Against Women=92s Lib by Murray N. Rothbard

It=20 is high time, and past due, that someone blew the whistle on = "Women=92s Liberation." Like The Environment, Women=92s Lib = is suddenly=20 and raucously everywhere in the last few months. It has = become=20 impossible to avoid being assaulted, day in and day out, by = the=20 noisy blather of the Women=92s Movement. Special issues of = magazines,=20 TV news programs, and newspapers have been devoted to this = new-found=20 "problem"; and nearly two dozen books on women=92s lib are = being=20 scheduled for publication this year by major = publishers.

In=20 all this welter of verbiage, not one article, not one book, = not one=20 program has dared to present the opposition case. The = injustice of=20 this one-sided tidal wave should be evident. Not only is it = evident,=20 but the lack of published opposition negates one of the = major=20 charges of the women=92s lib forces: that the society and = economy are=20 groaning under a monolithic male "sexist" tyranny. If the = men are=20 running the show, how is it that they do not even presume to = print=20 or present anyone from the other side?

Yet=20 the "oppressors" remain strangely silent, which leads one to = suspect, as we will develop further below, that perhaps the=20 "oppression" is on the other side.

In=20 the meanwhile, the male "oppressors" are acting, in the = manner of=20 Liberals everywhere, like scared, or guilt-ridden, rabbits. = When the=20 one hundred viragos of Women=92s Lib bullied their way into = the head=20 offices of the Ladies=92 Home Journal, did the = harried=20 editor-in-chief, John Mack Carter, throw these aggressors = out on=20 their collective ear, as he should have done? Did he, at the = very=20 least, abandon his office for the day and go home? No, = instead he=20 sat patiently for eleven hours while these harridans heaped = abuse=20 upon him and his magazine and his gender, and then meekly = agreed to=20 donate to them a special section of the Journal, = along with=20 $10,000 ransom. In this way, spineless male Liberalism = meekly feeds=20 the appetite of the aggressors and paves the way for the = next set of=20 outrageous "demands." Rat magazine, an underground = tabloid,=20 caved in even more spectacularly, and simply allowed itself = to be=20 taken over permanently by a "women=92s liberation=20 collective."

Why,=20 in fact, this sudden upsurge of women=92s lib? Even the most = fanatic=20 virago of the Women=92s Movement concedes that this new = movement has=20 not emerged in response to any sudden clamping down of the = male boot=20 upon the collective sensibilities of the American female. = Instead,=20 the new uprising is part of the current degeneracy of the = New Left,=20 which, as its one-time partly libertarian politics and = ideology and=20 organization have collapsed, has been splintering into = absurd and=20 febrile forms, from Maoism to Weathermanship to mad bombings = to=20 women=92s lib. The heady wine of "liberation" for every = crackpot group=20 has been in the air for some time, sometimes deserved but = more often=20 absurd, and now the New Left women have gotten into the act. = We need=20 not go quite so far as the recent comment of Professor = Edward A.=20 Shils, eminent sociologist at the University of Chicago, = that he now=20 expects a "dog liberation front," but it is hard to fault = the=20 annoyance behind his remark. Throughout the whole gamut of=20 "liberation", the major target has been the harmless, = hard-working,=20 adult WASP American male, William Graham Sumner=92s = Forgotten Man; and=20 now this hapless Dagwood Bumstead figure is being battered = yet once=20 more. How long will it be before the put-upon, = long-suffering=20 Average American at last loses his patience, and rises up in = his=20 wrath to do some effective noisemaking on his own = behalf?

The=20 current Women=92s Movement is divisible into two parts. The = older,=20 slightly less irrational wing began in 1963 with the = publication of=20 Betty Friedan=92s The Feminine Mystique and her organization = of NOW=20 (the National Organization of Women). NOW concentrates on = alleged=20 economic discrimination against women. For example: the = point that=20 while the median annual wage for all jobs in 1968 was almost = $7700=20 for men, it only totaled $4500 for women, 58% of the male = figure.=20 The other major point is the quota argument: that if one = casts one=92s=20 eye about various professions, top management positions, = etc., the=20 quota of women is far lower than their supposedly deserved = 51%,=20 their share of the total population.

The=20 quota argument may be disposed of rapidly; for it is a = two-edged=20 sword. If the low percentage of women in surgery, law, = management,=20 etc., is proof that the men should posthaste be replaced by = females,=20 then what are we to do with the Jews, for example, who shine = far=20 above their assigned quota in the professions, in medicine, = in=20 academia, etc.? Are they to be purged?

The=20 lower average income for women can be explained on several = grounds,=20 none of which involve irrational "sexist" discrimination. = One is the=20 fact that the overwhelming majority of women work a few = years, and=20 then take a large chunk of their productive years to raise = children,=20 after which they may or may not decide to return to the = labor force.=20 As a result, they tend to enter, or to find, jobs largely in = those=20 industries and in that type of work that does not require a=20 long-term commitment to a career. Furthermore, they tend to = find=20 jobs in those occupations where the cost of training new = people, or=20 of losing old ones, is relatively low. These tend to be = lower-paying=20 occupations than those that require a long-term commitment = or where=20 costs of training or turnover are high. This general = tendency to=20 take out years for child-raising also accounts for a good = deal of=20 the failure to promote women to higher-ranking, and = therefore=20 higher-paying jobs, and hence for the low female "quotas" in = these=20 areas. It is easy to hire secretaries who do not intend to = make the=20 job their continuing life work; it is not so easy to promote = people=20 up the academic or the corporate ladder who do not do so. = How does a=20 dropout for motherhood get to be a corporate president or a = full=20 professor?

While these = considerations=20 account for a good chunk of lower pay and lower ranked jobs = for=20 women, they do not fully explain the problem. In the = capitalist=20 market economy, women have full freedom of opportunity; = irrational=20 discrimination in employment tends to be minimal in the free = market,=20 for the simple reason that the employer also suffers from = such=20 discriminatory practice. In the free market, every worker = tends to=20 earn the value of his product, his "marginal productivity."=20 Similarly, everyone tends to fill the job he can best = accomplish, to=20 work at his most productive efforts. Employers who persist = in paying=20 below a person=92s marginal product will hurt themselves by = losing=20 their best workers and hence losing profits for themselves. = If women=20 have persistently lower pay and poorer jobs, even after = correcting=20 for the motherhood-dropout, then the simple reason must be = that=20 their marginal productivity tends to be lower than = men.

It=20 should be emphasized that, in contrast to the Women=92s Lib = forces who=20 tend to blame capitalism as well as male tyrants for = centuries-old=20 discrimination, it was precisely capitalism and the = "capitalist=20 revolution" of the 18^th and 19^th = centuries=20 that freed women from male oppression, and set each woman = free to=20 find her best level. It was the feudal and pre-capitalist,=20 pre-market society that was marked by male oppression; it = was that=20 society where women were chattels of their fathers and = husbands,=20 where they could own no property of their own, etc.^{1=20
Capitalism set women free to find their own level, and the =
result is=20
what we have today.}

The=20 Women Libs retort that women possess the full potential of = equality=20 of output and productivity with men, but that they have been = browbeaten during centuries of male oppression. But the = conspicuous=20 lack of rising to the highest posts under capitalism still = remains.=20 There are few women doctors, for example. Yet medical = schools=20 nowadays not only don=92t discriminate against women, they = bend over=20 backwards to accept them (i.e., they discriminate in their = favor);=20 yet the proportion of women doctors is still not noticeably=20 high.

Here=20 the female militants fall back on another argument: that = centuries=20 of being "brainwashed" by a male-dominated culture have made = most=20 women passive, accepting their allegedly inferior role, and = even=20 liking and enjoying their major role as homemakers and=20 child-raisers. And the real problem for the raucous females, = of=20 course, is that the overwhelming majority of women do = embrace the=20 "feminine mystique," do feel that their sole careers are = those of=20 housewife and mother. Simply to write off these evident and = strong=20 desires by most women as "brainwashing" proves far too much; = for we=20 can always dismiss any person=92s values, no matter how = deeply held,=20 as the result of "brainwashing." The "brainwashing" = contention=20 becomes what the philosophers call "operationally = meaningless," for=20 it means that the female militants refuse to accept any = evidence,=20 logical or empirical, of whatever kind, that might prove = their=20 contentions to be wrong. Show them a woman who loves = domesticity and=20 they dismiss this as "brainwashing"; show them a militant = and they=20 claim that this proves that women are yearning for = "liberation." In=20 short, these militants regard their flimsy contentions as = unworthy=20 of any sort of proof; but this is the groundless method of = mystics=20 rather than an argument reflecting scientific = truth.

And=20 so the high rate of conversion claimed by women=92s = liberationists=20 proves nothing either; may not this be the result of = "brainwashing"=20 by the female militants? After all, if you are a redhead, = and a=20 Redheaded Liberation League suddenly emerges and shouts at = you that=20 you are eternally oppressed by vile nonredheads, some of you = might=20 well join in the fray. Which proves nothing at all about = whether or=20 not redheads are objectively oppressed.

I do=20 not go so far as the extreme male "sexists" who contend that = women=20 should confine themselves to home and children, and that any = search=20 for alternative careers is unnatural. On the other hand, I = do not=20 see much more support for the opposite contention that = domestic-type=20 women are violating their natures. There is in this as in = all=20 matters a division of labor, and in a free market society = every=20 individual will enter those fields and areas of work which = he or she=20 finds most attractive. The proportion of working women is = far higher=20 than even twenty years ago, and that is fine; but it is = still a=20 minority of females, and that=92s fine too. Who are you or I = to tell=20 anyone, male or female, what occupation he or she should=20 enter?

Furthermore, the = women libs=20 have fallen into a logical trap in their charge of centuries = of male=20 brainwashing. For if this charge be true, then how come that = men=20 have been running the culture over eons of time? Surely, = this cannot=20 be an accident. Isn=92t this evidence of male = superiority?

The=20 Friedanites, who call stridently for equality of income and=20 position, have, however, been outpaced in recent months by = the more=20 militant women=92s liberationists, or "new feminists," women = who work=20 with the older movement but consider them conservative "Aunt = Toms."=20 These new militants, who have been getting most of the = publicity,=20 persistently liken their alleged oppression to that of = blacks, and=20 like the black movement reject equality and integration for = a=20 radical change in society. They call for the revolutionary = abolition=20 of alleged male rule and its supposed corollary, the family. = Displaying a deep-seated and scarcely concealed hatred of = men per=20 se, these females call for all-women=92s communes, state-run = children,=20 test-tube babies, or just simply the "cutting up of men", as = the=20 real founder of militant women=92s lib, Valerie Solanis, put = it in her=20 SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto. Solanis became = the=20 culture-heroine of the New Feminism in 1968 when she shot = and almost=20 killed the painter and filmmaker Andy Warhol. Instead of = being=20 dismissed (as she would be by any rational person) as a lone = nut,=20 the liberated females wrote articles praising Solanis as the = "sweet=20 assassin" who tried to dispose of the "plastic male" Warhol. = We=20 should have known at that point of the travails that lay in=20 store.

I=20 believe that modern American marriages are, by and large, = conducted=20 on a basis of equality, but I also believe that the opposite = contention is far closer to the truth than that of the New=20 Feminists: namely, that it is men, not women, who are more = likely to=20 be the oppressed class, or gender, in our society, and that = it is=20 far more the men who are the "blacks," the slaves, and women = their=20 masters. In the first place, the female militants claim that = marriage is a diabolical institution by which husbands = enslave their=20 wives and force them to rear children and do housework. But = let us=20 consider: in the great majority of the cases, who is it that = insists=20 on marriage, the man or the woman? Everyone knows the = answer. And if=20 this great desire for marriage is the result of male = brainwashing,=20 as the Women=92s Libs contend, then how is it that so many = men resist=20 marriage, resist this prospect of their lifelong seat upon = the=20 throne of domestic "tyranny"?

Indeed, as capitalism = has=20 immensely lightened the burden of housework through improved = technology, many wives have increasingly constituted a kept = leisure=20 class. In the middle class neighborhood in which I live, I = see them,=20 these "oppressed" and hard-faced viragos, strutting down the = street=20 in their mink stoles to the next bridge or mah-jongg game, = while=20 their husbands are working themselves into an early coronary = down in=20 the garment district to support their helpmeets.

In=20 these cases, then, who are the "niggers": the wives? Or the=20 husbands? The women=92s libs claim that men are the masters = because=20 they are doing most of the world=92s work. But if we look = back at the=20 society of the slave South, who indeed did the work? It is = always=20 the slaves who do the work, while the masters live in = relative=20 idleness off the fruits of their labor. To the extent that = husbands=20 work and support the family, while wives enjoy a kept = status, who=20 then are the masters?

There is nothing new = in this=20 argument, but it is a point that has been forgotten amidst = the=20 current furor. It has been noted for years-and especially by = Europeans and Asians =96 that too many American men live in = a=20 matriarchy, dominated first by Momism, then by female = teachers, and=20 then by their wives. Blondie and Dagwood have long = symbolized for=20 sociologists an all-too prevalent American matriarchy, a = matriarchy=20 that contrasts to the European scene where the women, though = more=20 idle than in the U.S., do not run the home. The henpecked = American=20 male has long been the butt of perceptive humor. And, = finally, when=20 the male dies, as he usually does, earlier than his spouse, = she=20 inherits the entire family assets, with the result that far = more=20 than 50% of the wealth of America is owned by women. Income = =96 the=20 index of hard and productive work =96 is less significant = here than=20 ownership of ultimate wealth. Here is another inconvenient = fact=20 which the female militants brusquely dismiss as of no = consequence.=20 And, finally, if the husband should seek a divorce, he is = socked=20 with the laws of alimony, which he is forced to pay and pay = to=20 support a female whom he no longer sees, and, if he fails to = pay,=20 faces the barbaric penalty of imprisonment =96 the only = instance=20 remaining in our legal structure of imprisonment for = nonpayment of=20 "debt." Except, of course, that this is a "debt" which the = man had=20 never voluntarily incurred. Who, then, are the = slaves?

And=20 as for men forcing women to bear and rear children, who, = again, in=20 the vast majority of cases, is the party in the marriage = most eager=20 to have children? Again, everyone knows the = answer.

When, as they do at = times, the=20 female militants acknowledge matriarchal dominance by the = American=20 female, their defense, as usual, is to fall back on the=20 operationally meaningless: that the seeming dominance of the = wife is=20 only the reflection of her quintessential passivity and=20 subordination, so that women have to seek various roads to=20 bitchiness and manipulation as their route to . . . power. = Beneath=20 their seeming power, then, these wives are psychologically = unhappy.=20 Perhaps, but I suppose that one could argue that the = slavemaster in=20 the Old South was also psychologically uneasy because of his = unnaturally dominant role. But the politico-economic fact of = his=20 dominance remained, and this is the major point.

The=20 ultimate test of whether women are enslaved or not in the = modem=20 marriage is the one of "natural law": to consider what would = happen=20 if indeed the women=92s libs had their way and there were no = marriage.=20 In that situation, and in a consequently promiscuous world, = what=20 would happen to the children? The answer is that the only = visible=20 and demonstrable parent would be the mother. Only the mother = would=20 have the child, and therefore only the mother would be stuck = with=20 the child. In short, the women militants who complain that = they are=20 stuck with the task of raising the children should heed the = fact=20 that, in a world without marriage, they would also be stuck = with the=20 task of earning all of the income for their children=92s = support. I=20 suggest that they contemplate this prospect long and hard = before=20 they continue to clamor for the abolition of marriage and = the=20 family.

The=20 more thoughtful of the female militants have recognized that = their=20 critical problem is finding a solution for the raising of = children.=20 Who is going to do it? The moderates answer: governmental = provision=20 of day-care centers, so that women can freed to enter the = labor=20 force. But the problem here, aside from the general problem = of=20 socialism or statism, is this: how come that the free market = hasn=92t=20 provided day care centers fairly inexpensively, as it does = for any=20 product or service in mass demand? No one has to clamor for=20 government provision of motels, for example. There are = plenty of=20 them. The economist is compelled to answer: either that the = demand=20 for mothers to go to work is not nearly as great as the New=20 Feminists would have us believe, and/or some controls by=20 government-perhaps requirements for registered nurses or = licensing=20 laws-are artificially restricting the supply. Whichever = reason,=20 then, more government is clearly not the answer.

The=20 more radical feminists are not content with such a piddling = solution=20 as day-care centers (besides who but women, other women this = time,=20 would be staffing these centers?). What they want, as Susan=20 Brownmiller indicates in her New York Sunday Times = Magazine=20 article (March 15), is total husband-wife equality in all = things,=20 which means equally shared careers, equally shared = housework, and=20 equally shared child-rearing. Brownmiller recognizes that = this would=20 have to mean either that the husband works for six months = and the=20 wife for the next six months, with each alternating six = months of=20 child rearing, or that each work half of every day and so = alternate=20 the child-rearing each half-day. Whichever path is chosen, = it is all=20 too clear that this total equality could only be pursued if = both=20 parties are willing to live permanently on a hippie, = subsistence,=20 part-time-job level. For what career of any importance or = quality=20 can be pursued in such a fleeting and haphazard manner? = Above the=20 hippie level, then, this alleged "solution" is simply=20 absurd.

If=20 our analysis is correct, and we are already living in a = matriarchy,=20 then the true significance of the new feminism is not, as = they would=20 so stridently have it, the "liberation" of women from their=20 oppression. May we not say that, not content with kept = idleness and=20 subtle domination, these women are reaching eagerly for = total power?=20 Not content with being supported and secure, they are now = attempting=20 to force their passive and long-suffering husbands to do = most of the=20 housework and childrearing as well. I know personally = several=20 couples where the wife is a militant liberationist and the = husband=20 has been brainwashed by his spouse to be an Uncle Tom and a = traitor=20 to his gender. In all these cases, after a long hard day at = the=20 office or at teaching to support the family, the husband = sits at=20 home tending the kids while the wife is out at Women=92s Lib = meetings,=20 there to plot their accession to total power and to denounce = their=20 husbands as sexist oppressors. Not content with the = traditional=20 mah-jongg set, the New Woman is reaching for the final = castrating=20 blow-to be accepted, I suppose, with meek gratitude by their = male-liberal spouses.

There is still the = extremist=20 women=92s lib solution: to abandon sex, or rather = heterosexuality,=20 altogether. There is no question but that this at least = would solve=20 the child-rearing problem. The charge of Lesbianism used to = be=20 considered a venomous male-chauvinist smear against the = liberated=20 woman. But in the burgeoning writings of the New Feminists = there has=20 run an open and increasing call for female homosexuality. = Note, for=20 example, Rita Mae Brown, writing in the first "liberated" = issue of=20 Rat (February 6):

"For a woman to = vocally=20 assert her heterosexuality is to emphasize her = =91goodness=92 by her=20 sexual activity with men. That old sexist brainwashing = runs deep=20 even into the consciousness of the most ardent feminist = who will=20 quickly tell you she loves sleeping with men. In fact, the = worst=20 thing you can call a woman in our society is a lesbian. = Women are=20 so male identified that they quake at the mention of this=20 three-syllable word. The lesbian is, of course, the woman = who has=20 no need of men. When you think about it, what is so = terrible about=20 two women loving each other? To the insecure male, this is = the=20 supreme offense, the most outrageous blasphemy committed = against=20 the sacred scrotum.

"After all, just = what would=20 happen if we all wound up loving each other. Good things = for us=20 but it would mean each man would lose his personal = =91nigger=92. . a=20 real and great loss if you are a man....

"To love another = woman is an=20 acceptance of sex which is a severe violation of the male = culture=20 (sex as exploitation) and therefore carries severe = penalties....=20 Women have been taught to abdicate the power of our = bodies, both=20 physically in athletics and self-defense, and sexually. To = sleep=20 with another woman is to confront the beauty and power of = your own=20 body as well as hers. You confront the experience of your = sexual=20 self-knowledge. You also confront another human being = without the=20 protective device of role. This may be too painful for = most women=20 as many have been so brutalized by heterosexual role play = that=20 they cannot begin to comprehend this real power. It is an=20 overwhelming experience. I vulgarize it when I call it a = freedom=20 high. No wonder there is such resistance to=20 lesbianism."

Or=20 this, in the same issue, by "A Weatherwoman":

"Sex becomes = entirely=20 different without jealousy. Women who never saw themselves = making=20 it with women began digging each other sexually.... What=20 weatherman is doing is creating new standards for men and = women to=20 relate to. We are trying to make sex nonexploitative.... = We are=20 making something new, with the common denominator being = the=20 revolution."

Or,=20 finally, still in the same issue, by Robin = Morgan:

"Let it all hang = out. Let it=20 seem bitchy, catty, dykey, frustrated, crazy, = Solanisesque, nutty,=20 frigid, ridiculous, bitter, embarrassing, manhating, = libelous....=20 Sexism is not the fault of women =96 kill your fathers, = not your=20 mothers."

And=20 so, at the hard inner core of the Women=92s Liberation = Movement lies a=20 bitter, extremely neurotic if not psychotic, man-hating = lesbianism.=20 The quintessence of the New Feminism is revealed.

Is=20 this spirit confined to a few extremists? Is it unfair to = tar the=20 whole movement with the brush of the Lesbian Rampant? I=92m = afraid=20 not. For example, one motif now permeating the entire = movement is a=20 strident opposition to men treating women as "sex objects." = This=20 supposedly demeaning, debasing, and exploitative treatment = extends=20 from pornography to beauty contests, to advertisements of = pretty=20 models using a product, all the way to wolf whistles and = admiring=20 glances at girls in miniskirts. But surely the attack on = women as=20 "sex objects" is simply an attack on sex, period, or rather, = on=20 hetero-sex. These new monsters of the female gender are out = to=20 destroy the lovely and age-old custom-delighted in by normal = women=20 the world over-of women dressing to attract men and = succeeding at=20 this pleasant task. What a dull and dreary world these = termagants=20 would impose upon us! A world where all girls look like = unkempt=20 wrestlers, where beauty and attractiveness have been = replaced by=20 ugliness and "unisex," where delightful femininity has been=20 abolished on behalf of raucous, aggressive, and masculine=20 feminism.

Jealousy of pretty = and=20 attractive girls does, in fact, lie close to the heart of = this ugly=20 movement. One point that should be noted, for example, in = the=20 alleged economic discrimination against women: the fantastic = upward=20 mobility, as well as high incomes, available to the = strikingly=20 pretty girl. The Women=92s Libs may claim that models are = exploited,=20 but if we consider the enormous pay that the models enjoy-as = well as=20 their access to the glamorous life-and compare it with their = opportunity cost foregone in other occupations such as = waitress or=20 typist-the charge of exploitation is laughable indeed. Male = models,=20 whose income and opportunities are far lower than that of = females,=20 might well envy the privileged female position! Furthermore, = the=20 potential for upward mobility for pretty, lowerclass girls = is=20 enormous, infinitely more so than for lower-class men: We = might cite=20 Bobo Rockefeller and Gregg Sherwood Dodge (a former pin-up = model who=20 married the multimillionaire scion of the Dodge family) as = merely=20 conspicuous examples. But these cases, far from counting as = an=20 argument against them, arouse the female liberationists to = still=20 gieater fury, since one of their real complaints is against = those=20 more attractive girls who by virtue of their attractiveness, = have=20 been more successful in the inevitable competition for men-a = competition that must exist whatever the form of government = or=20 society (provided, of course, that it remains=20 heterosexual).

Women as "sex = objects"? Of=20 course they are sex objects, and praise the Lord they always = will=20 be. (Just as men, of course, are sex objects to women.) As = for wolf=20 whistles, it is impossible for any meaningful relationship = to be=20 established on the street or by looking at ads, and so in = these=20 roles women properly remain solely as sex objects. When = deeper=20 relationships are established between men and women, they = each=20 become more than sex objects to each other; they each = hopefully=20 become love objects as well. It would seem banal even to = bother=20 mentioning this, but in today=92s increasingly degenerate = intellectual=20 climate no simple truths can any longer be taken for = granted.=20 Contrast to the strident Women=92s Liberationists the = charming letter=20 in the New York Sunday Times (March =9119) by Susan = L. Peck,=20 commenting on the Brownmiller article. After asserting that = she, for=20 one, welcomes male admiration, Mrs. Peck states that "To = some this=20 might sound square, but I do not harbor a mad, vindictive = desire to=20 see my already hard-working, responsible husband doing the = household=20 ironing." After decrying the female maladjustment exhibited = in the=20 "liberation movement," Mrs. Peck concludes:

"I,=20 for one, adore men and I=92d rather see than be one!" = Hooray, and=20 hopefully Mrs. Peck speaks for the Silent Majority of = American=20 womanhood.

As=20 for the Women=92s Liberationists, perhaps we might begin to = take their=20 constantly repeated analogies with the black movement more=20 seriously. The blacks have, indeed, moved from integration = to black=20 power, but the logic of black power is starkly and simply: = black=20 nationalism-an independent black nation. If our New = Feminists wish=20 to abandon male-female "integrationism" for liberation, then = this=20 logically implies Female Power, in short, Female = Nationalism. Shall=20 we then turn over some Virgin land, maybe the Black Hills, = maybe=20 Arizona, to these termagants? Yes, let them set up their=20 karate-chopping Amazonian Women=92s Democratic People=92s = Republic, and=20 ban access to them. The infection of their sick attitudes = and=20 ideology would then be isolated and removed from the greater = social=20 body, and the rest of us, dedicated to good oldfashioned=20 heterosexuality, could then go about our business = undisturbed. It is=20 high time that we heed the ringing injunction of William = Butler=20 Yeats:

Down the fanatic, = down the=20 clown;
Down, down, hammer them = down,

Against Women=92s=20 Lib

Footnotes