THIS 1951 promotional film for the British Royal Air Force shows a few women in Air Force desk jobs, but makes no effort to display them as pilots or combatants. And that’s, of course, because there were no women as pilots or combatants, but more importantly there was no shame that there were no women as pilots or combatants.

The entire thing is an unabashed display of masculine confidence, strength and technical prowess. “Diversity” destroys all that. It’s a cancer that eats away at the entire ethic of national defense.

Even so, the drive to masculinize women was already well underway in 1951. Here’s Queen Elizabeth in 1944 dressed as a man.

— Comments —

Lise writes:

I think you are mistaken in suggesting that the future Queen Elizabeth’s wearing of trousers was part of an intentional – or unintentional – societal drive to masculinize women, and part of a larger cultural revolution, as Dr Horvath’s site suggests.

Certainly enlisting the future Queen into wartime service positions, and showing her in uniform, was part of a propaganda effort, but it was a specifically wartime propaganda effort, because women, particularly in hard-pressed Britain, were desperately needed to take over jobs like driving ambulances and public transportation vehicles, handling heavy farming chores, rescuing people from bombed buildings, and other duties. Britain needed to encourage women to sign up for unfeminine services, as well as more feminine ones, and the likeliest way to persuade young women that they could do so without “unsexing” themselves, was to make use of that very feminine authority figure, Princess Elizabeth. Consider, too, that dresses and/or skirts, with the added problem of stockings, garters and the delicate shoes conventionally worn with them, would not only have been impractical for many of the essential chores, but would have been decidedly immodest. No woman who has to climb up ladders or crawl under porches can wear dresses without frequently “flashing” her companions.

If you want to blame any one 20th century event for the cultural revolution that it witnessed, I think the two catastrophic world wars bear most of the responsibility. They caused Western peoples to lose confidence in their civilization.

P.S. Trousers for women were not so unprecedented in European history before the modern age as many people think. From the days when trousers for men became common (they too had once worn long robes, after all) in the later Middle Ages, women also took to wearing them on particular occasion, e.g. when hunting, or for safety from predators when compelled to travel.

Laura writes:

Of course, the wars played a role. The wars were the product of a civilizational crisis, not the root cause of it.

It’s not a question of women simply wearing trousers. Queen Elizabeth is fully dressed as a man. She did not succeed in this picture in showing women it was not necessary to un-sex themselves.

Pete writes:

One is reminded that the gradual push of women toward greater military participation and eventual combat has been going on for a long time, perhaps since the Great War. Even from the now-distant vantage point of the 1930s, Winston Churchill foresaw this trend clearly, as indicated in the quote below, taken from a 1938 article which appeared in “Strand” magazine:

“We take the immunity of women from violence so much for granted that we do not perceive what inroads are being made upon it.  These inroads come from opposite quarters.  The first is the feminist movement, which claims equal rights for women, and in its course prides itself in stripping them of their privileges.  Secondly, the mad-rush of barbarism which is breaking out in so many parts of the world owns no principle but that of lethal force.  Thus we see both progressive and reactionary forces luring women nearer to danger, and exposing them to the retaliation of the enemy. . .”

“The part which our women played in winning the War was enshrined in the grant of them to vote which for so many years they had vainly sought to wrest from successive Governments by methods too often suggesting that they had not the civic sense to use the privilege rightly.  It was the War which solved that problem, as it solved so many others in our internal affairs. . .”

“On the other hand, even in the last war there were many things that women could do apart from killing which added to the fighting power of the army.  There were innumerable duties of all kinds behind the front which brought them ever nearer to the line and into danger.  We must expect that this will continue to develop in a war for the future.”

Churchill’s quote seems remarkably prescient in light of what followed in subsequent decades. He was not right about everything, but he was remarkably correct about many things – including the changes to come in the roles of women (Also, one might add, the threat posed to Western civilization by Islam – but that is a subject for another time).

Michael S. writes:

They don’t make ’em like they used to.

Lise writes:

Thank you for your response to my comment. What would you suggest as a means of feminizing the Princess’s masculine-looking uniform? Most of the alternatives that occur to me would either not be very practical, or not much more feminine-looking. More feminine trousers, like the wide-legged, loose-fitting “beach pajamas” and “palazzo pants” in soft fabrics that fashion-forward women had been wearing since the late 1920s, would hardly do for women in war-time jobs. You could not lighten or brighten the colors of the uniform without making it hard to keep looking clean. The one concession to feminine modesty that occurs to me would be to provide a shirt-jacket to be worn with the men’s trousers, to cover the hips. Even that, however, might not be practical for women who had to do mechanics’ work, etc., as it might gape at the waist when they bent over. Jackets or tunics worn with trousers might also be in danger of getting caught in machinery. Overalls, which the Princess appears to be wearing, were probably essential for many forms of women’s war-work.

I’m sorry to belabor this point but really cannot think of anything that would work! If you have any ideas, I would be interested to read of them.

Laura writes:

You’re not belaboring the point. You’re asking an important question.

I guess I gave the impression that I thought that if Elizabeth had worn pants in a more feminine way that would have been better. But that’s not what I meant.

A queen does not need to dress like a factory worker in order to inspire people. She can do that best by upholding the dignity of her office, which was part of what people were fighting for in the wars. They were fighting for the British monarchy. A monarch is never just a common person and does not promote the throne by acting like one. In fact, it is offensive to those who truly love a monarchy when it is demeaned in any way. I would bet more British patriots were depressed by this photo than elevated by it.

A queen should never appear in pants. Her power is inextricably connected to her femininity. Pants are anti-feminine. (I’ve worn pants plenty of times and still do. That doesn’t change my point.)

How could the queen have inspired women to work in war factories because it was necessary? She could have been pictured in a dress or skirt visiting women factory workers. That would have sent the message.

Tyro writes:

Elizabeth was not Queen in the photo. She was still the crown princess who, like many members of the royalty to this day, was participating in public military service. She is not “dressed like a man” in the photo as much as she was dressed like a mechanic, which was her job during WWII.

Laura writes:

Thank you for the correction regarding Elizabeth not yet being queen. I should have known that.

I replace the word “queen” in my comment above with “princess.”

She is indeed dressed like a man.

Please follow and like us: