by Rachel MacNair, as FWPPT clerk (member of Penn Valley Monthly Meeting in Kansas City, MO / Iowa Yearly Meeting [C])

I’ve had lit tables at various Friends organizations, including FWCC in Kenya, FUM in Wichita KS, and several times at Friends General Conference, which is my branch of Quakerism. Mostly, it’s as one would expect: some people sympathetic, others not but willing to dialog, and most just looking with interest or ignoring it entirely. But in 2019 – the last in-person FGC conference before the set of Covid-imposed Zoom versions – I had more adventure than usual.

Since the practice at FGC is to have a set of tables representing different Friends’ organizations all in one spot available at any time, we had a small unstaffed literature table. I also had my authored or edited books available for sale on consignment, which included ProLife Feminism: Yesterday and Today, Consistently Opposing Killing, and Peace Psychology Perspectives on Abortion.

The table had our basic brochure, plus a brochure that posed basic queries from a policy point of view. It had flyers on intersectionality as applied to both pregnant women and unborn babies, on how the legal violence of war, the death penalty and abortion especially target African Americans, and a consistent-life brochure in Spanish. It was intended to offer food for thought on points Friends might not have considered before, helpful to further dialog. To that end, there was also a notebook with paper and pens so people could feel free to write their own opinions.

Rachel MacNair at the table.

 

The table sparked an unusually high number of fruitful conversations, in part because it also sparked unusual pushback.

Early on, someone turned all flyers and the sign upside down. That was easily fixed. The next time, all flyers were piled together. Again, easily fixed.

But then someone continually put back the sign pictured below.

 

 

This indicated a lack of scrutiny of the actual content, of course. So I regarded it as an opinion and stuck it in the notebook. Whoever put it there still has his or her say, but only as much as anyone else.

Coming back later, I saw it was put back out, and thought I better just take it this time. So it was copied again and put up again two more times.

It’s FGC practice to have attendees attend one workshop that lasts three hours every day for five days. A topic is covered in some depth and people get to know each other better. I had selected “Quakers and the Quran,” a fascinating group. But then something happened that had never happened before: our table came up. In the context of discussing women’s rights, a young woman opined that Quakers obviously hadn’t gotten all the way to women’s rights ourselves, since there was this “pro-life” table in our displays. This gave me the opportunity to expound on why  I understood abortion to actually be contrary to women’s rights. Other Friends weighed in with various useful thoughts on both sides. Finally, of course, someone called for us to take our mid-session break; after all, this was way off topic for what people had signed up for. But the discussion had been allowed to go on in an unfettered way.

As is customary on such occasions, several people came up to me to express various views.  Some explained pro-choice positions, but in a friendly way of dialog that listened to what I had to say. One was glad that I was pointing out that the issue was more complicated than many Friends understand it to be. I also chatted at a meal going into depth about it with a “pro-choice anti-abortion” woman who was interested.

On the last evening, several young women held “pro-choice” signs outside the door where everyone came out of the cafeteria. I was delighted. People were standing up for what they believe in rather than being apathetic. Apathy is actually a far bigger problem to every social issue than opponents are.

When I realized they were there, I whipped out my phone to take a photo as I’m accustomed to doing. But of course I needed to ask them, “Is it all right if I take your picture?” One of them responded, “Not you, no.” She knew me by sight, and was immediately hostile.

So there’s no photo, and the content of the signs were assertions, not dialog. I just smiled and left. Fruitful discussion wasn’t on offer.

At the final Meeting for Worship, with hundreds of people and therefore many messages spoken, I felt moved of the Spirit to offer this thought:

Back when I was at Earlham pursuing a major in Peace and Conflict Studies, several of us activists put together a program to educate about what was wrong with nuclear energy, a big issue at the time. We did so well that a student asked a rather obvious question: how it could possibly be that anyone would support it? I then offered a three-minute pro-nuclear diatribe. I did so well that my fellow activists started getting uncomfortable, saying “Rachel, explain what’s wrong with what you’re saying.”

I regard this as a crucial skill for peace. Anyone should be able to explain the viewpoint of those who oppose or have alternative views to their own, and they should be able to do it well enough that the opponent agrees it was a fair rendition of their views.

That was my message to the young women who had clearly been having a lot of one-sided behind-the-scenes discussion. It was indirect, and I had no confirmation that any of them were even there to hear it.

But this point is crucial:  Totally separate from the issue of abortion itself, all advocacy for peace and women’s rights that holds others in contempt is likely to be short-lived and ineffective. Living in a bubble that can’t tolerate someone thinking differently means being deliberately oblivious to realities you need to be attuned to if you intend to ever be effective.

Or, to put it more succinctly, centuries of Quaker experience in which we have an influence far outpacing our numbers shows a better way to peace.

========================================

Addendum:

At the FCNL conference in Washington DC in November of 2023, I conversed with someone who had been a staff member at that FGC Gathering and said she had been aware that these things had happened there. She did assure me that she thought it was wrong and I shouldn’t have been treated that way. This would be easy to say in a face-to-face conversation with me in which I brought up the topic. The bubble remains.

In this blot post for the Consistent Life Network, my experience with the event with the roomful of about 150 people refers to that FCNL conference:

If You Can’t Explain the Opposition to Your Case