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

1971-01-29 "Ain't I a Woman?" Page 4

  In issue #9 we printed an article by Martha Shelley entitled "Subversion in the Women's Movement: What Is To Be Done?". In response, we received a letter from Ruthann Miller, long time member and official of the Socialist Worker's Party. We decided to print the letter because of our profound disagreement with Ruthann Miller. 
   We need a theory about how to make a women's revolution, about how to assure that this time there are no oppressed groups told to wait until after the revolution. We need a radical theory of how to end our oppression as women and Martha Shelley pointed that out. 
    Lacking that theory, women in male organizations cannot conceive of the notion that women can and must liberate themselves. Falsely believing that the structural roots of racism and sexism are in capitalism and failing to see that racism and sexism have predated and outlived socialist revolutions, women still in male-dominated socialist organizations can only have a liberal attitude toward women's liberation - a good place to organize but they wouldn't want to live there.
Following Ruthann Miller's letter are three responses by members of the Ain't I A Woman? collective


What Road To Revolution?
   An article by Martha Shelley called "Subversion in the Woman's Movement: What Is To Be Done?" has been printed recently in several women's liberation newspapers. I feel that this article contains many untrue statements and distortions, as well as some ideas which can be very damaging to the women's movement. I am sending this reply to Martha Shelley's article in the hopes of contributing to an open and fruitful discussion of these differences within the movement.
   The main point of Martha Shelley's article is to attack all other women in the movement that Martha Shelley defines as "male-oriented" and urge that such women be "cast out" of the movement.
   Included among the women Martha Shelley condemns as "male oriented" are women who are part of various social struggles, such as Angela Davis, Black Panther women, women from the Socialist Workers Party; women who appear in the mass media; and women who support male politicians.
   It is important for us to be aware of the logic of this approach because if the various categories of women which Martha Shelley defines as male-dominated were excluded from the movement, it would mean the destruction of our movement. 
   Martha Shelley refers to Angela Davis and Leila Khaled, the Palestinian woman commando, as "women fighting for male causes." Not only is it wrong for feminists to consider other struggles against oppression as "male causes" and exclude women who are involved in these movements; but if all woman who are involved in other struggles than women's liberation were excluded from the feminist movement, there would be little movement left. Such a policy would exclude all Black and Third World women who participate in the Black liberation movement, the Chicano liberation movement, and other Third World liberation movements. Such a policy would exclude all women who want to build the movement to end the war in Vietnam. Such a policy would exclude all working women who are fighting against their oppression as workers. These struggles can only strengthen the feminist movement. We should welcome women involved in these movements to join us. They can provide strong fighters for women's liberation. Also, we want to bring the women's liberation movement into these other movements; for instance, working women will be organizing within the trade unions to make them fight for the needs of women.
   Martha Shelley also says that women who belong to organizations that include men should be excluded because they are supposedly "male-oriented." Again, if this policy were carried out, it would destroy the movement by excluding the vast majority of women in this country. Such a policy would mean excluding all women who registered or voted for candidates of the Democratic or Republican parties, which I would agree are certainly male-dominated. It would exclude all women who are members of trade unions. It would exclude women from such groups as the Phoenix Organization of Women. POW is a group of mainly Black and Puerto Rican women who live in Phoenix House, a drug rehabilitation in New York City. POW women have become very active in the New York Women's movement since August 26.
   Actually, if Martha Shelley really wanted to throw all the "male-oriented" women out of the movement, she would not stop with women who associate with men in organizations only. What about all women who live with men? Should they be excluded because they are by definition "male-oriented?" This would exclude the overwhelming majority of American women. We could obviously never hope to build a mass women's movement if these women were all treated with automatic distrust when they began coming around the movement.
   The reality is that our entire lives are circumscribed by men. Even women who don't live with men or join organizations with men still more than likely must work for a male employer; they must read newspapers published by males; they must live surrounded by men, and relating to, sexist institutions, from the school system to the courts, to the hospitals. 
   The central goal of women's liberation is to end this whole system of sexist oppression. But we can only do that if we are able to involve all women who are ready to fight against their oppression as women. And we will not be able to reach out and involve new women if the atmosphere in the movement is one of hunting for "subversives" and "male-oriented' women and "casting them out" of the movement.
  One of the organizations singled out for special attack by Martha Shelley is the Socialist Workers Party. Since almost all the statements she makes about the Socialist Workers Party are simply untrue, I would like to briefly correct these errors for the benefit of women in the movement who want to know the truth.
   First of all, she says "The Socialist Workers Party is highly attractive to male-oriented women who have swallowed the line that a socialist revolution will automatically bring about the liberation of women." This is not the position of the SWP.
   The SWP believes, along with many other women in the movement, that in order to lay the economic and social foundations for winning our total liberation, we must change the whole system -- we must eliminate capitalism and build towards a socialist society. But we do not think that "a socialist revolution will automatically bring about the liberation of women." A socialist revolution will not be completed until women are totally liberated.
   The SWP believes that women must begin to struggle now, we must build up the power of women, through a mass women's movement which will continue to exist through and after a socialist revolution. Only by building up our own independent power will women be able to assure that our needs are satisfied.
   Here is a quotation from the position of the SWP, adopted almost a year ago:
   "The most important basic characteristic of the emerging women's liberation movement, the key factor which gives it such revolutionary implications, is its independence. The movement, of course, is related to and interconnected with other struggles--youth, Black and Brown liberation, antiwar, working class --  but it has its own demands, its own organizational forms. It is not simply the women's wing of an antiwar committee, a union or a Black organization, and its fate is not directly dependent on the evolution of other struggles. For the first time in decades, women are saying that they are not willing to wait for anyone else to take up their struggle; they will do it now, in their own way, and they are not willing to subordinate their demands to the needs of any other struggle."
   The SWP does not support the policies of the present regime in the Soviet Union, as Martha Shelley implies. We are for the overthrow of the Soviet bureaucracy. One of our strongest criticisms of Stalin and his successors is the fact that they reversed many of the revolution and reintroduced reactionary laws and practices which strengthened the family and the oppression of women.
   The whole section in Martha Shelley's article on the SWP sounds like it could have come directly out of "I Led Three Lives" or out of the mouth of J. Edgar Hoover. She says the SWP "has moved with frightening success to infiltrate and take over sections of the women's movement."
   Another paragraph says the SWP has a "handbook" on how to infiltrate the movement, which is given only to "loyal party members." When I was reading this part to a group of SWP women, we all burst out laughing at this section, because it is so ridiculous. 
   The policy of the SWP is to build the women's movement, to participate in it, to learn from it. We support and help to build all struggles against oppression. What Martha Shelley objects to and calls "infiltration" seems to be simply the fact that SWP women participate fully in the movement and try to build it into a mass movement.
   Martha Shelley says that the SWP has "moved full-time workers into the women's centers of New York, Boston, Baltimore, and Los Angeles..." First of all, neither the SWP nor the Young Socialist Alliance, a youth organization which generally agrees with the SWP, have any members who live in Baltimore. In the other cities she mentions, SWP and YSA members have simply participated in the women's centers very actively, trying to help them grow. 
   Whether she is aware of it or not, the type of language and charges Martha Shelley uses to describe the SQP are all the standard charges of right-wingers against all socialists. This type of thing reached a high point during the McCarthy period in the 1950's when not only communists and socialists were persecuted, but anyone who dared to struggle at all was charged with being a communist or a "dupe" of communists..
   The new movements of the 1960's have so far rejected the reactionary practice of red-baiting and purges against socialists. These new movements have set the policy that hte most important thing is to unite the broadest possible forces in struggle on various issues, no matter what views people may have on other topics.
  The charge that SWP women would try to "move out" feminist literature from women's centers is also false. We think that the literature that has come out of the movement, from women awakened to their oppression, is one of the most important accomplishments of the movement.  (cont on next page_

4     Vol. 1   No. 11       Ain't I

Saving...

In issue #9 we printed an article by Martha Shelley entitled "Subversion in the Women's Movement: What Is To Be Done?". In response, we received a letter from Ruthann Miller, long time member and official of the Socialist Worker's Party. We decided to print the letter because of our profound disagreement with Ruthann Miller. We need a theory about how to make a women's revolution, about how to assure that this time there are no oppressed groups told to wait until after the revolution. We need a radical theory of how to end our oppression as women and Martha Shelley pointed that out. Lacking that theory, women in male organizations cannot conceive of the notion that women can and must liberate themselves. Falsely believing that the structural roots of racism and sexism are in capitalism and failing to see that racism and sexism have predated and outlived socialist revolutions, women still in male-dominated socialist organizations can only have a liberal attitude toward women's liberation - a good place to organize but they wouldn't want to live there. Following Ruthann Miller's letter are three responses by members of the Ain't I A Woman? collective What Road To Revolution? An article by Martha Shelley called "Subversion in the Woman's Movement: What Is To Be Done?" has been printed recently in several women's liberation newspapers. I feel that this article contains many untrue statements and distortions, as well as some ideas which can be very damaging to the women's movement. I am sending this reply to Martha Shelley's article in the hopes of contributing to an open and fruitful discussion of these differences within the movement. The main point of Martha Shelley's article is to attack all other women in the movement that Martha Shelley defines as "male-oriented" and urge that such women be "cast out" of the movement. Included among the women Martha Shelley condemns as "male oriented" are women who are part of various social struggles, such as Angela Davis, Black Panther women, women from the Socialist Workers Party; women who appear in the mass media; and women who support male politicians. It is important for us to be aware of the logic of this approach because if the various categories of women which Martha Shelley defines as male-dominated were excluded from the movement, it would mean the destruction of our movement. Martha Shelley refers to Angela Davis and Leila Khaled, the Palestinian woman commando, as "women fighting for male causes." Not only is it wrong for feminists to consider other struggles against oppression as "male causes" and exclude women who are involved in these movements; but if all woman who are involved in other struggles than women's liberation were excluded from the feminist movement, there would be little movement left. Such a policy would exclude all Black and Third World women who participate in the Black liberation movement, the Chicano liberation movement, and other Third World liberation movements. Such a policy would exclude all women who want to build the movement to end the war in Vietnam. Such a policy would exclude all working women who are fighting against their oppression as workers. These struggles can only strengthen the feminist movement. We should welcome women involved in these movements to join us. They can provide strong fighters for women's liberation. Also, we want to bring the women's liberation movement into these other movements; for instance, working women will be organizing within the trade unions to make them fight for the needs of women. Martha Shelley also says that women who belong to organizations that include men should be excluded because they are supposedly "male-oriented." Again, if this policy were carried out, it would destroy the movement by excluding the vast majority of women in this country. Such a policy would mean excluding all women who registered or voted for candidates of the Democratic or Republican parties, which I would agree are certainly male-dominated. It would exclude all women who are members of trade unions. It would exclude women from such groups as the Phoenix Organization of Women. POW is a group of mainly Black and Puerto Rican women who live in Phoenix House, a drug rehabilitation in New York City. POW women have become very active in the New York Women's movement since August 26. Actually, if Martha Shelley really wanted to throw all the "male-oriented" women out of the movement, she would not stop with women who associate with men in organizations only. What about all women who live with men? Should they be excluded because they are by definition "male-oriented?" This would exclude the overwhelming majority of American women. We could obviously never hope to build a mass women's movement if these women were all treated with automatic distrust when they began coming around the movement. The reality is that our entire lives are circumscribed by men. Even women who don't live with men or join organizations with men still more than likely must work for a male employer; they must read newspapers published by males; they must live surrounded by men, and relating to, sexist institutions, from the school system to the courts, to the hospitals. The central goal of women's liberation is to end this whole system of sexist oppression. But we can only do that if we are able to involve all women who are ready to fight against their oppression as women. And we will not be able to reach out and involve new women if the atmosphere in the movement is one of hunting for "subversives" and "male-oriented' women and "casting them out" of the movement. One of the organizations singled out for special attack by Martha Shelley is the Socialist Workers Party. Since almost all the statements she makes about the Socialist Workers Party are simply untrue, I would like to briefly correct these errors for the benefit of women in the movement who want to know the truth. First of all, she says "The Socialist Workers Party is highly attractive to male-oriented women who have swallowed the line that a socialist revolution will automatically bring about the liberation of women." This is not the position of the SWP. The SWP believes, along with many other women in the movement, that in order to lay the economic and social foundations for winning our total liberation, we must change the whole system -- we must eliminate capitalism and build towards a socialist society. But we do not think that "a socialist revolution will automatically bring about the liberation of women." A socialist revolution will not be completed until women are totally liberated. The SWP believes that women must begin to struggle now, we must build up the power of women, through a mass women's movement which will continue to exist through and after a socialist revolution. Only by building up our own independent power will women be able to assure that our needs are satisfied. Here is a quotation from the position of the SWP, adopted almost a year ago: "The most important basic characteristic of the emerging women's liberation movement, the key factor which gives it such revolutionary implications, is its independence. The movement, of course, is related to and interconnected with other struggles--youth, Black and Brown liberation, antiwar, working class -- but it has its own demands, its own organizational forms. It is not simply the women's wing of an antiwar committee, a union or a Black organization, and its fate is not directly dependent on the evolution of other struggles. For the first time in decades, women are saying that they are not willing to wait for anyone else to take up their struggle; they will do it now, in their own way, and they are not willing to subordinate their demands to the needs of any other struggle." The SWP does not support the policies of the present regime in the Soviet Union, as Martha Shelley implies. We are for the overthrow of the Soviet bureaucracy. One of our strongest criticisms of Stalin and his successors is the fact that they reversed many of the revolution and reintroduced reactionary laws and practices which strengthened the family and the oppression of women. The whole section in Martha Shelley's article on the SWP sounds like it could have come directly out of "I Led Three Lives" or out of the mouth of J. Edgar Hoover. She says the SWP "has moved with frightening success to infiltrate and take over sections of the women's movement." Another paragraph says the SWP has a "handbook" on how to infiltrate the movement, which is given only to "loyal party members." When I was reading this part to a group of SWP women, we all burst out laughing at this section, because it is so ridiculous. The policy of the SWP is to build the women's movement, to participate in it, to learn from it. We support and help to build all struggles against oppression. What Martha Shelley objects to and calls "infiltration" seems to be simply the fact that SWP women participate fully in the movement and try to build it into a mass movement. Martha Shelley says that the SWP has "moved full-time workers into the women's centers of New York, Boston, Baltimore, and Los Angeles..." First of all, neither the SWP nor the Young Socialist Alliance, a youth organization which generally agrees with the SWP, have any members who live in Baltimore. In the other cities she mentions, SWP and YSA members have simply participated in the women's centers very actively, trying to help them grow. Whether she is aware of it or not, the type of language and charges Martha Shelley uses to describe the SQP are all the standard charges of right-wingers against all socialists. This type of thing reached a high point during the McCarthy period in the 1950's when not only communists and socialists were persecuted, but anyone who dared to struggle at all was charged with being a communist or a "dupe" of communists.. The new movements of the 1960's have so far rejected the reactionary practice of red-baiting and purges against socialists. These new movements have set the policy that hte most important thing is to unite the broadest possible forces in struggle on various issues, no matter what views people may have on other topics. The charge that SWP women would try to "move out" feminist literature from women's centers is also false. We think that the literature that has come out of the movement, from women awakened to their oppression, is one of the most important accomplishments of the movement. (cont on next page_ 4 Vol. 1 No. 11 Ain't I