Women, Violence and Nonviolent Action

Women, Violence and Nonviolent Action was the name of a meeting I attended in
Manila in November 1993.  The meeting was initiated and sponsored by the Life
and Peace Institute, with the World Council of Churches and World Lutheran
Federation.

The diversity of women was a great achievement of the organisers.  Forty
women from twenty-eight countries took part.  All were from grassroots
networks active in the struggle against violence against women.  Despite
'nonviolent action' being part of the title of the conference, only a very
few women were linked in any way with any of the global nonviolence networks.
And few were aware of either the rich literature on feminist nonviolence, or
feminist nonviolence itself.

Only ten women came from developed countries, the first world, the North, 
the West!  The conference was enriched by the presence of Philippinas from
'Gabriela', the women's organisation that hosted the conference in the
Philippines.

I tried not to have too high expectations of this gathering.  My experience
of the WRI (War Resisters International) conference (1992) in Bangkok had
taught me that there are many problems and great limitations in international
gatherings.  So, verging on the skeptical, but remaining hopeful, I wrote to
the organisers with my fears, concerns and suggestions.  I again articulated
my ideas during the expectations round.  However, I soon realised that even
if the will was there, there was neither the experience nor the skill in
facilitation to weave the truly revolutionary, non-patriarchal space that I
know is possible when women and nonviolence come together.  Most of the other
women didn't mind however, and in fact many found the process less formal
than usual.  I was reminded of Sonya Jonson, who has written that we have no
inkling, no understanding of just how good our lives could be, how powerful
we could be, if we could break out of our patriarchal world with its
patriarchal processes and structures.  And perhaps this was my greatest
lesson that non-patriarchal ways are little practised in the wide world.

It was clear from people's sharing, however, that at least in some levels, in
different ways, women are creating new groups, structures and institutions
resulting in empowerment and initial liberation.  For example, women of the
urban poor in Manila and women of the rural poor in Nepal are gathering in
groups to discuss their situations.  These gatherings are sparked (over many
months) by the visits of an outside organiser.  In some situations these
gatherings become the nucleus of empowering structures as the women make
choices for themselves at every point.

Two stories regarding these little groups helped me understand how community
based structures and institutions grow up out of a tiny seed to meet
community needs.  This is something that I have had trouble envisaging and
sometimes I feel despair and lose hope that it will happen.

In Nepal, a women's group chose a key word 'violence' as one for the basis of
their literacy group.  From this ensued a discussion on wife-beating. 
Eventually they set community rules regarding the beating of women.  They
imposed a system of fines and the fines were gathered in a fund for use by
the women.

The second story comes from the Philippines where small groups of urban poor
women gather to begin effecting change in their lives.  In one such
community, people have begun to bring disputes to the women for settlement.

Both these examples, like many of those from developing countries, concerned
'defined' communities: a village, a particular slum, an extended family. 
This emphasised for me the need for developing community in our Western,
individualised, 'developed' countries, to create a context for what we do. 
It seemed to me that many of the solutions for domestic violence were being
found in the realm of community.  On one hand, empowering women, and on the
other, holding men accountable to the 'community'.

In a way, this is what we are already doing in the realm of the action group
or wider 'network'.  By organising together, we become community.  By
cooperating together, we become community.  And by building new institutions
together, we become community.  I now see it as important to more consciously
explore the meanings and benefits of community in all the organising we do.

So even though some participants had experience somewhere of alternative and
more empowering process, this could have little bearing on the conference
procedure.  There was talk of us "sharing our experiences" and the time was
alotted for sessions in groups.  There were three groups and indeed much
sharing was undertaken, but I felt it was never woven together in an adequate
way.  I never quite knew if what I said was heard and felt frustrated that
theoretical issues and questions that women raised in the sharing were opened
to the group but without enough space for everyone to contribute.  Meanwhile,
other issues were never raised at all.

I thought the most enjoyable facilitated group process was when, on the first
morning, we broke into groups of four and shared and discussed "What is the
form of violence against women that most concerns you at the moment?" and
"What does nonviolent action mean to you?"  However, much more could have
been done following this, with just these two questions.

Much of this evaluation comes however, in the context of how much money is
spent for these sorts of gatherings.  Because, obviously, at the same time,
there were many useful exchanges and much learning.  In the dizzy, fast world
of the modern activist, time spent like this is good, just because it allows
reflection and discussion combined with a vision of how much better they
could be.

I met and talked with many wonderful and brave women.  It was especially good
hearing from my neighbours in Fiji, Solomon Island, Torres Straight and PNG. 
I was able to get a sense of their needs and their gifts as they work for the
women of the Pacific.

And I was able to get a sense of how important women's feminist networks and
networking are in time of war.  Vesna, from Croatia, spoke of how the women's
networks of ex-Yugoslavia were severed by the rising nationalism and
nationalist propaganda that immediately followed the outbreak of war.  And we
heard from Haleema, from Somalia, who is trying to build links and dialogue
between women from warring clans there.  I was able to speak with my sisters
from PNG and Solomon Islands about the war in Bougainville and the effect on
the women there.  And we discussed the rape of women on Bougainville and
fantasised about  liaising with women there, fantasised about going there as
women to make links and helping facilitate healing, reconciliation,
revolution.

It was easy here to draw connections between the comfort women of Korea and
the Philippines and the rape/death camps of ex-Yugoslavia.  And it was easy
from this to see the connection between the nation-state and violence against
women.

In fact it was really good to hear open analysis by two speakers, including
the only paper-giver, of the effect of the nation-state on the lives of
women.  (However, in our topic group, this was never raised or explored
further.)  It encouraged me to see the issue of systematised rape and sexual
slavery in war as an issue that clearly brings together the real role of the
nation-state in women's lives (or perhaps it is the real role of the women
within the nation-state).

The other issue that strongly brought together the issues of patriarchy with
capitalism and the nation-state, was the trafficking of women as mail-order
brides, sex workers and domestic workers.  For the Philippines, human labour
is the major export.

For me there were important insights and analyses, as I consider where I put
my energy as an activist.  Which women's issues will make the links between
women's oppression and these big structures and systems easier to understand?
And which issues can we act upon in such a way that it will make a difference
to these systems and structures?

As the meeting ended, I was left with many outstanding questions.  Perhaps
these are discussions best held within the nonviolence and women's networks
in Australia, perhaps just in Melbourne, in the nucleus of my personal
network.  I would certainly like to create opportunities for discussion,
learning and exchange amongst the Australian Nonviolence Network (ANN).  And
I look forward to a time when the ANN harbours a strong women's network of
groups and individuals working strategically and thoughtfully on a campaign
that ends violence against women.
Margaret Pestorius