Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1992, Page 9
many meetings, these women were already discussing forming some kind of radical women’s
organization --as vague and ill-defined as it was in their minds at the time.
Since the 1960s each of these women had been active in the various mutations of the leftist
and/or the women’s movements, and each in her way now felt an acute dissatisfaction with
those experiences. Each was looking for a better way to channel her energies. At one of their
first combined meetings in the summer of 1974, the 13 women met at length in the basement
of one of their houses. They shared their class histories and talked about starting their own
group. Their agreed-upon goal was to build an alternative to the pre-party formations that
came out of the remnants of the student New Left and the antiwar movement. They wanted
to be free of what they saw as the ills rampant in the existing groups, in particular, racism,
sexism, and lack of direction.
The Leader Arrives
When Doreen Baxter started attending their meetings, the discussions took on a new
dimension. She spoke with conviction and dynamism about actually forming a group. Not only
was she well-versed in Marxist theory, but also she had a minor reputation for her theories on
the role of women in capitalist society. She spoke with the assurance of a known figure in the
women’s movement, with published articles and public speeches. Her life experience and her
self-proclaimed history of radical activism added the necessary working-class component to
her image and to her outlook.
In describing her political past (which she did repeatedly and often, particularly in the
formative years of the WDU, whenever she had a group of members around her), she spoke
with flourish and embellishment (and, according to some of her contemporaries, with great
exaggeration) about her years in the Civil Rights Movement, community organizing efforts,
the antiwar movement, the student movement and Students for a Democratic Society (SDS),
the New Left, the women’s movement, the New Communist Movement, and the Canadian
liberation movements. Baxter would boldly proclaim that she saw herself brandishing
impeccable credentials to be anybody’s spokesperson and leader.
Although none of the founders who were interviewed remembered Baxter presenting her class
history at their formative meetings, there were many occasions when she related her version
of at least her recent past in academia. At these times, her words reflected the bitterness,
paranoia, and self-aggrandizement that characterized her behavior --and her leadership. She
was clearly proud to be a woman with a Ph.D. and to have been a university professor. She
insisted that people know she came from a working-class background and that she had
endured many hard-ships and prejudices as a woman in pursuit of a college education and an
academic career. Along with other academics in the 1960s, she supported the existence of
Marxist tendencies within the mainstream disciplines and saw herself as the brunt of moves
by academic reactionaries who were against radical changes. At the first university she
worked for, she claimed that the city’s police department considered her teaching
“dangerously persuasive” and labeled her a “subversive.” According to her own accounts, the
university administration was given this information by a student informer and police
undercover agent on campus.
At the same time, Baxter was quite popular among the students. As a professor who spoke
out for students’ rights, she always managed to draw a coterie of students around her. She
held seminars at her house afterwards there would be drinking, songs, and poems. It was
often a challenge for the students to keep up with her drinking. During this period, there were
occasions when she appeared immobilized with paranoia, childlike, and scared. She got
students to do her errands she couldn’t even go to the grocery store. She began to have
attendants and bodyguards she never went anywhere alone. Her eventual firing by the
university sparked a student protest and sit-in, which put her name on the map of radicalism.
She often proudly stated that this sit-in held in her honor made national headlines for two
many meetings, these women were already discussing forming some kind of radical women’s
organization --as vague and ill-defined as it was in their minds at the time.
Since the 1960s each of these women had been active in the various mutations of the leftist
and/or the women’s movements, and each in her way now felt an acute dissatisfaction with
those experiences. Each was looking for a better way to channel her energies. At one of their
first combined meetings in the summer of 1974, the 13 women met at length in the basement
of one of their houses. They shared their class histories and talked about starting their own
group. Their agreed-upon goal was to build an alternative to the pre-party formations that
came out of the remnants of the student New Left and the antiwar movement. They wanted
to be free of what they saw as the ills rampant in the existing groups, in particular, racism,
sexism, and lack of direction.
The Leader Arrives
When Doreen Baxter started attending their meetings, the discussions took on a new
dimension. She spoke with conviction and dynamism about actually forming a group. Not only
was she well-versed in Marxist theory, but also she had a minor reputation for her theories on
the role of women in capitalist society. She spoke with the assurance of a known figure in the
women’s movement, with published articles and public speeches. Her life experience and her
self-proclaimed history of radical activism added the necessary working-class component to
her image and to her outlook.
In describing her political past (which she did repeatedly and often, particularly in the
formative years of the WDU, whenever she had a group of members around her), she spoke
with flourish and embellishment (and, according to some of her contemporaries, with great
exaggeration) about her years in the Civil Rights Movement, community organizing efforts,
the antiwar movement, the student movement and Students for a Democratic Society (SDS),
the New Left, the women’s movement, the New Communist Movement, and the Canadian
liberation movements. Baxter would boldly proclaim that she saw herself brandishing
impeccable credentials to be anybody’s spokesperson and leader.
Although none of the founders who were interviewed remembered Baxter presenting her class
history at their formative meetings, there were many occasions when she related her version
of at least her recent past in academia. At these times, her words reflected the bitterness,
paranoia, and self-aggrandizement that characterized her behavior --and her leadership. She
was clearly proud to be a woman with a Ph.D. and to have been a university professor. She
insisted that people know she came from a working-class background and that she had
endured many hard-ships and prejudices as a woman in pursuit of a college education and an
academic career. Along with other academics in the 1960s, she supported the existence of
Marxist tendencies within the mainstream disciplines and saw herself as the brunt of moves
by academic reactionaries who were against radical changes. At the first university she
worked for, she claimed that the city’s police department considered her teaching
“dangerously persuasive” and labeled her a “subversive.” According to her own accounts, the
university administration was given this information by a student informer and police
undercover agent on campus.
At the same time, Baxter was quite popular among the students. As a professor who spoke
out for students’ rights, she always managed to draw a coterie of students around her. She
held seminars at her house afterwards there would be drinking, songs, and poems. It was
often a challenge for the students to keep up with her drinking. During this period, there were
occasions when she appeared immobilized with paranoia, childlike, and scared. She got
students to do her errands she couldn’t even go to the grocery store. She began to have
attendants and bodyguards she never went anywhere alone. Her eventual firing by the
university sparked a student protest and sit-in, which put her name on the map of radicalism.
She often proudly stated that this sit-in held in her honor made national headlines for two
