All language subtitles for Regrouping.1976.1080p.BluRay.x264.AAC-[YTS.MX]

History.

A sense of history.

An historical perspective.

And you have to begin where they left off.

I still think it ought to be about

the economic conditions in the United States.

How we fought poverty in 1974.

Somehow we gotta tie that theme in.

I don't report.

No, it's eight-point-nine.

Those who don't think they're satisfied with their job, or those who want...

full-time work but can only have part-time.

The working population in
America isn't satisfied with everything.

Exactly.

They're only including the ones who have part-time work

who want full-time.

Roll that window up!

It's the human condition!

Champagne anyone?

Over here...

I've just been watching in the mirror.

At this point, me being somewhat distant

of you all's characters.

Essentially, my position is that of an intruder.

Like, besides, uh...

like, maybe calling us up and deciding to come over and film us

taking showers or something--
I don't know.

I mean, you're, uh...

You're thinking about all of us being together also...

and discussing...?

Oh, sure.

Discussing a lot of different kinds of things.

You'll make those decisions?

Or you will.
I mean, just the idea that...

Yeah, you did!

Watch out, I could turn violent.

Small group is important for women.

It gives us a context for our views,

helping us overcome oppression.

She seemed to have interest like she wanted to, uh...

explore the nature of a group.

How a group communicates to each other being impossible

or possible...

In its beginning stages,

the group gives us a feeling of intimacy and trust,

freeing us to discuss our fears and problems.

The group becomes a support system.

This is the beginning of sisterhood.

To become unified with others, we're no longer alone.

I mean, you just said...

the two points you were thinking of was...

the group and the outsider to the group.

But when you first started making the movie,

was your concern with the group and the outsider

coming into the group?

It was.

Were you considering yourself as part of the movie when you first made it?

Lizzie Borden proposed to make a film about

the four of us.

She had been inspired by some of the ideas in the formal

development of a conversation between her and us in which we

interviewed her for a class,
Women in the Arts.

We share stories, we pool our experiences,

we create a common ground.

We feel warmth and comradeship.

Personal problems become common problems.

Working together ends doubt and frustration.

This is the honeymoon period.

One of the concerns was dealing with our privacy

together as a group and each of our individual privacies.

But you wanted us all to participate in this equally...

How did you see them when you first met?

She seemed to be really attracted to them,

especially the way they worked together.

Started off with one sort of investigation,

so she would shoot us spontaneously over a period months.

So what you first thought was that you had

this impression of these people, so you thought that it interested you.

You could penetrate this mystery by filming it?

Yes.

But you had no idea what really went on in the meetings?

No.

But you wanted to find out what made that intimacy between people?

She felt that they were more powerful than she was.

She had certain power in the art world.

She had a certain degree of success.

You know, she was someone who was doing things like--

She's the same age as us, but she was able to get around,

I think, more than I felt...

This is the beginning of sisterhood.

We become unified with others, we're no longer alone.

We feel warmth and comradeship.

Personal problems become common problems.

This is the honeymoon period.

Her interest was in the method that our group works, in a way.

In a way that our group is very open-ended.

You wanted to find out what created the intimacy.

Her idea of how the film would be made was kind of parallel...

We become infatuated with each other

and are critical of our husbands, lovers, and male friends.

Our lives outside the group change.
We demand more.

Some of us become lesbians.

She was sure that their intimacy was deeper than that.

And you know that they're aware of the camera,

and you know that the movie is going to be about them.

And you think, "Now I'm gonna find out why

these people are so interesting."

But then you don't really find out.

What you see of them are...

very romantic images.

We learn to take pride in ourselves...

And their relationship between others sort of flirts

with the idea of sexuality between women.

And it's images
I think that they want...

But as the group continues to meet over

a longer period of time, the joy and exhilaration ends.

We find that we have failed to question and disagree

with other women's ideas.

We haven't been truthful.

We don't admit to negative feelings, distrust,

criticisms that involve other women.

Our thinking becomes divided.

I felt a really big separation between you and them.

They were trying to do one thing, and you were trying to do something else.

You never get together with them.

I didn't feel any relationship between you and them.

We're not an activist group, obviously.

We don't do that much, we just support each other.

Mentally, you know? We just sit there and talk with each other.

I don't think that that women's group

has ever been able to come out with a statement that said...

I mean, you asked them for that statement, right?

"What are you doing?"

But they weren't able to answer that question.

There's something wrong when you can't answer a question like that.

They wouldn't let her watch their meetings.

We're an elite.

We have the same values.

We're white, urban, and middle class.

We're friends.

We set up our own network of communications.

We've been working with each other from the beginning.

There were a few more members, but they dropped out.

We do not have a program for supporting

women's work and activities.

We have chosen not to deal with consciousness raising,

group therapy,

political lobbying, or other interests as other women's groups.

What we are interested in is developing our ideas

and discussing different points...

We don't want outsiders to understand.

Outsiders might violate us and sever our connections.

This kind of interaction is useful and supportive

to us as women and as a group.

Not even that, but they didn't--
They had a certain way

of talking about things that was a lot different than the way I thought.

You know, they were very rational and they tried to be very intellectual.

They were very anti, like, the possibility that things were

beyond just what they were right then and there.

Joining the group is like joining a club or sorority.

It takes time for outsiders to be trusted.

When you find a process for group interaction,

you have to have a subject.

Group interaction can't be the subject.

I mean, that's so self-conscious.

Analysis of the group itself and the task of staying together

becomes our major activity.

We've collaborated in the following manner:

Over the years, we have collected resource materials,

tapes of meetings, Xeroxed texts,

our own writing, photographs.

This collection circulates between us and is used to inform

our individual work.

We organize test classes on feminist history.

We try to construct a way to present ourselves as a group

while still giving space to individual opinions.

We collectively chose topics for discussion...

Because we are interested in presenting our interaction

in public situations, as well as describing our activities,

we rehearsed our conversation beforehand in order

to be more spontaneous publicly.

We unconsciously control each other.

We turn in on ourselves.

It becomes overbearing.

When you form a group, you find out about group interaction,

but you'll never be able to make any statements.

I know that they have a big thing about making statements,

but I always get the feeling--
I've never understood

any of statements that I've heard.

The group started to meet in September of 1972,

in order to gather strength.

We were interested in educating ourselves...

They evidently all gave themselves support.

Support that was lacking, like, from society.

Like, society meaning, like, you know,

people in their social life which they typically...

The security that they can create within themselves

in a party was sort of, like, you know,

it was like they create this invisible circle around themselves.

I know that she was having a hard time relating to men.

Not that she never did before, but it become even more difficult.

Maybe we should just start in terms of asking

each other why we're here.

In the fiction, you know?

And just what we expect from a women's group.

And that will encompass what we don't expect also, I guess.

That's too point-blank a question at this point.

I'll have to feel into that.

Why I'm here? 'Cause Lizzie invited me.
That's the only answer.

No, but in the fiction.

I know, but I don't have my fictional self.

She needs to work into her character.

I'll make a big deal with the fiction.

Okay. Well, I would say...
I mean, I would say.

That's because you're a hot girl.

I would say that the reason that I would be here...

is that I need people to talk to.

And I'm having a very difficult time,

an increasingly difficult time, in finding people to talk to

who have anything approaching my viewpoint.

What do you mean by "talk to"?

There's specific kinds of problems I need to solve,

which I can't even, at this point, identify.

I mean, problems relating to my work, and relating to the way, you know,

I move around in the world.

And, you know, why the hell I choose to do things

in the most difficult way.

And...

you know, what it is I want to accomplish,

in a way, by doing all that, you know?

Like, why do I have to--?
I mean, why do I insist

to myself that any relationship
I have with a--?

With a man has to be different?

The relationships that I have with other women have to be

different in some way from any other relationship that I see

or any other one that I've had.

And, you know,

like, I sit at home when I'm home, you know?

And all these things run through my mind.
It's like a parade.

I've seen them all, you know?

My whole train of thought passes by,

and it reaches exactly the same impasse, you know?

And points like--
When I reach points like that,

like, the only thing
I can possibly think of to do

is to find other people...

in the hopes that, you know, those people have reached

some kind of parallel impasse, and have...

...too far, too fast.

And she knew they knew they didn't trust her.

I think I understood more what you wanted

than what they wanted.

But I was very unclear on what they wanted.

Because the whole idea of privacy is so strong in the film.

One of the reasons that we can collaborate

on the things that we do as a group is that we have a certain space

and time where we build up a lot of trust between us.

And the reason we've been able to do that is because,

in a sense, our group has always been very private, you know?

I mean, there have been things that we don't really discuss with other people.

And I think that she felt that she would-- By virtue of being,

you know, the camera, that she could break through that privacy very easily.

She became more covert, even sneaky.

It's like they wanted you--
They agreed for you

to make a film, so they must have wanted you to make it.

Yet, as soon as they made it, they took a--

They seemed to take a stance about privacy.

Did they ever define to you how--
What they wanted to show you?

I wanted to join their group.

They wouldn't let me in.

They said I wasn't to be trusted because I was living with a man

who had a history of chauvinistic behavior.

I tried to explain that this was precisely the reason

that they should let me join the group, but they wouldn't.

And the whole business about privacy,

the conversations about privacy, and you're getting uptight

and upset about them being private,

it made me wonder what the film was about.

Is the film about The Women's Group and what they produce?

Or the individuals in the film?

Or their narcissism, which is a really big part of the film...

Ariel.

I've always been fascinated with power.

And goals.

I'm fascinated with women.

I don't know,
I can't really describe a man.

For the sake of having exceptions to every rule,

I'll refrain from such conventional labels as...

lesbianism, homosexuality, bisexuality,

and heterosexuality.

Okay, I can talk now.

In its beginning stages, the group is a means of action

and organization.

Our premise is that all women are oppressed and that all women

want to end their oppression.

We feel that all women are like ourselves.

Seems to me that they would realize that.

I mean, narcissism went so far.

It was physical, but it wasn't mental.

Farewell!

Thou art too dear for my possessing.

And like enough thou know'st thy estimate...

I'm interested in the simplicity and complexity

of any idea which contains a certain amount of enthusiasm,

personal flexibility, and originality of choice.

Through all of this wanting to appear

very intellectual, and abstract, and remote...

the physical images they present is so sinful,

so little girly, you know?

Look at me, I'm beautiful,
I'm cool, I'm sexy.

Did they say why they agreed to make the film?

Did they want to?

Privacy is such a big element in the film.

You know, you talk about privacy all the time.

Why did they agree?

Maybe that's just, like, the whole aura that's given off...

the whole mystique, the kind of thing where they're very--

You know, a woman of many faces.

This group has gone on for three or four years?

Yes.

Did they have the information to give or...?

Did they feel that it's a manipulation

on your part, the fact that you've written

a kind of fictional narrative?

They don't know this yet.

She found other ways of getting what she...

I didn't trust the whole situation

from the very beginning.

But I went into it, trying to deal with the fact

of the invasion of my privacy.

I mean, I didn't want really any part of that.

The film's main idea seemed to us, at the time,

to be about capturing the moments in which individuals

shift their positions and attitudes when confronted by situational changes.

The methods were to be influenced by the idea of voyeurism,

spying, and invasion of privacy,

asking questions about our personal lives and our opinions

concerning the interaction of our respective friendships.

So what we decided to do was to, uh...

Before we started filming, we set up a contract.

You know, if the filming is done as free-form as it is,

or it would be, then you'd want some sort of protection

of our image and, uh...

our actions...

But how the footage that we would shoot

or that we would think of that we would use in a film.

This is how we would do that to, uh, be understood.

At the end of all the filming, we look at the footage,

and we'd be able to have some sort of control.

If we didn't like something, we would say, "We don't like it.

We don't want it in the film."

In that sense, we would always have a say in the organization of the film.

A contract was written up

to avoid the possible manipulation by someone

to have more power about the film

and more power.

We wanted the right to read her material,

which we thought represented...

to know the breakdown of credits,

the distribution of possible financial profit,

an agreement as to where the film should be shown.

One of the earliest problems was, uh, the problem of trust.

You feel like you're being spied upon every time you walk out the door.

At first, that was funny.

I mean, at first it was amusing, you know the idea...

having to look around all the time and see if there was

someone following you, or someone in disguise, you know.

Yeah. And then she also...

She thought that since she was having trouble...

that she thought with just purely spying that she should go to people

that we knew, and try to get information about us.

And then to, like, apply that to us.

In other words, there's a gap between...

how I see them now and how they were when I first met them.

Because now they're a group, and I see them in relation to each other.

And I see it in the present, and...

it's very hard to relate what they are now to what they were--

How I thought of them in the past when I was just beginning

to meet each one of them.

I don't know, I think I just gradually got to know them better.

And I went to some of their...

The women's things. They had this group that met once a week.

And I remember the first time--
I've been twice.

And the first time I went,
I went there thinking

that they had the same problems that I had as a woman.

And after I'd spent the evening there,
I realized that I was wrong.

Because of the generation, the difference in age.

And, uh,

they're aware of all the same things that I'm aware of,

but they don't have to go through some of the things--

Or they don't have to go through some things like getting married

that I went through because they know better.

Not that I mind being married, but one wastes a lot of time.

I don't think that they're...

they don't seem to be wasting time, like, in that sense.

I mean, doing things that women are supposed to do.

They seem to be doing exactly what they want to do.

Methods of working together are only means to ends.

We formulate methods for equal participation.

We go around the room, each one of us giving our point of view.

In offering her experience, a woman is talking not about herself...

Two sort of points.

There's one that derives from the material

that I or you gather from sort of a cultural situation,

like books, um, what people say, films...

and involved in the construction of a thought is

certain choice-making about the given material.

And involved in making that choice

is a role the decision-maker has.

And this particular role is not made natural for women.

In order to pursue an idea, you have to externalize that

thought processes.

And by--
And through externalizing it,

you're revealing the possession of material

that's been given to you.

And you're identifying yourself with it

in a very particular, associative manner.

And all sorts of processes start happening in the act of externalization.

As to how a woman arrives at her ideas,

often I find that if you make a statement about an idea,

it's arriving from a fairly--

An individualistic point of view, rather than a reactive point of view

within a conversation.

Like the way in which I approach...

our activities,

the way in which our activities are presented to me.

The response to the origin of the idea,

in terms of a woman, is often, like,

you know, like, how brilliant...

we don't understand.

You know, where is it coming from?

Maybe it's intuitional or something.

There's some kind of, like, attitude that's intuitional

rather than really referential to the cultural material available.

Whereas, in observing men's conversations with each other,

I find that they...

That immediately the response is about how to assimilate

that idea into the cultural references.

In other words,

the response is about giving support to the origins of the idea,

rather than separating it off from the common--

Common culture.

Makes it very complicated for a woman to...

go through the total exposition of her ideas.

Because she then becomes involved in--

In dealing with her presentation on two levels.

One, which is about the content, the ideational content

of her thought.

And the other, which is about sort of being extremely sensitive

and being extremely aware of the problems

of the situation and of how to, like...

I sort of like, through my own work,

or through the group, or through conversations with you,

those things come together.

That's what I'm really talking about when I'm talking about,

like, the problem of pursuing an idea.

It's like, how do you become responsible for ideas

and keep evolving them

if you don't feel you have any effect on-- On the culture?

I noticed that they all have a very definite style

in the way they move.

They're kind of dignified.

Glenda's not really dignified.

She likes to clown around a lot more physically.

But the others have a certain kind of--

At least that's what I remember of her, she may be different now.

The others have a certain kind of a strength.

Marion, for instance, stands up very straight and tall.

It makes me think about other groups that I know about.

I don't think they're similar,

but it makes me think about people in them.

Around the time the Bloomsbury group...

We bring historical and social information

to their own personal experiences.

We see ourselves in relation to women of the past.

We provide a grounding for women of the future.

And the seriousness that they have about--

I think that they have about their lives...

The way they show Susan's films, I mean,

they've gotten together, and got all the pieces together,

and showed them.

That was a very important thing for them to do.

We try to confront our responsibilities realistically.

We try to be realistic.

We have put together a retrospective of films

by Susan Stockman.

We edited the program together.

We printed a pamphlet listing the films selected,

and collating some of Susan's writings.

The viewing was on two consecutive nights,

the first for women, and the second for women and men.

Everything else was sort of vague and was being made

unclear to you. And Susan was

a clear thing because it grabbed hold of us, saying:

"Well, this is one thing that definitely is an element

in their closeness."

But what else?

What are the other things?

Those other things never became clear to me.

The mythification of her charisma and beauty.

Her strong stance as a lesbian.

I mean, I don't feel like I'm just out for myself at all.

I feel like I'm out for women too.

I guess it has a lot to do with Susan.

That I feel like I should make it more explicit.

She had so much nerve in presenting that kind of material.

I feel like we're missing that now.

You know, she was very, very strong.

She was like a tyrant.
That's how Kathleen described her.

She was a tyrant, she was a little tyrant to Kathleen.

She was very beautiful.

That's one thing to look at.
She was incredible.

I think that Susan was so...

It was such a mysterious thing.

Like you said, like, before she really...
Charismatic, I guess. I don't know.

Well I'll tell you, when I first saw her,

I thought-- First time I saw her,

I thought that she was really a nut because she was all dressed up.

She used to wear, like, really fantastic clothes...

when I was wearing jeans, and T-shirts, and stuff...

She was wearing these shorts, and black tights,

and big black boots, and everything...

After a while, I thought she was probably the most beautiful person I had ever seen.

At the party, all these people coming up and wanting to talk to her.

And she wore, like, this little bathing-suit top.

But, like, you know, she was obviously exposed,

but very beautiful-looking, of course.

I was sort of taken by her physical appearance, but I never...

We were a group without a leader, without a structure.

We were flexible, open-ended,

concerned with process, free to go in any direction.

Her sexuality, really, was so revealing

that it had led her to a certain point

where maybe she couldn't have--
She had blossomed.

We begin

to explore our sexuality.

We being

to know each other as lovers

as well as friends.

This brings us closer together.

We become more

and more self-sufficient.

Men are threatened

by this intimacy.

We begin

to see men as the enemy.

The idea-- The idea of the...

That sex is a...

is a necessity.

It's the same as, uh...

I think, is bullshit.

Like, it's a myth.

Well...

it's not absolutely necessary.

But I mean... That's what...

I mean, people think that if you don't, you know...

If you don't have sex for a period of time...

There's something wrong with you.

Yeah, there's something wrong with you.

I mean, how could you celebrate--?
How could you celebrate...?

How could you, uh...?

sort of justify celibacy?

I mean, 'cause celibacy isn't really accepted

even though it's another way.

But it's not really accepted like when you're having sex.

Or sex with a person.

I mean, you have to have sex to exist.

That's the...

- That's the rule.
- Yeah.

Well, I've enjoyed both.

It's okay. I mean, you can be a homosexual, that's fine.

But there's something better, I mean...

And that's, like, the same thing about what sex is about.

You may be perfectly happy not having any sex,

but that's not what we're supposed to be like.

We're supposed to have sex, a fulfilled sex life all the time.

Or, you know, there's something wrong.

You can't be happy.
Can't possibly be happy.

Same thing about homosexuality...

The only time I don't like it is when I feel like I don't have a choice.

We were a group without a leader,

a group without structure.

We were flexible, open-ended,

concerned with process, free to go in any direction.

We didn't see that we had an implicit structure

whose basis was power, competition, and antagonism.

We had assumed there were no conflicts.

We had deceived ourselves with what we thought

we should be thinking and feeling.

There was this women's consciousness-raising group

that everyone was in but me.

I mean, Marion, and Glenda, and Susan,

and Kathleen, and some other women who were in it.

Someone came up to me and said, "Oh you know that women's group

is meeting tonight, do you want to go?"
And I said, "Yeah!"

Because the only reason
I wanted to go was to hear Susan

and to hear what she had to say.

I just thought she was amazing.

So I went, you know, and it was very strange.

Glenda tried to throw me out because I was a stranger

and I would change the nature of the group.

You know, she said, "Well, you know,

we really shouldn't have strange people because I don't

feel as though I trust them, and I feel like I trust you."

And I just went, "Oh, my God!"

At first she felt paranoid and discriminated against

because she was gay and the rest of us were straight.

But the tides turned, and she began to make us feel more

and more guilty about being heterosexual.

Then, when two of us slept with women,

she criticized us by saying that we were just conforming

to external pressures.

She told us that she was emotionally a lesbian

while we were just politically-motivated heterosexuals

who identified with men.

As the group continues to meet,

we realize that we don't know how to act or what to act on.

Our abstractions have become generalizations.

We've become obsessed with the politics

of our personal lives.

Our politics have become sexual politics.

I'm right in the middle of, uh, you know,

all sorts of changing, all sorts of things in my life.

And Glenda was, like, demanding to know

why some women were lesbians and some weren't.

I mean, I have no idea.

And it's almost the farthest thing from my mind, frankly.

That's what she talked about, how her lesbianism affects the group.

And I'm just going, "Huh?"

It was almost to the point where I almost said:

"I don't care if you're a lesbian.
I don't even want to think about it."

I know it affects the group, you know,

in a lot of subtle ways, but I'm just not thinking about it at all.

I think it has to do with each individual's passivity.

I think that's my main criticism of the way

people interact in the group, their passivity within the situation.

Forum's not something which just suddenly happens.

It's not necessarily instigated by other people

or external situations.

Forum is passive because it suggests that a person

is incapable of perceiving something in a new light

or re-examining something they think they've already known before.

It takes some really overt political action.

We don't agree with some women's ideas.

But we fear being disloyal and we fear being rejected

if we express criticism.

We feel that we have to be supportive.

Yet we feel hostility and resentment

as we suppress our true feelings.

That's why I think, in a way, the group is kind of failing

because...

there's not a commitment of each individual to the...

whatever the whole is.

It's just like...

so nebulous, you know?

It's good to know the whole...

commitment and there's not enough of it.

Argue about the politics of our personal lives.

We argue about separatism.

Bisexuality does not exist.

Ultimately, you want to be in a relationship with a man.

That's Glenda's big theory, you should be emotionally bisexual.

It's very interesting just because
I'm living with a man now.

I used to have a lot of guilt about being involved with men.

It's natural, I think.

Because you're just afraid that it takes away from, uh,

your integrity.

Just, like, try staying for an hour and saying, "I've got to go now."

Being with a man is very, very easy.

It's, uh, not challenging.

It's not exciting.

It's very easy because you can get along very easily so well...

And, then, with women, it's really different.

Highly different.
Highly traumatic, almost.

It just really takes a lot, a lot of work.

I feel very guilty, but the reason is,

not just that I'm seeing a man, it's just that I'm really

very much involved emotionally and mentally with this same man.

Although I have tried to have sexual relationships

with a couple of women.

I was just so scared of it.

She can really have relationships with men that are

very, like, substantial but are very creative.

I mean, she's the kind of person that needs to have a man,

I think, to a lot of extents.

Just like I know that I do too.

But I know what her reasons are.

Because she's intimidated by the man and his values.

It's because, for her, it's a growth.

She told me that she had been in love with me for a year

and that she wanted to sleep with me.

I felt funny about it, but knew that she had never said this

to a woman before.

I liked spending time with her until we started making love.

I couldn't deal with her body.

I wasn't attracted to her at all.

Her breasts were too big, and I didn't know what to do with them.

But I started to feel guilty and had to go through with it.

I hated myself. I felt as ugly as a man.

We used to talk about it a lot. And I sort of felt like...

But I knew that I couldn't possibly--

I couldn't because I didn't feel this love for her.

It couldn't manifest itself in a physical way.

I mean, I've loved a lot of women in like a,

you know, just the warmth, and the awareness,

and the being close.

But I just never, you know-- I've never pulled

anyone's clothes off, you know?

As the group continues to meet over a longer period of time,

the joy and exhilaration ends.

We find that we have failed to question our disagreement

with other women's ideas.

We haven't been truthful to ourselves.

We haven't been truthful to each other.

I would be open about being seduced by anyone. No.

I was just really surprised.

First, that you said that I was gay.

And second, that you said that you slept with a woman.

Why?

I guess I'm surprised because I don't expect...

I mean, it's really true.

I mean, a heterosexual woman cannot understand.

A lot of it comes from how she didn't trust me

because I wasn't a lesbian...

I mean, that's poor, and I said, oh,

it's like I go to the movies and it's all these heterosexuals...

and they're even piling in more and more.

When we begin to criticize other women,

we're seen as impure.

We become identified with contamination from the outside.

Ideological differences are seen as betrayals.

We begin to see each other as the enemy.

It's more appealing being with a woman than a man.

That's for sure.

But in terms of being called a lesbian, that's not very appealing.

It's more appealing being with a woman than a man,

but being called a lesbian is, like, embarrassing.

I mean, how could I be called a lesbian?

Worse than being called a lesbian is being called a dyke.

I'd rather be called a dyke than a lesbian.

- Really?
- I don't know.

I mean, it's easier when people say you go out with women or men.

We had deceived ourselves with what we thought

we should be thinking and feeling.

We begin to drift apart.

We sense that our lives are separating.

We form strong relationships outside of the group.

We have no function together.

We argue about the politics of our personal lives.

We argue about separatism.

We take sides.

Women...

primarily relate to women.

Their main ideas come from women and not from men.

As women...

our language with men...

a choice of ideas...

is a priority.

Well, I don't understand what that has to do with me.

I mean, in terms of your putting me in the conversation.

Since I don't really see myself relating primarily to men.

Besides my brothers, I have exactly one friend that's a man.

I'm not asking to, uh, I don't know,

justify your lifestyle or something.

I'm not justifying my lifestyle.

I mean, I told you how I felt and you gave me an abstract

statement that I'm supposed to infer something from

about the conduct of men and men, women and women, and women and men.

Well, I guess what I'm saying are like stemming

from a cultural...

political view with.

And in this particular case...

it's not personal at all.

But when I described my situation to you...

and also told you, you know, why it was important to me...

you replied by saying that.

I could be saying it to Lizzie and some man.

It really has nothing to do with personal.

I mean,
I agree with you that it's true

that some women give support to men and some women give support

to women.

But I have no idea, if it's not personal,

why you said it.

I felt that you should know that.

I know that's what you believe,

but the only thing that I can infer from that means

- that I don't relate to women.
- No.

I think that's sort of like a false issue.

We fail to realize that this disagreement

is personal and individual, preventing us from collective action.

Well, I think that's a false issue.

In many ways,
I can see that, of course,

women in the society have never had the opportunity to create

relationships with one another.

We fail to realize that this disagreement

only perpetuates our existence in relation to men.

All those things have been given over

to relationships between men and women.

Although the thing to counteract that has been to be with women,

and not to be with men.

I think that's a valid thing to do...

Our energy is spent fighting each other.

These arguments are reactionary, making it impossible

for us to take a collective stance.

The guilt is reactionary,

an insulation of fear and anxiety created by a certain sector of radical...

I got this feeling that,

you know, here are all these people involved in art and thinking

about their role as a woman, and who wants to be liberated,

and who wants just to identify their sexuality,

and who wants to make a great piece of art.

And here, like, this thing happens with this girl...

Some of us were more powerful than others.

We resented domination and refused to admit its existence.

Well, because Susan was the only thing that you could get.

Susan was, at last, some personality that you could deal with

because nobody else was offering you personality or feeling.

People talked about Susan with some feeling.

But they didn't talk about the materials of meetings with feeling.

They didn't talk about talk other with feeling.

Yeah, her presence was very strong.

Well, I didn't know her as well as everyone else did.

I think Marion and I knew her the least.

Because Glenda and Kathleen were personally involved with her, and we...

In our groups, we've insisted on equality.

We'd feel guilty making decisions for others.

We'd be scorned, rejected, or pulled down if we tried.

It would be seen by other women as manipulation,

power hunger, or betrayal.

We are afraid of leadership.

We fear the hierarchies it might set out.

It brought so many people together, really has...

We're all, like, felt.

You didn't know Susan?

My God. Well, who knew Susan?

Something not quite right about it, okay?

Like the image that's built up is not human.

And I always remember,

like, you know,
Ariel saying, "It's very bizarre."

It's very bizarre.

And I remember her taking out Susan's clothes

and showing me this was hers

and this was hers.

I've started to talk about one individual now.

Susan was, um...

It was a terrible shock when she was killed.

And I think the day that she was killed,

or the day after, all the others came over here,

and we just sat in silence, and, uh...

that was one of the times that I was with all of them together,

it was right before I was going to start shooting a film,

and Susan was supposed to be in the film.

So we start shooting two weeks later.

And, um...

I think there was a lot of anger about her death,

especially from Glenda, who expressed it...

by throwing this hoop across this enormous lot.

An enormous, empty lot.

And, uh, there was a lot of anger in the film anyway.

But I think the anger was felt by...

Some of us were more powerful than others.

We resented domination and refused to admit its existence.

I resent in it some way.

What? To talk about it?

That it keeps coming up as, like, this big subject.

We idolize strong women but hated them for their strength.

I used to go to the meetings, and this was in the very beginning.

And then very soon after the meetings started,

Susan died.

Well, it was like she was a saint. I mean, nothing...

It was really strange, like, thinking that she died

and knowing that-- Well, my--
This is my theory, is that she wanted to.

After Susan died was the time...

Well, everyone was very sad, and...

I realized in later conversations with Kathleen that...

I had never thought anything bad--
Badly about Susan at all.

When we were alive--
When she was alive,

nothing occurred to me that was negative about her personality.

And I trusted her completely.

She was my confidant, so to speak.

And, uh, after...

In later conversations with Kathleen,

I realized that she had everyone in perspective.

She always has people in perspective.

And she had Susan in perspective.

And I don't think that anybody else
I knew had Susan in perspective.

Everyone had a very glorified image of her.

Another thing that disturbs me a little bit--

I don't know if I should be saying this on camera.

But, um, I always felt that I had, you know,

a very special, close relationship with her...

- With Susan?
- With Susan.

And, uh, then, later, it was suggested to me that...

This was kept--
That Susan really sort of, uh...

I don't know how to put it.

But almost as if she sort of knew what was happening between us

and kept me there, you know?

Sort of because she knew how much I thought about her.

I'm not saying that she didn't think that back or feel that way

back towards me, but that she knew something

that I didn't know about what was happening between us,

and she sort of kept it there.

It sounds sneaky, doesn't it?
But I don't mean it like that.

It doesn't sound sneaky,

it sounds very realistic about someone who has a kind of charisma.

It's like that consciousness that it, you know...

- I mean, being very aware...
- Yeah.

She must have been. She must have been.

Because she had that effect on everybody.

And after you have that effect on everybody,

you must get used to it after a while and begin to understand what's happening.

But holding back...?
Is that what you're saying?

I think she was well aware of how beautiful she was

and how arresting she was.

- I mean... Um...
- Mm-hmm.

I guess you get used to it after a while,

and then maybe you can start to understand how...

Also, she was in a situation through her whole life

where she had to learn to get what she wanted from things.

And she was...
And her background was, um...

Well, it made her that way, made her...

She had to get what she wanted by herself.

We're suspicious of leaders.

We don't like stars.

Leaders and stars set themselves above other women,

taking credit for their achievements.

Beginning to realize, like, the spiritual aspect of ourselves.

And it wasn't interpreted that way.

It was very-- They became very tight with each other,

and closed, and they built the myth...

It's men who want leaders and stars.

When we say that we don't, they argue

that we just don't know how to handle positions of power

and responsibility.

It bound them on, like, an invisible level.

But also bound them more on a worldly level,

but sort of bound them so tight that they can't...

They can't go out to something else.

History is re-written.

We're forced to drag our leaders down.

And that's why your fascination with Susan

and the part of Kathleen reading the letter to me are the most

effective parts of the movie because there's some--

Something deeper than just, you know, a body.

That attitude will make problems for us

because there is the problem of credits.

You know, the film is a film by Lizzie Borden with us.

She was the director, and in the end,

she was, you know, going to have the responsibility and the credit

for the overall, you know, themes of the film.

Like she would analyze everything,

then she'd say, "The film is about this, and this, and this."

And I wasn't sure how much I wanted to, uh...

contribute my ideas the way it was set up.

It's your film.

You're the subject, and we're sort of the objects.

I mean,
I don't see myself as a subject.

I guess because it's not my idea.

So I'm like an object that's being used.

She just didn't come in and want to try

and catch things about us.

She wanted us to catch things about each other as well.

Split us up externally from the group, in order to reveal things

to her about the group.

She put the film together in a very subjective manner.

Uh, and we didn't have any say in what she edited.

I don't understand who you could be responsible to

and say something like that.

Where exactly is your responsibility?

Someone to take advantage of context

within the women's movement.

These women are opportunists.

They exploit our concerns for their use.

They pry our concerns away from their true sources.

These women have no political integrity.

They refuse to commit themselves.

They don't see our politics in the context

of living, changing women.

They treat us as objects, as tools for their own success.

Your values. Where do you get your values from?

We were the people that were holding everything back,

and then made the film kind of a failure.

We didn't really exist in the film as people

who were thinking about things, discussing anything intelligent.

You know, it was all, like, these sort of unconnected things

that there was no direct communication in the film

or no theme carrying through the film except what she implies.

She hadn't really shown the connections

that we have as a group.

That we do trust each other and that we are intimate in a certain way.

None of that was brought out in the film.

Also, that we do things together.

None of that was shown.

It means responsibility.

It means that what you have to say should have some use to other people.

Some women exploit conflicts within the group for their own use.

They represent the male world and take us back

to that world in forms of packaging they call art, critique, or document.

I feel that there is a definite obligation.

They're less interested in community than in personal success.

The successful women who have made it by themselves.

The public knows this only through distorted information.

We're lost.

We lose all meaningful context for our work.

...things about your surrounding.

It's not a matter of being normal,

it's a matter of seeing the values that are around you and...

The visuals were all sort of uninteresting.

They were-- They were not planned-out shots, you know?

So that you didn't get things like camera angles

and interesting lighting going on.

And that was sort of a problem.

We wanted to deal with the elements of filmmaking.

What you're asking is the closeness in what you're doing--

- Hello?
- Hi. How are you?

Oh, just very, very upset.

And very sort of fucked up.

Like, is Glenda's argument against any use at all of Susan in any way?

She was just really shocked, you know, that...

Well, I mean,
I think we all were surprised,

to be honest, just at the impact, you know?

And that you had made certain limited and definite choices.

But then it was also that it was--
That you chose Susan.

It seemed to give a slant to everything.

In that sense, you know, it's not accurate.

And I understand her feelings, you know?

Like if someone who is really close to you died,

and, uh, that whole experience was, like,

taken as a sort of device by someone to do something else.

I mean, that's part of the reasons why

the whole thing about Susan came off looking the way it does.

In a certain sense, she seemed even more active than we were.

It was constant battling and didn't end.

I mean, in the end, you resolved it by saying:

"Okay. I agree, I'm your enemy."

The consequence of what you're saying is that every act

that you have,

everything that you create has no continuity.

Like, you're not dealing with developing a conscience.

I mean, I even have an example.

Like, let's say the price of food in the grocery store,

and everybody is complaining about the price of food.

But everybody's acting independently.

Everybody's got their own price, right?
But they're not doing anything about it.

- They're not...
- That's bullshit!

That's not bullshit.

That's a perfect, practical example of human life.

Now, this is what you're trying to deny.

Listen, Lizzie. I don't see why you're getting emotional.

You can't have an argument when you're acting emotionally.

You must stick to the issues.

Some women refuse to meet us as peers.

We're forced to see such women as the enemy.

We demand that they give up their privileges.

We demand that they work equally with us.

We demand that they put the group above individual gain.

We demand that they identify their game for the good of the group.

You have to deal with the people that are important to you.

And to that extent, it's critical.
But that's it.

So it is very fragmented, and the group reliance is very minimal.

Right now I'm wondering if--

In terms of the structure of this little group right now,

is this kind of a dialogue about, say, the, um...

the function of art, or of scientific discovery,

or the machinations of the support systems behind it, etc.

uh... um...

a topic of conversation that has to be between a group of women, um,

or can that be re-channeled for us at this point to include

something else and be more specifically pertinent?

In other words, like, what you were just talking about is--

Was sort of touched upon by that meeting last Sunday night

by a huge group of people, men and women, who are all very much

concerned with art in a socialist or Marxist kind of context,

or art in capitalist system, or whatever.

But I just-- I sort of see this group as having, um...

a more specific kind of focus on that.

In other words, is there such a thing, perhaps,

or should there be such a thing as a feminist kind of art?

Can one deal with art politically in that context?

Well, I mean, I'm just saying--
We just think so.

I understand that, but I just want to hear it said more specifically.

All right, I can add to that.

I think that when the question, you know...

arising about, you know, is there a feminist art or is art political?

I mean, which means, if there's gonna be a feminist art,

or if there is, then it is political.

And I don't believe that art is political for the reasons

that I gave if they're clear.

I don't think art has been political, but I don't see why it can't be.

See, a really big thing is the feelings, like,

what holds the group together of course is, like, their feelings for one another.

And you allude to that through image like with all the meals

and everything that you show.

It's feeling for one another and love that they have for one another.

But the only time that that's ever expressed is in the letter.

And it's about me who's not even in the.

"Dearest Miriam.

As I fall into an exhausted state,
I must write to you.

I have seen you on film tonight and cannot let time go by

before I tell you how it affected me.

First was the impact your presence had

in a very stark and surprisingly well-formed frame for Lizzie.

You were calm and eloquent in your demeanor.

The rhythm created by your slow, constant movement,

a dark shadow moving along the curves of your brow

as you consider your words.

Your hands, paler than your face, in a different area than your face,

which took them out of the range of the shadows.

They belonged on your face,

running through your hair,

creating the stark effect of your poses.

How beautiful your skin looked over your cheeks,

luminous against the dark shadows of the hidden half of your face

and the dark hollows of your eyes.

Your brow sometime seemed to express a concern,

then a musing, concentration.

It was all so beautiful to guess what you were saying.

I'm filled with admiration not even knowing what you said.

Such perfection is a grand reflection on whatever you said.

Finally, they should never be able to remove the thrill

of guessing as that is linked to watching your face

on the screen,

playing with the light as you formed your words.

I still cannot know what it means to have you care about me

or why it has happened.

Very few people give me as much pleasure as you

or inspire the admiration your mere presence has for me.

Your beauty will never cease to touch me,

though now I must admit
I'm falling back

on romantic convention in my pleas to express to you..."

The issue wasn't one of whether or not women should all

get together and make art that will be definitely political--

Fists raised, art that says "feminism forever" or something.

But whether there isn't some kind of self-investigation that, um,

elicits certain kinds of responses that are different

from the kinds of responses that have come from male-oriented art,

writing, anthropological discoveries,

what have you, for so many years.

Whether or not the influx of women into all these occupations

has to give a whole other point of view just because

of an acculturation process, etc.

It's not necessarily an issue of political art,

but maybe an issue of...

It's politicized by the process by a critical approach being introduced.

Yeah, I had the idea that--
That in as much as you're capable

of asking yourself certain questions about

how you function and how you fit in to the world

and what you want to do in the world that...

as much as you ask yourself those questions,

those questions will appear in your work.

No matter what your work.

I mean, because...

I mean, the assumptions that you're not willing to make about your field,

about yourself in that field, about, you know, the position of your...

Your field in the larger society, that those questions will just appear.

And that it's not really that self-conscious that you don't

get together and say, you know, "Well, we're all gonna make, you know,

uh, works of art that look this way."

But instead you don't even question the function

of the work of art, you know?

And that those questions then will appear in what you're doing.

And that...

I mean, that the reason to talk to each other, then, is...

to help yourself continue to ask yourself those questions.

Absolutely. Absolutely.

But as the group continues, we find no reason to be together.

We begin to drift apart.

We sense that our lives are separating.

We form strong relationships outside of the group.

We have no function together.

I kept asking myself:

"What's the purpose of supporting each other?

Of talking about ourselves?"

Some meetings degenerate to the level of gossip

or talk about clothes and food.

Even so, I kept coming for several months,

hoping that things would change.

I felt committed to the group and loved the women in it.

I wanted to come to some resolution,

but I knew we'd never get anywhere by becoming more and more intimate.

It was like amateur group therapy.

I quit.

Now I feel isolated.
I don't know where to go.

She felt like she wasn't being useful.

We never really understood--

We knew that we didn't want to be a consciousness-raising group.

But we really didn't know what to talk about.

We'd be fine, and then we'd sit down and say...

The beginning stages of the group is a means

of action and organization.

And we went through long periods of--

Every meeting was like this.

Every meeting was a traumatic experience.

Every meeting was an ordeal.

What were we gonna talk about?

A community where we can develop

our ideas without intimidation...

And then I start thinking, "What do I want from this group?"

And I didn't know.
I didn't know what I could get out of it.

It's a very infantile stage, and I couldn't get myself out of this.

We become more and more intimate.

We cut ourselves off from former lovers and friends.

But as the group continues to meet,

we find that we have cut ourselves off from sources of growth.

Couldn't place myself in it, and I don' think they could either.

But trying.
You know, really, we were all trying.

And it got so...

We had this image, also.

For some reason, as soon as the group formed,

we had publicity about it.

At the second meeting or something, there was a conversation...

We unconsciously control each other.

It becomes overbearing.

I don't want to have anybody think

that I'm being disloyal or anything.

But I think at that stage, it was very disorganized,

and nobody really knew what they wanted, and we were struggling.

I think the film reflects that feeling a little bit,

that sort of struggling to know even why that intimacy exists.

And I just felt like there's no sense for me to be here

if I don't know why I'm here.

If I feel like I'm coming here and I'm not getting anything done.

And if I'm here and I can't tell anybody why I'm here,

then I'm not gonna get anything out of it.

And so I left.

We begin to drift apart.

We sense that our lives are separating.

We no longer have a shared language and goal.

We no longer know what we can give to each other.

We become more involved in our own problems

than in the problems of the group.

We sense that we are working at cross-purposes.

We feel that the maintenance of the group

is destructive to the individual.

We feel that the group inhibits individual growth.

We begin to form strong relationships

outside of the group.

We have no function together.

The group falls apart.

And I really feel that

even though there's all, uh, this antipathy towards you

and the film and what happened since the film,

in a way, that's the sort of nexus of the group.

I mean, that's when things started picking up for the group, in a way.

I think it was...

In a way, you wanted to expose them.

But they... They became stronger...

It sort of created more of this group thing,

the image, or gave it more of...
You know, like a foundation,

and a form, and a structure that it would have

never, never had if maybe if you would have never chose to,

you know, do this film.

And to me, you making the film...

The way we're represented in the film didn't at all

reflect the way that, you know, we wanted to exist as a group.

We still don't want her.

We still want to keep our intimacy, our privacy intact.

So we don't want to be used, so that she can discover it.

We felt we had to do this last scene.

What's this last scene?

The last scene was meant to deal with elements

of our interaction.

It's also meant to represent our position as a group...

And we wanted to represent our interaction

in some sort of abstract form.

Not necessarily be discussing the group,

but to just create a piece of film in itself...

We all have to agree

on every single decision that was being made.

And that was one of the initial ideas that we had

that would determine the structure, you know?

So we knew we had to agree.

And then we didn't know what to do, like,

and so we decided--

Or should I say, we decided to have, um...

a situation which would go from general to specific.

We wanted to have some information to talk about.

And we didn't want to just make up an issue.

So we decided sort of randomly...

...buy a house and a dog?

No, no, no, no.

She's gonna buy a house over there by the trees in the square.

Well, why did Kathleen tell me she was gonna buy a house

with a dog?

I was just adding details.

Not necessarily accurate.

But they're not being open about it

because if they're being so private, then they can't expect anything other

than criticism.

They're not revealing anything.

I feel like-- Just to say this,
I feel like such a traitor.

I mean, I would be very upset if anyone heard

what we're talking about.

Maybe they will. I wouldn't want any of them to be angry or upset

about me because I'm an outsider in the group.

I'm not part of the group and I don't understand

what their motivations were, or why they wanted to be private,

or why they agreed to make the film.

I don't know anything about it, and so I'm affected by the image

they present in the film.

But as far as the group goes,
I know nothing.

But as a viewer of the film, you know,
I want something, okay?

I'm there, not to just look at four beautiful girls

presenting an image.

I want something more substantial.

I don't know if I want to hear one of their meetings.

But I want to know why...

Why they're interesting to the person who made the film

and I want a reason for watching them.

I just can't accept them because there they are.

That's not good enough.

I have to hear something worth my time.

If they weren't willing to give that, then why did they agree to make the film?

I think they're afraid.

I think they're afraid that since they have so much publicity

from the outside, especially, so...

And they've been glorified or they've been romanticized

in having a film made about them,

maybe their image has been built up so greatly

that they fear that what the reality is isn't as exciting as the image.

I mean, I'm amazed that this is, like, a story about

the mythology of heroines.

They want to make their image as mythological

as possible.

And they talk about myth a lot.

But they want to appear as heroines.

They want to be the heroines of the movie.

And that's just symbolic of a whole set of values

and a whole system that we've all come out of.

The interesting thing is, as you started talking,

I was just thinking back to what
Barbara had said earlier about, um,

feeling trepidatious about the whole group situation

and I was agreeing with you.

I guess I didn't know why form a women's group at this point.

I mean, I'm living my life,
I'm dealing with a lot of problems,

but I'm dealing with my problems, and I'm in therapy,

and I'm dealing with the therapy, and I'm dealing with career changes,

and all the rest.

And I'm hearing Nancy talking, and I'm suddenly realizing that

there is a common ground that I'd like to find at some point

that, yes, it would be very helpful to have a supportive situation

in which the given would be that we would try

and find out something about those kinds of feelings at this point

in our lives.

I mean, we know what happened when we were like 24 and 5,

or whatever, mid-60s, the whole kind of radical foment period

of time in which women's groups were being formed.

Now what about this period of time in which you're facing

the realities of your life at a different stage and confronting

certain things slightly differently that are either painful,

or difficult, or just need some kind of affirmation,

some context to be placed in.

I just had a really strong response to you saying that.

I think just a sentence like:

"I want to talk to other women."

That seems, "Well, you talk to other women,"

but in truth, especially in subcultures,

you know, and I know that it functions also outside the art world,

is that you know a lot of people.

Perhaps you meet someone, or you say hello,

or there's a street contact, or whatever levels there are.

And yet, what kind of interaction,

what is the quality of interaction that you have with other women?

How guarded is it? How honest is it?

How much does it have to do with influence?

How real is it? How much do we expose?

And I think that sometimes within the complexities and the tensions

of the subculture, a women's group does give you an arena

to perhaps unveil and let go of some of that,

and just be honest with one another.

I think that's a good point.

My initial feeling was that if I started in a group

at this point, I would like it to be oriented towards a work or study

or political project.

And I was sort of also bypassing it, saying, "Well..."

The consciousness-raising group that I was in

was very interesting, very helpful for me,

but definitely it was a thing of its own time.

And I still guess
I have a lot of anxiety about that

that the process of that group created a family out of a group

of separate individuals.

The kind of family that I don't want to be in again.

And more of a model of a family that I want.

Some of us feel that the dissolution of the group

means that the impetus of the women's movement has been lost.

Some of us feel isolated and incomplete without the group.

We try to reorganize.

We form small core groups of women whose ideas are similar.

We were uncomfortable together.

And we all felt dissatisfied with it because it wasn't going anywhere.

We split up, and afterwards,

talking individually, we found out that each of us had

felt like the outsider, and that everyone else belonged

but that she didn't.

We found that we had been so intimidated by the myth of unity

that none of us brought up our feelings of alienation.

We started to meet again.

I told you about that thing where each person

takes a meeting and no one can interrupt them?

And then each person gets a chance to respond

and nobody can interrupt them.

They are really interesting 'cause you just sit there...

Or just to acknowledge the fact that that's where the development was going on,

whether we wanted it to happen that way or not.

Otherwise, we wouldn't have such a good conversation.

Some of us think the women's group is reactionary.

We feel that the dissolution of the group is a step forward.

We feel that it's a hopeful sign.

We feel that feminism can move ahead only

if the group dissolves and then reunite on different grounding.

We feel that growth is individual.

We feel that it is only after we have grown that we

we can come together and work again.

We come together as stronger individuals.

The group wasn't conducted in a way that allowed for it--

Not only allowed for it, but made it possible

for that to be useful to everyone else.

Something that you could discuss without feeling like it wasn't

relevant to the group.

That's been our saving point all along, I think.

We've always made the group just whatever we were doing

at the time anyway.

...influenced the group is by our personal relationships.

And we're trying to each regain our own independence

from each other at the same time as realizing

just what those relationships are.

You know, what kind of psychological feeling they create.

The only things that were really uncovered

were the power setup.

You know, the way that people thought about other people...

We come together as women who have tested

our strength in the outside world.

We respect each other's points of view.

We have more confidence in ourselves.

We no longer demand a consensus.

We no longer have to be agreeable and supportive.

We're not afraid to challenge each other's ideas.

We see the criticism in challenge

can only make us more powerful.

We respect each other only if we don't criticize

each other's sexual relationships.

Our politics are no longer sexual politics.

We learned from the past.

We see how we have manipulated each other.

We uncover the power relationships

in our language and behavior.

We see how our personal relationships have

affected the nature of the group.

We see that our distrust of other women only

reflected our insecurity.

It's almost like an acknowledgment of competition.

That's true, but that creates real feelings

that dominate...

We see that our propaganda only reiterated

the power hierarchies that exist between men and women.

We see that we have resented and feared each other.

We see that we've been competitive with each other.

We see that we have hidden behind the veil of sisterhood.

That's really what we've been talking about.

First of all, I think...

being in groups...

has, overall, revolutionary political implications.

Because I think in order for change to occur,

we have to combat those particular ideas about individuality,

about individual achievement and hierarchal structures,

and begin to develop some kind of sense of...

lateral relationships between people.

- And...
- Difficult.

Difficult but easier for women.

- Yes.
- Absolutely.

- But still difficult.
- Still difficult, yes.

Particularly difficult because...

rewards are offered for those who would abandon the lateral

and to move beyond.

What's very interesting to me is so far

what's being talked about is so different from the first time

my consciousness-raising group got together, right?

We were so totally tuned into...

well, an optimism about an eventual

change if we changed our inner selves,

or our inner personal dynamics,

or sensed that a group structure that began to work with

would in some way be a model for grouping behavior

in the environment at large.

There was an optimism afoot in that period of time.

Yeah, much more task-oriented.

...for so long,

that if I aligned my mind properly

that everything would change.

And I'm so disappointed, you know?

Because I feel like I've come so far...

Watch that instant gratification.

Instant?

I mean, it's been years, you know?

And I've come so far,

and, you know,

I'm in the middle of nowhere.

But I don't agree with you.