Transcribe
Translate
Ain't I A Woman? newspapers, June 1970-July 1971
1970-09-25 "Ain't I a Woman?" Page 2
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
let's not blow it I hope this can stir up a little though as well as reaction. If anyone writes you a reply I'd like to read it and will answer any and keep the dialogue going if you want. This is something that I think W.L. needs. I'm involved in reading Marx in German and Lenin in Russian right no and find that there are many interesting writings not available in English. Dear sisters: Going against a fad is asking for trouble, and there is no greater fad in the Movement than Marxist-Leninism, as it is popularly understood. My readings lately of Marx have shown little in common with street-Marxism's preaching. He is more human, more flexible. He is a social-philosopher in a certain tradition of 19th century Europe. I don't know much first hand about Lenin,n but wonder if he is also saying something quite different than what the U.S. version says. In any case, the contemporary U.S. style of Marxist-Leninism has little to offer Women's Lib. I see three main drawbacks: 1) In the area of individual freedom. In the M.-L's system, in order to insure an equitable division of the goods of society, the state takes the goods in the name of of the People and doles them out as the state sees fit. The same is to be done with freedoms. The state has them all, the individual has none he or she can call his/her own, no rights. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat does not mean political power for each person but rather, absolute power for the state which acts, in theory anyhow, in behalf of the People. (Who presumably, then, are incapable of the right use of power, like minors and incompetants. A very 19th century European idea.) Of the nations which have long been seriously and officially committed to the Communist deal, why have none of them moved past the stage of ruthless repression? Marx felt it would take only one generation. It has been almost three. The State has not "withered away". Where is the new freedom? the new age? 2) A naturalistic-historical determinism means bondage for women. If humankind cannot transcend or reject its "nature", then men are bound to fight and kill, wand women to the hearth and cradle. Sartre and other existentialists have said that mankind has no "nature" except what we choose and make for ourselves. (Ironical that Sartre, having perceived man's radical freedom, opts for the certainties of orthodox, stodgy French Communism.) All "back to nature" philosophies, no matter how they may construe nature, mean bondage for humans. If we disparage our inner life, our humanity, creativeness, intellect, then we are left with our nature as higher animals, society becomes Dostoevshii's antheap, becomes 1984, and we are stuck with our natural "function" of childbearing, etc. 3) The "Marxist-Leninist" segment of the current American Revolution is heavy with the foul air of the Macho posture. The women who follow these male revolutionaries are part camp-follower and part groupy. Women's Lib seems to be conscious of this problem, and tries to make our own style of revolution, without the domineering and violent power hangups men suffer from. However there seems to be an inclination simply to mimic the macho left on a separate-but-equal basis, without the originality or force of ideas to create a new synthesis. We are in danger of simply adopting the chic revolutionary stance and style, the floppy gaudy bra-less soft costume of a waning hippy-culture's "girlfriends", and the mindless slogans of hate and resentment - when what is needed is self respect, clear-minded love and toil for the real revolution in our very real world. We must be hard as diamonds, mentally and physically - as Nietzsche has said, "All creators are hard". Our time is now, let's make it, let's not blow it. I hope, sisters, that you will do some thinking on this stuff and write some reactions. Where possible, read Marx and Lenin in German and Russian if you can, and avoid "selections" and secondary sources. We need to find out what they and other philosophers of the revolution really said. It's time we all saw that in this real revolution the intellectual task is everybody's task, to hammer out a new synthesis of old ideas. Don't this this, too, to the men - or we'll be back in the kitchen when the new age dawns. Love & Peace Margaret Hood I would like to leave this to the men, which is to say leave it- for we really haven't yet. We still frantically attempt to fit in those pieces of our experience which the theories have never been based on. Let's shuck it. Your delving has not led you where my experience has led me. I am no longer concerned with the nature of "mankind" -- I am concerned with women. I am concerned that the conventions we have followed are quite arbitrary - that they can be cast aside and we will have to determine what conventions we will follow. Even those conventions will or should be changed when and if they hurt us. I have never been able to figure out what the fuck existentialism meant but I sure as hell figured out what the term "mankind" meant. What do I care about "Sartre, having percieved man's radical freedom". More importantly, what do you care? The intelligentsia you have entered has always been male dominated and sexist and your polemic displays that. It is written by a woman but it is written in the sexist rhetoric of men and I wish you would think more of that than of Marx and Lenin. I do not see any current American Revolution. I can't understand that at all. I see many oppressed groups- Blacks, Women, Chicanas beginning to answer and analyze their oppression. What the hell is the current American Revolution- how is it defined? I have only heard about it when men request we work with them on some project and that if we don't we are divorcing ourselves from the current American Revolution which I quess must be their project. P.S. Why do you abbreviate liberation. You don't say the Current American Rev. P.P.S. Can I not have self-respect in a floppy gaudy bra-less costume? [portrait of Sojourner Truth] SOJOURNER TRUTH, "THE LIBYAN SIBYL." "That man over there say that a woman needs to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helped me into carriages, or over mud puddles, or gives me a best place... And ain't I a woman? Look at me. Look at my arm! I have plowed and planted and gathered into barns, and no man could head me... And ain't I a woman? I could work, as much and eat as much as a man when I could get it, and bear the lash as well... And ain't I a woman? I have borned thirteen children and seen them most all sold off into slavery. And when I cried out with a mother's grief, none but Jesus heard... And ain't I a woman? Sojourner Trutuh: Speech before the Woman's Rights Convention at Akron, Ohio in 1851 The state also acts at the request of the people; the people have local community power. Example: Castro's offer to communities in need of housing to have the state supply pre-fab material to the people who will decide on their use and construction. The idea of a highly centralized government controlling a mass society is not conducive to faith in that government. Communism in communal, "grass roots" based, isn't it? The beset examples of communism have been in smaller societies than Russia or China. Conclusion: The "new synthesis of old ideas" can also teach how to apply some old syntheses to (what may be) new ideas. When a situation is straying from a defined Marxist-Leninist structure we must consider which should guide us: theory or the demands of the people at that time. The Revolution serves people' it is not being constructed from theory as a model for its own sake. 2. Vol. 2 No. 6 Aint I
Saving...
prev
next
let's not blow it I hope this can stir up a little though as well as reaction. If anyone writes you a reply I'd like to read it and will answer any and keep the dialogue going if you want. This is something that I think W.L. needs. I'm involved in reading Marx in German and Lenin in Russian right no and find that there are many interesting writings not available in English. Dear sisters: Going against a fad is asking for trouble, and there is no greater fad in the Movement than Marxist-Leninism, as it is popularly understood. My readings lately of Marx have shown little in common with street-Marxism's preaching. He is more human, more flexible. He is a social-philosopher in a certain tradition of 19th century Europe. I don't know much first hand about Lenin,n but wonder if he is also saying something quite different than what the U.S. version says. In any case, the contemporary U.S. style of Marxist-Leninism has little to offer Women's Lib. I see three main drawbacks: 1) In the area of individual freedom. In the M.-L's system, in order to insure an equitable division of the goods of society, the state takes the goods in the name of of the People and doles them out as the state sees fit. The same is to be done with freedoms. The state has them all, the individual has none he or she can call his/her own, no rights. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat does not mean political power for each person but rather, absolute power for the state which acts, in theory anyhow, in behalf of the People. (Who presumably, then, are incapable of the right use of power, like minors and incompetants. A very 19th century European idea.) Of the nations which have long been seriously and officially committed to the Communist deal, why have none of them moved past the stage of ruthless repression? Marx felt it would take only one generation. It has been almost three. The State has not "withered away". Where is the new freedom? the new age? 2) A naturalistic-historical determinism means bondage for women. If humankind cannot transcend or reject its "nature", then men are bound to fight and kill, wand women to the hearth and cradle. Sartre and other existentialists have said that mankind has no "nature" except what we choose and make for ourselves. (Ironical that Sartre, having perceived man's radical freedom, opts for the certainties of orthodox, stodgy French Communism.) All "back to nature" philosophies, no matter how they may construe nature, mean bondage for humans. If we disparage our inner life, our humanity, creativeness, intellect, then we are left with our nature as higher animals, society becomes Dostoevshii's antheap, becomes 1984, and we are stuck with our natural "function" of childbearing, etc. 3) The "Marxist-Leninist" segment of the current American Revolution is heavy with the foul air of the Macho posture. The women who follow these male revolutionaries are part camp-follower and part groupy. Women's Lib seems to be conscious of this problem, and tries to make our own style of revolution, without the domineering and violent power hangups men suffer from. However there seems to be an inclination simply to mimic the macho left on a separate-but-equal basis, without the originality or force of ideas to create a new synthesis. We are in danger of simply adopting the chic revolutionary stance and style, the floppy gaudy bra-less soft costume of a waning hippy-culture's "girlfriends", and the mindless slogans of hate and resentment - when what is needed is self respect, clear-minded love and toil for the real revolution in our very real world. We must be hard as diamonds, mentally and physically - as Nietzsche has said, "All creators are hard". Our time is now, let's make it, let's not blow it. I hope, sisters, that you will do some thinking on this stuff and write some reactions. Where possible, read Marx and Lenin in German and Russian if you can, and avoid "selections" and secondary sources. We need to find out what they and other philosophers of the revolution really said. It's time we all saw that in this real revolution the intellectual task is everybody's task, to hammer out a new synthesis of old ideas. Don't this this, too, to the men - or we'll be back in the kitchen when the new age dawns. Love & Peace Margaret Hood I would like to leave this to the men, which is to say leave it- for we really haven't yet. We still frantically attempt to fit in those pieces of our experience which the theories have never been based on. Let's shuck it. Your delving has not led you where my experience has led me. I am no longer concerned with the nature of "mankind" -- I am concerned with women. I am concerned that the conventions we have followed are quite arbitrary - that they can be cast aside and we will have to determine what conventions we will follow. Even those conventions will or should be changed when and if they hurt us. I have never been able to figure out what the fuck existentialism meant but I sure as hell figured out what the term "mankind" meant. What do I care about "Sartre, having percieved man's radical freedom". More importantly, what do you care? The intelligentsia you have entered has always been male dominated and sexist and your polemic displays that. It is written by a woman but it is written in the sexist rhetoric of men and I wish you would think more of that than of Marx and Lenin. I do not see any current American Revolution. I can't understand that at all. I see many oppressed groups- Blacks, Women, Chicanas beginning to answer and analyze their oppression. What the hell is the current American Revolution- how is it defined? I have only heard about it when men request we work with them on some project and that if we don't we are divorcing ourselves from the current American Revolution which I quess must be their project. P.S. Why do you abbreviate liberation. You don't say the Current American Rev. P.P.S. Can I not have self-respect in a floppy gaudy bra-less costume? [portrait of Sojourner Truth] SOJOURNER TRUTH, "THE LIBYAN SIBYL." "That man over there say that a woman needs to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helped me into carriages, or over mud puddles, or gives me a best place... And ain't I a woman? Look at me. Look at my arm! I have plowed and planted and gathered into barns, and no man could head me... And ain't I a woman? I could work, as much and eat as much as a man when I could get it, and bear the lash as well... And ain't I a woman? I have borned thirteen children and seen them most all sold off into slavery. And when I cried out with a mother's grief, none but Jesus heard... And ain't I a woman? Sojourner Trutuh: Speech before the Woman's Rights Convention at Akron, Ohio in 1851 The state also acts at the request of the people; the people have local community power. Example: Castro's offer to communities in need of housing to have the state supply pre-fab material to the people who will decide on their use and construction. The idea of a highly centralized government controlling a mass society is not conducive to faith in that government. Communism in communal, "grass roots" based, isn't it? The beset examples of communism have been in smaller societies than Russia or China. Conclusion: The "new synthesis of old ideas" can also teach how to apply some old syntheses to (what may be) new ideas. When a situation is straying from a defined Marxist-Leninist structure we must consider which should guide us: theory or the demands of the people at that time. The Revolution serves people' it is not being constructed from theory as a model for its own sake. 2. Vol. 2 No. 6 Aint I
Campus Culture
sidebar
