Antiwar Movement

Although every American war has had opponents within the country, the opposition has not usually implied a critique of the dominant definition of manhood. However, opposition to the Vietnam War during the 1960s and early 1970s frequently involved more than criticism of the nation's foreign policy. Occurring during a time of pervasive cultural turmoil, this antiwar movement both promoted and reflected a widespread redefinition of masculinity.

American society's stance on the Vietnam War varied. Some older men opposed the war, many younger ones supported it, and there were women on both sides of the issue. However, the domestic debate over the war may be seen in part as a dispute over the meaning of manhood between two generations of American males. On one side were the baby boomers (those born after World War II). Members of this generation were disillusioned by the actions of a country that their upbringing during the 1950s had taught them was above reproach. On the other side were the fathers of the baby boomers, who were often veterans of the less controversial World War II and Korean War.

Many young American men not only opposed the Vietnam War, but, as part of the “counterculture,” they also questioned the American ethic of material achievement, competition, and other values that their fathers treasured. Many in the older generation viewed American military action during World War II and the Korean War positively, as an unqualified good, and—like most Americans of the Cold War era––associated military toughness with aggressive manliness. They identified their material success and the period's rigid division of gender roles with an American way of life that they believed they and their government had successfully defended during times of economic depression and war. This generation often viewed their sons' dissent as outright ingratitude against themselves and the country—and as an indication that growing up in affluence had made their sons soft. Wearing short military haircuts, they criticized the long hair frequently worn by antiwar activists, associating it with femininity, and they portrayed antiwar protesters as effeminate cowards.

Many antiwar protesters, on the other hand, rejected the older generation's definition of masculinity. Confronting a public image that depicted them as cowardly, they portrayed resistance as a courageous and manly act and embraced a model of manhood emphasizing pacifism, commitment to social justice, and, in many cases, a more androgynous appearance. They also projected an image of sexual virility; among the most popular slogans of the draft resistance movement, for example, was “Girls Say Yes to Guys Who Say No!”

Not all antiwar protesters embraced the model of manhood constructed by white, college-educated opponents of the war. Draft deferments for college students left disproportionate numbers of working-class males, especially poor black men, among the ranks of infantrymen in Vietnam, providing ample reason for African-American men to question the war. But for black antiwar protesters, many of whom were simultaneously involved in the civil rights movement, the attempt to overcome racism made the educated white protesters' model of pacifism and androgyny less appealing than militant assertiveness. Additionally, many antiwar activists were veterans of the Vietnam War, and these individuals were often more focused on helping to end the war than on challenging definitions of manhood.

...