The press
A high-pitched Msssss
Paul Johnson
he demonstrations outside British 1 nuclear bases conducted recently by ordinary-housewives-with-no-axes-to- grind, proselytising lesbians, hefty ladies with snow on their bootees and other adornments of British womanhood — a fairly gruesome bunch, I thought, though all more or less of feminine gender — has aroused great enthusiasm and anger among writers of letters to the Editor. Among Guardian readers, who are natural demo fodder anyway and peculiarly sensitive to the nuances of left-wing theology, it has provoked considerable disagreement. In particular, among peace-loving male sup- porters of the sex-equality package, there has been some disgust that men, however pacifist and anti-American, were rigorously excluded, on grounds of gender, from a primary role in the demo, and were relegated to purely menial duties. Nicolas Walter, writing from Islington, hotly re- jected the argument that 'most men are more warlike, violent, aggressive and domi- nant than most women' and therefore 'should be excluded from an active part in non-violent demonstrations against nuclear weapons organised by women'. This line of reasoning, he claimed, was 'sexist, equal and opposite to the sexist arguments tradi- tionally used to discriminate against women, and just as objectionable'. What would be thought, he asked, `if a direct- action demonstration excluded women with the argument that they are too emotional, irrational, timid, weak, and so on?' Roger Woddis made the point a different way, and in verse:
You need to be strident To ban Cruise and Trident, A woman's true function is washing her smalls.
If gentle persuasion Can meet the occasion, Then what is the point of a chap having balls?
However, many male Guardian readers were eager to come to the defence of female pacifist domination and play the Uncle Tom role. 'Until recently', wrote R. A. Everett of Derbyshire, 'politics ... has been a viciously defended male preserve, in progressive and conservative circles alike'. Women, 'having managed to raise their
consciousness in the face of male ridicule', were right to show they can be 'organised, assertive, clear-thinking and courageous without the slightest need or desire for patronising advice or aggressive gallantry'. Male demonstrators like himself, 'in view of our past record of domination and destruction', should be 'grateful' to be 'en- trusted with the very important tasks of minding children and making sandwiches'.
Keith Gilley, of `Golders Green Unitarians', was even more unctuous. 'As a man', he wrote, 'I accept that there are large and fundamental aspects of peace campaigning in which I have little or no right to take part ... We are all too tainted'. In any case, he pointed out, men were not totally excluded: 'Men were in- vited to take part actively, and indeed significantly, by taking on a caring and nur- turing function at the children's gate ... I was more than content — privileged is a better word — to be asked to come at all'. 'A privilege', echoed Mike Pentz, signing himself 'Vice-Chairperson, CND'. He had, he said, been 'making tea and marmite sandwiches' since he had been 'knee-high to a grasshopper' and was glad to carry on do- ing so on behalf of hungry female pacifists. Of course there was a special place for Women Against the Bomb. There was also 'a special place for Babies Against the Bomb or Grannies Against Greenham'.
The point that the all-woman demo did not discriminate was, as it happened, rather undermined by some of the demonstrative ladies themselves. Ruth Wallsgrove of N16 argued forcefully that women jolly well were more pacific. It could not be denied,
'They call me waiter, but you've been waiting for half an hour.'
she claimed, 'that more women than men oppose nuclear weapons. That is a fact that discriminates'. Men and women were dif- ferent on the issue: it was not 'biological', but 'the fact that, as a woman, I am exclud- ed from military power means I'm also ex- cluded from military fantasies'. At demos too many male pacifists, she grumbled, 'try to act like the SAS'. One had 'screamed in my face' and others 'came to argue with the stewards'. Male pacifists 'wanted to be first at the fence'. Too many of them 'still think storming the fence is more glorious than bringing up children'. Such aggressive types should be employed 'providing food and torches' instead of 'abusing feminists who've done so much to expose the endemic male violence in our society'. All the same, from reading the correspondence, one gets the impression that lady pacifists can show a touch of the old aggro too. Writing from Manchester, Jill Barnett tart- ly observed (and insisted on addressing the Editor of the Guardian as 'Madam'): 'I hope I was the woman who "curtly and coldly informed" Richard Gott (author of `A Man at Greenham', Guardian 15 December) "in the strident tones of extreme feminism that men were supposed to be at the Orange Gate, by the Creche". It was a privilege'.
Not surprisingly, it was a Daily Telegraph correspondent, Air Marshal Sir Gerald Gibbs, who pointed to a certain lack of logic among female peace demonstrators. He had asked one of them if, by supporting unilateral nuclear disarmament, she meant she was 'in favour of Britain abolishing her deterrent of nuclear weapons and letting our potential attackers keep theirs. In those circumstances they could use their nuclear weapons against us without fear or reprisal. "Oh no," she said, "under unilateral nuclear disarmament all countries will destroy their nuclear weapons".' ' It is bare- ly credible', concluded the baffled Air Mar- shal, 'but quite a lot of her starry-eyed fellow supporters do not realise that `unilateral" means "one-sided". Actually, one has no need to be a sexist to make this point.: quite a lot of male CND supporters do not know unilateral means one-sided which is why the organisers of the campaign picked the word in the first place.
Guardian readers were, of course, quick to reject the suggestion that peace was not necessarily the real motive of women demonstrators — that, in the words of the Daily Mail, 'many of them are in one way or another social misfits' and the demo village, 'does provide them with a home, friends, excitement and and interest'. D. H. F. Odgers of Bath thought this was a 'stag- gering' piece of journalistic impudence. But actually it was a Guardian reader who had the last, dismissing word: 'Regarding Greenham Common', wrote Alan Thomas of SW10, 'surely so many naive women have not gathered in one place since the 11,000 Virgins of Cologne who, according to the legend, set out on a pilgrimage and, being unarmed, were totally massacred by the Huns'.
Previous page
