Response to Sexual Oppression I am writing in response to Bryan Law's article, "Sexual Oppression?" (NvT #46). He reports that there are unresolved issues and feelings around patriarchy and sexual oppression in the Australian Nonviolence Network and that there were "deep, knotty obstacles" to thinking clearly about them, which made it all so "yukky." His purpose for writing was to be part of a process of good thinking in the network on this problem. Even though I am not a member of ANN, I would like to add this letter to the process. Bryan acknowledges that there is heavy systematic structural violence by men against women that causes them horrible suffering and it needs "priority attention." Instead of going on to say what priority action might be taken, Bryan argues that most men are victims of oppression, too, and by the same forces that oppress women. He says those "forces" are the "oppressive system " that benefits 1% of the human population, "we are never likely to meet them in ANN," and "men as a group are (not) privileged." Within ANN itself, Bryan claims that men are often blamed or feel blamed, especially by the use of the term "patriarchy." Bryan proposes to drop the "pro-feminist" model and replace it with a "human liberation model" that a) encourages both men and women to identify and heal their hurts from the oppressive system, b) interrupt oppression as it arises, c) respects everyone and doesn't blame anyone, and d) builds positive alliances. I think that Bryan's approach overlooks the reality and impact of gender oppression by men in nonviolent activism and groups such as the ANN network. For the past thirty-five years, I have been a staff member, trainer or participant with hundreds of nonviolent action groups across the US and in about a dozen other countries. Almost without exception, these groups had internal crises and problems that greatly limited their effectiveness. These were more times than not caused, at least in part, by the men, including myself, carrying out the traditional Male Role. (Of course, there were many other causes to the problems and many of the women were not angels.) Our own Male Role-based domination and oppression not only hurts others, but undercuts our political effectiveness and reduces our ability to have equal and emotionally intimate relationships. Rather than rolling up his sleeves and working with the other men in the network to identify and stop the ways, if any, that they may be carrying out male superiority and authority beliefs, attitudes and behaviours, Bryan denies that he and the other male activists are oppressive. He claims that rather than being seen as "oppressors," the men should be seen as "victims" on an equal par with women, and he calls for a "positive Human Liberation" effort rather than "blaming" men for oppressive behavior. My fear is that Bryan's line of argument and his defining men in the network only as victims can easily be used as a cop-out by men to avoid doing the work we need to do to stop our oppressive behavior in our personal and political lives. I agree with Bryan that there is a worldwide dominator system which is a root cause of the world's critical problems of peace, justice and the environment and oppresses all men as well. This dominator model for human organization and behavior emerged about seven thousand years ago, with the start of agriculture and the plough. However, it is important to also recognize that this system is also based on the systematic structural superiority of men over women, backed by brutal force, at the personal, group, family, local, national and international levels. Men have been designated through the millennia as the primary agent of this oppressive system of institutionalized male superiority over women and others deemed inferior (Patriarchy). Obviously, this system is still the dominant model in the world today, including Australia and the U.S., where I am from. It is, consequently, reasonable to assume that all men throughout the world today are conditioned from birth into the dominant Male Role model of manhood. Central to this model is the belief that we men are the superior authority over women, especially our partner, and co-workers whom we regard as inferior, and this belief is backed up by force. It is not much of a stretch to then recognize the probability that "all men" includes all the men who are active in nonviolent social change. One of the reasons it is hard to detect is that nonviolent male activists, who have adopted values of equality and justice, normally carry out the dominant Male Role model in more subtle emotionally and verbally controlling behaviours (e.g., unwanted advice, judgments, opinions, arguments, presumptions, expectations and passive-aggression,which includes sulking and withdrawal), rather than physical violence. Regardless of which oppressive method is used, its goal is always the same: to successfully compete with others and to get my way (my ideas and beliefs adopted) and have people recognize my status or superior position or authority. I have been working with men who are physically violent to their partners, men in prisons, non-activist men who are emotionally and verbally violent to their partners, and nonviolent social activists in San Francisco. The men who have the most difficult time recognizing their dominating behavior are nonviolent activist men, including myself. My experience is that although most of us nonviolent activist men have consciously rejected our traditional Male Role conditioning, most of us have been unable to totally leave it. Our dominant and controlling behavior is usually unintended, unconscious and invisible to us, because it is often culturally normal conduct even for socially concerned men. Yet, it is usually very visible and hurtful to our female partners and co-activists. It also limits our political effectiveness and prevents us from having the equal and emotionally fulfilling relationships that we seek as human beings. It causes hurt and pain in our partners, co-workers and ourselves. Therefore, rather than only looking at the hurtful effects of "the dominant oppressive system" it is even more important that we men also take responsibility for identifying and stopping the ways in which we hurt ourselves and others by our use of the traditional dominant Male Role in our daily lives. Stopping our old dominant beliefs, attitudes and behavior is hard work. It is always difficult for members of the dominant group to recognize their privilege and their oppressive behavior, whether they be whites relating to race issues, rich relating to class issues or men relating to gender issues. In addition, dominant group members inevitably feel hurt and blamed when their status, beliefs, attitudes and behaviours are challenged. Rather than denying or minimising our oppressive behavior, declaring ourselves victims in gender issues, or saying, "What about the women?," we men need to do all the work that we can to identify how we still carry out our traditional Male Role of superior authority, stop it, and replace it with equality and emotionally intimate behaviours. Male social change activists have an additional reason for doing this work. We can't ultimately solve the world's problems we are concerned about without changing the dominator model which causes and maintains them. We can't do this when we are perpetuating and endorsing the old Male Role model of domination in our own sphere of life. Since all of us are interconnected and a part of the whole world system, what we do in any single part affects the whole. Gandhi said, "The means are the ends in the making." To create social change in the world requires that we men replace the old dominator model with a new paradigm of equality and emotional intimacy in our own political and personal lives. For the past four years, I have been involved in Men's Liberation by leading "Manalive" courses and workshops for men in the U.S. and Australia. This approach assumes that all people are placed on Earth to have close, loving, equal and emotionally intimate relationships. Society's Male Role conditioning of all men, however, greatly reduces our ability to do this. In the course, participants learn ways in which they are emotionally, verbally or physically violent or controlling to their partner or co-workers. They learn why and how they do it, and how to stop. Participants also learn an alternative belief system of equality and emotional intimacy and how to apply it in their daily lives. My hope is that over the next five years, activist men will put this work on the top of their personal and political agenda - and that it will be added to the standard list of items covered in nonviolence training. I am available to do training workshops and courses for nonviolent activist men (and women, separately, if there is interest). I can be contacted in Australia until December 27, 1995, at 1 Ross Road, The Channon, New South Wales 2480, Tel (066) 886 269 or fax 193; and afterwards in the United States at 721 Shrader St., San Francisco, CA 94117, Tel & fax: (415) 387 3361. Bill Moyer