LETTERS

I sent a letter to the Plain Dealer immediately following the Gay and Lesbian March on Washington which the PD has not printed. Cleveland is very willing to see us all go quietly back to our closets.

The march was a success-to some degree. The major problem was in the organization of the march, a problem shared by many grass-roots organizations which aspire to national prominence before they are cohesive. The "Committee for the March" was con-

stantly being split up by internal struggles-cast coast vs. west coast power trips, backbiting, trashing, organizational abuses. The politics were so bad that many factions withdrew their support long before the buses were ordered. A very small number of the potential supporters of the march actually turned out. 75,000 out of a possible 7 million. That is disappointing.

The march did accomplish a very important goal-it made America aware that the gay liberation movement has not vanished with the 60's or the 70's. The fight is continuing-we will not be diverted. The cause is too important and we are growing stronger.

In Cleveland, organization of the gay community is continuing through the GEAR (Gay Educational and Awareness Resources) Foundation. In next month's WSW, we plan to run an article explaining

The following was issued by the Statement Group, Brooklyn, New York, on September 6, 1979. An article concerning this subject will appear in the December issue of WSW.

We feel that we must respond to the latest in a series of attempts to suppress inquiry into the details and nature of Gloria Steinem's association with the Central Intelligence Agency. We are alarmed that the most visible commentary on these events has come from several well-known figures in the feminist movement who not only condone but endorse this suppression. Because feminism's appeal and impact spring from a fundamental intellectual honesty, it is particularly distressing that the suppression of dissent may be seen as some kind of official feminist position.

In 1975, after Redstockings researched Gloria Steinem's affiliations and raised questions about her political past, Steinem published a "Statement" in connection with her activities on behalf of the Independent Research Service, a CIA-funded group. Many feminists found this document neither entirely credible nor to the point, and they have persisted in seeking more enlightening answers.

Because of the consciously counterrevolutionary role the CIA has played at home and abroad over the years, it makes sense to expect a participant in the women's movement-especially one who has come to symbolize it-to fully discuss her past relationship to the CIA. We are still waiting to hear Steinem's opinion of the Agency; the last one she gave characterized the CIA as "liberal" and "farsighted" (The New

Page 2/What She Wants/November, 1979

more fully the goals and purposes of the foundation. If you're interested in the foundation, write to GEAR, Box 6177, Cleveland 44115, and we'll send you a brochure. Or call the hotline, 621-3380, or drop in some Monday night at the Gay Community Center, 1012 Sumner Court, Cleveland.

Cleveland has a huge gay population. Between us all we have the bodies, the voting power, and the money to produce political change. Change is a direct function of our organization. Please help.

-Melinda McGeorge Treasurer, GEAR Foundation

I am writing to protest the criticism of Congresswoman Mary Rose Oakar by some local women. As a resident of Mary Rose Oakar's Congressional District, I am proud to be represented by one of the 16 women in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mary Rose Oakar has actively shown her interest and concern for women by studying the discriminatory treatment of women in regard to Social Security benefits. This is an important example of sexism because it directly affects retirement funds for practically every woman in this country who is over the age of 62, or who is a widow, or who is handicapped. Those persons who lack money lack power in our society. Discrimination in Social Security benefits affects a larger number of women than abortion does at any time and conducting the task force hearings to investigate this particular discriminatory practice is just one of the many issues which Mary Rose has confronted. She has also sponsored legislation for the Susan B. Anthony coin, introduced the Pregnant Women's Assistance Act, and cosponsored the Displaced Homemakers Act. In addition, she opposes the proposed military draft bill, she's anti-nuclear and has sponsored legislation to encourage the development of solar energy, and she has consistently voted for the Transfer Amendment. Few men in Congress accomplish as much in ten years as Mary Rose Oakar has accomplished in three

York Times, February 21, 1967).

The events that prompted us to send out this letter include:

1. Gloria Steinem, Clay Felker (most recently publisher of Esquire), and Ford Foundation president Franklin Thomas were among those who threatened to sue for libel if Random House allowed the CIA chapters to be published in the Random edition of Redstockings' Feminist Revolution. At the same time, Newsweek/Washington Post publisher Katherine Graham and Warner Communications-a major Ms. stockholder-also complained. The offending chapters were deleted. Thus, Steinem and her powerful supporters successfully used the threat of litigation to exercise prior restraint over publication. 2. When Steinem learned that the Village Voice had assigned journalist Nancy Borman to prepare an article on the censorship of Feminist Revolution, her attorneys, Greenbaum, Wolff & Ernst, threatened suit against the Voice if any mention of Steinem's CIA association appeared in the article. After some delay to allow the Voice's legal counsel to review the material, the Voice published the article (May 21, 1979), and in subsequent issues several letter-writers responded with attacks on Borman and the Voice.

3. In May 1979, when Heights & Valley News, a New York City neighborhood paper published by the Columbia Tenants Union, began a series on the material deleted from Feminist Revolution, Steinem's attorneys again threatened suit. But instead of threatening the Columbia Tenants Union corporation-as they had the Random House and Village Voice corporations-they sent a letter to each

years (which is typical of females in most occupations).

Mary Rose, despite criticism from those outside her district, is one of the most popular and respected politicians in the area. Her constituents appreciate her and she and her fine, conscientious staff (comprised mostly of women) are doing an excellent job in aiding people who need assistance. No other Congressional office or campaign staff in the area achieves anywhere near the respect and admiration which is shown to Mary Rose and her employees.

It is tragic that some women in the feminist move. ment fail to support women who have achieved a mark of distinction. By attacking Mary Rose, the women's movement appears foolish and petty and weakens its own position. While we all may share disagreement with our elected officials on various issues, the women's movement should concentrate on holding elected men to their platforms instead of concentrating their efforts on destroying women.

In regards to the abortion issue, we should recognize that abortion as a concept has been well accepted by the American people, which is the most important aspect of this issue, and every national poll bears this fact out. In regards to the busing issue, what is really needed to insure equal opportunity is extensive county-wide busing of school children for social-economic equality, but strangely, I don't hear the suburbanites answering that call to action.

Mary Rose Oakar has gotten where she is because she has been able to look men and political machines. (run by men, naturally) in the eye and take on the challenge despite the odds. Women who call themselves feminists should be supportive of all women as that is how the feminist movement will advance. Mary Rose Oakar, it appears, has gotten where she is despite the women's movement, not because of it. I suggest that the respected feminists of the 21st, 22nd and 23rd Congressional Districts organize politically and support women to challenge their incumbent Congressmen, men who, for the most part, are appearing more mediocre by the hour, and leave the 20th District in the capable hands of Mary Rose Oakar.

-Susan E. Wilson

of CTU's 32 board members, Board members cannot be individually sued for a corporation's acts, except in a few instances not relevant here (many nonlawyers may not know this); but Steinem's attorneys stated in their letter to the board members that publication of the material "could subject [them] to individual liability." Heights & Valley News stood up to this attempt at intimidation and is continuing the series.

All of this legal harassment was in response not to any actual instance of false, malicious defamation, but to the potential raising of embarrassing questions about some feminists' relations with the power clite.

We think that Steinem and her associates have not made a convincing case for cutting off discussion. Al question is not just the right to debate one woman's past associations, although this is often important. There is an urgent need for wide-ranging debate in the feminist movement on such questions as:

-Do feminists think there are special topics on which it is defensible to stifle discussion? Why do we put up with bad-faith appeals to "sisterhood"? -How far should feminists go in making compromises? Which kinds of compromises help us reach our goals? Which hurt?

-Is there a conflict of interest problem that our movement needs to solve-as other movements have tried to solve it—when movement representatives accept positions on the government or corporate side of the bargaining table?

-Are "right-wingers" the only reason for the

(continued on page 12)

1