In each of these instances, we did not want to hear from an "expert" reporting the results of a research project. We wanted the real experts, the women who had survived and overcome or who are still working to overcome the effects of violence. Since we wanted to hear the authentic voices of these women, we agreed to do as little editing as possible; we suggested changes only to make sure the meaning was clear. As we told you in our editorial, we were overwhelmed by the number and quality of the stories we received. The women who shared their experiences with you in the summer 1992 issue were really the ones who made it possible.

As editors, we were responsible for writing the editorial, and this we also approached collectively. We did not write it until we had a firm list of the contents because we wanted to comment on some of the issues raised by the authors. The four of us spent an hour or so brainstorming for the editorial, deciding on the points we must make, the points it would be nice to make, why we were doing this at all. After we had several pages of notes, one member wrote a draft and each of us got a copy.

At our next meeting, we went through it word by word. Some sentences we thought were fine, most generated a great deal of discussion. In the process, we all learned a lot about how we use language and how we define violence. We went through the re-write process several times. We followed the same process with other sections we wrote and, yes, it does take longer to do this than to have one person write. However, we feel the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. We had a better editorial using the experiences and ideas of four women and we each learned more about violence and education, and the fine shades of distinction that can be made among ways of describing violence and its effects. It is safe to say that we had a positive experience in this collective. First, we produced an excellent issue; it more than fulfilled the goals we had set. We feel good that we provided a forum for women to tell their stories and, in the process, helped other women understand or find their way. We created a national back fence across which women from allover Canada were able to exchange their stories and find validation and support.

Second, the four women in the collective became better friends and gained even more respect for the abilities of the others. Third, we all learned a great deal, which, for women involved in education, is important. We also noted that when CCLOW next sent out a call for a guest editor, it included the option of an "editorial collective." It seems the organization learned something too. Fourth, we gained strength from each other and from the women who contributed; some of them became our friends. When we share ourselves and our abilities, and when what we share is valued and respected by those we share with, we gain strength and confidence. A collective is an ideal way to nurture this process in ourselves and in others.