/*/ corn}peace

The Hope for a FutureA collection of feminist writings on the draft,

militarism, war, technology, and the political process. 50*

Women are seeing differentlytoday. The blindfold is off. Weare looking at those things whichwe could not see before becausethey were too close, too familiar.Language, custom, religion—likethe air we breathe, they were ever-present yet invisible. But now weare seeing, and patriarchy is writ-ten across it all.

It isn't that women haven'talways known they were subjugated.It's just that they mostly acceptedit. God was male, and wasn't thatproof of women's inferior status?

It is really only now, when wesee humanity heading to the brinkof nuclear disaster, now when civ-ilization is at the edge of ulti-mate destruction, that our question-ing takes on an urgency not knownbefore. We see who is in power.We see who designs the weapons, who makes thedecisions to manufacture them, to deploy them,to use them. And we ask, "Why?" Deeper, deepergo the questions. And the answers we see arenot nice. They point to a skewed set of valuesalong sex lines.

Women are seeing differently today. Forthe first time, we are naming ourselves, theworld, God. We are affirming ourselves. Weare being empowered by one another-

The articles in this collection speak tothese concerns. They grew out of a conferencethat a group of women held at Packard Manse inStoughton, Massachusetts, in December, 1979.There, 30 women engaged in open, trustingdialogue, sharing their perceptions of the con-nections between militarism and the patriarchy,the meaning of feminism, and how women mightorganize to reverse the arms race.

Three of the resource presentations fromthat conference are included here. Barbara Davis(Zanotti) brings us the fierce anger that arisesout of her deep love for life, her rage at thepowers that put all life in jeopardy. With a

relentless searchlight, sheillumines that which we don'twant to see. Wilma ScottHeide presents her thesis ofmasculinity and feminity inboth sexes, couching it inhumor, flipping the languageto make a point, persistent,nurturing. Katherine Seel-raan stretches our minds overtime and space, offering usnew vision, naming a new setof ethics for technology.

We have added to thiscollection an article by KayCamp who combines specificinformation about the statusof Eurostrategic weaponswith her'perceptions of themacho nature of NATO. Pat-ricia Simon reminds us ofthe war cycle in human terms,

eloquent, sharp, poignant. Katherine Pettuslinks the political process to birthing, claim-ing for women a process dominated by men.

Women are rising up to speak with hardfacts, analysis, passion and moral suasion.Everywhere we look we see new awareness, freshinsight, developing powers among women.

We know there are men who share the fem-inist perspective, who are deeply sensitive tothis culture that breathes violence and oppres-sion. We have seen you hold the candles on thecorners when we inarched through the streets,taking back the night. We have worked side byside with you in every struggle. We know thedifficulties of breaking the patriarchal pat-terns in which you and we have been raised.

Women are seeing differently. We are gath-ering our strength and resources. But the strug-gle belongs to all of us. And the fruits ofthe future.

--Louise Bruyn

(Louise Bruyn works with the American FriendsService Committee on the issues of feminism,disarmament and peace conversion.)

Patriarchy: A State of WarWhy weren't we prepared for this—the immin-

ence of nuclear holocaust. The final silencingof l ife. The brutal extinction of the planet.Surely there have been substantial clues through-out history. Male supremacy. Wars. Witch-bur-ning. Male religious myths. Weapons of increaseddestructive capacity. Institutionalized greed.The enslavement of half the human race.Centuries of violence.

Why weren't we prepared for this? We havelived with violence so long. We have lived underthe rule of the fathers so long. Violence andpatriarchy: mirror images. An ethic of destruc-tion as normative. Diminished love for l ife, anumbing to real events as the final consequence.We were not even prepared.

Mary Daly, in Crn/Ecology: The Metaethics ofRadical Feminism, writes: "The rulers of patriarchy—Bales with power—wage an unceasing war againstlife itself. Since female energy is essentiallybiophilic, the female spirit/body is the primarytarget in the perpetual war of aggression againstlife. Women must understand that the female selfis the enemy under fire from the patriarchy."She further writes that "clearly the primary andessential object of aggression is not the oppo-sing military force. The members of the opposingteam play the same war games and share the samevalues. The secret bond that binds the warriorstogether is the violation of women, acted outphysically and constantly replayed on the levelof language and shared fantasies."

We needn't look far for evidence to supporther theory. Recall the US Army basic trainingjingle. "This is my rifle (slaps rifle). This i smy gun (slaps crotch). One is for killing; theother foT fun." The language of war is the lan-guage of gynocide. Misogynist obscenities areused to train fighter and intensify feelingsof violence. War provides men with a contestto act out their hatred of women without the ven-eer of chivalry or civilization. War is rape.

In the male world of war, toughness is themost highly prized virtue. Some even speak ofthe "hairy chest syndrome". The man who recom-mends violence does not endanger his reputationfor wisdom, but a man who suggests negotiationbecomes known as soft, as willing to settle forless. To be repelled by mass murder is to beirresponsible. It is to refuse the phallic cel-ebration. It is to be feminine, to be a dove.It means walking out of the club of bureaucraticmachism. To be a specialist in the new violenceis to be on the frontier. It is no accident thatpatriachy relates history as the history of war,that is precisely their history. In rememberingtheir battles, the fathers recall the deep exper-ience of their own violent proclivities andrelive the ecstatic euphoria of those ultimatemoments of male bonding.

The history of wars speak volumes aboutnational will in a patriarchal culture. Theyare nothing short of organized killing presided

Rolando Perez/Chile/cpf

over by men deemed the best. The fact is—theyare. They have absorbed in the most completeway the violent character of their own ethos.These are the men who design missiles and tech-nologies as extensions of themselves. Theseare the men ready to annihilate whole societies.These are the men honored as heroes with steelminds, resolute wills, insatiable drives forexcellence, capable of planning demonic acts ina detached, non-emotional way. These are thedead men, the hollow men, capable of nothingbut violence.

It is significant that during and afterthe accident at Three .Mile Island women were•ore concerned about danger than men; women feltthat they were being lied to about the real-lifeeffects of nuclear technology. Women were resis-tant to the repeated declarations of male deci-sion-makers that everything was under control,that there was nothing to be alarmed about, thatnuclear engineers could solve any difficulties.Women felt the lies. Women know and feel thelies that maintain nuclear technology becausewe have been lied to. We are the victims of pat-riarchal l ies. We know the deceit that groundspatriarchal colonization of women. We know,feel and intuit the deep truth that falsehoods,deceptions and lies form the very character ofmale rule. Women are the first victims of thepatriarchal state of war.

Violence to_ our bodies: A woman is rapedevery three minutes. A woman is battered everyeighteen seconds. Women are physically threat-ened by a frightening social climate structuredin male might. Women are depicted in pornogra-phy as objects to be beaten, whipped, chained andconquered. The myth prevails that women like i t .

Violence to our hearts: The positing ofmale comradeship as the model of human relation-ships. The systemic separation of women fromone another. The degradation of women's culture.The erasure of women's history. The sanctifyingof the heterosexual norm with its rigid under-

standing of the giving and receiving of affection.Violence to our spirit; The dismemberment

of the goajkss~and~the enthronement of the aalegod. The ripping of woaen away from a life intune with natural patterns of rhytha and flow inthe universe. The ongoing patriarchal work ofrendering woaen unconscious to ourselves.

Violence to our work: The exploitation anddevaluation of~woaenfs labor. The relegation ofwoaen to supportive, maintenance roles. Thedeliberate structuring of woaen's economic depen-dence. Violence to woaen. Under patriarchy,women are the enemy. This is a war across timeand space, the real history of the ages.

In this extreme situation, confronted by thepatriarchy in its multiple institutional forms,what can women do? We can naae the enemy: patri-archy. We can break froa deadly possession bythe fathers. We can move froa docility, pass-ivity and silence to liberation, courage andspeech. Ne can naae ourselves, cherish our-selves, courageously take up our lives. Wecan refuse to sell our bodies and refuse tosell our minds. We can claim freedom froafalse loyalties. We can bond with other woaenand ignite the roaring fire of female friend-ship.

This much we have learned froa our living:life begets l ife, life for women, life for theearth, the very survival of the planet is foundoaly outside the patriarchy. Beyond their sadand shallow definitions. Beyond their dead andstatic knowing. Beyond their amnesia. Beyondtheir impotence. Beyond their wars. Wars whichunmask the fear, insecurity and powerlessnessthat fora the very base of patriarchal rule.

To end the state of war, to halt the aomen-

tta* pnovidti men taith a context to actout tkvU haVuxA of, womenjaUhout theveneex o{ chivabuj ox civilization.

turn toward death, passion for life must flourish.Women are the bearers of lifeloving energy.Ours is the task of deepening that passion forlife and separating from all that threatens l ife,all that diminishes l i fe. Becoming who we areas woaen. Telling/living the truth of our lives.Shifting the weight of the world.

Will such measures put an end to war? Whatwe already know is that centuries of other meanshave failed. In the name of peace, war is waged,weapons developed, lives lost. Testimonies areannounced. Treaties signed. Declarations stated.Pronouncements issued. And s t i l l the battles goon. The patriarchy remains intact. Women arenot free. Nothing changes.

This time the revolution must go all the way.In the words of the poet:

Thli it vthxt at axe: watching the. ipideAAcbaUd—patUntly, the.y toy,

but me izcognizt in he*inpatienat—ouA am—

the. pattion to make, and make, againuheJve. such unmaking meigni

The. Kiiuiat to be. a victimwe have .lived utith uio/ence to long

(Atfoienne Rich, "Natunal R&soatcei")--Barbara Davis (Zanotti)

March 1980

Nurturance and Peace: Feminist ConnectionsOne of the most frequent questions asked

about the likely influences of the women's move-ment i s , "But who will take care of the children?"Usually it is men who ask. Interestingly, theirconcern about this previously had been about asfrequent as their wondering why war, which is or-ganized violence, is ever used as an instrumentof any nation's policy. Until fairly recently,answers to both questions have been taken forgranted. The two issues of nurturance and peaceare more related than may at first appear.

All children have two biological parents.Although a woman may be able to and may choose tobreast-feed her infant, the ability to incubateand give birth to the human organism does notautomatically qualify a woman to otherwise nur-ture anyone. Hopefully, she learns how. Like*wise, the ability to be a father does not automa-tically disqualify any man.* He, too, must learnhow to nurture. I assume both sexes are educablefor the vital work of infant and child care in

•Indeed, nurse-midwife educators at the Univ.of Kentucky inform me that some men in some cul-tures can and do breastfeed their babies.Think about that:

particular and creating nurturant environments,policies and societies in general.

Both sexes possess, in varying individualdegrees, the so-called "feminine1? qualities of,for example, compassion, caring, care-giving,expressiveness, cooperation, gentleness and com-munity-building. Both sexes possess, in varyingindividual degrees, the so-called "masculine"qualities of, for example, assertiveness, courage,instrumentalisa, dispassion, and competition.Thus so-called "feminine" and "masculine" quali-ties and behaviors are the potential natural rep-ertoires of both sexes. All are learned humanphenomena, not sex-specific potentials.

Female and male are biological identities.Female does not mean and should not be equatedwith "feminine"; aale does not mean and shouldnot be equated with "masculine." The humanityof both sexes transcends one's biological sexand encompasses both "feminine" and "masculine"potentials. Indeed, outdated concepts of "fem-ininity" and "masculinity" are anachronisms thatmay deserve extinction if our transcendent human-ity is to be realized. However, we must firstunderstand historical and continuing consequences

of this sexism.Although among the lowest paid work, if it

is paid at all , nurturance itself represents,nonetheless, not humanity's lowest need but itshighest necessity for intense, eaotionally con-nected cooperation, creativity, and care that isimperative for huaan life and growth at every age.

However, boys and aao have generally beentaught and rewarded for exhibiting so-called"masculine" behaviors not including nurturanceof others, to focus on self-interest, self-devel-opment and self-achieveaent. Girls and woaenhave been taught and "rewarded" for exhibitingso-called "famine" behaviors including nurturanceand focus on others' interests, others' develop-ment, and others' achievements and to deny and/or to devalue their (our) own* Purther, malesare frequently socialized to repress, deny and/or extinguish "feminine" behaviors, and femalessocialized to repress, deny and/or extinguish"masculine" behaviors. Thus, both sexes havebeen artificially and unnaturally denied partsof their very humanity.

As if all the foregoing weren't tragicenough,there is much more. Women have been and st i l lare oppressed by law and in practice in everyaspect of life as has been voluminously docu-mented. Additionally, "feminine" values andprinciples, which are virtually synonymous withhumane ethics, are privitized and publicly de-valued as if they were weaknesses. "Masculine"characteristics are publicly acclaimed as ifthey were invariably valuable and invariablystrengths. Not so. Women and men must demyth-ologize these "old husbands' tales." For this tohappen: woaen Bust care enough to be brave; aenmust be brave enough to care.

Publicly, society is dominated mostly by menand by "masculine" principles. Futher, allegedcourage often becomes augmented by weaponry; os-tensible strength easily becomes interpreted tomean force to control others; assertiveness easilybecomes macho aggressiveness to gain OT retaindominance over others. The seeking or use of suchforce i s , of course, an indication of impotence,not of power. Both sexes are, of course, poten*tially capable of learning the aggressiveness born

ExptAiintial nuiUwuuice. it&tli -U abona frutl occupational qualificationthat muit become, the. uthical cote oi

piUndplu and oi Uadzuhip.

of the inability to lead by nurturance. However,it is mostly men who organize aggressiveness, whoprepare for war like atomic giants and who givelip service to peace like intellectual and nur-turing midgets. Woaen of the world are awaken-ing to the need to cease being the unilateral,emotional jock straps and cheerleaders of anyfragile egos and of ailitarisa and sane men alsorecognize the imperative to strengthen not aggran-dize any fragile egos.

Danny Kaye reminds us the world spends intwo hours on armaments what it spends in oneyear on children. The Women's InternationalLeague for Peace and Freedom informs us the super"powers" of the US and the Soviet Union alreadyhave enough explosive power to destroy everyliving human many times over. Clearly, societiesneed reconceptualized organizing principles,social inventions and leaders who embody radicallydifferent visions of leadership than patriarchyhas allowed or even conceived.

One such vital vision is feminism which af-firms the positive aspects of what are called"feainine"virtues. By positive, I mean the hu-mane principles and values which are the strengthsof both sexes that need to be asserted publicly aswell as privately as the basic organizing princi-ples of nations and tha world. Presently, womenare more experienced with nurturance than are men.It is a genuine power, not a bogus force and con-trol derived from impotence. Women, along witham, Bust learn and assert nurturant leadershipthroughout the world. Those who are the care-givers, the nurturers of people must lead theproducers of things, not vice versa as at present.

For a family, an organization, an institu-tion, a nation, and a world to nurture its peopleand its environment and conceptualize and makeoperational internal and external peace, exper-iential nurturance itself is a bona fida occupa-tional qualification that must become the ethicalcore of organizing principles and of leadership.This is one of the more radical visions andvalues of feminism from ay perspective, that i s ,the power of love (in the sense of caring forourselves and others) will exceed the love ofbogus "power" to control others.

Feminism means that she'is risen to redefineand reassign the power for life. In the genericsense of healthy people, nations and our universeit is what I call "Feminism For the Health of It."Feminism inspires me to continually implement itsCovenant With Truth.

--Wilma Scott Heide

•"She" is used in the generic sense as themajority of humankind; she includes he, unlikethe reverse.

Feminism and the War CycleI represent the war cycle.I am infuriated that although we are still

working for some kind of justice for, even recog-nition of Vietnam era veterans, our governmentleaders discuss registration, in order to draftanother set of other people's children to main-tain "national security" which is whatever theydecide it is. No Congressperson lost a son or agrandson in the whole Vietnam era.

I am infuriated that the President appealsto the very worst in people--to a complete dis-regard for 1ife, so institutionalized hy oursociety for election campaign support.

I am sickened that once again, middle-agedAmericans are ready to register their youth (notthemselves) so that a draft is possible, so thata war is ready! All they need is an excusethey can always find one.

And due to a change in immigration laws, noexiles will be welcome in Canada this time.

Now there is discussion of complete assimi-lation of women into the most destructive exten-sion, the sickest sympton, of our societylegalized murder — in answer to Fqual Rights de-mands. The plan to register women has beendefeated 8-1 in a House Armed Services subcom-mittee. Fortunately, women have been rather mas-sively protest ing from a gut level. They havenot been taught to feel that war and ki11 ing areright. They don't have the traditional masculineidentity to defend.

One of the reasons that this war cycle goeson in the US is that most Americans don't exper-ience war. The bombs don't fall here. Anotherfactor is our psychic numbing a useful defensemechanism, but by now so highly developed as todestroy the human race.

My son David was a paratrooper, trying, in1967, to feel patriotic, trying to believe whathis government was saying. He and I, fresh froma small town in the Midwest and badly informed,realized he was being used in a very bad cause.He talked of.going AWOL. I sought support for

this action masculine support. For he wasstruggling with what it means to be masculine inour society and worried about abandoning hisbuddies.

I was ill-advised told he would never geta teaching job if he went AWOL not told therewas draft counseling in the institution where Isought support.

He was shipped ahead of schedule to Vietnam,killed three weeks later, two days before hisnineteenth birthday.

I wanted to go to Vietnam—for that'swhere reality was. I wanted to work in theQuaker Day Care Center. There was n_o_ realityhere. The American population was oblivious towhat it was doing 9000 miles away. But my dau-ghters needed me. I slipped into the peacemovement and into the F.ugene McCarthy campaign,the only sanity. I gathered other parents whohad lost sons and we joined a thousand VietnamVeterans Against the War in a week-long demon-

stration in Washington in Anril, 1971. We ex-perienced catharsis, community, reality , forthe first time after isolation in our environ-ment in which the war was not real...

As we started our long drive back to Boston,after a week that brought us back to life, myyoungest daughter, age 10, said triumphantly,"I feel like I have a thousand brothers now!"

We parents continued our anti-war work andas the amnesty issue emerged we spoke out infavor. We were infuriated at Nixon's use of usas a reason to refuse amnesty for resisters,deserters and vets with less than honorable dis-charges. "America cannot turn her back on thosewho served, nor make a mockery of their sacrificeby granting amnesty."

He established cruel prejudice--lied aboutthe motivation of resisters, about the very mean-ing of amnesty. (Amnesty: a legal forgetting,built into law, to undo what the law may haveunjustly done.) Amnesty is in effect a standoffwith no judgment upon either side.

We felt that those who had refused to par-ticipate in the war, befor or after involvementin the military, or who had been punished formilitary offenses, had paid a price in personalhardship and had served their country accordingto their convictions.

Through the faith and funding of a Unitar-

ian church we began our amnesty education andadvocacy as Gold Star Parents for Amnesty inNov. 1973. We worked for and against variousbills and against the Ford clemency program,which was a sham. The amnesty movement influ-enced presidential candidates, party platforms,and President Carter, who did in fact pardon13,000 draft resisters, largely white and middleclass. Due to the wail of protest at the raceand class discrimination inherent in the gesture,he established a special discharge revue programfor vets with less than honorable discharges.It offered eligibility for discharge review toonly Jialf the 800,000 needing relief and wasultimately undermined by Congress with a billthat Carter signed!

So veterans with "bad papers" were leftwith life-time punishments for, in general,purely military offenses. Those of us who workin the Veterans Discharge Project are sickeneddaily by the stories of those used and discardedby their government.

I hope you feel the absurdity, the obscen-ity in this way of life (of Death), this cycle--registration, conscription, induction, war,veterans.

I hope there will be strong resistance toregistration, realizing that massive resistancenow may actually cause legislation to fail.

Helen Caldicott, President of Physiciansfor Social Responsibility, says, "The human racehas two years to turn the arms race around."She is calling for a Women's Party for Survivalto raise the single issue of survival in theelection campaign.

I feel that the war cycle will be endedeither by women or by nuclear holocaust. Waris the history of mankind, due to the patriarchyin which we live. Women must end this patriar-chal society with its system of male-headship,of male definition of everything including our-selved, maintained and legitimized by patriar-chal religions.

I feel that there has been an evolution offeminism to feminist perspective; from libera-tion of women to liberation of all oppressedpeople---and we are all oppressed by the patri-archy. Essential human qualities that have beenassigned to womenmmust be developed in all peoplepeople, men and women.

My youngest daughter, now 19, called heroldest sister after Carter proposed registrationof men and women in January, and said,"Don'tworry. Just pack your things. My roommateand I will pick you up and we'll all go toCanada if there is a draft."

g-ivzn byzA, and pan&Lti on

Gold

Shimon at fiathe dna^t.

VoMvicxa Simon Is Co-diAzctoAStaA Panzntb fan. Amnesty/VeXeAan gUpgfiade. Pnoj'zct. Skt -i& at&o a. founding m<m-b&i otf fejn-iniAt Women fan P&ace/S.0.S..

AFSCRESOURCES

FEMINISM: THE HOPE FOR A FUTURE, is repiinted(rom PEACEWORK. a New England peace movementnewsletter published by the American Friends ServiceCommittee, views are those ot the authors, nolnecessarily those of AFSC. Assistance lor this projectwas provided by Diane Adler, Louise Bruyn, BarbaraDavis and Pat Farren

FEMINISM: THE HOPE FOR A FUTURE, extracopies of t h i s co l l ec t i on of w r i t i n g s ;use coupon on back page to order.

PEACEWORK, a New England Peace MovementNewsletter published monthly by AFSC;use coupon on back page to order.

GUIDELINES FOR SMALL GROUPS TO RAISE CON-SCIOUSNESS IN THE NUCLEAR AGE, by CarolWolman and Vivian Gold; send sel f -addres-sed, stamped envelope to AFSC, 2 StimsonAve., Providence, RI 02906.

AFSC WOMEN'S NEWSLETTER; request a copyfrom AFSC Nationwide Women's Program,1501 Cherry S t . , Phi ladelphia, PA 19102.

WOMEN AND GLOBAL CORPORATIONS: WORK,ROLES & RESISTANCE i s a study packet of24 r e p r i n t s and a r t i c l e s used as backgroundf o r a conference on women and m u l t i -na t i ona l s ; 1978; $4 from NationwideWomen's Program, 1501 Cherry S t . , Ph i l a -de lph ia , PA 19102.

WIFE BATTERING, an updated packet of a r t i -c les examining the problem and exp lo r ingresponses to i t ; $4 from AFSC, 2161 Massa-chusetts Ave. , Cambridge, MA 02140.

CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS ISSUE

ScVLbota Vavib [Zanotti] i6 a AadLcaZ faem-ini&t and peace activist, now studying atHoAvand divinity School.

UiZma Scott HeJjde. teAvtd ai VKuiAmt o{,W.O.W. and wai Human Right* CominUiiioneA inPennsylvania tjo-t tfw.ee yeaAi. She ii a \miXeA,leztwieA and heminit,t-at-laAge..

Kay Camp i& VntiiAznt o{ tkz intlAnaX-ional SAanch o$ the. Women'-s Intvinationat Lea-gue ^ofi Peace, and F/ieeriom.

KaXheAint V. SzeZman iA a poLctccal 6den-t u t , and chaiAi an kdviiony Scirztd on Elzct-fionici. She. iefivu a& an eneAoy comuZtant tothe. Motional Council o^ ChaAchej,, and a membeJiof, the. US SOIOA EneAgy RuenAch Imtixute. Tech-nology ChaAacteAizatLon Vanel.

KatheAine. Pettiu, ij> a co-^oandeAUome.n'6 PaAty {,ofi SuAvivaZ and aaAmame.nt activist.

the.

Fourteen Females in Fantasyland:A Visit to NATO Headquarters

Ch December 10 I was one of fourteenwomen representing peace and women's groups whopenetrated the headquarters in Brussels of thatmilitary bastion known as NATO CNorth AtlanticTreaty Organization). NATO houses the machinerythat gruids out the military policies of thefourteen countries which form the most powerfulmilitary bloc in the world. Its MinisterialCouncil was to meet in two days to decide onplacing in five NATO countries a new generationof nuclear weapons which could escalate the armsrace beyond all control and increase the likeli-hood of nuclear war being triggered in Europe.

Beyond the submachine-gun-guarded gateand rows of flying flags stood a huge blacksculpture eerily resembling a burnt-out world.

Inside the vast three-storied concrete-and-glass structure which houses NATO, anytouches of humanity there might have been--pic-tures, posters, plants—were lost in the barehalls and sharp angles of the building. In theconference room, the long narrow table confirmedhierarchy: at one end there was room for only onechair, at the other were three chairs, with nineor ten places alone each side.

The Director of the MATO Cabinet, S.I.P.van Campen, seated himself at the end with threechairs, his .American aide at his side. As spokes-woman for the Women's International League forPeace and Freedom which had organized our nine-country delegation, I sat at the other end totry to maintain eye contact and a direct exchange,but I had difficulty even seeing his eyes atthat distance.

After introductions, I expressed ourthanks to van Campen for this opportunity tomeet, and reminded him of the unsatisfactoryresponse we had received to an earlier letter.We had written to NATO Secretary-General Lunsat some length about several proposals put forthby the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO), NATO'scounterpart in Eastern Europe. We thought theseindicated interest in concrete steps toward mu-tual arms reductions in Furope.

WTO had proposed a European disarmamentconference, and that signatories to the HelsinkiConference on European Security and Cooperationdiscuss arms reductions provided in the Confer-ence's Final Act. There was also a proposal forno-first-use of nuclear weapons among the Hel-sinki signatories, and even a suggestion for anon-aggression pact between NATO and WTO.

These proposals had been ignored by NATO.Our letter had politely inquired whether some ofthem merited serious exploration or at least aresponse. The gist of the reply we had receivedfrom the man at the far end of the table wascurt: "We appreciate your letter and the time youYOU took to write i t . "

Now we spoke of our concerns about NATO'sexpected decision to deploy 108 of the new US

Pershing II Extended Range Missiles and 464ground-launched Cruise Missiles. Both kinds ofmissiles have a first-strike potential, and theCruise is practically non-verifiable. We asked:How can NATO justify i ts intention to deploythese new "Eurostrategic" weapons without firstexploring all possibilities for arms reductionwith the Eastern bloc? Why not respond to therecent Brezhnev offer to negotiate missile reduc-tions if NATO would put off the decision to de-ploy the new missiles? This offer had been but-tressed by the Soviet Uhionfs subsequent unilat-eral withdrawal of 20,000 troops and 1,000 tanksfrom East Germany.

The ensuing conversation was like shipspassing in the night and out of sight.

Van Campen asked why our consciences didnot cause us to protest the Soviet SS-20 missilescapable of reaching Western Europe; but he madeclear that he did not like others to raise thematter of conscience with him. We had alreadystated that we wanted to see the Soviet missilesremoved, pointing out that this would be evenless probable with the deployment of the newNATO missiles.

We expressed our concern that the newmissiles would violate SALT II by adding more USmissiles capable of reaching the Soviet Ihion,exceeding the number permitted by the Treaty.Van Campen did not respond to this, nor to ourconcern about the non-verifiability of theCruise missiles.

We asked why NATO focused exclusively on

the threat to Western Europe from the SovietSS-20s, when there were so many weapons systemsready to wipe out any Soviet target or the entireSoviet Union, should i t launch any type of at-tack on Western Europe. We challenged the "im-balance" NATO claims exists when authoritativeanalysis such as those at the Institute forStrategic Studies assert that a reasonable bal-ance exists. We pointed out that US medium-range missiles deployed in the 'SOs had beenwithdrawn because they made Europe too vulner-able to attack. We refused to accept the twist-ed NATO logic that the way to disarm is to buildup more arms. We noted other contradictions:NATO claims Western Europe is seriously menancedby the Soviet SS-2Os, yet NATO spokesmen them-selves told us that the likelihood of an armedattack by the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pactcountries is "very, very low."

Van Campen asserted that the number ofnew missiles to be deployed by NATO had beencarefully worked out during more than two yearsof active debate within the Alliance. He agreedhowever, that there had been l i t t l e involvementof the public in the debate. In fact, as NATO'splans became apparent to the public, protestsbegan to occur in many NATO countries. We hadparticipated in a demonstration in Brussels with35,000 others on the previous day.

Van Campen told us that consensus in theNATO decision was not necessary: that any nationnot wanting to accept the missiles need not doso. It is the United States who will pay forproduction of the missiles (about $5 billion),while the NATO countries will pay for theirinstallation and servicing. If the US decidednot to produce the missiles, van Campen said,they would not be deployed.

"The present situation is quite satisfac-tory," he assured us. "You ladies must realizethat we have had peace in Europe for 34 yearsbecause of nuclear weapons and deterrence."

With both sides increasing the quantityand quality of their armaments, with mandatedincreases in military budgets, with each sideclaiming the other is destabilizing the balance,with the erosion of detente and the nuclearthreshhold lowering rapidly, and with both sidesnearing first-strike capability, we thought thatal l too soon there might be no one around to tellVan Campen he had been wrong.

We asked what response he would expect fromthe Soviets to the new missiles. He guessed theywould react "more in sorrow than in anger." Heinsisted that the Soviet Union would have no in-centive to agree to missile reductions if NATOdid not move to produce and deploy these new "the-atre nuclear forces." He questioned Brezhnev'ssincerity, saying Brezhnev did not specificallymention the SS-20s in his offer to negotiate mis-sile reductions. Soviet Defense Minister Ustinovhad specifically offered, however, to reduce thesemissiles.

Van Campen ended the discussion by denyingthat NATO was concerned about dissident countries

A Feminist Call to ActionThe (oltxMing Call to Action uas signed ty oveA 400 women and published -in the. Match 3

•usue 04 Equal T-unfct. a 804*011 feminist neuspapeK. The. statement was tmixten by a naaOi to»mdgKoup, femuuit women $0* Peace/S.O.S. isisteM OKganized (OK SuKvival). Women wishing to signttui statement OK wishing to gather moKe. signatuKzs in oKdeK to publish it in tkeJji toealnewspapvu, one. encoutaged to do so.

As women, as feminists, we abhor violence and we intend to share our perspective on violenceagainst people, particularly women, and our planet. Sexism, a learned and unnatural phenomenon,is one of the root causes of violence.

The use of violence is an acknowledgement of impotence, and war (organized violence) iscollective impotence disguised as strength. Militarism is not human nature but habit patternsinherent in patriarchy which intrinsically result in dominant and subordinant groupings.

The male 'leaders' now have the technology and the obscene irreverence for life to riskand plan total destruction in the name of 'national interest. ' Feminists know there are dynamic,life-affirming alternatives.

Those who have nurtured life and cherished this good earth know that roost boys and men hivelearned how to dominate and control; now all of us must learn to nurture. Feminism affirms thefeminine, which is the more humane in both sexes, in private and pti l ic policies.

Feminism denies that a war economy is healthy, that militarism creates security, and thatpeace is possible without justice. Feminism is the most radical critique of our time, goingbeyond change in casts of characters to rescripting our lives and creating the very dynamicsof peace.

In this most critical time we call our sisters to action:--to resist the militarism of patriarchy--to resist the involuntary servitude of the draft for wonen or awn--to inform ourselves about tax resistance as a way of keeping our

dollars from doing what our bodies refuse to do—to oppose nuclear madness

WOMEN HAVE SERVED. WOMEN MUST ALSO LEAD. TOGETHER WE HAVE THE POWERJ

Contributions to help de(,Kay -the expense, of, the. ad and (OK (utuKe. organizing among women'sgioups would be qKate(ully accepted. F01 (uAtheK in(oKmation (iwm this gKoup, please it

feminist Women (OK Peace/S.O.S. 6 Dunham Stxeet, Boston MA

in i ts ranks. Yet at that moment the Danish,Norwegian, Belgian and Dutch governments were invarying degrees of chaos, unsure whether theycould agree to accept the missiles--especiallywithout some guarantee for immediate talks withthe Eastern bloc. In the Federal Republic ofGermany, Chancellor Schmidt had pressed for thenew theatre missiles for more than two years. Onthe eve of the NATO meeting, he won 801 supportfrom his Social Democrats after a surprise announ-

cement that he would go to the German DemocraticRepublic early in the new year to open talks withits head of state, Erich Honecher, and withBrezhnez.

Leaving the Cabinet Director, we went tothe offices of the Canadian Mission. Canada wouldgo along with whatever was decided by the others,i ts NATO delegates told us. They thought the de-cision would certainly be to deploy-but they dif-fered from van Campen in that they did not think

consensus among all the NATO countries would benecessary.

Down another long hall, a Marine in fulluniform was guarding the entrance to the US Mis-sion. There we heard from US officials whatseemed to be the strongest motivation for thisnew escalation of the arms race. They voicedtheir fear of "Finlandization"--meaning the ex-tension of Soviet and East European influence inWestern Europe. Unless the Soviet bloc is seenas a fearsome and threatening enemy, it seems,the "need" for the US protection of a unitedWestern Europe would fade and NATO nations mightmake their own peace with Eastern Europe.

As we departed, a number of military of-ficers bristling with brass emerged from the caf-eteria and strode past us, reminding us that theseand others like them were the men whose fatefuldecisions affect the lives of al l of us.

Two days later, the decision was made todeploy the new missiles. The carefully-plannedstrategy of a handful of men had prevailed.These included David McGiffert of the Pentagon,who chaired NATO's High Level Group; David Aaron,then deputy to Brzezinski at the National SecurityCouncil; Leslie Celb; Spurgeon Keeny of the ArmsControl and Disarmament Agency; and Richard Burt,then with the International Institute for Strate-gic Studies and now with the New York Times.

Significantly, however, the NAl'U communiqueunexpectedly called at the same time for talkswith Moscow that would limit both Soviet andAmerican weapons of this type. These arms limi--tat ions are to be negotiated bilaterally withinthe framework of SALT III. This of course pre-supposes the ratification of SALT II , anothercondition stressed hy *!ATO allies. Shortly beforeVATO's decision and directly bearing on i t , theIB announced that i t would withdraw 1,000 of i ts7,000 older, shorter-range missiles in Rurope andthat as each new medium-range missile was deployedan old one would be withdrawn. This would meetthe numerical limits in SALT II.

While the New York Times quoted Secretary-Vance's description ot NATO's Dec meeting as"successful" and of "extraordinary importance,"the report acknowledged "suspenseful last-minutedifficulties in reaching an agreed statement,which fell short of US hopes for a more resound-ing show of alliance solidarity." The Nether-lands and Belgium deferred acceptance of themissiles on their territory. The other threecountries designated to receive the missiles--160 to the Ihited Kingdom, 96 to Italy, 112 plusall the Pershing Us to the Federal Republic ofGermany--have each experienced intense internalopposition.

Shortly afterwards, in Vienna, NATO sug-gested that 13,000 US troops and 30,000 Soviettroops be withdrawn from Central Europe. Thisappeared to be a further concession to publicpressure, and as attempt to give new impetus tothe stalled six-year talks on Mutual and BalancedForce Reductions.

Following the NATO decision to deploy the

new missiles, however, the Soviet Union's firstangiy reaction was to withdraw its earlier offerto negotiate missile reductions. The GermanDemocratic Republic annoinced that i ts militaryexpenditures would be increased "to counter theaggressive NATO strategies." (So much for vanCampen's theory that increasing one's arms makesothers more willing to negotiate.)

The new missiles for NATO are not theonly military item in store for us: the $35 bil*lion MX Mobile Missile; the Trident II ; a 5t-plusannual increase above inflation in our militarybudget for the foreseeable future; a new 150,000man "rapid deployment" force; "modernization" ofmany present weapons models; new military basesin the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean area; andincreased military presence in the Caribbean;closer military ties to China; possible rein-statement of the draft, etc.

The tragedy of this trend is confoundedby the fact that a viable alternative coupeexists that is not being pursued. The UnitedNations in a special session in 1978 unanimouslyadopted a general strategy for world disarmament.All nations agreed that "Mankind is confrontedwith a choice: we must halt the arms race andproceed to disarmament or face annihilation."The world proclaims i ts readiness to proceedwith a rational new international security system

based on mutual respect and the actual inter-dependence of nations. But the US obsessionto be Number Che and the machinations of ourmilitarists and their cohorts in government,science and industry here and abroad have set usus on a destructive course that, if not changed,will make inevitable the ultimate catastrophe.

Our visit to NATO left us more than everconvinced that the entire anti-human fantasyworld of institutionalized machism must no lon-ger be allowed to dominate our lives. Women—and all concerned human beings--must exert theirinfluence to demilitarize the world. We mustliberate ourselves from the "worst-case" scen-ario-writers and war gamesmen, and help liberatethese men who run the world from their warpedimage of masculinity. We must expose the under-lying feelings of inadequacy and insecuritywhich undermine the real security of us all--and which can only be exacerbated by bigger anddeadlier weapons.

We emerged from this dialogue feelingthat a small group of women could have l i t t l eeffect on the decision to deploy these new mis-si les. But many more of us can, and must, pre-vent their actual deployment.

We probably have only two or three yearsleft in which to reverse the arms race.

--Kay Camp

Nuclear Fission: Feminist Technology?Is nuclear fission a qualitat ively different

technology? Does i t collapse the boundaries be-tween war and peace, between this generation andfuture generations? Ought feminism have a vision—or even an ethic—about modem technology?

Yes, to a l l these questions, but the devel-opment of a Feminist approach to technology re-quires an analysis of present assumptions aboutthe earth and i t s transformation into modemtools. To begin, let us explore the problem ofnuclear fission and some dated definitions ofsocial concepts. These concepts are: the commons(public spaces), poverty, colonization, and free-dom. As nuclear technology is poured into theseold vats of wisdom, how do they weather? Thenlet us move on to the bare threads of a Feministapproach to energy technology—energy technologyas a product, a precess, as knowledge, as anethic of choice. The task is too large for thisl i t t l e a r t i c le , but is a challenge to us a l l .

The Problem

Experience teaches us that no matter itsuse, nuclear fission is a weapon. Weapon gradeuranium and plutonium are accumulating in thespent fuel produced by present-day reactors aroundthe world. By 1985, 50 nations will have accum-ulated amounts sufficient to build three to sixnuclear weapons. On May 18, 1974, India explodedits first nuclear device, armed by plutonium pro-cesses from the used fuel of its peaceful nuclear

reactor. Science teaches that nuclear materialsare lethal to biological life, now and far intothe future. How does the existence of nuclearfission technology affect the commons, poverty,colonization, and freedom?

Old Concepts Updated

How can our common life be accurately des-cribed? We have invented, using the earth as alaboratory, any old machine, and operated themachine in society. One of the machines goeswhacky. What if the machine is nuclear power?

Nuclear energy sits in the cosmic commons.Its impacts reach far into time and spaced Therisk 1s to biological life: mothers and fetuses,

young children, future generations, to otherspecies. Time has become a matter of conf l ictof interest. Industry is concerned with shorttime spans; environmentalists with long timespans; the Church, and others, with the interestsof a l l generations—eternity.

Nuclear fission contributes to a new or cos-mic social poverty. The level of oppression isbiological—the cell or the gene. The new pover-ty links the economic poor with the biologicalpoor, whether those suffering from cancer inthis generation or from genetic damage in futuregenerations. The new poor is biological l i f e ,especially the species homo sapiens.

S t i l l another old concept is time. Withnuclear fission we are colonizing time. To theextent that genes are damaged, the present gen-eration is a tyrant in relation to the future—without accountability. We also colonize space:the physics space of the atom, the biologicalspace of the gene or the c e l l , the cultural spaceof rural people, the religious space of thenative American.

Freedom is one of our most treasured ideas,usually defined in our society by Individualc i v i l l iber i t ies of those presently al ive. Butnuclear f iss ion, unlike automobiles and planes,constitutes involuntary risks to health andother areas of human rights for this and futuregenerations. During the Three-Mile Island epi -sode the press could not get facts, so necessaryto democratic cit izen part icipation. Future gen-erations many not get the facts either. Theymay Inherit faulty information systems, due togenetic damage. Is this an incursion on c i v i ll ibert ies?

Clearly the impacts of nuclear f ission con-st i tute a New Poverty. There are new r isks, butfew cr i te r ia for determining acceptable risks inmodem society. Ther are new victims, as men-tioned ear l ier , the very young and the unborn,other species, future generations, classes ofpeople especially susceptible to health impacts,but few cr i te r ia for determining what technologyis appropriate to fa l l i b l e human beings. Nuclearfission 1s not only a product but also a process.The process of using nuclear fission involvesmainly experts, and is remote from the every daycit izen who has a responsibility for the healthand safety of the commons. Clearly, the impactsof nuclear fission reach far into time, spaceand ideas.

Feminist Technology

What do we know about Feminism that mightbe helpful 1n developing cr i te r ia for Feministtechnology? Feminism 1s an ecological perspec-t i ve , which attempts to be ho l i s t i c , not separa-ting technology into bureaucratic boxes marked"atoms for peace" or "atoms for War." Feministanalysis has not erred by judging nuclear fissionaccording to use, rather than according to needor Impact on biological and social l i f e . Femin-ism is a process of l iberation that ought not to

LllS/cpf

j us t i f y a technological process which colonizestime and space. Feminist knowledge involves asubtle blending of experience, emotions and sciencescience, and cannot support a technology thatdoes not permit human error or emotion. Final ly,a Feminist ethic is not merely u t i l i t a r i an . Lifeis not valued merely prudentially, i . e . , on thebasis of self interest.

Feminism brings to technology a hol ist icapproach to l i f e . Socie-technical systems mustbe designed to comfortably subsist within thematrix of the biosphere. The process of Feministl iberation is empowering human beings withoutexploiting the biosphere. Criteria for a Femin-is t technology, then, should include the following:

Safe—protective of the human and naturalenvironment, and not threatening irreversibledamage;

Appropriate to human nature—not requiringi n f a l l i b i l i t y or error-free performance fromhumans or machines;

Flexible—capable of timely change, evenreversibility, during development and use inorder to adapt to unpredictable events, suchas unexpected health hazards;

Non-destructive to other necessities of l i f e—for instance, not removing good agriculturalland from food production or polluting neces-sary water supplies;

Resource-saving—using renewable energysources rather than the non-renewables, forexample, water power rather than o i l ;

Fair—capable of having i ts benefits andcosts allocated fa i r l y to a l l , including futuregenerations, for instance, not requiring onegroup to suffer genetic damage in order thatanother group may have e lec t r i c i t y ;

Comprehensible—capable of being understood,with information freely available, so thatthose who wish to can participate responsiblyin decision-making;

Nonviolent—difficult to use directly

or indirectly as a weapon, for instance,not able to be made easily into a nuclear bomb;

Employment-producing—not replacing jobswith energy-intensive machinery, especially inthe areas of high unemployment;

Aesthetic—pleasing to the senses and enjoy-able to work with.

Involvement in technology is not easy forwomen. Tools and fuel are male identified. Butwe must develop a Feminist perspective. This 1sthe Age of Technology. In this Age, justice

questions, which are Feminist questions, oftencome wrapped in nuclear technology, electronics,genetic engineering or toxic substances. Unwrapthem and you find hunger, unemployment, disease,war and exploitation of the weak. Unwrap thenand you will also find instruments which can beused to alleviate these age-old problems. Onlychoice can determine whether technology is partof the problem or part of the solutttn.Feminist analysis is part of the solution.

--Katherine Seelman

Political MidwiferyTo brace herself to look, and to look hard,

is the obligation and the trauma of a woman be-ginning to sense the institutionalized violenceand criminality of our government and represent-atives.

She has to turn away in rage, disgust andfear, and turn back again, many times, beforeshe can begin to create a new, personal realitybased on a commitment to transform the condi-tions which arouse those nauseating reactions.To confront her powerlessness, so deeply en-grained, and to overcome it, is to understand animmense emotional, psychological and spiritualjourney.

In this, women owe a tremendous debt to thefeminist movement for providing us with the cou-rage to journey, and to the disarmament movementfor providing us with the facts and logisticalsupport. Wedding the two movements offers per-haps the most powerful and authentic momentumwith which to challenge the threats to our sur-vival .

The most irrefutable difference betweenmales and females is the birth process. I havechosen the event and metaphor of birth as theframework within which to analyze the involve-ment of women within the political arena, onetraditionally closed to them as a class. I be-lieve that it is a valid metaphor, one whichmust be sustained in reality if we are to achieveany further physiological birth as a species.That is, if we are not to be the last of gener-ations.

As separation of the fetus from the womb im-poses new obligations and responsibilities onthe parent, so does the separation of the indiv-idual from undifferentiated, domesticated con-sciousness toward more political, global aware-ness impose responsibilities and obligations onthe individual. Yes: They are equally births:one of a new biological being, the other of anew awareness. Both have their source in open-ness, which gives way to an ongoing, consumingact of love. The ecological and political per-spective which is gestated and eventually bornconstitutes the consummation of our instinctiveana intellectual insights. To be an activist inthis sense is to participate in the ultimate actof love.

In the face of the present crisis, charac-

terized by a resurgence of militarism, a new ColdWar that could heat up to a war fought with in-credibly sophisticated and destructive nuclearweapons, to remain silent only further empowersthose who are planning World War III. To under-stand our complicity in endorsing World War IIIis to begin the change which leads to transformingaction. Failure to participate in this action,while retaining an awareness of the real situa-tion, is a torture leading only to neurosis anddepression, to more easily oppressed victims.The antithesis, the midwifery process, suppliesus with an endless and exciting source of energy,perhaps the only one which men are powerless todeny us.

The responsibilities of women in the 1980sare so enormous as to seem almost unacceptable.For countless generations, women have found them-selves in the position of cleaning up the wreck-age wrought by males unable to successfully carryout their domestic, economic and political res-ponsibilities. From being the traditional laun-drywomen of the home, women now find themselvesasked to be the cosmic 1aundrywomen, told that,as women, they have a unique vocation to rescuethe world from nuclear holocaust. Many women maybe hestitant to accept this elevation to sexual"superiority," accompanied as it is by responsi-bilities they are unequipped--or simply unwilling--to assume.

Yet one is constantly pursued by the una-voidability of it—by the inability to turn awayonce and for all to whatever hedonistic delightscan be pursued in the eye of the storm. One ispursued by it while looking at lilacs that maybe the last to bloom in this corner of the pla-net, or at three-year-olds frolicking around atthe playground, knowing that they may not growup to express, as individuals, their fragment ofthe life force. Looking at them, knowing this,turning away. Hauling up the strength to wrestle,yet again, with the fear and discouragement.Mining this strength whose source is a sense ofbeauty and birth that is indestructable. Whosesource, is sensitivity unravelling endlessly oncethe first thread is pulled. Centuries of oppres-sion of women have built into us, blood, bone andmarrow, for better or for worse, these sourcesof power. It is precisely the concentration ofpower she posesses, pitted against the power she

confronts that gives the individuals struggleits traumatic and dramatic proportions.

The power we confront is an apparently mono-lithic military, rather like the giants of child-hood fairytales. As we demand a process of dis-armament, that must be defined. Disarmament isan organic, multi-dimensional process in the sameway as violence/militarism is an organic multi-dimensional habit. When we talk about disarm-ament, we are not talking about dismantling nuc-lear weapons and signing SALT II; we are talkingabout transforming the basic chemistry of rela-tionships, both on the micro-cosmic and macro-cosmic levels. The disarmament movement is notsomething we can confine to weekly meetings orbi-annual conferences. It is a process thatmust take place in every mind-moment, at everyjuncture of time and space if it is to beauthentic.

That which makes disarmament compulsory is aconsciousness which will not tolerate or justifythe habit of violence/militarism, and which con-centrates on detecting and sustaining the pulseof the life process.

This is a lovz process; love which is notsentimental or possessive, but which is allowingand indiscriminate about its capacity to nurture.This love must Includz anger and violence if itis to be whole. But between us, if our communi-cation is fine enough, we can alchemize our rage/violence into loving, constructive action. Thisputs us under the obligation of honesty. Suchhonesty is possible only with courage.

Feminist thought and discussion has openedus to the possibility of courage as has no othermovement. Here is the vital connection betweenfeminism and disarmament. Feminism anpomvu> usto disarm: the compulsion to disarm places uswithin the power of one another. Translatingthis intuition into political action is our on-going task. Assuming the responsibility whichdescends on us as conscious humans means partici-pating in in act of love involving both ourselvesand our oppressors — those whose policies may endin our annihilation. This responsibility hardlyimplies the self-abnegation or asceticism of theclassic revolutionary. Rather, it requires thehealthy hedonism of the individual and the grouptriumphantly discovering and putting to use theenergy which will enable the transformation ofreal i ty.

It is a fact rarely remembered that we livein one of the few remaining democracies. We al-low the US to claim this moral "honor" when itfunctions, in fact, at a purely technical levelwith women as the technicians, the maintenanceworkers. For the most part, women function withdocility. We do not participate with passion.Western industrial society replaces passion withsentimentality and originality with imitation,not simply because, as Marxist dialectic wouldhave it, the replacements are more efficient,but because they are less dangerous. To becomemore dangerous, we must rediscover our passionand originality.

To become more dangerous, we must use as aprimary resource our own bodies. Awareness ofthe body, celebrated in the biological act oflove with another body, or in the maintenance ofits health, or in the reproduction of it throughphysical childbirth, is profoundly political,and generates an energy which can easily be tran-slated into political activism. In this sense,the celebration of the physical awareness--life--is not an isolated, auto-erotic act but an au-thetic statement of one's larger humanity.

Women's awareness of their bodies is unavoid-able. The biological processes of women haveserved as an excuse for limiting female politicalinvolvement and for justifying the almost completemale domination of political processes. I proposethat the opposite can be the case, that our physi-cal awareness is a limitless source of power andenergy leading to an entirely transformationalpolitical dynamic.

Such a dynamic demands affirmation--not de-nial—of femaleness. The femaleness bears no re-semblance to the traditional patriarchal defini-tion. It is undomesticated, intrinsic femaleness,and does not require that we reproduce ourselves,only that through physical awareness of oursources of power, we give birth to, and take re-sponsibility for a life which is an act of love.

It is axiomatic, in this context, that thisconstitutes the achievement by the individual ofa larger humanity. To be capable of this, wemust first proclaim its value. The developmentof instruments of annihilation entirely contra-dicts this proclamation. By accepting a govern-ment which promotes such a contradiction, we areopening ourselves up to unlimited psychologicaldamage from the effects of shame, guilt and fearat the persistant spectre of our paralysis.

The unpleasant option, and it is indeed anoption, is neither absolute nor valid for thosewho aspire to humanity and celebration. "Revo-lutionary action" is sacrifice only when therevolutionary does not view herself as part ofthe humanity which she is transforming but asa "superfluous" entity which must be purged forthe "common good". In one sense, for example,a mother "sacrifices" her body to the fetuswhich she carries; in another, she "sacrifices"the fetus, a symbiotic part of her organism, tothe outside world. In yet another sense, sheparticipates in the transformation of the out-side world, as well as of her body and the bodyof another being, by performing a unique, abso-lutely creative act.

The "empowerment" is identical, whetherone gives birth to another biological being orto a strength, a passion, an idea, an act or amovement, so long as the births are authenticin that their source is love.

Women have begun this process of empower-ment and must continue it in the political arenato ensure the survival of the species. Womenhave not yet been trained in the politicalskills which are the prerogative of the maleclubs, but it is evident that they are begin-

ning to train themselves and to overcome theirfear of barriers deliberately placed in theirway. Women have advantages in that they haveonly to learn the mechanics of the new game,rather than the mentality. The mentality isalready known to us, for most women, at somepoint in our lives, haved lived with a man andobserved male behavior. It is constantly dis-played to us in news bulletins and in dailyinteractions. It is vital that a new dimensionbe added to this game in the form of ecologicalawareness and the instinct for species survival.The continuing predominance of male people inthe circles of power constitutes a severe threatto life itself.

A Women's Party for Survival has been formedunder the leadership of Dr. Helen Caldicott,pediatrician, mother of three, author of NuclearMadness: What You Can Do. The party intends torun candidates for office, form local women's

educational networks throughout the country andmake it effectively impossible for elected rep-resentatives to be re-elected if they supportthe arms race and the development of nuclearweapons.

The party is planning a nonviolent occupa-tion of the Pentagon and the Soviet Embassy forMother's Day 1981. The goals of the party are:Immediate negotiations for a bi-lateral freezeon the production, deployment and testing ofall nuclear weapons; institution at the federallevel, of a Department of Peace. The party ismulti-dimensional, in that it combines educa-tion with direct action and methodical work-ing within the democratic system.

For more information, contact Women'sParty for Survival, Janet Trickett, Secretary,7 Gilmore St., Everett, MA 02149, 617-387-9517.

--Katherine PettusBrookline, MA

ResourcesTHE UNDERSIDE OF HISTORY: A VIEW OF WOMENTHROUGH TIME, Elise Boulding, Westvlew Press.

AGAINST OUR WILL: MEN, WOMEN AND RAPE, SusanBrownmiller, Simon and Schuster, 197S.

ROOTS OF WAR, Richard Barnet, New York PenguinBooks, 1971.

ESCAPE FROM EVIL, Ernest Becker, New York, FreePress, 1979.

NUCLEAR MADNESS; WHAT YOU CAN DO, Dr. HelenCaldicott, Brookline, MA: Autumn Press, 1978.

BEYOND GOD THE FATHER, Mary Daly, Boston,Beacon Press, 1973.

GYN/ECOLOGY: THE METAETHICS OF RADICAL FEMINISM,Mary Daly, Boston, Beacon Press, 1979.

THE FIRST SEX, Elizabeth Gould Davis, Maryland,Penguin Books, 1971.

OUR BLOOD, Andrea Dworkin, New York, Harperand Row, 1976.

FOR HER OWN GOOD, Barbara Ehrenreich and DeirdreEnglish, New York, Anchor Books, 1979.

THE ANATOMY OF HUMAN DESTRUCTIVENESS, ErichFromm, Connecticut, Fawcett, 1973.

WOMAN, CHURCH AND STATE, Matilda Joslyn Gage,Watertown, Persephone Press, 1980.

WHY THE GREEN NIGGER: RE-MYTHING GENESIS,Elizabeth Dodson Gray, Wellesley, MA: RoundtablePress, 1979.

RAPE AND THE POWER OF CONSCIOUSNESS, SusanGriffin, New York, Harper and Row, 1979.

WOMAN AND NATURE: THE ROARING INSIDE HER, SusanGriffin, New York, Harper and Row, 1978.

AIN'T NO WHERE WE CAN RUN: A HANDBOOK FOR WOMENON THE NUCLEAR MENTALITY, Susan Koen and NinaSwain, Norwich, VT; WAND Box 421, 1980.

REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN, Leonard Lewin, NewYork, Delta Books, 1967.

HISTORY AND HUMAN SURVIVAL, Robert Lifton, NewYork, Vintage, 1971.

TOWARD A NEW PSYCHOLOGY OF WOMEN, Jean BakerMiller, Beacon Press.

THE GAME OF DISARMAMENT, Alva Myrdal, PantheonBooks, 1977.

BEHIND THE SEX OF GOD, Carol Ochs, Boston,Beacon Press, 1977.

ON LIES, SECRETS AND SILENCE, Adrienne Rich,New York, Norton, 1979.

THE FEMINIST PAPERS, Ed. by Alice Rossi, NewYork, Bantam, 1973.

WHEN GOD WAS A WOMAN, Merlin Stone, Harcourt,Brace and Jovanovich.

THREE GUINEAS, Virginia Woolf, Harcourt, Braceand Jovanovich, 1963.

Partial listing of Women's Groups and Organi-zations concerned with disarmament:

FEMINIST WOMEN FOR PEACE/S.O.S., 6 Durham St.,Boston, MA 02115.

WOMEN'S PARTY FOR SURVIVAL, Janice Trickett,Secretary, 7 Gilmore St., Everett, MA 02149.

•WOMEN'S INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR PEACE ANDFREEDOM, 1213 Race St., Philadelphia, PA 19107.

*AFSC NATIONWIDE WOMEN'S PROGRAM, 1501 Cherry St.Philadelphia, PA 19102.

WCMEN FOR SURVIVAL, 96 School St., Cambridge,MA 02139.

WOMEN OPPOSED TO REGISTRATION AND THE DRAFT,(W.O.R.D.) att'n Lynn Stephen, c/o BAARD,11 Garden St., Cambridge, MA 01238.

* Newsletter available.

LetterI've been delighted with the articles on

feminism in the January and April issues ofPeacework* I want to add a new perspective byoffering my thoughts on two common questionsoften asked of feminists.

The first question goes something like this:"Of course feminism is important, but what speci-fically does i t have to do with my day in, dayout, social change work?" A deeper definition offeminist values, beliefs, and visions Kill makethis connection clear. Feminism is a movementtoward a more wholistic lifestyle and mental/spiritual state. As feminists^ we believe thatsocial and political wrongs are ultimately aresult of a human spir i t which is not at peace,loved and loving—which is not whole. For centu-r ies , humankind has not been whole because "malepower" has dominated over "female power," withinboth men and women. We have all been taught tohonor rationality over intuition, logistics overcreativity, men over women, the sun over themoon. Feminism is a direct countering to theimbalance*

As feminists, we value the quality of ourlives. We believe that to struggle for any justcause without also making ourselves whole—with-out acting nonviolently toward ourselves and allwe touch--is merely feeding into the oppressivesystem. Therefore we strive to make our poli t i -cal work, our bread labor, our relationships, ourevery action and human contact as free aspossible from any form of violence.

So what does this mean for tomorrow when Iget up in the morning and face the same meetings,people, institutions and feelings I faced today?

1*11 try to be specific. In the personalrealm, feminist values mean:

—Feeling delight in the gift of life and inour overwhelming love for others which we haveglimpsed at times in our lives. NOT: "Butthere's so much suffering in the worlds-there'sno time to feel good!"

--Getting affirmation and appreciation for thework we do and for who we are. NOT: "I don'tneed to f i l l my ego with compliments!" He allwork better when we feel good about ourselves andare more able to be truly nonviolent then.

—Appreciating aloud anything our co-workers,family, or "enemies" do which we like. Everytime we do this we affirm our common ground ofhumanity.

—Learning to te l l others what is happeningwith us and what we need. If you have been hurtor oppressed, t e l l those responsible, assumingthat they can reform and that i t is for theirown healing as well as yours.

—Listening to the stories of people's workand lives, and encouraging them to look for waysthey can counter oppression. Urge them to seetheir situation os one of potential growth andchange because i t i s !

Feminist values can—and must—be _ ^ _ _ _ _ _

applied also to the political realm, no matterhow traditionally male-dominated and -oriented.We feminists aim for balance: we will use everyounce of our brilliant thinking just as we con-tinue to develop our selves and our spiri ts . Wewant to be able to think clearly about wherewe're going and how to get there, while remainingopen to re-evaluation of goals and means. Thus,feminist "strategizing" (that i s , planning) means:

—Not acting on our feelings of guilt or fear.Plan projects where people will act out ofinspiration, love, and caring, not guilt or fear.Our actions must not only -teA-ci-t injustices butalso H&XZJI&Q. a new dimension of our power whichwill enrich our experience and vision of whatlife can be. If we don't release this new dimen-sion by instil l ing hope, love, and vision, we arenot likely to effect long-term change.

—Planning a campaign with goals which pointtowards a clear and open-ended vision of whatthings could be. For example, this means notpushing "socialism" but instead working for asociety based on equality, ecology, decentrali-zation and nonviolence,

—Presenting analysis in such a way that con**nections between the problem and all forms ofoppression are or can be clearly drawn.

—Making sure that our goals and analyticalstatements keep open the doors of communieationto potential a l l ies .

I think that Quakers and AFSC'ers have beenpracticing such feminist ways personally andpolitically for decades. But the current femi-nist movement gives us new concrete ideas on theway oppression works to bind society into vio-lence and destruction and people into oppressivepatterns and roles. We can all use feminism tostep out of these roles and create liberated waysof effecting change.

The second question often asked i s : "Whyjust women? Isn't that turning the balance inthe other way? Aren't we all oppressed in thissociety? My answer to that i s , i t ' s not justwomen. Men must, and some do, strive for a bal-ance within and without. Men, however, have aparticular responsibility to refuse to colludewith their society-given power to dominate, fori t ' s a fact that men as a class oppress women asa class (in addition, of course, to individualmen killing, raping, silencing individual women).Women have recognized that we must refuse tocollude with that as well; yet we are wary of theold syndrome of blaming the victim, of leaving i tup to the victim to initiate the change. Femi-nism includes demanding that men step out oftheir privilege and be accountable to women.

—Anne Wright

[Anne. WKigfU -U an AFSC p e a c e tducatLon f^itt t L . in Uotutkampton, M h t

{Tk<J> -c6 tt.zpsuLn£e.d faKom the. May 1980 -̂ 4o^ Vzacvwohk a newiteXteA pu.bLLbh.tid 11a yzoJi by the. New England Re.g-ionaJL 0 ^ - tthe. Am&Lican Ftl<tnd6 Se.tAU.ce C

Order

Feminism:The Hopefor a Future

Subscribe to

"It is really only now, when we see humanityheaded to the brink of nuclear disaster...thatour questioning takes on an urgency not knownbefore," writes Louise Bruyn in her introductionto this collection of feminist writings on thedraft, militarism, war, technology and the poli-tical process.

You can help spread the urgent message ofthese strong, insistent voices. By distributingcopies of "Feminism: The Hope for a Future," youcan empower others to move away from the brinkof disaster in the direction of light, life andthe laughter of children.

Use the coupon below to order one or morecopies of "Feminism: The Hope for a Future" fordistribution to your friends, neighbors, class-mates, women's center or consciousness-raisinggroup.

Clip this coupon and mail toDisarmament Program, AFSC,2161 Massachusetts Ave.Cambridge, MA 02140

Yes, I want to order additionalcopies of "Feminism; The Hopefor a Future."Send me copies. Enclosed is $(Copies of "Feminism: The Hopefor a Future" are 50< for onecopy, $4 for ten copies or $8for twenty five copies.)Make checks payable to AFSC.

Peacework is a monthly movement newslettersponsored by the American Friends Service Comm-ittee. The AFSC is a 63-year-old Quaker organ-ization supported by individuals who care aboutsocial justice, peace and humanitarian service.Its work is based on the profound Quaker beliefof "that of God in every person" and on a faithin the power of love and nonviolence to bringabout change.

Most of the writings in this collectionappeared in past issues of Peacework. The news-letter collective is committed to continuing thedialogue around issues of feminism, militarismand patriarchy. You are invited to enter intothis dialogue by writing to the "Letters" columnof Peacework and to share in search for feministalternatives to militarism by subscribing to thenewsletter. Peacework also carries well-docu-mented, grassroots news of nonviolent action,disarmament, economic conversion, human rights,economic alternatives, resistance to draft regis-tration and to the payment of war taxes and thecreation of new models of human liberation. Usethe coupon below to subcribe to Peacework.

Mail this coupon to Peacework, AFSC,2161 Mass. Ave., Cambridge, MA 02140

Subscribe

Yes, I want to subscribe to peacework.

Enclosed is $5 for a third class mailsubscription.

Enclosed is $8 for a first class mailsubscription.

Enclosed is $25 for a sustaining sub-scription; $8 first class subscription$17 tax deductible contribution in sup-port of the newsletter.

Send me a sample copy of Peacework.

Make checks payable to Peacework.

NAME

ADDRESS ZIP

Feminism: The Hope for a FutureAmerican Friends Service Committee

2161 Massachusetts AvenueCambridge, Massachusetts 02140

Non-ProfU OrganizationBulk Rate

U.S. POSTAGEPAID

Boston, Mass.Permit No. 54135