Basic HTML Version
Women's
lib'75:
Moderates vs.
Marxists .
by
LíndaBlosser and Jeff Calkins
Taking a cue frorn the rnotion picture,
"Atice Doesn't Live Here Anyrnore." the
National Organization of Wornen
(NOW) set aside
Wedn~sday.
October
29,
as a national wornen's strilce,
lO
be
known as ''Atice Ooesn't." Wornen were
asked to cancel all their normal activities
- shopping, working, and even sex - to
demonslrate how rnuch "the system" de–
pends upon thern.
The rnove resembled the theme of the
ancient Greek play,
Lysisrrata,
in which
the women ofAthens tried to force their
menfolk to stop a war by withholding
their conjuga( dues. But the modero ver-
. sion wasn't nearly as successful: Em–
ployers and husbands across the country
reponed almost no deviations from the
normal ftow of life.
lt
seems rnost
women weren't even aware that they
were supposed to strilce.
ln
the end,
Alicedid.
lronica.lly, there was another depar–
ture from the story line of
Lysisrrara.
1'he
panicipaniS in the NOW campaign
cancelled their activities not lo
proresr
a
war, but rather lo
escorare
a war - the
war for equality ofihe sexes.
Tbe Equality of the Sexes
To rpost people in our increasingly
secular, equality-worshipping society,
sexual equality would seem to be a laud–
able goal But the worthiness, of the goal
depends upon what is meant by "equal–
ity."lf the feminists mean the recogni–
tion of equal ability and provision for
Who can flnd a virtuous woman?
.•. She openeth her mouth
wlth wisdom; and In her tongue
ls the law of kindness.
- Proverbs 31:10, 26
equal opportunity to use that ability
(whether through Íhe home, education,
or career), then the goal is indeed a
worthyone.
This type of equality may
ha
ve been
the
original
goal of Women's Lib (and,
in fact, still is the goal of many sincere
women). but it is nót the kind of equal–
ity that the movement is demanding
today. Women's Lib today is concemed
with something far beyond these mat–
ters.
lts
goal is the abolition of all sex roles.
As Ms. Karen DeCrow, newly elected
presiden! of NOW, proclaimed in her
campaign slogan. "Out of the main–
stream and into the revolution."
This seemingly innocuous stalement
exposes the basic problem with many
léaders of the Women' s Lib Movement
who wanl to overthrow society. Gay
Pauley, Ul'l's women's editor. puts it
very plainly: "We have only scraped the
surface in the worldwide wornen's libér–
ation movement. The revolution now
WEEK ENOING OECEMBER 6, 1975
has rea l momentum and will not cease
until the patriarcbal system in most of
ourcultures is overthrown."
The key pbrase, " patriarchal systcm,"
as used by women's libbers, means more
than an overbearing, rnid.dle-aged maJe·
and bis extended_ farnily. It means a
whole systero of morality - much of it
grounded upon biblical principies -
whicb acts lo preserve and protect the
family unit as the buildíng block ofsociety.
MS: Marxist Sisters?
Appropriately, the women's move–
ment adopted the clenched fist - the
same symbol that the Black revolution–
aries and the MarxisiS use as one of
their symbols.
The movement. as it now stands,
wants to overtbrow more than discrimi–
nation against women.
It
wants to over–
throw al! of tbe sexual distinctions that
make up a part of civilized culture, both
Western and Oriental. And they will in·
deed fightto do this.
'
Women's Lib has more in common
with Marxist revolutionaries than just
the symbol of a ftst. Sorne of the more
radical writers in the magazine
MS.
are
virtually plagiarizing
~arxist
speeches
when they write about "oppressic;m,"
"liberation," "exploitation,'' and "sex–
isro." Perbaps the letters MS sbould
stand for Marxist Sisters. lndeed, the .
avowed leaders of Women's Lib - Ger–
maine Greer, Gloria Steinem, Betty
Freidan and many others - bold ex–
tremely lefi-wing political views.
Just
as
the average Marxist scorns
changes which make- society function
better,
so
the Women's Lib militants
caU for a society- far different from one
which simply pays equal wages and
allows women to rise to their fullest ex–
tent. They want a society without the
dreaded "patriarchy" and the "tradi–
tional middle-class morality," wl).ich
often rests on a biblical base.
The Example of
Mrs.
Thatcher
The Women's Lib response to the po–
litical rise of England's Margare! That–
cher is a perfect example of their twisted
ideology. Mrs. Thatcher should sym–
bolize what the movement says it sup–
ports:
3Jl
able, extremely bright woman,
who, througb bra
iriS
and hard work.
makes thc best use of her talents to rise
to the head of the Conservative Party in
Britain. Obviously, the members of the
Women's Lib Movement should ap–
plaud Mrs. Thatcher's rise in her party's
hierarchy. Do they all? No. the militants
aren't pleased at all.
While the majority of moderate femi–
nists rally bebind the example of Mrs.
Thatcher, the radical spokespersons of
the movement denounce her middle–
class morality and lack of revolutionary
views. Mrs. Thatcher doesn't want a so–
ciety where human distinctions are
blurred and "persons" are blended into
an egalitarian soup. She is in favor of
traditional middle-class values like
thrift, responsibility, diligence, and hard
worlc, values which one might apply to
ei1ber male or female.
The radicallibber's rejection of Mrs.
Thatcher rnakes one wonder: Are they
against inequality, or are they just un–
comfortable with morality?
Tbe pattem that emerges is unrnistak-
·ably Marxist. Tbe Soviet Union. a bas–
tion of maJe chauvinism where the
women hold fuU-time jobs and also take
care of the family, is rarely condemned
by them. Instead, feminist leaders speak
of the '.'decline of capitalist economies"
as if they were Marxist theoreticians.
Marxlsm in Mexico City
Atthe lntemational Women's Coiuer–
ence beld last surnrner in Mexico City,
the theme was, not equal opportunities
for woman, but the promulgation of an
internatiooal welfare statc:, whereby the
"declining capitalist" economies would
be soaked for the benefit of the Third
World.
At that same conference, Third World
spokesman Luís Echeverría cal!ed for
the obtiteration· of the traditional femi–
nine role - whether voluntarily ac–
oepted or not! "It is essential to avoid
encouraging women, on the basis of a
mistaken concept of freedom, volun–
tarily to continue to ac:cept tbe margina l
role whicb has been irnposed upon
them."
Echeverria's remarks were a call for
enforced
"freedom." In effect , he as–
serted that women are not free to decide
to be what
they
want to be, but that they
should conform
10
lhe revolutionist's
conception of "liberation." Most women
are interested in equality and Liberation,
but these Tbird World ideologues cast
those noble words into a disguise for
blatant totalitarianism.
The end result of such sexual freedom
is the abolition of moral codes and the
eventual death ofthe family unit.
Sexual Suicide
George Gilder, in bis book
Sexual
Suicide,
notes that the farnily is the
mainstay of civilizcd society. Societies
without a farnily systero Jemain on a
primitive level, and those technological
societies who began with a family sys–
tem, but later decided to weaken. the
family's influence, ofien are totalitarian
in nature.
A family unit necessitates roles and
purposes of sorne sort. No person will
stick to a family with all
iJs
demands oo
time and labor unless there is
a:
purpose
for bis effons. When the radical ferni–
nists cal! for complete sexual freedom
and the abolition of any roles (whether
they be lraditional or non-traditional
makes no dilference), they are advocat–
ing the destruction of tbe family and
society as we know it.
At this point, the ultimate goals of the
bard-core liberationist become clear:
She seeks a ·society of absolute iron-clad
equality, with no natural distinctions be–
tween human beings - no maternal
duties, -no moral codes, no middle class
- a society which resembles lhe sterile
egalitarianism of Huxley's
Brave New
.Wor/d,
th.e ·enforced sexlessness of Or–
well's
1984,
or the totalitarian state-run
dormitories for raising children in Ayn
Rand 's
Anthem.
Women-
Speak
Out!
Don't confuse tbe original, wonhy
goals of the Women's Liberation Move–
ment (sucb as equal pay for equal work)
with the totalitarian equality (the aboli–
tion of human differences) now inherent
within Íhe movement. The former
malees society a liule beuer, while tbe
latter draws
an
arrow at civilization's
frail heart. the family.
lt's
time for respoosib te women
worldwide .- including the liberated
women striving for equal opportunity -
to speak out against the dominant forces
oC
the Woroen's tiberation Movement.
If more women would disown the radi–
cal fringe. more meo would accept more
readily the rcasonable
requests of re·
sponsible women. If women seek to
change society, but end up abolishing
the family, they will be quite literally
throwing out the baby with the bath
water.
o
13