Feminism and Pacificism (continued from page 5)

based on the dichotomy of cultural "masculinity"?! (dominance) and cultural “femininity” (submission). Violence is the main element in the "masculine" identity. At the heart of pacifism is personal resistance to the violence implicit in that dichotomy. We must refuse to believe that change--real, basic change-happens only when one group seizes power over another group, a necessarily violent process. In fact, radical change will be possible only when oppressed people learn to take power over ourselves, over our own lives, in a way that transcends the violent patriarchal ideology of dominance and ab mission.

"Too Idealistic"?

The most common reaction to pacifism is that it's too idealistic. "There've always been wars and there always will be." "You can't change human nature."' "Civil rights never got anywhere until Watts." A more recent Teminist criticism has been that womyn have to break out of our traditionally passive role-but this criticism ignores the fact that pacifists are not passive. As long as I can remember. I've heard non-pacifists pose the two hypothetical ques tions which they assume no pacifist can answer “Would you just sit by and let Hitler kill all the Jews?" and "What would you do it someone was raping your grandmother?" The auswers, of course. are "No" and "Stop him". Pacifism is not about "sitting by and allowing one individual, nation. race, class or sex to do violence to another individual, nation, race, class or sex. It is about stopping Violence, or at least finding alternatives which hold it to a minimum in situations where some measure of Coercion is unavoidable

Nonviolent direct action can take so Many forms--sabotage, passive resistance, physical obstruction, general strikes. coordinated disobedience, to name a few-each of which can be effective in particular circumstance. The ruling class in patriarchy maintains itself through the involuntary, often unaware, cooperation of the oppressed. it they kill us off, they die. If we refuse to cooperate in our own oppression, they must fall. I don't mean to make it sound simple, though. Pacifism is not an easy alternative to violence; it isn't easy at all. Choosing to be nonviolent doesn't mean you won't gel hurt. In a pacifist revolution, people would be killed. But unless what you're aiming for is some kind of dictatorship, you can't ignore the fact that revolutions which base their struggle on institutionalized violence end up creating only new forms of violent institutions.

I don't think the idea of a pacifist revolution is any more invalidated by its idealism than is the idea of a feminist revolution. Both revolutionary pacifism and revolutionary feminism have further and deeper goals than the traditional Marxist anti-capitalism revolution, and both must look farther and deeper for revolutionary tactics which will suport, strengthen, and activate their essential principles.

Feminist Pacifists and Sexism

What could feminists be doing now to develop the theory and practice of revolutionary pacifism? Like many "mainstream" pacifists, many feminists have been channeled into working "through the system" for "redress of grievances." How can feminists use nonviolent tactics directly to challenge both individual instances of sexist oppression and the basic structures of patriarchy? These are the questions I'm struggling to answer, and I came to those questions through a feminist-pacifist analysis of sexism and violence.

Oppression is violence. Sexism is violence against womyn. Although most womyn are socialized (conditioned/brainwashed) by patriarchy into having and using sexist attitudes toward other womyn, the sexist oppressors and the only real beneficiaries of sexism

are men. Sexism is violence of men against womyn, even when the actual sexist act is performed by a womon against a womon, but example, when womyn violate ofher womyn's sell-respect by treating men more seriously than wonyn or condemn some poor womyn to death by working against the right to choose a safe abortion, they commit violence on behalf of the class of men against the class of womyn. Any privilege woniyn gam by joinine men in sexist acts and attitudes is overwhelmingly offset by the continuing oppression/violence they face as womy themselves, oppression which in fact is strengthened and supported by their participation in

it.

All radical feminists have struggled in one way or another with their complicity in sexism. Most les/bians whose lesbianism is not just "sexual preference” but also political ideology have realized that the only way to end this complicity is to withdraw their support from those who benefit from it. For example, if we work in a mixed (male/female) political group and put up with" sexism from the men because the work the group is doing is "more important than our personal feelings we are giving silent support to the violent institution of sexism. Many feminist action projects already use nonviolent techniques, for example, spray-painting sexist billboards and Lacilitating (by various methods) the removal of sexist store window displays. The womyn in Florida who insisted on their right to inspect the Gde given womyn at a local hospital and the womyn in Texts who compiled and distributed lists of rapiste names were using nonviolent tactics. With a little practice, you (and 1) can think up even better

ones.

Nonviolence and Pacifism

What I think is most important right now is for lesbian-feminist activists to expand the options available to us by exploring the many possibilities of nonviolent direct action. There are so many cases where nonviolent tactics could be used now-where they would be more effective, more constructive in the long run-even where they are the only realistic choice and where unfamiliarity with the wide variety of nonviolent techniques keeps us from taking action at all or forces us into mere protest instead of positive action.

On the other hand, I think it's very hard to be sufficiently consistent in carrying out a nonviolent action without some feeling for the "why" behind it--for pacifist theory. And it's hard for me to understand how activists keep going on anger alone, without a positive philosophical perspective in which to ground their struggle and their lives. I don't mean to say that anger is a negative emotion. Our anger at the refusal to accept oppression is the core of our identity as socially conscious beings.

But where does this anger come from if not from a profound, intuitive belief that there is a basic, inalienable value in life and in the life of each individual? Shouldn't our political actions be consistent in every aspect with their prime motivation and their ultimate goal? If we do not allow the horrors of patriarchy-and our outrage at those horrors-to distract us from our goal of a society where the value of the individual life is recognized and protected, and where violence is rejected because it debases that value, we can dare to struggle toward new-revolutionary new tactics based on a revolutionary refusal to compromise our means for our goal.

Janey Meyerding lives in Seattle, Washington. This article is excerpted from the March 1978 issue of Out and About, a Seattle lesbian-feminist monthly newsletter. Subscription: $4/year; more if you can, less if you can't. For free sample issue or subscription, write OAA, 1007 North 47th, Seattle, Washington 98103. For womyn only.