Transcribe
Translate
Ain't I A Woman? newspapers, June 1970-July 1971
1970-07-10 "Ain't I a Woman?" Page 10
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
Following is an excerpt from a letter in the June 11 issue of It Ain't Me Babe. The meeting with Roxanne Dunbar & Martha Atkins of the Southern Female Rights Union took place at Berkeley. ...Roxanne spoke about the importance of dealing with racism in the women's movement. She criticized abortion repeal and claimed that for WL to exert energies in this area was to water down the black movement. Unfortunately her position was unclear and inconsistent. Although she insisted that she was not advocating for the reduction of WL to a support group for the black revolution, in fact, her position contained the seeds of just such a strategy. Oppression, she told us, had to be dealt with on it's most basic level - life and death. Black people faced with genocide are the most oppressed group in America today. Legalized abortion would be used to further such genocide. "What are our individual lives (white women dying from illegal abortions)" she asked "compared to the genocide of a whole people?" Roxanne touched on issues that call for a lot of thought and discussion, issues vital to the women's movement. Yet, in this letter, I want to focus on other that the content of what she said. Before, I noted that Roxanne presented an inconsistent position. I came to that conclusion after I left the meeting. Sitting there in that audience, something very different was on my mind. "Why am I so stupid?" I thought "Why can't I follow what she is saying?" Yet if it had been someone other than Roxanne Dunbar standing up there, saying what she was saying, I would have seen quite clearly that the thoughts were not holding together. Other elitist nasties kept coming into my mind as well - when other women in the audience expressed disagreement with what Roxanne said and then she replied to them, who did I listen to more carefully? Who did I credit with the most authority? Whose decision seemed more appropriate? I confess, it was Roxanne who I listened to and expected answers from, stupid me who was afraid to raise her hand and ask a question, afraid of being thought silly or... Deja vu. It was just like being at a Leftist meeting dominated by Movement Machomen in days gone by. Now just how did this happen? First of all, Roxanne's meeting was structured un such a way that she was made to appear as an authority. She sat in front in view of everyone. She and Martha spoke at will, the rest had to raise our hands and painfully wait (some women had hands raised for an hour without being called on) to be recognized by them. Audience members were allowed one or two questions at most, Roxanne (and Martha, but not to so great an extent) talked after every question. I suppose the media factor was there too, us peons confronting out famous leader and theorist (who we read about in Newsweek and Time.) I don't know what we can do about media produced celebrities in our movement, but I feel the authority trip that went down at Roxanne's meeting was potentially very distructive... "Don't follow your leaders watch your parking meters." - Mary Marvel COMMENTS COMMENTS COMMENTS on elitism (Reprinted from the June 5-19, 1970 issue of RAT. The Feminists is a New York WL group.) The Feminists has always paraded itself as a leaderless group, that is, a group of equals. Despite this the media has consistently portrayed Ti-Grace Atkinson as the group's "leader", "spokeswoman" and "theorist." How could this happen in a group that professes to use the lot system for everything? Our group does choose by lot for all tasks including contact with the media. Ti-Grace, however, separated her activities as a member of The Feminists from her appearances in the media as an individual expressing feminist ideas, the latter not subject to the lot. This accounts for much of the publicity she has received while a member of The Feminists. There is a belief in the Women's Movement that is is necessary to cooperate with the media in allowing them to publicize certain individuals as this is the only way to spread ideas and effect change. We think that this belief is not only wrong, but also extremely dangerous. The media needs stars; the movement does not. The important thing for us is getting our ideas across as free of individual personalities as possible. We don't want women to enter the movement as somebody's follower; we want everyone to contribute equally to her own liberation. The media uses stars for the very purpose of making ideas seem unimportant, just part of the show. Rather than appealing to reason, the star system nourishes and feeds upon an unfortunate characteristic of oppressed people - the need to look to someone else, to accept things on authority rather than trusting oneself. The result is the "cult of personality", hero worship, and dependency of leader/follower relationship. Realizing this, THE FEMINISTS passed the APRIL THE FIFTH RESOLUTION which reads as follows: Because the aim of THE FEMINISTS is revolution for all women and equality among all human beings; Because this revolution will be accomplished only through the collective mind and energy of women working together rather than individualistically; Because we believe that "feminist ideas" arise out of the common condition of women and are not therefore exclusive property of any individual; Because we see the creation of "media stars" as contrary to the aims of our movement since it puts forth individual personalities as the originators ideas and the source of inspiration rather than each and all women in common; Because we believe that the dissemination of feminist ideas is the work and responsibility of the groups of the movement and that these groups are therefore entitled to make political decisions about the use of their media; It is therefore resolved that all contact with the media on feminist issues by a member of The Feminists is to be decided upon by the group and chosen by lot. Any exceptions to the above must be approved by 2/3 of the group in advance. Anyone who violates this rule will be held accountable to the group. Anyone who flagrantly or consistently violates this rule will no longer be considered a member of The Feminists. Addenda: Any member of The Feminists who appears on the media is to be identified, if at all, as a member of The Feminists and not personally. The group is to decide if exceptions are to be made to this rule by a 2/3 rule. Two days after the resolution was passed, Ti-Grace Atkinson withdrew from the group. Her reason: the resolution is "wrong on principle." THE FEMINISTS is the first group in the Women's Movement to bring up the principle of equality within our group. Our position on this issue is based on the assumption that the apparent inequality in accomplishment and talent among individuals is not innate but results from inequality of opportunity and life situation. To allow unequal treatment by the media is to dilute the force of the principle of equality within the Movement. Only concrete action gives credibility to an idea, makes it an issue and raises it above the level of mere rhetoric. Our resolution is a declaration that THE FEMINISTS intend to act, and not just talk, in accordance with the principle of equality and to keep this issue alive in the Movement. Usually tied to complaints about elitism is the notion that no one can tell me how to run my movement. But that kind of movement exists only in one person's head - it's not a movement, it's a cry of pain. If we are to be a movement we must deal with problems like racism. We must find out if our actions on abortion repeal are so ill-conceived as to threaten black people and what we can do to assure that the means to our freedom isn't at the expense of other oppressed groups. Given American history we would be fools to dismiss any questions about black genocide. Agreed that we have to quit expecting answers from experts. I strongly disagree that the question "What are our individual lives compared to the genocide of a whole people" is inconsistent or unimportant. It would appear inconsistent only to a white woman. The question is a brutal reality in the lives of black women. The seeds of many strategies exist in WL. I'm worried about the seeds of a racist strategy which exist when white women say "no one can tell me how to run my movement." Indeed, deja vu. The old suffrage movement blossomed and grew when white women claimed a need for the vote to cancel the pernicious effects of giving the vote to black men. The two articles appearing in the current issues of RAT and IT AIN'T ME BABE signify, I think, a revolt by sisters all over the country whose names we don't know against the heavies - the names we do know. There are two sides to the issue (and maybe more) but as a movement we can choose only one direction. the question of equality - whether we need or want leaders - is a crucial one, for in a way the decision we come to will shape the core of our politics. I feel a great deal of compassion for the heavies. They have devoted a tremendous amount of time and energy to a movement that they are totally committed to and it must be painful to have that movement dump on them. I am really impressed with the Feminists' Revolution and I respond with a real understanding to Mary Marvel's reactions to Roxanne. Most of us would because most of us will never be like them - will never speak as well, be as well known, and the idea of equality sounds pretty good. I wish I could talk to Roxanne or Ti-Grace about this issue. I doubt the result would be much. I know I would feel intimidated and would most likely accept what they said because I really believe they are more intelligent than I and would go away accepting their analysis even if it didn't feel comfortable to me. A lot of times I still find myself not listening to valid ideas because they are not well presented - meaning that they are not presented in a style that I have been conditioned to think is intelligent - cool, et al. And I question whether someone's ability or fame should be the determinate factor on how much they have to say about their life and what affects it. I can understand the argument that equality often means dragging everyone down a few notches - in effect keeping those with great abilities from using them - from growing. I don't want anyone kept down but I contend that in a leadership/follower relationship the follower is the one who is most likely kept down and there are more followers than leaders. Being a follower doesn't do a hell of a lot for your self-esteem. The only thing you gain from the bottom half of a power relationship is hatred generally more toward yourself than those above. Any elite that develops will just from the advantages of that position gain more experience and receive more information than they would if they were not in that position. I don't think that the dynamics of a structured situation change depending on who is involved. When I attack leadership I do not attack Roxanne. I don't want to destroy any leaders or followers, I just don't want those roles to exist anymore. In order for them not to exist we must work within new structures. We really do not need to use our names when giving speeches or writing articles. Gaining individual recognition for speaking and writing of course seems important. We have been conditioned to need recognition for being better in something and women have not been spared the desire for this recognition, just the recognition. I still want lots of money, a big car, a big house and never have to work but don't anybody give it to me unless it is given to everyone. One person achieving means just that: one person is achieving and there are millions of us. The articles still need to be written, the speeches still need giving, the struggle has yet to be waged and although one may not receive notority for having done so, if we win the rewards are high - freedom for everyone. 10 Vol.1 No.2 [hand drawn arm] Ain't I
Saving...
prev
next
Following is an excerpt from a letter in the June 11 issue of It Ain't Me Babe. The meeting with Roxanne Dunbar & Martha Atkins of the Southern Female Rights Union took place at Berkeley. ...Roxanne spoke about the importance of dealing with racism in the women's movement. She criticized abortion repeal and claimed that for WL to exert energies in this area was to water down the black movement. Unfortunately her position was unclear and inconsistent. Although she insisted that she was not advocating for the reduction of WL to a support group for the black revolution, in fact, her position contained the seeds of just such a strategy. Oppression, she told us, had to be dealt with on it's most basic level - life and death. Black people faced with genocide are the most oppressed group in America today. Legalized abortion would be used to further such genocide. "What are our individual lives (white women dying from illegal abortions)" she asked "compared to the genocide of a whole people?" Roxanne touched on issues that call for a lot of thought and discussion, issues vital to the women's movement. Yet, in this letter, I want to focus on other that the content of what she said. Before, I noted that Roxanne presented an inconsistent position. I came to that conclusion after I left the meeting. Sitting there in that audience, something very different was on my mind. "Why am I so stupid?" I thought "Why can't I follow what she is saying?" Yet if it had been someone other than Roxanne Dunbar standing up there, saying what she was saying, I would have seen quite clearly that the thoughts were not holding together. Other elitist nasties kept coming into my mind as well - when other women in the audience expressed disagreement with what Roxanne said and then she replied to them, who did I listen to more carefully? Who did I credit with the most authority? Whose decision seemed more appropriate? I confess, it was Roxanne who I listened to and expected answers from, stupid me who was afraid to raise her hand and ask a question, afraid of being thought silly or... Deja vu. It was just like being at a Leftist meeting dominated by Movement Machomen in days gone by. Now just how did this happen? First of all, Roxanne's meeting was structured un such a way that she was made to appear as an authority. She sat in front in view of everyone. She and Martha spoke at will, the rest had to raise our hands and painfully wait (some women had hands raised for an hour without being called on) to be recognized by them. Audience members were allowed one or two questions at most, Roxanne (and Martha, but not to so great an extent) talked after every question. I suppose the media factor was there too, us peons confronting out famous leader and theorist (who we read about in Newsweek and Time.) I don't know what we can do about media produced celebrities in our movement, but I feel the authority trip that went down at Roxanne's meeting was potentially very distructive... "Don't follow your leaders watch your parking meters." - Mary Marvel COMMENTS COMMENTS COMMENTS on elitism (Reprinted from the June 5-19, 1970 issue of RAT. The Feminists is a New York WL group.) The Feminists has always paraded itself as a leaderless group, that is, a group of equals. Despite this the media has consistently portrayed Ti-Grace Atkinson as the group's "leader", "spokeswoman" and "theorist." How could this happen in a group that professes to use the lot system for everything? Our group does choose by lot for all tasks including contact with the media. Ti-Grace, however, separated her activities as a member of The Feminists from her appearances in the media as an individual expressing feminist ideas, the latter not subject to the lot. This accounts for much of the publicity she has received while a member of The Feminists. There is a belief in the Women's Movement that is is necessary to cooperate with the media in allowing them to publicize certain individuals as this is the only way to spread ideas and effect change. We think that this belief is not only wrong, but also extremely dangerous. The media needs stars; the movement does not. The important thing for us is getting our ideas across as free of individual personalities as possible. We don't want women to enter the movement as somebody's follower; we want everyone to contribute equally to her own liberation. The media uses stars for the very purpose of making ideas seem unimportant, just part of the show. Rather than appealing to reason, the star system nourishes and feeds upon an unfortunate characteristic of oppressed people - the need to look to someone else, to accept things on authority rather than trusting oneself. The result is the "cult of personality", hero worship, and dependency of leader/follower relationship. Realizing this, THE FEMINISTS passed the APRIL THE FIFTH RESOLUTION which reads as follows: Because the aim of THE FEMINISTS is revolution for all women and equality among all human beings; Because this revolution will be accomplished only through the collective mind and energy of women working together rather than individualistically; Because we believe that "feminist ideas" arise out of the common condition of women and are not therefore exclusive property of any individual; Because we see the creation of "media stars" as contrary to the aims of our movement since it puts forth individual personalities as the originators ideas and the source of inspiration rather than each and all women in common; Because we believe that the dissemination of feminist ideas is the work and responsibility of the groups of the movement and that these groups are therefore entitled to make political decisions about the use of their media; It is therefore resolved that all contact with the media on feminist issues by a member of The Feminists is to be decided upon by the group and chosen by lot. Any exceptions to the above must be approved by 2/3 of the group in advance. Anyone who violates this rule will be held accountable to the group. Anyone who flagrantly or consistently violates this rule will no longer be considered a member of The Feminists. Addenda: Any member of The Feminists who appears on the media is to be identified, if at all, as a member of The Feminists and not personally. The group is to decide if exceptions are to be made to this rule by a 2/3 rule. Two days after the resolution was passed, Ti-Grace Atkinson withdrew from the group. Her reason: the resolution is "wrong on principle." THE FEMINISTS is the first group in the Women's Movement to bring up the principle of equality within our group. Our position on this issue is based on the assumption that the apparent inequality in accomplishment and talent among individuals is not innate but results from inequality of opportunity and life situation. To allow unequal treatment by the media is to dilute the force of the principle of equality within the Movement. Only concrete action gives credibility to an idea, makes it an issue and raises it above the level of mere rhetoric. Our resolution is a declaration that THE FEMINISTS intend to act, and not just talk, in accordance with the principle of equality and to keep this issue alive in the Movement. Usually tied to complaints about elitism is the notion that no one can tell me how to run my movement. But that kind of movement exists only in one person's head - it's not a movement, it's a cry of pain. If we are to be a movement we must deal with problems like racism. We must find out if our actions on abortion repeal are so ill-conceived as to threaten black people and what we can do to assure that the means to our freedom isn't at the expense of other oppressed groups. Given American history we would be fools to dismiss any questions about black genocide. Agreed that we have to quit expecting answers from experts. I strongly disagree that the question "What are our individual lives compared to the genocide of a whole people" is inconsistent or unimportant. It would appear inconsistent only to a white woman. The question is a brutal reality in the lives of black women. The seeds of many strategies exist in WL. I'm worried about the seeds of a racist strategy which exist when white women say "no one can tell me how to run my movement." Indeed, deja vu. The old suffrage movement blossomed and grew when white women claimed a need for the vote to cancel the pernicious effects of giving the vote to black men. The two articles appearing in the current issues of RAT and IT AIN'T ME BABE signify, I think, a revolt by sisters all over the country whose names we don't know against the heavies - the names we do know. There are two sides to the issue (and maybe more) but as a movement we can choose only one direction. the question of equality - whether we need or want leaders - is a crucial one, for in a way the decision we come to will shape the core of our politics. I feel a great deal of compassion for the heavies. They have devoted a tremendous amount of time and energy to a movement that they are totally committed to and it must be painful to have that movement dump on them. I am really impressed with the Feminists' Revolution and I respond with a real understanding to Mary Marvel's reactions to Roxanne. Most of us would because most of us will never be like them - will never speak as well, be as well known, and the idea of equality sounds pretty good. I wish I could talk to Roxanne or Ti-Grace about this issue. I doubt the result would be much. I know I would feel intimidated and would most likely accept what they said because I really believe they are more intelligent than I and would go away accepting their analysis even if it didn't feel comfortable to me. A lot of times I still find myself not listening to valid ideas because they are not well presented - meaning that they are not presented in a style that I have been conditioned to think is intelligent - cool, et al. And I question whether someone's ability or fame should be the determinate factor on how much they have to say about their life and what affects it. I can understand the argument that equality often means dragging everyone down a few notches - in effect keeping those with great abilities from using them - from growing. I don't want anyone kept down but I contend that in a leadership/follower relationship the follower is the one who is most likely kept down and there are more followers than leaders. Being a follower doesn't do a hell of a lot for your self-esteem. The only thing you gain from the bottom half of a power relationship is hatred generally more toward yourself than those above. Any elite that develops will just from the advantages of that position gain more experience and receive more information than they would if they were not in that position. I don't think that the dynamics of a structured situation change depending on who is involved. When I attack leadership I do not attack Roxanne. I don't want to destroy any leaders or followers, I just don't want those roles to exist anymore. In order for them not to exist we must work within new structures. We really do not need to use our names when giving speeches or writing articles. Gaining individual recognition for speaking and writing of course seems important. We have been conditioned to need recognition for being better in something and women have not been spared the desire for this recognition, just the recognition. I still want lots of money, a big car, a big house and never have to work but don't anybody give it to me unless it is given to everyone. One person achieving means just that: one person is achieving and there are millions of us. The articles still need to be written, the speeches still need giving, the struggle has yet to be waged and although one may not receive notority for having done so, if we win the rewards are high - freedom for everyone. 10 Vol.1 No.2 [hand drawn arm] Ain't I
Campus Culture
sidebar
