From Mother's Day to #SexStrike: The Obscured Roots of Global Peace Solidarity

by Sam Husseini

To much attention, the actress Alyssa Milano ‏on Friday tweeted: "Our reproductive rights are being erased. Until women have legal control over our own bodies we just cannot risk pregnancy. JOIN ME by not having sex until we get bodily autonomy back. I’m calling for a #SexStrike. Pass it on." Much of the reaction online focused on the alleged irony of a liberal woman advocating abstinence from sex.

The same day, Donald and Melania Trump hosted a celebration of military mothers at the White House. Said Donal Trump: "To the active-duty moms here today: We thank you for your courage, and we applaud your noble service. You have two of the most important jobs in the world: bravely defending America from our enemies and helping to raise the next generation of American patriots."

While Trump focuses on Mother's Day, Milano hearkens back to the sex strike as depicted in the ancient Greek play Lysistrata by Aristophanes.

What's striking is that both of these are rooted in movements against war. In the case of Milano, it's obscured, while Trump actively opposes the antiwar roots of Mother's Day.

The original Mother's Day Proclamation, written by Julia Ward Howe in 1870, states: “We will not have questions decided by irrelevant agencies. Our husbands shall not come to us reeking of carnage for caresses and applause. Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy, and patience. We women of one country will be too tender to those of another country to allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs. From the bosom of a devastated Earth a voice goes up with our own, it says 'Disarm! Disarm!' The sword of murder is not the balance of justice. Blood does not wipe out dishonor, nor violence indicate possession. ... " (See my piece "Art Worth of Howe's Mothers Day: Maxo Vanka's Murals.")

Julia Ward Howe actually references Lysistrata In one of her lectures: "Barring the indecencies which belong to the common taste of the time, and which are largely omitted in translations, the Greek of Aristophanes does not appear to me very damaging to our position as advocates of the rights of women. In one of these plays, Lysistrata, the women of Athens, weary of the absence of their husbands in the Peloponnesian war, take the negotiation of the peace into their own hands. Lysistrata, the leading spirit among them, has summoned together the women from various parts of Greece, with the view of wresting the management of public affairs from the hands of the men entrusted with them and of putting an end to the sinuous and devastating war. Whether intentionally or not, Aristophanes puts very sensible reasoning into the mouth of this leader among the women."

Part of the genius of Lysistrata is that she reached out to the women of other city states, including Athen's main rival, Sparta. The sex strike in Lysistrata targeted men in each of the warring states.

At one point in the play, Lysistrata leads a group of women to seize control of the Acropolis, which stores the financial reserves of the Athenian state. She and a government magistrate are in a stand off. He asks: "Is it money that’s the cause of war?"

Lysistrata avoided arguments which are now commonplace of the government having "bungled" its way into war and instead escalates her accusations against the pro-war politicians: "Yes, and all the rest of the corruption. Peisander [a leading Athenian politician, suspected of favoring the war for selfish reasons] and our leading politicians need a chance to steal. That’s the reason they’re always stirring up disturbances. Well, let the ones who wish to do this do what they want, but from this moment on they’ll get no more money."

Valarie Ziegler, author of of Diva Julia: The Public Romance and Private Agony of Julia Ward Howe, has written: “Howe, now remembered for writing the words to ‘The Battle of the Hymn Republic,’ was absolutely committed to the Civil War... But by 1870, she began to look critically at war, particularly at war between nations. By this time, she was also very interested in the women’s movement and women’s suffrage. So, she began thinking of what might be possible for women to do on behalf of humanity...

“She would in time hold peace conferences both in the United States and in Britain... And so, Mother’s Day originally was not a day when dad cooked and you went to church, and the ladies got applause and everything. It was really a day for women to come together and to call men and the world to see the necessity for living in peace, rather than giving into the ravages and aggressions of war.”

That origin of Mother's Day has largely been obscured, helping to pave the way for Trump's pronouncements, which simultaneously attempt to embrace women as warriors -- and also of women raising "the next generation of American patriots," with almost a hint of the Nazi "Mother's Cross."

Milano recently tweeted out a 2017 article: "History shows that sex strikes are a surprisingly effective strategy for political change," published soon after the Women's March the day after Trump as inaugurated. The piece states: "Calls to end misogyny and sexism will always be necessary-- especially while we have a self-admitted 'pussy grabber' in the Oval Office. But in order for a sex strike to succeed in the US, it must be inclusive, with a specific goal in mind. Otherwise, we’ll just be treading water."

But treading water seems to be a specialty of many political operatives. The goal of much of the political establishment is to keep the partisan hatred at a sufficiently high level. Among other things, it facilitates lesser-evilism, the dominant tactic of ensuring the bases of each of the major political parties ask preciously little from their party, since the other is deemed so awful. And it usually is.

Interestingly, Milano had just recently made headlines for defending Joe Biden from charges of sexual harassment. Her focusing now on reproductive rights may be more useful to her friend Biden, though into the 1980's, Biden voted to let states overturn Roe v. Wade. But that may seem as long ago as ancient Greece to some.

Certainly, both Mother's Day and Lysistrata can be criticized in that they seem to depict women as wombs or vessels of pleasure. But they are largely about women asserting themselves in terms of how the society is formed. A refrain in Lysistrata is the dumbfounded reaction by males: How dare you women assert yourselves on this serious man's business of war? The Mother's Day Proclamation outright challenges the legitimacy of institutions that enable war.

In both cases, women, who themselves are denied rights, are effectively attempting largely to save men. Selflessness is-- perhaps stereotypically-- associated with women. Part of Milano's call seems an attempt to utilize a sex strike, not so that women can do something "on behalf of humanity," but for themselves specifically. One would hope that men's presumed selfishness would not be deemed normative. That is, if women in these cases have been exceedingly selfless, that should be a trait than more men should adopt rather than fewer women.

Part of the power of both Mother's Day and Lysistrata are in their global nature. They are remarkable universal in their appeal and have a connection to the Feb. 15, 2003 global protests against the Iraq invasion-- when the peace movement was viewed as the "second super power." Indeed, I recall Lysistrata being preformed widely during the buildup to the 2003 invasion. The peace movement lost its power in the following years largely part because it didn't build on those global protests; see my 2006 piece "Pick Your Global Protests." Likewise, the peace message of Mother's Day is somewhat diminished since it's not celebrated on the same day globally.

The U.S. is currently at war in so many countries-- Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Iraq, et al. And it is placing deadly sanctions on Venezuela and Iran while continuously backing Israel's ceaseless aggressions. It's difficult to keep track, especially when news reports on the realities of war are the exception and excuse-making is the default.

It's like fish in water. You want to know about U.S. and war? You're swimming in it. You might not realized it since Trump still poses as an isolationist on alternate Thursdays-- as Obama posed as a peace candidate-- but that's the reality.

Traditions which might help lead us out of it-- like Mother's Day and, if it will now become widespread, Lysistrata-- are being obscured by those who would control the culture and, consciously or not, ensure the perpetuation of these wars.

Are You A Lesser-Of-Two-Evils Voter? No? What About When The Greater Evil Is Demonic, Existential, Hitlerian...?

I haven't seen him in a while, but I used to run into George Takei in one of my favorite neighborhood Italian restaurants all the time. It's an unspoken word in L.A. that you don't bother the celebrities, so I never did say anything to him. Takei is a good solid member of the Democratic Party and he often pushes the party line, feeling, no doubt, that he's doing God's work. Like I said, I never spoke with him; what I know about him is just what I've read by him. I surmise he's a lesser-of-two-evils kind of guy. I used to be too. He's 82, more than a decade older than I am. I always thought when you got old you could stop with the less-of-two-evils voting and just vote for candidates you want to see in office. I guess not everyone agrees with me.

On Friday, Takei, a glorious one-man anti-Trump propaganda machine, tweeted a proposition to his nearly 3 million followers: "Will you join me in pledging not to speak negatively about any of our candidates? We don’t know who the nominee will be, but they need to be as strong as they can be going into the election against Trump."

Takei missed the point of primaries-- and in more ways than one. Now, if he's talking about not spreading lies and baseless smears against potential nominees, his request is fine. But if he is asking his followers to not bring up the records of candidates, at this point, he's leading them down a dangerous path.

Take my word for it: Trump's opponents research team has everything anyone on Twitter is going to ever throw at Joe Biden, Bernie, Beto, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris and everyone else, even the candidates who would need a miracle-like occurrence to break through. (After all, Buttigieg's sudden meteoric race has to be looked at as a miracle-like occurrence, no?)

Anyway, getting out weaknesses in the candidates before primaries and caucuses lock in the Democratic candidate, is crucial. Suppose no one ever mentioned anything about Biden's history on race during the primary and people who care about racism didn't know anything about Biden before Obama chose him as VP. Do you think for a moment that Trump wouldn't make sure that every voter in the country with a history of voting for Democrats wouldn't be bombarded with messaging about Biden's record?

Perhaps even more important, we need to pick the man or woman we most want to see in the White House. Elizabeth Warren, like Bernie, has put forth a series of outstanding policy proposals. Some of the other candidates-- say Gillibrand, BETO and Kamala for the sake of argument-- have been "me too supporters" of some of those policies. That's great. Thank you. In the case iff these 3, however, their past records don't support a desire some might have to believe their commitments. That all needs to get hashed out in the primary season.

Actress and activist Alyssa Milano has even more twitter followers than Takei-- 3.67 million. On Saturday she reacted positively to Takei's proposition:

Many of her followers knew better-- and said so on her twitter feed. A typical rebuke went like this: "So we can’t say Biden fought on the side of credit card companies over us? We can’t point out that Mayor Pete isn’t strong on policy at this point? Are you for real? Who wins the primary then? The person with the most money?" Several commenters sounded just like me: "Absolutely not. People should never choose the lesser of evils, shouldn't follow their party even though the candidate is corrupt. Our democracy is broken, and a traitor has illegally seized power. We need to stand behind our ethics to defeat him, not abandon them out of fear." And "Critique is actually both the point of primary season and our collective responsibility as voters. That responsibility is higher for those of us with several forms of unearned privilege, like me and like you. It's highly disturbing that you don't or won't know these things."

That Trump's a monster-- and an existential threat to all of us-- and that needs to be said over and over and over, every day and in every way. But being "better than Trump" does not figure into primary season, when we're looking for the person not just who can beat him in the election, but who will also be the best woman or best man to be sitting in the White House until at least 2025.

I could have been quiet about Beto, for example. I thought about doing just that-- holding my tongue. But with Beto-mania all over the news, I realized I had a civixc duty to perform. I've known Beto since his first campaign-- a primary against an establishment Democratic incumbent. Blue America endorsed him them, the only progressive group to do so, and helped him raise money too win the seat. He turned out to be a bit of a disappointment-- not terrible by any means, but not... well we never re-endorsed for reelections. Then he captured the imaginations of many Democrats when he took on the role of David in a dramatic race against Ted Cruz. Blue America endorsed him for that. What the hell... he's good on some things. But when he lost and started floating trial balloons about running for president, I was mortified.

Several friends, less involved with politics than I, were sold. They declared themselves Beto Forever Fans. Oy! When I asked each what they knew about Beto, it was basically nothing at all. They didn't even know he was a congressman, let alone a New Dem backbencher with no accomplishments at all and without any kind of core that could predict where he would stand on any current or future issues. I don't dislike Beto at all and certainly didn't include him in The Worst Democraps Who Want To Be President series. But voters had to know, especially voters who I had urged to support him in his campaign against Ted Cruz. Beto is no Joe Biden, no John Frackenlooper, no Kirsten Gillibrand, no Howard Schultz, no Mike Bloomberg, no Terry McAuliffe... Neither is he in the same league as Bernie or Elizabeth Warren, two candidates who would make truly transformative and excellent presidents. So I started laying out Beto's record for some of my friends, one of whom swooned over him because he looks like Tobias Menzies, the actor who plays Brutus in Rome.

If Beto is the candidate against Trump-- very unlikely-- I'll vote for him, even though I live in California and don't have to. But I would. Biden? Not a chance. If I lived in Florida or Wisconsin or Ohio or any swing state, I'd have think hard about it. But I'd like to think I'd have the courage of my convictions enough to just not do it. I don't want to see Joe Biden as president. I didn't want to see him become president any of the half dozen other times he started running. And if you don't want to hear why, there are other people to follow on Twitter, other people to annoy on Facebook, other blogs to read... In fact this is from my own Facebook page. I didn't delete Richard Natale, who I don't know and don't understand how he wound up on my "friends" list. But if he's smart, he should spend his time reading what George Takei's page and not make himself miserable by reading mine. We're at different stages of evolution.