DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | Ain't I A Woman? newspapers, June 1970-July 1971

Transcribe
Translate

Ain't I A Woman? newspapers, June 1970-July 1971

1970-10-09 "Ain't I a Woman?" Page 9

by the sisters in the Collective that has no name
Kathie Cota
Ann McGee
Joan Primeau
Mary Lotterman
Helen Sullinger
Susan Miler
Judy Reimel
Mary Kuhry
Nancy Lohmann
Ann Clark
Casey Higgins
Karen Clark

Sisters, having tripped over our own humility too many times since we were born, we write this to you because we want to share the discoveries we have made in our past year together. These reflections are written in four parts: first, a brief history of our collective, how it was formed, and how it developed; second, how we have struggled together--and the insights our struggles have given us; third, the ongoing struggles and reoccuring problems we are attempting to deal with; and finally, why we believe that collective groups are essential to our development as individuals, as sisters, and as Female revolutionaries. (The emphasis here is on the word Female, not revolutionaries. We need collectives to build the Female Revolution.) 

REFELCTIONS

[hand drawings of women]

I. OUR HISTORY
Our collective (sometimes called the Women's Collective because we can't think of a name) began meeting in early October of 1969. The first meetings were brought together by two sisters, who felt primary responsibility for keeping the group together for much of its early existence. Twenty women were invited to the first meeting. We came from diverse political backgrounds. some of us had been heavily involved with the "New Left"; others had no connection with it. Some were active in Women's Liberation; others were only beginning to examine our lives as women in American society. None of us knew everyone who came to the first meeting. Some of us knew only one or two people. 

The first question we dealt with when we began meeting was what we wanted the group to be. We decided we needed two things: a politically active group (which we called socialist) and a group which would respond to the needs of individuals, to help us develop the talents and skills we felt we needed. 

For five months the collective met regularly with a core of eight to twelve women. An additional fifteen to twenty women came either sporadically or only once or twice. After we had been meeting for a short time we .decided to start a medical referral service for women (now called the Women's Counseling Service). Our intent from the beginning was that once the WCS opened it would operate independent of our collective. We chose the Counseling Service as our political project for a number of reasons. We felt the need to respond to the immediate problems which women everywhere are facing. We felt that the Counseling Service would give us the opportunity to get together with women who had not been involved in Women's Liberation. It would also be a means of attacking the male supremacist medical establishment. We felt that this would be a good way to begin to develop the skills and talents we needed. Finally, we felt the need to actively work on something together in order to build a collective identity and to experience each other in ways that went beyond our weekly meetings. We divided into committees to do the preliminary work necessary to start the Women's Counseling Service. At our regular meetings we would spend one week discussing our work on the Counseling service and the next week discussing topics ranging from our oppression as women to a Marxist view of history. 

In April of 1970, when the Women's Counseling Service was about to open, the collective split into two groups. Political and personal conflict had been building for several months and had reached the point where it could no longer be contained. The night we split was ugly. It was impossible to work out the anger and hostility and frustration that was there. Even yet we feel the reverberations of hurt and tension from that night and the months before. When we look back and see how we have grown, we feel that the split was essential. (We discontinued meeting for two months to firmly establish the Women's Counseling Service and then began meeting again in June. The other group maintains the name Women's Collective, has added new members and continues to meet.) It was much better for the two groups to work out their different political approaches than to try to mesh them together. We hope that soon we can cane together as sisters again and share what we have learned in the past months. (The character of the split will be further explained in the section on how we have struggled.) Of the original twenty sisters called together in October, seven are still in our collective. There are twelve of us now. We have chosen to keep the number small so that we are able to develop deep friendships, to get inside of each other, and to actively help each other grow. 

II. HOW WE HAVE STRUGGLED
It has taken months of struggle together for us to begin feeling like a cohesive force. There were several times in the past year when we were not sure .that our group would stay together or that the problems we had were worth trying to work with each other. We say this to encourage sisters who are attempting to begin new' collectives to keep struggling. 

When we began meeting we intentionally decided to call ourselves a collective rather than a consciousness-raising group, committee, society or other type of gathering. The word collective meant several very important thing to us. It meant that we were going to attempt to act together as a unit, rather than in the individualistic way we are taught to act by our society. We wanted to overcome the

ON

individualism ism that isolates us from other women and causes us to compete with each other. We believed that collectivity would give us political strength as women to deal with the oppression which none of us can conquer alone. We wanted to develop an interdependency with each other. We rejected the idea that we should strive, as men have, to be "self-made." We believed that collectivity would give us strength both individually and as a group. 

With this definition of collectivity in Mind, we began discussing various political and personal issues. As we talked conflicts began to arise and we, in turn, tried to find out where they came from. When we reflected on the situation and began discussing the ways in which we were relating to each other we noticed several things. We saw that we were competing with each other for knowledge. When one of us would put forth an analysis or idea, others would respond by saying, "I knew that already", or “That’s obvious” (only in much subtler terms). Each of us wanted to say that we. knew it all before. We were threatened by the thought that other sisters could teach us something because that meant they were somehow above us. (Incidentally, we're pretty sure this is a very "male" pattern of relating to each other.) 

Recognizing this fact (and it was very important for us to be able to admit it to each other), we tried to find a new way to relate to each other. We saw that we had been responding to each other and to ourselves "individually". We thought about the fact that when we came together "we" (the collective we) knew nothing. There were no common experiences, thoughts or ideas which we all shared together. Although it was possible that all of us had had some of .the same thoughts, until they were spoken aloud to the group they remained unconscious and could not possibly give "us" .a common identity. It became very clear· to us that to have a collective we had to _build_ a set of experiences, thoughts and ideas which we could hold in common. We had. to build something outside all of us that was the product of all of us put together. A new concept of relating to each other began to emerge from our reflections. 

Figuratively, it looked like this: We thought about all of us sitting around a big brown crockery pot (our collective identity--experiences, thoughts, ideas) and each of us throwing in all of the thoughts, experiences and ideas we wanted to share with the group: As we throw them in, we'd stir than up and many of the ideas took on new shape and meaning. All the things in the pot brought us closer together. We got to know each other not on a one-to-one or a one-to-two basis, but on a twelve-to-twelve basis. 

Our collective experiences, ideas, thoughts, (ie., our collective history) were created not only by throwing things in the crock, but also by the work we did together and the struggles we went through. As we look into the pot today, the bottom is barely full. We have a hunch the pot can never be filled--although it has overflowed several times. 

Since we have begun throwing things into our crock, we have not noticed ourselves competing with each other (well, sometimes we slip backwards, but our sisters always pull us back). We have begun to think of our ideas as gifts to the group--to all of us. They can't possibl y make any of us lesser but can only make all of us stronger. 

Another discovery we have made through : our struggles is the need for us to think out loud together. (Not only is it necessary, but it's fun!) The only time we (individually) used to have the guts to say an idea was when we had thought about it for several weeks or months and were sure it had no holes in it and that we could defend it against anyone's attack. Because after all, our ideas are OUR ideas! What we have come to see is that ideas can never belong to individuals and that in fact they are never created there either. They are the product of people's experiences together, so it's pretty silly to covet an idea or to think that it's not valuable unless we can defend it. It's the experience of an idea, not its defense, that is important. What we have strived to do in our collective is to think about ideas out loud; that is, to bring a glimpse of a new idea to the group and to work out the idea with each other. That way we experience the idea together, add to it with all our experiences. In the end the idea and the collective both gain from the experience. 

These insights came to us at a time of deep struggle, when we did not feel together  either personally or politically, ie., in our first five months together. It was not until the split in our collective took place in early April that we (in the present collective) began to feel united with each other. In fact it. was the split it-

COLLECTIVES

self, the issues of it as well as the emotional traumas, that finally brought us together. From the beginning there were conflicts (both political and personal) between members of the original collective. The division, as it was finally manifested, was between those women who were also active members in SDS and those of us who were not. The split occured at a time in which our minds were jumping with new ideas, the time in which we were at last able to say to each other and to ourselves that we did not "need" men. This was a liberating thing for us. At the sane tine we realized for the first time how much we needed women. This realization, in the face of unresolvable differences in the collective was almost unbearable. (The differences are too extensive to go into here and are not important to the purposes of this paper.) We were discovering sisterhood, but at the same tine had reached a point in which the only way that we could continue to grow was to divide for a time. The political side of our break with the other women forced us to clarify our politics to each other. The emotional side led us to unite our stomachs as well as our heads. From that initial union we have continued to grow together both personally and politically. 

The next two parts of this essay will be printed in the next issue of Ain't I A Woman?

for more information contact:
THE WOMEN'S COUNSELING SERVICE
808 East Franklin Avenue
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Phone 339-5479 or 339-3335

A Woman?     October 9, 1970    [hand drawn figure]  9

Saving...

by the sisters in the Collective that has no name Kathie Cota Ann McGee Joan Primeau Mary Lotterman Helen Sullinger Susan Miler Judy Reimel Mary Kuhry Nancy Lohmann Ann Clark Casey Higgins Karen Clark Sisters, having tripped over our own humility too many times since we were born, we write this to you because we want to share the discoveries we have made in our past year together. These reflections are written in four parts: first, a brief history of our collective, how it was formed, and how it developed; second, how we have struggled together--and the insights our struggles have given us; third, the ongoing struggles and reoccuring problems we are attempting to deal with; and finally, why we believe that collective groups are essential to our development as individuals, as sisters, and as Female revolutionaries. (The emphasis here is on the word Female, not revolutionaries. We need collectives to build the Female Revolution.) REFELCTIONS [hand drawings of women] I. OUR HISTORY Our collective (sometimes called the Women's Collective because we can't think of a name) began meeting in early October of 1969. The first meetings were brought together by two sisters, who felt primary responsibility for keeping the group together for much of its early existence. Twenty women were invited to the first meeting. We came from diverse political backgrounds. some of us had been heavily involved with the "New Left"; others had no connection with it. Some were active in Women's Liberation; others were only beginning to examine our lives as women in American society. None of us knew everyone who came to the first meeting. Some of us knew only one or two people. The first question we dealt with when we began meeting was what we wanted the group to be. We decided we needed two things: a politically active group (which we called socialist) and a group which would respond to the needs of individuals, to help us develop the talents and skills we felt we needed. For five months the collective met regularly with a core of eight to twelve women. An additional fifteen to twenty women came either sporadically or only once or twice. After we had been meeting for a short time we .decided to start a medical referral service for women (now called the Women's Counseling Service). Our intent from the beginning was that once the WCS opened it would operate independent of our collective. We chose the Counseling Service as our political project for a number of reasons. We felt the need to respond to the immediate problems which women everywhere are facing. We felt that the Counseling Service would give us the opportunity to get together with women who had not been involved in Women's Liberation. It would also be a means of attacking the male supremacist medical establishment. We felt that this would be a good way to begin to develop the skills and talents we needed. Finally, we felt the need to actively work on something together in order to build a collective identity and to experience each other in ways that went beyond our weekly meetings. We divided into committees to do the preliminary work necessary to start the Women's Counseling Service. At our regular meetings we would spend one week discussing our work on the Counseling service and the next week discussing topics ranging from our oppression as women to a Marxist view of history. In April of 1970, when the Women's Counseling Service was about to open, the collective split into two groups. Political and personal conflict had been building for several months and had reached the point where it could no longer be contained. The night we split was ugly. It was impossible to work out the anger and hostility and frustration that was there. Even yet we feel the reverberations of hurt and tension from that night and the months before. When we look back and see how we have grown, we feel that the split was essential. (We discontinued meeting for two months to firmly establish the Women's Counseling Service and then began meeting again in June. The other group maintains the name Women's Collective, has added new members and continues to meet.) It was much better for the two groups to work out their different political approaches than to try to mesh them together. We hope that soon we can cane together as sisters again and share what we have learned in the past months. (The character of the split will be further explained in the section on how we have struggled.) Of the original twenty sisters called together in October, seven are still in our collective. There are twelve of us now. We have chosen to keep the number small so that we are able to develop deep friendships, to get inside of each other, and to actively help each other grow. II. HOW WE HAVE STRUGGLED It has taken months of struggle together for us to begin feeling like a cohesive force. There were several times in the past year when we were not sure .that our group would stay together or that the problems we had were worth trying to work with each other. We say this to encourage sisters who are attempting to begin new' collectives to keep struggling. When we began meeting we intentionally decided to call ourselves a collective rather than a consciousness-raising group, committee, society or other type of gathering. The word collective meant several very important thing to us. It meant that we were going to attempt to act together as a unit, rather than in the individualistic way we are taught to act by our society. We wanted to overcome the ON individualism ism that isolates us from other women and causes us to compete with each other. We believed that collectivity would give us political strength as women to deal with the oppression which none of us can conquer alone. We wanted to develop an interdependency with each other. We rejected the idea that we should strive, as men have, to be "self-made." We believed that collectivity would give us strength both individually and as a group. With this definition of collectivity in Mind, we began discussing various political and personal issues. As we talked conflicts began to arise and we, in turn, tried to find out where they came from. When we reflected on the situation and began discussing the ways in which we were relating to each other we noticed several things. We saw that we were competing with each other for knowledge. When one of us would put forth an analysis or idea, others would respond by saying, "I knew that already", or “That’s obvious” (only in much subtler terms). Each of us wanted to say that we. knew it all before. We were threatened by the thought that other sisters could teach us something because that meant they were somehow above us. (Incidentally, we're pretty sure this is a very "male" pattern of relating to each other.) Recognizing this fact (and it was very important for us to be able to admit it to each other), we tried to find a new way to relate to each other. We saw that we had been responding to each other and to ourselves "individually". We thought about the fact that when we came together "we" (the collective we) knew nothing. There were no common experiences, thoughts or ideas which we all shared together. Although it was possible that all of us had had some of .the same thoughts, until they were spoken aloud to the group they remained unconscious and could not possibly give "us" .a common identity. It became very clear· to us that to have a collective we had to _build_ a set of experiences, thoughts and ideas which we could hold in common. We had. to build something outside all of us that was the product of all of us put together. A new concept of relating to each other began to emerge from our reflections. Figuratively, it looked like this: We thought about all of us sitting around a big brown crockery pot (our collective identity--experiences, thoughts, ideas) and each of us throwing in all of the thoughts, experiences and ideas we wanted to share with the group: As we throw them in, we'd stir than up and many of the ideas took on new shape and meaning. All the things in the pot brought us closer together. We got to know each other not on a one-to-one or a one-to-two basis, but on a twelve-to-twelve basis. Our collective experiences, ideas, thoughts, (ie., our collective history) were created not only by throwing things in the crock, but also by the work we did together and the struggles we went through. As we look into the pot today, the bottom is barely full. We have a hunch the pot can never be filled--although it has overflowed several times. Since we have begun throwing things into our crock, we have not noticed ourselves competing with each other (well, sometimes we slip backwards, but our sisters always pull us back). We have begun to think of our ideas as gifts to the group--to all of us. They can't possibl y make any of us lesser but can only make all of us stronger. Another discovery we have made through : our struggles is the need for us to think out loud together. (Not only is it necessary, but it's fun!) The only time we (individually) used to have the guts to say an idea was when we had thought about it for several weeks or months and were sure it had no holes in it and that we could defend it against anyone's attack. Because after all, our ideas are OUR ideas! What we have come to see is that ideas can never belong to individuals and that in fact they are never created there either. They are the product of people's experiences together, so it's pretty silly to covet an idea or to think that it's not valuable unless we can defend it. It's the experience of an idea, not its defense, that is important. What we have strived to do in our collective is to think about ideas out loud; that is, to bring a glimpse of a new idea to the group and to work out the idea with each other. That way we experience the idea together, add to it with all our experiences. In the end the idea and the collective both gain from the experience. These insights came to us at a time of deep struggle, when we did not feel together either personally or politically, ie., in our first five months together. It was not until the split in our collective took place in early April that we (in the present collective) began to feel united with each other. In fact it. was the split it- COLLECTIVES self, the issues of it as well as the emotional traumas, that finally brought us together. From the beginning there were conflicts (both political and personal) between members of the original collective. The division, as it was finally manifested, was between those women who were also active members in SDS and those of us who were not. The split occured at a time in which our minds were jumping with new ideas, the time in which we were at last able to say to each other and to ourselves that we did not "need" men. This was a liberating thing for us. At the sane tine we realized for the first time how much we needed women. This realization, in the face of unresolvable differences in the collective was almost unbearable. (The differences are too extensive to go into here and are not important to the purposes of this paper.) We were discovering sisterhood, but at the same tine had reached a point in which the only way that we could continue to grow was to divide for a time. The political side of our break with the other women forced us to clarify our politics to each other. The emotional side led us to unite our stomachs as well as our heads. From that initial union we have continued to grow together both personally and politically. The next two parts of this essay will be printed in the next issue of Ain't I A Woman? for more information contact: THE WOMEN'S COUNSELING SERVICE 808 East Franklin Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota Phone 339-5479 or 339-3335 A Woman? October 9, 1970 [hand drawn figure] 9