LETTERS

Dear friends,

I must take exception with the author of "But Is It Handy?," the review of the Cleveland Women's Handbook in your January issue.

The information Ms. Skully included about the welfare process and CMHA is important. Access to this kind of information comes from the kind of everyday experience that Ms. Skully has with the Welfare Department. The editors of the Handbook did not have the benefit of this day-to-day contact and therefore had to rely largely on information made available to them by the staff of feminist and non-feminist agencies. Considering the broad scope of issues they were trying to include and the considerable amount of information and resources they brought together, I think they owe no one an apology.

I should like to set straight some of the more serious aspersions cast upon the Handbook by Ms. Skully.

First of all, I think that a potential buyer or user of the Handbook can use it with considerably more confidence than similar publications. For example, while individual resource lists contain no evaluative information, previous to each list is a narrative section explaining what the issues are, what questions might be good to ask, etc. Furthermore, in the front of the book is an excellent introduction that explains how to use the book, what questions to ask resource providers in order to determine if they can be helpful or have a feminist perspective, what to do if you are unhappy about a service provider and where to find evaluativé information about service providers!" Since 'such evaluative information is always in flux and some of it potentially libelous in print, this seemed the best way to make it available without the Handbook immediately becoming obsolete or put out of print because of a lawsuit.

P

Our goal was not to "guide" the user to the most appropriate resource, but rather to give a woman as much information as we could about what the issues are and to enable her to locate information so she could make her own decision about what was appropriate for her-an approach which I consider feminist, rather than paternalistic.

Second, none of the resources listed by Ms. Skully was omitted from the Handbook. The Welfare Rights Organization, the West Side Mental Health Service, and the Free Clinic are each listed at least twice. The Clinic's Advocacy program is specifically included in the section on counseling resources.

Contrary to Ms. Skully's remarks, the writers of the Handbook were definitely interested in providing the type of detailed information that she lists about the welfare process. They listed as much detail as they had available to them, had time to dig up, and the space to include, given the incredible range of subjects covered. The entire chapter on women and money lists resources to which women can turn for 1. *help.

.

1

Third, the section on family rape is neither super-

ficial nor poorly researched, nor does it imply that

自

only husbands and boyfriends sexually abuse children. It clearly states that most children are sexually abused not by strangers, but by relatives and friends. It emphasizes what to do if a woman suspects her husband or boyfriend is sexually abusing her child because this is precisely the situation where a woman would have the most conflict about what to do and the least knowledge of what resources might be available to her.

Last, but most serious, are Ms. Skully's remarks about the Handbook's being geared to the "middle class woman," "not adequately prepared for low income people;" and "they can't afford the $5 anyway". The Handbook is geared to the woman who can read and to service providers for women. who can't read: There isn't a single chapter that does

Page 2/What She Wants/February-March, 1981

4

•

not include resources for women with limited incomes, whether on money, sexuality, the arts, law, etc. Furthermore, Cleveland Women's Counsel, who is responsible for distribution of the Handbook, has taken great pains in distribution in order to make it available to the broadest possible group of women. Free copies were sent to every library in the county (over 80). Copies have been made available at a negotiable reduced rate to any agency that agrees to give them free or make them available to their clients at that same reduced rate, At present, reduced rate copies are available at Women Together, the Rape Crisis Center, WomenSpace, the Neighborhood Services Centers, Jewish Vocational Services and John Carroll University, to mention just a few. They are also available at the regular $5 price at most area bookstores and CWC. They are being distributed free to women's organizations in other parts of Ohio, and CWC has had requests for copies from feminist groups from as far away as New York and Chicago. The Plain Press has given it a good review and told its

readers that if they can't afford it, they can request a free copy. CWC has in many cases underwritten the expenses of postage and staff time to mail out free copies. They are still looking for more agencies or individuals at agencies to distribute it at a reduced rate.

No, the Handbook is not everything we wanted. And there is certainly a great deal more information that could have been included. Any chapter in the Handbook could have been expanded into a book of its own. But neither is it lacking in "energy, spirit and critical attention," as Ms. Skully charges.

What is wrong with the radical women's move-

Editorial (continued from page 1)

Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion. The amendment would define a fertilized egg as a person with full rights, and would probably be interpreted to require that state and/or federal governments pass laws making abortion a crime equal to murder or manslaughter. (See Rhonda Copelon's article in the February issue of Ms.)

Two drafts of the Human Life Amendment are now in Congress; both supported by Reagan and Secretary of Health and Human Services Richard Schweiker. The Helms amendment stipulates that "the paramount right to life is vested in each human > being from the moment of fertilization-without regard to age, health, or condition of dependency." → A compromise" version, sponsored by Representatives Jake Garn (R-Utah) and James Oberstar (D-Minn.), would allow abortions only in lifethreatening situations. Passage of these amendments requires a two-thirds vote in Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. One estimate shows the anti-abortion forces have about 50 of the necessary 67 votes in the Senate, and 250 of the necessary 291 votes in the House (New York Times, Feb. 15, 1981).

Lacking the necessary votes at this time to pass an amendment, an alternative is a bill introduced by

ment is exactly its undue negativism and the lack of perspective that keeps us knocking each others' real accomplishments and demanding the impossible yesterday. I have never seen another resource book like the Handbook-one that challenges a woman to think for herself, gives her an idea of what resources might be out there, provides basic information so she can develop them for her own use, and respects her intelligence, her guts and her ability to take control of her life.

Thank you for giving me the space to respond. -Judy Rainbrook

Dear Friends,

As a member of the Pro-Choice Action Committee, I am concerned about the way you presented the brief announcement of the January 22 demonstration and rally on Page 1 of your January issue.

The scant information in the box was not the only material you received; PCAC members gave What She Wants members copies of a leaflet, a brochure and a press release. (I realize you were given these things during the Kristin Lems concert, and that they understandably could have been misplaced.)

I am not writing this letter, however, to present our word against yours. What concerns me is that your (unsigned) editorial attributes the lack of information to "apparent apathy" and complacency in a way that can only have misled your readers. Whose apathy?

Your editorial has the effect of blaming the few women who are active pro-choice adherents. You could have used it to point out that, with our reproductive rights under attack, it is critical that more women become involved in the fight to keep abortion legal and make it accessible to all women who choose it.

Behind the anger in your remarks is-I think-the frustration and exhaustion we all feel. It is easy and dangerous for women's groups to turn this anger on each other. When we do so in print, the effects can be particularly destructive. The staff of a paper like What She Wants has the responsibility to offer informed, constructive criticism, and to avoid the temptation to vent irritation unfairly in print.

I hope we can offer each other greater understanding and support in the future.

-Deborah Van Kleef Pro-Choice Action Committee

६ १

Senator Helms and Representatives Hyde and Mazzoli which defines the unborn as legal persons. This bill has the advantage of requiring only a majority vote for passage. It is also seen by some members of Congress as a way to avoid a Constitutional Convention, which many admit could go too far in repealing basic rights. Nineteen of the necessary 34 states have already passed Con-Con resolutions, and others will be voting this year.

1

''

According to Janet. Benshoof, Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project (ACLU Women's Rights Report, Winter 1981), there are still glimmers of hope The majority of Americans, support abortion, and the courts have generally struck down restrictive abortion legislation. But, as Rhonda Copelon, an attorney who argued the McCrae case before the Supreme Court, observed, based on the general conservatism and Reagan's pledge to support judges who "respect life," we can no longer rely on the courts. This leaves us...the many Americans who support abortion.

The National Abortion Rights Action League strongly urges you to write your state and national representatives to protest this current attack on our reproductive rights. For more information, call NARAL at (614) 469-9628 or 9629.