FEMINISM AND PACIFISM

By Janey Meyerding

Editors' Note: One of the most vociferous arguments of anti-ERA people has been that women will be forced to serve in the Armed Forces. ERA supporters countered that draft laws had expired. Even if they were instated, it was highly unlikely that many women would be drafted (only 7 percent of eligible males were drafted at the height of the Vietnam War).

The draft issue is not dead. At present, the Armed Services Committee has introduced legislation into Congress to reestablish Selective Service and with it, universal registration and the draft of men and

women.

If we choose to reject a patriarchal society steeped in violence, both individualized and institutionalized, then we should reconsider carefully our position on legislated conscription into the armed services. Can women afford to support a male-dominated military complex which exploits all peoples of the world when in fact exploitation in any form is at the very crux of our struggle? In view of this issue, the following is offered as a way of finding possible alternatives.

Quite a lot has been written about the natural progression from feminism to lesbianism and from feminism to anarchism, but not as much (until recently, anyway) about feminism and pacifism.

Pacifism for me is based on a belief in the value of life as such and requires that this respect for life be central in all decision-making. It assumes every person is worthy of this basic respect, and that therefore we should try to see the effects our actions (or inactions) have on other people's lives and make each of our actions as life-supporting and life-enhancing as possible. Pacifists should actively oppose. systems/institutions which are life-threatening, lifedestroying, life-debasing, or which enhance the lives of some at the expense of others. Therefore, pacifism, like feminism, must actively oppose sexism, heterosexism, racism, classism, ageism, looksism-patriarchy. (In fact, in opposing coercion, pacifism leads directly and unavoidably to anar-

chism: the opposing of all hierarchical institutionalization of power.)

Like feminists, pacifists are very concerned with process. Misunderstandings-and the confusion, fear and defensiveness they often create-are counterproductive. If we take the time to evaluate our actions and words according to their impact on and implications for other people, we can not only avoid doing violence to people's feelings and lives, we can also build greater unity, remain open to helpful criticism, and move more surely toward our goals.

Taking Responsibility

Individual responsibility is basic to pacifism. In a very real sense, not only is it true for pacifists that the "personal is political," but also that the political is personal. There should be no difference, ideally, between the methods and attitudes we use in our personal lives and those we bring to our political work. We do have some measure of personal power in every situation, no matter how overwhelmingly oppressed we might seem, feel, and be. As we learn (through nonviolence training, for example) to keep in touch with our personal power, we must also learn to take responsibility for the use of this power. It's the same thing feminism tells us: take yourself seriously; you are a powerful womon.

Another reason individual responsibility is so important in pacifism is that "all groups, gangs, and collectives-no matter how apparently disparate-are fundamentally alike," i.e., they tend toward hierarchy, whether overt or (more dangerously) covert. They tend toward the submersion of individual perception beneath a collective perspective which can (and often does) encourage us to act less responsibly toward each other. That, I think, is why criticism among/between lesbian groups is so often done so badly. It's usually easier for individuals to get along with each other than for groups, in large part because we are likely to be more careful about our behavior and its effects when we can't hide behind the mask of group responsibility. The presence of hierarchy in a group-especially when

Ohio Law Tougher Than Hyde

On July 18, both Houses of the Ohio Legislature passed the Ohio Budget Bill, complete with an antiabortion rider which is even stricter than the Hyde Amendment passed three years ago by the U.S. Congress. The Ohio amendment reads as follows:

No governmental funds, from whatever source and whether held in trust or otherwise by the government, and no federal funds passing through the state treasury or any state agency, shall be utilized by any agency of the state or of any political subdivision of the state, and no governmental assistance shall be granted for or to any person, for performing, promoting, or assisting another in the performance of an. abortion unless one of the following applies:

(A) Two physicians have signed written statements indicating that abortion is medically necessary to prevent the death of the mother; or

(B) The pregnancy is the result of rape as defined in section 2907.02 of the Revised Code, and the incident is reported by the victim to a valid law enforcement agency or public health agency within forty-eight hours after the incident occurs, unless the victim is physically unable to report the rape, in which case the report shall be made within forty-eight hours after the victim becomes physically able to report the rape and such a report is accompanied by a signed statement by two physicians certifying that, in their professional opinion,

the victim was not previously able to report the rape; or

(C) The pregnancy is the result of incest, but only if the incident and relative are reported by the victim to a valid law enforcement agency or public health agency prior to the abortion. Thus, to obtain a government-paid abortion under the new Ohio law, which became effective July 30, a victim of rape must report the attack to police in person within 48 hours. The Hyde Amendment allows a woman 60 days to make a report, which can be made by another person. In case of incest, the Ohio law requires the woman to name the relative, which the federal law does not require. And, while the Hyde Amendment permits "medically necessary abortions," the Ohio law is restricted to those necessary to "prevent the death" of the pregnant woman.

The National Abortion Rights Action League has challenged the new Ohio law in federal court on the constitutional grounds that it invades privacy, restricts doctors in practicing medicine, and is stricter than the federal law. Anne Taylor, attorney for the League, also believes that the part of the new law restricting the use of funds to “promote" an abortion could be used to curtail abortion counseling. "Even a school nurse under the 'promote' language who suggests an abortion might be subject to the cutoff of federal funds," she said. The League has asked the federal court for an injunction to halt implementation of the new law.

-Mary Walsh

unacknowledged, because that means even the group refuses responsibility for it-means an uneven distribution of privilege, which is a form of violence. Although groups of various kinds are vital to us, emotionally and spiritually as well as politically, we must have a strong sense of individual responsibility in order to guard against the subtly violent dynamics which collectivity often engenders.

Because every life is valuable, each pacifist is responsible for supporting and protecting her own life as well as the lives of others, to the best of her ability. The inner violence against which we must struggle includes not only internalized sexist, racist, classist, ageist, and looksist attitudes, but also the culturally induced "instinct" which causes us to react violently to violence of others or of society. It is this cultural bias toward violence which makes the work of reactionaries and agents provocateur (from police agents at protest demonstrations to the Nazi "social" organizations for girls and womyn) effective: most people are easily manipulated by those who know how to touch the legitimate anger we all carry inside and exploit that anger, in the form of violence, for their own purposes. An example of this is how the legitimate anger of poor white people is often manipulated by the ruling class into violence against people of color rather than struggle against the real oppressor. In taking personal responsibility, we ensure that we will not allow ourselves to be manipulated into permitting violence against ourselves, or supporting violence through failure to resist oppressive institutions.

Violence: If Not, Why Not?

Not all pacifists agree on a definition of what violence is, nor about when (if ever) the use of violence is justified. Even if it's only physical selfdefense you're talking about, you'll find almost as many opinions as you find pacifists.

I think all pacifists would agree (maybe!) on two things about the use of force in the case of selfdefense or any other form of person-to-person violence: 1) any force used must be used conscientiously and responsibly. It must come out of a pacifist analysis of the situation and must be based on reason rather than an excuse, i.e., not "He hit me first!" but "I decided I had to use X amount of force in order to prevent an unacceptable level of violence being done." 2) Alternatives to the use of force must be considered; talking, for example. The womyn who successfully talk their way out of rape situations are proof that non-violent tactics can work (while the womyn who get raped and killed while trying to talk their way out are proof that it's a damn good idea to have practiced up on more than one alternative), though this form of verbal "shuffling" may be rejected by some womyn as being a form of psychological violence among themselves. Another choice might be to find and practice forms of selfdefense with which you can be effective while maintaining some control over the level of violence used (incapacitating punches, for example, rather than a revolver). Using physical force to reduce the amount of violence in a hostile situation is a tricky thing for a pacifist, but I think it can be done-with training and practice.

Obviously, however, organized institutional violence (e.g., an army, police force, etc.) can never be reconciled with pacifism. The only way violence can be used legitimately is if it is used responsibly, and in the final analysis, only individuals-never institutions can be responsible. Also, once violence is institutionalized, people tend to slip from seeing it as a positive tactic to seeing it as the only alternative. (Example: Crime rate going up? Build more prisons!) Pacifists also reject the use of organized violence as a means of social change, because (among other reasons) we recognize that violence is the norm in this society-that, in fact, this society is nothing but violence institutionalized-and that using violence is playing patriarchy's game by patriarchy's rules.

One reason violence is the form of social interaction most favored by patriarchy is that patriarchy is

(continued on page 9)

August, 1979/What She Wants/Page 5