God as the superior race and gender, and thus have a duty to spread their values and way of life to those who are deemed inferior. The cartoon implies that American men have a responsibility to rescue and protect Cuban women and people because they are incapable of taking care of themselves. In summary, the cartoon supports the idea that upper- and middle-class white masculinity is in crisis by depicting war as an opportunity to revive traditional masculine characteristics. The depiction of women as objects and the promotion of the “White Man’s Burden” philosophy further reinforce the idea that women and non-white individuals are inferior and in need of male protection and guidance.
47. Sofia Marx March 13, 2023 at 8:23 pm

    I definitely agree with the gendered interpretation of the causes of the Spanish American War. There are many reasons why I agree, but I’ll start with the documented evidence of this interpretation. As the article mentions, there is an abundance of evidence supporting the interpretation. Some examples include a variety of political cartoons portraying pro-war men as extremely masculine. Other cartoons include the portrayal of other countries as feminine women who need to be rescued. Additional cartoons include anti-war men being portrayed as women to insinuate that the idea of not wanting war warranted anti-war individuals to be emasculated. The evidence from these cartoons alone supports certain gendered interpretations of the causes of the Spanish-American war because, in each of those cartoons, masculinity has positive connotations and femininity has negative ones. This combined with the fact that political cartoons at that time were made to convince people of a certain concept contributes to the abundance of evidence that supports this gendered lens. If these cartoons were made to persuade people, that means the concept of the importance of masculinity was a relatively widespread concept. There are also many different concepts that were verbally expressed by men during this time period suggesting that lack of masculinity was a crisis. The emerging idea that women should have rights and shouldn’t have to adhere as strictly to social norms caused many men to feel threatened. The idea that women were taking over their “manly” roles made them shake in their boots.

    A strength of this lens is the utilization of a new perspective. Looking at the Spanish American War from a gendered lens provides a perspective that wouldn’t have otherwise been acknowledged. Because historians analyze foreign policy through the lenses of diplomacy, commerce, imperial ambition, national mission, and national security, aspects regarding the identities of the individuals involved are often disregarded. The usage of this new perspective opens a door to a realm of other potential lenses. It causes historians to think outside the box when they examine why certain historical events occurred. Thinking outside the box in regards to the occurrence of specific historical events is important for the same reason learning that history in the first place is important. It plays an essential role in ensuring that negative history doesn’t repeat itself. At the end of the day, it’s extremely difficult if not impossible to prevent bad history from repeating itself if we undermine the true causes of historical events. Using a gendered lens to analyze this war helps to increase the list of the war’s causes. The larger that list is, the easier it is to ensure that we don’t go back in time in regard to political action. A weakness of using a gendered lens to view the causes of the Spanish American War seems to align with a weakness that could stem from any lens. There’s a risk of overemphasis on certain war causes. For example, when particular political cartoons are analyzed, the gendered aspects of the cartoon are mentioned, but those same cartoons could have a larger message being portrayed that could fall under a different lens, so mentioning the gendered details of the cartoon may not tell the story. Again, this is really a weakness that can be found in any lens used to analyze a particular event or its causes.

    I’ll start with my observations. I see a giant hand (white) holding a frying pan. This frying pan has “SPANISH MISRULE” written on it and a woman inside of the pan. This woman is wearing a cape-like thing that says “CUBA,” and she’s also holding the flag of Cuba. All of this is above a small island-like section of land. This land is on fire, and the flames read “ANARCHY”. Moving onto a gendered analysis, Cuba is represented as a woman. This woman has long hair and a dress on, both of which are considered to be feminine characteristics. Because the land below her is on fire and she is inside of a frying pan, if she weren’t being lifted up, she would’ve essentially burnt to death, insinuating that the hand is saving her from certain death. The hand as I mentioned earlier is notably large, representing the power and strength associated with masculinity. The overall idea of the cartoon is that Cuba is a fragile woman who needs to be rescued and protected by big strong men. This specific cartoon does a good job of illustrating how gender can be utilized directly and indirectly. For example, it directly calls out men to fight in the war to help support Cuba, and to provide proof of one’s masculinity. As for the indirect impact, instead of viewing the cartoon as a call out to individuals, the concept of gender can be manipulated to simply get a specific point across. This cartoon didn’t illustrate specific people such as President McKinley, rather the people/body parts were representative of a deeper meaning/idea. This way, it applied to people who wanted to prove America’s “masculinity” so to speak.
48. Jenna Rivera March 13, 2023 at 9:03 pm

    I do agree that gender played a key role in the causes of the Spanish-American war. As referenced in the article gender was a common argument used to sway people, mostly men, to be pro-imperialist and for the war. This was clearly seen in the portal of men in popular cartoons especially thoughts seen in William Randolph Heart’s New York Journal. In many of these political cartoons, men for the war were portrayed as very masculine and superior. They might have been drawing a taller bulker to show their power and manliness over the inferior men that was against the war. These men were portrayed as anything but, most of them were dressed as women to show how they were cowardly, helpless, and weak like a woman (which is totally sexist btw, but I’m sure you knew that). And this crude way of persuasion was effective for some. Some men didn’t like the idea of seeing their masculinity, which in their eyes was their whole identity, stripped away because they didn’t support America’s fight, especially seeing as most of the figures many looked up to during this time had served in wars or been a leader through one, such as the great George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. And so because of this it probably leads to a good margin of men switching to fully supporting the war, either because they truly believed that they would be less masculine or because they feared others might view them as such. Greater support for the war would then lead… to the Spanish American War.

    One strength of using gender as a lens through which we can view history is it can reveal the ways in which content has been changed, shaped, and biased toward men’s and women’s experiences. This then leads to a possible better understanding of this historical context by showing how in many cases decisions were made in order to protect some man’s fragile masculinity and keep the image that they were in fact a “true man”. However, on the other hand, a major weakness of using this lens is using it in the wrong fashion. What I mean by this is it can be tempting and is often common to group a gender into one characteristic. For example that could be saying all men are war hungry and all women are fragile/weak. These statements are true for some but quite the opposite for others. So when using the gender lens one must make sure they don’t stereotype.

    In the cartoon above of the Cuban woman, you can use the gender role to interpret that this woman is being tossed in a pan due to Spanish misrule. She seems to be wearing some sort of shall or cape-like thing that reads Cuba on it, but it is ripped portraying the woman as weak and helpless. She is also seen wearing a white dress that makes her look innocent as well as her size in comparison to everything else in the cartoon-like pan also gives the illusion of innocence/insignificance. The woman is seen looking down at her country burning down in anarchy unable to do anything. All of this taken into consideration leaves the possible message that Cuba is a fragile woman that gets easily mistreated by the bigger manlier Spanish rule.
49. Ally O'Brien March 13, 2023 at 9:18 pm

    I do not agree with seeing the war through a gender-interpreted lens because the causes that led to the Spanish-American war were not based on gender. The factors that more greatly led to the war were listed earlier in the article, such as Manifest Destiny, commercial rewards of the empire, naval bases, and the revenge of the USS Maine. These reasons for war were a far greater reason that we went into war than the difference between the crisis of upper and middle-class white manhood. Although the crisis of upper and middle-class white manhood was prominent and the choices made by many successful men at the time were poor does not mean that their poor decisions in the industrial revolution led to war. A strength of using this lens was that the many poor choices made in the economy were by men at this time, as well as the government is completely controlled by men, a woman or someone who has something against upper/middle-class white men would find this as logical thinking. This is also a way to praise the women’s reform movements at the time and their push for voting and equal rights, women’s large strides at this time should not be ignored. A weakness of this lens is that this is a poor, weak reason that the United States would go to war with not a lot to back it up. A lot of poor decisions were made in the government by upper/middle-class men but it is not blamed on their behaviors or attitudes because it is not a strong reason. This is also just not that easy, so many reasons went into the final event of the war, and the crisis of upper/middle-class men is just too simple to lead to an entire war. In the cartoon of the woman in the frying pan we see a woman who happens to be Cuban in a frying pan that reads across the front, “Spanish Misrule”, the pan is flying over a burning fire with the words in it “Anarchy”. The woman looks frightened as the flames threaten her life. The frying pan is being held by a white hand. To put all of this together, the white hand is there because it is necessary for intervention to in some way “save this woman’s life” because her life ruled by Cubans and in Cuba is “in flames” or in other words terrible. This is an example of the American belief that we are in a way “saving Cubans” by taking over their country. Through a gender-interpreted lens, it could be led to believe that the woman is not strong enough to fight off the fire on her own and she needs a man’s help to do it. This is the outdated stereotype that women need men’s help because they cannot provide for themselves on their own.
50. Ryan Cifolelli March 13, 2023 at 9:48 pm

    I do agree with this gendered interpretation of the Spanish American war. I agree with it because naby men at the time were trying to reassert themselves in society after the rise of many women’s movements to make both genders equal. The men felt like they were losing their manliness after they were the first generation in American history to not fight in a war. Many men believed that they were losing their touch on society and that their generation had gotten soft. I agree with this interpretation of the Spanish American war because it gave men a lot of reason to fight so that they could reassert themselves in society. I agree with this gendered lens of the Spanish American war because I feel like it led many men to want to fight in order to gain honor back after they had not yet gotten to fight in any wars. I agree with this gendered interpretation because it explains why so many men wanted to fight because deep down they felt like they were becoming soft and that their generation was being left behind. One strength of using the gender lens is that it allows you to pick apart certain reasons for why one gender does one thing. Using the gender lens is good because it allows you to see reasons for why one gender wanted a certain law passed or wanted someone in office. Using the lens is helpful because it allows you to see what motivates the genders to want to support one thing that helps them over another that might help the other gender. One weakness of using the gender lens is that I feel like sometimes it can give false motives for why one gender might do something. In my opinion, one problem with the gender lens is that it can show you motives for why one gender does something even though there i s nothing there. For example, a bunch of men want to pass laws for something and you use the gender lens to see that they all want something passed for their genders gain even though they just might support the law and it had nothing to do with gender. Picking apart the rough riders cartoon using the gender lens I can see how men are trying to win back honor in the war because their generation has never fought in a war before. I can see how the men are trying to look tough and gain back honor for themselves as they are running straight into battle with the American flag. You can use gender in this cartoon to explain why they are going straight into battle. Using the gender lens you can see what motivated the men like honor to run straight into battle against the spanish. In this situation, you can use the gender lens to interpret why they are fighting and you can interpret how they want things to change in society after the war is over.