Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    I think that this topic is interesting because it illustrates the
    important link between feminism and the antiwar movement.  In
    particular, I was glad to see mention elsewhere in this conference of
    NOW's opposition to the war.  Bush's bellicose posturing against Iraq
    represents a stereotypically macho style of foreign policy that both
    illustrates the dictum that the personal is the political, and lends
    itself to a feminist critique.  I think it is important to highlight
    the role that feminism has to play in the antiwar movement.

    -- Mike
    

    	Well, first off, I'm in very strong opposition to anyone outside
    	the feminist movement who tells us what role we *MUST* play in
    	the anti-war movement (especially coming from elsewhere in the
    	anti-war movement.)
    
    	It sounds to me like a call to be "politically correct" (although
    	there are factions within the anti-war movement that deride feminists
    	for this.)
    
    	Is it "macho" to recognize a threat to this country (and to want
    	to avoid a future nuclear attack against civilian targets here
    	by a country who is flaunting other sorts of war crimes as we
    	speak?)
    
    	It sickens me that violence must be used in any situation - I'd
    	love to see us work towards having a world where such a thing
    	would never be necessary again.  However, it's very difficult to
    	face the prospect of allowing ourselves to be annihilated rather
    	than face the fact that aggression is still a part of world
    	politics today.

    	The biggest position NOW seems to have taken in the war so far is
    	to demand equal opportunity for women in combat positions.
    
    	A very wise move on the part of NOW, and one I support 100%.

    Yes, it is most definitely macho to opt for unnecessary, violent
    solutions to problems instead of exploring nonviolent options.  I can't
    think of anything more macho than Bush's war against Iraq.  Since the
    feminist critique of the macho mentality is an important part of
    feminism, then support for this war is inconsistent with feminism.
    
    -- Mike

    According to note 669, Patricia Ireland was quoted as saying "we are
    against the conflict there", and she added that Congress would not have
    authorized the war if women comprised half its members.  She also said
    that NOW is marching in anti-war demonstrations, and said that armed
    conflict is "an inappropriate way to settle disputes."
    
    -- Mike 

    	Well, I disagree that the war is "unnecessary," so support for
    	the war is not inconsistent with my views as a feminist.
    
    	Similarly, I support women's rights to bear arms as self defense
    	against rape and other violent assaults against women - and I
    	don't regard this as inconsistent with my views as a feminist,
    	either.

    Well, Suzanne, I disagree with *your* definition of feminism, since I
    don't happen to think that macho behavior is consistent with feminist
    principles (and neither does NOW, by the way).
    
    -- Mike

    	Well, Mike, you have failed to prove that I support anything
    	macho, so your definition of my views on feminism is seriously
    	flawed.
    
    	If NOW disagrees with my position, so be it.  I recently got a
    	ballot from NOW on the issues I would most like to see pushed
    	to the forefront (I got this only a couple of WEEKS ago,) and
    	opposition to the war was not mentioned.
    
    	Perhaps you assume the myth that all feminists fall into line
    	with every word spoken by any feminist in the world (the old
    	"party line" fallacy - the same one that supports insulting
    	accusations about feminists being "politically correct.")
    
    	It isn't true.  It never has been.

    Suzanne, I am not interesting in "proving" anything to you.  You are
    entitled to believe what you want about the subject.
    
    -- Mike

    	Thanks, Mike.
    
    	When it comes to discussing my beliefs with me, you are not in as
    	much of a position as I am to know what those beliefs are (and I
    	assure you that my views on the war are consistent with my views
    	as a feminist.)

    Suzanne, I realize that you believe that your views on the war are
    consistent with your self-identification as a feminist.
    
    -- Mike

    	Mike, I sincerely hope that the anti-war movement doesn't hurt
    	itself by trying to telling other movements they *MUST* join 
    	the effort (since the anti-war movement has determined that such
    	support is more consistent with these other movements' beliefs.)
    
    	It would have the same success that some folks have when they
    	try to tell members of the anti-war movement that they *MUST*
    	support the war to be good Americans.
    
    	Meanwhile, the latest info on the war shows that Iraq is dumping
    	oil into the gulf and threatening to try to light it on fire.
    
    	So - now I suppose we should be able to tell ecologists that they
    	*MUST* support the war since Saddam Hussein is now attacking the
    	environment, eh?  
    
    	No one has the right to tell another group what position they
    	*MUST* take on the war.  You were wrong to make the original
    	statement in this topic about the role feminism "has to" play
    	in the anti-war movement.
    
    	Thanks if your recent notes were meant as a retraction for this.

I don't see any movements telling any other movements anything.

Individuals may think that other individuals are more likely to
take a particular position because of their self-applied labels,
and statistically that might be valid.  I think out of a group of
feminists, for example,  and a group of say Moral Majority members,
I'd be making a pretty good guess to say that I'd probably find more
war-supporters in the latter and peace-supporters in the former.

>    	You were wrong to make the original
>    	statement in this topic about the role feminism "has to" play
>    	in the anti-war movement.

I read this "has to" not as "must" but as a possesive -- the
cause and supporters of feminism might have tools, methods, ideas,
etc. which can be used to stop the war earlier.
Whether any individual feminist chooses to use them one way or another
is of course up to the individual, and I didn't read Mike's notes
as trying to tell anyone anything, but just suggesting that in the
pool of resources of feminism there may be alot to be tapped
to stop the war.
    
And, even if person A *was* trying to say that feminism "must" do something,
I'd prefer that didn't get extrapolated to "the anti-war movement is
telling the feminist movement what to do".  It'd still just be person A.

(Not meaning to get into the middle of the conversation here, but I
took exception on two counts to .16:  I believe feminism *can* offer
alot to the anti-war movement, as can other social movements; and I
don't like the assumption that because Mike says something (or was 
interpreted as saying something), one would assume he was a spokesperson
for the entire anti-war movement -- it's no more monolithic than, for
example, the feminist movement.)

	MKV

    Suzanne, I did not say that feminism "has to" play a role in the
    antiwar movement (in the sense of "must"); I said that feminism has a
    role to play in the antiwar movement.  That is a completely different
    statement, and I apologize for the ambiguity that led you to infer
    something different then what I intended to state.  However, I am not
    retracting anything, because I stand by my statement.  I believe that
    feminism and the antiwar movement go together.  Those who identify
    themselves as feminists, but who feel otherwise, are free to reject
    that linkage if they choose.  But I will not refrain from making a
    linkage that I believe exists merely because others disagree.

    -- Mike

    	Mary, I do agree with you that Mike is not a spokesperson
    	for the anti-war movement, and that his statement was
    	probably not meant as a demand that feminists join the
    	anti-war movement.
    
    	I'm very opposed (and worried) about the women's movement
    	alligning itself (and our resources) to the anti-war movement
    	(thus, putting our other important issues on a back burner far
    	enough away to lose our freedoms in this country while our
    	attention is turned to the gulf.)
    
    	While each feminist must certainly make up his/her own mind
    	when it comes to supporting or protesting the war, it is my
    	most fervent hope that feminism doesn't experience a split
    	by taking a strong stand about the war (either way.)
    
    	It isn't the difference between supporting war versus working
    	for peace.  It's the difference between feeling threatened 
    	enough to want to take measures to prevent a worse war later
    	versus disbelieving that such measures are necessary.
    
    	My views on women's rights have nothing to do with my strong
    	belief that Saddam Hussein poses a serious enough threat to
    	us (and to others) that something needed to be done about it.
    
    	People who support this war are not necessarily in favor of
    	war in general - personally, I despise violence and war.  I'd
    	be very insulted and outraged at anyone who would suggest that
    	I'm "pro-war" in general.  I'm not.
    
    	I'm convinced of the threat posed by the current regime in Iraq,
    	and I support the efforts to stop it (including aggression in
    	this instance.)

    	RE: .18  Mike V.
    
    	Oh no - a new demand for "linkage" - while Iraq tries to draw
    	other Arab nations into their position in the conflict, you are
    	trying to draw feminists into your position.  *sigh*
    
    	I oppose both definitions of linkage (for pretty much the same 
    	reasons.)
    
    	> I believe that feminism and the antiwar movements go together.
    
    	Oh.  Then I assume you are willing to become a feminist (and to
    	declare yourself as one?)  If they go together, then the joining
    	should be mutual, wouldn't you say?

    Suzanne, I already said that I am not "demanding" anything of anyone
    else.  If you choose not to see a linkage between the peace movement
    and feminism, that is your choice.
    
    -- Mike

    
    	The very *idea* of linkage (both definitions) implies an obligation
    	being imposed.
    
    	Individuals can choose to believe (and/or support) anything they
    	like - I'm opposed to the idea of arguing that anyone should feel
    	obligated to one side or the other due to arguments about how the
    	movements are (or ought to be) conjoined.
    

    Regarding your first paragraph, we will have to agree to disagree. 
    However, I agree with your second paragraph.
    
    -- Mike

    	Ok, I'll accept that, Mike.
    
    	It's been my contention all along that the members of the womens
    	rights movement are diverse enough such that claims of "political
    	correctness" are fallacious.  Thus it is perfectly consistent for 
    	me to balk at the idea of linkage (i.e., a way of encouraging us 
    	to consider the anti-war movement "PC".)
    
    	No hard feelings.  I do hope our difficulties in the Gulf are
    	resolved sooner rather than later.  I'm sure we all do.

    RE: all
    
                 I percieve "Feminism" to be the ability of women "doing",
    "saying", "achieving", "working", and "believing" what they want, how
    they want, when they want and why they want.  With this as "a"
    definition, then there "should" be as many views on this war as there
    are women.  
    
                 To be "PC" for a woman, then we have to look at the
    historical role women have played in our society.  IMHO it has been an
    "ugly" one only because their honest views have *not* been taken into
    account.  Therefore, what ever the man has wanted the women has been
    expected to agree.  Too many times the role of the woman has been
    portrayed to be one as a "peace maker".  This may be why Suzanne
    "bristled" when she percieved Mike saying that the feminist movement 
    "should" be anti war.
    
    Dave

	Re .1

	
>    I think that this topic is interesting because it illustrates the
>    important link between feminism and the antiwar movement.  In
>    particular, I was glad to see mention elsewhere in this conference of
>    NOW's opposition to the war.  Bush's bellicose posturing against Iraq
>    represents a stereotypically macho style of foreign policy that both
>    illustrates the dictum that the personal is the political, and lends
>    itself to a feminist critique.  I think it is important to highlight
>    the role that feminism has to play in the antiwar movement.

 	I haven't read the rest of the replies yet, but my six-bobs-worth:
	
	I do not believe there should be any link with feminism to either   
	prowar or antiwar.

	or is this a wind-up that I missed?

	Heather

    	RE: .23  Heather
    
    	> I do not believe there should be any link with feminism to either   
	> prowar or antiwar.
    
    	Agreed (as I've stated elsewhere in this topic.)  Individuals can
    	support the war (or come out against it) - as individuals.  But I'd
    	rather not see the women's movement take a stand as a group either
    	way.
    
    	As I've also discussed elsewhere, I'm a feminist who strongly supports
    	the war.  I believe that the fight with Iraq was unavoidable in the
    	long run (and that a later-rather-than-sooner war with Iraq would
    	have been much more difficult - with many civilian casualties in the
    	US, Israel, England and Europe, possibly.)

	I fully agree.

	Heather

To my way of thinking, feminism (and NOW) has everything to do with equal
opportunity, equal pay, and equal rights for women and much less
to do with announcing "the feminist position" on this war. It bothers
me a little to see NOW's leadership speaking out on this war as though
they universally represent NOW's members. As Suzanne mentioned, their recent
questionnaire asked no questions about the members' position on the war.
(Actually, I find that NOW irritates me a lot of times on a lot of different
issues; I've let my membership lapse, and I've redirected that financial
support to the ACLU.)

I listen to people on both sides of this war issue: they have
stong and sure beliefs, regardless of which side they are on.
I find that I understand *both* sides. I'm actually not sure where
I stand on this issue. I think Bush and the people who represent
him probably made some big mistakes early on in this whole thing.
But as much as I hate the idea of war, I'm not so sure we don't belong
in this one. Quite frankly, I'm really glad I'm not the one who had
to make the decision on this one.

I can't help but wonder how many other women (including those
who identify as feminists and those who do not) find themselves
smack in the middle on this one, understanding both sides, without
a firm and definite position. I wonder the same thing about men,
whether they are feminist or not. I can't believe I'm the only person
who doesn't wholeheartedly hold one position or the other. Yet,
if there are a lot of you out there who are in the same place I'm in,
I don't hear you. All I hear are those who are fully in support or
fully against the war.

My bet is that there are more people who are in the middle on this
one than there are who are fully on one side or the other. But who's to
know when the sure ones are the only ones I hear?

Kathy

Kathy, thanks for saying that.  Yes, I'm sure there are many
undecided's.

I find it to be an interesting phenomemon, this tendancy polarization
and binary thinking.  Kinda reminds me of people at war with each
other!  You're either for the war or against it.  You either support
the troups or you don't.  You either think Saddam is equivalent to
Hitler or you are an appeasenik.  If you are for this war, you are
against peace and people.

john

    RE: .27  John
    
    > I find it to be an interesting phenomemon, this tendancy polarization
    > and binary thinking.  Kinda reminds me of people at war with each
    > other! 	
    
    It's no so surprising, really, to find so many people with strong
    opinions about the fact that our country is presently engaged in 
    a war.  
    
    It isn't a matter of one group "wanting peace" while another group
    "wants war" - the problem is that there is no easy path to peace in
    the middle east.  A simple end to our military action would not bring
    any sort of long lasting peace (and would not end U.S. involvement
    there.)  We'd put ourselves in considerably worse danger, in fact,
    along with our allies.

Suzanne, I was trying to look at universal processes outside of the specific
issues of this conflict.

    	Yes, I realize that - I was using the issues of this conflict to
    	point out that opposing mindsets are not as "binary" as they seem.
    
    	

    At the request of the moderators, I have deleted the five notes that I
    posted earlier today in this topic.
    
    -- Mike