BBC News - Power of women protest movements
20 August 2010 Last updated at 12:11 ETPower of women protest movements
UK authorities felt powerless to act when confronted with 32,000 women joining hands in protest at the presence of cruise missiles at Greenham Common
True equality will only have been achieved when women are punished as harshly as men for their misdemeanours, says Lisa Jardine in her Point of View column.
A ship carrying humanitarian aid, "manned" entirely by women, is ready to leave Lebanon on the first leg of its journey to Gaza in an attempt to break the Israeli blockade. Named the Mariam (the Aramaic version of Mary), it has a multi-faith international passenger list, including doctors, lawyers and a group of American nuns.
History is full of unexpected precedents where human behaviour is concerned. Although the Mariam initiative has been dubbed by some a publicity stunt, the historian of 16th and 17th-Century Europe encounters groups of ordinary working women acting in a disorderly manner surprisingly often.
Women turn up telling off priests, berating the local fiscal authorities, leading grain and bread riots and participating in tax revolts. In England in the early 17th Century, a significant percentage of the rioters against the enclosure of common land were female.
We have vivid first-hand descriptions of some of these disturbances, and we even know what some of the female ringleaders looked like. In 1653 the judicial authorities in Alkmaar, Holland, circulated the descriptions of two women who had led a women's riot against the local administration and its taxes, and had evaded arrest:
"Griet Piet Scheer, age 36, blonde hair, thin face with blue eyes, fairly tall, lean figure, soberly dressed. Sometimes she wears black and at others she wears a blue overall with red sleeves; she acted as captain. Alit Turfvolster, who carried the flag, is also tall but somewhat stouter than the above-mentioned Griet; she tends to sniff through her nose, is of brown complexion with black hair and untidy clothes; she wears a bodice with a linen apron, and is aged 30."
Continue reading the main storyFIND OUT MORE
- A Point of View, with Lisa Jardine, is on Fridays on Radio 4 at 2050 BST and repeated Sundays, 0850 BST
- Or listen to it on the iPlayer
Some particularly colourful instances have become legendary. In St Giles' Cathedral in Edinburgh on Sunday 23 July 1637, as the Dean began to read the Anglican service from Archbishop Laud's English prayer book - recently imposed on Calvinist Scotland by Charles I - Jenny Geddes, a local market-woman, leapt to her feet, so we are told, and threw her three-legged-stool straight at the minister's head.
As she hurled it she is reported to have yelled: 'How dare ye say Mass in my lug [ear]?' Whereupon a crowd of 'rascally serving women' drowned out the reading, and when evicted from the church, threw stones at the doors and windows. Today, a sculpture of a three-legged stool, prominently placed in St Giles's, serves as a monument to her disruptive behaviour.
It was the distinguished social and cultural historian Natalie Zemon Davis (now in her 80s) whose groundbreaking work on unruly women first brought them to general scholarly attention. She argued that one of the reasons women regularly led manifestations of resistance against authority was the license traditionally accorded to them - as the weaker sex - to misbehave.
Given over to the sway of her lower passions, she was supposed not to be responsible for her actions and could not be held accountable for her disruption. At the same time, social mores entitled her to "speak out of turn" - to rail and scold - against anyone who threatened the safety or wellbeing of her family.
Husband's responsibilityHer "incapacity" to control herself, or act rationally once her protective passions were aroused, was embodied in varying degrees in the European legal system. According to English law of the period, it was her husband who was responsible for her conduct. Even if indicted, she might be acquitted, or receive a lesser sentence for the same crime.
Natalie Davis records in a memoir how, curiously, her own life and that of the 16th Century women, whose stories she had uncovered, converged in the 1950s during the McCarthy era when left-leaning young academics like herself were caught up in the witch-hunts - led by Senator Jo McCarthy - against supposed Communist sympathisers.
She and her husband had their passports confiscated by the House Committee on Un-American Activities, for alleged links with Communism. Although her husband was publicly interrogated in 1954, and lost his university job, she - though unable to travel abroad - was able to continue to pursue her career as an historian. The House Committee's members "assumed that if a married couple did something [un-American] together, only the husband was really responsible".
Continue reading the main story“Start Quote
End QuoteThere is, of course, some irony in the fact that the limited condoning by the authorities of all this disruptive behaviour by women, or men-dressed-as-women, depended on an assumption of absolute inequality between men and women. ”
Reading the colourful accounts in the archives, it is often tempting to assume that all women's riots were admirable, and to convince ourselves we should give them our post-hoc support. But it is clear that some recorded incidents are unprovoked assaults on unfortunate office-holders simply trying to do their job.
When, in July 1649, Alice Harper subjected her local tax inspector to voluble verbal abuse, the charge he laid against her in court was one of being "curst and shrewd" and a "common scold" - charges which if substantiated could lead to her being made to stand in the corner of the church during Sunday service, wearing a white sheet:
"We whose names are under written," he testified, "do certify that Alice Harper of Steeple Ashton is a most troublesome and perverse woman, she being a common scold having from time to time abused with her tongue the best men and women in the town of Steeple Ashton, and now upon our knowledge she hath abused John Markes and his wife, he being a Tithing man of the aforesaid town, for executing his office, most viperous with her tongue and giving them such bad and gross language as no tongue can well express."
Whether for good or ill, however, in the course of the 17th and 18th Centuries, the licence accorded to rioting women had a curious consequence. Men began to dress as women, and call themselves by fictitious women's names, when leading public disturbances. In 1629, "Captain" Alice Clark headed a crowd of mostly male weavers dressed as women in a grain riot near Maldon in Essex.
In 1641 in Wiltshire, bands of men rioted and levelled fences in protest against Charles I's enclosure of their forests, led by men dressed as women, calling themselves 'Lady Skimmington'.
Less rationalIn the early 18th Century, labourers in Surrey rioted in women's clothes, and men disguised as women tore down the hated tollbooths and turnpike gates on the Gloucestershire border. Most notoriously, the so-called 'Rebecca riots' in Wales in the 1830s and 1840s, by farmers and agricultural workers against taxes and tolls, were led by gangs of noisy men in women's clothes.
There is, of course, some irony in the fact that the limited condoning by the authorities of all this disruptive behaviour by women, or men-dressed-as-women, depended on an assumption of absolute inequality between men and women. Female bad behaviour was occasionally tolerated on the grounds that women were less rational, less able to control their emotions, and hence less responsible for their actions.
In our own era, this was probably still among the assumptions that allowed the encampment of women anti-nuclear protesters at RAF Greenham Common, a British base near Newbury where US Cruise missiles were located during the Cold War, to continue for more than a decade.
Organisers of the Mariam's mission will hope for different response than male counterparts
The women-only peace camp was set up there in the early 1980s, and organised a series of peaceful demonstrations against which the police felt largely powerless to act. When, in December 1982, 30,000 women joined hands to encircle the entire base, weaving flowers and knitted decorations into the wire fencing, it was hard for the authorities to decide on a suitable response.
In those days, I confess, I found myself drawn to the Greenham Common women, just as I continue to find the traces of feisty women in the historical records hard to resist. Natalie Davis recalls how, as she explored the archives, she found herself "rooting in a large sense for 'working people' and for 'progressive' movements that favoured literacy" and how that put her on the side of her misbehaving 16th and 17th-century women.
Today, though, I have to concede that on the whole they tell us more about the limitations on women's lives, than what they could actually achieve.
As for their contemporary counterpart - the women sailing on the Mariam - I have little doubt that their intention is to show the world that their attempt to help the beleaguered residents of Gaza is solely humanitarian.
They presumably anticipate a less hostile response from the crews of the Israeli ships sent to intercept them en route than that meted out to their male counterparts. Perhaps we should consider whether we might only have arrived at real equality when women are no longer accorded their traditional licence occasionally to misbehave with impunity.
Below is a selection of your comments.
Quite right! I have been saying this for decades - true equality is being treated the same for the same behaviours and as it now stands women are in a golden cage that few recognise (Ms. Jardine being a noted exception) and fewer still make any protest over. True equality includes equal responsibility not just rights.
Stephen Kaczkowski, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Thanks, important to see: Southern African examples of women's activities and activism include the Women's March to Pretoria in 1956 (South Africa) - which led to the memorable phrase, You have struck a woman, you have struck a rock -- and the activities of WOZA - Women of Zimbabwe Arise - led by Magondonga Mahlangu and Jenni Williams - in the last five years in Zimbabwe
John Stewart, Harare, Zimbabwe
I thought this might be the first unbiased article about this subject I've seen in my life, until I read :Female bad behaviour was occasionally tolerated on the grounds that women were less rational, less able to control their emotions, and hence less responsible for their actions." The Chivalric Code still plays a large part in maintaining the special rights and privileges accorded to women. I haven't heard women complain about it yet, either.
Spoonless Eddie, CT, USA
What a bizarre idea. That women haven't been sufficiently punished for protest and until we are, it's another inequality. Actually it is quite the reverse. Look at the treatment of suffragettes. Force feeding, cat and mouse arrests, police brutality. No-one treated them better because they were women. The mass protest at the base wasn't stopped because the participants were female, more that the police sometimes make judgements that to intervene would have a worse outcome. For example, they learnt from the bad publicity at the Kingsnorth Climate Camp, not to do trouble the Blackheath one last year. As for women thinking they might be treated better by the Israelis, try telling that to the Palestinian women who aren't allowed to cross the checkpoints to give birth. Or Rachel Corrie, killed whilst on a protest. The point of the Mariam boat is that the women are nonviolent (as indeed were most of the people in the Gaza flotilla earlier this year). I'd suggest Lisa Jardine gets her facts straight and perhaps looks at sources of real inequality for women - top female doctors getting less pay then men, for starters.
Virginia Moffatt, Oxford
I agree with one exception...when women are paid as much as men for the same jobs and gain equality in other cultural areas as well, they will have earned the right to be punished as severely as men when they misbehave.
Jacqueline Wight, Sacramento, CA USA
Lisa Jardine's comments are well-taken, and I believe she is correct about some ancient laws' assumption of women's irrationality, but I believe more modern differential response to "disorderly" protesting women vs. "disorderly" protesting men has much much more to do with the level of threat to others they are assumed to represent. For example, Rosa Parks - a small, quiet, and highly respected woman - was the ideal person to challenge Jim Crow seating on buses in the mid 20th Century, Southern US. A big, strong (black) male who did the same at the time would most likely have been beaten severely, and if not lynched, convicted on a trumped up charge of "resisting arrest" at the very least, and justice and injustice in the situation effectually clouded. Mahatma Gandhi himself extolled the talent of women in practicing the techniques like this of nonviolent "truth force."
Sarah Q. Malone, State College, PA, U.S.A.
I find it hard to believe that punishing women even more, especially for voicing an opinion on a social issue, would lead to greater equality. "Harsh punishments" and increasing brutality should not be a goal for anyone who believes in human rights. Women are oppressed and their lives have been and often still are much harder and unfree than the lives of men. If the behaviour of women is "disruptive" it may be a sign of marginalization and not having been included in the sharing of power. They should protest for themselves and others whose sufferings they can understand better than men do. Maybe women with their "limitations" can remind men that human life really is fragile and has its limitations. In societies where women are strong, like the Nordic countries, there is less social inequality. I live in Finland where women were first to vote in Europe and have more political power than in any other country in the world. The president, the prime minister and the majority of the government are women.
Marja, Helsinki, Finland
Great article, but I would say it goes beyond punishment for misdemeanours. True equality will only come when people are treated identically regardless of gender. With phrases like "ladies first" & "women and children first" firmly embedded in the national psyche you can't have equality.
Chris, Cambridge
What on earth was the point the author was making? Women trying to help the Gazans are like the scolds and rioters of old? One RIDICULOUS article.
Johan Sabaza, Manchester
The way I see it, having to work harder for something doesn't make anyone less powerful than anyone else. We each have as much power as anyone else, though sometimes the wider world might like us to believe otherwise, and it's up to us how we'll use it. There's honor in working to change a system, and it doesn't even have to be broken for that to be okay. There's also honor in working within a system (broken or not) as it stands, or simply working outside the system, if we do so in an honorable manner. I read this and see a long history of women, rather than being disempowered, being powerful forces for change, just as have many persecuted ethnic, religious, and civil groups. There's a reason for the old saying, "Attitude is everything."
Comments
Post a Comment