The White Feather Campaign: A Struggle with Masculinity During World War I

A war veteran by the name of Backhaus told the BBC the stories of two of his friends and how the White Feather Campaign had been responsible for their deaths. Both of his friends had been given a white feather by patriotic young women to “encourage” them to join the military. The first had been Backhaus’ cousin who was too young to enlist in the military. But with the White Feather Brigade’s notorious inaccuracy in choosing their targets the young boy had been given the symbol of cowardice regardless of his ineligibility. He subsequently joined the army illegally, went off to war, and was blown apart during a battle. Backhaus’ other friend had been too old to fight even though he wanted to. When he was given his white feather and was unable to restore his honor by joining the army, he was driven mad by guilt. Backhaus placed the deaths of his friends firmly at the feet of the white feather womenxxi. Similar stories were heard all over England where friends and brothers were given a white feather and rushed off to war…only to die. The fault didn’t lie with the German who fired the bullet or planted the mine; it was the women who were to blame. Without their immoral recruitment campaign, many men of England would be alive and well. As the guilt and disgust at the campaign began to grow, the white feather women slowly became the enemy.

Aftermath and Effects of The Campaign

The White Feather Campaign caused havoc on both male and female gender identities in England. Neither of the genders managed to escape the war unscathed or unchanged. For the men, they had been brutally attacked by the women whom they sought to protect. The weaknesses and vulnerabilities that English masculinity had were exposed and exploited by women for the recruitment effort. A white feather left a mark on any man who received one, a shame that they couldn’t forget, regardless of how inaccurate such a judgment might be. Yet masculinity was almost strengthened by this unjust attack. After World War I the white feather was never again used as a recruitment tool in England. With the disgust raised at the campaign, men begin to realize that such a symbol of cowardice was not something that should hurt their feeling of masculinity. Men who stayed on the Home Front during the wars weren’t the scum of the Earth anymore. Perhaps they were not as brave, but they were never again treated with such disdain and disrespect. In today’s world the white feather would be completely ineffective, with all-volunteer armies being the standard for the West. Masculinity had evolved as a consequence of these tactics; men understood their duties and identities differently. The White Feather Campaign was instrumental in causing this transformation, not by doing good but rather by doing enough damage to make the old understanding of masculinity seem flawed. Femininity, on the other hand, seemed to change for the worse as a result of the actions of the White Feather Brigade.

Women were considered to be the perfect recruiters prior to the White Feather Campaign. Females’ effectiveness was the entire reason that the Campaign was ever considered as a tactic. Women could be patriots in this way and they could help the war effort through active recruiting. But the public reaction to the distribution of white feathers and women’s attitudes while doing it caused a serious rethinking of that role. Women weren’t supposed to take such joy in sending young Englishmen off to their potential deaths. Nor were they supposed to accost war veterans who had done their part and deserved to live unmolested. But both of these things happened in the public eye and this kind of involvement was no longer an act of patriotism. Never again would women be asked to take up this kind of shaming action, their job would be to support their men, never again to humiliate them. Females lost a part of their responsibilities in wartime because of this misstep.

They could support the war but women were never again active to the point that they were during the White Feather Campaign. It was no longer seen as a women’s role to force her man into battle or to scorn those who didn’t. The stigma that quickly grew to surround practices such as these is underscored by the actions of the white feather women as they grew older. BBC asked any women who had ever been part of the white feather movement to write in and to remark on their experiences and their motivations. Considering the vast number of men who were given white feathers or those who saw a white feather being given, the number of women who participated had to at least number in the thousands. But out of this request only two women wrote in to claim that they had given a white feather during World War I. Both letters admitted that the women felt shamed by their actions and would not repeat them if they had the chancexxii. This lack of response shows how much femininity has changed through the white feather campaign. What was once an encouraged, acceptable patriotic act became something so vile that even forty years later the women would not admit involvement.

Both gender roles underwent some changes as a result of the White Feather Campaign and the attack it waged on masculinity. Females may have been the aggressors in this situation, but by no means did they escape this manipulative recruitment tactic without damage.

Conclusion

Whenever a specific gender role is attacked, the entire gender system feels the ripples of this change. By using femininity to attack masculinity the British Recruitment officers were making a decision that would ultimately cause both of these gender identities to transform as a result. At first glance it seems as if only masculinity suffered the consequences of the White Feather Campaign, especially considering that they were the target and not the attackers.

Yet because of the blatant and public manipulation, the female identity was critiqued as well. Viewing the events in this light could raise the argument of which gender underwent the most drastic changes, but that is a question for another time. What is most important to understand is that the White Feather Campaign was not a one-sided transformation of gender identity. Both genders were wounded by this outright manipulation, and neither side came out of the war with the same standards that they had before. With such grave consequences that arose from the campaign, no English feminist organization ever dared to use the white feather in such a way again.

i.) Mason A.E.W., The Four Feathers (London, 1902).

ii.) Nicoletta Gullace, The Blood of Our Sons (Palgrave Macmillan, 2002): 74.

iii.) Daily Mail, "Women's War: White Feathers for 'Slackers'," August 31, 1914: 3.

iv.) Chatham News, "White Feathers' A Novel Method of Making Young Men Enlist," September 5, 1914: 8.

v.) Paul Ward, "'Women of Britain Say Go': Women's Patriotism in the First World War," Twentieth Century British History, 2001: 23-45.

vi.) Poirier Philip, Adams R.J., The Conscription Controversy in Great Britain, 1900-18 (UK: Ohio State Press, 1987): 6.

vii.) Savile Lumley (Poster 1915)

viii.) The Times, "A Fight to the Finish: Work of National Enlightenment," August 31, 1914: 4.

ix.) Nicoletta Gullace, "White Feathers and Wounded Men: Female Patriotism and the Memory of the Great War," The Journal of British Studies, April 1997: 185.

x.) Gullace, The Blood of Our Sons: 91.

xi.) Gullace, "White Feathers and Wounded Men”: 178.

xii.) Ministry of Defense - UK, www.mod.uk/defenceinternet (accessed April 20, 2009).

xiii.) Gullace, The Blood of Our Sons: 93.

xiv.) Gullace, The Blood of Our Sons: 91.

xv.) Bill Lawrence, interview by BBC, (May 1954).

xvi.) Lawrence.

xvii.) R.W. Farrow, Recollections of a Conscientious Objector Pg.290. (As Marked in Gullace’s The Blood of Our Sons)

xviii.) Gullace, The Blood of Our Sons: 84.

xix.) MacDonagh Michael, In London During the Great War (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1935).

xx.) Kernahan Coulson, The Experiences of a Recruitment Officer (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915): 69.

xxi.) Gullace, The Blood of Our Sons: 95.

xxii.) Gullace, The Blood of Our Sons: 76.

A.E.W., Mason. The Four Feathers. London, 1902.

Adams R.J., Poirier Philip. The Conscription Controversy in Great Britain, 1900-18. UK: Ohio State Press, 1987.

Chatham News. "White Feathers' A Novel Method of Making Young Men Enlist." September 5, 1914: 8.

Coulson, Kernahan. The Experiences of a Recruitment Officer. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915.

Daily Mail. "Women's War: White Feathers for 'Slackers'." August 31, 1914: 3.

Farrow, R.W. Recollections of a Conscientious Objector.

Gullace, Nicoletta. The Blood of Our Sons. Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.

Gullace, Nicoletta. "White Feathers and Wounded Men: Female Patriotism and the Memory of the Great War." The Journal of British Studies, April 1997: 178-206.

Lawrence, Bill, interview by BBC. (May 1954).

Michael, MacDonagh. In London During the Great War. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1935.

Ministry of Defense - UK. www.mod.uk/defenceinternet (accessed April 20, 2009).

The Times. "A Fight to the Finish: Work of National Enlightenment." August 31, 1914: 4.

Ward, Paul. "'Women of Britain Say Go': Women's Patriotism in the First World War." Twentieth Century British History, 2001: 23-45.