data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ab258/ab258c0974352b244f52dbfff0f782e4362e092f" alt="" |
|
|
|
|
THE
WOMEN'S LIBERATION MOVEMENT:
ITS ORIGINS, STRUCTURES AND IDEAS
by Jo Freeman
This paper
was developed as a lecture given at several universities and colleges
in the midwest in 1970, and finalized as a paper for the December 1970
annual meeting of the American Historical Association in Boston. It was
issued as a pamphlet in 1971, and first published in Recent Sociology
No. 4: Family, Marriage, and the Struggle of the Sexes ed. by Hans
Peter Dreitzel, New York: The Macmillan Co., 1972, pp. 201-216. It was
reprinted several times.
Sometime
in the nineteen twenties, feminism died in the United States. It was a
premature death. Feminists had only recently obtained their long sought
for tool, the vote, with which they had hoped to make an equal place for
women in this society. But it seemed like a final one. By the time the
granddaughters of the women who had sacrificed so much for suffrage had
grown to maturity, not only had social mythology firmly ensconced women
in the home, but the very term "feminist" had become an epithet.
Social
fact, however, did not always coincide with social mythology. During the
era of the "feminine mystique" when the percentage of degrees
given to wmen was dropping, their absolute numbers were rising astronomically.
Their participation in the labor force was also increasing even while
their position within it was declining. Opportunities to work, the trend
toward smaller families, plus changes in status symbols from a leisured
wife at home to a second car and TV, all contributed to a basic alteration
of the female labor force from one of primarily single women under 25
to one of married women and mothers over 40. Added to these developments
was an increased segregation of the job market, a flooding of traditional
female jobs (e.g. teaching and social work) by men, a decrease of women
'e percentage of the professional and technical jobs by a third and a
commensurate decline in their relative income. The result was the creation
of a class of highly educated, underemployed women.
In
the early sixties feminism was still an unmentionable, but its ghost was
slowly awakening from the dead. The first sign of new life came with the
establishment of the Commission on the Status of Women by President Kennedy
in 1961. Created at the urging of Esther Peterson of the Women's Bureau,
in its short life the Commission came out with several often radical reports
thoroughly documenting women's second class status. It was followed by
the formation of a citizen's advisory council and fifty state commissions.
Many
of the people involved in these commissions became the nucleus of women
who, dissatisfied with the lack of progress made on commission recommendations,
joined with Betty Friedan in 1966 to found the National Organization for
Women.
NOW
was the first new feminist organization in almost fifty years, but it
was not the sole beginning of the organized expression of the movement.
The movement actually has two origins, from two different strata of society,
with two different styles, orientations, values, and forms of organization.
In many ways there were two separate movements which only in the last
year have merged sufficiently for the rubric "women's liberation"
to be truly an umbrella term for the multiplicity of organizations and
groups.
The
first of these I call the older branch of the movement, partially because
it began first, and partially because the median age of its activists
is higher. In addition to NOW it contains such organizations as the PWC
(Professional Women's Caucus), FEW (Federally Employed Women) and the
self-defined "right wing" of the movement, WEAL (Women's Equity
Action League).
|
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/444b1/444b10762894062354e17f1149f819343b318075" alt="" |
The
participants of both branches tend to be predominantly white, middle-class
and college educated, but the composition of the older is much more heterogeneous
than that of the younger. In issues, however, this trend is reversed with
those of the younger being more diverse. While the written programs and
aims of the older branch span a wide spectrum, their activities tend to
be concentrated on the legal and economic difficulties women face. These
groups are primarily made up of women who work and are substantially concerned
with the problems of working women. Their style of organization has tended
to be formal with numerous elected officers, boards of directors, bylaws
and the other trappings of democratic procedure. All started as top down
organizations lacking in a mass base. Some have subsequently developed a
mass base, some have not yet done so, and others don't want to.
In
1967 and 1968, unaware of and unknown to NOW or the state commissions, the
other branch of the movement was taking shape. Contrary to popular myth
it did not begin on the campus; nor was it started by SDS. However, its
activators were, to be trite, on the other side of the generation gap. While
few were students, all were "under 30" and had received their
political education as participants or concerned observers of the social
action projects of the last decade. Many came direct from New Left and civil
rights organizations where they had been shunted into traditional roles
and faced with the self-evident contraction of working in a "freedom
movement" but not being very free. Others had attended various courses
on women in the multitude of free universities springing up around the country
during those years.
At
least five groups in five different cities (Chicago, Toronto, Detroit, Seattle
and Gainesville, Fla.) formed spontaneously, independently of each other.
They came at a very auspicious moment. 1967 was the year in which the blacks
kicked the whites out of the civil rights movement, student power had been
discredited by SDS and the New Left was on the wane. Only draft resistance
activities were on the increase, and this movement more than any other exemplified
the social inequities of the sexes. Men could resist the draft. Women could
only council resistance.
There
had been individual temporary caucuses and conferences of women as early
as 1964 when Stokely Carmichael made his infamous remark that "the
only position for women in SNCC is prone." But it was not until 1967
that the groups developed a determined, if cautious, continuity and began
to consciously expand themselves. In 1968 they held their first, and so
far only, national conference attended by over 200 women from around this
country and Canada on less than a month's notice. They have been expanding
exponentially ever since.
This
expansion has been more amebic than organized because the younger branch
of the movement prides itself on its lack of organization. Eschewing structure
and damning the idea of leadership, it has carried the concept of "everyone
doing their own thing" almost to its logical extreme. Thousands of
sister chapters around the country are virtually independent of each other,
linked only by the numerous journals, newsletters and cross country travelers.
Some cities have a coordinating committee which attempts to maintain communication
between the local groups and channel newcomers into appropriate ones but
none have any power over group activities, let alone group ideas. One result
of this style is a very broad based, creative movement, which individuals
can relate to pretty much as they desire with no concern for orthodoxy or
doctrine. Another result is a kind of political impotency. It is virtually
impossible to coordinate a national action, assuming there could be any
agreement on issues around which to coordinate one. Fortunately, the older
branch of the movement does have the structure necessary to coordinate such
actions, and is usually the one to initiate them as NOW did for the August
26 national strike last year.
It
is a common mistake to try to place the various feminist organizations on
the traditional left/right spectrum. The terms "reformist" and
"radical" are convenient and fit into our preconceived notions
about the nature of political organization, but they tell us nothing of
relevance. As with most everything else, feminism cuts through the normal
categories and demands new perspectives in order to be understood. Some
groups often called "reformist" have a platform which would so
completely change our society it would be unrecognizable. Other groups called
"radical" concentrate on the traditional female concerns of love,
sex, children and interpersonal relationships (although with untraditional
views). The activities of the organizations are similarly incongruous. The
most typical division of labor, ironically, is that those groups labeled
"radical" engage primarily in educational work while the so-called
"reformist" ones are the activists. It is structure and style
rather than ideology which more accurately differentiates the various groups
and even here there has been much borrowing on both sides. The older branch
has used the traditional forms of political action often with great skill,
while the younger branch has been experimental.
The
most prevalent innovation developed by the younger branch has been the "rap
group." Essentially an educational technique, it has spread far beyond
its origins and become a mayor organizational unit of the whole movement,
most frequently used by suburban housewives. From a sociological perspective
the rap group is probably the most valuable contribution so far by the women
's liberation movement to the tools for social change.
|
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/444b1/444b10762894062354e17f1149f819343b318075" alt="" |
The
rap group serves two main purposes. One is traditional; the other is unique.
The traditional role is the simple process of bringing women together in
a situation of structured interaction. It has long been known that people
can be kept down as long as they are kept divided from each other, relating
more to those in a superior social position than to those in a position
similar to their own. It is when social development creates natural structures
in which people can interact with each other and compare their common concerns
that social movements take place. This is the function that the factory
served for the workers, the church for the Southern Civil Rights movement,
the campus for students and the ghetto for urban blacks.
Women
have been largely deprived of a means of structured interaction and been
kept isolated in their individual homes relating more to men than to each
other. Natural structures are still largely lacking, though they have begun
to develop, but the rap group has created an artificial structure which
does much the same thing. This phenomenon was similar to the nineteenth
century development of a multitude of women's clubs and organizations around
every conceivable social and political purpose. These organizations taught
women political skills and eventually served as the primary communications
network for the spread of the suffrage movement. Yet after the great crusade
ended most of them vanished or became moribund. The rap groups are taking
their place and will serve much the same function for the future development
of this movement.
They
do more than just bring women together as radical an activity as that may
be. The rap groups have become mechanisms for social change in and of themselves.
They are structures created specifically for the purpose of altering the
participants perceptions and conceptions of themselves and society at large.
The means by which this is done is called "consciousness raising."
The process is very simple. Women come together in groups of five to fifteen
and talk to each other about their personal problems, personal experiences,
personal feelings and personal concerns. From this public sharing of experiences
comes the realization that what was thought to be individual is in fact
common; that what was thought to be a personal problem has a social cause
and probably a political solution. Women learn to see how social structures
and attitudes have molded them from birth and limited their opportunities.
They ascertain the extent to which women have been denigrated in this society
and how they have developed prejudices against themselves and other women.
It
is this process of deeply personal attitude change that makes the rap group
such a powerful tool. The need of a movement to develop "correct consciousness"
has long been known. But usually this consciousness is not developed by
means intrinsic to the structure of the movement and does not require such
a profound resocialization of one's concept of self. This experience is
both irreversible and contagious. Once one has gone through such a "resocialization",
one's view of oneself and the world is never the same again, whether or
not there is further active participation in the movement. Even those who
do "drop out" rarely do so without first spreading feminist ideas
among their own friends and colleagues. All who undergo "consciousness
raising" virtually compel themselves to seek out other women with whom
to share the experience, and thus begin new rap groups.
There
are several personal results from this process. The initial one is a decrease
of self and group depreciation. Women come to see themselves as essentially
pretty groovy people. Along with this comes the explosion of the myth of
individual solution. If women are the way they are, because society has
made them that way, they can only change their lives significantly by changing
society. These feelings in turn create the consciousness of oneself as a
member of a group and the feeling of solidarity so necessary to any social
movement. From this comes the concept of sisterhood.
This
need for group solidarity partially explains why men have been largely excluded
from the rap groups. It was not the initial reason, but it has been one
of the more beneficial byproducts. Originally, the idea was borrowed from
the Black Power movement, much in the public consciousness when the women's
liberation movement began. It was reinforced by the unremitting hostility
of most of the New Left men at the prospect of an independent women's movement
not tied to radical organizations. Even when this hostility was not present,
women in virtually every group in the U.S., Canada and Europe soon discovered
that the traditional sex roles reasserted themselves in the groups regardless
of the good intentions of the participants. Men inevitably dominated the
discussions, and usually would talk only about how women's liberation related
to men, or how men were oppressed by the sex roles. In segregated groups
women found the discussions to be more open, honest and extensive. They
could learn how to relate to other women and not just to men.
Unlike
the male exclusion policy, the rap groups did not develop spontaneously
or without a struggle. The political background of many of the early feminists
of the younger branch predisposed them against the rap group as "unpolitical"
and they would condemn discussion meetings which "degenerated"
into "bitch sessions." This trend was particularly strong in Chicago
and Washington, D. C. which had been centers of New Left activity. Meanwhile,
other feminists, usually with a civil rights or apolitical background, saw
that the "bitch session" obviously met a basic need. They seized
upon it and created the consciousness raising rap group. Developed initially
in New York and Gainesville, Fla., the idea soon spread throughout the country
becoming the paradigm for most movement organization.
To
date, the major, though hardly exclusive, activity of the younger branch
has been organizing rap groups, putting on conferences, and putting out
educational literature, while that of the older branch has been using the
"channels" and other forms of political pressure to change specific
situations of inequity. In general, the younger branch has been organized
to attack attitudes and the older branch to attack structures.
While
the rap groups have been excellent techniques for changing individual attitudes
they have not been very successful in dealing with social institutions.
Their loose informal structure encourages participation in discussion and
their supportive atmosphere elicits personal insight; but neither is very
efficient in handling specific tasks. Thus, while they have been of fundamental
value to the development of the movement it is the more structured groups
which are the more visibly effective.
Individual
rap groups tend to flounder when their members have exhausted the virtues
of consciousness raising and decide they want to do something more concrete.
The problem is that most groups are unwilling to change their structure
when they change their tasks. They have accepted the ideology of "structurelessness"
without realizing the limitations of its uses. This is currently causing
an organizational crisis within the movement because the formation of rap
groups as a major movement function is becoming obsolete. Due to the intense
press publicity that began in the fall of 1969, as well as the numerous
"overground" books and articles now being circulated, women's
liberation has become practically a household word. Its issues are discussed
and informal rap groups formed by people who have-no explicit connection
with any movement group. Ironically, this subtle, silent and subversive
spread of feminist consciousness is causing a situation of political unemployment.
With educational work no longer such an overwhelming need women's liberation
groups have to develop new forms of organizations to deal with new tasks
in a new stage of development. This is necessitating a good deal of retrenchment
and rethinking. Cities undergoing this process often give the impression
of inactivity and only time will tell what will be the result.
Initially
there was little ideology in the movement beyond a something feeling that
something was wrong. NOW was formed under the slogan "full equality
for women in a truly equal partnership with men" and specified eight
demands in a "Bill of Rights." It and the other organizations
of the older branch have continued to focus around concrete issues feeling
that attempts at a comprehensive ideology have little to offer beyond internal
conflict.
In
the younger branch a basic difference of opinion developed quite early.
It was disguised as a philosophical difference, was articulated and acted
on as a strategical one, but actually was more of a political disagreement
than anything else. The two sides involved were essentially the same people
who differed over the rap groups, but the split endured long after the groups
became ubiquitous. The original issue was whether the fledgling women's
liberation movement would remain a branch of the radical left movement,
or be an independent women's movement. Proponents became known as "politicos"
or "feminists" respectively and traded arguments about whether
"capitalism was the enemy", or the male-dominated social institutions
and values. They also traded a few epithets with politicos calling feminists
politically unsophisticated and elitist, while in turn being accused of
subservience to the interests of left wing men.
With
the influx of large numbers of previously apolitical women an independent,
autonomous women's liberation movement became a reality instead of an argument.
The spectrum shifted to the feminist direction, but the basic difference
in orientation still remained. Politicos now also call themselves feminists,
and many have left the left, but most see women's issues within a broader
political context while the original feminists continue to focus almost
exclusively on women's concerns. Although much of the bitterness of the
original dispute has subsided, politicos generated such distrust about their
motives that they prejudiced many women against all concerns of Left ideology.
This has led some feminists to the very narrow outlook that politicos most
feared they would adopt.
Meanwhile,
faced with a female exodus, the radical left movement has forsaken the rhetoric
of its original opposition without relinquishing most of its sexist practices.
Embracing the position that women are a constituency to be organized, most
New Left (and some Old Left) organizations have created women's caucuses
to recruit women to "more important activities." These are very
different from the women's caucuses of the professional associations that
have also mushroomed into existence. The latter are concerned with raising
feminist issues within their organizations. The New Left women's groups
serve much the same function as traditional ladies auxiliaries.
The
widely differing backgrounds and perspectives of the women in the movement
have resulted in as many different interpretations of women's status. Some
are more developed than others, and some are more publicized, yet as of
1971 there is no comprehensive set of beliefs which can accurately be labeled
women's liberationist, feminist, neofeminist or radical feminist ideology.
At best one can say there is general agreement on two theoretical concerns.
The first is the feminist critique of society, and the second is the idea
of oppression.
The
feminist critique starts from entirely different premises than the traditional
view and therefore neither can really refute the other. The latter assumes
that men and women are essentially different and should serve different
social functions. Their diverse roles and statuses simply reflect these
essential differences. The feminist perspective starts from the premise
that women and men are constitutionally equal and share the same human capabilities.
Observed differences therefore demand a critical analysis of the social
institutions which cause then.
The
concept of oppression brings into use a term which has long been avoided
out of a feeling that it was too rhetorical. But there was no convenient
euphemism and discrimination was inadequate to describe what happens to
women and what they have in common with other groups. As long as the word
remained illegitimate, so did the idea and it was too valuable not to use.
It is still largely an undeveloped concept in which the details have not
been sketched, but there appear to be two aspects to oppression which relate
much the same as two sides of a coin -- distinct, yet inseparable. The social
structural manifestations are easily visible as they are reflected in the
legal, economic, social and political institutions. The social psychological
ones are often intangible; hard to grasp and hard to alter. Group self-hate
and distortion of perceptions to justify a preconceived interpretation of
reality are just some of the factors being teased out.
For
women, sexism describes the specificity of female oppression. Starting from
the traditional belief of the difference between the sexes, sexism embodies
two core concepts.
|
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/444b1/444b10762894062354e17f1149f819343b318075" alt="" |
The
first is that men are more important than women. Not necessarily superior
-- we are far too sophisticated these days than to use those tainted terms
-- but more important, more significant, more valuable, more worthwhile.
This value justifies the idea that it is more important for a man, the "breadwinner",
to have a job or a promotion, than a women, more important for a man to
be paid well, more important for a man to have an education and in general
to have preference over a women. It is the basis of the feeling by men that
if women enter a particular occupation they will degrade it and that men
must leave or be themselves degraded, and the feeling by women that they
can raise the prestige of their professions by recruiting men, which they
can only do by giving them the better jobs. From this value comes the attitude
that a husband must earn more than his wife or suffer a loss of personal
status and a wife must subsume her interests to his or be socially castigated.
From this value comes the practice of rewarding men for serving in the armed
forces and punishing women for having children. The first core concept of
sexist thought is that men do the important work in the world and the work
done by men is what is important.
The
second core concept is that women are here for the pleasure and assistance
of men. This is what is meant when women are told that their role is complementary
to that of men; that they should fulfill their natural "feminine"
functions; that they are "different" from men and should not compete
with them. From this concept comes the attitude that women are and should
be dependent on men; for everything but especially their identities, the
social definition of who they are. It defines the few roles for which women
are socially rewarded -- wife, mother and mistress -- all of which are pleasing
or beneficial to men, and leads directly to the "pedestal" theory
which extols women who stay in their place as good helpmates to men.
It
is this attitude which stigmatizes those women who do not marry or who do
not devote their primary energies to the care of men and their children.
Association with a man is the basic criterion for participation by women
in this society and one who does not seek her identity through a man is
a threat to its social values. It is similarly this attitude which causes
women's liberation activists to be labeled as man haters for exposing the
nature of sexism. People feel that a woman not devoted to looking after
men must act this way because of hatred or inability to "catch"
one. The second core concept of sexist thought is that women's identities
are defined by their relationship to men and their social value by that
of the men they are related to.
The
sexism of our society is so pervasive that we are not even aware of all
its inequities. Unless one has developed a sensitivity to its workings,
by adopting a self-consciously contrary view, its activities are accepted
as "normal" and justified with little question. People are said
to "choose" what in fact they never thought about. a good example
is what happened during and after World War II. The sudden onslaught of
the war radically changed the whole structure of social relationships as
well as the economy. Men were drafted into the army and women into the labor
force. Now desperately needed, women's wants were provided for as were those
of the boys on the front. Federal financing of day care centers in the form
of the Landham Act passed Congress in a record two weeks. Special crash
training programs were provided for the new women workers to give them skills
they were not previously thought capable of exercising. Women instantly
assumed positions of authority and responsibility unavailable only the year
before.
But
what happened when the war ended? Both men and women had heeded their country's
call to duty to bring it to a successful conclusion. Yet men were rewarded
for their efforts and women punished for theirs. The returning soldiers
were given the G.I. Bill and other veterans benefits, as well as their jobs
back and a disproportionate share of the new ones created by the war economy.
Women, on the other hand, saw their child care centers dismantled and their
training programs cease. They were fired or demoted in droves and often
found it difficult to enter colleges flooded with those matriculating on
government money. Is it any wonder that they heard the message that their
place was in the home? Where else could they go?
The
eradication of sexism and the practices it supports, like those above, is
obviously one of the major goals of the women's liberation movement. But
it is not enough to destroy a set of values and leave a normative vacuum.
They have to be replaced with something. A movement can only begin by declaring
its opposition to the status quo. Eventually if it is to succeed, it has
to propose an alternative.
|
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/444b1/444b10762894062354e17f1149f819343b318075" alt="" |
I
cannot pretend to be even partially definitive about the possible alternatives
contemplated by the numerous participants in the women's liberation movement.
Yet from the plethora of ideas and visions feminists have thought, discussed
and written about, I think there are two basic ideas emerging which express
the bulk of their concerns. I call these the Egalitarian Ethic and the
Liberation Ethic, but they are not independent of each other and together
they mesh into what can only be described as a feminist humanism.
The
Egalitarian Ethic means exactly what it says. The sexes are equal; therefore
sex roles must go. Our history has proven that institutionalized difference
inevitably means inequity and sex role stereotypes have long since become
anachronistic. Strongly differentiated sex roles were rooted in the ancient
division of labor; their basis has been torn apart by modern technology.
Their justification was rooted in the subjection of women to the reproductive
cycle. That has already been destroyed by modern pharmacology. The cramped
little categories of personality and social function to which we assign
people from birth must be broken open so that all people can develop independently,
as individuals. This means that there will be an integration of social
functions and life styles of men and women as groups until, ideally, one
cannot tell anything of relevance about a person's social role by knowing
their sex. But this increased similarity of the two groups also means
increased options for individuals and increased diversity in the human
race. No longer will there be men's work and women's work. No longer will
humanity suffer a schizophrenic personality desperately trying to reconcile
its "masculine" and "feminine" parts. No longer will
marriage be the institution where two half-people come together in hopes
of making a whole.
The
Liberation Ethic says this is not enough. Not only must the limits of
the roles be changed, but their content as well. The Liberation Ethic
looks at the kinds of lives currently being led by men as well as women
and concludes that both are deplorable and neither are necessary. The
social institutions which oppress women as women, also oppress people
as people and can be altered to make a more humane existence for all.
So much of our society is hung upon the framework of sex role stereotypes
and their reciprocal functions that the dismantling of this structure
will provide the opportunity for making a more viable life for everyone.
It
is important to stress that these two Ethics must work together in tandem.
If the first is emphasized over the second, then we have a women's rights
movement, not one of women's liberation. To seek only equality, given
the current male bias of the social values, is to assume that women want
to be like men or that men are worth emulating. It is to demand that women
be allowed to participate in society as we know it, to get their piece
of the pie, without questioning the extent to which that society is worth
participating in. This view is held by some, but most feminists today
find it inadequate. Those women who are more personally compatible in
what is considered the male role must realize that that role is made possible
only by the existence of the female sex role; in other words, only by
the subjection of women. Therefore women cannot become equal to men without
the destruction of those two interdependent mutually parasitic roles.
The failure to realize that the integration of the sex roles and the equality
of the sexes will inevitably lead to basic structural change is to fail
to seize the opportunity to decide the direction of those changes.
It
is just as dangerous to fall into the trap of seeking liberation without
due concern for equality. This is the mistake made by many of the left
radicals. They find the general human condition to be wretched that they
feel everyone should devote their energies to the Millennial Revolution
in belief that the liberation of women will follow naturally the liberation
of people.
However
women have yet to be defined as people, even among the radicals, and it
is erroneous to assume their interests are identical to those of men.
For women to subsume their concerns once again is to insure that the promise
of liberation will be a spurious one. There has yet to be created or conceived
by any political or social theorist a revolutionary society in which women
were equal to men and their needs duly considered. The sex role structure
has never been comprehensively challenged by any male philosopher and
the systems they have proposed have all presumed the existence of a sex-role
structure to some degree.
Such
undue emphasis on the Liberation Ethic has also often led to a sort of
Radical Paradox. This is a situation the politicos frequently found themselves
in during the early days of the movement. They found repugnant the possibility
of pursuing "reformist" issues which might be achieved without
altering the basic nature of the system, and thus, they felt, only strengthen
the system. However, their search for a sufficiently radical action and/or
issue came to naught and they found themselves unable to do anything out
of fear that it might be counterrevolutionary. Inactive revolutionaries
are a good deal more innocuous than active "reformists."
But
even among those who are not rendered impotent, the unilateral pursuit
of Liberation can take its toll. Some radical women have been so appalled
at the condition of most men, and the possibility of becoming even partially
what they are, that they have clung to the security of the role that they
know, to wait complacently for the Revolution to liberate everyone. Some
men, fearing that role reversal was a goal of the women's liberation movement,
have taken a similar position. Both have failed to realize that the abolition
of sex roles must be continually incorporated into any radical restructuring
of society and thus have failed to explore the possible consequences of
such role integration. The goal they advocate may be one of liberation,
but it dose not involve women's liberation.
Separated
from each other, the Egalitarian Ethic and the Liberation Ethic can be
crippling, but together they can be a very powerful force. Separately
they speak to limited interests; together they speak to all humanity.
Separately, they are but superficial solutions; together they recognize
that while sexism oppresses women, it also limits the potentiality of
men. Separately, neither will be achieved because their scope does not
range far enough; together they provide a vision worthy of our devotion.
Separately, these two Ethics do not lead to the liberation of women; together,
they also lead to the liberation of men.
(c) Copyright 1971 by Freeman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|