IN THIS World War II recruiting poster for the U.S. Marines, the soldier is unmistakably a woman. She is manly, with her tie and clipboard; she appears to be play-acting, dressed in a male costume, but there is a softness to her face and her hair is loose. Her mission is purely administrative and the dreamy look in her eyes suggests love for a Marine, not for war. Compare that to the recent recruiting poster below it. There the woman bears no trace of femininity; one cannot imagine her ever falling in love. She stands above men, in command, a ferocious female fighting machine. She is taut and angry, a human embodiment of artillery. Her outstretched arm resembles a gun and her mouth seems to spew invisible smoke.  The men look up to her in adoration.

                                                                                      — Comments —

Robin writes:

Wait…Is that Michelle Obama? 

Sorry. 

Seriously, why does the ad say there are no female Marines, only Marines, when the physical requirements for female recruits are totally different than those of the male recruits? Is this not a tremendous contradiction? 

How did this happen? Who are these fathers who would ever encourage their daughters to desire to fight, or place themselves in a possible combat situation? Are there special incentives for recruiters who recruit females? 

The most staggering thing about this photo is the way all of these men are enraptured by this female’s strength and fierce command. Our military is becoming a joke.

Jesse Powell writes:

What I find interesting about the two posters spaced 65 years apart (circa 1943 and 2008?) encouraging women to join the Marines is the very different status levels and roles the women are portrayed in. 

In the World War II era poster some masculine ideals are appealed to; the woman is “professional” and “serious” and she is actively helping the men “to fight” but she still retains a good portion of her femininity and is being protected from physical harm. You will notice, she is not fighting herself, she is writing stuff down on a clipboard, she is “freeing a Marine” to fight. 

The key point is, her role as a woman is to assist the man in his great crusade against evil. The man is the one who faces mortal danger and has to kill the enemy, not the woman. The woman’s role is to free the man from administrative work so that he can more directly confront and attack the enemy, thereby increasing the power of the Marine’s fighting force.

In the current poster seeking to attract women into the Marine Corp, the woman is portrayed in an entirely different role. The woman has no femininity at all, she is instead placed into an exaggeratedly aggressive pose, facing off a phantom enemy, intimidating him with her growl. The woman is placed above a huge sea of passive men whom she is supposedly “leading” and “inspiring”. She is meant not only to “lead” and “inspire” “Marines under her command” but “Americans everywhere.” I find that last part interesting. Her goal is not merely to boss the men subordinate to her in the Marine Corp, but to impress all of American society with her assertiveness, power, and leadership. 

The roles being played by the two women in the two eras, World War II and today, are totally different in nature, they are in fact polar opposites to each other. The relationship of the woman to the man is completely reversed and the relationship of the woman to the community she is a part of is completely reversed. Also, I will emphasize, in the World War II poster the woman is supporting “the mission.” She knows there’s a war on and she knows who the enemy is. Her job is to help defeat that enemy in a way that is appropriate to her sex. In the modern poster “the mission” if there is a mission is obscured and generalized. The woman’s “mission” is to “lead and inspire Marines (men) under her command”. That is fine but for what purpose? Is their an enemy to fight or is the “leading and inspiring” the goal in its own right? Also, the goal not only seems to be to be a part of the Marines, but to promote female leadership to “Americans everywhere”, as if the purpose of the woman joining the Marines is to reshape American society overall, the actual war fighting purpose of the Marines being an afterthought. 

Thomas F.Bertonneau writes:

Regarding the recruitment posters aimed at women from 1943 and 2010, Jesse Powell writes: “In the modern poster ‘the mission,’ if there is a mission, is obscured… The woman’s ‘mission’ is to ‘lead and inspire Marines (men) under her command.’ That is fine but for what purpose? Is their an enemy to fight or is the ‘leading and inspiring’ the goal in its own right?” 

With reference to another recent story – we should not fail to mention that most important part of contemporary lady-fighting-person behavior. I mean, of course, the supreme obligation to stay hydrated at all times. (They were appallingly ignorant of the hydration issue in 1943.)

Please follow and like us: