Bread and Roses: Women, war and fundamentalism

Submitted by AWL on 13 September, 2002 - 10:09

by Vicki Morris

From a sense that "women" have something distinctive to say on the threatened war, and from a sense that they are not getting a chance to say it anywhere else, a number of groups recently held a women's teach-in titled "War/anti-militarism; fundamentalisms/ secularism; civil liberties/anti-terrorism legislation".

They were Act Together, Southall Black Sisters, Women Living Under Muslim Laws, Women Against Fundamentalisms, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, and Women in Black.

About 100 women attended. The atmosphere was rather hushed. This was to do with the opening plenary which had six speakers, two "experts" to introduce each of the three themes. It was a teach-in, after all. We had come to learn. The themes were elaborated in workshops. Perhaps we spent too long trying to analyse and too little time discussing action.

The women gathered and their co-thinkers have important things to say about the role of women in the anti-war movement. But do they have the will to make themselves objectionable, i.e., say what they think, in the SWP-dominated Stop the War Coalition which bans all mention of fundamentalism lest it offend the Muslims it wants to attract? On the evidence of this event, no, there is war-weariness in these ranks.

About the plenary, for this article, I'll examine just the contributions on war/anti-militarism. Cynthia Cockburn of Women in Black asked whether women are more peaceable than men? She rejected the "essentialist" notion that biology makes women nicer. But is there something in women's social position that makes them better peaceniks?

She acknowledged that women can be warmongers, but said their role is different - rearing and sacrificing menfolk - from that of men who go and fight.
Her message was that there is insight to be gained in looking at war from a women's perspective.

War affects women differently from how it affects men, and often worse. Obvious examples are that most combatants are men, but civilian women and children make up most war victims. That rape is used as an instrument of terror. That arms spending reduces money for the welfare services that women need to be free from gender oppression.

The summary, though I don't think it was spelled out, was that women can make good peace campaigners.

Cockburn painted an interesting picture of militarism so deep-rooted in society that it pops up in civilian life. The parade for the Golden Jubilee was an example: a military type review of all in society in very colourful "uniforms" parading before their Commander in Chief.

The second contribution, from Sian Jones, also Women in Black, was annoying. In being against militarism, her assumptions were pacifist - taking up arms is always wrong - although she didn't make a case for pacifism.

Several people cited examples where people were right to resort to arms, examples too glaringly obvious to need spelling out.

I attended the workshop on fundamentalisms/secularism. We got bogged down in defining fundamentalism, and even indulged in the fantasy that we might become secular fundamentalists. What does this mean? Possible definitions included: too strident, closed minded, not clear enough that we believe in freedom of worship and do not want to persecute the religious.

Janine Booth of Workers' Liberty pointed out that people were in danger of making the term "fundamentalist" meaningless by using it as a term of abuse for any strongly held belief. In that case she claimed the label "secular fundamentalist" with pride.

Fundamentalism is a term about religious belief married to political power. Perhaps rather than "secular fundamentalist", it is possible to be "atheist fundamentalist". Though I doubt this even. Atheism is not a belief. It's science.

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.