WAGS to witches - women in power

There is a perception of women in power as being hard, ruthless and heartless. Yes, a lot of them are. They had to be to get the power. And oddly enough, a lot of the names we all know come from East – not the officially liberal and equal West (apart from Thatcher, and lately Merckel). Benazir Bhutto, Western-educated and twice Prime Minister of Pakistan, springs to mind. She may or may not have run a corrupt government and it may or may not have been a sham democracy – depending on your political views, but there is no denying that she proved it possible for a woman to rise to the highest political office in a Muslim state. Between her terms in power, she was Leader of the Opposition – also not a post for the shrinking violet the West generally assumes Muslim women to be.

In Burma, we have Aung San Suu Kyi  - possibly the most famous opposition figure in modern politics. Her many years of intermittent house arrest have ensured the kind of global attention to Burma the ruling military junta was probably trying to avoid. She has been influenced by Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence and Buddhism, and went into politics to promote a democratic model of government. When she was first placed under house arrest, she was offered the alternative of exile. She turned it down.

She has no qualms about making bold statements about the nature of power, fear, corruption (as in the famous “Freedom From Fear” speech) and governmental myopia.

As an Opposition figure, she has not held the reins of power, so it’s difficult to know what kind of leader she would be. But an idea can be formed by the fact that after so many years of struggle, she’s still not discouraged. Finally free (for now), she is still working for democracy and human rights in Burma.

Indira Gandhi remains the longest serving female prime minister, thanks to her 4 terms totalling 15 years in power, during which India went from relying on food aid to exporting food.

But these ladies are just the latest in a long tradition of local queens. After all, when the Roman Empire collapsed, it was Queen Zenobia seized control of the Eastern half.

The Prophet Muhammed’s wife Aisha had enough political clout to lead an army into battle againt someone she thought was trying to usurp Muhammed’s place in Islam. Razia  ruled in 13^th Century India, Amina in 16^th century Zaria (Nigeria). In the 17^th century Ottoman empire there was a group of such powerful women they were known as the “sultanate of women.”

All of which just goes to show that if you want it enough, there’s nothing stopping you.

WILD WOMEN DID (AT LEAST, THEY DID IN EUROPE)

If you’ve read Pauline Gedge’s “The Eagle and the Raven” you will know the names Cartimandua and Boudicca. Both were historical figures, both were queens. And always, one has been reviled and one praised. (Which one’s which, though, has changed). In Roman Britain, Cartimandua ruled the Brigantes with her husband Venutius. They were one of the tribes that dealt with the Romans and became a client of Rome. When Cartimandua divorced Venutius and replaced him with his arms-bearer Vellocatus, who then became king (king, in Celtic terms, being a word for Queen’s consort. She had the right to rule and the power, not him). Venutius, probably influenced by Roman patriarchal culture, rebelled against this decision, and Cartimandua had to call on the Romans to aid her in crushing the revolt. (Unfotunately, they didn’t help her during Venutius’s second attempt).

Boudicca, meanwhile, was Queen of the Iceni, ruling with her older husband Prasutagus. They were also clients of Rome, until Prasutagus died. He left half his belongings to Rome and the rest to Boudicca and their daughters, but the Romans had no concept of women inheriting, so attempted to seize the sovereignty of the Iceni. Boudicca resisted this attempt, and so the Romans, thinking to subdue her, flogged her and raped her daughters. This may have been a mistake.

She killed her daughters (I'm thinking coup de grace), and led one of the most famous rebellions of history. Her forces destroyed Camulodonum, routed the 9^th legion and headed for Londinium. Nero was seriously considering Rome’s complete withdrawal from Britain when Boudicca was finally defeated.

Meanwhile, on the continent in Galatian territory, the fierce Scordisci tribe struggled against famines in their land. None of their chieftains stepped forward to lead them to a better life or propose a solution, so it fell to a woman – Onomaris – to combine all their wealth and lead the tribe across Europe to the lower Danube. She led them successfully through Brennus’s attack on Delphi in the 3^rd century BC and subsequently into war against the Illyrians. Having won, she founded a city (now Belgrade) and ruled the re-settled Scordisci as queen.

Across the Celtic world – most of Europe and some of the Middle East – queens ruled, priestesses led and women fought alongside their men. History generally remembers only those few the patriarchal cultures met (and usually fought) because the Celts had an oral, not a written tradition, so it was up the Greeks and Romans to write their exploits down.

WILD WOMEN, WILD - WELL - MIDDLE EAST

It’s not just the Orient that has a history of fighting and formidable women. The Assyrian records from the 8^th Century BC cite a line of four queens who reigned over one of Assyrias vassal states in succession – Zabibe, Samsi (who led an armed rebellion against the Assyrian overlords. She lost, but at least we know she actively fought), Yatie and Te’el-hunu.

Semiramis of Assyria was a legendary queen even in the Ancient world – but it’s very hard to separate myth from fact. But the Hanging Gardens of Babylon were built in her name.

Stateira I of Persia is perhaps more interesting, because more factual. She was Darius III’s wife, and accompanied him to war – as was the custom for royal Persian women (this alone is significant, given where Persia was and the politics of what’s there now). Darius was defeated by Alexander, who then appears to have usurped his position in his own family as well.

Queen Tomyris ruled over the Massegetae in the 6^th Century BC, and during her reign defeated and killed Cyris, the Persian King after he had invaded her land in an attempt at conquest.

In the 5^th Century, Artemisia, Carian client-queen of Persia, counselled Xerxes to coordinate a land-and-sea attack on the Greeks, hitting both their army and navy. He ignored her advice, and attacked the Greek fleet at Salamis, ignoring their army. In the Battle of Salamis, Artemisia commanded five ships, and after the defeat, advised Xerxes to retreat. (That time he listened). She was held in such high regard, the Iranians named a destroyer after her in the 20^th Century.

And who could forget Dido of Carthage, who famously tricked the local North African tribes who had given her refuge after she fled her homeland – her brother had usurped the throne they were supposed to share – into granting her far more land than they’d anticipated. She asked for only the land she could enclose with a bull’s hide, and when they agreed (probably laughing up their sleeves), she cut the hide into thin strips and encircled an entire hill, upon which she founded Carthage. This required a knowledge of geometry as well as sheer chutzpah. (No wonder I’ve always liked her).

Feminism and men

I see yet more feminist forums appearing online, and while it’s good to see more women thinking politically, it depresses me how many of these groups exclude all men. They can’t all be the enemy, surely?

I know several men who are pro-feminism – or at least when around me, but I was looking for better known examples, and I admit, I expected the search to be harder than it was.

Barack Obama’s name came up, but cynic that I am, I suspect political expediency – after all, no Democrat has ever won the presidency without going after the “women and minority” vote. On the other hand, he’s married to Michelle, who comes across as far too strong a woman to put with a chauvinist for any length of time.

So let’s move away from politics, or at least from politicians. In Academia, if we go back to the suffragette days, Havelock Ellis’s essay “Feminism and Maculinism” in 1916 was groundbreaking in asserting the injustice of a patriarchal society. More recently, historian Jack Holland wrote “A Brief History of Misogyny” which made  such an uncomfortably clear argument for feminism that his widow and daughter struggled to get the publisher to print it after Holland’s death. If you can find a copy, it’s a good read.

In Arts and Media, there are a few names – starting with Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam, and Alan Alda, both of whom have labelled themselves as feminist. When Vedder changed his name from his adopted name, he chose to use his mother’s maiden name rather than his birth name. Phil Donahue used a large proportion of his talk show as a forum for feminist discussion, especially compared to his peers.

There’s even an argument for citing Joss Whedon and Rob Tapert, because they have created (or co-created, but let’s not split hairs) some of the strongest female action characters in modern television: Xena, Buffy, Summer Tan of Serenity. This claim is somewhat dicey, as they may have had no political aim at all in creating the characters, and simply picked up on convenient publicity later on. I am an incurabloe cynic especially as I work in media myself.

Frank Leon Roberts  spoke out as a feminist in the wake of Chris Brown’s attack on Rihanna, and the comedian Ben Atherton-Zeman is an activist with Men Against Violence.

Feminist men do exist, and it’s dangerous for militant female feminists to deny and exclude them – the patriarchy is the status quo, but not all men support it blindly, just as not all men are misgynists.

The Real Mulans

A few years ago, Disney released the animated film Mulan, which was tagged as based on the legend of Hua Mulan (presumably quite loosely and without the Eddie Murphy-voiced guardian dragon).

Hua Mulan lived in the 4^th century, in north-western China. She was the daughter of a veteran who dressed as a man to take her family’s place in the army (her father was too old, her brother too young) and she fought for many years, earning – so the legend goes – 12 ranks which she refused, and in the end she retired, ultimately dying of old age. She remained undiscovered throughout her military career, but she’s not the only Chinese soldier who happened to be a woman. In fact, one of the most famous never masqueraded as a man in the first place.

Wang Cong’er (who has been wrongly referenced as Disney’s inspiration) was a general, who led the White Lotus Rebellion against Manchu in the Qing period (18^th Century) Ultimately, the rebellion was put down, but it is worth noting she was feared by her enemies, who considered the troops she led to be the deadliest of the rebels. The fact she could lead an army without disguising herself as a man is significant – it reminds us that, like almost every other culture in history, China has a tradition of warrior women as well as the quiet, passive ones the West tends to associate with Chinese history.

Further East, Japan has a terrible reputation for historical gender imbalance. So why do you barely need to scratch the surface to find the names and stories of Empress Jingu, who ruled after her husband died in the 3^rd Century and led the successful invasion of Korea; Tomoe Gozen, a 12^th Century concubine of Minamoto no Yoshinaka, described in The Tale of the Heike as “especially beautiful, with white skin, long hair, and charming features. She was also a remarkably strong archer, and as a swordswoman she was a warrior worth a thousand, ready to confront a demon or a god, mounted or on foot. She handled unbroken horses with superb skill; she rode unscathed down perilous descents.”

But she’s not alone. There were many other onna bugeisha, or female samurai throughout Japanese history, like Nakano Takeko of the 19^th Century, who led a corps of women warriors during the Boshin War, a corps that included her sister, and who died leading a charge. And what of Hojo Masako? She lived in the late 12^th and early 13^th Centuries, and was such an astute and formidable political player in the warrior government of the time, they called her the ama-shogun, or nun-shogun. The Western ideas of the gender history of the East, it seems, are sadly out of touch with the facts. Pity, given the facts are so much more interesting.

LEADING LADIES

When you’re looking for inspiration from history, it’s often difficult to separate the facts from the embellishments. I don’t know how much it matters – after all, what matters is what we believe, the message their stories send about the limits of individual ability to change the world, and if legends grow in the telling, doesn’t it just make the next generation of heroes aim higher?

But I was looking for facts to support the hypothesis that gender roles are not as “from time immemorial” as generally assumed. This assumption pretty global, so I thought I’d start in the East.

Ng Mui (Wu Mei)  was one of the legendary Five Elders who survived the desturction of the Shaolin temple by Quing forces in ancient China. She was an abbess, and (fairly obviously) a woman and the only woman among the 5 elders. (The Shaolin temple was Buddhist, and early Budhhism promoted far more gender equality than other religions of its time. Most subsequent gender imbalances were result of local political and cultural mores. As usual) 

Wu Mei is credited with founding or co-founding about five different martial arts styles, and it’s significant that there doesn’t seem to be a lot of surprise at her existence or her legend, which says something for the equality of Buddhist precepts, and even more about the nature of humanity and cultural thought patterns.

Yim Wing Chun’s legend says that she learned to fight in order to ward off unwanted male advances. She defeated the local lord in a fight using the ‘yin’ martial techniques of the kung fu style that bears her name – which she reputedly learned from Wu Mei. While the Yin styles of martial arts are often disparaged by the more commonly known Yang styles, they’re still very effective, and in the case of Wing Chun, pretty aggressive. (Comparison being about as valid as cucumbers versus tomatoes)

The point of bringing up these two legendary women is this: it doesn’t really matter now what parts of the legend are solid historical fact and what parts have grown in the telling, because the point is the lack of shock at their existence. They are remembered because they were remarkable and exceptional as fighters and characters, not purely because they did not follow the usual female path. History doesn’t care about gender as much as talent. Yes, the reason it remembers more men than women is because it’s harder (and thus less usual) for women to stand apart from, above the throng and do something world-changing, but it does recall those who do manage that. And remembers what they achieved rather than what chromosome they had.

Casus Pax

Apparently, we all have a flight-or-fight instinct. I do not possess the flight part, so this choice is difficult for me. The trouble with only having the fight part is the risk of being constantly martial which is very limiting – if you always fight, ultimately you will lose. You will lose because there is always another battle, and constant warfare is exhausting. You will lose because you get stuck in the thought patterns battle and war and are unable to see a wider picture or alternative means to an end.

Yes, there are times when fighting back (possibly before being attacked) is the only pratical option, but militarism too often loses sight of the primary purpose of fighting. In a fight, the object is to end the fight as soon as possible. The object is to win, to stop them. Attack, much to the chagrin of the hawks in various political regimes, is supposed to be a way to stop fighting, not continue an endless attritive war. Militarism glorifies the ideals of a professional military class. It’s a useful attitude in the build-up to a war, but it is a nightmare when it comes to ending said war. If you value battle and martial prowess, if you glorify those who slaughter the enemy, you cannot also value peace and those who build common ground with the enemy.

This is part of the reason for the strong honour codes found in martial arts. In Wing Chun, which appears an aggressive technique at first, this is expressed as: “Strike when you should. Do not strike when you should not”, and “Be quick to end the fight.”

Where you have people who know how to fight, and also how to be injured in fighting (this is a distinct advantage of traditional unarmed martial arts over armed forms – you learn how to be injured while fighting very quickly, because you are sparring, not on a target range aiming at an inanimate dummy), you have people who know the value of not fighting, and of choosing when to fight.

I am all for defence under attack, and I am realistic enough to see the political and humanitarian arguments for opening a war (and fiscal… oh, just go watch The Mouse That Roared), but I am also aware these days of the bruises I have from training, and the survival value of running – if only to fight on my own ground. Because in the end, there is some truth to the idea that "Only a warrior chooses pacifism; others are condemned to it."  (Unknown)