A world without men

[undergroundpanther]

A World Without Men
Posted September 7, 2006

An untold story from Greenham Common

This story doesn’t reflect very well on me, or on anyone. But it is a small chapter in the history of the Greenham Common Peace camp, founded 25 years ago this week, which has not yet been related.

In the summer of 1983, I had a holiday job a few miles to the west of Newbury. On most days I would drive past the camp. The women there fascinated me. I was 20 years old, awkward and inexperienced, and I had never seen anyone like them. Some of them appeared to have abandoned all conventions. They dressed in ponchos and rags, they wore no makeup, they had dirt on their faces and knots in their hair. After a few days, I stopped on the way home from work.

No one, at first, was uncivil to me. Men could visit the camp, but they could not stay. I tried to make myself useful, collecting firewood, making tea, winding ribbons through the fence. I made friends with two of the activists – a grave, impressive matriarch with iron-grey hair, and a simple woman, who pushed toy cars around in the dust. Most of the others spoke to me only when they had to. I started visiting two or three times a week.

At first I had only a vague political interest in the camp. Like almost everyone at the time, I was terrified of nuclear war, but I hadn’t thought about whether or not US cruise missiles on British soil made us more vulnerable. But no one who visited the camp in 1983, a month or two before the missiles were due to arrive, could have failed to be caught up in the political ferment. Almost every day the tabloids carried lurid and slanderous stories about the radical lesbians camped outside the airbase. I remember the explosions of anger one morning as a copy of the Daily Mail was passed around the fire. The drivers who passed the camp either hooted and waved or screamed abuse and – occasionally – threw bottles and cans. I think it would be fair to say that my politics began to be formed by that camp.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/09/07/1008/

[Bonobo]

1. Blech. Sickening article.

[TAPat]

2. Interesting read - Thanks nt

[BoneDaddy]

3. Drivel

Yes, if women ran the world and there were no men, life would be total bliss and we could sit around and hold hands and sing songs and there would be no war, no suffering.

Ideological crap and not worthy of a real response.

[shadowknows69]

6. Indeed

I've met some women that definitely have as much "evil potential" as any man. Dated a couple unfortunately.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. um.

Did you read the article?

[lukasahero]

10. That would be obviously not to those of us who did

Thanks. I was going to point out the same.

[shadowknows69]

16. I read it

I was specifically responding to Bone daddy's comment.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Um

So was I.

[shadowknows69]

22. appy polly loggies then my friend

B-)

[SoyCat]

169. Exactly. Anyone who has met my SIL knows that not all women are

sweet, peaceful, creatures.

[Marie26]

171. Who's saying that?

Where does it say that in the OP?

[Wiley50]

4. Gosh,Panther! I thought we was buddies

I can't help the way I'm plumbed.
(at least not without some very expensive sacrifices)

[undergroundpanther]

15. Wiley we still ARE freinds.

And if I could I'd have you over my cheesy house to hang out.
I put up this article to get people to THINK,not to become defensive. OK.

I put it up also to get men and women too,to think of peopleas equals,even if they are different with different needs.Men have social spaces for thier own gender. Women don't,usually womens clubs revolve around kids or domesticity.This camp was different it was a place for women to try to discover who they are without the cultural pressures of patriarchy..

[RB TexLa]

5. With cloning and advances in science I really don't think gender is

going to matter or really mean as much, one day.

[undergroundpanther]

21. I hope so

Maybe we will all be androgyny.

[Alcibiades]

7. These womyn sound perfectly representative

of the bizarro lunatic fringe of separatist feminists, maybe 1/2 of 1 percent of all feminists, who the right have used as a straw woman to represent all feminists. Which is one reason why I prefer the older term "Women's Liberation" for the women's rights movement. I've found that most women don't want a world without men (indeed, they would like to have sex with us, not usually me, but with some of us, anyway): they just want a world wherein men don't act like assholes.

[undergroundpanther]

11. Some women

However would want to ave space of their own to get away from men.
How is that evil?
Also rape tends to make women not want to be around men.
As does spouse abuse.Women need a haven.A haven to find themselves sometimes.Some women don't want desire or like to socialize with men. They are different.Not evil just different.

Women need a place to get away from men too.

Men already have spaces to get away from women.

[Alcibiades]

48. Heavens, no!

I didn't use the word "evil." Please let nothing I wrote lead you to believe I think that getting away from men is evil. What I wrote was to suggest that behaving boorishly toward all men isn't the solution to the boorish behavior of some men. I also meant to point out that most women like to be around men sometimes.

A good point on rape and spousal abuse. It had not occurred to me that the women in the article were survivors of rape and spousal abuse. Thankfully, we do have women's shelters today, which, though perhaps better than moving back in with one's parents, is at least better than camping out.

Anyway, the point I was making was about separatist feminism, the development of which effectively alienated many men, and many women, from feminism. Separatism isn't merely about creating a space for women to find themselves, but about a totally man-free lifestyle. This movement within feminist philosophy and political theory came about just as political women's liberation was reaching the acme of its success, and no man wanted to be a male chauvinist pig. Separatism, at least in its most radical form, sees men as inherently oppressive and useless, and its proponents advocate a totally man-free lifestyle, not just for themselves, but for all women. Women who actually like men are seen as quislings. Personally, I think that this is an oppressive overreaction, every bit as tyrannical as the male-dominated sexism it seeks to replace, and perhaps more dangerous because it associates itself with the ideals of freedom and liberation.

Anyway, I suspect you know all this already anyway. Most of what I've written above isn't my own original thought, but stuff I have heard from feminists critiques of separatism.

Personally, I don't have any woman-free zones in my life, and don't want any. I like people, and I wouldn't be happy if I were to rope myself off arbitrarily from half of humanity on the basis of their gender.

[lumberjack_jeff]

64. Which spaces "that men use to get away from women" do you support?

[undergroundpanther]

68. Whatever they got is fine

If it isn't republican based ;)
I think republicans are a problem like most people on DU.
Gay male clubs,fine,Mens sport clubs fine,mens quilting clubs,fine..
Mens drumming circles,fine,Mens camps,fine as long as there is no abuse.

Women should have every right to make women's spaces to do things too. Do whatever they want to do as long as there isn't abuse ,regardless of society and the roles it imposes.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. read this yesterday...

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149190540460&path=!news&s=1045855934842

[undergroundpanther]

8. You all didn't GET it, you are

reacting like the folks who screamed obscenities at the camp as they drove by.

These women just wanted a SPACE for each other. A place where THEY felt safe THEY did not have to please males or do things the way men expect. Patriarchy has controlled women more than you think. THese women wanted a place to be themselves. A place to GET AWAY from patriarchy. Men have mens clubs. How come radical lesbians cannot have a space without men?

Men could VISIT,but could not live there.

What is so evil about that.

Still males INSISTED on living there, WHY Why couldn't these women be LEFT ALONE?

What is it about certain males that insist they must control every space women try to create for themselves? I mean men watch lesbian porn and do not want to think they are UNWELCOME among lesbians,they like to imagine THEMSELVES in the picture. yet in patriarchy women are excluded from so much. How many clubs excludes women? There are MANY.It's sad to me to see here how few of you are willing extend the same private space and respect to women desiring to be among their own gender as is accorded men in this culture.

[lukasahero]

14. It's easier to fall back on unreflected stereotypes and prejudices

By some of the reactions to this piece it is evident that not only was the point missed, the article was never read in full. Thanks for trying.

[undergroundpanther]

19. I know

I try what else can I do?

Take care ok?

[lukasahero]

25. Hang in there

You summed up the issue well (why did these men feel they could force their place there). The article was stirring and you put it out there for folks to think about. That'll do.

Take care yourself. :hug:

[undergroundpanther]

27. thanks.

[Bonobo]

23. I read the whole thing. As Frank Zappa said:

in his famous "Broken Hearts are For Assholes":

You say you cant live with what you been through
Well, ladies you can be an asshole too
You might pretend you aint got one on the bottom of you,
But dont fool yerself girl
Its lookin at you
Dont fool yerself girl
Its winkin at you
Dont fool yerself girl
Its blinkin at you

[WilliamPitt]

59. Excuse me

The point wasn't all that hard to apprehend. Saying those who disagree with it simply didn't read it is cheap.

[lukasahero]

69. Some of the first responses in the thread

obviously did not read it.

They talk about how they think the point of the article is how lovely the world would be if it was run by women and we could all sit around holding hands and singing songs.

Someone who did actually read the article would understand quite clearly that this was not the point of the article as it talks about the women burning down the tent and threatening the two men.

The best way to disagree with an article is to a) read it and b) present points against it.

[Bonobo]

18. I live near Smith College, an elite women's college.

Men are not allowed in. Can you refer me to a similar elite Men's college where women are not allowed to attend?

Here's a list of the women's colleges in the United States and Canada. There are 4 "men's colleges by the way.

Alabama
Judson College (1838)

California
Mills College (1852)
Mount St. Mary's College (1925)
Scripps College (1926)

Colorado
The Women's College of the University of Denver (1982)

Connecticut
Hartford College for Women (1933)
Saint Joseph College (1932)

Georgia
Agnes Scott College (1889)
Brenau University (1878)
Spelman College (1881)
Wesleyan College (1836)

Illinois
Lexington College

Indiana
Saint Mary-of-the-Woods College (1840)
Saint Mary's College (1844)

Kentucky
Midway College (1847)

Louisiana
Newcomb College (1886))

Maryland
College of Notre Dame of Maryland (1895)

Massachusetts
Bay Path College (1897)
Lesley College (1909)
Mount Holyoke (1837)
Pine Manor College (1911)
Regis College (1927)
Simmons College (1899)
Smith College (1871)
Wellesley College (1870)

Minnesota
College of Saint Benedict (1913)
College of Saint Catherine (1905)

Mississippi
Blue Mountain College
Mississippi University for Women (1884)

Missouri
Cottey College (1884)
Stephens College

Nebraska
College of Saint Mary (1923)

New Jersey
College of Saint Elizabeth (1899)
Douglass College (Rutgers University) (1918)
Georgian Court College (1908)

New York
Barnard College (1889)
Marymount College (1907)
Russell Sage College
Stern College of Yeshiva University
The College of New Rochelle (1904)
Wells College (1868)
William Smith College

North Carolina
Bennett College (1873)
Meredith College (1891)
Peace College (1857)
Salem College (1772)

Ohio
Ursuline College (1871)

Pennsylvania
Bryn Mawr College (1885)
Carlow College (1929)
Cedar Crest College (1867)
Chatham College (1869)
Immaculata College (1920)
Moore College of Art & Design (1848)
Rosemont College (1921)
Wilson College (1869)

South Carolina
Columbia College (1854)
Converse College (1889)

Texas
Texas Women's University (1901)

Virginia
Hollins University (1842)
Mary Baldwin College (1842)
Randolph Macon's Women's College (1891)
Sweet Briar College (1901)
Westhampton College

Washington, D.C.
Trinity College (1897)

Wisconsin
Alverno College
Mount Mary College (1913)

Canada
Brescia University College, Ontario (1919)
Mount Saint Vincent University, Nova Scotia (1873)

[VelmaD]

28. Some of those do admit men as students...

I know Texas Women's University does.

[Tesha]

30. Your list appears to be out of date.

At least Lesley University has gone co-ed.

And Barnard College is a sort of odd case, as it's very closely
associated with Columbia University, a decidedly co-ed place.

The same is true of Mount Holyoke and Smith; they're very closely
associate with the "Five College Consortium" which includes several
co-ed universities.

Tesha

[Recursion]

114. So has Hollins, and Trinity is probably about to

My mom did her dissertation on single-sex campuses (or as she said, "the myth of single-sex campuses"); in most cases (the only exception she found being Deep Springs, a 2-year college of 26 men somewhere in Wyoming or something like that) there are roughly as many of the "other" gender attending classes as there are of the "real" gender: children of faculty, "townies" doing continuing ed., etc. They attend classes and even get degrees, but they don't appear in the yearbooks or student newspaper or anything like that.

When a formerly single-sex college goes coed, it is almost always simply recognizing existing demographics, not making a real radical change.

[Bonobo]

134. Informative post. Thanks I didn't know that.

[shadowknows69]

20. I see nothing wrong with wanting to be in between two lesbians

although you have a much better chance of it happening with bisexual women. In my experience anyway. B-)

[undergroundpanther]

24. The lesbians don't want you there

To put yourself there is imposing yourself upon lesbians in a way that is disrespectful of their sexuality and their needs. It's well,intrusive and rude and sickening.
And if you do insert yourself between them, the lesbians have every right to exclude you in any way that works to get rid of your presence.Lesbians do not desire,don't want sex with, and are not attracted to,males. Understand? You are not wanted in a lesbian liaison.Just like women are not wanted in a gay male liaison. Funny Straight or gay women do not have this desire to insert themselves between two gay men fucking, So,why do straight men want to do this?

Bi women? If they want you there ,hell,go for it.

[shadowknows69]

35. I meant no offense UP, just being silly

My wife and I used to hang out at a gay bar quite frequently and made some good friends. I understand all too well the lines to be crossed or not. To be fair there always seemed to be more women trying to get with my wife than men with me. Should I be offended? Not that I aim to be attractive to gay men but it did bruise my ego a bit lol.

[undergroundpanther]

37. That's cool

Heh,ego bruised huh?
Well Dunno what to say about that one.

[shadowknows69]

41. I couldn't get my drinks as fast either

definitely some hetero discrimination going on there. I don't begrudge them that at all B-)

[lumberjack_jeff]

63. So men should be accorded their private clubs too?...

Like VMI?

Like the Jaycees?

Like The augusta national golf tournament?

I didn't find your article as troublesome as the subject line. We're all human beings first.

[undergroundpanther]

71. Yeah

If you have those clubs,
The women should have a right to a camp and men have no say on it..If men got clubs of their own,women need that space too.And it need not have to be domestic or anything.
Sure make Co -Ed Clubs too.

I myself would love to make an exclusive club. One that excludes based on PERSONALITIES. No bullies ,No pushy types,narcissists,possessive control freaks,authoritarians,sociopaths,manipulators,abusers,and people who dominate others,bigots,and No alpha males or females.An ASSHOLE FREE zone.
Any gender would be ok,as long as you were not an asshole, control freak,power seeker,or an abuser verbally or otherwise.If you could let people be who they are and not be threatened by it and try to change them or pressure them and you are able to do your part to negotiate with others fairly to keep the community healthy and your ego is not threatened by this or by intimacy or creativity ,than you may fit in.

[NorthernSpy]

13. I once worked at an all-women activists' center...

... and it was hell.

I also worked at a women's studies library where -- if I remember right -- there were no men on staff. That wasn't as bad as the activist center, but I still wouldn't want to go back.


Anyhow, having had those experiences, it's not too hard for me to believe Monbiot's account of the Greenham peace campers' aggression toward the sole male peace camper in their midst:

"...they (the women of the peace camp -- NS) set light to my last two benders. The last time was when I was sleeping in it.”

(...)

Cat had slept there, on a pillow made of moss, with nothing but his I-Ching, a candle and an enamel mug, for a fortnight, since he had lost his other possessions in the last fire. Recently, he told me, someone had held a knife to his chest and promised she would kill him if he stayed.

(...)

In the morning, unaware of the trouble I was in, I sat by the camp fire, waiting for the kettle to boil. I sensed that someone was standing over me, and looked up. I was surrounded by a ring of women. They held their palms out towards me and their eyes were closed. Slowly and quietly they started chanting. “Go away. Go away. Go away.” It was terrifying and extremely effective. I left immediately. I returned only once, a few weeks later, to ask after Cat. My two friends told me he had gone away, or, as the simple woman put it, “disappeared”. I don’t think anything sinister was meant by this: he had probably moved to Faslane.

Straight out of Shirley Jackson!

The women were right to throw me out, and right to get rid of Cat, if not by the methods some of them had chosen. Greenham worked – better and for longer than any other camp of its kind – because it was entirely run and populated by women.

The thing is, that the Greenhamites didn't actually achieve much of anything. The eventual closure of the base had nothing to do with the women camping outside the fence. Obsolete or redundant military facilities get the axe all the time. In fact, even bitter protests to keep a base open fail more often than not.



(edit: proofreading)

[sub.theory]

26. Divisive and Inflammatory

Yes, there is inherent conflict between men and women because each have different biological goals. This is well understood and has already been very well researched and documented. This article adds nothing, but seeks to further sow division. Pouring gas on the fire is just plain stupid. This is nothing but the sick fantasies of a certain deeply disturbed segment of the feminist movement.

[undergroundpanther]

31. Well...

You all didn't GET it, you are

reacting like the folks who screamed obscenities at the camp as they drove by.

These women just wanted a SPACE for each other. A place where THEY felt safe THEY did not have to please males or do things the way men expect. Patriarchy has controlled women more than you think. THese women wanted a place to be themselves. A place to GET AWAY from patriarchy. Men have mens clubs. How come radical lesbians cannot have a space without men?

Men could VISIT,but could not live there.

What is so evil about that.

Still males INSISTED on living there, WHY Why couldn't these women be LEFT ALONE?

What is it about certain males that insist they must control every space women try to create for themselves? I mean men watch lesbian porn and do not want to think they are UNWELCOME among lesbians,they like to imagine THEMSELVES in the picture. yet in patriarchy women are excluded from so much. How many clubs excludes women? There are MANY.It's sad to me to see here how few of you are willing extend the same private space and respect to women desiring to be among their own gender as is accorded men in this culture.

[sub.theory]

38. Doesn't hold water

I understand the article perfectly, thank you. You can't just eliminate 50% of the population because you don't like them. Men have a right to be here too. If these women wanted to be alone, they could have very easily gotten a restraining order on Cat. If they are on their own land, they have control over whoever they want to be there. Why didn't they just call the police? Why did they burn his house down and stick a knife to his chest instead? Because they are deeply disturbed - that's why.

Modern men have taken radical steps to make the world a more fair and equal place for women. Liberal men, like those on DU, more so than average. I don't really get what you are seeking to do with this article, except to start a flame-war. If women want to be alone, fine. Buy some land and stay on it. Exactly what is the problem?

[undergroundpanther]

43. These women were not eliminating anyone

The women who made the camp just Made a space for themselves and enforced a boundary they wanted or needed to. They did not want men LIVING there. Men could visit. Your argument about eliminating 50% of the population does not hold water.You are getting HYSTERICAL dude.

[sub.theory]

56. Re: These women were not eliminating anyone

You are getting HYSTERICAL dude.

I'm actually being quite rational. Nice projection, though.

The women who made the camp just Made a space for themselves and enforced a boundary they wanted or needed to. They did not want men LIVING there. Men could visit. Your argument about eliminating 50% of the population does not hold water.

The issue isn't their right to control who is on their land (assuming they own the land); the issue is the means they used against someone who wasn't a threat to them. This man Cat was a trespasser. He wasn't physically harming them, and he wasn't stealing their property. Burning down his house and putting a knife to him is simply unjustifiable. The proper response is to notify the police of a trespasser and have a restraining order taken out on Cat.

My point about eliminating 50% of the population pertains to the inflammatory title of the article and your thread: "A world without men". Yes, women have the right to cut themselves off from any contact with men so long as they are on their own property. They have absolutely no right whatsoever to try and cut men out of the wider world.

It seems to me that you are trying to paint all men as being like Cat. One man out of 3 billion trespasses and thus men are always interfering in women who want to be left alone? Again, just what is your point in posting this article on DU?

[undergroundpanther]

66. Alright..

The issue isn't their right to control who is on their land (assuming they own the land); the issue is the means they used against someone who wasn't a threat to them.

How do you KNOW that?


This man Cat was a trespasser. He wasn't physically harming them, and he wasn't stealing their property. Burning down his house and putting a knife to him is simply unjustifiable. The proper response is to notify the police of a trespasser and have a restraining order taken out on Cat.

Have you ever been in a domestic abuse situation? Ever been stalked by a male? Restraining orders do not get followed up,They don't.A restraining order is a joke.
http://www.dvmen.org/dv-14.htm



My point about eliminating 50% of the population pertains to the inflammatory title of the article and your thread: "A world without men".
And the title alone is what is causing your reaction,nice hysterics.
Anyways these women lived in their camp without men,most of the time.Men VISITED.



Yes, women have the right to cut themselves off from any contact with men so long as they are on their own property. They have absolutely no right whatsoever to try and cut men out of the wider world.

They were not doing that.The guy Cat was very possibly trespassing. People can buy many many acres.And if these women had acres he would be a trespasser. People can get SHOT for trespassing in certain states in case you haven't figured that out yet.Castle law ins the idea You have right to use deadly force to defend home: That now extends to where ever you are in some states.

It seems to me that you are trying to paint all men as being like Cat. One man out of 3 billion trespasses and thus men are always interfering in women who want to be left alone? Again, just what is your point in posting this article on DU?

My point was to get people to THINK and to not REACT.It was to open up the idea that not all women want or desire men,and they do not wish to do domestic roles,and that is their right.
To get the concept that being different does not have to mean being bad,..One can GET the idea to separate from people that you cannot cope with does not have to be bad either,can be a choice and any choice creates boundaries,and whatever they are ,Boundaries need to be respected.
Rapists are the ultimate disrespect-ors of human boundaries.
And they should be restrained in whatever way that works until they stop invading others boundaries.

You are REACTING,not thinking here.I know you don't like hearing that but that's what I see in your words.

[sub.theory]

70. Right...

You are REACTING,not thinking here.I know you don't like hearing that but that's what I see in your words.

Where "not thinking" = "doesn't mindlessly agree with me"

I think this discussion has come to it's end.

[NorthernSpy]

67. Cat wasn't any more of a trespasser than the women were...

I believe both the camps were in a commons that had been taken over by the government.


(For what it's worth...)



(edit: proofreading)

[oldcoot]

108. They may have called the police

We really do not know what methods that these women used to try to get rid of Cat. They very well may have called the police and the police might have told them to handle the matter themselves. As I have learned from personal experience, the police do not want to be bothered by "trivial" crimes. Unfortunately, the police are not always sympathetic to non-conformists so I can well imagine the police ignoring these women's complaints.

For this and many other reasons, the author should have made an effort to interview some of the women who lived at this camp. I really would like to have known what the women thought about the author's attempts to be helpful (perhaps he was not that helpful) and whether Cat was really harmless.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. Seems to me...

that this "Cat" kid visited the park during the day, and slept hundreds of yards away at night out of respect.

I see no reason to excuse what was done to him.

Yeah, there are clubs that exclude women too. More's the pity.

[undergroundpanther]

45. Was it on their campsite or not?

If it was than he was a trespasser who did not respect thier boundaries.When you disrespect and violate a persons boundaries or a groups boundaries you are asking for trouble.
Do you let homeless people camp on the periphery of your yard?
Yes or no? If not,why not?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. I'd say, given that it was several hundred yards away...

that's a fairly good boundary for somebody who lives under a plastic sheet.

"When you disrespect and violate a persons boundaries or a groups boundaries you are asking for trouble."

Blaming the victim, eh? When you put on a miniskirt and act like a whore are you asking for trouble? Of course not.

"Do you let homeless people camp on the periphery of your yard?"

There aren't any now, but I've lived in neighborhoods where homeless people lived a coupld of hundred yards away camped in the woods by a river. I certainly never felt the urge to go out and burn their belongings. You?

[undergroundpanther]

57. Ok you asked for it

that's a fairly good boundary for somebody who lives under a plastic sheet.

On a quiet night you can HEAR clearly what is going on a few hundred yards away what goes on in a private camp.If they were lesbians sex sounds can be heard that far on a quiet night.The man was trespassing invading their space.

"When you disrespect and violate a persons boundaries or a groups boundaries you are asking for trouble."

Blaming the victim, eh? When you put on a miniskirt and act like a whore are you asking for trouble? Of course not.

How is wearing a skirt violating someone else's boundaries?
That skirt isn't on YOU is it? She didn't pin you down and force you to put it on did she?she didn't FORCE you to look at the skirt and covet her.The rapist is ALWAYS to blame for the rape,PERIOD.Rapists INVADE others boundaries and bodies.

"Do you let homeless people camp on the periphery of your yard?"

There aren't any now, but I've lived in neighborhoods where homeless people lived a coupld of hundred yards away camped in the woods by a river. I certainly never felt the urge to go out and burn their belongings. You?

No.

But if I was making a special space and wanted it for private purposes,and to have it for intimate things .. I may have chased them away. Intimacy and privacy sometimes requires exclusion. Do you let kids in the bedroom while you have sex? No! Lesbians don't want males around when they are intimate.

Why does the Pentagon get to chase away people that are hundreds of yards from it's boundaries than? How home an elitist MALE dominated institution can chase off any intruders it wants to,even in some cases shoot them dead but a enclave of lesbians are somehow awful people for doing the same thing for their own personal space?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

60. Well, I think a couple hundred yards is a very reasonable distance.

Geez, you make it sound like lesbian sex has to occur in Superman's Fortress of Solitude.

[undergroundpanther]

73. Well maybe they needed to be in a

fortress of solitude for thier own healing space.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

79. Well, they should probably seek therapy and get their own land then.

Honestly, a few hundred yards is pretty far and anyone that loud probably doesn't care who hears. You make it sound like two women getting it on is like some Papal sacrament. It's sex and it shouldn't require a square mile of solitude.

Regardless of that however, this land did not belong to them, nor did it belong to Cat. They were all just squatters on government land. While I don't have problems with squatters, I do think you need to realize that they had no actual right to this land and neither did he. They were in the wrong to set a man's belongings on fire and threaten him with a knife. That does not sound like a peace camp to me; it sounds more like a camp of violent, deranged women with an extreme hatred of men. He had just as much right to be there as they did and from how it appears, in that poorly written article, he seemed to be going out of the way to avoid bothering them. The WOMEN were the ones that went into HIS space and commited a violent crime against his person.

[undergroundpanther]

86. Do you know

The history of these women and Cat?

Tell me WHY would anyone want to HANG AROUND everyday,where they are not wanted or welcomed? Why did Cat want to live there anyway? His spirit? I doubt it was anything to do with spirituality . He wanted to be around the women who did not want men.Some arrogant men will approach a lesbian and say to her or to males in his company, he would declare stuff like"if I got her drunk or forced her,fucked her,I could make her like men"..As if his dick was special or something.. I have heard this kind of shit talk out of men directed as lesbians and my own asexual self ,with my own ears. More than once. In fact plenty of times.

Cat I think liked the idea of invading women's space.He thought he had special powers to make lesbians turn straight.His Spirit liked invading spaces where he was not welcomed,in effect he was a boundary invader..Cat had some issues of his own. And if those women were threatened by him,for the article does not tell the women's side of the story,in case you didn't notice,they had to do what they had to do.If someone burned down my tend I would definitely take it to mean I was not wanted or part of that camp. How come cat could not talk a hint?

Ever been stalked? I have.Stalkers never get hints.
To make him stop I got a restraining order that was useless. I had to crack him upside the head with my fist to make him leave me alone.And even after that 6 months he was coming around again.

Sometimes men do not give women space.When women do not want him,he intrudes more. Cat sounds like that kind of male.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

94. ...

"Tell me WHY would anyone want to HANG AROUND everyday,where they are not wanted or welcomed?"

Good question. I'm going to assume that somebody at the camp liked him and welcomed him.

"Cat I think liked the idea of invading women's space.He thought he had special powers to make lesbians turn straight.His Spirit liked invading spaces where he was not welcomed,in effect he was a boundary invader..Cat had some issues of his own."

That's quite an assumption. Sure, everyman on earth's fantasized about threesomes. That doesn't mean he's some sort of stalker. Sounds to me like he was quite the hippy and was very supportive of the women's movement.

"the article does not tell the women's side of the story"

Perhaps because the campers forced the writers away for talking to "Cat?"

[undergroundpanther]

99. ...

"Tell me WHY would anyone want to HANG AROUND everyday,where they are not wanted or welcomed?"

Good question. I'm going to assume that somebody at the camp liked him and welcomed him.

You are assuming,Quite an assumption remember,the same thing you accuse me of doing.A little hypocrisy does not improve your argument


That's quite an assumption. Sure, everyman on earth's fantasized about threesomes. That doesn't mean he's some sort of stalker. Sounds to me like he was quite the hippy and was very supportive of the women's movement.

"the article does not tell the women's side of the story"

Perhaps because the campers forced the writers away for talking to "Cat?"

And if they were that defensive ,as to not want to speak to the writer,..why do you think they WERE so defensive? Why? If Cat as hippy as he was(being a hippy does not mean said hippy is respectful of boundaries) was a threat to the women ,then of course the women would not want to associate with him or welcome his friends.
Looks like cat was barely tolerated there as a VISITOR.
But he moved in,violated the space and the limits and boundaries these women made for themselves to feel safe,from men.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

102. If the women thought he was such a threat?

Why wouldn't they just tell the author?

Instead of their weird little threatening exorcism thing?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

62. ...

"On a quiet night you can HEAR clearly what is going on a few hundred yards away what goes on in a private camp."

A few hundred yards is a pretty good distance between camps in popular camping areas. It's plenty of distance to prevent thing from being heard clearly. In fact, the only thing that could be heard is shouting, and that wouldn't be clear at all.

"If they were lesbians sex sounds can be heard that far on a quiet night."

Well, that'd have to be pretty good sex. And if they're shouting that loud, they're not worried about privacy.

"The man was trespassing invading their space."

No, the man was not trespassing their space. That's why he was several hundred yards out. They invaded his space when they came over and torched his stuff. And assuming one of them held a knife to his throat, that's a very clear violation of his space.


"How is wearing a skirt violating someone else's boundaries?
That skirt isn't on YOU is it? She didn't pin you down and force you to put it on did she?she didn't FORCE you to look at the skirt and covet her.The rapist is ALWAYS to blame for the rape,PERIOD.Rapists INVADE others boundaries and bodies."

It's very clearly not a violation. That's the whole point.

"No."

Then we agree.

"Do you let kids in the bedroom while you have sex? No! "

Agreed. However, my kids slept considerably closer that a few hundred yards, and at no point did I have a desire to burn down their rooms. Nor did I blame them if they overheard us during particularly racous love-making. Nor did I assume they were interested to begin with.

"Why does the Pentagon get to chase away people that are hundreds of yards from it's boundaries than?"

Because the Pentagon's a giant asshole.

"How home an elitist MALE dominated institution can chase off any intruders it wants to,even in some cases shoot them dead but a enclave of lesbians are somehow awful people for doing the same thing for their own personal space?"

I dare say, anybody who torches a homeless guy's stuff and holds a knife to his chest is awful people regardless of their gender or orientation.

[NorthernSpy]

77. why's their "personal space" occupying ACRES of PUBLIC property?

You wrote:

On a quiet night you can HEAR clearly what is going on a few hundred yards away what goes on in a private camp.If they were lesbians sex sounds can be heard that far on a quiet night.The man was trespassing invading their space.

LOL!

When you camp on public land, you don't get to claim acres and acres of territory beyond your actual campsite for your own exclusive use. That's just unreasonable. The public simply does not owe you that degree of seclusion.

Anyone whose sexual practices might be inhibited by the presence of other campers hundreds of yards away is welcome to go get a goddamn room already!

[undergroundpanther]

92. Than defend the homeless

Who camp in parks,Defend them from cops who won't let them sleep in public spaces.Do you advocate for the homeless and their rights to sleep on public sidewalks and such? Do you advocate their right to get drunk or high and puke on public benches?

How is it that when women want space away from males CAT is a poor defenseless guy just squatting,a hundred yard's away,when there are millions of other places to squat far away from the womens camp.
Cat liked invading the Womens space,he GOT OFF on it.Who knows the history between the Women and Cat? We only hear Cats side and another male, in the Article. THe Women are not asked why they were threatened by Cat. Maybe Cat was a rapist? Wonder why Cat was Squatting? But I guess you NEVER realized that might be the case when an article is one sided did you?


So, if a homeless guy is shitting near your stoop Is it offensive?

Can't have it both ways.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

129. What, you think your shit don't stink?

"So, if a homeless guy is shitting near your stoop Is it offensive?"

Presumably, these women were doing as much shitting in the woods as Cat, bears, and the Pope.

"Than defend the homeless"

You say that like it's something we all shouldn't be doing already.

[undergroundpanther]

139. Just trying to get you to think

Cat was basically invading the space the boundaries of the womens camp.A camp males in the community had already demonstrated extreme hostility to by throwing bottles and hurling insults at it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

141. Just trying to defend these women, you mean.

You're trying to justify what they did, by suggesting we'd feel the same way about homeless people living in our neighborhood.

Frankly, I don't know which is more disturbing.

[undergroundpanther]

149. Umm

I am withholding judgment. However I know the hostile attitudes to the homeless.I am using it as a counterpoint. I write about the sad situation the homeless face here. I also know that our culture is patriarchal and women face alot of bad stuff from men.As do homeless people face bad stuff from everywhere.
Also I know that things are not always as they seem. Alot of questions are not answered in that article..Yes I am defending the womens right to exclude men from their own camp. But I am not defending their attack twords Cat .I think their joining hands and chanting "Go Away" was better way to make the point clear than pulling the knife and burning Cats tent to evict them.
The community was very hostile to the campers. The community at large probably hated hippies and homeless people too.

Why they burnt Cats home down I dunno why, I have to ask,what did cat do to provoke them to violence? It was not right what they did. I don't go burning people's campsites down for the fuck of it.I'd have to be very threatened to do something violent like that in response. Cat maybe would have to stalk me, or attempt to rape me,hurt me for real, before I'd consider holding a knife to his chest and demanding he leave the area.
Cat of course does not say what his part was in provoking in the altercation. Conveniently.

Cat was not harmed ,he was threatened and lost all his stuff.He's not dead.Remember that. Who knows why Cat was such a threat to the camp. Cat may have killed someone as far as what the article states about the whole incident.
We don't know why.



The article leaves alot unanswered.

That is why it is a good one..it causes controversy and enables people to start dealing with issues. I think controversy is one way to grow.To become wiser and deeper in perceptions.To wake up.

[Bonobo]

152. It took 150 posts for you to disavow the violence towards Cat.

[undergroundpanther]

154. How many did it take

For you to see the men were invasive?
How many posts dids it take for you to see there were bottles and insults hurled at the campers?

I don't think you aknowleged that yet have you?

So I focused on the points YOU didn't like to think about too much,..Well I am different than you,that need not be BAD. I put less emphasis on Cat's situation because I saw Cat as being invasive.. You focused on Cat because you chose to identify with him for whatever reason you have maybe you have boundary issues I dunno....I know the knife and tent burning was over the top. But likewise men driving by throwing bottles and threatening the campers is wrong too as was Cat for hanging around where he was not welcome.
Cat KNEW he was doing wrong..I say this because he HID his camp carefully to avoid detection..WHY? Because he was PUSHING the Campers BOUNDARIES DELIBERATELY.

[Bonobo]

160. Yes. We focused on different things. And I acknowledge belatedly that

throwing bottles and insults was wrong.

Who was first in their wrongness is unclear from the article.

[undergroundpanther]

162. I agree

The article is very unclear.
BUT..It'sn't it fascinating the HOT emotions and assuming, the judgments ..it generated in all of us discussing it?

Damn this has been a cool thread hasn't it?
Learned alot.

[NorthernSpy]

156. you're making such a muddle of this...

You wrote:

Than defend the homeless Who camp in parks,Defend them from cops who won't let them sleep in public spaces.Do you advocate for the homeless and their rights to sleep on public sidewalks and such? Do you advocate their right to get drunk or high and puke on public benches?

If a piece of public land is open to campers, then I oppose any attempt to use a person's race, color, creed, class, sex (etc) as a reason for banning him/her from equal use of the site.

Forbidding homeless people from camping in a forest where everyone else is free to camp is class discrimination. Of course I'm against that!

You seem to want a double standard in which certain groups of people get to treat considerable portions of the public sphere as their own exclusive domain. The rest of us have to tolerate their use of our public lands, but the excluders don't have to tolerate our presence near whatever extravagantly large territory they wish to claim for their own on those same public lands.

But why should you or the Greenhamites get to have it both ways?

How is it that when women want space away from males CAT is a poor defenseless guy just squatting,a hundred yard's away,when there are millions of other places to squat far away from the womens camp.

He WAS far away from them: several hundred feet, and completely out of sight.

Cat liked invading the Womens space,he GOT OFF on it.Who knows the history between the Women and Cat? We only hear Cats side and another male, in the Article. THe Women are not asked why they were threatened by Cat. Maybe Cat was a rapist? Wonder why Cat was Squatting? But I guess you NEVER realized that might be the case when an article is one sided did you?

And maybe the women were really a bunch of devil-worshipping cannibals who were just using the "peace camp" idea as a front for their real activities. Maybe they wanted Cat out of the way so that they could all enjoy a good baby-roast without having to explain why there were little booties stuck in the grill.

:eyes:

I mean, if we're just going to make shit up, why can't it at least be entertaining?

So, if a homeless guy is shitting near your stoop Is it offensive?

If a homeless guy is shitting several hundred feet away on land that I do not own, it might actually be none of my business, assuming that he is a responsible camper who buries his scat properly. And the article doesn't suggest that Cat was treating the land any worse than the women were.

Can't have it both ways.

If only you'd take your own advice.

[petronius]

49. That may be the message that you're getting from this, but I really

don't think that is what Monbiot is trying to say. From his title, and this sentence in the conclusion

Greenham worked – better and for longer than any other camp of its kind – because it was entirely run and populated by women.

it sounds as though he is making an argument for gender-separatism in a much broader way than the 'safe-spaces' and ideas that you're talking about...

[undergroundpanther]

58. Ok

If some people WANT to separate off to themselves by gender,why not LET them do it and respect their boundaries?
Why force men who don't like women to live with them?
Why for women who don't like men why should THEY be forced to live with men?
If you like both genders live with anyone you want.

Humans can be very different in their temperaments,needs and sexuality,different does not have to be bad does it?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

90. How is that different than segregation?

[undergroundpanther]

95. Hmm

It's different in one way.

Men could visit.They might not be allowed to participate and they might not be valued,but than again women lived with this kind of segrgation for centuries already. Men don't like it when they lose thier position of cultural dominance,and control even when it's a little women's camp..

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

98. Hmm.

So how does that differ from segregation, where a black man might be able to enter the restaurant and order food, but he can't sit at the counter?

[undergroundpanther]

103. Oh this guy

Was by the fire he was involved with the camp life..Looks like he was doing what they were doing,except he had to GO away at night.

Not much different than say a hospital.Is it segregation to make visitors go home at 6 pm so the patients can rest?
Hmm, churches close their doors at certain hours but the clergy lives there ...is the church being segregationist? Some churches don't like gays or women and limit their access to the power positions,is this segregation? Or are they doing what they do with their space and enforcing boundaries,to ensure they have the kind of community culture they seek to create??
Worth pondering,Where do you draw the line? Is being different and not wanting to be around certain people always BAD?

I don't like hanging around abusers,or drunks or cat haters..Does that make me bad?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

112. ...

"Was by the fire he was involved with the camp life."

Right, and my analogy is the black person during segregation that could order from the restaurant, he just couldn't sit at the table.

"Looks like he was doing what they were doing,except he had to GO away at night"

So it's a sundown town. Rural towns where black people could visit by day, but had to leave by night. (or else suffer from arson and death threats, hmm.)

"Is it segregation to make visitors go home at 6 pm so the patients can rest?"

No, but it would be if they said people of a certain race, gender, orientation, etc. had to leave, but others could stay.

"Hmm, churches close their doors at certain hours but the clergy lives there ...is the church being segregationist?"

Nope, no more than "employees only." Unless, of course, they segregated by race, gender, etc.

"Some churches don't like gays or women and limit their access to the power positions,is this segregation?"

Yes! Good one.

"Or are they doing what they do with their space and enforcing boundaries,to ensure they have the kind of community culture they seek to create??"

No. They're just bigots.

"Worth pondering"

Eh.

"Where do you draw the line?"

Martin Luther King Jr. once said he'd like to see his children judged based upon the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Sounds like a pretty obvious place to draw the line to me.

"Is being different and not wanting to be around certain people always BAD?"

Being different is fine. Not wanting to be around people because their different than you is bad.

"I don't like hanging around abusers,or drunks or cat haters..Does that make me bad?"

Nope, with the arguable exception of drunks, you're judging people on their character.

[undergroundpanther]

164. Drunks

Nope, with the arguable exception of drunks, you're judging people on their character..

Drunks can have thier character warped by booze.A drunk when sober can be a nice person..BUt with drink they can be violent ,over sexual,put people in danger. Booze fucks with your head.Booze is a danger in SOME people.

Also I have Emetiphobia,I freak when people get sick I don't want to be around that if I can help it so I avoid drunks for that reason too.

[petronius]

118. In general, I see nothing wrong with people choosing to segregate

themselves by gender. However, I don't think that the point you've been arguing in this thread is all of the point that Monbiot was making. Basically, I agree with you that people should be allowed to associate freely, and their boundaries should be respected (with many caveats of course). I agree with you (and Monbiot) that he and Cat behaved rudely by remaining where they weren't wanted, and that the women behaved much worse in their violent response (to Cat, anyway - I have no objection to the method of Monbiot's shunning). I don't agree with Monbiot's larger conclusion about the general benefits of single-gender organization.

Regarding the degree of Cat's misbehavior - I think his offense to the women in the camp was very small. One of the caveats I mentioned above is that boundaries people choose to erect in public space are not deserving of nearly the same degree of respect that might be afforded to recognized private property boundaries. Cat's large removal of himself at night seems adequate to me, considering he was apparently welcome in the camp area during the day...

[Alcibiades]

54. I agree with you about the porn

I've never actually seen any real lesbian porn, only porn for men who have fantasies about women having sex with other women. For me, that's what the fast forward button is for. I like the lesbians I know as people, but am not interested in watching them getting it on--if I cannot imagine myself in the picture, I'm not interested.

Not that I would watch porn anyway, for anything other than academic research. It's inherently offensive and oppressive.

[Dora]

72. Evolutionary psychology is a crock of shit. You can quote me on that.

It's a field of academia invented, IMO, only to further the sexist and purile fantasies of immature masculinists who want to justify and sanctify that immaturity by inventing research and documentation that ostensibly supports their unweaned and maladjusted ideas.

There is no "inherent" conflict between men and women. Men propose and legislate laws that control women's bodies and health. Men earn more than women for the same work performed. Men espouse violent and homophobic pablum while at the same time feeling their shriveled members twitch at the thought of two women engaged in a loving embrace. That's not conflict, that's oppression. And you suggest these acts are excusable because we have "different biological goals." Matters of difference are not inherently matters of conflict, and to suggest that they are suggests intellectual weakness and, in the context of this thread, deeply-ingrained sexism.

The original post was no "gas on the fire." The fire of women's oppression has been burning for centuries. This single post will ultimately be less than a nanoblip in the annals of historical record - unnoticed and disregarded. Your attitude today, however, will continue to color your relationships and interactions with the women in your world.

I hope for you a happier world than the one you live in now.

P.S. If you want some gas for the fire, I have some for you. Pull my finger.

[sub.theory]

74. Nice ad hominem!

The refuge of intellectual losers.

You're a class act, Dora.

I'll be eager to read your refutation. When are you getting your PhD?

[Dora]

83. You've given me nothing to refute.

I guess you're pulling your own over there.

[sub.theory]

87. Never wrestle with a pig...

... you'll both get dirty, and only the pig will enjoy it.

[Dora]

89. Just to make certain you understand the crux of my post...

I'll repeat myself: "Matters of difference are not inherently matters of conflict."

Have a nice day. :-)

[Annces]

29. This person who wrote this sounds like he is exaggerating

to me. If the women did not want men there, they could have told the men peacefully. The way this man describes being threatened sounds like he wants to make the women seem sinister at the same time he is defending them.

Also I think women can find their own space if they want to. There are quilting circles for instance that are all women, and I don't think men care at all to be involved. Men probably try to block some women in places that are "the good old boys club", in the workplace. But in private, women can certainly form their own spaces to get together.

[undergroundpanther]

33. Quilting circles

Domesticity again. What if women just want to connect to something ELSE..something besides children,fashion, or quilting?

Like other women?
Like the deeper aspects of themselves,only they can understand?
Like what would life be like without men and a male dominated culture framing women in roles ?
What would life be like without patriarchy?

A camp like this would be a way to explore that.

Why men INSISTED on living there,is very telling about mens attitudes twords controlling space.
Also Men could visit, if they could visit why did this guy insist on LIVING there,unwelcome??

[Annces]

36. There was only one man there, this Cat person

and he sounds like he just was a nuisance to them, not a patriarchal man trying to disrupt them.

“I know why they don’t want me here, and I agree with them. But I have to stay. This is where my spirit lives.”


Many women like domesticity, and are made fun of because of it. Women can have any kind of camp they want. The women that I know, even the highly motivated ones, want to have a loving partner, and don't have any desire for an "all women" area. Women are free to do what they want, as far as I can see. It is just that many of them don't want to be in the lead, which is their choice.

[undergroundpanther]

40. If you like domesticity go ahead

But I don't.

I am stuck in the suburbs.
Out here there are TONS of womens domesticity clubs. Quilting,childrearing,etc.There are athletics like aerobics things that focus on losing weight and fashion.

There is NOTHING out here for child free women who want to be something other than a domestic.Who want to do things differently.

Carving out a space in a patriarchal culture is harder done than said. The guy Cat who insisted on invading their space,he could have respected their wishes and visited.

Would you let a homeless guy camp out in your backyard if he said his soul resided there? Somehow,I doubt it.
So why do you expect a bunch of lesbians to tolerate it?

[Annces]

46. Off the subject, but I wanted to show you a reference to Panther

I found reference to Panther in a book on bestiaries I was reading. It was quite interesting. They were saying Panther was associated with Jesus Christ. Anyway I didn't know if you knew about this association with Panther or not.


http://bestiary.ca/beasts/beast79.htm

""The panther represents Christ, who drew all mankind to him. The dragon represents the devil, who feared Christ and hid from him. The many colors of the panther symbolizes the many qualities of Christ. After Christ was sated with the mockery and abuse of the Jews, he fell asleep in death and entered the tomb. Descending into hell he bound the dragon. After three days Christ left the tomb and roared out his triumph over death. The sweet breath of the panther that drew all animals to it is a symbol of the words of Christ that draw all to him, Jews and Gentiles alike.""


""The Greek philosopher Celsus relates in polemical work against the Christians preserved by the Christian theologian Origen that he had found it “written” that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier named Pantera (Contra Celsum 1. 69). ""

http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/2006/07/13/the-jesus-son-of-panthera-traditions/

[Annces]

65. PS - I like exciting adventure as well as domestic

You are assuming because I defend a choice to be more domestic, that is who I am. It isn't. Plus from your previous articles, I don't understand if you are a woman or a man even. So where are you coming from?

If you want more exciting stuff, move out of the suburbs and seek out the adventure, Geez. Sometimes I think you just like raising controversy.

[undergroundpanther]

81. Hmmmm

You are assuming because I defend a choice to be more domestic, that is who I am. It isn't.

OK. I assumed because you defended it. I was mistaken,Sorry.

Plus from your previous articles, I don't understand if you are a woman or a man even. So where are you coming from?

I am not a man or a woman.
I am transgender.An androgyny.
I don't even Identify myself as a Human.
I am a Genderless Panther being.


If you want more exciting stuff, move out of the suburbs and seek out the adventure, Geez.

Trying to,it's not easy to do when you make 500 bucks a month.

Sometimes I think you just like raising controversy.

Yes I do..It wakes people up.
Because without raising controversy ,people sometimes forget how to think, forget there are other ways of doing things than the status quo,they get limited in how they go perceiving situations,and when they don't think or stretch the perceptions of what could be,even if it upsets them, people do fall into an ethical abyss or morass..Than their leaders say what they like to hear, rally their blind emotions think FOR them, and set up to obey the leaders bad systems and ethics which are not ethical at all.Chains of Command are chains put upon a free conscience.And to me chains of command are chains of evil that lead or restrain the inner locus of control that help human beings free each other and live with each other dispite all the sometimes even radical differences in people sanely..

[Annces]

105. Genderless panther being

Oh, thanks for answering. I understand better now. I agree about your reasons for controversy.

[undergroundpanther]

107. :)

[mmonk]

32. Seems to me women are free to get together with friends

and live where they want to alone, if that's their choosing. I don't see any particular good which comes out of isolation in particular, though. Nothing particularly noble either. But, whatever floats one's boat.

[undergroundpanther]

34. That is the right attitude!!

But did you notice the HOSTILITY to this simple concept of a women's space for women friends in this thread? Where do you think THAT comes from?

Dare I say,it is that very hostility and intrusiveness(like the guys who hit on lesbians)what makes some women choose to go live on camps without men living with them there.

[lukasahero]

39. I'd venture to say

that the problem isn't in women living alone but in their lack of continuing to live the accepted role while doing so.

Women have lived in cloisters for centuries and people are ok with that as long as they meet their certain social requirements: keep covered, keep quiet.

These women didn't do those things and they didn't look like nice little women, didn't behave like nuns... These are the things that made them so threatening, not the living without men.

[undergroundpanther]

47. YOU GOT IT!!!!!!!

Thank you !thank you !THANKS!!! Puurrrrrrrr!

Yes When women don't play along with patriarchy roles and they dare to form their own havens away from those roles,the culture of patriarchy INVADES that space in order to CONTROL them and demand conformity to the'roles'. And that intrusiveness and boundary invading want of control over womens roles,that patriarchal culture creates is WRONG.It hurts people.

[mmonk]

42. I imagine its the feeling of rejection of their personage and

a feeling of a sort of marginalization of their being.

[undergroundpanther]

52. I felt rejected

and marginalized growing up female. My father for instance.. he was asshole,he was an abusive shit head .. BUT he was also an incredible wood craftsman.I have a table he made that has held together 16 years with NO GLUE. So I longed to learn to use the tools, to learn about wood and building things cabinetry and such.When I was little I would spend hours just watching my father work in the shop. Once in a blue moon he'd let me use the lathe, or run a board through the planer, or show me why red oak is different than white oak.. BUt No,for the most part because I was born without a dick,he never saw it fit to teach me his skills. And let me tell you that rejection hurt.If he had cared to teach me it could have made a relationship become, where there was in my later years only hate left.
When I grew boobs I'd hear him yell at me,Be a GIRL! Act like a Lady Dammit!When I'd be hanging out being myself. And I had no clue what that meant. Until I looked to my mother the'submitted one'. and than I admitted to myself what I knew all my life, right there I came out to myself, I was no girl.

[mmonk]

104. I was talking about the responses

and the hostility you mentioned. So it was about them.

[Bonobo]

53. Perhaps the hostility came from a post entitled "A world without men"?

Imagine me suggesting a "world without women".

Oh, I know, it was just trying to enlighten people, right? Broaden our minds, right? Sure.

[Marr]

82. I'd say it comes from the openly bigotted views of the women in

that group- not to mention their aggression. One threated to kill that poor man living in a damned bush- and why? Because she didn't want 'his kind around them parts'.

If the genders were reversed in this story, or if the differences were race-based rather than gender-based, would you still see at an issue of a few people just "wanting a space for themselves"?

[TahitiNut]

61. Yep. Nothing spells 'happiness' like EXCLUSION.

After all, 'exclusive' is the Gold Standard of being successful, just like 'separate but equal' is the Gold Standard of social justice. Today, we have all kinds of Enlightened Examples from the Greeen Zone to Free Speech Zones to walled suburban enclaves to the Bush Compound.

Yep. You just don't have freedom until you can exclude others on some easily identifiable characteristic ... race, gender, religion ... the Hit Parade of humanity's advancement from being mere apes.

[mmonk]

119. I wasn't advocating it as a societal model. As such, it would

be pretty useless.

[ComerPerro]

50. so, seriously, wtf was the point of that? Its not even good writing

[Jed Dilligan]

55. I don't know about this

If the story was about a woman trying to camp at a men's camp and being held at knifepoint and having her tent burned, I think the reaction would be even more "hostile."

I don't buy your theory that the hostility here comes from the patriarchy being threatened. Most DUers condemn violence whatever the source or reason.

[genie_weenie]

75. I don't get it.

This was a camp to protest the US putting nuclear missiles in the UK?

Why did they force the woman to leave? What other causes did the Greenham Common re-energize? Was this some modern Mithrasesque club for women?

[Marr]

76. I have to admit- I don't get it.

You say they wanted a space for themselves. A space for what, exactly? To prove they can be worse than male chauvenists?

[Bonobo]

78. Another thing:

Pull a knife on me and I will quickly show you how I make no distinctions between men and women.

[lukasahero]

84. Who are you threatening and why do you feel the need to do so? eom

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

85. I believe it's in reference to the fact that these women HELD A KNIFE

to the guy's chest and threatened to kill him.

[lukasahero]

93. They threatened the poster? I didn't know that!

Thanks, I read the article and understood. I was just curious why the poster felt it necessary to declare the threat here? Did anyone here threaten the poster? Then why did he/she feel the need to puff up their chest and tell us what would happen to us if we did?

FTR, why is no one here talking about the people who in the article are described as throwing bottles and cans and screaming abuses at the women? Why is it only the threat of violence by the women toward the man that is being talked about while the behavior of everyone towards the women is left unchallenged?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

96. Hmm.

I'm going to assume that's because nobody's defending the threats directed towards the women.

[Bonobo]

101. Because:

The OP acts as if it is reasonable for a woman to threaten a peaceful man with a knife.

However, if you want equality, there it is: act with violence and expect it back. Penis or Vagina, it don't matter.

So I am putting that out, that's all. Pull a knife and you better be prepared to use it.

BTW, I threatened no one. I merely stated a fact. Violence begets violence no matter is between your legs.

[undergroundpanther]

106. Cultural blindness

Poor little boy syndrome I guess.

[Bonobo]

110. I'm not the one who conflated her entire relationship with her dad

to represent the entire world of gender relations. Sorry.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[undergroundpanther]

128. Haruka

I was walking down a public sidewalk one day eating a snowball and because these christian males saw a pentagram around my neck they attacked me with knives. I managed to escape.

To me males can be threatening.And they HAVE been I have been raped stalked threatened...Because some male wanted his way and decided to invade by boundaries. And our culture as demonstrated by the attitudes in this thread is too sympathetic to males,and boundary breakers ,always assuming the male is innocent if a woman fights back,is not submissive or decides she wants nothing to do with males.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

130. Just because some guys attacked you with knives doesn't make these

women any less wrong than the guys who attacked you. They're both violent scum.

[undergroundpanther]

142. Yep

But Was I violent scum when I broke a rapist balls who had his buddy and himself trying to pin me to the wall?

WE are not told the history of these women and Cat.

Given the hostility of the community to the camp,and that we do not know why these women made their camp,and we do not hear the women's side,I am withholding judgment.

You see rapists seek out vulnerable people in isolated areas.Some homeless people got bad backgrounds,others don't.

I think it is strange cat wants to hang around a camp he is not wanted at.Also I have heard men say how they think forcing themselves on lesbians will make them like men. This article raises alot of issues about property, about male violence,about communities and differences,about squatters rights, about exclusion/inclusion,about boundaries,female violence, self defense, etc. I put it up here to get people to think. They are all important issues to discuss...
It was my Gift to DU, A big Honkin' Can of worms for the day..
I'm gonna get offline now, I got shit I got to do,Taker easy,

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

150. No, self-defense is different than violently attacking someone

I teach self-defense. I've been studying the martial arts for 13 years. If someone (male or female) attacks me with a knife, I will disarm them and injure them in the process. If a man is attacking by a woman with a knife, he has the right to do the exact same thing.

"...since he had lost his other possessions in the last fire. Recently, he told me, someone had held a knife to his chest and promised she would kill him if he stayed."

From what the article says, it does not sound like that was self defense on the part of the women. That sounds like a woman threatening a man's life with a deadly weapon. Had there been anything to suggest that he was a real threat to them, then I would feel differently, but so far the only suggestion that he's a threat is coming from your own projections and issues with men. He was staying pretty much out of their way. His camp was a few hundred yards away and hidden. They went into his territory, burned it and threatened him, so I'm inclined to side with him.

[undergroundpanther]

167. The Article

Does not say WHY she threatened him,and Neither does Cat.
I am withholding judgment on it.Yeah threatening someone with a knife and burning their tent down is wrong if it was without provocation.. Since it was Anti Nuke womens camp he could have been Cointelpro for all I know.He could have hurt them before I dunno,and the article is not forthcoming,on that none of the women were interviewed.

[noonwitch]

80. Queen Latifah "Lots of happy, fat women and no crime"

that was her response (on her sitcom a few years back) to what a world without men would be like.

[deaniac21]

88. I like to push toy cars around in the dust.....

[izzybeans]

91. There is nothing egalitarian in separatism

seeking a safe space and defending it from "intruders" speaks of an all too common and dangerous attempt to purify. So does the threats and (assumed) violence towards persons who are not threatening but merely seeking to live where "their spirit resides". If there is animosity towards the threats, insults, and abuse then why not focus it towards the actual people perpetuating the patriarchy? Their position is equally as essentialist as old school biology. Men=bad women=good = Men=work women= home = keep multiplying an equal number of negatives. The result is probably murdering and at the least threatening and attempting to murder someone who by all indications in this article did nothing to harm anyone. I suppose a world without men will have to begin with purges and genocide; if this is your example. There are plenty of other routes to go with this topic. This is not one of them.

I'm sure cat was the personification of patriarchy and the guy that fetched their wood as well. I think I'm gonna go shoot Andy Warhol now. :sarcasm:

[Sugar Smack]

115. It's Valerie Solanis!

;) :hi:

[izzybeans]

117. It is I. Don't tell Andy.

shh. ;)

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

123. Ah, nothing like the good old Society for Cutting Up Men...

which is appears the women in the article were members of.

Edited for a simple grammatical error.

[Sugar Smack]

133. I got yer free SCUM Manifesto *smack* right here baby

:D Well, for a dollar!

[izzybeans]

135. That was the first thing that popped into my mind

when reading the OP and definitely after reading the full article. I once read that there are two camps that read the SCUM Manifesto-one who take it serious and the other that finds it to be a good source of comedy-I'm not sure where. Well I like its comedic elements. Though it has been a number of years since I have read it (for a class). I'm sure there is a third type who seek refuge in stereotyping a movement. see below.

On edit: they are also the stereotype trotted out when it comes time to discredit feminist theory in political discourse; whenever righwingers choose to do so. Usually at random.

[undergroundpanther]

168. There is no egalitarianism

With a bully tolerated in your group also.

[izzybeans]

172. Too true.

I wouldn't go hoping for utopia with a group like that. The ability to deal with difference is its necessity. The urge to purge is its downfall.

I have no idea what the personal biography of the group members are, but this story surprised me given what I knew of their mission. The bullies in this story were those on the base and the men driving down the road. Their treatment of Cat and the author (at least in the way the story was related in your OP) was uncalled for and counterproductive. The bullied took on the mental outlook of the bully.

How do we move beyond such essentialist divides without lumping people into categories in which they don't belong? Without threatening innocent people? Without potentially losing allies? etc.

[CBGLuthier]

97. there is nowhere enough info in this article

to make any judgements.

Public or private land?
Was cat there first?
Were the women there first?

Did any of this really happen?

Frankly they all sound like people I would rather not associate with. Which I think was what the original author meant with his opening statement.

Nothing about this story is pleasant.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

109. It was public government land.

They were all just squatters on it with no legal ownership rights to any of it.

[CBGLuthier]

113. Then I would have to say

the women were jerks.

Getting away from men is fine. Go buy a farm somewhere like many a commune in the past but to threaten men who dare get too close to them on public land is EQUALLY as wrong as the crimes they feel the men commit.

As the old saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.

[undergroundpanther]

122. The men were jerks

The assholes throwing bottles at the camp hurling insults they were threats, too...nobody says a PEEP about THAT funny how all the males weep over cat. Cat who insisted on pestering the women...Cat was very possibly a threat, what does it say about men when those males of that community hurled insults and threw trash at the camp,it is HOSTILITY to the Women,threats.. The fact these women let cat visit is surprising given the hostility of the males in the community at large demonstrated to the women.

[CBGLuthier]

124. whatever

we are all just potential rapists after all.

Sheesh enough of this shit.

[undergroundpanther]

131. Physically you are capable of it..

But in reality you are not a rapist until you choose to rape.
I have hands that can be fists,I am not hitting anyone until I decide to ball up my fist and punch them.
You being male have an extra weapon your dick. That's all.

[izzybeans]

125. You are conflating a man with Men. A stronger feminist critique would not

confuse the two. Some men did some horrible shit. Let's lock up, and perhaps even kill, the rest of them then. An appropriate violent response would have been to pick up the bottles and throw them back. Not take them out on a person who by all indication did not threaten them for any reason other than that he was a man. The penis does not make the man. This was his one similarity with the pigs who threatened them.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

127. I'm not a "male." I'm a lesbian and I side with Cat.

From what little can be seen in the article, he didn't appear to be a threat to them. However, the women who threatened him with knives and burned his stuff were definitely a threat. The assholes throwing shit at the camp were a threat too, but it still doesn't mean the women were right.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

132. Maybe the men felt threatened?

Maybe they thought the women were a threat (after all, they did set fires and assault people with knives.) Maybe they thought the women were invading their local community and were unwelcome.

Actually, I think that's all true.

But I'm not trying to justify the men.

[undergroundpanther]

144. Given the hostility to homeless people

in our culture I think you have some good points.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

146. LOL

There's the pot calling the kettle black.

[undergroundpanther]

161. Think what you wanna

I don't care. I say what I say.I havbe nothing to lose here.I broght this up to get people thinking. And it has been a fascinating thread..

[Marie26]

170. They actually won a case in the House of Lords

Establishing their right to protest on the public lands. After the protestors arrived, The Defense Dept. created new bylaws to make it a criminal offense to be near the base w/o permission. 100 women were arrested, & they appealed the case all the way to the House of Lords, who ruled that the bylaws were invalid.

[Bridget Burke]

140. But there's much information about Greenham Common....

If you're too young to remember...

www.greenhamwpc.org.uk/

On the 5th September 1981, the Welsh group “Women for Life on Earth” arrived on Greenham Common, Berkshire, England. They marched from Cardiff with the intention of challenging, by debate, the decision to site 96 Cruise nuclear missiles there. On arrival they delivered a letter to the Base Commander which among other things stated ‘We fear for the future of all our children and for the future of the living world which is the basis of all life’.

When their request for a debate was ignored they set up a Peace Camp just outside the fence surrounding RAF Greenham Common Airbase. They took the authorities by surprise and set the tone for a most audacious and lengthy protest that lasted 19 years. Within 6 months the camp became known as the Women’s Peace Camp and gained recognition both nationally and internationally by drawing attention to the base with well publicised imaginitive gatherings. This unique initiative threw a spotlight on ‘Cruise’ making it a national and international political issue throughout the 80s and early 90s.....

Living conditions were primitive. Living outside in all kinds of weather especially in the winter and rainy seasons was testing. Without electricity, telephone, running water etc, frequent evictions and vigilante attacks, life was difficult. In spite of the conditions women, from many parts of the UK and abroad, came to spend time at the camp to be part of the resistance to nuclear weapons. It was a case of giving up comfort for commitment.

The protest, committed to disrupting the exercises of the USAF, was highly effective. Nuclear convoys leaving the base to practice nuclear war, were blockaded, tracked to their practice area and disrupted. Taking non-violent direct action meant that women were arrested, taken to court and sent to prison.

Lots of DU'ers have their boxers in a twist about this one incident. However, George Monbiot ended the article: "despite my dramatic ejection, the women’s camp inspired me too: after that summer, everything looked different."

[undergroundpanther]

158. I agree

But isn't it interesting to watch how the judgements come down and who makes which ones.

[The Straight Story]

100. Ok, read the article and this thread: here is where I see disconnect-

The concept of a generalized equality of humans based on the person versus being judged by sex/race.

An all white camp would seem silly, but one could claim they want to get away from the rap culture. Sure, it would be legal I suppose, but would it be right.

When women (in this case) are wanting to get away from men in the manner here described (thread/story) it seems overly judgemental on so many levels (example, what about a woman trapped in a mans body pre-surgery, would that person not be welcome?).

Getting away from patriarchy, etc, is cool with me for people, but not wanting someone of a specific sex anywhere near you out of fear just seems a tad silly. Sure, people have guy's night out, ladies night out, etc and so on. But even then there are usually someone of the opposite sex within earshot - and it is not something where I think others would (or should) take drastic action against someone because they are different physically.

Projecting ones negative experiences with someone of the opposite sex onto all of that sex and wanting to get away, from and entire group, and not interact with them at all seems a bit biased imho.

ALL that said - sure, if women want to have a camp all their own, with no men around, buy a few acres of land as a group, go, live there, and don't let men in. Simple as that. I just think they, whether male/female/race/religion/etc, are missing out on the melting pot that is the world when they escape from all the other people in the world who are not like them.

Is what we fear something generated in the mind and acted upon (ie the actions of others) or are we afraid of those not like us?

-side note, I live in a small hood and when our neighbor heard a black family was moving in they moved out, as did several other people. Mr. Kitchen remarked to my mom 'why can't we just have an area that is our own without their kind coming here'? - a few people protested at their house when they moved in. Mom made em a cake and welcomed em.

[undergroundpanther]

116. Have you ever been raped

Rape can make you want to STAY AWAY from men for a VERY LONG time.

Abuse can do that. And sadly our culture is abusive to women and it has been for a VERY LONG time.

I hate abusers. Spouse beaters, pedophiles,psychopaths, rapists,torturers, I'd like to see every single one of them dead.
In my dreams I would love to see a world without them.

Ain't gonna happen.

The best I can hope for is to make an ASSHOLE FREE ZONE.

The minute you attempt this however the assholes are gravitate to it and attempt to control the space.

It is empire hellbent on colonizing everything VS the desire to Exclude empire by creating havens.
Why do you think tribal cultures are being decimated by the corporates?

There are two kinds of consciousness in this world .

First there is one type that can handle difference in people,it negotiates, it does not need to dominate control or destroy,unless it is threatened . This kind of consciousness can allow space for differences( even exclude) and also Allow differences while it includes at the same time..

The other kind of consciousness is an empire,like cancer, a hierarchy that cannot tolerate any differences or tolerate a rival community,that it cannot dominate,or excludes empire Empire's it's form of inclusion is control and it's exclusion is toxic to human beings too.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

121. "I hate abusers."

"Spouse beaters, pedophiles,psychopaths, rapists,torturers, I'd like to see every single one of them dead."

What's your opinion on arsonists and knife-wielding maniacs?

[undergroundpanther]

157. Well

If they do it for jollies than they need to die too.
If they are doing it to DEFEND against a bully,than oh well. Bully should not be stepping over other peoples boundaries.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

163. But there is NO REAL EVIDENCE it was to DEFEND!

The women acting in self-defense is entirely in your head given the article we're provided with. Your issues with men are completely clouding your judgement on this. Neither of us really know exactly what was going on. Judging from the article, the women were knife-wielding arsonist maniacs. That's what I'm going on for now, because that is what is in the article. I have no proof of anything other than that.

According to the article, he didn't overstep any reasonable boundaries that could deservedly result in having his stuff torched and a knife held to his chest. You just seem to believe that women are always being threatened by men. Men are bad. Men must have bad intentions, blah, blah, blah, but if you actually look at the article the guy seems quite reasonable and the women seem very out of line.

[Bonobo]

126. You advocate intolerance and then claim you want a tolerant world.

[undergroundpanther]

136. Well THINK

If someone is abusive and does not respect your right to exist be who you are,who abuses manipulates and hurts you,why should I tolerate THAT kind of behavior?

I'll tolerate alot of things ..but I do not tolerate assholes. As in bullies,rapists,pedophiles,and other boundary breakers.

You cannot have a tolerant peaceful culture with a bully wrecking havoc in it, by bullying everyone,imposing himself,controlling and disrespecting others boundaries can you?

You will not get respect from me unless you are respectful of me.
Nobody is owed by default trust,respect or tolerance..automatically. Yes be kind,be tolerant until the person demonstrates they cannot be trusted or tolerated..Especially if they do not demonstrate trustworthiness,respectfulness,and tolerance by respecting others boundaries.

[The Straight Story]

137. I was abused, and molested for years

Didn't make me hate myself because I am man though, or want to escape from all men.

In the course of my life I would say for every asshole I have met I have met hundreds more good folk.

I try to focus on them more, the good people. Regardless of their sexuality/race/etc. And individual caused my pain, not a group.

As far as spousal issues, my X wife was hell towards me, and my kids, and I cannot begin to explain the hell she put us all through. But I don't think all women are that way, just that one :)

[undergroundpanther]

166. Ok good for you

Some people heal differently than you do. Some are not the same.
Some need to get away,others don't.

[Marie26]

153. It's not so much about

"getting away" from men. These women had a specific purpose - to stop the development of nuclear weapons in Britain - and they devoted their time & lives to that goal. It's not about men. I think that's maybe where posters are misinterpreting their actions.

[undergroundpanther]

165. A nuke missile

Is a very"phallic" things.Men are who launch them into Mother Earth... I dunno if that had anything to do with it being a WOMENS peace camp.
Just speculating here.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

111. What A Bunch Of Whacked Out Women. Not Much Of A World They Got.

Interesting to read, but not a place that sounds very nice to visit LOL The concept of a world without men is quite frankly stupid. So would the concept of a world without women. So the concept just on it's face is quite faulty and offensive. But outside of that, these women sound like they were whacked out of their minds. They can have their little world there, cause it sounds like they aren't really people that most other people would care to be around anyway, and their social skills are probably as such that they might as well be off in their own little private corner. No loss there.

All in all though who cares. They can have their little territory in the woods somewhere. Doesn't bother me any. Hell, I still got the rest of the world.

[mmonk]

138. This thread just keeps growing, doesn't it?

Strikes people in some inner core I gather.

[undergroundpanther]

143. That's why I posted it!

People need to talk about these core issues..

[Bridget Burke]

147. And most of those posting never heard of Greenham Common before....

Greenham Common itself goes back about 10,000 years.
www.sopse.org.uk/ixbin/hixclient.exe?a=query&p=greenham&f=generic_theme%2ehtm&_IXFIRST_=1&_IXMAXHITS_=1&%3dtheme_record_id=wb%2dwb%2d10khistory_stoneage&s=Yam2OTM8tAV

Greenham Common Women's Peace Camp was begun by women & lasted from 1981 to 2000.
www.greenhamwpc.org.uk/

George Monbiot has gotten quite a few responses...

If ever women needed an argument for establishing some distance from the other sex, the misogyny evident in some of the responses to my last post provides it....

The comments on this blog suggest that some men still feel profoundly threatened by the women's decision. I wonder why. Several posters kindly suggest that I was "trying to get laid" at Greenham. So let me return the compliment. Is their evident hatred of women the result of a lack of sexual success? Could the decision by the Greenham women to have nothing to do with men symbolise, for these misogynists, the decision by women in general to have nothing to do with them?

After all, why would any woman want to associate with men who have views like theirs?

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/george_monbiot/2006/09/post_360.html

[semillama]

145. Kind of interesting, but would've appreciated more background

but I guess that's what you get with blogs - it's up to the poster.

I would strongly recommend the graphic novel series "Y-The Last Man" to folks interested in a world without men. In the case of the novel, something happens that results in every male mammal on the planet (except for the main character) dying simulataneously. It's an interesting look at society. One of my favorite scenes is one with two women, talking about how the situation didn't become real for them until they realized the Rolling Stones were dead...

[Bridget Burke]

148. Check my posts for some background (#140 & #147)

Am I the ONLY one who'd ever heard of Greenham Common?

In some blogs, it's up to the reader. "It" being some knowledge of history.

[Marie26]

151. This is really interesting

I'd never heard of this before.

"On the 5th September 1981, the Welsh group “Women for Life on Earth” arrived on Greenham Common, Berkshire, England. They marched from Cardiff with the intention of challenging, by debate, the decision to site 96 Cruise nuclear missiles there. On arrival they delivered a letter to the Base Commander which among other things stated ‘We fear for the future of all our children and for the future of the living world which is the basis of all life’.

When their request for a debate was ignored they set up a Peace Camp just outside the fence surrounding RAF Greenham Common Airbase. They took the authorities by surprise and set the tone for a most audacious and lengthy protest that lasted 19years. Within 6 months the camp became known as the Women’s Peace Camp and gained recognition both nationally and internationally by drawing attention to the base with well publicised imaginitive gatherings.This unique initiative threw a spotlight on ‘Cruise’ making it a national and international political issue throughout the 80s and early 90s.

The presence of women living outside an operational nuclear base 24 hours a day, brought a new perspective to the peace movement - giving it leadership and a continuous focus. At a time when the USA and the USSR were competing for nuclear superiority in Europe, the Women’s Peace Camp on Greenham Common was seen as an edifying influence. The commitment to non-violence and non-alignment gave the protest an authority that was difficult to dismiss – journalists from almost every corner of the globe found their way to the camp and reported on the happenings and events taking place there.

The conduct and integrity of the protest mounted by the Women’s Peace Camp was instrumental in the decision to remove the Cruise Missiles from Greenham Common. Under the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, the missiles were flown back to the USA along with the USAF personnel in 91/92. The Treaty signed by the USA and the USSR in 1987, is in accord with the stated position held by women, in defence of their actions on arrest, when it states: “Conscious that nuclear weapons would have devastating consequences for all mankind”.

http://www.greenhamwpc.org.uk/

You've got to respect that level of commitment. I certainly do.

[mmonk]

155. I do.

Positive things can result from freedom of association.

[undergroundpanther]

159. Yep

[izzybeans]

173. There was a much larger campaign than this one group. It was a

local effort for quite a long time. Still is.

http://www.sopse.org.uk/ixbin/hixclient.exe?a=query&p=greenham&f=generic_theme%2ehtm&_IXFIRST_=1&_IXMAXHITS_=1&%3dtheme_record_id=wb%2dwb%2dpeacefulprotest_takingastand
http://www.sopse.org.uk/ixbin/hixclient.exe?a=query&p=greenham&f=generic_theme%2ehtm&_IXFIRST_=1&_IXMAXHITS_=1&%3dtheme_record_id=wb%2dwb%2dpeacefulprotest_takingastand&s=tWDmBALMGfn
it seems a whole lot of people find that their "spirits" reside there; given it is a commons.

[AngryAmish]

174. UP, may I ask you a question?

How do you feel about the Michigan Womyn's Festival?

[mvd]

175. Locking

Thread has started a flame war.

mvd
DU Moderator