Basic HTML Version
tics, the economy, religion, psy–
chological theory, human sexuali–
ty, morality and the very evolu–
tion of the race" ( Betty Friedan,
New Yo rk
Times
magazine,
March 4, 1973).
"A world where me n and
women would be equal is easy to
vis ual ize ... women ra ised and
trained exactly like men ... mar–
riage ... based on a fre.e agree–
ment that the spouses could break
at will ... con t r acept io n an d
a bortion ... au thorized . . . preg-
nancy leaves ... paid for by the
State, wh i c h would ass um e
charge of the chi ldren, signifying
not that they would be
taken
away from
their parents, but that
they would not be
abandoned
to
them" (Simone de Beauvoir ,
Sec–
ond Sex,
p. 682, Ba ntam
Books).
But don't stop here. Listen to
feminist Roxanne Dunbar:
"The present female liberation
movement must be viewed within
the context of international social
revolution ... and lik e other
movements, we have taken the
basic tools o f Marx ist ana ly–
sis ... Engels identi fied the fami–
ly as the basic unit of capitalist
society a nd of female oppres–
sion.... How will the family unit
be des troyed? ... the alleviations
of the duty of full-ti mc chi ld care
in pr ívate situat ions will free
many women.... But more than
that, the demand alone will throw
the whole ideology of the family
into quest ion, so that women can
begin establishing a community
of work with each other, and we
can fi ght collectively" (Roxanne
Dunbar,
The New Feminism in
Twentieth Century America,
pp.
186-1 88).
"Chi ldrearing should no Ionger
be the responsibility solely of the
parents. Society must begin to
take responsibility for children;
the economic dependence of
women and children on the hus–
band-father must be ended. The
other work that goes on in the
home must also be changed–
communal cating place·s and Iaun–
dr ies for example. When such
work is moved into the publ ic
August 1980
sector, then the material basis for
discrimination against women
will be gone" (Margaret Bentson,
ibid,
p.
200).
The Call for Revolutlon
This revolutionary push for an
egaJitarian society involves the
deliberate attempt by a relative
handful of "radicals" and "mod–
erate extremists" to foist off the
myth that the women of Amer–
ica
want
to be independent of
their husbands, have Iifelong ca–
reers and be free of the burden
of rearing children. A case in
point is the Preamble to th e
U.S. Women 's Agenda whic h
begins:
"We, women of the United
States of America, join together
to challenge our nation.... We
are women with interests and
roots in every sector and at
every leve! of society ... we have
agreed upon issues which must
be addressed as nat ional priori–
ties."
Many feminist women are sin–
gle by choice and have no par–
ticular empathy for the needs
and desi res of married women
and mot hers. Yet it is these
women who claim to represenl
the interests of Ame ri can
women as a whole.
A concerted attempt among
the curren t crop of feminists
exists to make their revolutionary
position palatable to the average
Amer ican woman. They have rec–
ognized the media as a powerful
tool to shape "reality." They have
consequently exerted no Iittle
effort to win support for their
stance in media presentati on.
Such issues as equal pay for equal
work, protection for the abused
wives, and sexual harassment
and jor discrimination on the job
aJI win widespread public support
and form the main content of
newspaper, magazine and televi–
sion coverage.
1n spite of this there is still
widespread distrust and suspicion
of " radical " feminists by the
majority of American women.
Betty Friedan's article in the
J anuary issue of
Redbook
de-
scribed the feelings of the many
nonre vo lutiona ry American
women:
" Do
1
really want to be like
men?" " You have to make it in a
man's wor ld , doing it their way.
1
don't like what it's doi ng to me,"
" Will
1
miss out on life if
1
don't
have chi ldren?"
Women sense disturbing un–
dertones inherent in femi nist
rhetoric. They are hesitant to
accept feminist values as their
own because they really
do
es–
teem their marriage and family
relations hips. One issue which
illustrates this point is the resis–
tance among women which the
Eq u al Righ ts Amendment
(ERA) to the U.S. Constitution
has encountered. The vice presi–
dent of AFL-CIO Communica–
t ions Workers of America says
women in bis union oppose it
(even though the union officers
support and promote it) because
they view the "ERA as a vehicle
for highly educated upperclass
professional women" and "as
somet hi ng that will exchange
domination by men with domi–
nation by anot he r group of
women.... "
There is widespread disagree–
ment over what the ERA will do
for women that the U.S. Consti–
tut ion doesn' t already guarantee.
Opponents vociferously deny it
will insure any bene f its for
women and insist its passage will
remove protection which has
been trad i t ion a ll y accorded
them. But t he supporters are
equally vehement that present
laws do not specifically include
women and that real justice for
women is impossible without the
ERA.
The only thing that can be
stated without equivocation is
that
no one
really knows what
impact the ERA would have on
families and individuaJs
unti/ the
courts start interpreting it in spe–
cific cases
(were it passed).
And this is precisely the heart
of the issue. Feminists really have
no idea if their bra nd of equality
will work. And there are many
(Continued on page 38)
33