Common Spea

vol.2,no.5

Women’s Studies at Swarthmore: A LongWay To Go

This Spring semester, Swarthmore offered an unusual number of
courses addressing the question of women. The three were Robert
DuPlessis’ Women, Society and Change in Modern Europe, George
Moskos’ French Feminism (a special topics course for majors) and
Representations of Women’s Identity, team taught by Mary Poovey
and Jeanne Marecek. Despite this seeming abundance, however, the
demand for such courses far exceeded the supply. This was most
evident in the case of Representations, which received applications
from over 75 students. Having originally intended to limit enrollment
to 25, Professors Poovey and Marecek realized that this would have
meant eliminating two thirds of those interested, and opened the
course to a total of 57 Swarthmore students.

One reason for this overwhelming response to courses focusing
on women is that Swarthmore only offers three such courses on a
regular basis (Joy Charlton’s Sex Roles Power and Identity, Mary
Poovey’s Images of Women in the Eighteenth Century Novel, and
Jeanne Marecek’s Psychology of Women.) Though other courses on
women are offered occasionally, they are usually taught by visiting
professors and are only a one—time opportunity. This makes it
difficult for students interested in feminist scholarship to have any
flexibility in scheduling courses, and renders it virtually impossible
for them to major in Women’s Studies. Swarthmore’s one Women’s
Studies major was able to fulfill requirements only by transferring the
three applicable credits she had earned during her semester at Mills.

Another reason for this great demand for courses cn women is that
female students in particular find that their experiences, both
personal and intellectual, are simply not represented in the courses
they take. Though not all intellectual thought is gender-specific, the
experience of men in this society has been fundamentally different
from that of women. When women are taught to understand only
male experience, in an institution which provides them with few role
models, they are cut off from a whole range of opportunities for ways
to think and act. Studying women means studying the gender system
responsible for this disparity between masculine and feminine

the newsletter
of t the
Alice Paul

Ng Women’s Center

of women and the study of other subjects, which would be
destructive to both. Nevertheless, a Women’s Studies Program
would greatly benefit students now struggling to integrate feminist
scholarship into their academic programs. As a long—term goal, a
Women’s Studies program is necessary to provide students with the
guidance, structure and institutional support they now lack.

In the meantime, students interested in the new scholarship on
women must partly rely on their own resources. One option is to
make use of the Women’s Studies courses coordinated by Paula
Meyhew at Haverford and Bryn Mawr. Surprisingly, few students
draw on the wealth of scholars at these colleges. If this reflects
nothing more than a transportation problem, it should not be
difficult to improve shuttle bus services. Another approach is to
encourage all professors to include feminist analysis in their courses.
Students can choose to write papers on some aspect of the subject
covering women, for example, and include a bibliography for the
professor’s information. They can also make note of pertinent book
or articles they come across and arrange a time to discuss these with
the professor. Finally, students must inform departments of their
needs, providing input on decisions about who will be hired or asked
to return.

Some departments are extremely responsive to student demands.
The Religion department, for instance, took student response to
Demeris Wehr’s course,Women’s Perspectives on Religion
seriously; Professor Wehr will be returning to Swarthmore in the fall
of ’83. Some professors have also taken their own initiative in
expanding Swarthmore’s curriculum. In addition to Joy Charleton’s
Sex Roles, Power and Identity, two new courses on women will be
offered this fall: Professor Murphy’s Women, Society and Politics in
America,and Female Voices, Feminine Wiles, taught by Mary
Poovey. Though they are not yet established permanently in the
curriculum, such courses may represent the first small step toward
fulfilling Swarthmore’s growing demand for scholarship on women.
There is, however, still a long way to go.

-Eliza Newlin and Holly Scheider

perspectives. Understanding the political and power systems which Sea :

have molded both male and female behavior is a necessary first step

toward any kind of social change. As one professor put it, “If there’s sam
any hope for the future, it will come from educating men about

women and women about men.”
Clearly Swarthmore needs more regularly taught courses

addressing the question of women. But there is a distinction @&
between courses which treat the issue of women in passing, and §

those which make a feminist analysis their central focus. Though Jag
some professors may devote a few days or even a week to “the

woman question,” this just perpetuates compartmentalization, and

the trivialization of women’s experience. Though ideally this S&

question would be integrated into every subject, courses specifically

designed around the study of women must also be available. #\§

Women’s Studies courses also provide students with crucial
exposure to feminist scholarship and methodology.

In addition to offering a body of Women’s Studies courses ona &

regular basis, Swarthmore should introduce a Women’s Studies

program into the curriculum. Before such a program can even be {S¥
considered, however, the necessary courses must be in place. &
Otherwise a program runs the risk of marginalizing scholarship on jag
women even further, creating a false dichotomy between the study i

 
Staff

Wendy Cheek
Pam Dorries
Nancy Goldston
Wendy Hoben
Debbie Hollander
Wendy Merson
Donna Mullarkey
Eliza Newlin
Holly Scheider
Ruth Sergel

Amy Sinden
Susanna Stern
Juliet Sternberg
Lise Wagner

Kate Wilson.

The Alice Paul Women’s
Center is located on the
second floor of Sharples |. In
addition to this newsletter, we
maintain a library, have regular
staffing hours, and meet
regularly for political work and
support.

Common Speaking is typeset
by our staff members on
Student Council equipment,
coordinated by Bill Cohen. It is
set in Chelmsford type sizes 9
and 11 and is printed by The
Bailey Printing Co. of Delaware
County.

The views expressed in this
publication are solely those of
the individual authors and do
not necessarily represent the
views of either the staff or of
the members of the Alice Paul
Women’s Center.

10th AnniversaryWeekend

On April 15th- 17th the
Women’s Center celebrated 10
years of theAlice PaulWomen’s
Center at Swarthmore. Friday
afternoon a reception was held
for the Women’s Photography
Show in TheGriffin. Friday night
Dr. Johnella Butler, a professor
atSmith College, spoke in Bond
on ‘ Racism andSexism in the
Fabric of American Society :
What Feminists Can Do.” An
informal reception and question
period followed. On Saturday
afternoon Swarthmore students
and parents gathered in the
Women’s Center to talk with
alumnae who founded the
Center.After introductions, small
discussion groups were formed.
Each focused on different topics
such as Women in the Law,

Political Organization, and
Women’s Studies.. To conclude,
everyone reconvened to
summarize what was discussed
and share hopes and plans for
the future of theWomen’sCenter
and the women’s movement. A
lively and delicious potluck
dinner followed. Later that
night an anniversary party was
held in Sharples 2. Women
danced to music that ‘ ‘takes
women seriously.’’ Sunday
evening, Canadian folk artist
Ferron sang to an enthusiastic
audience in - Lang.

 
‘Ten Years Later

A total of sixteen alumnae returned to Swarthmore to celebrate
the tenth anniversary of their Women’s Center this April, ranging
from members of the class of ’73 to the class of ’79. For past and
present Women’s Center members alike the week-end was a rare
opportunity for communication between women of different
generations. Hearing the history of women’s liberation at
Swarthmore provided both younger and older women with an
enormous sense of continuity and perspective.

As the oldest member present, Libby Leader of the class of ’73
was the first to present her version of this history. She came to
Swarthmore in the fall of 1969, which she describes as a year when
anti-war and Black liberation issues were at the center of political
action on campus. Though the administration had just abolished
the rule that women had to wear skirts to dinner, they still had
curfews, and had to sign in and out of their dormitory’s, none of
which were co-ed. Women had no gynecological care, and
McCabe contained almost no literature on feminism, partly
because so little had been written.

During Libby’s first and second years here she was approached
by the Swarthmore Political Action Committee, which was
interested in activating women’s liberation on campus. Though
they held a few meetings, in which the most pertinent question
raised was that'of faculty child-care, these did not last. The
following year, in 1970, a few women initiated a student-run
course called Women in Industrial Societies, with the help of
some faculty. They also started a consciousness raising group
consisting of five people. At about the same time a woman named
Jesse Ford tried to begin a Gay Liberation group, but with little
success. Jesse had left Swarthmore years before because she had
felt so oppressed as a lesbian here, and she had returned
determined to make this a place where gay and heterosexual
students could co-exist comfortably. With the support of the
women’s c.r.group, gay liberation got off the ground by the
following fall.

At that time the central focus of both the women’s and the gay
liberation groups was consciousness raising. Organizing c.r.
groups, which were both single-sex and co-ed, grew out of the
feminist definition of the personal as political. As Tina Crosby put
it, (class of 74) this definition was what directed all their activities
as feminists. They had a column in the Phoenix called, “The
Feminist Slant,” and two radio shows on WSRN: a women’s music
hour called ‘What do Women Want?” followed by a talk show
called ‘‘Respect.”

One of the problematic issues these women faced was that of
leftist politics on campus. Early feminists at Swarthmore ended up
defining themselves in opposition to leftist groups like S.P.A.C.,
which they perceived as extremely theoretical, intellectual and
male-dominated. Though this conflict was very destructive, there
were other issues which solidified feminist politics in a more
constructive way. For example, women athletes were faced with
the possibility of losing Cunningham Fields, which was where all
women’s sports activities took place. The adminstration had
decided in the late sixties to replace Hall Gym with a new facility
which would be built on Cunningham Fields. The Gym issue gave
feminists on campus a concrete basis around which to organize,
which tied in with other issues and involved many different kinds
of students.

When Ellen Barry’s class entered in 1971, consciousness raising
groups were still in their beginning stages. As she puts it, the idea
of a Women’s Center grew out of a desire to concretize what was
going on in these groups. When women first began organizing a
center in 1973, however, they received a great deal of opposition,
both from the administration and from Student Council. The
strongest resistance, in fact, came from some members of the
Council, who demanded petition after petition proving that there
was student interest in a Women’s Center. After a lot of struggle, a
group of women finally ended up before the Council with a
serious proposal. At exactly that time five students came foreward
with a mock proposal for a “Men’s Center,” a parody of the
Women’s Center idea which called for speakers such as the
author of How to Pick Up Girls, and subscriptions to “Hustler”
and “Qui.” Though the Women’s Center committee had

3

proposed a budget of 1200 dollars, this was cut to exactly the same
amountas the ““Men’s Center” (around 300 dollars.) The next day
this group, which consisted of two past presidents of the Student
Counsil, and two former and present editors of the Phoenix,
rescinded their proposal, which had been a joke. But the
Philadelphia Inquirer had come out to Swarthmore anyway, to do
a story not on the Women’s Center, but on this ““Men’s Center”
which never existed.

In the fall of 1974 a whole group of freshwomen became
involved in the Center, to the relief of those then in charge, all of
who were about to graduate. Because of the large turnover
between old and new members, Ellen Mutari of the class of ’79
was appointed head of a steering committee which organized a
transitional center. In 1975 and ’76 their main issues were security
and health. They agitated for a regular shuttle bus service to off-
campus dorms, for better publicity in the case of assaults, and for
student access to a gynecological nurse practitioner. In 1977 and
78 the Women’s Center initiated a student-run course on feminst
theory under the auspices of the Political Science department.
They also invited a group of women down from the Everywoman’s
Center in Massachusetts who ran a training session on how to
organize small groups and facilitate meetings.

From 1979 on, the history of the Women’s Center begins to look
more current: the rising issue of D.U. and the related problem of
anti-homosexual activity on campus; the push for better security
and health services; the struggle to integrate feminism and
academics; all these are familiar to today’s Women’s Center
members. Some changes have taken place, such as the transition
to Sharples |, the publication of Common Speaking, and the
opening of the Coffee House. But surprisingly many of the
Center’s questions, problems and goals were already under
discussion over ten years ago.

Even more important to the week-end than this evidence of
tradition and continuity, however, was the fact that so many
alumnae had continued to be politically active after leaving the
Women’s Center. Many described how the training they received
at Swarthmore, both in terms of personal growth and political
organizing, carried over into the work they do now. For present
members it was inspiring to receive the support of older feminists
with so much more experience and perspective. Nor was
communication between past and present members resricted to
this review of Women’s Center history. Three discussion groups
were held in the afternoon, on Women in the Law, Political
Organization, and Women’s Studies, all of which were extremely
productive and helpful to the students involved. The alumnae,
too, were grateful for the chance to reunite with old friends, and
to return to the scene of their first political awakenings. As Ellen
Barry put it, “It feels like a real completion to come back here, and
| think that’s true form many of us. It was ten years ago, ten
significant years ago.” But thanks to Ellen and all the alumnae who
returned, the same celebration which allowed them to look back
has enabled the second generation to look forward.

—ElizaNewlin

poy } tye id
vy AM, j
Wi jf
Mh A

 
 

Reaching Through My Tears

| long to pray.
| long to speak to You, yet | know not
where to begin.
The words | once used have been taken away;
"Father”...”Lord”...even “God” have been tainted.
| long to pray to You — not to a male image.
| long to pray to You — You Who ls,
You who loves, You who hears and knows.
| want to call out to You.
Through my tears, | want to reach You.
In my joy, | want to praise You.
In my shame, | want to beseech You.
Mother, Godess? ... You are more than that too.
One Who Is, One who always shall be.
Dear One Who Is Being ...
1 am before You
Not knowing what to say or do.
Please hear me and help me.

-Anonymous |

 

mS

 

 

 

“for my sighs are many, and my heart is faint.””
—Lamentations 1:22

when they came, they took everything:
her story,
her voice,
her song.

they didn’t leave her nothing.

she’d sit in her room all day
staring out the window at a rainy sky.

it was grey outside
and grey inside.

everything matched.

once in a while she’d wave her bloody arms
out the window and scream
just to see if anybody’d notice.

nobody did.

in a city of the blind,
the one-eyed man is king.
but a one-eyed woman?

that’s a different story.
3/27/83

-Anonymous II

 

 
 

 

Two Humanist Philosophies

4

Rosa Luxembourg was the focus of a panel discussion entitled
“Women in Revolution and the Ways of Political Power” sponsored
by the History Department of the University of Pennsylvania last
March. Two very interesting and distinct presentations were given by
Raya Dunayevskaya, writer and Marxist—Humanist, and Jane
Cooper, poet at Sarah Lawrence College. In the course of the
discussion, | was brought to reflect on 1) the life and work of
Luxembourg as a courageous woman revolutionary and 2) the
importance of relating (somehow) the two humanist philosophies of
Marxism and Feminism. In this piece, with the help of friends on
“Common Speaking” staff, 1 bring together some of those
reflections.

Luxembourg was the great theoretician of the German Revolution
of 1919. She was the intellectual leader of the movement, whose
monumental contributions to the struggle against imperialism
marked her as a most important (woman) thinker. The founder of the
social democratic party in Germany, Luxembourg led debates with
and against Karl Kautsky, Lenin and Trotsky. Her most original and
theoretical work, Accumulation of Capital, demonstrates her fusion
of theory with practice. For this, she was brutally murdered by the
German army, who thrashed her body, bashed in her head, and
threw her bloody corpse down into the river.

How do we interpret the life and work of such a person?

Dunayevskaya views Luxembourg as perhaps the most important
figure in the history of women in revolution. Founder of Marxist—
Humanism in the United States, author of several books (including a
comprehensive biography on Luxembourg) and editor of a small
news publication, News & Letters, Dunayevskaya is no feminist. (She
has been quoted as saying “Marx was the greatest feminist.”) But we
should not ignore her writings on women, collected in a pamphlet
called “Women as Reason and as Force of Revolution,” in whichshe
traces some of the revolutionary roots of our women’s movement.
These she finds in the struggles of Sojourner Truth and the Black

women fighting slavery, in the organization of the first Women’s |

Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, N.Y.,(1848), in the histories of

Germany, France, Russia, Poland, Iran, Portugal, Guinea-Bissau, and !
Mozambique. Although Dunayevskaya fails to include in her essays ;

any explicit discussion of patriarchy as a system of male domination,
she recognizes the shining power of women. “We will become a
witness to Women’s Creativity as a Liberating Force.”

Jane Cooper is a poet who has written a piece which expresses her |
personal reaction to Luxembourg’s “Letters to Sophie From Prison.” i
After reading two short poems to give the listeners a feel for her |
voice and for her words, Cooper read this one aloud. Not politicalin |

the sense of carrying a prophetic or moral message, the poem madea
connection between Luxembourg and her time and place, and usin

America in 1983. That link was made via the ability of Cooper as an |
artist and writer to see Luxembourg as a human being who affirmed |

in her lifetime the humanity of others.

On one level, Cooper’s poetry and Luxembourg’s “Letters” could
be compared/contrasted to the work of well—known feminist
writers, e.g. Adrienne Rich, inasmuch as writings by women on
women, or writings of women to one another, can be considered
“feminine” or “female.” In the discussion, an English professor
made a comment to this effect. She did not, however, as one might
expect from an academic, suggest the intriguing problem of
characterizing the feminine text as distinct from its author, a topic |
have found interesting.

To deal only on this level of appearances—“These writers are,
significant because they are all the same sex”—is to have grasped:
Feminism in its most superficial form. This form is essentially limited’
to an assertion of the rights of women to be recognized as equal to}
men, (particularly in the labor market and in the electoral—
representational process.) As such it is an extension of the
ideology of individualism, running parallel to the ideology of
Patriarchy.

|
|
J

 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  

 

 
  

a

Feminism has a much more profound and serious message, from
which Marxists and non—Marxists alike can derive inspiration for
their humanist activities. Feminism requires the recognition that
Luxembourg, Cooper and Dunayevskaya are outstanding for the
substance and content of their work and writings. Feminism calls for
a reaffirmation of the wholeness of the human experience as against
the crippling and fragmentary forces in our society. Way beyond the
reforming of sexist institutions and practices (still an incompleted
project!), artists and writers dream of the day when we will see that
Glorious Age, when through action and social change, through our
creativity derived from experience, we can pursue noble lives, and
recognize the right of all humanity to do so.

Karin Aguilar-San Juan

  
 
 
   
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 

   

Elegy for Donna (1961— __)
(and thinking of others

guatemala, el salvador, words

stream down your cheeks

stream from your lips

rise hot to the night’s stars

and you must study, study,

reading man’s bright words,

bright carnage,

learning man’s bright markings:
colors of the predator.

and you must study, study,

until your eyes are red

until your cheeks are cold

until your lips, like pomegranate,

split and spill

until your lips scar the white

of old words and stop,

numb.

to know the words is not enough. go
then, know nicaragua, el
salvador, use your woman’s
skills to your advantage.
move silent in the night,
exude

no heat
exude

no tears
exude
with care these words,
this fetich
flavored with your blood.

1 write these words against

all atrocity, against
forebodings of your death.

Shoshana T. Daniel

 
 
of Athena Retold |

Once upon a time, the all powerful god Zeus seducedMetisMetis
was the type of goddess who was given to romance She put the roses
that Zeus brought her in a crystal vase, drank her wine and got
pregnant as a result of a relatively unsatisfying night in bed.She was
not angry about this, however.She knew that he could have just as
easily raped her as seduced her, and she appreciated the difference.
And anyway, Zeus was prepared to marry herHe was a good provider,
he didn t beat her, and he didn’t hang out in bars. They got married
quickly andMetis prepared herself for the coming birth and for her
role as queen of Olympia.

Zeus, however, heard one prophesy among those daily presented
to him which stopped these happy plans. It was prophesied that
Metis would give birth to a child who was wiser than he was. In each
generation that preceded Zeus, the son killed his father and replaced
him as king. Zeus realized that he had to prevent the birth of his son.
He regretted hurting Metis, but this wasa political crisis here, not just
a personal problem. Sadly, he remembered the wife’s complicity in
the overthrow of each of the previous patriarchs, including the help
which his own mother gave to him. Unlike some of his ancestors,
Zeus was passably intelligent. He realized that sending Metis and the
child away could only remove them from his influence. Instead one
night as she lay curled against him, he turned to his pregnant wife
and swallowed her whole.

The containment that poor Metis experienced in the body of Zeus
was worse than anything that she could remember. Since she was a
goddess, she could not be killed, but her capacity for action could
be. She made up things in her head and pretended that they were
real. These elaborate fantasies sometimes made her feel better, but
at other times they turned around and snapped at her themselves.
Ultimately they engulfed her so that she forgot that she was their
originator.

Eventually, Metis gave birth. By this time she barely remembered
being outside of Zeus. But as she held the bloodied, squirming piece
of flesh against her, she felt a fierce protective impulse toward it. She
mustered up all of the magic that she could, and made the baby intoa
sixteen year old girl-goddess, dressed in armour and brandishing a
sword. For a moment she looked into the child’s hazy grey eyes just
coming to consciousness, and prayed that she had made her strong
enough to survive without her mother. Then she thrust Athena
upward with all of her strength.

At this point, Zeus had had indigestion all day, got a furious
headache and began to bellow in pain. He ordered his cousin
Hephaistos to relieve the pressure by opening his head with an axe.
No sooner did Hephaistos do so than Athena tumbled out, her grey
eyes narrowed, answering Zeus’ screams with her own war cry.

Being, as we have said, passably intelligent, Zeus sized up the
situation at once and realized what he had to do. He threw his arms
around Athena and cried out, “My daughter, my grey-eyed
darling!” There was a moment of changing, a moment of confusion
in Athena’s heart. But only the vague and shadowy memory of a
women’s eyes warned her against him. And he stood there in front of
her, shining and powerful. He had drawn back and held her at arm’s
length, looking upon her fondly. “My daughter,” he repeated,
slowly, concentrating all of his magic upon her. Athena felt herself
warming to him. Why, this was her father after all. This was the man
who had borne her and given her life! Why had she thought to resist
him? She could not remember.

Athena became her father’s favorite. They spent most of their time
together, and developed a very special relationship. In another time
and place, it might have been frowned upon. But even if anyone in

Zeus put Athena in charge of the heroes. He depended on her to
act in his stead. She advised him of what was going on in the human
world. In addition, she worked on ‘her weaving, which she loved.
Sometimes, as she wove, she began to feel that something different
than the world had ever seen before was about to come out through
her fingers and take its formin the cloth. She would begin totremble
and feel sick and clammy. Usually she would put away the weaving
until the spell passed, and then when she returned to it, make
something useful, like a tablecloth or a pair of sheets for her father.

One day as she sat at her loom, a goddess whom she had never
seen before appeared at her side. Her eyes were shiny black and they
regarded her with love. Athena felt an aching begin inside her asshe
looked into those eyes. She asked,“Who are you?”

“Mariam, Athena.”

“Who are you?”

“lam a part of you and you’re a part of me, but we’re not the
same.”

By this time Athena’s insides were heaving painfully, yet she felt
elated. She laughed. “Why are you here?”

“To help you weave!”

Together, Athena and Mariam wove a piece of cloth that was thick
and soft and deep, deep red. As they bent-over their work, their
shadows turned it purple. Athena’s pain lessened with every pass of
the shuttle. When the cloth was finished, Mariam kissed her and said,
“Remember your mother and re-member yourself.”’ With that she
vanished.

Now, it isnot unusual for goddesses to come and go in this
manner, but the way that Athena felt about Mariam was unusual. She
wanted to hold her for hours, and for them to talk together about
everything that they had ever done. Yet something called her before
she could follow. She remembered Mariam’s parting words.
Throwing the red cloth over her shoulder, she ran to her father.

“Who is my mother?”

“Your mother?” He looked guilty.

“Who is my mother?”

“Athena.” He took her arm gently. “Your mother is, uh, mentally
unbalanced. She’s mad. She had to be put away.”

“Where?” demanded Athena. He would only shake his head.

Furious, she flung the red cloth over him. For a moment it hung
there, but then it wrapped itself around his body. He moaned as it
squeezed him tighter and tighter, until all at once it fell away. Metis
landed on the floor among the folds. Her hair was grey and matted.
She drew the cloth around her shoulders like a cloak and began
rocking back and forth, muttering to herself. Athena stopped to look
into her face. She was mad. Still, when Metis saw her daughter, she
twisted her and held out her hand.

Athena was scared. She felt that some of the things which she
would hear from her mother were horrible, and she was not even
sure that she could help her. Slowly, she took her mother’s hand, and
as she did, Mariam materialized and helped her to hold Metis
between them. The three women turned to leave, but something
caught Athena’s eye. It was Zeus, mouthing words at her across the
great distance that had opened up between them. His face was red,
and he was waving his arms at them. Athena shouted, “Maybe | will
talk to you tomorrow, but right now | am talking to my mother!”

And the three left the house of the fathers together, and nobody
knows what will happen if they come back.

Elisabeth Varcoe