Conditions of War

by Lierre Keith

"A war is raging and women are losing. But in a small New England town, a group of women gather to fight back. Armed only with spray paint and courage, they are determined to avenge the death of yet another murdered woman ... unless the war between them stops them first." - Reverse cover.

"Conditions of War is large hearted, a terrific story of love and adventure among women who fight for women. It is bittersweet and funny, redolent with the sadness of lost love and not a few broken dreams. Lierre Keith has written a coming-of-age story for radical feminists in a time of serial sadism -- a graceful political entertainment for the brave, the stubborn, the defiant, and those who want to be." - Andrea Dworkin

Genres: Feminism

163 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1993

Reviews

[Michelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a stressful read. While it is a book about radical feminist activists, the central focus of the book is not activism (although that is present) so much as group dynamics and the interpersonal relationships of the women involved. Some of these dynamics, and these women, are highly controlling and even abusive. It's realistic in that there are no magical transformations, but this also means there is little release for the reader. It's written in a manner that sometimes leaves the reader frustrated with victims of abuse. This is also realistic and, of course, also troubling to experience. Herein is a cautionary tale about the ways in which even earnestly made claims of maintaining good politics can be used to facilitate and cover abusive behavior.

Those are the downsides (which I hesitate to call downsides, as the topics are important). On the upside (which I similarly hesitate to call an upside), Conditions of War is twenty-five years old. In the intervening years, works of fiction (or nonfiction, for that matter) which take feminist direct action seriously have been scarce. In that respect, I fully understand why Andrea Dworkin described it as "a graceful political entertainment for the brave, the stubborn, the defiant, and those who want to be." This book does take feminism - "not the fun kind" - seriously as a legitimate, reasonable, reasoned, and full-hearted response. It takes women's defense of themselves and each other seriously. It neither dithers nor attempts to "problematize." It never once suggests that the flaws and failings of its characters call into question the validity of their politics. In the literary landscape of today, as in 1993, that's as good as gold, and considerably more rare.

[Jess Bae]

This book is a quick read and takes place over a series of days. (Chapter 1: Friday Night, Chapter 2: Saturday morning, etc.) A group of radical feminists in a New England college town are seeking to take "direct confrontation with male power" after a woman is found murdered and dumped in a parking lot. Immediately, the tension between the characters is high. Ostensibly a non-hierarchical group, it's clear that some members view themselves as leaders with the right political ideas, and others as problematic. Throughout the book, there's an emphasis on feminism as a more honest way of life ("we didn't smile unless we meant it") contrasted clearly with the enormous amount of projection, obfuscation of true feelings, and groupthink that the characters engage in, in order to stay connected as a group. The main character describes moments of deep physical vulnerability and tenderness with many of her friends (curling up in bed with her roommate after she bathes), all the while she's also coming to terms with the fact that several of her group members, including her girlfriend, "treat you like shit." This is all compounded by the fact that the group is mostly lovers, ex-lovers, and people who live together. (At one point someone notes that this promotes a cult-like atmosphere, especially for the women who are not in college, because "we're all we know.")

I read this book after working at two separate DV agencies who both suffered terribly from constantly raging about the BAD ABUSERS on the outside, while not cultivating a safe way to reflect on our own harmful behavior internally. I believe this is side effect of trauma but that it's our responsibility to check this behavior cuz it is so corrosive!

The main character, X, has PTSD stemming from a violent attack by her high school boyfriend. Another member was raped by her father, and another witnessed her cop father almost beat her mother to death. "There's always something." X states: "I was sure she was a feminist, the real kind, the kind who knows there's a war going on and women are being slaughtered by men. The kind who wants to stop them." This is not how I view the world as a feminist. Because of my own experiences, I am just as interested in the ways that women are kept as pets or servants by patriarchy. This is why Conflict is Not Abuse was a necessary intervention: exaggerating harm leads to massive escalations of defense mechanisms And of course, any time we paint all women as only warriors or victims, and all men as only abusers, we are in baaaad Drama Triangle territory. The book's characters exaggerate violence: a character witnesses a guy ogling a woman's chest and the character says "it was like I was watching him rape her." Uh, no it wasn't! Not all violence is murder, not all sexual weirdness is rape.

There is a strange dissociation between the ostensible catalyst for the whole narrative -- the murder of Alice -- and the response. A real woman in their town was murdered, yet none of the activists do anything to materially support the ones she left behind. Instead, they spray paint porn??? X says she's not sure how she was killed, "stabbed or strangled" which has this disturbing effect of obscuring the real woman who was killed and merging her death with the trauma of the activists. They're off doing their own thing, acting either as individuals or a reluctantly cohesive group, but not consulting with her family at all, her friends, etc. It makes her death feel more like fuel for their analysis and mission (which reminds me of how so many of us interact on social media with the images of Black people who were murdered by police).

We get clues for why this dynamic happens. The main character says "nothing was real except the blood no one saw." I resonate with that feeling: the thing that's denied is all that you can think about. But... It's not the only real thing! Other people have experiences which are not "the blood that no one saw" and those are real, too.

Trans people are never mentioned in the book, however, through my research I learned that Lierre Keith caused major division in Deep Green Rebellion due to her transphobia. What is transphobia doing in ecology??? Literally WHYYYYY? (One might also ask, what is ableism doing in feminism, in this book??? The main character is left out of lesbian dance night because of her spinal pain. And yet...there is no empathy for trans people who are excluded from nearly every space they wish to inhabit! Read Julia Serrano's Excluded!) There is no excuse whatsoever for oppressing trans people. No trauma justifies it at all!!! Trans-exclusionary radical feminism perpetuates harm and hate and helps literally no one.

I resonated so much with the author's vulnerable, honest transaction of conflicts within radical spaces. I did not agree with many of the political analysis stemming from the trauma (the Gang strongly believes porn is rape and precursor to murder). But a great read for studying how contempt can spoil friendships and comradeship -- it points to a deep need for us to "know what our yes feels like" in the words of adrienne maree brown and cultivate political homes that are healing and not poison.

[Leeann · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was very poorly edited but the novelty of reading a story about militant radical feminists kept me enticed. For such a slim book it feels like a lot of issues were packed in, in a good way.