SDS ( From p.7)

oppressors of women because they hold dominant positions over women and because they help to perpetuate that dominance. They argued that "secondary" contradictions are often those most sharply felt by people and that to organize around felt oppression contributes to the general class struggle. In the course of the debate, many non-PL women decided that the term "male supremacy" was better than "male chauvinism"-since the latter term merely indicates a mental attitude. "Male supremacy" indicates that men are actually in a superior position in a society which oppresses women in every facet of their lives.
A new proposal, containing, the above non-PL arguments, was finally written but not un til after a group of PL women had walked out of the caucus. The proposal in its final form was quite good--it was in two parts. The first, an analysis of women's s oppression, deals with male chauvinism and the material basis of women's oppression. The second part was a formal proposal calling for an end to male supremacy in SDS and calling for SDS to organize towards a raise in wages of women university employees, equality of women in educational institutions (high schools, colleges, trade school etc. ) and for the relation of the struggle for women's liberation in schools to the women of the working class, including institutions that oppress working class women: juvenile court, girls' homes, women's prisons, family court, welfare, and labor battles.
This proposal was presented at the NC after women fought to have it moved from the end of the agenda to the beginning. The debate was excellent: most of those who spoke against the proposal were PL women who felt that it had serious political shortcomings. Particularly excellent in their speeches for the proposal were Margie Haile, who spoke about haw the. American dream victimizes women and how we should fight against that, and Barbara Riley, from West Berlin and Columbia SDS, who spoke about the #

creation of new socialist forms. Both women received standing ovations from the audience. It didn't seem, for the most part, that the enthusiastic response to the proposal was patronizing. It was obvious that the women were not saying, "Listen to us or we'll quit SDS and not fuck you anymore". What we did say was "you must listen to us if you advocate a truly socialist revolution. " It was unfortunate that the women's debate had to be held in the context of the PL-anti PL struggle. But I think it is significant that the proposal was debated seriously by the entire body and that it passed. What remains now is to see if the proposal will be implemented on that same level of seriousness. ##