• Transcribe
  • Translate

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

1970-08-21 "Ain't I a Woman?" Page 2

More information
  • digital collection
  • archival collection guide
  • transcription tips
 
Saving...
After three issues of Ain't I A Woman? the publications collective decided it was time for self criticism. The politics reflected in the paper have been less than we hoped they would be but, because we have been so busy learning the technical end of publishing a newspaper we had not taken the time to discuss the political meaning behind articles we've written and published. We then discovered we really didn't know where each other's heads were at so we went off together to talk about class, the media, The Red Women's Detachment's position on the Gay Liberation Front, the relationship of Women's Liberation to the Third World, and what it means to live in the heart of the monster. Mostly we talked about economic classes. So far Ain't I A Women? has reflected middle class individualism. We have indulged ourselves in writing about personal solutions and white skin privileges. We have written from the perspective of only one group of women instead of concerning ourselves with the needs of all women. In dealing with day care we were too occupied with the beauty of the experience of children instead of the political necessity of freeing all women from sole responsibility in rearing society's children. Our article about women's collectives concentrated more on how we were getting along with each other than on the fact that we were all driven to try a new life style by the horrible state of lives in Amerika or the fact that most women aren't privileged enough to have such a solution. Women raised in the middle classes view the revolutionary struggle from a privileged position. We must be careful not to let our privileges deter us from seeing the need for a revolution that frees al people. We have all too quickly taken advantage of our white skin privilege to explore self-indulgent personal solutions. Many of the subjects that we have been discussing in Ain't I A Women? were never dealt with by the male left. The politics of lesbianism has been historically ignored by radical groups until Gay Liberation Front and now Women's Liberation. It takes a long time to obtain a correct analysis, if thetas ever possible. We haven't known how to begin to formulate a theory on its plan in the revolution. We are sure of two things; (1) that we need nothing short of revolution to end the oppression of poor women (2) that the subjects we deal with (day care, lesbianism, karate, etc.) are not middle class by nature, but in our failure to see them in revolutionary terms, in relationship to all women, in relationship to class and race. We have been too concerned with personal accounts of what has been happening in pretty Iowa City and how important it is to us. We have to learn to speak of our own needs but constantly question the limits of our vision. We must try harder. LETters LETTeRs LeTTeRS Dear Sisters, I disagree in part with the story "Don't Go" in your July 24th issue of Ain't I A Woman?. I have been involved in psychotherapy in the last three years and feel that whether a psychiatrist tries to make one conform society or not depends on the individual psychiatrist. I don't think all shrinks try to do this as much as the writer of "Don't Go" believes. In 1968 I was taken out of the university by Dr. R.A. Wilcox of Student Health after a ten-minute interview in which he only asked about my political activities on this campus. (During 1967-68, my freshman year, I had been arrested in a demonstration, broken a university computer, and was in S.D.S, among other political organizations.) Because I was removed from school in this manner, and because reports of other students who had also been removed from school by Wilcox, an investigation on Student Health took place, but was later dropped by the university. Because of this experience I am very aware that the purpose of some (in fact, most) shrinks is to try to force people to conform to society or to destroy their lives if they fail to conform. After the experience with Wilcox, I had a mild emotional breakdown. Before the Wilcox thing I was having some emotional problems, particularly a lot of extreme depression, lack of self-confidence, and little control of my emotions. So during and after my breakdown I sought help at Psychopathic Hospital, and was put in a group therapy for out-patients which I have attended for the last two years. At first I was extremely distrustful of the shrinks in group therapy, but knew my emotional problems were serious, so I very slowly decided to try to trust them and work with them. I was shocked to discover they felt Wilcox had done we an enormous injustice, and that what I did politically, as well as whether I took drugs, or not, was my business; they never spoke against these things, not tried to make me change what I was doing in this area. The only changes I had to make were emotional ones: how to express anger more appropriately (in the past I turned on myself when I was angry rather than properly let it out), , to get rid of a lot of my inhibitions, to control my emotions, to rid myself of depression and unnecessary anxiety, and to tryst my decisions. And I've managed to do those things and will be released from therapy soon. I am more stable and have a better opinion of myself, and more self-control, but I have not changed politically or morally. The shrinks in my group therapy have told me a number of times that their purpose is not to change me morally or socially, but to help me reach emotional stability. Perhaps my shrinks are exceptions to the rule that all shrinks try to force one to conform to society, but they have never tried to make me fit into society. I am still a radical and I still take drugs, and my shrinks are aware of it. About a year ago we had a lesbian in our group who later moved east and left our group. Rather than try to force her to become heterosexual, the group tried to make her accept herself as a homosexual and satisfy her emotional needs, and not try to fuck herself up by having relationships with men, as she had done in the past. Because of the group I learned to better understand and to accept homosexuals. I feel now that because I have more emotional control, and trust my decisions, I can do more for the movement now than before I started therapy. I feel if one has extreme depression and anxiety, and problems that are slipping out of control, one should seek psychiatric help, but one should be extremely careful in choosing one's psychiatrist; if one doesn't have trust in oneself, it is very easy to be fucked over badly by a shrink. Every time I hear or read about people who have been badly hurt and messed up by shrinks I feel very sorry for them. I am aware that in most cases this happens, but because of my experience in my group therapy, I don't feel this always happens. I have been caused to have an emotional breakdown by a shrink, yet I have also been helped by shrinks, so while I feel psychotherapy is a very dangerous operation on oneself, it is not always damaging. -A Sister Though all shrinks don't consciously try to make one conform to society, they do try to change the individual by decreasing anxiety, increasing self-confidence and self-acceptance instead of changing the social conditions that have caused emotional problems. I say this because many people have similar problems that I consider social problems caused by social conditions. Dr. Wilcox, who at the time of your encounter was Acting Director of Student Health, is now Director. He still wields illegitimate power whether you have acquired more self-confidence or not and regardless of whether your present shrinks think he did you and injustice. Therapy can help one. I am glad I found some personal solutions in therapy. Self-denial is not always politically correct, but self-indulgence never is. In therapy I internalized everything and was completely hung up on myself. It wasn't a bad time, but many people with the same problems caused by the same conditions don't have that time for self-centered individualism. Therapy is a solution for only some people (guess which class) some of the time. Also it can hurt--whether it always does is irrelevant. Ordinary people (disguised as doctor-gods) require your trust, your temporary suspension of self control in order to help you-maybe. You and I were allowed to play and perhaps we won--lucky us. Dear Iowa Sisters, I'm very happily excited to see the paper and learn that the children's and women's collectives are underway. When I left Iowa City about a year ago, all of these things seemed far in the future... I'd be interested in seeing more political analysis of Gay Liberation since you have decided to devote attention to it. I have real trouble understanding the Gay Movement in revolutionary-politcal terms. It goes without saying that Lesbians should not be shit on by other women and that homosexual preferences should be recognized as part of a legitimate life style. But this is only tolerant liberalism (however valid) and has nothing to do really with radical politics. Also, the fact that men find lesbianism threatening doesn't make it revolutionary, nor does the fact that lesbians can get along without men sexually. The root of women's oppression lies in a set of institutional arrangements (familial, economic, educational, political) and not simply in social interaction of in our sex lives. The same does not seem to be true of homosexuals, or at least I personally don't understand the relationship between institutional exploitation/ oppression and lesbianism. In your July 10 issue, one writer said that "if women can live without men then they cannot be dominated by them" (p.11). I think this is a misunderstanding of the nature of our oppression: If men still control the political power and have the power to economically exploit some, na d if women are denied certain educational options and are given primary responsibility for child care, then it doesn't matter who were are sleeping with, we are still being dominated by men and men are still profiting from our oppression (and this includes homosexual men). I see a real danger in the fact that Gay Liberation may lead us to divert our attention from the necessary polico-economic revolution toward a socio-sexual one. We aren't going to bring the system down merely by choosing women instead of men for sex partners; in fact, the whole matter of sex preferences seems pretty irrelevant. There may be some personal advantages in abstaining from sexual relationships with men and there are probably some sound political reasons for not participating in a conventional marital arrangement, but women's collectives and other alternative life styles may or may not include lesbian arrangements without altering in either case their political meaning. Even if we were all to become lesbians, we would still suffer economic, political, educational, and social discrimination under the present system because we are women. (In this regard--as in so many others--our position is analogous to that of Blacks and, in this case, Black homosexuals.) well, didn't mean t go on such a long rap, but it's obvious that your paper has me thinking. Keep those copies coming and great good luck on the venture. Barbara J. Bank We have often devoted attention to experiences common to women in an unpolitical way at first until we could grasp their place in our political situation. We don't thank the failure to make a subject political always means it isn't political. 2 VOL. 1, No. 4 Ain't I
 
Campus Culture