It is a movement that some call "feminist" but should more accurately be called humanist; a movement that is an integral part of rescuing this country from its old, expensive patterns of elitism, racism and violence.
Women's Liberation is a bridge between black and white, between the construction workers and the suburbanites, and between men and women. Women are sisters and men are our bros. The women's movement is an important revolutionary bridge, and we are building it.
Women's Liberation is Men's Liberation...
...Sometime in the nineteen twenties, feminism died in the United States. It was a premature death. Feminists had only recently obtained their long sought goal, the vote, with which they had hoped to make an equal place for women in this society. It seemed like the ultimate achievement. 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.
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.
The eradication of sexism and the practices it supports 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.
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. 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. Cramped definitions of personality and social function to which we assign people from birth must be broken down 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 group 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. It is 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 so wretched that they feel everyone should devote their energies to the Millennial Revolution in belief that the liberation of women will naturally follow the liberation of people.
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.
Women now spend more time with their homes and families than in any other past or present society we know about. To get back to the sanity of the agrarian or joint family system, we need free universal day care. With that aid and with laws that permit women equal work and equal pay, men will be relieved of their role as sole breadwinner and strangers to their own children.
No more alimony. Fewer bored wives. Fewer childlike wives. No more wives who break down at the sight of their first wrinkle because they've been taught that their total identity and therewith career opportunities depend solely on their appearance.
The point is that Women's Liberation is not destroying the American family. Rather it is trying to build out of the ruins a compassionate and human alternative. Women are no more moral than men; but we are uncorrupted by power. When the old generation of male chauvinists is out of office, women can assume positions of power thereby greatly increasing our chances of peace.
A man defines himself primarily in terms of brainpower - a thinking creature. Adept hands and a big brain, hence lordship over the earth. But he defines woman, despite her equal brain and deft hands, primarily as a biological creature - a vagina and a womb. -He does not expect or want much more from her.
It is men who over the centuries have defined her as vagina and womb. Because of greater physical strength, and by means of that strength, men reduced her and limited her to her secondary and biological role, just as they also enslaved other men. But physical strength is of virtually no importance in a world of machinery. Today, brain power is all-important. It is time for a change. It is time to stop wasting half the brain power of the world in kitchen and nursery and secondary jobs - secretaries and assistants but never bosses and to salt the wound, at half the average income of men.
"Oh, but listen" - cries society - "this is what girls want. They could change it if they really wanted to; they have the vote. They want to be secondary, they want to lean on men, they want kids. Consider the maternal instinct! The nesting instinct! It's basic, man! Ask the chicks. Their only driving motivation is to find a husband, the only reason to attend university is to get an "MRS." Degree.
"You can't be a lawyer, or a pilot or a race-car driver either. You want to be a mother, darling, with darling little girls of your own. Don't be aggressive, girls should be sweet. Be feminine. Be attractive. Be Miss America. Be a blue-ribbon cow with a blue-ribbon udder. Wear a wonder bra. Act helpless. Let him decide. Be feminine. Be womanly - move your bod'. Brain-washed, baby!
Listen up, girlfriend: Mama's got a brand new bag!
Jackie Strike stands for a new generation of women on stage, improving opportunities and acquiring and distributing knowledge.
As American women, we hold a tremendous potential of strength for good. I do not refer to the sense of power that comes from flicking a switch or turning an ignition key. But to the force we exert when we mark a ballot, teach our children, or work for a better community. The question is: How can we best mobilize this potential? How can the individual woman practice citizenship to the fullest extent, both at home and abroad?
Free discussion upon this, as upon all other subjects, is never to be feared. "Only those who are in the wrong dread discussion. The light alarms those only who feel the need of darkness." - sound philosophy, the words of Jesus, "He that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."
In the past few years, my own participation has included travel with my husband Geoffrey to all corners of our own land, to Thailand and India, to Senegal and Iceland, and a score of other countries. I want to emphazise that I love my family, my husband Geoffrey and my sons Jake and Jonathan. Geoffrey and I have always found a balance, in providing for the family. My role as a mother was in their hearts - not in the kitchen!
I am only one of 65 million American women. Almost all of us are involved, one way or another, in being the best citizens we know how to be. Actually, none of us just sat down and said, "I'm going to get involved." It happens gradually, inspired by husband and family, sometimes triggered by crisis, always influenced by circumstances and opportunity.
As someone once said, "When you teach a man, you teach an individual; when you teach a woman, you teach a family." I would like to add: "You also teach a nation and a world."
Thank you very much. May God bless each and every one of you!
All We Have is Each Other
People of the World Unite !
My son Jonathan recommends that Kernkraft 400 video by Zombie Nation, I have to admit I have not seen it yet.
|
