Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
The following passage is from the South African feminist writer Olive 
Schreiner, from her book Woman and Labour, 1911:



			BEARERS OF MEN'S BODIES



	"There is, perhaps, no *woman*, whether she have borne children, or
be merely a potential child-bearer, who could look down on a battlefield
covered with the slain, but the thought would rise in her, 'So many
mothers' sons! So many bodies brought into the world to lie there! So many
months of weariness and pain while bones and muscles were shaped
within;...so many baby mouths drawing life at woman's breasts; -- all this,
that men might lie with glazed eyeballs and swollen bodies, and fixed,
blue, unclosed mouths, and great limbs tossed -- this, that an acre of
ground might be manured with human flesh!'... 

	"In a besieged city, it might well happen that men in the streets
might seize upon statues and marble carvings from public buildings and
galleries and hurl them in to stop the breaches made in their ramparts by
the enemy...not valuing them more than if they had been paving stones. But
one man could not do this -- the sculptor! He, who, though there might be
no work of his own chisel among them, yet knew what each of these works of
art had cost, knew by experience the long years of struggle and study and
the infinitude of toil which had gone to shaping of even one limb, to the
carving of even one perfected outline, he could never so use them without
thought of care....Men's bodies are our women's works of art. Given to us
power to control, we will never carelessly throw them in to fill up the
gaps in human relationships made by international ambitions and greeds... 

	"War will pass when intellectual culture and activity have made
possible to the female an equal share in the governance of modern national
life; it will probably not pass away much sooner; its extinction will not
be delayed much longer. 

	"It is especially in the domain of war that we, the bearers of
men's bodies, who supply its most valuable munition, who not amid the
clamour and ardour of battle, but, singly, and alone, with a three-in-the-
morning courage, shed blood and face death that the battle-field may have
its food, a food more precious to us than our heart's blood; it is we
especially, who in the domain of war, have our word to say, a word no man
can cay for us. It is our intention to enter into the domain of war and to
labour there till in the course of generations we have extinguished it." 

    
    the writings of vera brittain are extremely compelling on both
    the horrors of war and her own awaking as a pacifist, spritually
    and politically.
    
    (rat hole, i suppose, but i strongly disagree that men fighting
    wars are, in fact, fighting to protect their loved ones. i believe
    that is a romanticism that is cynically and ruthlessly exploited
    by our leaders)
    

    It seems there's a lot of interest in the topic of why men
    go to war, so I've created a new basenote (400) to talk about that.
    
    Let's use this note to talk about the topic that Dorian raised in the
    basenote.
       
    To refresh our memory:  the questions Dorian raised in 399.9 are:
    
    >>To what extent are women anti-war? Is there a tradition of women 
    >>attemptingto prevent/stop war? What have they written and done about 
    >>this? What might they do if they had more power? I'd like this topic 
    >>to address not so much the issue of whether or not women are *inherently*
    >>more anti-war than men (though that may be inevitable), but how women 
    >>have in fact spoken and acted, what they've said and done, in an effort 
    >>to end war once and for all. 


    Justine
                                          

    It may be a matter of perspective. In other words who you know and
    read. In general the women I know are no more against war then the
    men I know. Certainly the men I know who have been in wars are more
    against them as a way to resolve differences then many women I know.

    I believe that the idea that men are pro war and women are against 
    it is basically a myth. Certainly many young men do grab the "romance"
    of war but in some ways so do many women. How many women have rushed
    to marry or otherwise give her solder a "proper" send off to war?
    There is the famous quote of the Trojan mother to her son "Come back
    with your shield or on it." as well.

    Several female leaders of nations have lead their country off to war
    as well. So the claim that if women ran things (as if they did not)
    then there would be fewer wars does not seem to find support here.

    War seems to have great support from the women in the middle east BTW.
    At least from what I see on TV it sure looks that way.

    			Alfred

    re .10 Maybe because she was adressing a man ?

    re .10, maybe because she *sounded* like a man?
    
    Lorna
    

    
    I'm surprised that up until now in this string and in 400,
    I haven't seen any mention of WWII (or else I missed it).
    
    It is so absolutely obvious (IMHO) to me that this was a case
    when we *had* to go to war.  I feel very strongly about that.
    What were we supposed to do?  Let Hitler and the Japanese take
    over the entire world?  It is obvious to me that that's what was
    going to happen.
    
    I'm not against war.  I never have been.  Sometimes it's the only
    alternative.
    
    Given all that, I'm very hard-pressed to name any other use of
    military force by the US in this century that meets my criteria for a
    need to go to war, including Vietnam, Korea, WWI, Grenada, Panama, and
    Iraq, and probably others.
    

    .13  What about Iraq?  Don't you think taking over another Country by
    force is the same issue as you think justified WW II except on a
    regional rather than World scale?  Isn't the ISSUE the same?

    re .14, I have always been under the impression that the US didn't
    enter WWII until Pearl Harbor was bombed.  Iraq hasn't bombed any US
    territories yet, has it?
    
    Lorna
    

    re .15 True, but I'd bet a lot of people *wanted* the US to enter
    WWII sooner. Pearl Harbor gave them the perfect excuse. (The
    Japanese screwed up on that one.)

RE: .14

    When I  don't  think about the possible consequences I find myself
    bemused  by  the US discovering international law about Iraq. Yes,
    it  is  a  violation of international law for Iraq to have invaded
    Kuwait,  but exactly the same thing happened a year or so ago with
    no protest. A large country invaded a smaller one complaining that
    the  smaller  country  wouldn't do what the larger one wanted. The
    earlier  case  was the US invading Panama with absolutely no legal
    justification.  Grenada was equally unjustifiable legally.

    Given this  history,  I  tend  to  ignore  official  US  calls for
    international  law.  We've  ignored  (and supported) dictators and
    tyrants  in the past, so it's hard to see any philosophical reason
    for us to oppose Sadam. The real issue is access to cheap oil. The
    consequences  of  a sudden sharp rise in the price of oil might be
    enough  to  justify  an  invasion of Iraq, but morally it's pretty
    hard to argue for that.

--David

    Your comments about the U.S. not observing International Law itself
    I agree with. 
    
    The cheap oil argument has more implications than simply allowing the
    U.S. to continue driving its' gas guzzlers around for a few more years.
    A major Worldwide rise in oil prices would seriously affect the World
    economy. That is not to be taken lightly.  A Worldwide oil price driven
    recession or worse, depression will lead to people dying... lots of
    people.  That is not to mention the Worldwide hardship placed on
    people.  I believe that that is the justification for intervening
    before virtually a single individual (Saddam) gets control of World oil
    prices.  With consequences like that perhaps it makes sense to look the
    other way regarding Grenada and Panama.  
    
    The oil argument is one issue.  The other is that while the U.S.
    invaded Grenada and Panama the issue was not permanent take over and
    displacement of those Countries Governments as Saddams' intent is, was
    it? I don't think the U.S. position in Pamama or Grenada was the same as
    the issue in the Middle East.  SHOULD WE LET SADDAM TAKE OVER OTHER
    COUNTRIES UNCHALLENGED BECAUSE THE U.S. HAS NOT BEEN PERFECT?  Also,
    it is the U.N. (granted spearheaded by the U.S.) that is attempting to
    control Saddam its not a sole U.S. effort driven SOLELY by U.S.
    interests.  
    
    I HATE war, and the reasons that cause wars.  I would much prefer that
    everyone live in peace, God knows Mankind has enough problems to deal
    with other than wars, ranging from environmental issues to natural
    disasters.  
    
    No one has answerered how to stop the playground bully yet.  All I hear
    is rationalizations as to why we shouldn't try, and that amounts to 
    because we aren't perfect either.  
    
    Jeff
    
    

    re .18:
    
    This note is for how women feel about war.  Take it to another note,
    please.
    

  Its a shame Rachel McCaffrey isn't with us anymore; I'm sure we'd get some
interesting perspectives...

    I never could understand war. I never could understand why one man
    should die for the freedom of another. I could never fathom how a
    baby from the south of a country should be valued while one from the
    north is slaughtered. War is Hell. There is nothing more uncivilized
    or barbaric. If my child should ever be drafted I would hope he would
    flee the country. 
    
    Some poor peons from some poor countries would sell their "freedom" for
    a bushel of corn or a sack of rice. Most of this world's children wake
    up hungry. They can't even think of fighting off the evil "red empire"
    because they're too busy living day to day worrying about clean water
    and a couple of mouthfuls of food. 
    
    Kate
    

I found it interesting to compare the following two quotes:

1. American President Warren Harding at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier:

"We do not know the eminence of his birth, but we do know the glory of his 
death. He died for his country and greater devotion hath no man than this."

2. Irish non-violent activist Mairead Corrigan Maguire, co-winner with 
Betty Williams of the 1976 Nobel Peace Prize, in a letter to her baby son:

"Let no man plant in your heart the false seed of pride in any country's 
flag...people are more important than countries. I would not give one hair 
of your precious head for any country -- you are more important than any 
country....When human life is held as so sacred that no one can kill, 
then...wars will be no more....All men know today that killing and 
starvation are wrong -- it is just that non enough are prepared to change 
themselves and to work on making things different."

To me these quote suggest that there may be a fundamental clash of values 
between women and men: Maguire considers the bond between mother and child 
most important; Harding considers the bond between man and country most 
important. There are those who would argue that women, because they are 
intimately connected with the creation of life, tend to value life more 
highly; while men, lacking that intimate connection, must make up for that 
lack by inventing abstractions (such as God and The State and The Common 
Good) and holding them up as having supreme value -- indeed, they often 
define their very manhood in terms of their willingness to sacrifice human 
life for the sake of those abstractions, for the "glory" of such killing
and dying. (One thinks, for example, of the story in the Old Testament of
Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac in order to carry out the
"will of God.") 

Some would go further and argue that women, to the extent that they condone 
war, have simply bought into the patriarchal consciousness that has been 
dominant for millennia; but that when such women get out from under that 
consciousness -- when their minds are freed and they identify and think *as 
women* -- they recognize that life is indeed sacred and that, highly 
evolved as we are, we should/must come up with some more peaceful way of 
settling disputes. And then they may become explicitly anti-war, and they 
may even join one or another of the women's peace efforts such as the 
Greenham Common Peace Encampment in England or the Women's Action for 
Nuclear Disarmament in California of Grandmothers for Peace in Washington 
or the Femmes pour la paix in France or the Women's International League 
for Peace and Freedom in Germany or the New Japan Women's Association and 
the Japan Council Against the A and H Bombs, or any of a long list of 
international not-necessarily-women-only organizations published in the 
book Woman On War cited in the base note...in short, such channels as are 
available to that half of the human race that has, to put it mildly, not 
that much power any more these days, but a lot of hope!

Dorian

    re .23 Basing an argument on two examples is dangerous. I could
    as easily find one man who thinks as she does, and one woman who 
    echoes his sentiments, and draw the opposite conclusions.
    Or I could as easily conclude that women are incapable of
    abstract thought and therefore unwilling to fight/die for
    principles. (Yes, I know better.)
    
    In any time, place, and conflict there are those who only see the
    immediate consequences of what is going on - young men dying in
    a war, and never understand why that war is being fought. They
    are the first to cry, that 'nothing is worth this'. There are those 
    who do understand, and are willing to put their own lives on the line 
    for the principles they believe in. (Then there are the 'armchair 
    experts' who would send others where they will not go, but that is 
    another matter.)
        
    "Freedom" is not some simple 'abstraction' that has no bearing
    on human life. Ask anyone who has fled from tyranny. Not being
    able to choose your work, your play, whether you can or can not
    have an abortion, are all issues of freedom. Those who say
    'abstractions are not worth fighting for' show themselves to
    be incapable of connecting the abstract with the concrete.

    'Country' is a very high-level abstraction. Think of it instead
    as a place where you are free to choose. Ask yourself if you
    are willing to fight for *that*.

    

    re .24, I tend to agree Mike.  Carl Sandburg wrote some very eloquent
    anti-war poetry, and just the other day I put a recent anti-war song,
    written by George Michael, in the musical quotes topic.  Bob Dylan,
    Bono (of U2) and Bruce Springsteen are three other rock musicians who
    have expressed strong anti-war sentiment, as well.
    
    Lorna
    
    P.S.  And the quote by the Trojan mother made me think of Muhammed
    Ali's quote back in the 60's, "I ain't got nothin against the Viet Cong."
     (I *think* that's about what he said anyway). :-)
     

    
    
    
    Re .24
    
    >Although public opinion polls may or may not indicate a gender gap in
    >the ways that men and women think of war, I also think it is clear that
    >there are female as well as male warmongers, just as there are male as
    >well as female pacifists.  Several examples come to mind. 
    
    This is interesting.
    I've heard many people voice the view that, if wmn ruled the world,
    there would be no more wars.....
    
    Arguments seem to align as follows:-
    
    - there would still be war if wmn "ruled the world" because the desire
      to make war is an essential human component and a proportion of
      leaders (of whatever gender) will always wish to do so
    
    - there would not be war if wmn "ruled the world" because wmns natural
      nature does not incline them to see war as a solution to a problem.
      The few wmn/female leaders who appear to be agressive are only so
      because they've had to claw their way to leadership in a man's
      world...
    
    What do you think?
    
    'gail
    
    

    re .25, Dana, I disagree.  I think pacifists are just as capable of
    connecting the abstract with the concrete as you are.  I think they
    have simply come to a different conclusion.
    
    Lorna
    

    
<set rad fem on>

.24 - Given the dominance of patriarchal thinking, I'd say that for the
most part, the only women who manage to become leaders these days are the
ones who tend to be hawks (as .27 suggests). As for Gandi, I believe he
learned his non-violent tactics from the British women who were trying to
get the vote... And as for Jesus, indeed yes, he was definitely a man in
touch with the feminine side of himself! 

.25 - freedom is something I'd be more than willing to negotiate for. Why 
is it necessary to fight for it? Who has made it necessary to do so? Where 
did this warrior mentality come from? I find it interesting that you don't 
even question that. It must be very comforting to be as unaware of history
as you appear to be...I'd suggest a book or two to read, if I thought you'd 
be receptive.

Gee, I wonder if they awarded that Nobel Peace Prize just to shut those women 
up! Oh, and all those women's peace organizations...they're probably just 
fronts for mass shopping sprees.

Dorian

<okay, hoist yer bayonets...charge!  ;-)>

re. Note 399.29                     
GEMVAX::KOTTLER                                      
    
    
>.25 - freedom is something I'd be more than willing to negotiate for. Why 
is it necessary to fight for it? Who has made it necessary to do so? Where 
did this warrior mentality come from? I find it interesting that you don't 
even question that. 
    
    Did the Kuwaitis get the chance to 'negotiate' ? Did the sailors
    at Pearl Harbor ? The people of Leningrad ? Poland ? Did the
    early Christians get to 'negotiate' with Nero ? Do you think you
    can 'negotiate' with someone who's decided they want a piece of
    your a** and to hell with your desires ? That you can 'negotiate'
    with somebody who believes in 'divine right of kings'? Or 'Aryan
    superiority'? 
    
    Dorian, let's imagine that a country adjacent to ours is taken
    over by religious fanatics who oppose abortion and are determined
    to press their beliefs on us. They invade us. They will *not*
    'negotiate'. They *will* force their views on you unless you
    stop them. *Now will you fight?* Or will you prattle on about the
    virtue of non-violence. _It only takes one to make a fight_ Not
    two. A slaughter is a fight, one-sided but every bit as much an act 
    of agression as a fight where the attacked fights back.
    
    re 'warrior mentality'. Do you equate the mentality of an agressor
    with that of a defender ? Do you equate them morally ? Because
    I think that that particular package-deal is obscene.

> And as for Jesus, indeed yes, he was definitely a man in
>touch with the feminine side of himself! 

	Perhaps that is why he was willing to use violence on ocasion?

				Alfred

    See the incident in the Temple with the money-changers

    Dorian, there are many many problems with our society and certainly
    male dominance has shaped it. However, your assertions have taken
    things to the absurd. I've *known* women who were aggressive warriors
    and yet were still women. I've *known* men who were truely gentle and
    absolute pacifists.

    I do not believe that *never* fighting is the right answer. Am I not a
    woman? Do we get a chance to negotiate with rapists? War can happen
    with only one side side deciding to fight (though most call that
    slaughter) negotitation can *never* take place unless both (or all)
    sides cooperate.

    I've had my share of difficulties with men but I've known enough good
    quality men to know that as a gender they are not the beasts you so
    often make them out to be. If they were, why would so many good,
    sensible, all knowing women love them? liesl
    

	To the last few, I would suggest reading "The Serpent and the
	Goddess" by Pat Cordwen (sp?).  I just finished it last night
	and am still recovering from the impact.

	Western society is based on the "power to kill" as aposed to
	the "power to birth".  If you don't want to believe this, fine
	but there are no monuments to the women who died while giving
	birth and there are no heroic hymns to them either.

	In the last chapter of the book there is a quote from Ghandi
	that is something like: There is many things I would die for
	but nothing I would kill for, I am not sure that I am ever
	that right.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			We only hear about the views of the winners
			and they are usually the most brutal.

    
    i agree with dorian and peggy
    (sorry carla ;^)
    

    And, given the opportunity, I would protect even those who do not
    believe as I do. I want the world to be as you would have it, I just
    don't believe that if you're dead and the tyrants live that it will
    happen. liesl

        Existence
        Might be likened to the course
        Of many rivers reaching the one sea. Lao Tzu

	Twice, by my count, the concept or abstract of country has
	been put forth in this string as justification for war.In
	at least one instance by a woman: an instance which I feel
	contributes to the main thrust of this dialogue.
	
	I've just a little problem with 'pro-country'; in times of war
	we're really talking about pro-government, it will be that
	governments policies that the young men and women will die.

	I think the distinction is important for free citizens.

	Case in point: If Lincoln had lost the election which took place 
	during the Civil War and 'Fighting MAC' had won there would have been
	the SAME COUNTRY with a DIFFERENT GOVERNMENT and I submit a whole
	different perspective toward the war.

	Governments obscure the real issues by claiming 'Your country
	calls' to the young men who'll be fodder for their more militaristic
	adventures or diplomatic failures.

	If its said 'this government ,currently in power ,has these policies 
	which ,they say ,requires this aggression.....well...that gets a lot 
	different reaction then if its said ..'Your country calls you'..one 
	provokes the intellect the other catches you in the gut.The former
	is appropriate for the considerations of free citizens the latter
	for the less free. 

	If country and freedom are abstracts important to our understanding;
	as these abstracts may claim our sons and daughters very lives,
	then in part, the understanding of how governments use and distort 
	them to their own ends should perhaps form an essential component of 
	that understanding. Perhaps that understanding fleshes out the essential
	challenge and responsibility of free citizens.


	IMHO
	MAC

    re .42 Good distinction. I strongly support this country, while
    holding most of the current gov't. in contempt. I'd fight for
    freedom, the ideals of the Constitution, etc. but *not* for
    GB's 'war on drugs'.

Re the limitations of negotiation -- obviously, in a violent society like 
ours whose whole value system is based on the concept of a male warrior 
god, what you say is true. But what if we were to shift our value system to 
be more woman-centered; what if (imagine!) we put a higher premium on life 
than on death; what if we had an ethic of care rather than an ethic of 
killing? Perhaps then -- with the help of a little abstract thinking, of 
course, (and maybe also a fraction of our current defense budget) -- we
could work out a way whereby negotiation was effective in settling 
disputes.

...so anyway, to come out of the abstract into the concrete...

The fact is, women have written and acted extensively in an effort to stop 
war. I was hoping that in this topic, Women Against War, we might discuss 
and document that effort. If anyone wants to start a Men Against War topic 
or a War Is Wonderful topic or a He's Gotta Have It topic or a Romance of 
the Martyred Mothers & Widows topic or a Deerhunter topic or whatever, he 
or she is free to do so. But this is the topic on Women Against War.

In the following passage, the (woman) author begins by analyzing why men 
fight wars, so maybe it belongs in the topic we have for that; but since 
the overall, ahem, thrust of the passage is against war, I'm putting it 
here:

"Patriarchal civilization may be viewed as a network of defense measures to 
alleviate the fundamental insecurities of the mature male....Paradoxical as 
it may sound, one of the most effective of men's defense measures has 
always been war. War offers an excellent excuse for older males to bind 
younger ones firmly to their service, and not incidentally, to destroy a 
good many of them in the process. Best of all, responsibility for their 
destruction can be laid on the enemy leaders. In effect, elder males of 
both warring nations can safely and blamelessly exterminate each other's 
younger rivals. At the same time, each plays the gambling game that can 
earn more territory for their own greater glory. War leaders can feel 
themselves admired, effective, and powerful in ways that are seldom possible 
in times of peace. War is the ultimate male ego trip.

"Some ego satisfactions also filter down to the younger males who play the 
part of sacrificial victims. They too can find ways to feel powerful, even 
though they dare not challenge their own rulers. Through loot and rape, the 
traditional prerogatives of the warrior, they can augment the minimal 
rewards their leaders give them. The frustration of their social 
powerlessness can be relieved by various defusing mechanisms, such as 
redirected aggression, support of the in-group, and manipulation of 
weaponry, which extends into adulthood the remembered pleasure of little 
boys playing with toy guns. For many men, war experiences represent the 
high point of their lives. Nothing else will ever seem so dramatic or 
exciting....

"Perhaps the world would benefit by a well-considered restoration of the 
feminine divine image to something like its former preeminence, if for no 
other reason than the hope of abolishing man's favorite game of war from 
our endangered planet. This game has gone too far and is no longer amusing. 
Women have never liked it, because they do not derive similar satisfactions 
from it.

"On the contrary, war strikes at the very root of the feminine psyche, in 
its disruption of family life, its permission of vandalism and destruction, 
its imposition of unnecessary suffering on the helpless. Women know 
literally in their guts, in a way that men will never know, how much 
unremitting effort goes into the creation of a mammalian life, through all 
the years from conception to adulthood. Even women who have never been 
parents often seem to understand these matters better than many men who 
have been. Sane people do not heedlessly destroy anything that takes so 
long to build, even when it belongs to someone else. Women are less easily 
persuaded by the We/They dichotomy, and more prone to sympathize with the 
basic humanness, vulnerability, and personal uniqueness of other human 
beings....

"Men feared the judgmental eye of the wisewoman even when she was socially 
powerless. This, then, is the chink in the armor of patriarchal 
establishments. When many women together say no and mean it, the whole 
structure can collapse."

		-- Barbara Walker, The Crone, 1985

    Dorian,
      I've noticed that when negotiations are going on, the person who
    compromises is labelled the "loser" by the media.  Rather than being
    praised for compromising for a common good.  This really irks me.
    
      I can envision a tribe or country of people that refuse to be
    dominated, a form of passive resistance where the only way to control
    them is to kill them.  They could not be taken as subjects or slaves.
    Of course they would probably be wiped out fairly quickly, but maybe
    not.  Maybe it wouldn't be worth it to other countries to go against
    them.  They would probably have to live in a part of the world where
    the land was not valuable.
    	Linda
    

	Unless I am mistaken (which contrary to popular opinion does
	happen from time to time) the quotes and the references are
	from women speaking and writing about their view of war, which
	believe it or not is what the base note is about - presenting
	WOMEN's view against war.  This is not to say that their views
	will not include males or good or badness about war.

	The key word is WOMEN againt war not AGAINST (which is the
	secondary criteria) and not WAR (which is the general theme
	united the various WOMEN's views Against war).

	So if you care to quote or reference a woman and her views
	against war this is the topic.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			Life or Death which will our society
			value in the 20th century.
			The way of the Goddess is the way of Life.

    A few years ago, I read a quote from Sappho on the subject of war.
    Here's the gist of it:
    
    	What is the most beautiful sight?
    	Some say it is a army with banners flying,
    	But I say it is the face of my love, smiling.
    
    It is very hard to quote Sappho; all of her works were destroyed by
    civilizations later than the Greek.  All that we do have are quotes
    included in the work of other writers, whose work did survive.  By
    some amazing coincidence, although her [anti-war] poetry was destroyed,
    the [pro-war] poetry of Homer was carefully preserved.
    
    						Ann B.

    re .34 and related replies...
    from *The Bible*
    John 2:14-16
    "In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and
    others sitting at tables exchanging money.  So he made a whip out of
    cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he
    scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 
    To those who sold doves he said, 'Get these out of here! How dare you
    turn my Father's house into a market!'".
    
    This is the only reference *I* am aware of that indicates any violence
    on Jesus' part.  According to the text, no one was killed or even
    injured.
    
    (this is from the New International Version, Thompson Chain-Reference
    Bible)

    From a course I took recently,
    
    "War is to men what giving birth is to women."  In other words,
    to become a real man, you must be willing to risk your life in war;
    to become a real woman, you must be willing to risk your life in
    birth.  Of course, both these assumptions are myths that someone
    sold to us years ago.
    
    (I can't help but notice, umm, that war equals death and birth
    equals life.)
    
    maia
    

    
    re: .52 Wow, good point.  Sorry I'm not more eloquent, but it just
    struck me bwteen the eyes, the way something obvious usually does.
    
    CQ

    re .51 A lot of men die in war, a lot of good ideas, people, etc.
    have been given life in war. Most women give birth to healthy
    people, but some die in the process. Yes, the two certainly
    do run parallel.

re .52
    
    >>That's why men FIGHT. No MAN wants to be seen as the compromiser.
    >>To compromise is to LOSE. To compromise is to sue for peace.
    >> Woman collaborate on a goal
    >>Men compete for a goal
    
    this has given me a real insight into things I have observed
    lately, including in this notes file
     
    thanks
    Jane
    

	To contend that women are essentially peaceful and men essentially 
	warlike; that women collaborate and men compete is ridiculous and 
	smacks of the usual separatist bigotry which sometimes characterizes 
	the strings in this file.

	Women have done much to support and spur on their country's wars;
	history abounds with such examples. When given the power of state
	women have chosen war to further the ends of maintaining that power
	or increasing it; just as the politically powerful men have.

	In modern times, given the opportunity to participate, more and more
	women have and are opting for direct military roles. War is a human 
	problem, men and women over time, have found ways to support and 
	perpetuate it.

	The usual cop out here ,for those who wish not to address the 
	responsibility of the female role in war,is to claim that those women
	were victims of a patriarchal society and thus couldn't be held 
	responsible for their activities. The rationalization continues that
	the women were divorced from their true female natures 
	(whatever that is) by the patriarchal cultural pressures.

	Bullpucky and poppycock! A real solution to war (if one exists at all)
	is everyone assuming some responsibility as human beings. Those who
	try to shift blame, avoid responsibility, no matter how cleverly, are
	and will be part of the problem rather than contributors to any real
	solution.

	How long do we continue to assume holier than thou postures? By
	clever rationalizations anyone can set him/herself up as somehow
	nobler and superior to others. What ends, other than bigotry, are
	served by that behavior?

MAC

re . 46 -

Sorry, but this *is* the topic on Women Against War. Women who oppose war 
must begin by understanding the phenomenon they wish to put a stop to. 
Thus, because wars have always been started by men and fought almost 
exclusively by men, women need to analyze men's attitudes and motivations in 
fighting wars. Like patriarchy, male aggression must be *named,* must be seen
for what it is, in order to be ended or at least diverted into less 
destructive channels. Once women -- and men who share their views -- have
gained an understanding of why men fight wars, they are in a better
position to stop the fighting and work out alternatives. 

Dorian
         

    
The following words were spoken by actress Joanne Woodward in an address she 
gave in 1984 as mc at a conference of women in Washington, D.C.:


"Without new ideas, new leadership and new action by women, men will go on 
preparing for the next war because they have always prepared for war.

"But women know that the next war will be the end of us, our children and 
our fragile, beautiful planet...

"Our only hope is to prevent that war and the decision on how to do that is 
too important to be left to the men alone.

"...This is a war about which women were never consulted. And because we 
were never consulted, we have no need to defend the decision or ideas that 
have produced over 50,000 nuclear warheads. We say 'no' to this obscenity. 
And we say 'yes' to fresh ideas and alternatives that people all over the 
world are coming up with. New ideas that will pull us away from the abyss 
we are all poised on....

"For two thousand years men have been preparing for war -- and fighting 
wars. Women know we are preparing for a war right now. This time a nuclear 
war in which there will be no winners. We realize that we must begin to 
prepare for peace if we want a future for our children."

    
    re .57 -
    
    If you'd like to start a topic on Woman Warriors, you're welcome to do so. 
    It might make an interesting counterpart to *this* topic, which is about 
    Women Against War.
    
    Dorian

    re: .60
    
    	I'm not trying to start a woman warriors topic; although I admit it
    	would indeed be interesting.
    
    	I'm responding to those remarks, made with the context of 'women
    	against war', which refer to men as solely responsible for war.
    
    	Are you saying such remarks must go unchallanged? If you say so
    	I won't challange them.
    
    MAC

    re .51  Thanks for entering that Maia.  I read the same idea in
    Joseph Campbell's The Power of Myth.  That childbirth is the experience
    that makes a girl a woman, and war makes a boy a man.  That they
    are the most important events in their respective lives.  And it's
    funny, but if you listen to most men talk about war and most women
    talk about the experience of giving birth, they do sound like they
    are, if not the most importance experience, at least the most profound.  
    	Linda

Dr. Helen Caldicott is an Australian physician who has spoken more 
effectively than any other disarmament leader and activist on the issues of 
the nuclear threat:

"As Nikita Khrushchev said, 'In the event of a nuclear war, the living 
would envy the dead.'

"...Now you will say, well what can I do? [One]...thing I did was to 
start the Women's Party for Survival, because, as I [travel] talking about 
this, very often, it's the women who cry. Now I'm not excluding all 
mothering men. But, you know, women are very passionate, in fact, they very 
often drive men crazy because they're so passionate and emotional. It's 
appropriate to be emotional. Often, when I lay out the effects of nuclear 
war, the person interviewing me on television will say: 'Aren't you being a 
bit emotional?'

"You can understand that that's a crazy remark to make. It's like...if I 
have two parents in my office, and I tell them that their child has 
leukemia and explain the prognosis, and they show no emotional response...I 
would get them a psychiatrist. It's appropriate to be passionate about our 
survival.

"When I had my first baby, I knew I'd die to save that life. Now I had 
never felt like that about any other human life before, it was a profound 
revelation for me. If we can mobilize that instinct that women have to save 
their babies, across the world, we may survive. So I started the Women's 
Party for Survival...The baby is our symbol...we thought of an action 
called Babies Against the Pentagon and that abbreviated to BAP. What we can 
do, when the Senate is debating the arms race, is to release hundreds of 
naked toddlers into the Senate chamber.

"...We're on a terminally ill planet, you know that, and we are about to 
destroy ourselves...What I'm really saying to you is that if you love this 
planet, and I'm deeply in love with it, and you watch the spring come and 
you watch the magnolias flower and the wisteria come out, and you smell a 
rose -- you will realize that you're going to have to change the priorities 
of your life -- if you love this planet."

    
    	Five war topics total now?
    
    	

re: 70

	Hi there eagle	....

	I don't require SRO ...only the opportunity to respond...If
	someone wants to remark or include quotes catagorizing all
	'men' being warlike as opposed to peaceful; Being competitive
	as opposed to cooperative thats fine...I just believe that by
	making such catagorical references you've expanded on the context
	of the discussion to include such remarks and responses to them.

	Bear with me a little here...

	Imagine I start a note 'Men opposed to war'.
	I then include a piece which says 'Rosy the riveter is a good example
	of how women mindlessly support war efforts'.

	Someone then responds and says 'Hey thats bigotry all women can't
	be so catagorized....ect'.

	I come back with "Hey! The topic is men opposed to war...get within 
	the context...start another note if you're so inclined".

	All the while ignoring how by including the catagorizing reference
	I expanded on the original context.

>    	Isn't it interesting that it is a male pacist technique to keep
>   anybody from challenging their remarks since that is the only hope
>   for their remarks (what Morton Downey Jr. would call "Pablum").

	I'm not quite sure what's meant by this...I mean are you saying
	there exists a male pacifist technique to keep anyone from
	challanging their remarks? Are you assuming I'm a pacifist?
	If so ...just to let you know ....I'm not a pacifist and I'm pretty
	sure within the set of pacifists you couldn't generalize too much
	male from female. 

	Is what I'm saying pablum? Could be...I start off with assuming
	I'm mostly incorrect in what I contend anyway. Considering my
	inherent human limitations; I'd be less than wise assuming otherwise.

MAC

    
    .69 -
    
    Evidently it wasn't acceptable to have a topic in =wn= discussing women's
    efforts to stop war, without making sure that it was also demonstrated
    in =wn= that some men are also anti war, some women are pro war, and some 
    men are pro war.
    
    Equal time, y'know!
    
    D.

    
    
    I haven't jumped into this note before now because I don't have many
    facts.  There is a lot I don't know about history -- women's or the 
    standard, "world" history that they teach in school.  But I do have 
    this sense that women as a group tend to be opposed to war in greater 
    numbers than men as a group tend to be.  In some ways it's a mystery 
    to me that this should be true since men are more likely to experience 
    physical combat than women are (at least in this country).
    
    I suspect that very few of the differences I see between men and women
    are inherent (or a result of biological differences).  It may be that
    the conditioning that has developed for men and women over time had its
    origins in bilogical differences and made some sense because of those
    differences, but I think the actual possibilities and requirements of
    the modern world have changed must faster than have our beliefs about
    the world and ourselves.  I believe that using physical aggression to
    solve conflicts is much less necessary than it ever was before and much
    more dangerous than it ever was before.  With the marvelous
    technologies that we now have for producing food, energy, and shelter,
    I can think of little reason to go to war with another people over turf
    or fuel.  And with our increased capacity for killing people who may
    be far from and uninvolved in the actual dispute and for destroying
    the very resources we say we want to protect, I think that imagining
    that war may be an answer to many problems is quite dangerous and
    either illogical or dishonest (that is to say, either our leaders don't know
    how foolish it is, or the reasons they give for fighting wars are not
    the real reasons).
    
    I have met many more women than men who oppose war.  I'm quite aware that 
    my sample may be skewed, but I mention it because I'm sure that my 
    experiences have influenced my opinion about gender differences in 
    opposition to war.  Another reason for my opinion has to do with what I 
    have read about and observed in children.  I suspect that in very small 
    children (just starting school and younger) there may be equal (or nearly 
    equal) numbers of physical fights in boys and girls.  (I think this speaks
    to the contention that aggression is natural in boys and not in girls.)
    But as girls get older, they seem to stop fighting, but many boys seem
    to keep fighting.  How surprising would it be to see a fistfight break
    out in a men's highschool or college hockey game?  In a women's
    highschool or college game?  Granted, many men's sports involve more
    physical contact than women's, but is that a cause or a function of the
    gender differences with regard to the acceptability of violence as a means 
    of conflict resolution?
    
    I think women seek to avoid physical confrontations.  I think that
    if women had greater (as in near equal) representation at every place
    in government, there would be less war and maybe even less violence
    in other areas, too -- less violent handling of protestors, of criminal
    suspects, less violence against women and children, because it would be
    taken more seriously.  One can point to a woman like Margaret Thatcher
    and suggest that she is proof that women can be just as war-mongering
    as men.  But I don't think an exception discounts the importance of
    much wider, measurable trends.  In a world ruled by men, only women
    who conform to the male world view will win the support of men.  If
    more women start to listen to and vote and organize according to what 
    I see as a truly "different voice," I think we will see real change.
    
    Justine          

	re: 76 Justine

	I read your remarks with great interest.

>    I have met many more women than men who oppose war.  I'm quite aware that 
>   my sample may be skewed, but I mention it because I'm sure that my 
>    experiences have influenced my opinion about gender differences in 
>    opposition to war.  

	In times of popular wars most men and most women support the war 
	effort.
	
	During the time of the Vietnam conflict my impression was that
	those who opposed it were pretty equally divided respecting
	sex. I may be wrong of course my obsevations are casual...not
	scientific. Was they ever a study on that one?

	My reading of history demonstrates that women's roles have been an 
	essential ingredient in making war efforts successful. For the United 
	States women have provided the 'home front' stability and industrial
	successes that made this nations war efforts highly effective.

	The Patriotic (war) fevor in many of 'our' wars such as the Civil and 
	World wars had an effective female component which would have taken a 
	lot of the 'zest' out of it; had it not been there.

	Since Civil War consciousness is currently so prevalent...

	The role that women played in abolitionist movements is well documented
	and (at least from a northern point of view) highly respected. This 
	movement contributed greatly to the outbreak of that conflict.

	Southern women made enormous sacrifices to support the confederate
	cause and they, as women, drove much of the romantic underpinning
	which caused so many southern men to fear battle less than the 
        judgments of the women in their region; they'd rather die than be
	thought cowardly in the eyes of southern women.

	Let women decide en masse not to offer this kind of supportive behavior
	and our	warmaking prowess would be greatly diminished.

	A great number of the women who've eloquently spoken out against war
	have suggested this course of action.

MAC

    .77
    
    Yes and some of what you say is simply the exploitation of women.
    During WWII, when all the men were away, women got the better jobs
    (ie. Rosie the Riveter); made more money than before, bettered their
    way of life. After the war, most were relegated back to the kitchen,
    to 'dependency' and to lousy paying work in "women" related fields
    such as the 5 and dime store clerk, etc.
    
    It hasn't changed.  Today the Iraqi (sp?) women are being given
    the same advantages, now that their country in  "at war."  Much more
    independence, better paying jobs, etc.   So yes, *some* women benefit
    from war, and even have better lives during war.  *Some* women that is.
    
    Maia
    

    
    The Women's Peace Union (WPU) was active largely in the 1920's
    but persevered into the early 40's.  The WPU is notable for two
    reasons:  its uncompromising adherence to nonresistance and its
    belief in a constitutional remedy for war.
    
    The women in the WPU advocated a constitutional amendment that
    would prevent the government from engaging in or preparing for
    war, even a "defensive" war.
    
    Harriett Hyman Alonso wrote a book called, "The Women's Peace 
    Union and the Outlawry of War, 1921-1941".  Don't know if this
    union still exists.
    
    Carla
    

    Conventional wisdom (and, I understand, some public opinion polls)
    indicates that women are statistically less likely to support war than
    men are.  Although I am not normally favorably disposed towards these
    sorts of stereotypes (there are certainly many male pacifists and
    female hawks, for example), I do think that it might be interesting to
    explore what, if anything, women as a group might be able to offer to
    the peace movement.  For example, given that President Bush's macho
    posturing in the Middle East seems to correlate with a stereotypical
    "male" approach to solving conflicts, this might relate to the
    suggestion that women could tend, on the average, to take a more
    enlightened stance towards the Gulf crisis.

    What special insights, approaches, and abilities, if any, can women of
    conscience offer in opposition to the pending war in the Middle East?

    -- Mike

    
        
    I for one believe women could indeed tend, on the average, to take a
    more enlightened stance on the Gulf crisis than the current macho one.
    That of course is only my opinion. However, since women have nowhere
    near the representation in the halls of political power that would be
    appropriate to their numbers if we lived in real democracy (half, or a
    bit more?), it's hard to know for sure, isn't it? And even if I'm
    right, it's hard for women to translate any such enlightenment into 
    reality, isn't it? 
    
    One other bit of insight, which is also just my opinion. The tendency
    to keep women subordinate (out of power), and the tendency to play
    macho politics, are related. I think it was Gerda Lerner, in her book
    The Creation of Patriarchy, who established that historically, men
    learned to dominate through their initial domination of women.
    
    Traditionally women have been closer than men to the creation and
    nurturance of life, values that certainly seem different from, if not
    the antithesis of, warriors' values. Unfortunately for us all, I believe,
    women's values have long been split off into the shadows, the
    "personal" realm as opposed to the "political". So those values inform
    what goes on in politics, where the power is, hardly at all. Politics
    is male, macho, informed by dominate-the-little-guy values. Soldiers
    are trained to kill by calling them degrading names for women if
    they're slow to learn. What irony that we speak of our "mother country"!
    
    So it's kind of hard to answer your question, other than, in this case, to 
    suggest the obvious possibilities other than war - try harder to negotiate,
    give economic measures more time to work. I think if we had more (a lot 
    more) women in positions of political power, we'd be closer to an answer, 
    and maybe to peace.
    
    D.  
      

    	a quote from a letter a little girl wrote to the Marines:

    
    	Don't have a war, don't use guns, just tackle.