Women of Color and the Women's Movement

PAGE 5 OF 5

>My reference was not to academic women of color, but to those women who
>some of
>us write about, i.e. indigenous women living on reservations, welfare mothers,
>working class women, etc.

Actually, my meaning wasn't restricted to academic women of color; the
point was that non-privileged women are aware and do voice their concerns
clearly. It's just that many of them don't do it in the venues that
"count," that are heard and responded to, including academia. Even when
they are academics: do they get to attend conferences etc in proportion to
their numbers? (Side note: I don't get to attend many conferences myself,
but flash on ones I have been to which have much greater proportions of WOC
on the speakers platform than among attendees.) But I think the mistake is
often made of equating their lack of visibility in white-dominated settings
(and  professional/academic/etc) with being voiceless. Not trying to be
picky, but it often seems like these voices are "unheard" rather than
silent, or heard in circles that are off the radar for most of academia.

I meant to write something earlier in this discussion about this point.
Without trying to take away from recognizing the real force of white
domination in the women's movement and women's studies, I think it's
important to notice that some of the all-encompassing cliches to this
effect tend to erase the contributions of women of color and poverty-class
and working class women. Some of this is underscored by the the bias toward
the printed word, since so much of what happened was not written about, and
when the researchers came along to try to document the movement, what was
written down skewed things even more toward the white and middle class. At
least that's my observation from my experience -- there are a lot of women
(and events) under the historical waterline.

I can't speak for the women of color, but I'm tired of seeing working-class
women who've participated being ignored, most of all by the enemies of
feminism. I've seen regressive men (many of them white middle class
leftists) trying to browbeat feminists with the stereotype of a wholly
white and middle-class woman's movement, without a clue of who they are
talking to, or what they are talking about. Especially since a lot of the
dialog about racism during the 80s and 90s took place among feminists.
(Bronwyn makes some very good points, and this very well may be a
US-centric statement, but that's the totality of my experience.) Needless
to say, there isn't much of a real conversation with the feminist-bashers,
but a very different kind of discussion needs to happen among women who are
committed to justice. Including correcting and reconceiving our collective
memory, as several posters have alluded to in relation to curricula and
source texts, of the various streams of feminism that have evolved over the
past century or two.

It's not necessary for this discussion of racism to get derailed by
intentionally provocative comments which try to make women of color the
villains for saying everything's not just fine. Thanks to Deborah Miranda
for her incisive humor and to the others who have also stuck their necks
out.


Max Dashu    <www.suppressedhistories.net>
International Women's Studies since 1970
 <maxdashu  @  lanminds.com>

On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Deborah Louis wrote:

> this is a long overdue conversation, and one that would be well worth
> some "normative" analysis in itself.  one the one hand we have nonwhite
> women scholars (who are certainly as "scientific" and "professional" as
> anybody else) and some white women scholars saying we have a problem
> here.  on the other hand we have another group of white women scholars
> saying don't be ridiculous, stop whining, we've all bent over backwards
> for y'all

It is my impression that Daphne was the only white woman who expressed the
latter sentiments. She frequently disagrees with feminists on this list,
siding with established, traditional power. Why are her opinions now taken
to represent a "group." Do they? We haven't heard from this group.

I found this thread not so much a long overdue discussion as the same old,
same old. The discussion remained vague. Some women of color reminded the
list that the problem of white-centrism and racism is still present. From
there, cliches were repeated by just about everyone.

I am sick of cliches on this issue--and I refer to all sides, with only
occasional exceptions within a few posts. I am sick of vague accusations,
and vague pronouncments of white guilt.  It is a poor substitute for
honest, critical thought and effective action.

I think it would be much more productive to be specific and precise about
problems, and possible solutions. I also, beleive it or not, agree with
Daphne (though I have a different purpose) that there is an enormous
amount of pressure to conform according to rigid p.c. codes, particularly
with regards to race. This squanders women's potentially effective rage
about injustice of all kinds, and keeps anti-racism thought and action at
a superficial level. Ultimately p.c. peer pressure (which isn't a gun, but
is coercive all the same) wears down movements for justice, and helps give
rise to reactionary ones. I think an effective dialogue on race needs to
address this question, and leave room for people to make mistakes. That
hasn't been the case in the past.

I'm not saying there has been policing on this thread, but it comes out of
that context. People want to stay within safe confines (which included a
couple short posts that made unsubstantiated, sweeping accusations about
"racist white women," to which no white woman is suppose to object), and
get caught up in a "laundry list" take on oppressions.

I do think we've "been there, done that." I think it had it's place, and
now we need to move on to new, critical ways of thinking, ideally one in
which we can operate out of principle and respect. That's been the goal,
but we are spinning our wheels and need an updated approach that is based
on both diversity and mutual purpose.

Adriene
saidit  @  scn.org

Said It: feminist news, culture, politics
http://www.saidit.org

At 12:37 PM 9/14/00 -0700, Adriene Sere wrote:
[large amounts of her post snipped]
I think it would be much more productive to be specific and precise about
problems, and possible solutions.
[rest of her post cut]

It may be that email--or more precisely email-discussion lists--are not the
best forum for changing the world--which is what those who have posted on
this topic have, fundamentally, been talking about.   At the University of
Iowa, the Office of Affirmative Action sponsors Diversity Dialogue
Groups--a program that brings individuals together for sustained-over-time,
focused dialogue on diversity.  I think that is the kind of activity
wherein real change can occur, and can extend outward from the individuals
involved to the wider community.
While we hear a lot about the ways in which electronic communication builds
community, the limits of electronic communities also seem clear--I think
that many instructors and students find that even when one adds an
electronic list to a classroom, it cannot replace face-to-face dialogue and
classroom interactions.
The WMST guidelines make a more modest claim for the goals of this list,
but within these confines, the list can and has been a great help to many
members:
quote
The list gives people an opportunity to ask questions and exchange
information about teaching strategies, useful texts and films, innovative
courses, current research, funding sources, building Women's Studies
majors, minors, and graduate programs, problems that Women's Studies
programs encounter, etc.  WMST-L also welcomes announcements about relevant
conferences, calls for papers, job opportunities, publications, and the
like.
end quote

Rather than become discouraged by the interchange that has been taking
place these last few days, I hope that list members will continue to use
the list for the information and exchange that it can perform.
JoAnn Castagna
joann-castagna  @  uiowa.edu

I think that the "pressure to conform to p.c. codes," to which Adriene Sere
referred in her most recent post is what compels us to continue to push the
envelope in discussing these critical issues.    What I mean by that is that
we are called to continually check that our "p.c. attitudes and behaviors"
are truly reflective of what we believe and think and not merely conformity
to a certain social expectation.  I know that perhaps that sounds like vague
rhetoric, but to me it is a valuable point of self-reflection.

I want to add that I am very uncomfortable with the sentiment that has
appeared in several posts to this thread which basically asserts "Been
there, done that, now move on..."  I find that approach to the issues at
hand to be dismissive of the fact that the same discussion keeps coming up
because the issues remain real.    Yes, we have to continue to work at
creating meaningful  (re)solutions and not "spin our wheels," but I would
question whether or not the fact that we cannot fully engage in the really
difficult and uncomfortable levels of this particular area of discussion as
part of the very reason why we need to continue the conversation.

Another point referred to Adriene Sere's and other posts is the diminuative
critique that this thread "merely" or "simply" has been about "racist white
women."  In my way of thinking, summarizing the conversation as such really
robs the conversation of its full potential; it strikes me as an
oversimplication which too easily becomes counter-productive.   I think,
too, that, while many of us may find ourselves on the "opposite side" of
many of Daphne Patai's philosophies, this time our silences may have been
interpreted by some as possible agreement.  I don't know for sure that that
is how it is being read, but I suspect it might be.

So, where do we go from here?

Best,
Lisa
LBurke2  @  njcu.edu

On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Lisa Burke wrote:

> I think that the "pressure to conform to p.c. codes," to which Adriene Sere
> referred in her most recent post is what compels us to continue to push the
> envelope in discussing these critical issues.    What I mean by that is that
> we are called to continually check that our "p.c. attitudes and behaviors"
> are truly reflective of what we believe and think and not merely conformity
> to a certain social expectation.

I don't see how "pressure to conform" compels people to push the envelope
in discussing difficult issues. I think it encourages people to suppress
critical discussion, as well as "stupid" (but well intentioned)  questions
or remarks that are better respectfully confronted and processed than left
to manifest in resentment and confusion. (We are now seeing a backlash
from feminist p.c., which we could really do without.) I think P.C. also
discourages passion and genuine outrage for fear of making a mistake. This
pressure is put not only on white people but also people of color.

We need to distinguish between malice and messing up, and everything in
between. It does get tricky. People have every right to demand that
respectful language is used, etc. P.C. demands it, however, through peer
pressure rather than ethics and understanding. At some point, we have to
simply demand it. But I don't think that should be the first resort.

> I want to add that I am very uncomfortable with the sentiment that has
> appeared in several posts to this thread which basically asserts "Been
> there, done that, now move on..."  I find that approach to the issues at
> hand to be dismissive of the fact that the same discussion keeps coming up
> because the issues remain real.

Lisa, you misrepresented what I wrote. I just reread my post, and I don't
think I was unclear. I did not imply that the issues were no longer real.
I said that we need to update our approach to dealing with them--so that
we can deal with them, and other equally important justice issues,
effectively, and strengthen the movement for justice.

You misrepresented a couple of my other points, as well. I feel you should
read more carefully and/or respond more honestly if you care about this
issue and critical discussion. I don't mind disagreement, and I don't even
mind being wrong, but I'm not interested in having an argument that's not
there. It's not fair to so carelessly assign to me an argument that I
didn't make. For now I'll presume that others did understand the points I
made, and won't reiterate them here.

Adriene
saidit  @  scn.org

Said It: feminist news, culture, politics
http://www.saidit.org

--Despite the heated tone of this discussion, this is indeed a very very
--old and much focused on aspect of women's studies.

I know that it is, and I'm sure that's part of the reason everyone is not
jumping to participate.  But some of us are young and foolish and willing
to go at it again.  When we start going around and around, to the point
that this is no longer useful even to observers, let's try to stop.

--The world has changed in significant ways

Of course.  I haven't heard anyone claim that the world is the same as it
was 20 years ago, or that there has been no progress.  Saying that things
could be better done is not the same as saying "nothing has been done."

-- Yet somehow on this list the same accusations are made over
--and over again

This is where I'm confused b/c I have heard no one make any accusations.
You were the first to raise questions of blame.  I'm sure you are
responding to something, but I'm not sure it's this discussion.

--and the same pretense that there are no orthodoxies in women's that
--dissenting women have no grounds for feeling shut up or shut out
--(unless they belong to the correct --oppressed group).

Who said there were no orthodoxies in WS?  Of course there are
orthodoxies, as there are in any other discipline.  I said that faculty
should be brave enough to open their mouths and defend their intellectual
beliefs.  I didn't say it was easy, nor did I imply that everyone would be
warm and supportive.  I recognize that being in the intellectual minority
is difficult, as I have been there myself many times.  But in that
particular situation, at that particular time, it seems to me, that anyone
in the room could have spoken.  There might have been conflict, there
might have been anger, there might have been accusations of racism.  I
assume this is what the other people in the room were afraid of.  On the
other hand, there might have been a productive, interesting, respectful
discussion.  All I'm saying is that *if* you want to talk about difficult,
political, emotional issues, you have to be willing to risk the first to
get the second.  Many of us are in WS precisely b/c we want to do
this.  If we wanted staid, dry, abstract faculty meetings and classrooms,
we would have chosen another discipline.

--These are the "points" and "blame" I mentioned.  To pretend it doesn't
--happen strikes me as utterly fantastic.

I think here (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're talking about a
particular kind of bullshit that activist circles are sometimes prone to,
in which people trade in real power (which is not always available) for
the petty power of making other people squirm.  I'm not going to pretend
this never happens b/c I have been guilty of such behavior myself.  Then I
realized this was dishonorable and unproductive.  I would like to point
out though, that you can't make a secure person squirm.  Squirming is
usually caused by self-doubt about your personal or intellectual
integrity.  If one comment sends an entire faculty meeting into various
personal fits of self-doubt, I cannot blame the person who said what she
thought.  She is responsible for the integrity of her intentions.  You are
responsible for your silence.

Power games are not limited to WS, or even (overtly) politicized
disciplines.  Every discipline and community has junk.  To pretend that BS
never happens is silly.  To pretend that racism never happens is utterly
fantastic.  To pretend that any time someone raises the question of race
or racism that there is *never* any truth to that claim, that it can be
immediately dismissed without knowing anything about the situation at
hand, that the person in question has nothing useful to say, that they
*must be* "playing" identity politics, that their deepest hope is to make
you feel guilty and that they are engaged in point-scoring is silly,
utterly fantastic and well, very suspicious thinking about one's
colleagues.

--Why should any other woman get different treatment?  Are we really
--supposed to abstain from using reason and judgment because somebody
--plays the identity card?

Did I say you should?  You're arguing with someone, but it's not me.  I
said, "gosh, someone at that meeting should have spoken up if they
disagreed with that statement."  If there is some arsenal of women studies
soldiers stationed in New England who prevent people from using reason and
judgment, they haven't yet made it over the Cascades.

--I and others have been objecting to this for years, yet it seems not to
--change.

Perhaps things have changed but people still disagree with you.  Perhaps
you should admit the possibility that people may disagree with you on the
issues.  I think that I may disagree with you, but I am not part of any
conspiracy that I know of.  I am a librarian, for chrissake, you outrank
me 15 times over.

I know for certain that I received a solid WS education from second wave
feminists (univ. michigan 1990-91) and I agreed with some things and
rejected others out of hand.  There are some WS orthodoxies that I
embraced b/c I found them, after careful analysis, to provide some of the
best ways to understand, explain and predict the world around me.  That is
exactly what good theory does.  Other ideas went through the same test and
failed.  I was an undergraduate during the height of the PC backlash.  I
certainly saw some childish behavior among activists, but I also saw a lot
of frightened conservatives refusing to deal our actual arguments.

--Why then do women's studies professors often insist on needing "safe
--spaces" for their women students?

There has been a lot of discussion on this list and elsewhere about how to
create a classroom in which all students feel able to speak freely and
also able to dissent from prevailing orthodoxy, whether those be the
orthodoxies of the dominant culture, or the orthodoxies of the professor.
How many scientists worry about this?  ("But I want the creationist
students to feel comfortable expressing their beliefs..."  Please.)

--If so, why, then, is it hard to believe this also happens within groups
--of women?

Of course it happens in groups of women, but frankly, I hold tenured
faculty to a high standard on this issue.  Undergraduates are just
formulating what they believe and learning to express themselves and to
argue effectively.  The academy is about speaking your mind, and faculty
have years of training and experience in doing so.  It seems to me that
faculty should be able to bring themselves to disagree with a colleague at
a faculty meeting.

--Group dynamics have their own force
--It's not simply a matter of race, or of sex.

Of course not.  Who said it was?  It's not simply a matter of individual
differences either.  Can't there be both individual and group
differences?  Can't both play out at the same time?  Perhaps you are right
and the faculty meeting in question was just a fluke of
individuality.  There was no identity card, there was no guilt response
and most people there just happened to be a timid, conflict-avoidant
people.  In that case, why did you raise that example?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Kane                suekane  @  u.washington.edu
Reference/WS Librarian            Box 353080
University of Washington        Seattle, WA 98195
c----------------------------------------------------------------------

I, for one, do understand the points Adriene has been making.  The
distinction between saying the issues are "over" and saying we need to
rethink some of our approaches to dealing with them is an extremely
important one.  In particular, I agree that always being super-careful
about every word we say does, as Adriene says, "discourage passion and
genuine outrage for fear of making a mistake."  When this happens (and it
is certainly not only in regard to race that it happens, so perhaps this
is broadening the discussion somewhat) we start to come across to
ourselves and others as insincere, pallid, and cliched--and that's not in
any of our interests, nor that of the movement(s) we care about.

It's hard for me to believe that Adriene and I are the only ones who have
some idea of what she's talking about here.  I think she's already said it
very well, so I won't go on at great length.  I'll just say that I think
we ignore or distort her observations at our peril.

Rebecca Whisnant
UNC Chapel Hill

"James H. Steiger" <steiger  @  UNIXG.UBC.CA> wrote:

>Surely everyone on this list knows what happens to people who
>challenge political correctness on modern campuses. Surely
>everyone on this list knows that, rather than being voiceless,
>people of color often are treated like celebrities on modern campuses.

Does this call to everyone who "knows" include the people of colour who are
not white?  I'm a black woman on a modern campus who is unfamiliar with the
celebrity status of which you speak. What is the basis of "your knowledge?"
And is part of voicelessness not only the ability to speak but the ability
to be heard and understood?

>Next time you are at a meeting involving
>administration and faculty, watch the body language of administrators and
>faculty when a faculty person of color speaks.
>They'll lean forward, the room noises will diminish,
>all in signs of respect.

I've been in meetings with administrators but contrary to your reading I
have usually experienced that "attentiveness" that you draw attention to,
that leaning forward, collective silence as a collective intake of breath
until the recalcitrant, obstreporous, unruly, wrongheaded, demanding person
of colour who is speaking shuts up.  What i would locate as the opposite of
"respect."


>The same phenomena exist when faculty interact
>with students. Every faculty member knows that a
>charge of discrimination, no matter how baseless,
>can be a career-stalling (or career-ending) event. I have
>written testimonials from various minority women and gay
>people >to the effect that I am "the first person" they have
>encountered who "treats all people equally." Actually,
>I think I try extra hard with gays and minorities.


Again, are you pointing to particular faculty?  And how can you claim that
"every" faculty member knows in the same way that you do.  This is part of
the problem that the initial queries sought to address is it not?

And a question: If you "try extra hard with gays and minorities" are you
indeed "treating all people equally"?

Christina Sharpe
Asst. Professor of English
Tufts University
ces_3  @  hotmail.com

I found Adriene Sere's direct response to me a bit perplexing.  I don't want
to sound defensive in what I am about to say, but I do feel a need to clear
the record.  Thank you in advance.

First, I do take time to compose and revise most of my posts to WMST-L before
hitting "send."  On occasion, as the author of a post, I guess it is possible
for me to feel I carefully and clearly articulate my point, but as I have
already learned, communication in cyber seems to take on a nature of its own,
so it's possible that there may have been some gaps in what I was *attempting*
to demonstrate.  What I was stating was that ***the notion or concept*** of
"pressure to conform to p.c. codes" (Sere) requires that we stop and take a
look at ourselves and that we honestly examine if our conformity to p.c. is
just conformity to a social expectation or if it is genuinely representative
of what we think, feel, believe, know, etc.  I don't think I can clarify that
in any other way at this point.  Basically what I am asserting is a need for
self-reflection that questions if our apparent "p.c. conformity" is simply
meaningless rhetoric or a genuine personal philosophy.

A side note re: PC codes.  I think in some ways the argument I counter is the
one that gives political correctness so much power.  I think I view this "pc
code" as something that has developed out of common values and viewpoints
rather than something that dictates what our viewpoints and values should be.

Second, I was careful, as I hope readers have seen (most people who know me
would attest to my care in such areas), to rather clearly mark ONLY two points
that were responding directly to Adriene Sere's posts and to note which
comments were made in general to multiple postings BY OTHER AUTHORS to this
thread.  I did not misrepresent what Adriene Sere posted; if I misinterpreted
her, then I apologize, but I know what I read and what I intended to write.
And on that point, I would clarify that I did NOT mean that we discuss these
issues (i.e. race/racism, heterosexism, etc.) because of our desire/aim to
conform to political correctness.  Rather, I argue that because of this gray
area of political correctness, we need, as I stated again above, to check out
our reasons for appearing politically correct.  There are some people who are
not merely conforming to a behavioral expectation of society but rather who
HONESTLY believe what has been referred to as the "p.c. code" is what is right
-- socially, morally, ethically, whichever adjective one chooses to add there.
 Adriene disputed my attributing the "Been there, done that" remark to her,
but please note that in the post I did not; rather I noted it as a sentiment
expressed in several recent postings to this thread.

I agree with Adriene in noting a difference between malice and messing up.
HOWEVER, sometimes the outcomes are the same.  No one is arguing that *all*
this herstory between white feminists of the period and women of color
feminists has been the result of malice.  Yet perhaps the most significant
passive "mess-up" on the part of some of us has been that we have not stopped
to reflect and then respond in constructive ways to the realities that have
occurred.  It has been my experience that many white feminists want to
acknowledge this as a historical fact and then get away from it.  I am not
sure we can, or should do that.  Of course, we should not be crippled by it,
but we can diminish its impact.

I apologize if the format of this e-mail goes through incorrectly as I am not
sending it from the office.

Thank you, and I hope that others will add some additional perspectives to
this meaningful and important discussion.  If anyone wants to write me
offline, feel free.  I hope I have clarified my thoughts here.

Best,
Lisa
LBurke2  @  njcu.edu

>No one is arguing that *all*
>this herstory between white feminists of the period and women of color
>feminists has been the result of malice.  Yet perhaps the most significant
>passive "mess-up" on the part of some of us has been that we have not
>stopped to reflect and then respond in constructive ways to the realities
>that have occurred.

I agree. I would take it even further and say that for whites, racism is all
but embedded in our genetic code. We are taught or given examples FROM BIRTH
of how to use, abuse, and misuse our skin color in an uncritical way.  A
white child could have the most anti-racist, well-intentioned parents and
given outside influences could still be at risk for becoming a racist by
virtue of "messing up" and uncritically or unanalytically assuming a
position at the center of intellectual inquiry, social privilege, or
employment.  This type of "messing up" which seems to happen with great
frequency in MANY academic disciplines and on MANY SYLLABI is not as
specifically malicious as the slavery, genocide, and deliberate "turning
away" on the parts of whites in this country for centuries.  But "messing
up" by reason of neglect, or lack of personal analysis as well as
institutional analysis, or acceptance whiteness as the center and all
non-white races as "other" is the legacy of that exact maliciousness.  And
deserves immediate correction and retribution upon its
discovery/realization.

I have been very interested in those individuals who have asked, "okay, so
what can we DO about it?"  I offered a proposal: that everyone on list list
pay extremely close attention to their syllabi this year, and make a
concerted effort to de-centralize whiteness within their own classrooms.
And that these syllabi be posted to a web site, that other well-intentioned
white professors and professors of color who are concerned with the racism
still rampant in women's studies can share ideas and sources in a forum
provided FOR THAT PURPOSE.  Those who do not wish to participate may
certainly abstain.  But those who believe that although the web may not be
the ultimate answer, it does provide fertile ground for the development of
short-term and long-term solutions may use it and find it very beneficial.
If anyone would be interested in providing syllabi and/or design assistance
for such a web site, please contact me.

Jessica Matthews
jmdiva  @  juno.com

On 11 September Jane Park asked how books by women of color could be
taught not as supplements but integral to a core cannon.

Staring for a blank moment at the screen, I realized why I was so
taken aback.

African-American literature simply IS an integral part of the
'cannon' -- so I tell my students with absolute conviction, if
they haven't become acquainted with Zora Neale Hurston,
Toni Morrison, Alice Walker  et al, and the male African-American greats  as
 well,
their education is incomplete. Someone has been pulling the wool over
their eyes.

And naturally, in a course on 'American women writers' or 'American
realism' or what have you, at least 40% of authors are
African-American. I also have no qualms about compensatory gestures
and exceeding 'quotas'...

Best regards, Tobe Levin.

I was wondering where the conversation about racism in Women's Studies went?
Did it just fall to the wayside?  Doesn't it always seem to?

I have decided to DO something.  I am building a website that will feature
explicitly anti-racist syllabi for professors to consult when they are
looking for new materials, or would like to re-vamp their own "canon."  If
anyone on this list would like to send me syllabi that de-centralize white
scholarship and strive to create a more inclusive academic environment, I
will gladly post them.  Please send them to me either cut and pasted into an
e-mail or as a Word attachment.  You may send these to
jmdiva  @  juno.com.  I will put them on the web site, along with a list of
links to web sites women's studies profs may find useful, such as Joan
Korenman's very thorough and useful resource site, and many others.

-Jessica Matthews
jmdiva  @  juno.com

Dear listmembers,  This note is in replay to Tamara's communication.  While
her effort with her African American student concerning her bad experience
with the Fedminist Majority conference and her interaction with the
feminist Majority concerning their perceived racism is right on, I am
unclear what Tamara means when she says that the the origin of the women's
movement was racist.

Does the origin refer to the suffragists or to the second wave.  I suspect
it the latter since this is a  commonly held believe  just as the bra
burning incident is, even though we report over and over that no bra was
ever burned at  Atlantic City.  Sisterhood is Powerful was the first
women's movement book readily available.   In that book there are
contributions from  an African American Woman, a Chicana  (and Chicanas are
referred to as colonized) as well as women in prizon and other oppressed
groups.In terms of the information I have, it was the group that came AFTER
the original women's liberation women , many of whom had recently returned
from the South were they went to help  registering Black voters.  Ruth
Rosen in her excellent history of the women's movement, "The WOrld Split
Open" documents the origins of the women's movement.  NOW and the Women's
Movement/WOmen's Liberation were separate.  While Bettty Friedan was anti
lesbian, women's liberation, and Sisterhood is Powerful was not.

Best, pauline:
>
A rising tide lifts all yachts.
           Professor Lani Guanier
           NWSA Meeting, 2000

pbart  @  ucla.edu  310-841-2657

At 11:34 PM 10/27/00 -0700, you wrote:
>I am unclear what Tamara means when she says that the the origin of the
>women's
>movement was racist.
>
>Does the origin refer to the suffragists or to the second wave.


Although the original suffragists came out of Abolition, as the focus
narrowed to the vote, it is my impression that a lot of racism emerged.
However, the 2nd wave originated with women from the Civil Rights
Movement.  They were the very first to talk about sexism in the movement
and the society then, and to circulate papers on it. They were hardly racist.
That was before the first SDS women's caucus in 1967. We were influenced by
them.  Ruth Rosen's perspective is fine but needs to be implemented by
other sources.  I don't think what I said above is true of the West Coast,
for instance, so people there wouldn't have the same history.

marge piercy hagolem  @  capecod.net

If you look at suffragists, from 1848 on, very few came "out of abolition":
while they may have been sympathetic to abolition &/or attended some meetings
ONLY Lucretia Mott had a history of activism in the abolitionist movement.
The Grimkes were not active in suffrage or women's rights (by active I mean
attending & helping to organize women's rights meetings &/or lobbying--indeed
Mott warned Stanton that neither of the Grimkes would be active), nor was
Abby Kelley or others.  Sojourner Truth lecturered/spoke before abolition &
women's rights meetings: Lucy Stone worked in both, i.e., when she graduated
from Oberlin she began a career in both movements at the same time. Susan B.
Anthony came out of Temperance, not abolition & took an activist role in
aboliton ONLY in the late 1850s. And Elizabeth Cady Stanton came "out of" a
somewhat chaotic domestic situation.

In the 1850s many male abolitionists were not particularly friendly to the
newly emerging women's movement--Lucy Stone was publicly chastised by
Frederick Douglass because she lectured on women's rights in the South. In a
rebuttal, Stanton noted that Douglass often stood on stages with men who
vehemently opposed women's rights. And certainly in the late 1860s very few
[2or 3] were willing to  argue for universal suffrage in the debate over the
15th Amendment.

Judy Beris
Goucher College

[in response to Judy Beris]:

Very interesting.  I too had heard there were many suffragists who had been
involved in abolition.  Would you share your source(s)?  I think many people
on the list would be interested.

Marilyn Grotzky
mgrotzky  @  carbon.cudenver.edu