LETTERS

In the January 1979 issue of WSW, we ran a letter received from an inmate at the Marysville Reformatory for Women. The letter described an incident on November 13 in which three corrections officers beat a black inmate after she got into an argument with another woman. After the incident, a group of inmates sent a petition to Superintendent Dorothy Arn voicing their disapproval over the handling of the incident. The women were threatened with a Class II violation of prison. rules (which included serving time in maximum security) and a suit against them for threatening the security of the farm.

וז

Chapparral

The letter asked that people write to Dorothy Arn requesting the immediate removal of the officers involved, the dismissal of criminal action against the woman who was beaten, and the right of inmates to petition the institution. It also asked that the following, more general, demands be included:

1. No confinement in rooms without sanitary facilities (women are confined up to 2 months in rooms with no toilets or water-just buckets).

2. Medical treatment and a drug program for addicts (addicts receive no medical attention).

3. An end to slave labor ($.10/hour)-payment of the minimum wage.

4. Complete financial accountability to the inmates of prison finances.

5. An end to inconsistent rule enforcement, including reprisals for unwritten rules.

6. Inmate input on institutional policies.

7. Unrestricted visiting (inmates now get one visit per month from each visitor.

8. More phone calls (the women may make one ten-minute call per month).

9. Freedom to be politically active without intimidation or reprisal,

Several of our readers wrote to Dorothy Arn. One woman, Shirley Aenne, received the following letter in reply:

Dear Miss Aenne:

This will acknowledge receipt of your recent letter regarding your concern for the women who are incarcerated at this institution.

I do not know where you received your information but for the most part it is totally without merit. I will endeavor to answer your statements as you have outlined them in your letter:

1. It is absolutely untrue that our rooms are without sanitary facilities.

2. We have a fulltime doctor and several contractual doctors who care for all of our women whether they are addicts or not.

3. Our women earn up to $24.00 per month, depending upon the job description. Also, women in vocational or educational training are paid by job category.

4. The inmates of this institution are made aware of their financial balances each week.

5. The rules and regulations of this institution are well documented by an inmate handbook and an inmate procedural book. Discipline, if necessary, is on an individual basis and not as a group.

6. A Communication Group was formed many

Page 2/What She Wants/May, 1979

•

years ago in this institution so that the inmates would have some input into institutional policy and, also, have an opportunity to discuss some of their problems on an inmate-staff basis.

7. At the present time women who are in honor status may receive two visitors per month from everyone on their approved visiting list and all other inmates may receive one visit per month from all of the members on their approved visiting list.

8. The phone call privilege was instituted by me a year ago so that the inmates could have communication with their families or friends other than writing and visits. This is not a right but rather a courtesy extended by this institution. At the present time the honor status women may make two calls a month and top honor status women may make four calls a month.

9. I simply do not understand what you mean by "lack of freedom to be politically active without reprisals". Our women are involved in many programs in the institution and move about rather freely, however, it is required that they remain on the premises of the institution.

{

The statement regarding the black lesbian inmate being harassed by a Male Correction Officer is not true. I do not discuss an inmate's discipline problems with individuals other than the family, however, I must say to you that you only know one side of the story and, again, you should have all of the facts. before making a statement.

Inasmuch as you are a concerned group of women in Cleveland who appear to be interested in the activities of this institution, I would suggest very strongly that you let us know the date and time that you could arrive at the institution and we would be very pleased to have you take a tour and to see what we are all about. We are very proud of our institution and what we have done and with our low rate of recidivism, I cannot say that we have failed entirely. I do appreciate your concern and, again, we would be happy to have you tour our institution at your convenience.

Very truly yours, (Mrs.) Dorothy Arn, Superintendent

Shirley and members of the WSW Collective would like to organize a trip to Marysville. If you are interested, please drop us a postcard at P.O. Box 18465, Cleveland Heights, Ohio 44118.

Dear WSW:

Being relatively new in the Cleveland area, we felt the "Women-only" party advertised for the Side Door after the April 14th Holly Near concert a chance to meet other gay women in this area. To our surprise it was a typical bar scene-no! Not even typical. From L.A. to Boston, with points in between, never have we been "ripped off" with a cover charge just for the privilege of standing up to a bar and buying our drinks. Cover charges for live entertainment—yes, most places. Cover charges to meet municipal regulations and then a free drink in return-yes. But a cover charge so we can then buy a drink, be stared at, and avoided because we're strangers was a real put down. It's bad enough to be "ripped off" at a straight bar or restaurant, and I'm sure that's happened to most of us. It's really disappointing to be taken advantage of by our own group. We don't need that!

Had requests been made for donations to Labyris, or any worthy cause, we would gladly have given. The $2.00 ($1.00 per person] was certainly an insignificant amount. But it became significant to us when we realized we were tricked by the very same people who, an hour earlier at the concert, were preaching love, fairness, brotherhood to all!

The concert was enjoyable; we hope to attend many more Oven Productions. And we are grateful for discovering WSW, but The Side Door will never again be part of our evening.

-Katie and Lois

To members of the Cleveland Women's Community:

Since many of the readers of WSW provided information helpful to the completion of my Ph. D. dissertation, I want to publicly express my appreciation to them. The thesis was written for a committee of faculty members in the Sociology Department at Case Western Reserve University. Through an ar duous process, I redrafted it several times, negotiating my aims with committee members. In spite of its drawbacks, I am fairly satisfied with the final product in terms of its perspective, analysis, and conclusions.

Entitled "Ideology and the Structure of Social Movement Organizations: A Case Study of LesbianFeminism", the study is composed of six chapters. The outline of the problem introduces the data within the context of social movement organizations (SMO's). Four stages of organization are examined to explain how ideological principles influenced leadership patterns, recruitment, commitment, and organizational goals. Over a two-year time period, I identified these consecutive stages: a C-R group, a conference, a bureaucratic organization, and a number of collectives.

The methodology chapter discusses techniques of sampling and data collection and researchers/subject relations. The third chapter compares and contrasts several types of feminist ideologies, defining lesbianfeminism as a direct offshoot of radical feminism. Chapters Four and Five use data gathered from interviews, participant observation, and organizational documents to analyze each of the four stages of a lesbian-feminist SMO. I conclude that the bureaucratic organization failed partly because the

structure was incompatible with ideological principles. A feminist counseling collective was chosen to represent the most recent stage of organization. The final chapter deals with the future of lesbian and radical feminist SMO's as well as the theoretical implications of the findings. I criticize the existing literature on SMO development for neglecting the factors of ideological commitment and the informal friendships and groups created among participants in radical organizations.

Perhaps the best way to express my appreciation to you is to repeat a section from my acknowledgements:

In retrospect, the relationship between subjects and researcher seemed to reflect the caring and honesty characterizing the social interactions among the women themselves. They taught me that collective commitments to social change did not end in the 1960's. Their experiments in building alternative organizations and styles of living were tempered with compassion for the everyday problems encountered by individuals with widely varying backgrounds, viewpoints, and motivations....Along with their possible value for sociologists, I hope these pages have captured something of importance for lesbianfeminists.

A hardbound copy of the thesis will be available in the Freiberger Library of Case Western Reserve University in a month or two. Although a few people have read parts of the thesis already, I would ap preciate further verbal or written feedback from others. I intend to explore the possibilities of publishing a revised version of the thesis.

Sincerely, Andrea Baker 2765 Lancashire Rd.

Cleveland Hts., OH 44106

321-3884