Women Who Run With The Wolves: A male reading

Occasionally within a group of men I hear the plea of ‘I don’t understand women.’ Sometimes plaintive, sometimes angry, and just about always perplexed.

Reading Women Who Run With The Wolves¹ may help. But, before I suggest how, there are a couple of caveats.

Caveat 1: The desire to understand is complicit in the not understanding. To understand means to fully grasp the meaning, significance, or nature of something. It means to be able to explain it and categorise it. Understanding is inherently a mechanistic perception. Women (and men for that matter) do not conform to such classifications. The desire to understand is (if I may be so bold) a male notion.

Caveat 2: Because of caveat 1 there are no answers, for men, to the appeal to understand women. Hence, this book can help but it cannot answer.

Having outlined these two caveats, let me delve into (at least some of) the book through a male reading. Although the book is now more than thirty years old, and although I have come across reference to it dozens of times during those 30 years, I have only recently read it.

Men – do not be put off by the title. It can look as though Clarissa Pinkola Estés intends the book solely for women; much of its contents apply to men also.

Clarissa Pinkola Estés is a storyteller and tells stories in groups and gatherings in many parts of the world. In this book she recounts numerous stories from various regions of the world. These stories are mythological and the characters in them are archetypes. This is important to note. The characters point to parts of our internal psyche, they are not identifiable people in our outer world. Furthermore, our internal psyche is shaped, in part, by cultural archetypes.

Clarissa Pinkola Estés explores these archetypes, dismantles them, pulls them apart, and then gently puts them all back together again. Her insight in doing so is extraordinary.

Let us return to the plea that began this blog – men unable to understand women.

As I read through Women Who Run With The Wolves one thing is very clearly articulated. Women contain at least two natures, and most likely, many more. Men do too, by the way, and I will come back to this later. But first – the dual nature of women.

As well as being an author, Clarissa Pinkola Estés is a Jungian psychologist, and as such alludes to the Jungian concept of animus. She defines animus as a woman’s ‘internal masculine energy’ and notes that, ‘This psychic figure is particularly valuable because it is invested with qualities which are traditionally bred out of women, aggression being one of the more common.’

Her aim in narrating and examining these stories is to enable women to discover and connect with their inner beings (archetypes) particularly the archetype of the Wild Woman (the wolf.) For the male reader, this aspect of women’s psyche may be hard to appreciate. Even the thought of a wild woman is dangerous, and even frightening. It is there though, and Esté suggests it is present in all women.

In her book Esté does not refer to the other Jungian concept of anima – a man’s internal feminine energy. Yet, reading Women Who Run With The Wolves from a male perspective, this concept is always present. Indeed, within many of the stories it is possible to glimpse the anima.

Women’s animus is an inner energy, and unless overtly displayed, remains hidden in our patriarchal society. As such, it can also be hidden from their male partners who wish to understand women.

There is one story in the book that is worth considering a little further, as it is a story that addresses exactly these matters. The story is called Manawee and is of African-American origin.

In the story Manawee is keen to court twin sisters. The father of the twins will only allow Manawee to do so if Manawee can guess the names of his daughters. Manawee tries and tries, but always fails. He goes away. Later he returns to try guessing again, this time bringing his little dog with him. Again he fails, and again he skulks off home. But his dog goes back to the sister’s hut and overhears the two of them talking about Manawee and calling each other by their names.

The little dog runs off to tell Manawee. On the way he smells a juicy bone and goes searching for it and chews it up. By the time he has finished he has forgotten the twins names. The dog goes back again, and from outside again hears the sisters’ names. He runs off again, and again is waylaid by the sumptuous smell of nutmeg. He forgets the names again and goes back to sleep at Manawee’s hut for the night.

The next morning, the little dog trots off to the sister’s hut and spies them getting ready to be wed. “Oh no!” he thinks, “I have to tell Manawee their names.” He hears their names and this time, even though accosted by a nasty stranger, he doggedly returns to Manawee and tells him the names of the twins. Manawee sprints off to the village where the twins and their father live. He tells the father their true names. The father blesses the marriage, and the twins tell Manawee that they have been waiting for him for a long time.

There is much archetypically in this story. Let me mention just a couple briefly.

·       The twin daughters refer to the dualism within women. In this story, one twin exemplifies the outer woman, the other the inner energy. Manawee is not marrying two women but is marrying ‘one who lives in the topside world, one who lives in the world not so easily seen,’ as Esté expresses it. He must accept both (i.e. be able to name each of them) before he can be wed. (Remember, the twins are archetypes. The story is not to be read as referring to polygamy.)

·       The little dog is what Esté calls Manawee’s dog nature. The little dog shows that Manawee (and all men) have a dual nature: Esté tells it thus: ‘His human nature, while sweet and loving, is not enough to win the courtship. It is his dog nature, his instinctual nature, that has the ability to creep near the wildish women and with his keen listening hear their names.’

Dogs, as we know, have a keen sense of sight, smell, and hearing. With that in mind, the little dog in this story is the perfect archetype for Manawee’s instinctual nature.

Thus, for men who bemoan being unable to understand women, there are some valuable lessons in Women Who Run With The Wolves.

The first lesson is to recognise that women have a dual nature. Perhaps more importantly, it is to recognise that men do also.

The second lesson is to let go the desire to understand. Instead, men must access their dog nature and learn to listen. Not just hear, but truly, deeply listen, and not be distracted from that attention.

Reading the book reveals many other lessons. Any man who wishes to discover them is recommended to read this important book.

Notes:

1. Clarissa Pinkola Estés, Women Who Run With The Wolves: Contacting the Power of the Wild Woman, Rider, London, Sydney, Auckland, Johannesburg, 1992.

Re. Reweaving The Web Of Life (Book Review)

Just over forty years ago Pam McAllister edited one of the most important books exploring the interface between feminism and nonviolence. With more than 50 contributors writing articles, letters, poems, and songs, Reweaving The Web Of Life¹ proved just how incisive and diverse could be the critique of patriarchy. It also helped to unlock the door into a new society beyond the confines and constraints of inequality and violence.

Pam McAllister and the other women (although two men did co-author one article, More Power Than We Want) contributing were not only pointing out the failings of patriarchy and the existing world-order, they were looking forward, expectantly, to a different future. Importantly, they recognised that the future and the present were intricately linked (one of the many wefts and warps woven into the book) together. As McAllister put it in her Introduction:

‘A new world, the world I long for, cannot be built with the tools, psychology, belief systems of the old. It will be born of the changes encoded in the details of our lives as we are living them now. The fabric of the new society will be made of nothing more or less than the threads woven in today’s interactions.’

The title of the book comes from the title of Catherine Reid’s essay – Reweaving the Web of Life ­– in which she tells the story of a group of women calling themselves The Spinners. The Spinners were allied with the “Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Alliance” opposed to the construction and then continuance of a 620 MWe nuclear reactor on the Connecticut River.

Reid’s essay tells how The Spinners used thousands of yards of coloured yarn, threads, and strings which they secured to various trees, and then began spinning and weaving before the police could respond. Significantly, the nonviolent action of The Spinners took place just three days after the beginning of the accident at Three Mile Island nuclear reactor.²

The story of The Spinners is one of dozens of examples of the use of nonviolence by women cited in the book.

McAllister writes of how a Tarot card reading helped her with the strength she needed to write the book. One of the cards she took was labelled Strength and showed a woman stroking a lion. The convergence of feminism with nonviolence and strength is clear in the symbolism.

It is no coincidence that McAllister wove together the threads of feminism with those of nonviolence. In common with many feminists at the time, McAllister raged at ‘patriarchy’s brutal destructiveness’ and refused to adopt it’s (violent) ways. Furthermore, she asserted that she ‘refused to give in to despair or hate or to let men off the hook by making them the “other”.’

In that statement McAllister alluded to one of patriarchy’s underpinnings – that of separation and disconnection. McAllister, and the other contributors were having nothing of that sort of divisive thinking. For many within progressive movements of the time this (idea of non-separation) was quite a radical thought.

All but one of the contributors were US based, which was a deliberate decision on McAllister’s part. She intended following up with a book featuring contributors from other parts of the world. That idea morphed into two books presenting stories of women using nonviolence from all over the world: - You Can’t Kill The Spirit (1988) and This River of Courage (1991).

Reweaving the Web of Life is a landmark book, bringing together as it does, many contributors writing about the theory behind feminism and nonviolence, as well as telling stories of actual experience.

For anyone wishing to delve deeper into ways to re-weave the web of life, then this book is a must-read.

Notes:

1. Pam McAllister (ed.), Reweaving The Wed Of Life: Feminism and Nonviolence, New Society Publishers, Philadelphia, 1982

2. The Three Mile Island accident was a partial meltdown of one of the reactors at Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania in March 1979. At the time, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) rated the accident at Level 5 on its 7-level International Nuclear Event Scale. It remains the most significant nuclear accident in US commercial nuclear power plant history.

International Women's Day - A Liberation

I write this on 8 March 2022 – almost 50 years since the United Nations proclaimed 8 March as International Women’s Day.

The day itself has antecedents that stretch back to 1908 when women garment workers marched in New York demanding better working conditions and the right to vote. From there, women demanded (and celebrated the day) throughout a number of European countries.

In 1917, tired of the war, mostly women protested in Russia demanding bread and suffrage. This was to be one of the precursors of the revolution that brought the Russian empire, and the rule of the Tsar, to an end. Russian women gained the right to vote that year, before their sisters in the UK and USA.

Ofttimes in these days International Women’s Day is viewed through the lens of equality. Have women gained similar rights as men? Has the pay discrepancy reduced? Are women gaining access to institutions of power once reserved exclusively for men?

Yet, not all women are focused simply upon equality. Germaine Greer cynically stated that,

“I didn’t fight to get women out of behind vacuum cleaners to get them onto the board of Hoover.”

Germaine Greer, and many other feminists (especially during the 1970s and 1980s) advocated liberation. Indeed, the feminist movement of that time was often called the Women’s Liberation Movement.

Liberation, as readers will know, means something much much more than equality.

Did men hijack the intent of liberation? Did men simplify the message (or at least hear the message) to one of “equality with men”? Did men maintain the institutions of patriarchy by allowing for the equality of women so that women could participate in those institutions? Did men do this so that the institutions would not have to change?

Are men afraid of liberation? Any form of liberation – not women’s only.

I don’t know the answers to these questions. However, I would rather the questions were posed and that we have to think about them, than have glib and simplistic answers available.

During the 1970s and 1980s, women’s liberation was a political project. Yet, even within the political phraseology there was a radically different understanding of “political.” Political did not mean women having equal access to the political institutions. It did not mean more women in the seats of government. It did not mean more women heads of state. Although all those aspirations are worthy, for the women’s liberation movement, political institutions and structures themselves had to be rethought.

To quote Germaine Greer again:

“I do think that women could make politics irrelevant; by a kind of spontaneous cooperative action the like of which we have never seen; which is so far from people’s ideas of state structure or viable social structure that it seems to them like total anarchy — when what it really is, is very subtle forms of interrelation that do not follow some heirarchal pattern which is fundamentally patriarchal. The opposite to patriarchy is not matriarchy but fraternity, yet I think it’s women who are going to have to break this spiral of power and find the trick of cooperation.”

That, men and women, is a totally transformed understanding of the role and nature of politics.

Thus, as another International Women’s Day is celebrated, let us recall the radical liberation ideas of the feminists who were active fifty years ago – at the time the international institution of the United Nations was proclaiming the day.

See What You Made Me Do (Book Review)

Perhaps the most prescient comment in Jess Hill’s award winning book – See What You Made Me Do: Power, Control and Domestic Abuse¹ – comes not in the main text, but in a footnote on page 225.  In that footnote, Hill quotes Ellen Pence (a prominent worker in the field) as asking:

“What would change if women stopped being violent towards men?  The answer is clear – nothing like the change that would occur if men stopped being violent towards women.”

That women are sometimes violent towards women is one of the most common apologies given to dismiss the need for men to change their behaviour, thoughts, and beliefs.

Yes, it is so; some women do act violently towards men.  Yet, if you read Jess Hill’s thoroughly researched and example-laden book it is clear that the perpetrators of domestic abuse, and coercive control, are overwhelmingly men.

Jess Hill is an investigative journalist who spent over six years researching and writing See What You Made Me Do.  That time and effort shows.  The personal stories of women who have suffered years and years of domestic abuse are compassionately and forthrightly told.  The research is wide and exemplary.  The writing style is compelling and accessible.

From the perspective of a man who has had almost fifty years involvement in men’s organisations and has tried to understand sexism, male violence, misogyny, and patriarchy, this book is one of the best I have read.

What makes a perpetrator of domestic abuse has been studied by psychologists, feminist writers, and sociologists for many years.  Hill presents the ideas of many of these analysts and researchers.  She concludes that, “only by integrating both (major) viewpoints – feminism and psychology – can we start to truly comprehend the phenomenon of men’s violence against women, and find effective ways to stop it.”

And – stop it we can.

Hill writes of several possible solutions; ranging from the novel, and highly effective, Argentinian and Brazilian, Women’s Police Stations, to the preventative measures introduced by Police Superintendent Greg Moore in Bourke (NSW, Australia) in 2016.

A further way to stop men’s violence against women is for men to read this book, and at least, become informed as to the severity and widespread nature of the issue.

Much of this book relates to the tip-of-the-iceberg; the physical, mental, emotional, and financial abuse that a large percentage of women endure daily.  It could be tempting for some men to read this and claim that the problem lies with “other men” or “that group of men,” but “not me, I’m not part of the problem.”

To read it this way though would be to do the book, Jess Hill, and the thousands upon thousands of abused women, an injustice.

Hill devotes one chapter to Patriarchy, and concludes that, “the entire system of patriarchy is organised around an obsession with control.”  With an understanding of what patriarchy is, how it operates, and who benefits, Hill confidently states that patriarchy is, “critical to our understanding of perpetrators of domestic abuse.”

Understanding this suggests that the solutions to domestic abuse, coercive control, misogyny, and male violence against women, are not just in the hands of; the police, the courts, legislators, women’s refuges, and men’s behaviour change programs.

We all (especially men) have a part to play.

The best place to start to comprehend that part is to read the script.  See What You Made Me Do is an excellent script to begin with.  Indeed, if there were a University course titled Twenty-first Century Masculinity 101 this book would be on the required reading list.

Note:

1. Jess Hill, See What You Made Me Do: Power, Control and Domestic Abuse, Black Inc., Carlton, Victoria, Australia, 2019.

Women Show Men How It Is Done

Delegates at the Hague conference.  Jane Addams is second
from the left at the front.

Today is International Women’s Day, so I thought I would write about an historical event that seems to have almost been forgotten – or perhaps deliberately side-lined.

Nine months to the day after the start of the First World War well over 1,200 women from all over Europe, plus Canada and the U.S., met in The Hague for the International Congress of Women.  This conference had two major foci:

1.     That international disputes should be settled by pacific means.

2.     That the parliamentary franchise should be extended to women.

Of the thirteen nations represented at the conference only one – Norway – had extended the franchise to women at the time.  Within five years of this conference votes for women had been extended in a further six countries.  Two more had done so partially.  Indeed, prior to the outbreak of World War 1 in only two nations in Europe was it possible for women to vote – Norway and Finland.

Women clearly understood the connection between political power and the possibilities for peace.

Newspapers of the time criticised the conference as “hysterical, base, silly, and futile.” Women from Germany, Austria, and Hungary were labelled “Kaiser’s cat’s paws” and denounced as German spies.

Despite these attacks and attempts to discredit, 1,136 women attended as delegates and several hundred more as visitors and observers.  Hundreds more were unable to attend; either because they were stopped by government decree (as 150 or more from the U.K. were when the Home Office refused to issue passports) or were impeded by the lack of shipping because of the war. 

Women who attended risked the opprobrium of families, the disavowal of friends, and the censure of their own governments.  Far from succumbing to massive criticism and ostracism, Jane Addams¹ (who presided over the conference) summed up the fortitude of the women when she remarked after the conference that:

“The great achievement of this congress is to my mind the getting together of these women from all parts of Europe, when their men-folks are shooting each other from opposite trenches.  When in every warring country there is such a wonderful awakening of national consciousness flowing from heart to heart, it is a supreme effort of heroism to rise to the feeling of internationalism, without losing patriotism.”

The congress endorsed a document containing twenty resolutions ranging from protesting the violence against women, to the principles and process leading to peace.²  The document outlined steps necessary towards international cooperation and the need for pacific approaches to conflict resolution to be taught in schools.  The role of women in peace processes was noted and included the call for all countries to extend the parliamentary franchise to women.

Participants at this congress did not stop with the endorsement of this document.  Following the conference, the document was printed in English, French, and German and sent to European heads of state in May 1915.  Furthermore, thirty delegates toured Europe from May until June speaking with political leaders and others.  However, the fighting continued.

Today, many of the resolutions from this congress are used as guidelines for many diplomatic negotiations held between hostile nations.

It should be remembered that this conference was held at a time when conferences/congresses were very much the domain of men, and that travel by women (without male company) was largely frowned upon.  Furthermore, at that time (in the middle of one of the most brutal wars in history) travel was extremely difficult.  It is a tribute to the women who participated that they did so, and were not afraid to show their courage and determination.

Had those twenty resolutions been listened to, and adopted, by the European leaders of the time, the world today may well have been a far more peaceful and cooperative place than it is today.

It still could be, if women continue to stand up for their understandings, and if men would stop and listen.

Notes:

1.  Jane Addams was a leader in the U.S. suffragist movement, a founder of the profession of social work, an activist for world peace, and social reformer.  She was once labelled “the most dangerous woman in America.  She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1931.

2.  A PDF of these resolutions is here: https://wilpf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/WILPF_triennial_congress_1915.pdf

Men Have Nothing To Fear From Feminism (post-script)

Last month I posted two blogs (here and here) about feminism, patriarchy and masculinity.  Since

then I have come across a couple of items that add to or expand on those themes.  I would like to share them here.  One is a cartoon about "toxic masculinity" and the other is a short video about feminism, patriarchy and gender equality in Iceland.

In the cartoon, the artist (Luke Humphris) outlines succinctly how patriarchy can lead to a condition known as "toxic masculinity" which is particularly damaging to men and those around them.

In the video, the presenter/interviewer (Liz Plank) takes us to Iceland where she interviews a group of men who state clearly that feminism has been of benefit to men and that there is nothing to fear from feminism.  (For those who want to jump ahead to this segment of the video, go to 2 min 55 seconds in).

The cartoon strip can be accessed here.https://thenib.com/toxic-masculinity

Feminism: What Have Men To Fear? (Part 2)

In last weeks blog I asked whether men had anything to fear from feminism.  In that blog I proposed and briefly addressed two proposals:

1. Feminism is misunderstood, and
2. Feminism is not the problem.  Patriarchy is.

In this blog I intend briefly addressing the other two proposals:
     3. Feminism has not achieved its aims, and
     4. Men are also oppressed by patriarchy and stand to benefit by understanding and supporting feminism.

Feminism Has Not Achieved Its Aims

If feminism sought liberation from the patriarchal system, then it has not yet achieved that goal.  In many ways, the patriarchal system has become even more entrenched, with some women participating in it enthusiastically.  The (masculine) values of patriarchy are alive and well:

• Aggression is still, all too often, seen as the way to achieve what we want.
• Right and wrong, black and white, good and bad; polarities are still the way the world is portrayed.
• Adversarial techniques are still the method of choice in our legal system, politics, the media, and our educational system.
• Self-worth is measured (possibly increasingly so) by economic success, popularity, identification with idols (sports stars and pop idols for instance), strength, power, and influence.

Meanwhile, as patriarchy continues to thrive, the non-human parts of the planet are abused, misused, and exploited.  Other living beings that share the Earth with us are being made homeless, or worse still – extinguished.

The women's’ (and men's’) liberation movement have much to do.

Men Are Oppressed By Patriarchy

When I stated that women sought liberation from the patriarchal system, it is my contention that men could also benefit.  Why do I say that?  Consider these:

• Under patriarchy, men’s feelings and emotions are stifled.  Most men grew up hearing phrases such as “big boys don’t cry.”  A few weeks ago I was talking with a friend whose father had been in the Australian navy during the war.  His father died young.  A friend of his father’s told him one day that he and the father came back from the war traumatised, yet were told to “go have a beer and get over it.”  Sadly, such sentiments remain today.
• Stifling of emotion can lead many men to unhealthy coping mechanisms: alcoholism, chronic gambling, and depression to name but three.
• Afraid to show (or even acknowledge) anything that suggests “weakness” can result in over-compensating by resorting to violence.  This is displayed in everything from schoolyard bullying, to a pub punch-up, through to domestic violence and all the way to the war in Syria.
• Stifling of emotion is implicated in the high rate of suicide amongst men.  In may parts of the world, men kill themselves at a rate three times that of women.  In Australia, suicide and self-inflicted injury is the third highest cause of death amongst men, behind coronary heart disease and lung cancer,  It ranks higher than such causes as stroke and prostate cancer.
• Patriarchy coerces men to disconnect from their children, families and community.  The song Cats In The Cradle by Harry Chapin, poignantly notes the sadness of a man trying to connect with his son late in life, only to find that “my boy had grown up just like me,” and did not have the time, nor the energy, to connect with his father.
• Patriarchy especially discriminates against gay men, black men, young men and boys, and “weak” men.
• Patriarchy is implicated in the phenomenon known as “toxic masculinity.”  Toxic masculinity aspires towards toughness, but is based in fear: fear of seeming or looking – soft, weak, tender, less “manly.”  It is characterised by domineering behaviour, the devaluation of women (including misogyny), and extreme self-reliance.

No, patriarchy is not good for men.  I must add a rider here.  This recognition that patriarchy oppresses men should not be read as a devaluation of the role patriarchy has in oppressing women.  The intent is to show that men have nothing to fear from feminism.

Finally:

• NO!  Women are not the problem.
• NO! Feminism/Women's’ Liberation is not the problem.
• YES! Men and women can be partners and allies.
• YES! Women and men stand to benefit by a liberation from what oppresses each gender – patriarchy.

Feminism: What Have Men To Fear?

Often I hear statements such as these from men:

• Men don’t know who or what they are anymore because of feminism.
• Men are oppressed by feminism.
• Feminism says that men and women are equal, but we’re not!

These, and similar statements, suggest that feminism has been damaging to men, to families, and to relationships between men and women.

Is this so?  What follows is one man’s perspective.  I do not claim this to be truth – simply my understanding.  It is also, by necessity, simplified.

Let me begin by summarising this perspective in four proposals, which I will elaborate upon over the next two blogpieces:

1. Feminism is misunderstood by men (and some women).
2. Feminism is not the problem that many men make it out to be.  The problem is patriarchy.
3. Feminism has not achieved what it set out to do.  It has been (in many instances) diverted from that goal.
4. Men are also oppressed by patriarchy, and have something to benefit from understanding and supporting feminism.

In this blog I will elaborate upon the first two of these proposals.

Feminism Is Misunderstood

Let’s go back to the 1960s.  In that decade women began to meet together in “consciousness raising” groups.  Out of these groups a movement was born (perhaps better thought of as re-born when we think of the women’s rights movements of the 18th¹ and 19th centuries.)  This movement became known as “Women's Liberation.”  Very soon, the (male) media subjected this movement to what the powerful often do – minimise and belittle, and dubbed it “Women's Lib.”  Perhaps because of this, the term “feminism” became the more popular name.  Today, the name has morphed into “gender equality.”

In that naming and renaming journey, “liberation” got dropped and was replaced by “equality.”  Indeed, one of the early feminist writers from the 1960/70s, Germaine Greer, caustically noted that “feminism aimed at liberation, but settled for equality.”  She later expanded on this by saying, “… seekers after equality clamoured to be admitted to smoke-filled male haunts.”

So – how is liberation different from equality?  Equality suggests assimilation.  Women are assimilated into male domains, in much the same way as indigenous people are assimilated into western culture.  Assimilation and equality imply getting rid of difference.  Liberation, however, asserts and celebrates difference.

Furthermore, if feminism means women becoming equal with men, then that implies that men and masculinity are the gold standard to be measured against.  Hardly liberation, and hence, not feminism in its original sense.

Feminism Is Not The Problem

… and nor (I might add) are men, per se.  The problem, according to the early feminist writers, is a system called “patriarchy.”  Patriarchy is a self-referring, self-justifying, and self-supporting system of beliefs, values and power.  Patriarchy asserts that “male” values, qualities and behaviours are paramount.  It rewards those who display and aspire to these.  Furthermore, patriarchy, like most systems, is largely invisible to those within it, because it is portrayed as being; normal, traditional, the-way-it-is, or simply “just because.”

Within the system of patriarchy the lessons we learn accumulate in our lives and we come to internalise them.  The longer this goes on, the harder it is to see that these lessons are not necessarily normal or “the truth.”  Then, not being able to see the system for what it is, it is difficult to gain distance from it.

The early feminists were right to point the finger at this oppressive system and to catalogue the range of institutions and establishments that make it up (e.g. marriage, bureaucracy, business, politics, the media, education, science, religion …)  They were also correct to note that women participating in these establishments supported these establishments, and did nothing to enhance the liberation of women (or men for that matter – but I’ll get to that.)

Two examples from politics serve to illustrate this:

• Margaret Thatcher became “successful” and powerful because she aspired to be as domineering as men.  Indeed, she became moreso to “prove” her masculine values and abilities.
• Julia Gillard, on the other hand, attempted to bring her “feminine” values and behaviour into the realm of politics.  She was side-lined and ridiculed within the political arena and by the media circus, and eventually tossed out of politics.²

I mentioned earlier that feminism stressed difference and diversity, rather than equality.  Patriarchy, on the other hand, promotes and exploits difference towards its own ends.  Not only in stressing the difference between men and women in order to suppress female values and qualities, but also in other arenas.  It used difference to justify slavery and to send children down mines.  Patriarchy also used difference to “transport” Britain’s “unwanted” to the penal colonies of Australia.

The next blog will expand upon the other two proposals – i.e. feminism has not achieved its goal, and men are also oppressed under patriarchy.

Notes:
1. Mary Wollstonecraft’s Vindication of the Rights of Women was published in 1792.

2. Margaret Thatcher (aka the Iron Lady) was Prime Minister of Great Britain from 1979 to 1990.  Julia Gillard was the Prime Minister of Australia from 2010 to 2013.

Are We Any Safer?

Recently I was involved in a conversation with a dozen men.  One of them made the claim that “we are safer now than when I was younger.”  That claim intrigued me so I thought I’d do some research.  My research question: are we any safer than we were?  Immediately, there are some problems with that question.  First, who is the “we” referred to, and second, “safer” from what?  I decided that safer referred to safety from disease, harm or preventable death.  Here is what I found out.

The number of deaths from war is on the decline.¹  Since the 1980s the number of deaths in armed conflict have been decreasing - apart from a spike in sub-Saharan Africa at the end of the 20th century.  However, this is not a universal trend.  The death rate from armed conflict in much of the Middle East and parts of Africa (e.g. Somalia, Darfur) number in the millions.

In most of the world the murder rate is dropping.²  So, it can be claimed that you are safer from being murdered, unless you happen to live in the Caribbean, Central America or parts of South America.  In these areas the homicide rate is increasing.

The number of people killed in terrorist attacks, since 2001, in most of the world has remained fairly steady.³  However, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria it has risen dramatically since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.  It has also risen in Nigeria and Pakistan.

Albeit difficult to quantify because of differing reporting methods around the world, hate crime appears to be on the increase.  It has been recently exacerbated by the Syrian civil war, as well as the Brexit and Trump political triumphs.

Suicide rates appear to be stable or declining throughout most of the world, except for Korea, Mexico, Russia, Greece, Poland and Japan where it is increasing.⁴

Infant mortality is dropping almost everywhere, although it is still high in many parts of Africa.⁵

If you drive, especially in OECD countries, then you are safer than you were a number of years ago.  The number of road fatalities is not only decreasing per 100,000 people but also reducing in absolute terms.

Although the number of people who are malnourished has been dropping, recently there has been little change and the number remains at almost 800 million world-wide.⁷

The rate of domestic violence assault in many parts of the world seems to be fairly stable – that is, it is neither decreasing nor is it increasing.  Because of the difficulty of obtaining comparative data it is difficult to gain a clear picture of whether the incidence of domestic violence assault is increasing or decreasing.  There is certainly no evidence that women are any safer from domestic assault.

What Does This Tell Us?

A brief analysis of these trends would suggest that we are safer from being killed in war, by murder or by terrorist attack; we are less likely to die from malnutrition, in infancy or by our own hand (suicide).  But, that only tells half the story.  If you live in the Middle East, the Caribbean, Central America, or parts of Africa, then you are quite possibly less safe than you were at the turn of the century. 

If you are a woman anywhere in the world then your safety from domestic violence is no greater than it was fifty years ago.

But That’s Not All

Species have been evolving and becoming extinct for millions of years.  Over the past 450 million years there have been five mass-extinction periods.  There are indications that a sixth mass-extinction period is underway – this time human-induced.  Of the almost 9 million species upon the Earth around 99% of these are thought to be under threat, with the major threats coming from climate change, agriculture, wildlife crime, pollution and disease – all human induced.  Human habitation and habits have increased the background extinction rate at least one-thousand times (with some suggesting that it is up to 10,000 times the background rate.)

It’s not safe being a non-human on this planet.

There is another factor that must be looked at if we are to assess our safety.  The future of our climate.  Recent trends in extreme weather events suggest that our future safety may be compromised.  Since the 1990s extreme weather events have become more frequent, and more intense.  Although it is difficult to attribute any one such event to climate change, the overall trend is consistent with predictions from climate scientists.  These scientists note that a warming of the planet will precipitate more extreme weather events.  We have already seen these.  Heatwaves becoming hotter and lasting longer.  Cyclones, tornadoes and superstorms ravishing Caribbean and Pacific islands and people.

Our climate will become less safe for us.

Finally, lets consider what the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences has to say.  This Board annually updates the Doomsday Clock – an illustrative representation of the safety of the world: the closer the hands of the clock to midnight, the greater the threat.  On 26 January 2017 the Board again updated the clock, this time setting it half a minute closer to midnight – it is now set at 2 1/2 minutes to midnight.  This is the closest the clock has been set to midnight since 1953, the year the US and USSR decided to proceed with nuclear weapons testing and development.

This year the Science and Security Board decided to move the hands of the clock forward because of the twin existential threats of nuclear weapons proliferation and climate change.  Citing the cases of North Korea, India-Pakistan tensions, the situation in Syria, the inflamatory rhetoric of President Trump, and Russian nuclear development, the Board noted that nuclear weapons threats were greater now than the previous year.  They also noted, despite the Paris accord, that the “international community did not take steps needed to begin the path toward a net zero-carbon-emissions world.”

Eminent scientists suggest our planet is less safe than it was.

Safer or Not?

Are we safer?  From the above, admittedly brief and non-conclusive, analysis, we might suggest that men from rich nations are safer than they were.  However, women in those countries are no safer from domestic violence than they were.  Men from the poorer nations are no safer (some less safe) than they were. 

The question of safety then becomes a question of “who benefits?”  Those that do benefit can claim that “we” are becoming “safer,” but cannot claim it as an universal experience.  The claim of increased safety ultimately becomes one of Euro-centrism, macho-centrism, and anthro-centrism.

Notes:
1. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
2. Global Study on Homicide, UN Office on Drugs and Crime, 2011
3. ourworldindata.org  accessed 19 Feb 2017
4. World Health Organisation (WHO)
5. World Health Organisation (WHO)
6. OECD Factbook, 2015-16

7. The State of Food Insecurity in the World, Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 2015

Dispensing with Masculine and Feminine Traits

Much has changed in the relations between men and women over the past 50 years.  The feminist
movement of the 1970s challenged the fabric of patriarchy.  Some men responded by attempting to discover their repressed feminine aspects.  Until then, in the western-styled cultures at least, “masculine” traits such as strength, dominance, aggression and rationality were considered superior to “feminine” traits of submission, vulnerability and emotionality.

For the past decade or two the desire to balance “feminine” characteristics with “masculine” characteristics has been discussed in many popular articles, blogs and in personal development circles.  The ideal of balancing the feminine and masculine recognises that individual men can display some or all of the “feminine” characteristics and individual women can display “masculine” characteristics.  As some have said; there is no one way or right way to be a man; there is no one way or right way to be a woman.  Men can, and do, contain “feminine” traits.  Women can, and do, contain “masculine” traits.

With this balancing and equalising of “masculine” and “feminine” characteristics men can be emotional, nurturing, passive, accepting.  Similarly, women can be rational, the breadwinner, active, decisive. 

More recently the notions of the sacred feminine and the sacred masculine has arisen.  These notions seem to suggest that men and women can enter into a partnership where the qualities of men and those of women are treated with equal respect and value.  In this dynamic the sacred masculine and the sacred feminine manage to dissolve the age-old “battle of the sexes.”

But, is not the very notion of “masculine” and “feminine” qualities, traits, and characteristics unhelpful?  If men can display “feminine” qualities and women can display “masculine” qualities then perhaps the masculine-feminine duality is no longer relevant.  Indeed, the labels may even be inhibiting to both men and women.  If I (as a man) have the ideal of the “masculine,” sacred or otherwise, as my standard then how likely am I to explore “feminine” qualities?  Some men will, but many will not?

Perhaps it is time to dispense with the notions of “masculine” and “feminine” qualities completely, and look to describe our “human” qualities.  There already exist at least two models that we could use to describe our human qualities.  The Yin/Yang system is one, Carl Gustav Jung’s anima/animus is another.

Yin/Yang

Many of us recognise the continuous looping symbol for yin and yang.  Yin represents the parts of us that desire connection, relationship, and describes our intuitive abilities.  Yin is the submissive side of us, the side that seeks subjective experience.  Yang, the other part of the whole, represents our desires for separation and individuality.  Yang describes our deductive reasoning.  It is the side of us that is dominant and seeks objective experience.

Within the Yin/Yang dualism there is no need to label one “feminine” and the other “masculine.”  Each of us has yin, each of us has yang.  We are yin and yang, sometimes more of one, sometimes less of the other, but constantly flowing from one to the other – from yin to yang and back again.

Jung

Carl Gustav Jung was a pupil of Freud but departed from many of Freud’s ideas.  He coined the terms anima and animus to describe aspects within us.  The anima, according to Jung, is the unformed feminine forming in men.  Similarly, the animus is the unformed masculine forming in women.  Jung recognised that when the anima and the animus were allowed to develop and form then it opened up the wild and innate aspects of our self, leading to a more authentic human being.


Are we any closer to Jung’s anima and animus  being fully formed?  Perhaps, yet we still have much to learn.  Dispensing with the terms “feminine” and “masculine” from the way in which we describe human qualities, traits and characteristics can help us move towards becoming fuller, more formed, human beings.

Feminism Had To Happen

Mary Wollstonecraft

Feminism had to happen.  It had to happen for women primarily.  But, it also had to happen for men, for children, for animals.  It even had to happen for the planet.  It still has to happen.  To take just one example.  The World Economic Forum recently published an estimate that it would be another 170 years before women gained pay equality with men on a global scale.  One – hundred – and – seventy – years!! 

Feminism had to happen for men.  That is because feminism didn’t point the finger at men as a gender, it pointed the finger at a system called patriarchy.  Patriarchy, coming from Greek roots, means “rule of the father.”  The term patriarchy has been broadened to recognise that the rule of the father extends beyond the family to the state, to industrial and economic society, and into our cultural arena.  During the 1960s and 70s numerous books were published seeking to unpick how this system operated, who it benefitted, and who it oppressed.

Firstly, women rightly claimed, patriarchy oppressed women and benefitted men.  However, the system also oppressed - or at least marginalised - young men, gay men, men of colour, pacifist men, children, and nature.  Those who mainly benefit from the system of patriarchy are primarily older, rich, white men.  I know that this is stating a huge thesis in fairly blunt and simplistic terms.  I don’t have room for a thorough feminist-patriarchal analysis.  But, that is the basic mechanism of patriarchy.  Consider just three examples.

Take a walk amongst war graves.  Read the epitaphs and inevitably you will notice that the ages of these men are not old,  They are teenagers, or young men in their twenties, possibly into their thirties.  Who sends these young men off to war?  Older men.  Men of power and prestige.  Men with titles such as General, Brigadier, Field Marshall, or perhaps others with titles such as Prime Minister, President, Minister of Defence.  Inevitably, they are older men with authority.  Those young men lying in war graves are the victims of patriarchy.

The slave trade was abolished within the US and Great Britain only fairly recently in human history.  Who did that trade benefit?  The cotton plantation owners in the Americas and the owners of shipping companies.  Who did it oppress?  Men of dark skins from Africa – a continent considered to be backward by men of power and prestige in Europe.  Patriarchy oppressed those slaves.

I grew up in a society that said, often very clearly, that “boys don’t cry,” “put a brave face on it and face it like a man,” “don’t show your emotions.”  I was given cars, aeroplanes, trucks to play with.  When I played with stuffed toys I was looked at askance.  Boys don’t play with dolls – and stuffed toys are only one step away from dolls.  Possible careers for young men then did not include nursing and other caring professions – they were “for girls.”  In short, I was brought up in a culture where I was not supposed to explore my entire human identity.  Many emotions were off limits to me.  I was denied my fullness by patriarchy.

Patriarchy has always been oppressive.  Feminism, rightly, pointed this out.  Feminism had to happen.

Feminism still has to happen.  Today (2016) in the country in which I presently live (Australia) the average full-time wage for a woman is only 82 cents for every dollar earned by men.  In other words, a man could take the final 9 or 10 weeks of the year off on an unpaid holiday, and still earn the same as a woman who worked every one of the 52 weeks in the year.  The average superannuation payouts for women are less than 60% that of men in Australia.  Women make up less than one-in-five of the directors on the boards of the 200 largest companies in Australia. 

Perhaps the most damning statistic is that domestic and family violence is the leading preventable cause of death, disability, and illness amongst women aged 15 to 44 years.

Women, particularly feminist women, have been pointing all this out for years - it’s not new.  A Vindication of the Rights of Women by Mary Wollstonecraft was published well over three hundred years ago.  Women have been telling men to listen all that time.  Women didn’t suddenly decide to become vociferous in the 1960s or 70s.  Fortunately, some men have listened, but many haven’t.  Some men, notably those belonging to the ill-named Men's Rights Movement, have rejected the basic tenets of feminism and so have come up with an analysis that totally misses the mark.


Where feminism pointed the finger at patriarchy, the men’s rights movement has mistakenly pointed the finger at feminism.  (See diagram below)  This is a big mistake.  Feminism could be a useful tool of analysis for men, but only if men are willing to look.

Please Don't Fix It

“I don’t want you to fix it, I just want you to listen to me.”  How many men have heard these, or similar words, from their wives, lovers, partners, daughters, or mothers?  The female desire for connection and true listening, and the male wish to fix things, or find a solution to the perceived problem, could just about qualify as the single most prevalent source of communication breakdown in male/female relations.

The generalisations inscribed in the above paragraph should not be read to suggest that only women desire a listening connection, nor that only men wish to fix things.  People lie all along the male-female continuum.  However, the desire to fix things, and to solve problems, is more readily associated with men.

No matter how this came to be, no matter what evolutionary or other cultural driver led to this state, men (and women) are now understanding that listening is at the heart of true communication.  The skills, techniques, and methods of active (or creative) listening are being learnt, understood, and practiced more commonly than they were just half a century ago.  As these skills become more widespread the possibility of communication breakdown between the sexes lessen.

What if we broaden the perspective?  What if we explore the “desire to fix” beyond that of male-female communication?

Could it be that the desire to fix things, the desire to “solve” perceived problems is one of the drivers that have led to the problems we have today?  Are we caught in a circular trap of our own making?  Does fixing things lead to even greater problems than those we thought we were fixing?  What if the problems we are fixing aren’t problems at all?  A couple of examples may help flesh this out.

The Automobile

Not so long ago, in the the 19th century, we moved from point A to point B on foot, horseback, or horse-drawn buggy.  This was considered to be a problem.  The solution was to invent the internal combustion engine and the motorcar.

Today, less than two centuries later, we are now faced with the ramifications of that “fix.”  We have traffic congestion.  We have enormous tracts of land tied up in roads and parking lots.  Globally, more than one million people killed every year in traffic accidents, and a further 50 million injured.  We have pollution problems from vehicle emissions in many of the world’s cities.  And, of course, we have greenhouse gas emissions contributing to perhaps the greatest global issue humanity has ever faced.

Terrorism

In the aftermath of 9/11 the US convinced or coerced some of its allies into the “Coalition of the Willing”¹ to invade Iraq and to hunt down its President, Saddam Hussein.  This was a classic “fix it” approach.  What were the perceived problems?  Saddam Hussein, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, Islamic militants.

A decision was made to invade Iraq in order to solve these perceived problems.  The listening that was needed at the time was woefully lacking.  The UN Security Council was not listened to.  Advice as to the legal basis for invasion was not listened to.  The findings of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), headed by Dr Hans Blix, was not listened to.  The leadership of a number of churches (including the Vatican and the World Council of Churches) were not listened to.  The opposition to invasion by 54 of the world’s nations was not listened to.  Millions of people in the streets of cities in February 2003 were not listened to.² 

However, Bush, Blair, and others were determined to “fix it.” 

Now, more than a decade after the “fix it” solution was applied we have a part of the world that is torn apart by internal strife, the continued presence of military action from other nations, and a massive humanitarian crisis.  Fixing the perceived problems only exacerbated them.  Terrorism is not only increasing (nine times as many people are killed in terrorist actions now than in 2000³), it is also spreading (the number of countries experiencing more than 250 deaths per year from terrorist attacks has quadrupled since 2000. 

Listen To Mother Earth

Now, we are trying to fix the Earth.  For centuries we have been trying to fix the Earth for our own benefit.  We have gobbled up her resources, we have depleted her forests and waters, we have exterminated many of her creatures.  Now, we face the consequences of that “fix it” approach – climate change - and we are trying to fix that as well!

Women have been telling men to listen for decades.  It is not only human women that we need to listen to though.  We must listen to Mother Earth.  We need to stop trying to fix her and simply listen.  All of us can get caught in the trap of trying to fix Mother Earth.  Some promote geoengineering, and others call for green technology.  But, perhaps we just need to listen to Mother Earth.  She knows how to take care of herself.  She also knows how to sustain us, if we would only listen.  Please, don’t fix it – just listen.

Notes:
1. Three nations (the UK, Australia, and Poland) joined the US in sending armed soldiers into Iraq. 
2. Estimates of numbers include 3 million in Rome, 2 million in London, and many thousands more in over 600 cities worldwide.  The 2004 edition of the Guinness Book of World Records cited the demonstrations as the largest mass protest movement in history.

3. More than half these deaths are in just two nations: Iraq and Nigeria.  Almost 60% of all terrorist attacks occur in just five countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, Syria.  Source: Global Terrorism Index 2015, Institute for Economics and Peace.

Will the Real Terrorists Please Stand Up

One of the grand themes of our age is terrorism.  That, along with climate change and social inequality are perhaps the three defining issues of the early part of the 21st Century. 

Terrorism is, of course, an highly loaded term, used by various groups in very different ways.  For those from one culture or society a group may be a terrorist organisation; whereas to another culture or society that same group may be freedom fighters. 

Peter Ustinov (1921-2004, the great English actor who won numerous awards, as well as serving as a Goodwill Ambassador for UNICEF and as the President of the World Federalist Movement), summed up this divergent thinking thus:

“Terrorism is the war of the poor.  War is the terrorism of the rich.”

Terrorism is the threat of violence that is designed to engender fear, anxiety, and/or intimidation in another person or community.  It’s linguistic roots date back at least as far as the Reign of Terror perpetrated by the French revolutionary government in 1793-94.  Thus, originally, the term was associated with state terrorism.  Only more latterly has it become associated (at least in the west) with non-state organisations.

Terrorism has been perpetrated by all shades of political opinion, from Stalin’s communist Russia to Franco’s fascist Spain, from Allende’s CIA-backed Chile to Idi Amin’s ethnic cleansing in Uganda.

All of that changed in 2001 however, and our political leaders decided that it was time to act and declared a “War on Terror.”  (The irony of the term seems to have escaped many of them).  Trying to discover who, if anyone, is winning that war, is an extremely difficult task.  But, we in the west have thrown truckloads of money into the war.  “Time” magazine estimated that the US has spent over $5 trillion since 2001.  The UK is spending around £3.5 billion per year and Australia around $4 billion per year.  That’s a lot of money, but are we removing terrorism.

If the purpose of terrorism is to strike terror into our hearts and undermine our sense of security and way of life, then it may be more appropriate to look closer to home.  Of all the homicides in western nations the proportion that are family or domestically related ranges from around 20% through to 40%.

Hence, the bedrooms and living rooms of our societies may be the real sites of terror, all the more so for women.  Around 2/3 to 3/4 of all domestic assaults are by men on women.  What is more is that the number of deaths related to domestic abuse is currently running at around ten times the rate of deaths from traditionally labelled “terrorist” acts.

How much are we putting into counteracting this family/domestic terrorism?   In Australia, about 1% of that spent on the “war on terror” and other countries about the same.  What is of further concern is that in the UK and Australia at least, the amount of funding to prevention of domestic violence is being cut.

Let’s look at another close-to-home example: incarceration rates of indigenous or black people versus those of white skin.  If you are black in the US or UK, you are around 6 or 7 times more likely to be jailed than if you are a white person.  Maori people in New Zealand are eight times more likely than their Pakeha (white people) compatriots to be imprisoned.  In Australia, the rate is significantly higher, with Aboriginal people being around 14 or 15 times more likely to be imprisoned than a white person.

The question then has to be: where are the real terrorists?  Being a woman means that you have a 20% - 30% chance of being terrorised by a male partner or ex-partner. Being an indigenous or black person means you are much more likely to be threatened with incarceration.

Yet, as the funding levels show, as a society we are more likely to spend money on a “war on terror” than to look at the terror we are creating and perpetuating in our own homes and communities.

4 Inspiring Indigenous Women

Clockwise from top left:
Whina Cooper, Sally Morgan,
Vandana Shiva, Gladys Bissonette

Many of those looking for solutions to the crises that confront humanity are discovering the wisdom of indigenous cultures.  For too long indigenous cultures have been robbed, brutalised and neglected by colonising nations.  As humanity and the Earth perch on the edge of an abyss, the wisdom of the oppressed may be what saves all of us.

It has also been said that behind every great man there is a great women.  That may be so, but more importantly, there are many great women that stand in their own right, rather than in the shadows of men.

Here are four short stories of just such inspiring indigenous women.

Dame Whina Cooper

In the land at the bottom of the world, Aotearoa (New Zealand), one woman stood up to the domination of the European colonisers.  More than stand, Whina Cooper marched.  At the age of nearly 80 Whina Cooper marched at the head of the 1975 Māori Land March that began in the far north of the country and ended on Parliament steps over 1,000 kilometres to the south.  In doing so, she became a household name in New Zealand.

The idea for the hikoi (march) had been Cooper's.  When, at a national gathering, Māori groups had asked her to lead a protest against the further theft of Māori land, she agreed and proposed the march that was to make her a national figure.

But, Whina Cooper had been an inspiration within Māori society for decades.  In 1951, for example, she became the first President of the Māori Women's Welfare League, an organisation that became enormously important for the welfare of Māori women and families throughout the nation.  When she stepped down from the president-ship the League bestowed on her the title Te Whaea o te Motu (Mother of the Nation) – an honour that not only Māori, but also Pakeha (Europeans) came to respect.

Dame Whina Cooper was awarded many honours and died in 1994 at the age of 98.

Sally Morgan

Sally Morgan came to international prominence in 1987 with the publication of her book, My Story.  For many outside of Australia, and even many within Australia, this was one of the first times that the story of being aboriginal was being written down by an aboriginal woman and made accessible to non-aboriginal people.

The story tells of growing up without knowing that she was an aboriginal woman, with links to the Bailgu people in Western Australia.  The book has attracted controversy, partly for suggesting that aboriginality can be written down so as to become accessible to non-aboriginal people.  It is perhaps worth repeating that the title of the book is My Story, and was possibly not meant as the story of a whole peoples.

Sally Morgan, though, is inspiring for her endeavour to discover who she is in the face of a colonising force that was intent on wiping out indigenous Australians.  It is noteworthy that it had only been 20 years before the book was published that aboriginal people had been automatically included in the Australian national census.

Vandana Shiva

Vandana Shiva has been one of the world’s foremost proponents of indigenous wisdom.  Calling on her own cultural roots in India, Shiva has published numerous books dealing with environmental issues, globalisation and women’s and peasant farmer’s rights.

Vandana Shiva is the founder of Navdanya (meaning Nine Seeds), which has a special interest in protecting seed diversity, encouraging organic farming and promoting fair trade.  The organisation has worked with over 5 million farmers encouraging and promoting sustainable agriculture.
Besides working alongside farmers Shiva is a vocal critic of globalisation and transnational agribusiness.  She is a prominent eco-feminist, proclaiming that

“We need to strengthen women’s role in agriculture both to remove hunger and empower women. We need to redefine development from women’s perspective to ensure no one goes hungry or thirsty on this planet.”¹

Vandana Shiva has written over 20 books and has appeared in numerous films and documentaries.
 
Gladys Bissonette

The battle of Wounded Knee is well known in American history.  What is less well known is the Wounded Knee Incident, and perhaps less than that again, the role of women in that incident.  Gladys Bissonette was one of three First Nation women (along with Ellen Moves Camp and Agnes Lamont) who became known as the Grandmas of the American Indian Movement (AIM). 
 
In 1973 over 200 Oglala Lakota and others took over and occupied the village of Wounded Knee, partly in protest at the US government’s failure to fulfil treaties.  The occupation inspired other First Nation peoples and caught the attention and gained the support of many prominent US citizens, including Marlon Brando, Jane Fonda, Angela Davis and Johnny Cash.

But, it was the women that inspired this action.  Leading up to the occupation the situation in the Oglala Lakota reservation had been deteriorating and at a meeting of traditional elders and AIM leaders, it was Gladys that helped motivate the men to action.

“For many years we have not fought any kind of war, we have not fought any kind of battle, and we have forgotten how to fight.”

she declared.  Following her speech Chief Frank Fools Crows announced that the group would go to Wounded Knee to protest.  The site (Wounded Knee) was deliberately chosen because of its symbolic value.  It had been the site, in 1890, when 300 First Nation people had been massacred by the US 7th Cavalry.

Forty years after the occupation at Wounded Knee, the American Indian Movement continues to seek justice and the fulfilment of treaties.

1. Dr Vandana Shiva, Empowering Women, BBC World Trust, June 2004.  This article was written by Shiva on a train from Punjab, India.